|
I dont recommend so much as try to explain the money supply system and why BTC needs to be part of any investment protfolio, eg 2%~5% if considered High risk. Most people understand the need for a diversified portfolio that needs to include some *high* risk.
Personally I see BTC as low risk and FIAT as High risk....but then I have spent years getting to grips with money supply, banking, IT, BTC, programming, Law etc
most people just dont have that time to go into it .... ironically by the function of the the FIAT system mostly.
|
|
|
|
BIP 101 is really not exponential. It stops at 8GB.
Much more like an S pattern if anything.
The real exponential BIP i know is the 17.7%/year...
see why don't they just make a slower run up |
|
|
|
Exponential Growth at that rate IS unsustainable. Look at chip speed and transistors per unit, and also bandwidth, it just has not happened that fast. HD space maybe, but its sfae to scale at a slower rate. Well, some of those technologies are running into dead ends with their previous growth paradigm (transistors as you say), but they're coming up with new and/or lateral growth paradigms within the same medium instead. But in the end, silicon as a substrate will be the hindrance to progress. To give you an idea though, the 3D NAND cell stacking technology that Samsung are leading the field with currently. They ran out of road: trying to get even MLC cells to last longer than 10 years or so is difficult at below 20nm pitch, so they stopped digging. They've moved back up to 32nm, stacked in up to 48 layers in the brand new Samsung product, and likely won't use anything too far below 32nm for NAND flash until the layering technology is much more mature. Another would be the HBM memory technology as a new avenue to boost GPU performance. The previous paradigm there was shaders per die area on the chip (long pre-dating Intel moving CPU's into having areas of the logic circuits on the chip die that are repeated multiple times), but graphics card manufacturers use the same pitch in silicon lithography as Intel currently are, and so really it's more been a case of how many graphics cards you can bridge in single machine (dictated by power and PCI Express bus width restraints). Now the arena of improvement is being moved closer to where the action is happening; the interface between the GPU and it's memory, although what they're trying to achieve is to physically position the RAM in such close proximity to the GPU that the interface barely consists of anything at all. So the evolution of this paradigm presumably will be that the GPU and the RAM will eventually become a single manufacturing unit. The technology uses something fairly new on the market called "through-silicon-vias" (TSV), which I think may have been around a few years, but never commercialised up to now) Very detailed and thanks BTC relies upon several parts of tech, the slowest dev one will be the bottleneck. It would seem that the communication side would be the slowest considering that fiber optic / wifi or etc is largely dependent on the gov of the day, the country, and legislation as well as many vested interests. You physically have to put a lot of stuff in the ground on poles etc and then be prepared to update it. In many countires this simply is not happening at any where near a doubling rate every 2 years. There will be new techs for this I'm sure but even then incumbents get regulations passed to make it unlawful to use or supply so they can make their profit. The NBN tesltra/Optus/TPG /ASD in Australia is a classic example of where competition is stifled. |
|
|
|
is the BIP101, without the XT IP address ban thing?
I'm not convinced about the IP ban thing, and I'm not pro-XT. It's a whitelist in XT, not a blacklist. Still not good. But "IP ban" actually is FUD Why do they so aggressively double....why not make it a slower ramp up over a longer time
BIP101 is an exponential growth scheme. Exponential growth is unsustainable. The idea is to force p2p supporters off the network over the length of the exponential curve, absorbing the increasing costs as you go, happy that you are exchanging your subsidy for commensurately increasing dropout rate of the p2p supporters. Once this "node running costs" curve reaches a steep enough portion of it's arc, the various types of changes that consolidate oligopoly into monopoly can be introduced. Shame on the XT cheerleaders. To your eternal shame. Exponential Growth at that rate IS unsustainable. Look at chip speed and transistors per unit, and also bandwidth, it just has not happened that fast. HD space maybe, but its sfae to scale at a slower rate. I would like to hear some views from in the know proponents of the particular doubling rate chosen. I think a rate of every 2 every 4~6 years seems a bit more reasonable, and even then that seems high. The reasoning being that BTC needs to not alienate many of its mining / user base to quickly by centralization. It would seem logical at least to have doubling or whatever occur in line with block halveing. The rate of the block halveing gives some idea of how satoshi saw the time scale of things and the time frame to implement changes |
|
|
|
|
Why do they so aggressively double....why not make it a slower ramp up over a longer time
is the BIP101, without the XT IP address ban thing?
|
|
|
|
whats interesting is Peercoin Achieves the second, now by design.
By, by design, requring the blockchain to be periodically signed by a trusted authority... you have a weird notion of resistance to state attacks. This as pointed out by others Is due to the cold minting development that is going on and again a product of the boundary conditions of peercoin, which include a relatively much longer wind up period then other coins because its pointed directly at backbone and large value itself. As pointed out by others NuBits has removed this and its ok. With PeerCoin it is done to protect it until features such as cold minting are in place. Bitcoin has of course similar features to cost to include so called spam, but the boundary conditions are not nearly so prohibitive on spam behavior as Peercoin nor as encourageing to transfer large amounts nor to allow people to join in without large set up costs so resists centralization. Much like the boundary conditions in the Navier Stokes Equation can see quite different outcomes, so to do the boundary conditions in a Coin. This coupled with the POS, SK and others as Devs, the length of time PeerCoin has been going, its interesting now to see BTC essentailly having to face up to the fact its needs to be able to be a backbone currency first to be largely relevant. The problem is most BTC'rs cannot see this. All they can see is "Muh Amazon", Ebay etc etc, and the reality is the money nor value simply is not in retail, its a minor part of the economy and value transfer proposition. So BTC is wedged between wanting TPS and needing Backbone and the discussion by those who understand such as yourself, interestingly identify that it is the Backbone component that grounds relevance, which is a class of argument that PeerCoin has be propounding since day 1 and by design. I think the Checkpointing argument is orthogonal to what I am saying in this matter. |
|
|
|
Do we want it to handle all world daily transactions,
or do we want protection from current monetary systems and government involvement?
If we achieve the second, we can have both. But if we only achieve the first, we likely cannot have the second (and wouldn't find it to be a substantial improvement over the fiat systems we have now, even if). The reason for this is that if Bitcoin is secure and trustworthy, trustless decenteralized micropayment facilities can be built on top of it and extend Bitcoin's transaction security with arbritary speed or scale. But if the system is fragle and underminable by attackers (government or otherwise) then it won't be robust enough to underpin these things. (and things like micropayment channels were't my invention, they were recommended by the system's creator-- thats part of why Bitcoin has smart contracts to begin with.) whats interesting is Peercoin Achieves the second, now by design. It heads of the whole Block size issue by going for the backbone, which is now becoming the problem for BTC as it tries to be 1 and 2, without being 2 first. It seems that something like peercoin will take the lions share of large value transactions and BTC is falling into the middle of not being doge Ie doge can handle a high TPS at sacrifice of security [but who cares when your buying an ice cream and dont get hit up huge credit card fees], and not being good as a backbone. Dont get me wrong I am a hardened BTC supporter, its just the boundary conditions do not support backbone currecy as well as Peercoin and so a debated like this rages. I have being saying this for some time now, and it has come to fruition. |
|
|
|
Why didn't you ask this in some other thread? There are way too many XT threads.
AFAIK the protection isn't against spam transactions. It is for DoS attacks on individual nodes.
Hey LaudaM your usually a pretty mellow fellow what gives? |
|
|
|
If the block size is bigger, doesn't that offer protection from spamming the blockchain as it will be so much more expensive to do? Block sizes are chosen by miners. Miner get to choose which transactions go in blocks, if they include lots they'll have bigger blocks. Its the blocksize limit that is being changed, which is the biggest size block a miner can make. So why would you need a *blacklist system*, (if that is what it is?) XT contains some other changes unrelated to the fork and one of those is the somewhat controversial Tor blacklist. The main concern with this patch is that it pulls down a list of Tor nodes from torproject.org each time it starts. torproject now have logs of every time an Xt node is started along with it's IP, which they could use to try and determine which nodes were online at particular times. They could use that kind of information to de-anonymize users by figuring out which nodes were online whenever the user makes a transaction, any nodes that are continuously online whenever the user makes a tx are the ones that are most likely to belong to them. Though It's not known what torproject would do with this information, I doubt they would use it for evil, but it is still a risk and other Bitcoin wallets have removed stuff similar to this for this reason. It still seems to hold that those who pay the most fees will get included into a block, and so a miner will like to include lots of high value tranasctions over lower one so in any situation, the so called "DOS" has to pa for their attack and let them, they will run out of money/BTC. The "blacklist is very dangerous, and will always be abused. |
|
|
|
Why didn't you ask this in some other thread? There are way too many XT threads.
AFAIK the protection isn't against spam transactions. It is for DoS attacks on individual nodes.
but what I am saying is there is no need for DOS in BTC, if you have paid for it your transactions get in first. A so called DOS is a misnomer all actors are legit at all times. So called DOS have to pay for there DOS. |
|
|
|
|
If the block size is bigger, doesn't that offer protection from spamming the blockchain as it will be so much more expensive to do?
So why would you need a *blacklist system*, (if that is what it is?)
I mean who is to say a person is a spammer has any less right than any other person use the block chain if they are willing to pay for it in BTC.
They will only be able to keep up the spam for so long as they it will cost BTC which is a finite amount and the BTC will be dustlike, and so any such concerted spam attack only makes BTC more scare and so will be one of an push price up.
Why then do we need any sort of "blacklist" *protection*, which ultimately must be a way to develaue one persons btc over another.
|
|
|
|
|
so how to run on osx...
we have to compile ourselves...?
is their separate osx source///?
|
|
|
|
|
i like nxt...it seems technically impressive.
the uh....slightly dogey circumstances of release were an issue
....i feel you should hold some nxt.
i like peercoin, the best of alts....i think.
|
|
|
|
Ross William Ulbricht, legendary creator of the original darknet market The Silk Road, has been sentenced today in federal prison to Life in Prison.
Can he appeal to the higher court ? There will definitely be appeals. The sentence is so harsh, because they want to make an example out of him. Only the government can sell drugs and murder people that cause problems. what this guy said x 1000 |
|
|
|
|
yeah no, satoshi had what,,,33 MB blocks?
good enough for me to make block size bigger.
/thread
|
|
|
|
Historically, the most common practice amongst BTC miner manufacturers is to produce the new miner, self-mine until virtually all profitability is gone and then sell the "new" (dusty) miner at the average cost that the buyer can break even with... if they are lucky.
It's a brilliant marketing scam if you think about it. Thank Avalon and BFL (especially Avalon!) for that invention! Lol.
see this is what I calculate as well BTC mining is the ultimate product where if you product is that good you don't need to sell it for $$$$ Apart from market slipage, the only other argument would be start up funds to secure a foundry I assume by "market slippage" you mean... What if the price of BTC goes up after you bought a barely profitable miner? Well, you would make a nice profit, lol. I did that myself early on during the ASIC revolution. It was very lucrative during the rise of the BTC price to $1150! During the boom, I had preordered a BFL Little Single for $650, mined with it for 2 months and sold it for $3000.  But is that a realistic expectation now. Absolutely not! no that's hoped for seigniorage your describing I mean say you can make 10K miners that make 1 btc a day each, how are you going to dump that into the market at optimal fixed price. I don't know the production runs on mining equip, but larger production runs usually get cheaper per unit cost. |
|
|
|
Historically, the most common practice amongst BTC miner manufacturers is to produce the new miner, self-mine until virtually all profitability is gone and then sell the "new" (dusty) miner at the average cost that the buyer can break even with... if they are lucky.
It's a brilliant marketing scam if you think about it. Thank Avalon and BFL (especially Avalon!) for that invention! Lol.
see this is what I calculate as well BTC mining is the ultimate product where if you product is that good you don't need to sell it for $$$$ Apart from market slipage, the only other argument would be start up funds to secure a foundry |
|
|
|
|
How can any paid mining equipment ever make a profit, in BTC for the purchaser?
Eg the economics of it seems to be:
If you could make a miner that made a profit in BTC vs all costs, then you couls sell BTC into market, or keep BTC
If you can sell the product for a higher profit, then mining, this means the buyer is making a loss.
The only case I can imagine is that selling miners en mass, is a proxy for the manufacture to sell BTC on to the market without significant slippage, in that case it may make sense.
Perhaps another would be you produce one batch of miners on time and send out without switching on, then go in for the kill with later batches that are "late"
Apart from that caveat its hard to see any case that way that buying miners or even mining power can be profitable.
Open to the floor
|
|
|
|
http://astrohacker.com/ahc/bitcoin-is-the-economic-singularity/After reading this, the scale of black market and digital economies and the effect Bitcoin will have on them I am pretty certain we are going to be very wealthy men -- even with a sum as small as 10 Bitcoins. It's just so hard to believe. We are only in the beginning storms with these significant rallies from 10 to 20 dollars. I will not be surprised to see prices from hundreds to thousands in the coming months. The world just isn't going to be the same and we have been blessed as the pioneers. What are you going to do with your Bitcoin wealth once your coins hit upwards of $10,000 a pop? Long term, maybe. Where are the ads on TV advertising smartphone bitcoin wallets? Where are the armies of sales teams spreading it to merchants? Where are the large scale buys of bitcoin by banks, hedge funds, VC, and other institutions, driving the price sky high? The ability to do all this is there, but for some reason the wheels are not turning. a because you cant do nothing with bitcoin that you cant already do with fiat currency. this is the real and hard true. You are insane. Just the fact you can send millions, OR a cent, all over the world, instantly, without failure (backed by the biggest network on the planet) puts this thing into double figure billion marketcap already. Think about the billions of unbanked people out there. People like you fail to get the big picture, and those are the ones that will indeed remain poor, because you'll sell way too early, or sell at all. A true holder never sells. Without failure? I never had a failure payment with my bank, why in hell that is an advantage? Banks do that too, and you dont need to wait for confirmations. Billions of unbanked people with internet and cellphones and banks to buy bitcoins... Lol right! Maybe the poor here isnt me.. You dont know me, i dont know you. The only thing i know is that here are MANY people that want to be rich without hard work.. Sorry mate, that wont happen A major use of BTC is perhaps against QE and similar strategies that Govts are wedded to do forever. Fiat as it is used now is a mechanism to strip mine wealth. |
|
|
|
|
lets see ebay in cahoots with pay pal and visa
I think there has to be a case run that there must be free competition in forms of payment.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
