|
OP is right, many people buying bitcoin because they are investing in a promise: A promise of never increased money supply and decentralized censorship resistance
Most of the people are used to listen to authorities and do not realize that in bitcoin there is no authorities, you are the authority to decide what you use regardless what anyone else think
For example, imagine that Chinese government took over most of the mining farms in china and controlled 70% of network hash power, made their fork and created client bitcoin BJ (BJ stands for BeiJing), with their party leader deciding the future coin generation scheme. What will happen?
No one will use their fork, no merchant will accpet that client, coins on that chain would worth nothing, those hash power working on that chain would just be wasted electricity. This is simply because it broke those 2 most important promise of bitcoin: limited money supply and decentralized censorship resistance. I believe, without these 2 promise, 99% of the user will leave bitcoin
So, this censorship resistance is not achieved through physical hashpower(In this case you can't fight against BJ coin since it has majority of hash power), but through a consensus. Anything that brake this consensus is automatically excluded out of the current bitcoin ecosystem. Of course those hash power could harm the network if they attack, but the damage is limited: Anyone who hold his coin will not be affected by attack
|
|
|
|
|
The difficult part is how to count the opinion voting. I think currently it is enough that core devs use this model to build consensus, Gavin can be a little bit forgiving when it comes to the size of increase, and others can at least cope with a relatively small first time change. Anything beyond 4 years should not be discussed at this stage, a plan of increase xxx every xxx years is just a blind guess
|
|
|
|
|
Some kind of middle ground to take BIP101, one step ahead than XT
But bitcoin price crashed following this announcement: Any kind of action without consensus is killing bitcoin. You can keep fighting inside the community, just to wake up with a coin that worth nothing, and together goes all those so called industries
|
|
|
|
|
Actually I don't think the market will crash hard, since banks are sitting on 5x more money than 2008, they could stop any crash with the flip of a pen
|
|
|
|
The question is, if Greece managed to leave euro, that could mean other countries which are also in debt can also follow suit and do the same. Eventually when more countries follow the same action, it can only mean that the whole union will collapse. These has been projected to happen for some time now and I see no other solution.
Exactly. I dont see how when debt (and overspending) was their problem in the first place, how more debt could possibly help the situation at all? As they say they are just "kicking the can down the road" and hoping the problem solves itself. Well it wont, and things surely will be worse for the Greeks the next time around Basically all the country in the world are facing the same problem, but all the other countries can kick the can down the road almost forever since they just create their own money and lend to themselves to pay back the old debt and repeat and repeat ... If Greece central bank can create euro and lend to their government, they will look as good (or bad) as US, Japan etc... The only way for Greece to get out of current trouble is create their own money, if euro is not allowed, then drachma. Of course there will be inflation and so on, but they will never face the pressure from outside. US government also shutdown some times but it never hurts |
|
|
|
No, it demonstrated that you can print money and lend to your euro friends and take over their country step by step  http://www.marketwatch.com/story/germans-begin-the-looting-of-greece-2015-08-21"Per provisions of the “agreement” imposed on Greece, the Athens government awarded the German company that runs the Frankfurt Airport, Fraport, a concession to operate 14 regional airports, mostly on the islands like Mykonos and Santorini favored by tourists, for up to 50 years in the first privatization of government-owned assets demanded by the creditors. " "Fraport, which ironically is majority-owned by state and local governments in Germany, has cherry-picked among Greece’s network of regional airports to take over only those that make a profit. It is happy to leave the 30 other loss-making airports in the hands of a bankrupt state. Greek Infrastructure Minister Christos Spirtzis told German television that this deal to take away the profitable airports and leave the ailing government with only those requiring subsidies “is more fitting for a colony than for an EU member state.” "But the plundering that has now begun unmasks the whole euro charade for what it really is — a war of conquest by money rather than by arms." "The war is over; let the occupation begin." |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is now crashing too, this may be the big "it". This is the most disappointing thing. In principle, something like bitcoin should be resistant to asset price crash, since it is money. When asset crashes, the money value should go up. But now it is only major currency like Euro and Yen goes up. Means that bitcoin is still regarded as assets, not money |
|
|
|
I'm afraid the recession isn't over yet. The media telling us how good the economy is doing all the time (bit too enthousiastic if you ask me). I'm on the verge of buying a house but I'm afraid for the next 10 years.
Don't! My wife and I have been in the market for buying a house for the last year or so, but we've held off so far. Mainly because there is very little inventory and what is available is way over-priced. We're in San Diego and to buy a median priced home right you need $109K/year. Wages aren't keeping up with the prices, shrinking inventory and huge increase in price over the last 12 months; all this indicates we are in a housing bubble. Prices should start falling soon. I live in The Netherlands and we have the exact same problem. I'm not going to pay my whole salary to my mortgage to live in an average house. Many people aren't even able to buy a house yet. Think I'll just rent. And yes I think the prices are going to fall soon as well. Most of the houses are built by banks by loaning out money to construction companies. However, they could not find the buyer with enough money, so they lower the interest and give out loans for others to buy, but anyway those people don't have enough income. So banks print money and bought the house that they built with printed money, eventually all the house ownership goes to banks, and the normal people can only rent, so that they will never be free of rent during their whole life. So you either become the rent slave or the loan slave, just because you want some place to live |
|
|
|
once a version number achieves 90% of hashing power that would be considered the communities will miners will
FTFY hash power != community will Exactly, there are many people who do not run nodes or mining but still greatly concerned about bitcoin's health since they use it daily. I think at least the participants should have some level of involvement. It is difficult for someone who does not own any bitcoin to make any decision because he simply don't understand the whole thing Use node to vote can be misleading, since you can create thousands of SPV nodes on virtual server. Hash power is more reliable but that excludes most of the participants (I guess winkelvoss twins do not own any hash power), and as 2013 fork showed, it can be manipulated by large pool owner |
|
|
|
If a consensus is reached, you don't need to vote. If you need to vote, you don't have consensus. Or to say, only a 100% passed vote can be called consensus
That's way vote always works much faster than consensus building, while consensus based decision will satisfy almost everyone. The key is to satisfy EVERYONE
Step 5 of your model is to "Test The Proposal" in which there is a kind of "voting" that is going on. I think the consensus mechanism being discussed is the best way to implement step 5 of your consensus model. Ultimately a "voting" period is necessary, but the end result is 100% consensus with the best proposal. Exactly, that article still involves some vote to test if everyone is satisfied with the decision. But it is a very abstract directive, how we should implement it in bitcoin community is to be seen Anyway, in a consensus based decision making, we can at least say that we have made all the possible efforts to reach a 100% consensus, so no one feel that he is left over For example we have solution A,B,C,D,E, after several rounds of evaluation we realized that solution D have the most support and the least resistance, so we could select D as the solution. In this way, the people originally against D will understand that D is the best consensus we can reach, so if he take consensus as the highest priority, he would accept D, although D is not his favorite. Of course D should not be strongly resisted by any one, that will not make it a suitable solution |
|
|
|
By making it easier for nodes to "express their acceptance of a block" (e.g., for blocks larger than 1 MB), we are making it easier for the network to come to consensus according to the original design of Bitcoin.
If a consensus is reached, you don't need to vote. If you need to vote, you don't have consensus. Or to say, only a 100% passed vote can be called consensus That's way vote always works much faster than consensus building, while consensus based decision will satisfy almost everyone. The key is to satisfy EVERYONE I sounds like we're arguing semantics. My definition of "consensus" with regards to Bitcoin is empirical: the longest chain composed of valid transactions has "consensus." It sounds like you view consensus as more like unanimity. I'm not saying either of us is right or wrong in our definitions. However, my definition seems more practical: we can measure the longest chain. How can we tell if 100% of the network supports something? Under what conditions is it reasonable to expect exactly 100% support for something? Furthermore, isn't it clear that 100% of the network is not in favour of keeping the block size limited at 1 MB? Why should stasis be the default in the case of a stalemate? I don't exactly understand how longest chain can be a measure? when you have a fork, both chain is the longest in its own version of bitcoin My understanding is that consensus building should involve everyone in bitcoin ecosystem. There are many large actors who don't even run bitcoin nodes, not even mention hash power, they also have their own interest and concern |
|
|
|
By making it easier for nodes to "express their acceptance of a block" (e.g., for blocks larger than 1 MB), we are making it easier for the network to come to consensus according to the original design of Bitcoin.
If a consensus is reached, you don't need to vote. If you need to vote, you don't have consensus. Or to say, only a 100% passed vote can be called consensus That's way vote always works much faster than consensus building, while consensus based decision will satisfy almost everyone. The key is to satisfy EVERYONE |
|
|
|
"What's wrong with voting?
The OP is not proposing "voting" in the normal sense. He is proposing that we simply make it very easy for node operators to download either BIP101, BIP100, 1-MB, etc. If, for example, the majority of the hash power gets on board with larger blocks, then that's what Bitcoin will become. Give more power to the node operators (rather than to the developers of a particular implementation of the protocol (Core)). That's still a vote, what if the minority of the hash power don't want to use larger blocks? You are still forcing a change on them. And those minorities might command much larger stake in bitcoin ecosystem than you can imagine, they could easily destroy your majority fork with the flip of a pen Please read this article again if you are interested http://www.seedsforchange.org.uk/consensus |
|
|
|
|
"What's wrong with voting?
Working in a small group where everyone votes directly on important issues may feel like having democratic control. However, voting creates a majority and a minority - a situation in which there are winners and losers. If most people support an idea then it will be voted in, and the concerns of the people who opposed it can be ignored. This situation can foster conflict and distrust as the 'losers' feel disempowered by the process. The will of the majority is seen as the will of the whole group, with the minority expected to accept and carry out the decision, even if it is against their deeply held convictions and most basic needs. A majority will find it easy to steamroll an idea over a dissenting minority rather than looking for another solution that would suit all. People might sometimes choose to bow to the will of the majority, but, in a voting system, when people constantly find themselves in a minority they lose control over their own lives. A vivid example is the imprisonment, in many European 'democracies', of those refusing military service.
It's true that majority voting enables even controversial decisions to be taken in a minimum amount of time, but that doesn't mean to say that this decision will be a wise one, or even morally acceptable. After all, at one time, the majority of Europeans and North Americans supported the 'right' to hold slaves."
|
|
|
|
|
This is definitely not a correction if FED is going to hike rate in the coming months. The stock market only goes up when FED print money, it has been like this for decades
China already crashed 8%+ after half of the trading day
For bitcoin this should be a tough test. Usually when asset crashes, money's value goes up, but since no one sell assets for bitcoin, it will most likely not benefit from the asset selloff, but negatively affected by the USD liquidity problem
I'm still waiting for the day when USD crashes hard, but it seems highly unlikely in current market. It's amazing those paper created out of nothing hold their value extremely well especially during a crisis. Money is wealth, this is the strongest evidence. Otherwise you can not explain why people crazily selloff their assets in exchange for money. It is not only wealth, but the most trustworthy wealth in people's mind
|
|
|
|
Since March, as a way to pump money into the eurozone economy, the central bank has been buying bonds issued by eurozone countries, along with other debt, at a rate of 60 billion euros, or $67 billion, a month. Greek government bonds are ineligible as long as the country is not adhering to conditions set by its main creditors: the other eurozone countries and the International Monetary Fund. If Greece got back into a creditor-approved aid program, the European Central Bank could begin buying its bonds in large quantities. That would be a boon for Greek banks, which could unload their large holdings of Greek government bonds. They could then use the cash to extend loans and help restart the Greek economy. The government might also benefit from lower market interest rates. Mario Draghi, the president of the European Central Bank, hinted at such benefits for Greece at a news conference last month in Frankfurt. If there were a “strong agreement,” he said, “everything else would then follow.” “And I’m pretty sure it would follow easily,” he added. full article you can watch on here guys http://www.nytimes.com/live/greek-debt-crisis-live-updates/how-the-european-central-bank-could-really-help-greece/Why should Greece listen to someone that is non-greek, I guess they were cheated, by giving up the money creation right, they actually sold the whole nation to money printers Just read this article, that's the reality behind all that: Printing money and buy assets, a typical central bank robbery scheme http://www.marketwatch.com/story/germans-begin-the-looting-of-greece-2015-08-21"Per provisions of the “agreement” imposed on Greece, the Athens government awarded the German company that runs the Frankfurt Airport, Fraport, a concession to operate 14 regional airports, mostly on the islands like Mykonos and Santorini favored by tourists, for up to 50 years in the first privatization of government-owned assets demanded by the creditors. " "Fraport, which ironically is majority-owned by state and local governments in Germany, has cherry-picked among Greece’s network of regional airports to take over only those that make a profit. It is happy to leave the 30 other loss-making airports in the hands of a bankrupt state. Greek Infrastructure Minister Christos Spirtzis told German television that this deal to take away the profitable airports and leave the ailing government with only those requiring subsidies “is more fitting for a colony than for an EU member state.” "But the plundering that has now begun unmasks the whole euro charade for what it really is — a war of conquest by money rather than by arms." "The war is over; let the occupation begin." |
|
|
|
I agree with consensus being what we need, but 75% is not enough for a hard fork, we would need more, also, they don't tell all the shitty stuff XT does, they only talk about the 8MB blocksize increase (which we don't need that much now, BTC is still a niche used software).
75% consensus is enough, there is not possible to gather 75% of users and make them chose something awfully wrong with that number. Block Size increase is not needed now but you need to do stuff like that before it will be needed. If it will be truly needed in the future there will be already too late. 75% of hash power is far from 75% consensus. If that's the case, chinese government would easily lunch a super mining farm and take over 75% of hash power and modify bitcoin to whatever they see fit (we already have more than 50% hash power in china, the chinese government just need to confiscate them) There is no such worry about being too late to change. The stress test recently showed that even every block is full, the network still works well, only a minority of people start to experience problem, and after nodes changed some configurations to block the spam transactions, the network works just like normal |
|
|
|
great post. But consensus only works in groups that have consensus to consensus. If you have rogue players like Gavin who try to undermine the consensus you have some problems. People would need to exclude anyone from the group first who does not respect the consensus principle. So, yes, it can work quite good and produce really good decisions but not as long as Gavinhearn still getting attention.
In a consensus decision making model, EVERYONE's opinion is important, Gavin and Mike are no exception. They might absolutely against the idea of keeping the blocksize forever at 1MB, thus a consensus of never-changing-block size will never be reached. But that is the result of this decision making model, everyone will at least get a solution that they can live with Someone pointed out that the priorities of bitcoin should be in following order: Consensus, decentralization, store of value, and payment system. I have not give it a thorough analysis, but I strongly agree that the consensus is the highest priority, no change should be allowed without reaching full consensus (the current status is always 100% consensus) And the way to reach a consensus should not be based on any political means like lobbying and bribery, but through seminar and exchange of ideas |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
