If you don't have the money to handle your own medicine, you literally die. Government supplied "free" services always sound great in the beginning, but when the government runs out of money nobody is remembers how to take care of themselves the way they did before the "free" services showed up. I think this is utterly wrong. First of, the "Govt" NEVER supplied "free" services, the Insurance you've paid with your OWN money did. When the Banksters took your insurance money via "political decisions" to cover their margins from the infinite loan river they were running a couple of decades ago, this is not "saving your country's insurance system" this is plain, undeniable THEFT. Second, the myth of "nationalizing" "private" debt. Never was, never is, never will be. This is THEFT! What happened here is happening all over the EU and (if Greece doesn't stop it) it will be the next canon in the whole world. Keep an eye how this evolves. Maybe it's your neighbour's house that's on fire... Cheers. There never was any insurance, it was theft from the beginning |
|
|
|
If you don't have the money to handle your own medicine, you literally die. Government supplied "free" services always sound great in the beginning, but when the government runs out of money nobody is remembers how to take care of themselves the way they did before the "free" services showed up. |
|
|
|
I think Gavin should de-hitch his wagon from Mike Hearn after hearing how Mike proposed centralized checkpointing. The blacklisting thing was his one free pass at a really horrible idea. Now it just looks like he doesn't get what Bitcoin is really about.
I can see why Gavin would utilize XT as an end-run around the political gridlock in core, and I also see that Mike Hearn has a unique perspective and background that is useful, but he should not be a core committer in my opinion. Gavin is the only person qualified to (provisionally) lead the project as far as I can see now, but I think "palling around with Mike Hearn" will be viewed with suspicion, especially if it's unnecessary. Why not just just add in the patch to Core and fork off if necessary?
https://github.com/btcsuite/btcd |
|
|
|
|
The one good thing to have come out of Blockstream is the confidential values technique for blinding output amounts.
What if that technique outlives sidechains and Blockstream?
|
|
|
|
Typical horseshit dipped in free-market chocolate and tuned chant from one of the masters. In case it escaped you, large entities will happily give you a reach-around if you allow them to fuck you in the ass. That distorts any campy 'free-market' dynamics completely beyond recognition. Great argument, |
|
|
|
Everyone and his brother has had the idea of hitching a highly subsidized ride on the blockchain for messenging, time-stamping, secure data storage, etc. The 1MB setting has been the downfall of each. Without it it is highly unlikely that the system would look like what we have today (and what I like very much.) If/when the 1MB thing goes away there are a lot of these 'bad' ideas waiting in the wings to capitalize on the mistake. As long as people pay for what people use, who are you to say what they should or should not put in the blockchain? I suspect one reason I see so much resistance to the idea of fixing the network so that people do pay for what they use is precisely because then the people who want to dictate how Bitcoin can and can not be used suddenly will be unable to justify their position. |
|
|
|
you actually still listen to that guy? go here and search for the word "determined" and read that sentence. satoshi talking about it on Nov 17, 2008 before the initial release is evidence he knew all along what the transitive motivation for miners would be. besides, a good strategy of open source coding is to get a barely working implementation of a good idea out asap so that others can pick it apart and help contribute. https://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography%40metzdowd.com/msg10006.htmlIs anyone keeping a list of lies told in the context of the block size limit debate? "The number of nodes has dropped by 90%" "Transaction fees were an afterthought added at the last minute" |
|
|
|
|
I don't believe anyone who claims to be concerned with centralization in Bitcoin.
In general, I don't take claims about motives at face value, because people can and do lie about their motivations (usually to themselves first).
So when somebody claims to care about X, the first thing I ask myself is, "is their behavior consistent with caring about X?"
In the case of people who claim to be concerned about centralization, if that's what they care about then they should show the most concern regarding the areas of highest centralization.
There are thousands of nodes.
There are about half a dozen core developers
99% of the nodes are running on a single code base (Bitcoin Core)
Even if larger blocks reduced the node count from the thousands to the hundreds, the Bitcoin Core monoculture and development monopoly would still represent more centralization.
Anybody who expresses concern about the centralization which may or may not occur with 20 MB blocks who isn't panicking about the lack of implementation and developer diversity is motivated by something other than a preference for decentralization.
|
|
|
|
I hate the fact that politics must be played. But after this debacle, sidechains had better be more awesome than the second coming of Satoshi if they want to make mods that are so much more complicated than changing a constant that there is simply no comparative basis.
My guess is that they want to delay blocksize so they can cram sidechain mods into the same fork as a negotiated compromise. But this is turning into a huge mistake. They are burning all the goodwill they had, and making us suspect them of not wanting what's best for bitcoin. This reputation is going to badly affect their ability to get consensus in the future.
Greg is hugely disappointed that the Elements thread is off the first pg of Reddit. and rightfully so, it's a bad sign that's theres not more interest. apparently the initial software is very buggy; not unexpected. it's early, i know. but i totally agree they've burned almost all their goodwill by being so obstinate and unforgiving in this debate. unfortunately in finances and investing, the best deals are made on golf courses btwn friends and ppl you can trust. Greg et al may the best cryptographers in the world but if no one trust their motivations on simple issues like Core code, how can they be trusted in deeply complex issues like SC Elements? and i'm not talking about the crypto, i'm talking about the economic assumptions behind it and the business models upon which they are laid out and introduced to the community. i wouldn't want to be investing in BS at this pt. There really should be more interest in Confidential Values. That's a great technique. |
|
|
|
I hate the fact that politics must be played. But after this debacle, sidechains had better be more awesome than the second coming of Satoshi if they want to make mods that are so much more complicated than changing a constant that there is simply no comparative basis.
My guess is that they want to delay blocksize so they can cram sidechain mods into the same fork as a negotiated compromise. But this is turning into a huge mistake. They are burning all the goodwill they had, and making us suspect them of not wanting what's best for bitcoin. This reputation is going to badly affect their ability to get consensus in the future.
The opposition to Gavin's 2000% jump proposal comes unanimously from every active technical contributor to Bitcoin Core who has spoken up. This should suggest to you that your understanding of the comparative basis likely miscalibrated. Though there is no comparative basis, 2WP sidechains are something that just requires non-broken smart contracts, it's not something that needs a hard-fork (and the centralized fedpeg sidechain stuff is indistinguishable, uncensorable, and unblockable: you can't prevent people from using it no matter how much you think you should be able to tell them that they can manage their funds). Considering how often cypherdoc brags about his thread here being filled with economic wisdom, it's surprising to see views like "changing a constant simple and safe", after all 21 million bitcoins is merely a constant (and, pedantically, one the system didn't originally enforce....). Try another strawman.  can you really not tell the difference between the money supply guarentee and a transaction rate limit? |
|
|
|
Attempting to censor me through intimidation is not going to work.
Hi guise, how's the slow-mo trainwreck going in here? everyone happy? good  Notice how it went off the rails when you started crappin all over the devs? Try to keep it in your trousers, remember who's piloting this plane, who's the passengers and stop trying to grab the stick, KK? Ta, tally ho. |
|
|
|
That. The ability to blind input and output values while still proving that no inflation has occured is a genuinely valuable feature which should get incorporated into the Bitcoin protocol. Since federated sidechains on testnet work so well, they don't actually need to merge sidechain-specific opcodes into the Bitcoin protcol - they just need to merge the actual useful features. |
|
|
|
Some of those new opcodes look great.
When will they make it into Bitcoin?
maybe never. depends on how they perform on the SC. they already are in Core but have been disabled. I mean the blinded amounts. That's exactly the kind of improvement that should be added to the protocol. |
|
|
|
|
Some of those new opcodes look great.
When will they make it into Bitcoin?
|
|
|
|
So Alan Reiner proposes this in April 2013: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181734.0His proposal gets the pocket veto treatment. Now that feature is being advertised as a feature of a sidechain, with no reference to the original author. http://elementsproject.org/Signature Covers Value
Principal Investigator: Glenn Willen
The signatures verified by the CHECKSIG operators now cover the output value of spent inputs. This avoids the need for hardware signing devices to know the full previous transactions whose outputs are spent; if they are being lied to, the resulting signature is invalid anyway.
A side effect of this change is that signing now needs to know the values (blinded or not) consumed by the transaction’s inputs. |
|
|
|
then we can see which Ferrari will go faster. I don't think the proponents of sidechains, or of Lightning Network, will ever be in favor of unhindered competition between the approaches to see which one the market prefers. Lightning Network in particular looks like it was tailor made to sell Bitcoin to banks. It has the features they'd like, such as the moat of requiring large amounts of idle capital to start, and it allows deep-pocketed entities to earn passive income by virtue of having idle capital. It reduces the number of players who can access the blockchain directly and connects them through a BGP-style routing network that would be amenible to US-style viral regulation enforcement (participants can only route payments through peers who agree to enforce extraterritorial laws, and who require all their peers to do the same). Think of that routing network as bringing Ripple-style centralized UNLs to Bitcoin. So when I talk about selling Bitcoin to the banks I mean "sell" both in the sense of "convince them to adopt" and also "hand over the keys to". Part of convincing the banks to adopt LN would be promising them that Bitcoin users won't have a choice in the matter - they'll have to use LN because the block size limit will stay in place (or be lowered!) and so they won't have an escape route. |
|
|
|
|
So they were lying?
I'm shocked.
|
|
|
|
Hi guise, how's the slow-mo trainwreck going in here? everyone happy? good Notice how it went off the rails when you started crappin all over the devs? Try to keep it in your trousers, remember who's piloting this plane, who's the passengers and stop trying to grab the stick, KK? Ta, tally ho. What are you, some kind of mafia enforcer? Are you're saying that if anyone dares to question the #bitcoin-wizards they'll send their sockpuppets around to vandalize conversations as retaliation? Wanton character assassination, smearing, slander (libel) and sundry rat-bastard tactics are not "daring to question". Let's keep the debates honourable, civil and based on their merits and things will go along just fine. Merely an observation. How's your closed source projects with Goldman Sachs alumni coming along btw Justus? Would you mind clarifying your definitions of "honorable" and "civil"? |
|
|
|
Hi guise, how's the slow-mo trainwreck going in here? everyone happy? good Notice how it went off the rails when you started crappin all over the devs? Try to keep it in your trousers, remember who's piloting this plane, who's the passengers and stop trying to grab the stick, KK? Ta, tally ho. What are you, some kind of mafia enforcer? Are you're saying that if anyone dares to question the #bitcoin-wizards they'll send their sockpuppets around to vandalize conversations as retaliation? |
|
|
|
So only coders can contribute to the cause? Nobody expects an architect to spend time welding, or an electrical engineer to be proficient at bending conduit. In every other field except software, everyone understands that there's a division of labor between the designers and engineers who work out what should be built and the trademen who actually build it. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
