|
OK. So how about this. We come to consensus by conviction for a proposal.
We have coloured coins, right? The POW should be CPU friendly and ASIC unfriendly and similar but not identical POW so each coin is essentially a fork that people can run on their smart phones, Raspberry Pi or whatever. People vote by mining and their option creates a fork. As things progress, the forks can be merged or orphaned depending on whether proposals are dropped or re-written and new forks created. If they change their mind, they switch to another fork and start mining that. They effectively vote by participating in the mining process and which fork they mine determines their vote and continues that vote over time by their persistence in mining. They can switch as and when they feel changes are adequate and give a "none of the above" or "I don't care" by switching off mining completely. Maybe even decide that consensus has been reached when there are only 5% (arbitrary arse pulling figure) of the maximum all-time number of miners (gauged by difficulty?)
Miners still have a hashing power advantage but they are small in number compared to the community (is this true?) and would need to invest in hardware for non profitable and no immediate returns. Additionally, to use their influence, they would need to burn a lot more electricity than the average voter over a protracted time (months?).
It's not perfect, but better than miners only having a voice. I think we need to leverage the long time-frame that discussions can take to mitigate short-termism and cheating which is easy with distributed one person, one vote type of instantaneous voting.
|
|
|
|
All that cryptic text and command output reminds me of Windows 95.  Shell driven Microsoft OS appeared only in 2009. It should remind you windows 7. Shell driven OS's are 1960/70's technology which was extended in the 1980/90s by bolting GUIs on top. Windows 3.1 and windows 95 were GUIs on top of a DOS prompt the same way Unity, X-Windows et. al. sits on top of Bash. If you have to go to a command prompt in Windows 7, you're probably from Linux and regressing to your inner cavemen.  ------------------------------- On the subject of banning - generally rather than owner maintained lists. End user software shouldn't ban anything, IMO. Rate limit, yes. Drop connections, yes. Ban? No. A ban is like self harm - you are DOSsing yourself. It was a bitcoin ban mechanism that meant a Tor protected client could be encircled and de-anonmised. In this phase, the attacker exploits the built-in Bitcoin anti-
Dos protection. The attacker chooses a non-attacker’s Bitcoin
peer and a non-attacker’s Tor Exit, builds a circuit through
this Exit node and sends a malformed message to the chosen
Bitcoin peer (e.g. a malformed coinbase transaction which is
60 bytes in size and which causes the immediate ban for 24
hours). Sores. |
|
|
|
All that cryptic text and command output reminds me of Windows 95. |
|
|
|
Mike Hearn has made it clear that he does not believe in the Consensus Building Process and is doing nothing to help in it's success. His suggestion seems to be to put in place a CENTRAL TRUSTED AUTHORITY who will make decisions for Bitcoin. To me, this goes against everything Bitcoin stands for and indicates that Hearn does not really understand the philosophy of consensus and decentralization that underlies Bitcoin. www.seedsforchange.org.uk/consensusThe above site describes why democratic voting is inferior to a consensus based decision making model. With democratic voting you have winners and losers, with consensus everyone wins. There is compromise and all efforts are made to come up with the best decision that addresses everyone's concerns and everyone can live with. With BIP69 miners voted with their coin base codes on every block they mined. Once 75% of votes in the past 1000 blocks were in support of BIP69 an alert was sent out suggesting that all miners, clients, wallets, etc switch to the BIP69 protocol or risk being left behind. Once 95% of the past 1000 blocks indicated support for BIP69 the new protocol was implemented and all blocks mined without the BIP69 update were rejected from that point on. What is required for successful consensus decision making is a fluid flow of Proposals. The BIP should adapt to criticism and be amended to address critical concerns. Over time the "winner" will be the developer who was able to adapt his proposal to meet and address the concerns of everyone. 75% consensus results in an alert that the fork is about to occur and everyone should prepare. 95% the debate is over and the new BIP is implemented. Soon thereafter we should have 100% consensus. This process can work and has worked in the past. We can tweak the percentages here and there, but what we require now is a CLEAR CONSENSUS BUILDING PROCESS, and Mike Hearn seems apposed to this. His suggestion is to insert a CENTRAL TRUSTED AUTHORITY, but I believe the Bitcoin Community can do better than that. I think we can make decisions in a DECENTRALIZED way and arrive at total agreement using the CONSENSUS DECISION MAKING PROCESS. P.S. I am putting together a Open Letter to the Devs from The Bitcoin Community outlining an endorsement of any decision arrived at using the decentralized Consensus Decision Making Model. If you think you can help us write this letter please send me a PM. Great. So how do I show my position on these issues since I'm not a miner and voting is so millennial, apparently. Or is it only consensus of the chosen few that live in the same village that's important? The really interesting idea is: If the devs find a method for every owner of a bitcoin client being able to show a preference of a number alternatives, they would have solved democracy and consensus. |
|
|
|
I don't mind trusting miners so far... I trust they'll mine my transactions and not simply ignore/blacklist them for whatever reason. I trust them this far, as I don't have powerful mining equipment neither do I have ways to control a big percentage of hashpower.
That being said, nobody needs to trust miners... Let's just make blocks scale according to the current network status.
I won't be happy until every client is a miner and there is no super hero group that have to be relied upon. |
|
|
|
Haters gonna hate. I wonder if there were similar accusations against Xerox Parc? So there is a workshop. I don't see that as a bad thing. God forbid anyone should talk face-to-face The only issue I have with it is there are only two. How about a couple in Europe and South America? |
|
|
|
I follow the solution to indicate that the network can acheive a real 5ko/s (so 900ko in 3 minutes).
There are lots of ways to distribute the block chain throughout a network. The problem isn't the technology. It is the will and indifference to users. Tor, Freenode, I2p, torrent and a myriad of other mediums could be used to enhance bitcoin. I played with Usenet servers because they have self replication, no deletion and the infrastructure is well established. You would really need 750k blocks for that but everyone is circle-jerking about bigger rather than smaller blocks because users don't count, only miners do. Now the economists too are peddling their pseudo-science to push their failed economic strategies onto the bitcoin protocol. So we see more pressure for centralisation so markets can be manipulated, more talk about "rational" XYZ incentives and more excuses to push bitcoin towards the status quo control. Meanwhile, I lost the ability to participate in mining years ago and this year I lost the ability to run a full node my laptop or netbook because of the block size - and they wonder why full nodes are decreasing? |
|
|
|
It's extremely frustrating, even if somewhat amusing, when economists continually fail to take real world data into account for their on-paper-it-sounds-good theories.
in formal experiments the only people who behaved exactly according to the mathematical models created by game theory are economists themselves, and psychopaths.
|
|
|
|
No you don't. If 2 solutions propagate simultaneously, as a miner you should choose the solution emitted by the larger miner. I'll make the example more extreme but it stands at any value really:
That ignores co-location propagation advantages though. I would suggest that the miner should choose a solution emitted by one of the other miners in their own group to accelerate propagation even if they are the smaller miner. |
|
|
|
Sounds like you picked the worlds worst sys admin team there. Sorry for ya troubles, brah....  You know what they say. "You can't pick your family." But when my car breaks down, my dad is the one to visit and he doesn't tell me to go and buy all the tools, panels and a workshop manual to fix it myself  He just drives it back a day later and hangs around for some beers. |
|
|
|
Right now most bitcoin users are completely unaware of the blacklist, we need to spread this information asap. Please retweet my tweet or make your own. We need this information to reach both the media and the community, it's a fundamental threat to bitcoin https://twitter.com/turtlehurricane/status/633844328205430784Heck, what's the big deal? Can't you just remove the IPs in list above, recompile and run your own XT version that would even trust Stalin's personal node? This is not a fundamental issue. The code is open-source: you are free to remove/edit any source code to your liking. My dad can't. Neither can my mother, 2 sisters, grandfather, grandmother, most of my cousins or my wife. Thats the big deal unless you want to come round and do it for us everytime there is an update? |
|
|
|
- Therefore I consider this point a large negative when evaluating the viability of a fee market without a blocksize limit.
- I also consider this point a negative when evaluating the viability of a fee market without a blocksize limit.
As far as I'm aware, no one is proposing removing the block size limit. While one exists, be it 1MB or 8MB, there is an opportunity to financially exploit rarity in block space. Are you advocating that a block limit is a necessity to enable a fee market and that a fee market is a desirable feature of the network now it has arisen? |
|
|
|
|
I'm open to be corrected and resoundingly poked fun at but these are two ways you can create a service and the difference is how tightly the service is bound to the bitcoin machinations.
You can have your own alt-coin which has it's own blockchain and maybe even a different proof system, coin limit, hash difficulty calculator etc. You then use the the coins of that system to represent trades of goods and services directly with its blockchain. There is no "noise" from other transactions and coins have meaning only within that blockchain. Namecoin is one of these.
A token is an ID from a service that sits on top of a blockchain. Usually they say on top of bitcoin, but that's not a requirement, I don't think. You can have a complex system that looks nothing like bitcoin but an ID that has meaning within the service can be stored inside the block chain within a transaction. So you can, say, buy a house and put the deed number into a transaction along with a bitcoin payment, thereby irrevocably linking that transaction to that deed number in the bitcoin ledger. That deed number has no meaning within the bitcoin protocol; it is a token that provides a proof of a transaction to another, unrelated service.
|
|
|
|
I was trying to present the XT point of view on the fee market, to which I deduce you adhere (if I did a good job at describing it). I was not expressing my point of view.
No. Anything with "market" in it I don't adhere to. A "fee market" isn't a technical point of view, rather one for game theorists and free marketeers who I would prefer to see in prisons around the world with the misery they have caused. You did do a very good job of describing an aspect that I wanted to expand on to all of bitcoin and her offspring rather than an individual client-so I quoted you. I didn't say it was your point of view, I said it was a point that should be voiced more often. The fear on these forums is quite a sight to see when there is any slight possibility of being misinterpreted. The frantic back peddling and heavyweight interventions when something may be construed to the detriment of a particular narrative is startling. I find it all very unhelpful but oddly amusing. This is the FUD the OP talks about, which is leaking into his thread now too. I'm just a little ashamed to be contributing to it by defending myself, but hopefully this is the end of it after one last salutation to Carlton Banks. seeing as the subject of your mistake agrees with my assessment (that you made a mistake), it appears that your accusation is without merit.
Be careful throwing such accusations around: if you're wrong, it will damage your own reputation, not that of your target.
You need to drop it and add to the discussion not continue to try and lecture me with condescension on what I should or shouldn't do to increase my reputation. Another tart, supercilious reply from you will confirm the trolling, so move along now, there's a good chap. |
|
|
|
The fact that there may or may not be a fee market in XT will not be by design but an unwanted consequence of hardware limitation.
This is such an important point that rarely gets voiced. Free market evangelists look at Bitcoin and see it as a technology to serve the current status quo if only it had more "market forces" and allowed more "opportunities for profit". The technical trade-offs that are exploitable are seen as designs that should be expanded to make way for more of the same rather than weaknesses in the protocol that should be plugged. Allow me to help you and others understand: that sentence you are quoting was spoken from the perspective of the XT design ideology, not as a representation of the views of the person that wrote it. The person you quoted does not believe the view you are attributing to them. I'm sure you wouldn't want to look like you are misrespresenting the situation, so I thought I would inform the thread (careful, someone might accuse you of being yet another dishonest debater, and you don't want that!) "Ground control to Troll Station-1. We have found your escapee." |
|
|
|
The fact that there may or may not be a fee market in XT will not be by design but an unwanted consequence of hardware limitation.
This is such an important point that rarely gets voiced. Free market evangelists look at Bitcoin and see it as a technology to serve the current status quo if only it had more "market forces" and allowed more "opportunities for profit". The technical trade-offs that are exploitable are seen as designs that should be expanded to make way for more of the same rather than weaknesses in the protocol that should be plugged. |
|
|
|
The whole idea of transaction fees make no sense unless there is competition for space in a block.
This statement can be negated by asserting that people could still freely choose to provide a transaction fee out of generosity and good-will. Users _could_ be of the mindset 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need' state of mind. I'm living proof of that as I supply generous transaction fees which far exceed what is currently needed...but I know of no other person who does so.
We know for sure that Bitcoin will totally fail if we approach a point where there is competition for space in a block. We know this with certainy because it has been repeated thousands of times on here trolltalk and by millions or redditards.
We also know for sure that nobody in computer science has dealt with the problems of memory exhaustion or queuing or anything like that because so many top developers in the Bitcoin community say that it is vital that there never be competition for block space as it would cause these kinds of problems and the system would collapse.
Satoshi was certainly smart enough to know these technical aspects of block size, yet he added transaction fees prior to the initial release of Bitcoin. Ergo, Satoshi is a Communist and anticipated there being a lot of people like me who will willingly pay more than necessary for a transaction. Else he was a totalitarian who anticipated a 'benevolent dictator' with enough control to mandate the 'appropriate' fee by coding it in. Right?
I posit that Satoshi actually did anticipate there being competition for space on the block-chain and some of the assumptions about how devastating it would be to have it are simply idiotic propaganda.
From my reading of history. Satoshi foresaw that as the reward from mining diminished; miners would need other incentives to mine transactions. The fees would be that incentive. I don't think block size or competition for space in a block had anything to do with it. I think that was just predatory capitalism exploiting an opportunity. |
|
|
|
It has long been the idea that Bitcoin's main network would have to be a backbone mostly between major institutions that performed 99.9% of transaction volume. Centralization really isn't a huge issue, so long as it's always possible for a new player to join the main bitcoin network as an equal peer with the rest.
I can join the current banking system as an equal peer and it already has the transaction volume, sales acceptance, speed of verification and so on. Is it probable I would succeed? Not unless I was in the club but it is possible. If " it has long been the idea that Bitcoin's main network would have to be a backbone mostly between major institutions", then Bitcoin failed long ago when that idea was accepted and it is being falsely marketed. This sounds a lot like what a financial institution would want of Bitcoin so they could carry on their hegemony. |
|
|
|
|
Paypal returned a payment that neither I or the customer wanted to happen and then refused the payment when the customer tried again to pay me. They then locked the account. They can go for a running jump and I hope their gonads get infested with fire ants.
Then I went with Google. Was happy with them for a while but they changed their service from Google <whatever>to Google Wallet Digital Downloads. Was a bit miffed but transitioned with a bit of effort.
Then they shut down Wallet digital downloads and there was no longer a service I could use with them. I'm now with Stripe. Very happy with Stripe. 7 days and your money is in your bank account. Cheaper fees than Google were. They will even act as a Bitcoin payment processor for you so I doubt they are anti bitcoin; although I don't need that service. Sweet web interface too. Been with them for 1 year without any problems.
|
|
|
|
|
My tuppence!
It is a political battle wrapped in technical FUD.
What is basically being proposed is a rather gentlemanly 51% attack on the current blockchain by a splinter group of devs. Gentlemanly because they are stating when they will do it and given a date by which they will complete the takeover. They hope to persuade enough existing hashpower to force a fork onto their chain so they they can move control of the network onto their software fork. The capabilities of that client is a side-show; the issue here is that the attack is possible without any outlay of resources. If you want to see how a government would do it in the future; this is how. Not by buying a shedload of hardware to out-hash the network, but persuade or force existing miners to switch.
The blocksize is just the crowbar for leverage. The blocksize itself was a kudge to fix what they term spam - micro payments and dust transactions - because the centralisation of mining meant that miners couldn't keep up any more and transaction times were ballooning. It was taking the miners longer to get their pound of financial flesh. It was a quick-fix solution that has now become a permanent feature of the protocol and means whoever has the lowest block size loses as the higher limit is the super-set of acceptance.
If the network could handle the transactions then the block size would be irrelevant, there would be no limit and there would not be the leverage to force the fork as any limit would be the loser.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
