|
Cool stuff, keep it up!
Btw quick question, is BitEagle going to be a standalone client or a light client?
|
|
|
|
If miners modify the algo then the others have to do the same.
No they don't. Say you did fork Bitcoin, and 95% of miners moved over to this new blockchain so they could be paid 50 BTC forever. Now, 95% of non-miners stay with the real Bitcoin blockchain, and 5% of miners. So 95% of miners are now mining this worthless fork that no one is actually using for transactions, because non-miners are still using the real Bitcoin blockchain instead. The price drops on said worthless fork because no one is using it, and therefore no one wants it. It starts to see values along the lines of Solidcoin when compared with real Bitcoins. Meanwhile, the 5% of miners who stayed with the original Bitcoin blockchain are still happily mining along and keeping transactions moving along, the currency still has value, and people are still making transactions with it. It seems to me that u r right. So there is no way to change Bitcoin. Any changes will likely lead to a fork. Precisely. |
|
|
|
And who do you suppose, other than some miners who are ignorant of the term "economic majority", would use this modified client?
If miners modify the algo then the others have to do the same. No one has to do anything in Bitcoin. If miners start using another algo that wouldn't be Bitcoin anymore and they'd simply make a hard fork. Who ever is left would continue using Bitcoin as if nothing happened. |
|
|
|
|
I thought eBay didn't allow such sales?
|
|
|
|
What a beast!  |
|
|
|
if i had a hammer, i'd hammer in the morning
What kind of monster are you that you'd want to hammer in the morning? |
|
|
|
LOL I love this forum.  |
|
|
|
Love the packaging.
Is it available for sale to the US?
Working on the last steps of distribution. There is already 50,000 bottles in Russia with the Bitcoin logo on them. I personally drank from one of the bottles  They plan on brining it to the USA now with alot more. All with Bitcoin logo. Fucking awesome. |
|
|
|
Please, take a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_top_United_States_patent_recipients and tell me who for the year 2010 and 2009 is in the 8th spot of all US based companies ranked by who received the most patents? You think if I wanted to start a CPU factory I could just use their design without any costs? Not to mention all the regulatory costs and the tax burden the state lays on top. Yes capital needed to produce CPUs is far more expensive than getting into mining but saying it's hard to get into producing CPUs because of that is plain idiotic because it ignores all the extra costs such a company would have to swallow and NOT push onto their customers if they wanted to be competitive compared to a by the state endorsed already entrenched monopoly. Mining absolutely is not voting. You are seeing hoofs and you're thinking horses when in fact it's zebras. Just because it resembles voting it does not make it voting as I have demonstrated with an argument you didn't even attempt to dispute. Proof of work is validation and enforcement != voting. It's how the network comes to a consensus i.e. an agreement about which version of the blockchain is accurate not an election result that determines which version of the blockchain is forced on everyone. You can call this voting as much as you can call yellow the color yellow on your screen. Iron clad argument why it's not voting: If it really was voting hard forks would not be possible because there would be no deviation from the election result. Also all users do in fact validate the rules because even their light clients still need to know whether the transactions that they read from a remote server with the blockchain are legitimate or not or whether the transaction they are about to send out is going to be regarded as valid by the rest of the network, not to mention that some light clients like multibit or blockchain.info are open source. Of course how easy it would be to switch the light client's encoded rules without the user having to OK it is another question that mainly depends on the client's design but there is no question they have a say. I can't understand how someone working with this software intimately wouldn't have a firmer grasp on what it is that they are working on. |
|
|
|
...
This is perfectly inline with Satoshi's whitepaper.
But also mining is not about voting because there is nothing to be voted on.
...
The proof-of-work also solves the problem of determining representation in majority decision
making. If the majority were based on one-IP-address-one-vote, it could be subverted by anyone
able to allocate many IPs. Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote. The majority
decision is represented by the longest chain, which has the greatest proof-of-work effort invested
in it.
Couldn't resist doing that after you'd stated one of the lead client developers is oblivious to what mining is suppose to be and how mining pools work. Nice try but no. First when you quote you should quote the entire paragraph making it clear what it is that you are quoting: The proof-of-work also solves the problem of determining representation in majority decision
making. If the majority were based on one-IP-address-one-vote, it could be subverted by anyone
able to allocate many IPs. Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote. The majority
decision is represented by the longest chain, which has the greatest proof-of-work effort invested
in it. If a majority of CPU power is controlled by honest nodes, the honest chain will grow the
fastest and outpace any competing chains. To modify a past block, an attacker would have to
redo the proof-of-work of the block and all blocks after it and then catch up with and surpass the
work of the honest nodes. What Satoshi refers to as voting here is actually enforcement of the rules in Bitcoin on the blockchain not on the protocol. It's a poor choice of an analogy on his part but proof of work is not voting, it's validation & enforcement in a distributed manner. It's how the network comes to a CONSENSUS about which blockchain is accurate. Now you can call this voting and it sorta kinda resembles voting but it's not voting. In voting you have options with new rules and which ever option gets the most votes gets imposed on all the voters. In proof of work you have validation and enforcement of rules that are not subject to change or up to a vote, no, in proof of work nothing is decided for all, nothing gets imposed on all, the network merely discovers which version of the blockchain most members of the network have validated and enforced the rules on in order to discover a consensus. Per definition this consensus is not imposed on anyone after it's discovered. Comparing proof of work to voting may have only served as an analogy to better explain the process but is not actually what is happening and therefor calling it voting is invalid. Yes, I actually am saying that even Satoshi can make a mistake. No man is infallible. So I was correct. There is nothing to be voted on. But also mining pools are perfectly inline with Satoshi's idea about how the network comes to a consensus about which version of the blockchain is accurate because all that mining pools do is they pool the validation and enforcement to a small chunk of the network first. What is important here is that this small chunk of the network is still validating the same blockchain and they are enforcing the same rules as they would if they were solo mining. Therefor as far as the proof of work concept is concerned the outcome is EXACTLY the same if miners participating in a pool would solo mine instead. Btw using a developer disagreeing with me as proof of anything is a logical fallacy. |
|
|
|
That's a rather huge over-generalization Erik.
Pooled mining is an activity with a very low barrier to entry. You need some software, some hardware and some kind of justification for your existence, and that's pretty much it. Some seed hash-power to get it started. Markets work well when barriers to entry are low and switching costs are low.
They work much less well when barriers to entry and switching costs are high. That's why there are only three CPU designers responsible for nearly all consumer CPUs, and of those three two of them (AMD and Intel) produce chips that run near-identical instruction sets. And these days it's really turned into a two horse race with Intel and ARM almost entirely controlling the high performance and low power markets respectively.
How easily monopolies form depends completely on the specific market.
Also whilst the situation now is better than it was, the previous situation was a complete perversion of Satoshis original vision. The point of mining is to vote, and what effectively happened was massive selling of votes in order to reap more predictable profits. The more miners the better as it makes it much harder for the rules to be changed out from underneath people (eg, a change to the inflation rate).
P2Pool should have fixed this but hasn't because it seems many miners would rather have simpler configuration than actually be first-class voters.
You couldn't be more wrong with both of your points. First, your analogy with the CPU designers in no way applies because it does not exist in a free market such as the one Erik was referring to. No, that industry exists in the by the state controlled market where the state by using the threat of violence prevents competition from developing the same technology(enforcement of IP through the instrument of patents), forces the would competition to comply with expensive regulation and steals a good chunk of their profits. That is not a free market but a market with a central authority that promotes and defends monopolies which is why the cost of entry are so high! In bitcoin where we actually have a market regulated strictly by market participants i.e. a free market there are no such costs. You just need to have the appropriate capital and you can begin. No mining pool is demanding their competition cease to use some part of their code because they thought of it first or that some portion of their profit be paid to some gang of thugs with guns. People are free to do as they please as long as the market i.e. the consumers want their goods or services. Second you are oblivious to what mining is suppose to be and how mining pools work. No one is forced to participate, it almost does not matter if miners mine individually or if they participate in a mining pool because they can always decide to stop participating. As soon as one of the pools turned out to in anyways misbehave they'd have the option to stop and leave. This is perfectly inline with Satoshi's whitepaper. But also mining is not about voting because there is nothing to be voted on. Bitcoin is a protocol, you either use it or you don't. If miners stop using it by enforcing a different protocol with the same blockchain they wouldn't change Bitcoin, no they'd simply create a hard fork and begin using the new protocol. Anyone who decided to use the old protocol could still do so and they'd be the only one who could legitimately claim they are using Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
All centralized monetary systems tend towards corruption.
BitcoinGold is the central protocol. When are you going to give it a rest? |
|
|
|
http://blockchain.info/poolsAll it would take is the collaboration of these Big 3 to turn the network to their will, whether it be in secret or otherwise. How do we turn them into tiny networks like on the other side of the graph? This is about as diversified as I have seen the pool chart. A year ago deepbit had half, now it takes 3 pools to get there. We went from a benevolent dictatorship to a benevolent oligarchy. Let's make it a decentralized confederation. You do realize that participation in a pool is voluntary and comprised of many many individual miners, right? If it were really an oligarchy their participation wouldn't be voluntary. |
|
|
|
Blockchain.info, aside from being a great tool and web wallet, offers and advertises a coin mixer service - or to put it in plain English, a money laundering service. Under what jurisdiction is money laundering legal??
Money laundering is a recently invented crime designed to control us to which I say fuck you. |
|
|
|
|
Yep this is one of the better articles clearly stating that the theft occurred due to a serious mistake of the owner/operator and not some kind of a flaw in Bitcoin..
|
|
|
|
|
I'll email this one to zerohedge, IMO it's a perfect kind of topic with a nice brief positive bitcoin plug
EDIT: sent.
|
|
|
|
In 2010, 14,718 individuals are murdered that year, in a population of 300 millions.
The mass shooting in the Aurora movie theater claims 12 lives, the shik temple mass shooting claims 7 lives for the year 2012, ending with a total of 19 lives.
Assuming a conservative 13,000 murders out of a population of 300 millions, that mean 0.0043 percent ~ were murdered. Of that 13000, the mass shootings claim .146915384615 percent.
In 2009 alone, 599,413 people die of heart diseases. Another 567,628 individuals die of cancer. Heart disease and cancers are the biggest killers in the US.
Gun control and gun violence? Maybe you should worry about whether you exercise more and contribute to anti-aging research rather than worry about some kook printing some guns. He can buy guns on the black market and goes on a shooting spree if he want, but that's totally unlikely. Mostly, he's just a harmless kook.
I'd also like a statistic of how many people are murdered by thugs in blue costumes i.e. police. That one is always conveniently missing. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
