1. "Not based on trust" Then what is it? Magic? Bitcoin = money. Money = trust. Seems pretty fundamental to me.
It is based in Proof of Work. Maybe you have heard about that. I wanted to comment on the other things, but you are just throwing around words, without meaning and I have better things to do ... There are thousands of coins based on proof of work. Surely there is something special about Bitcoin? if you're too dumb to figure this out, then you should stop posting garbage hint: its not trust  Please enlighten me |
|
|
|
No. Incentivizes the miners to form a cartel, i.e. centralising pressure.
Shall we just have transaction flooding attacks forever, and impossibly expensive transaction fees? It won't work.
Some set of rules need to be put in place to let the block size float freely, but disincentivise the miners to game the system.
Then, the limit can be removed.
I think that's what it really all about, block size limit itself isn't all that important, making attacks impossible is what we really want. i think we need to 1) improve block propagation / the network's topology 2) have miners agree to a bunch of rules that prevent attacks 3) slowly increase block size limit based on fee pressure or some kind of metric that allow block limit to move up with usage slowly. might not be a bad idea to always have SOME fee pressure. Block size limit is about making certain attacks impossible. You don't even understand how Bitcoin works Adam why should we consider your opinion? everyone hates you and with good reasons. yes you are right Block size limit is making alot of these possible attacks impossible. but it's a very indirect way of dealing with these possible attacks. a few well designed rules can rule out these attacks MORE effectively. Yes all the trolls hate me because I call them out on their BS. Surprisingly I was getting along fine with most of the smart people at the conference this weekend. Still, your opinion of me doesn't change the fact that technically you are completely lost as to how Bitcoin operates and therefore your opinion should not be considered. Sorry if that hurts your feelings  |
|
|
|
No. Incentivizes the miners to form a cartel, i.e. centralising pressure.
Shall we just have transaction flooding attacks forever, and impossibly expensive transaction fees? It won't work.
Some set of rules need to be put in place to let the block size float freely, but disincentivise the miners to game the system.
Then, the limit can be removed.
I think that's what it really all about, block size limit itself isn't all that important, making attacks impossible is what we really want. i think we need to 1) improve block propagation / the network's topology 2) have miners agree to a bunch of rules that prevent attacks 3) slowly increase block size limit based on fee pressure or some kind of metric that allow block limit to move up with usage slowly. might not be a bad idea to always have SOME fee pressure. Block size limit is about making certain attacks impossible. You don't even understand how Bitcoin works Adam why should we consider your opinion? |
|
|
|
1. "Not based on trust" Then what is it? Magic? Bitcoin = money. Money = trust. Seems pretty fundamental to me.
It is based in Proof of Work. Maybe you have heard about that. I wanted to comment on the other things, but you are just throwing around words, without meaning and I have better things to do ... There are thousands of coins based on proof of work. Surely there is something special about Bitcoin? |
|
|
|
In every thread with BitcoinXT, i always see 3-4 faces of the retards bashing Gavin, and Mike.
LOL, you're fighting so hard huh?
Says the guy who's whole sad online persona is based on bashing someone's who's never heard of him. Say the dumbass who thinks he is "bitcoin community" What the fck you think you are? Some piece of shit traders who spent most his time in speculation section and scamcoins section. LOL let the real community decide the direction of bitcoin, you're fighting an imaginary war, dumbass I sat around "the real community" the whole weekend and it was quite productive thank you. You're a troll, what credentials do you have to call out anyone? |
|
|
|
What's retarded is your comparison. Ferrari are not meant to be cheap. They are meant for the rich people market. Also, if Ferrari were nodes, there would be far enough to keep the network secure and decentralized  Computing resources and bandwidth are not "meant to be cheap" either, especially if your plan is to support all of the world's transactions. Take a hike you clown, no one here takes you seriously. |
|
|
|
In every thread with BitcoinXT, i always see 3-4 faces of the retards bashing Gavin, and Mike.
LOL, you're fighting so hard huh?
Says the guy who's whole sad online persona is based on bashing someone's who's never heard of him. |
|
|
|
With less than 10% of the nodes and zero mined blocks recently what happens now that BitcoinXT (GVC) is for all practical purposes dead?
What of Gavin and Mike?
Will they still be taken seriously in future projects?
~BCX~
So by this logic should we not take seriously all owners of failed pull requests? Logic = 0! How do you compare a major fork attempt with a pull request? You just do. You guys are acting like BitcoinXT was something that never happened before. It may not have happened in the Bitcoin world, but it happens all the time in the Open Source World. So, if their proposal is not accepted by an economic majority, they drop it, and start working on other projects. Business as usual. Nothing dramatic about that. You guys are just a bunch of retarded fanboys, like in all this stupid iPhone vs. Android wars ... It really isn't comparable and if you can't see it then it is likely you are part of the "retarded" gang. Why is it not comparable? Please enlighten me. Because this is a 3B$ economy that depends on trust. Forcing a contentious hard fork for political motives divides the consensus & undermines that trust which puts everyone's money at risk. So, it is the worth of the project? Linux is worth more and forks happen all the time. That was exactly the kind of fanboy answer, I expected. Worth of the project? No, this is an economy based on trust dipshit, hasn't anything to do with "the worth". Moreover their hard fork was not based on technical dissent but political ideologies as they attempted to force their turd down the throat of "the community" using PR tactics, propaganda & fud using their "authority". No one's investment is directly at risk from a Linux fork. You're a clown 1. It is not based on trust. You are not even able to understand a fundamental principle of Bitcoin. 2. It is a open source project, calling it an economy or using other term to make it sound special, just confirms, that I am talking with a fanboy, who doesn't want to see reality. 3. Same with calling it "not technical dissent but political ideologies", just because you don't like the solution, they provided. 4. Yes, a Linux fork, could cause people to lose their investment. Again, nothing unusual here in the Bitcoin World. @Carlton Banks and again ad hominem is all you can provide ... 1. "Not based on trust" Then what is it? Magic? Bitcoin = money. Money = trust. Seems pretty fundamental to me. 2. Bitcoin = money = economy. As Carlton mentions it relies on consensus much like any form of money does and quite unlike any other open source project. 3. I don't care about the solution. As any open source fork its code should stand on its own. It didn't and so they had to rely to shady tactics to sell it to the sheeps. 4. Painfully obvious you don't know what you're talking about |
|
|
|
@Peter R: I really liked your presentatation, but i must say that the "bigger picture" of financing the security of the network is not appropriately addressed (at least in the presentation), imho it doesn' help that the market is fixing the size of blocks, if there is a more fundamental financing problem of the networks security, something i called the economic law of bitcoinsecurity: the cost of the network = the fees for the consumers Could you have a short look at it and till me where the mistake in this mysterious calculation are, because otherwise that (admittedly rough calculation/first primitive version of a thought) would show a financing problem for the next 4-5 years of bitcoin which puts the whole blocksize debate in a very different perspective: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1180471.0Would like to hear your opinion about it! Greetings! The problem with Peter's paper is quite simple: it ignores reality. It is quite representative of traditional economist failures trying to paint real world issues in a vacuum relying on a bunch of spherical cows. |
|
|
|
With less than 10% of the nodes and zero mined blocks recently what happens now that BitcoinXT (GVC) is for all practical purposes dead?
What of Gavin and Mike?
Will they still be taken seriously in future projects?
~BCX~
So by this logic should we not take seriously all owners of failed pull requests? Logic = 0! How do you compare a major fork attempt with a pull request? You just do. You guys are acting like BitcoinXT was something that never happened before. It may not have happened in the Bitcoin world, but it happens all the time in the Open Source World. So, if their proposal is not accepted by an economic majority, they drop it, and start working on other projects. Business as usual. Nothing dramatic about that. You guys are just a bunch of retarded fanboys, like in all this stupid iPhone vs. Android wars ... It really isn't comparable and if you can't see it then it is likely you are part of the "retarded" gang. Why is it not comparable? Please enlighten me. Because this is a 3B$ economy that depends on trust. Forcing a contentious hard fork for political motives divides the consensus & undermines that trust which puts everyone's money at risk. So, it is the worth of the project? Linux is worth more and forks happen all the time. That was exactly the kind of fanboy answer, I expected. Worth of the project? No, this is an economy based on trust dipshit, hasn't anything to do with "the worth". Moreover their hard fork was not based on technical dissent but political ideologies as they attempted to force their turd down the throat of "the community" using PR tactics, propaganda & fud using their "authority". No one's investment is directly at risk from a Linux fork. You're a clown |
|
|
|
With less than 10% of the nodes and zero mined blocks recently what happens now that BitcoinXT (GVC) is for all practical purposes dead?
What of Gavin and Mike?
Will they still be taken seriously in future projects?
~BCX~
So by this logic should we not take seriously all owners of failed pull requests? Logic = 0! How do you compare a major fork attempt with a pull request? You just do. You guys are acting like BitcoinXT was something that never happened before. It may not have happened in the Bitcoin world, but it happens all the time in the Open Source World. So, if their proposal is not accepted by an economic majority, they drop it, and start working on other projects. Business as usual. Nothing dramatic about that. You guys are just a bunch of retarded fanboys, like in all this stupid iPhone vs. Android wars ... It really isn't comparable and if you can't see it then it is likely you are part of the "retarded" gang. Why is it not comparable? Please enlighten me. Because this is a 3B$ economy that depends on trust. Forcing a contentious hard fork for political motives divides the consensus & undermines that trust which puts everyone's money at risk. |
|
|
|
With less than 10% of the nodes and zero mined blocks recently what happens now that BitcoinXT (GVC) is for all practical purposes dead?
What of Gavin and Mike?
Gavin A. goes Peter R.; Bitcoin unlimited: "In my heart of hearts, I think everything would be just fine if the block limit was completely eliminated. I think actually nothing bad would happen."He can't have said this after this weekend's conference. If he did then he's even more of a clown than I thought. |
|
|
|
With less than 10% of the nodes and zero mined blocks recently what happens now that BitcoinXT (GVC) is for all practical purposes dead?
What of Gavin and Mike?
Will they still be taken seriously in future projects?
~BCX~
So by this logic should we not take seriously all owners of failed pull requests? Logic = 0! How do you compare a major fork attempt with a pull request? You just do. You guys are acting like BitcoinXT was something that never happened before. It may not have happened in the Bitcoin world, but it happens all the time in the Open Source World. So, if their proposal is not accepted by an economic majority, they drop it, and start working on other projects. Business as usual. Nothing dramatic about that. You guys are just a bunch of retarded fanboys, like in all this stupid iPhone vs. Android wars ... It really isn't comparable and if you can't see it then it is likely you are part of the "retarded" gang. |
|
|
|
All i know is Bitcoin won't grow with this tiny blocksize and some people here are deliberately hindering this for their own benefit, this bs is keeping bitcoin from mooning where companies like fidelity are trying to build on the blockchain and the thing maxes out, even 8 mb is a joke.
So what do you propose? 1GB blocks? "Keeping Bitcoin from mooning"  Of course!..... It's increasingly obvious greed is what's keeping the majority of you noobs from seeing things clearly. |
|
|
|
Since there is no financial gains to run a node, solutions must be cheap. Their is no doubt the free market will monetize on that.
TIL the free market doesn't answer to the laws of physics and will fit a datacenter into your pocket because.... incentives!!! |
|
|
|
BIP101 solves the scalability issue once and for all and is currently the only "up and running" implementation.
This proposition has never been more dead after this weekend. What is dead is Core releavence. Core is the motor of growth in Bitcoin. No one takes you seriously trolled, you'd have gotten laughed out of the room saying such idiocy during the conference |
|
|
|
BIP101 solves the scalability issue once and for all and is currently the only "up and running" implementation.
This proposition has never been more dead than after this weekend. It is now certain that no implementation proposing a set schedule for anything more than 1 or 2 years will not be considered. XT, by the way, has its last remaining credibility shot after Mike's notable absence. |
|
|
|
We are not responsible for your inability to understand fundamental facts about bitcoin scalability issues and centralization. It seems that you keep supporting bigger blocks. For the last time, please understand that our hardware is not capable of handling bigger blocks. This will be devastating for bitcoin, and will turn many people on altcoins, which they have the same scalability issues or even worse.Ohh wait! How convenient! Your nickname looks self-explanatory. LiteCoinGuy, how many litecoins do you own? Well not everyone is invested in LiteCoin, which is just a copy of bitcoin, and 2.5 minute blocks make it even harder to scale compared to bitcoin. So hhow do we solve this shit, making blocks bigger has an issue, leaving blocks small has an issue, seems to me that bitcoin has just a flaw and fkin satoshi who is hiding himself failed. If you think you have valuable input and not only stupid stuff to say you might want to consider: https://scalingbitcoin.org/ |
|
|
|
|
After typing my previous post I have decided on deleting my posts not pertinent to the conference. I apologize for the distraction.
Peter, it would be great if you could do the same and in the spirit of the conference do respect Chatam house rules. I know you are always eager to attack characters but let's leave it to the content of the talks and round tables.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
