Bitcoin Forum
June 20, 2024, 09:28:59 AM *
News: Voting for pizza day contest
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 [109] 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 ... 223 »
2161  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: An Open Letter to the Bitcoin Community from the Developers on: September 03, 2015, 04:19:17 AM
ok, somewhat plausible I suppose, but idiotic as you say.

We can accuse both sides of bad motives but I think one side wants main chain scaling and one wants off chain scaling.  would you agree?

It's more like one side wants optimal decentralization and security while the other side is fixated on scaling the system by externalizing costs to the ones running it.
2162  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: We Don't Want Democracy, We Want Consensus! on: September 03, 2015, 04:14:15 AM
Good points. You can never totally get rid of bad actors that intentionally disturb the decisoin making process
- snip -

I'm not talking about "bad actors".  The fact that someone has a different goal than you doesn't necessarily mean that your goal is "good" and theirs is "bad".

The point is that a "Consensus Building Process" can't work if participants goals don't align, especially if the participants are passionate about their goals.


If consensus isn't working toward realizing their goal maybe they need to double-check their priorities and either a. compromise or b. exit and create a group of like-minded people.

Free market still operates in consensus-style decision making and if someone is convinced that their goals is more valuable then others they should absolutely leave it to the market to decide. One should be careful though about the means by which they introduce their different proposal as it could cost them greatly if people start discerning hidden motives and intentions not properly disclaimed.

Consensus sounds like a great idea, but may not always work. Democracy may not work either. A dictatorship, benevolent or malevolent, can make things happen very quickly and win a game in the right circumstances. One of those circumstances might be if a democracy or consensus is stuck in minutia, missing a bigger picture, while a dictatorship conceives and idea and quickly executes it overtaking both consensus and democracy.

I hope that Bitcoin can find consensus, but will settle for democracy. I do not want dictatorship. Certainly more than one dictatorship with concepts already.

Democracy is dictatorship by the majority.

The rest of your concerns are absolutely valid and amount to what Hayek referred to as the "Road to Serfdom"
2163  Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion on: September 03, 2015, 04:10:54 AM


My personal impression is that hash rate is dictated by price and (more importantly?) technology, with rate reacting to price and not the inverse. The two big ramps were directly related to a paradigm shift in mining tech, CPU to GPU, and GPU to ASIC. With ASIC gear becoming increasingly efficient we will probably see a rise in hashrate even in the face of a flat or modestly declining price. The upcoming halving should be pretty interesting for those watching this relationship.  

Agreed. Hashrate should follow price, but it seems like during those two massive increases it was the price chasing the hashrate.... Huh Someone better suited to scientific analysis of data sets would do a better job of analyzing this relationship ( hint, hint, Professor Stolfi )  Wink

Anyways, I don't expect any further large expansions in mining technology or efficiency, certainly nothing on the scale of cpu>gpu>asic.  

Many people mocked me many pages ago for my concern that the block size could not simply scale exponentially for the next 20 years, but I still believe we are reaching the limits of physics and any further significant exponential type gains in computing power beyond asic will likely take us beyond the singularity. I just hope our new synthetic overlords accept bitcoin. (Ok, yes, I've been watching too much humans (tv show))



The big difference this time around... We have our own little OPEC (OCDM organization of chip designing miners), with apparently only bitmain selling next gen hardware to the small fish. Small fish are more likely to mine and hoard, using it almost as a form of indirect purchase. The current dynamic makes me think that as a percentage, more coins are being mined and sold than in days of yore. The days of mining at a loss with your gaming rig in 2012 are surely over.

Contrary to popular opinion I am confident that a considerable (it may be a majority) part of newly minted bitcoins are being held.

2164  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: We Don't Want Democracy, We Want Consensus! on: September 03, 2015, 04:01:11 AM
Good points. You can never totally get rid of bad actors that intentionally disturb the decisoin making process
- snip -

I'm not talking about "bad actors".  The fact that someone has a different goal than you doesn't necessarily mean that your goal is "good" and theirs is "bad".

The point is that a "Consensus Building Process" can't work if participants goals don't align, especially if the participants are passionate about their goals.


If consensus isn't working toward realizing their goal maybe they need to double-check their priorities and either a. compromise or b. exit and create a group of like-minded people.

Free market still operates in consensus-style decision making and if someone is convinced that their goals is more valuable then others they should absolutely leave it to the market to decide. One should be careful though about the means by which they introduce their different proposal as it could cost them greatly if people start discerning hidden motives and intentions not properly disclaimed.
2165  Economy / Economics / Re: Economic Totalitarianism on: September 03, 2015, 03:51:49 AM
For those who are suffering Multiple Sclerosis or any sort of chronic disease, I understand your suffering (even though others readers really can't feel and understand your suffering) and I want to tell you that I am having a miraculous result thus far several days after a 10 day fasting.

...

 Cheesy

This is so incredibly off-topic but while you are at it let me suggest: have you tried getting your hands on local coconut vinegar? kind of looks like this:



Although I believe this one is the "tuba" derivative which is consumed as an alcoholic beverage.

When I'm in the Philippines it's part of almost all of my meals and has the perfect combination of coconut goodness and the spice you're looking for (I believe they use bird eyes chilies to make it)

Anyway... good stuff  Grin
2166  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) on: September 03, 2015, 03:44:30 AM

You are right, I was here, but it did return on scene with different discussion on 2013.
The real problem is that if someone has a business plan that it depends by not solving a problem, it's easy that it will take a loooong time.

Do you have concrete proof of what you are inferring?

He seems to be referring to Blockstream.  To this I would say that the problem they seem to be focused on is keeping Bitcoin 'free' (using the term in a systems and political sense) and secure while at the same time making it's strengths filter down to everyone.  It's a tricky operation.  Much more involved than the brain-dead 'bigger blocks yesterday already' strategy, but they seem to be making progress at a comfortable clip and easily fast enough to beat the race against any significant block size constraints which currently exist.

Back in 2011 a lot of people were all indignant about the idea that Satoshi made a lot of money off his work on Bitcoin.  I never understood this.  Even if he did, fantastic.  He deserved to for Christ's sake!  If Blockstream makes a ton of money off their work on LN and sidechains and whatever, that would seem fair enough to me.  Some of the crypto they are working on is cutting edge and the problems they are attacking are difficult and new-ish to network and to monetary science.  I honestly don't see how they are going to become ultra-wealthy tycoons off it though, and nobody making this accusation seems to be able to put their finger on it either.



You must be kidding right? Satoshi didn't forced anybody to use bitcoin while Blockstream is trying to force everybody down their path. They won't succeed though.

Oh succeed they will, and they should eventually become a leading force for Bitcoin (if we're to argue they are not already). Meanwhile Mike & Gavin will be thrown into the sewers of history, a footnote about some early developers who attempted a power grab and were #REKT by the steamroller that is Bitcoin.

Obviously you cannot prove in away that Blockstream has any intention or ability to force everybody down their path but if we were to entertain this nonsense have you considered that "their path" is one of open-source, permissionless technology?

I will believe it when the block size will be increased. Not before. I have absolutely no reasons to trust them.

Believe what? Their code is already out in the open. Are you even aware that the last functioning proposal for a Lightning network implementation was created by someone outside of Blockstream? No one's asking you to trust them.
2167  Economy / Speculation / Re: Analysis never ends on: September 03, 2015, 03:37:48 AM
So, what's next? Wave I ?

It will be a looong story.... 1 I will recognize in running 3. Its a three-five years.

:-) I'm sure it is not possible to keep $230 price for next 3-5 years. I'm also sure we cannot go down. => so we will go up drastically THIS year

Time to put in your longs boys and girls! I'm bullish, but then again I always am. I put in some trades from time to time when the market makes certain patterns. I took a long position 3-4 days ago and I plan to hold it for over a week. I expect we'll be in the $250-260 range this weekend followed by a rise to over $300.

What indicator would lead you to believe this? Outside of some major news item I don't see how we make any significant move as long as the block size boogeyman looms
2168  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) on: September 03, 2015, 03:34:16 AM

You are right, I was here, but it did return on scene with different discussion on 2013.
The real problem is that if someone has a business plan that it depends by not solving a problem, it's easy that it will take a loooong time.

Do you have concrete proof of what you are inferring?

He seems to be referring to Blockstream.  To this I would say that the problem they seem to be focused on is keeping Bitcoin 'free' (using the term in a systems and political sense) and secure while at the same time making it's strengths filter down to everyone.  It's a tricky operation.  Much more involved than the brain-dead 'bigger blocks yesterday already' strategy, but they seem to be making progress at a comfortable clip and easily fast enough to beat the race against any significant block size constraints which currently exist.

Back in 2011 a lot of people were all indignant about the idea that Satoshi made a lot of money off his work on Bitcoin.  I never understood this.  Even if he did, fantastic.  He deserved to for Christ's sake!  If Blockstream makes a ton of money off their work on LN and sidechains and whatever, that would seem fair enough to me.  Some of the crypto they are working on is cutting edge and the problems they are attacking are difficult and new-ish to network and to monetary science.  I honestly don't see how they are going to become ultra-wealthy tycoons off it though, and nobody making this accusation seems to be able to put their finger on it either.



You must be kidding right? Satoshi didn't forced anybody to use bitcoin while Blockstream is trying to force everybody down their path. They won't succeed though.

Oh succeed they will, and they should eventually become a leading force for Bitcoin (if we're to argue they are not already). Meanwhile Mike & Gavin will be thrown into the sewers of history, a footnote about some early developers who attempted a power grab and were #REKT by the steamroller that is Bitcoin.

Obviously you cannot prove in away that Blockstream has any intention or ability to force everybody down their path but if we were to entertain this nonsense have you considered that "their path" is one of open-source, permissionless technology?
2169  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin XT has code which downloads your IP address to facilitate blacklisting on: September 03, 2015, 03:14:37 AM
Those changes (special treatment for Tor exit nodes, downloading a list) haven't been a point of contention for developers as far as I know.  It would be silly to assume they're not going into the next revision of core. 

 Huh

This exact change was made into a pull request to Core by Mike and was generally opposed by most of the other developers (except maybe Gavin of course...)
2170  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) on: September 03, 2015, 03:12:51 AM

You are right, I was here, but it did return on scene with different discussion on 2013.
The real problem is that if someone has a business plan that it depends by not solving a problem, it's easy that it will take a loooong time.

Do you have concrete proof of what you are inferring?

He seems to be referring to Blockstream.  To this I would say that the problem they seem to be focused on is keeping Bitcoin 'free' (using the term in a systems and political sense) and secure while at the same time making it's strengths filter down to everyone.  It's a tricky operation.  Much more involved than the brain-dead 'bigger blocks yesterday already' strategy, but they seem to be making progress at a comfortable clip and easily fast enough to beat the race against any significant block size constraints which currently exist.

Back in 2011 a lot of people were all indignant about the idea that Satoshi made a lot of money off his work on Bitcoin.  I never understood this.  Even if he did, fantastic.  He deserved to for Christ's sake!  If Blockstream makes a ton of money off their work on LN and sidechains and whatever, that would seem fair enough to me.  Some of the crypto they are working on is cutting edge and the problems they are attacking are difficult and new-ish to network and to monetary science.  I honestly don't see how they are going to become ultra-wealthy tycoons off it though, and nobody making this accusation seems to be able to put their finger on it either.

+1.

This is especially true considering it has been made clear enough by me and a few others that Blockstream's two currently public projects, Sidechains & Lightning, are not at all subject to suffer and would actually benefit from a block size increase.

2171  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Mike Hearn response to "An Open Letter to the Bitcoin Community" on: September 03, 2015, 02:52:13 AM
on that same thread Gavin proposed a one-time bump to 20mb with no further increases (as he'd tested that already). Wladimir didn't even bother replying to us.

 Roll Eyes

 Roll Eyes

There is nothing sensible about pushing for a 20mb increase under current circumstances, further increased planned or not.
2172  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) on: September 03, 2015, 01:51:13 AM
And the average block is still less than half full.
lol, there were full block all past days Smiley
I'm sure that you have a lot of altcoin little troll.

What is the issue with full blocks? Are you suggesting these were full of legitimate prioritized transactions and not the result of spam?

It was discussed since 2010. Not sure I see your point.
You are right, I was here, but it did return on scene with different discussion on 2013.
The real problem is that if someone has a business plan that it depends by not solving a problem, it's easy that it will take a loooong time.

Do you have concrete proof of what you are inferring?
2173  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase? on: September 03, 2015, 01:16:04 AM
Gmaxwell did the thankless task of debunking Peter R here:

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010744.html

TL;DR:

Peter R be like:

"I will carry on my verbal diarrhea until gavin and hearn give me a popsicle.."


Gmax:

"I believe my time would be better spent actually _implementing_ improved
relaying described (and describe what was implemented) than continue
a purely academic debate with you over the (IMO) inconsequential difference
between epsilon and zero."




lmao

Have you read the whole email exhange? I can't believe Peter would bring that up, this is one of the worst case of self-exposing I've seen on the internet  Cheesy


no where is it? altho i cant be bothered reading more of his utter squeaking garbage.

but you can link it for the people here ^^

http://pastebin.com/jFgkk8M3

Quote
How could you have written at such length and complexity but ignoring the simple expident miners have of simply centeralizing their operation around larger pools to lower their costs-- an activity they previously performed, in practice, not just theory (which was walked back by handing them more efficient relay mechenisms) and which is simple, easy, and which reduces those marginal costs to 0 at the limit (e.g. all miners served off a particular host) --- after I specifically called you out on this previously?   Doubly so when your analysis gives provides a framework for analyizing the profitibility of moving from one point on that income tradeoff graph to another (e.g. the lost income from failing to centeralize)....
2174  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Mike Hearn response to "An Open Letter to the Bitcoin Community" on: September 03, 2015, 01:05:56 AM
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3j8rg1/an_open_letter_to_the_bitcoin_community_from_the/cuo15pt
Quote from: Mike Hearn
I'd be happy if they come to some form of agreement at the second workshop. The website does not suggest that this will happen - the statement that absolutely no decisions are made at workshops (plural) seems definitive.
Still, it may be that whoever wrote the website FAQ isn't really representative of what the attendees will do or want. From the outside looking in, it doesn't seem like a great start. But perhaps things will happen anyway, despite the public statements of some of the attendees.
Regardless, the underlying problems remain. Gavin was having private discussions with some of the signers of this letter months ago, or trying to. So was I. Back in April I asked Wladimir privately what his proposed timeline was for a block size increase, and on that same thread Gavin proposed a one-time bump to 20mb with no further increases (as he'd tested that already). Wladimir didn't even bother replying to us.
Gavin also tried talking to Gregory Maxwell in private. So have I. He simply doesn't respond to our emails either.
There is just no way this project can be credible when key players are signing open letters saying they want some kind of amazing consensus building process .... and yet refuse to even reply to emails from developers who have been contributing to Bitcoin for longer than they have even been around.

he is right as far as this: Wladimir and Gregory should have given them a courtesy response to the effect of, "no we are not implementing a 20x or a 8000x capacity increase. the small minority of developers that supports such drastic measures -- irrespective of real growth in transactions -- have shown no forethought as to why the drastic nature of these changes is necessary, nor have they accounted for the these various security related issues (x, y, z, ab, cd, ef, gh, etc) that may arise under such conditions"

A simple "Gavin "tests" are broken and we pointed out to you why it is so" could've done the trick as well.
2175  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Mike Hearn response to "An Open Letter to the Bitcoin Community" on: September 03, 2015, 01:03:13 AM
on that same thread Gavin proposed a one-time bump to 20mb with no further increases (as he'd tested that already). Wladimir didn't even bother replying to us.

 Roll Eyes
2176  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: We Don't Want Democracy, We Want Consensus! on: September 03, 2015, 12:58:14 AM
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/consensus

The 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.

bitcoin owners could show a preference by signing a message with a bitcoin wallet, this msg would prove they own X amount of bitcoin and the message itself would be there vote.

I'm sorry but this exposes everyone to all kinds of security and privacy concerns and it is really not a good idea.


i don't see why, voting can be anonymous... all we would be aware of is some BTC address with 25K BTC signed a message saying "BIP100"


Most Bitcoins are sitting on cold storage or paper wallet, it is a security risk anytime you access them.
2177  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase? on: September 03, 2015, 12:29:18 AM
Gmaxwell did the thankless task of debunking Peter R here:

Code:
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 1:43 AM, Peter R <peter_r at gmx.com> wrote:
> Dear Greg,
>
> I am moving our conversation into public as I've recently learned that
> you've been forwarding our private email conversation verbatim without
> my permission [I received permission from dpinna to share the email
> below that proves this fact].

Unfortunately, your work extensive as it was made at least two
non-disclosed or poorly-disclosed simplifying assumptions and a significant
system understanding error which, I believe, undermined it completely.

In short these were:

* You assume miners do not have the ability to change their level
centralization.

 -- In fact they do, not just in theory but in pratice have responded
    to orphaning this way in the past; and it is one of the major
    concerns in this space.

* You assume the supply of bitcoin is infinite (that subsidy never
declines)

 -- It declines geometrically, and must if the 21m limit is to be upheld.
    (Though I think this is not equally important as the other concerns)

* You argue, incorrectly, that amount of information which must be
transmitted at the moment a block is discovered is proportional to the
block's size.

 -- Instead the same information can be transmitted _in advance_, as
 has been previously proposed, and various techniques can make doing
 so arbitrarily efficient.

[I would encourage anyone who is interested to read the posted off-list
discussion]

I contacted you in private as a courtesy in the hope that it would be
a more productive pathway to improving our collective understanding; as well
as a courtesy to the readers of the list in consideration of traffic levels.

In one sense, this was a success: Our conversation concluded with you
enumerating a series of corrective actions that you would take:

--------
> 1.  I will make it more clear that the results of the paper hinge on
> the assumption that block solutions are propagated across channels,
> and that the quantity of pure information communicated per solution
> is proportional to the amount of information contained within the block.
>
> 2.  I will add a note [unless you ask me not to] something to the effect
> of "Greg Maxwell challenges the claim that the coding gain cannot
> be infinite…" followed by a summary of the scenario you described.
> I will reference "personal communication."  I will also run the note
> by you before I make the next revision public.
>
> 3.  I will point out that if the coding gain can be made spectacularly
> high, that the propagation impedance in my model will become very small,
> and that although a fee market may strictly exist in the asymptotic
> sense, such a fee market may not be relevant (the phenomena in the paper
> would be negligible compared to the dynamics from some other effect).
>
> 4. [UNRELATED] I also plan to address Dave Hudson's objections in my
> next revision (the "you don't orphan your own block" point).
>
> Lastly, thank you for the note about what might happen when fees >
> rewards.  I've have indeed been thinking about this.  I believe it is
> outside the scope of the present paper, although I am doing some work
> on the topic.  (Perhaps I'll add a bit more discussion on this topic
> to the present paper to get the reader thinking in this direction).
--------

To the best of my knowledge, you've taken none of these corrective
actions in the nearly month that has passed.  I certainly understand being
backlogged, but you've also continued to make public comments about your
work seemingly (to me) in contradiction with the above corrective actions.

Today I discovered that another author spent their time extending your
work and wasn't made aware of these points.  A result was that the other
author's work may require significant revisions.

I complained about this to you, again privately, and your (apparent)
response was to post to that thread stating that there was a
details-unspecified academic disagreement with me and "I look forward
to a white paper demonstrating otherwise!", in direct contradiction to
your remarks to me three weeks ago in private correspondence: In private
you said that your model may only hold in an asymptotic sense and that
"the phenomena in the paper (may) be negligible compared to the dynamics
from some other effect"; but in public you said /my/ position was
"academic".

At this point I thought continuing to withhold this information from
the other author was unreasonable and no longer justified by courtesy
to you, and I forwarded our complete discussion to the other author
with the comment "I'll forward you a set of private correspondence
that I've had with Peter R.  I would recommend you take the time to
read it and consider it.".

I apologize if in doing so I've breached your confidence, none of the
material we discussed was a sort that I would have ordinarily considered
private, and you had already talked about making the product of our
communication published as part of your corrective actions.
I do not think it would be reasonable to demand that I spent time
repeating the same discussion again with the other author, or deprive
them of your side of it and/or the corrective actions which you had
said you would take but have not yet taken.

(In fact, I would argue that you were already obligated to share at least the
substance of the discussion  with the other author, both as part of your
commitment to me as well it being necessiary for intellectual progress.)

As you say, 'we are all here trying to learn about this new amazing
thing called Bitcoin'; and I'm not embarrassed to error towards doing
that and aiding others in doing so, but at the same time I am sorry
to have done so in a way which caused you some injury.

In any case, your prior proposed corrective actions seemed sufficient to me.

It surprises me, greatly, that you are failing to see the extreme
practicality of what I described to you, and that it does not meaningfully
diminish miner control of transaction selection-- but even without it your
remark that the proportionality could be arbitrarily small (Rather than
0, as I argue) is an adequate correction to your work, in my view.

I believe my time would be better spent actually _implementing_ improved
relaying described (and describe what was implemented) than continue
a purely academic debate with you over the (IMO) inconsequential difference
between epsilon and zero.

Cheers,

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010744.html


"I believe my time would be better spent actually _implementing_ improved
relaying described (and describe what was implemented) than continue
a purely academic debate with you over the (IMO) inconsequential difference
between epsilon and zero."


lmao

Have you read the whole email exhange? I can't believe Peter would bring that up, this is one of the worst case of self-exposing I've seen on the internet  Cheesy
2178  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: We Don't Want Democracy, We Want Consensus! on: September 03, 2015, 12:08:11 AM
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/consensus

The 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.

bitcoin owners could show a preference by signing a message with a bitcoin wallet, this msg would prove they own X amount of bitcoin and the message itself would be there vote.

I'm sorry but this exposes everyone to all kinds of security and privacy concerns and it is really not a good idea.
2179  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) on: September 02, 2015, 10:45:09 PM
There is nothing destructive about elaborating a strategy. What is destructive is having none.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
2180  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) on: September 02, 2015, 10:33:34 PM
What isn't constructive is your naive attitude. You seem blatantly unaware of how things unfolded and how we got here. This mess you denounce is the result of Gavin & Mike's actions. Now somehow we're to blame because we call bullshit?

Maybe you should ask why Gavin and Mike did such action if you want to dig deeper to the root problem.

They did this because they are corporate shills pandering to banking and VC interests
Pages: « 1 ... 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 [109] 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 ... 223 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!