How exactly do non-mining nodes enforce the protocol? They can say it is invalid, but what can they do about it?
Duh, they can ignore invalid blocks and ban the IP addresses of anybody who sends one. To the Bitcoin protocol, invalid blocks simply do not exist. To full nodes, invalid blocks simply do not exist. ir.hn, stop spewing the same gibberish simultaneously over multiple different threads whilst ignoring, twisting, or dissimulating around all the thoughtful explanations given to you by smart people. (Smart people, please stop wasting your time trying to explain to someone self-evidently ineducable; IMO the only task is to provide sufficient answer that newbies who happen across these threads won’t be misled by ir.hn’s disinformation campaign.) Please stop spreading misinformation. This "attack" is not just limited to segwit; miners could have chosen to not verify signatures anyways before segwit activated. Regardless of whether segwit is activated, if a miner produces an invalid block because it contains a transaction that does not have a valid signature (again, regardless of segwit or not), other non-mining full nodes on the network will reject that block and the miner will be wasting his time and electricity.
Lets say all the non-mining full nodes reject the block. Why would the miners care? the miners are the one creating the blockchain. You can cry foul all day long but unless you can vote with your hashpower on which chain is correct, you are yelling to the wind. ir.hn: You have no idea how Bitcoin works. You have no idea how Segwit works. Or at least, you are feigning gross ignorance. In this thread and others, intelligent and well-informed people have attempted to educate you. You shoot back with bare assertions and blatant misinformation. Enough.General point: There is a common misconception about the role of miners. Miners have one, only one, and exactly one job: To provide the ordering of transactions in a Byzantine fault-tolerant manner (which in turn prevents double-spends). That’s what miners do. That is all miners do. Granted, it is an important and resource-intensive job; that’s why miners get paid for it. But that is the one and only security function of miners. Of course, miners must validate each block they produce; if they didn’t, they would be unable to reliably produce valid blocks. But miners are not the parties responsible for enforcing validation on the network. Full nodes do that. Each individual full node does that, so as to provide better security for its owner; and all full nodes collectively do that, thus providing validation security for the whole network. Observe how here as everywhere, Bitcoin precisely aligns the individual’s selfish interest with the common good. Full nodes do not blindly “follow the longest chain”. They follow the chain independently validated by them which has the highest total POW. A miner who produced invalid blocks would be wasting his hashrate, and likely risking widespread blacklisting of his IP address. It doesn’t matter if the invalid blocks steal money from Segwit transactions, steal money from old-style transactions, create 21 billion new coins, or are filled with gibberish from /dev/random. An invalid block is an invalid block, and shall be promptly discarded by all full nodes— period. ir.hn is creating nonsensical non-arguments by exploiting the aforesaid misconception about the role of miners. After all the attempts others have made to explain on this and other points, I cannot but conclude that ir.hn is maliciously spreading misinformation. I write this post for the benefit of others. I am uninterested in arguing with somebody who is a deliberate liar and/or so manifestly ineducable as to appear braindead. |
|
|
|
What is so difficult to understand here? Invalid blocks are not “in the blockchain”. The only way to add a block to the blockchain, is to mine a valid block. Those who produce invalid blocks “never actually have any say as to what makes it into the blockchain.”
Who can decide whether or not an invalid block makes it into the blockchain? Who determines whether a block is valid or not? Isn't it the miner who mines the next block? They decided to mine on the last block so they say the last block was valid, no one else's say matters. Then the only thing left is do is either the miners mine on that last persons block, or say it is invalid and remine the previous block. No where in this process are non-mining nodes. They are not part of the block confirmation process. The problem with segwit is that the block will appear valid and can be validated in the blockchain without the signature being present. This is the whole point of segwit, so that the signature is not needed in the blockchain. In order to see if the signature is valid the miner would have to wait for the witness block before they start mining on the last block which takes extra time. “Who can decide whether or not an invalid block makes it into the blockchain?” Full nodes, that’s who. “They [full nodes] are not part of the block confirmation process.” Wrong. As has been explained to you numerous times in the past few days by several different people, full nodes validate blocks and decide which fully validated chain has the highest total proof-of-work. Miners can never force full nodes to accept anything invalid. By analogy, BCH miners could create 8MB blocks and try to entice Bitcoin nodes to accept them. Could they force full nodes accept those blocks? No: Full nodes would reject those blocks, because they are invalid blocks. A block missing witness data (signatures) would also be invalid. A block containing invalid transactions is also invalid. Contra what you say, in Segwit, there is no “witness block”. Segwit witness data is included inside the same block as the rest of the transaction data. Signatures are always present. “This is the whole point of segwit, so that the signature is not needed in the blockchain.” False. You have not even the slightest idea of what Segwit is, or how Segwit works; you’re just spouting off nonsense which you evidently make up on the spot. |
|
|
|
Username: Nullius
[...]
Would you let me in, please?
Certainly, done  |
|
|
|
No, the 8MB blocksize is not the only difference. The misnamed pretender “Bitcoin Cash” does have a security vulnerability called “ covert ASICBOOST”, which Bitcoin fixed with Segwit. That is a very important feature to the parties reasonably presumed to be exploiting it for profit. BCH also has tx malleability (also fixed by Segwit), the quadratic sighash problem which makes for trouble scaling (fixed by Segwit), obsolete technology (no upgrade to Segwit), and no forward-compatible script version system (introduced by Segwit). Due to that last, it will be unable to simply copy over forthcoming new Bitcoin features such as Schnorr signatures and MAST, which will depend on Segwit. “Bitcoin Cash” also has the advantage of having “fired Core”. Who needs developers? Instead, they have a clique of promoters who lack sufficient credibility to sell used cars, but do have plenty of money to manipulate the market and prop up their pet scamcoin. Also, they have the domain name “bitcoin.com”—which never had anything to do with Bitcoin, according to Satoshi. But to me, the most important feature of “Bitcoin Cash” is centralization. The network is safely under control of a nanny named Roger Ver (or more likely, his handlers). Why, it’s comfy as a padded playpen! Also you cannot cancel transactions on Bitcoin Cash, so you can do 0 confirmation transactions.
False. 0-confirmation transactions were never safe, and are not safe now in so-called “Bitcoin Cash”. Also, Bitcoin transactions cannot be “cancelled”. Bitcoin now has a strictly opt-in feature, Replace-By-Fee (RBF), which permits clearly marked RBF unconfirmed transactions to be replaced. The majority of transactions do not use this feature; and anybody accepting 0-conf can distinguish RBF from non-RBF transactions, so as to wait at least 1 confirmation for the RBF ones. Non-RBF transactions cannot be “cancelled”. Thus, in Bitcoin, 0-conf is just as safe as it ever was—that is, not safe. To understand the problem with 0-conf, you must first discard all wrongheaded notions of “the mempool”. There is no such thing as “the mempool” (and if there were, then we wouldn’t need miners). Each and every node has a mempool, consisting of unconfirmed transactions it happens to have seen. Everybody’s mempools are each a bit different from each other. In both Bitcoin and “Bitcoin Cash”, a double-spender needs to get a transaction into the mempool of the node he wishes to fool, and a conflicting double-spend transaction into the mempool of the miner who mines the next block. Nothing on either network can affirmatively prevent this, although it is moderately difficult on both networks. BCH was done to prevent Segwit and the Bitcoin Cash lightning network will work in a different way.
Also you cannot cancel transactions on Bitcoin Cash, so you can do 0 confirmation transactions.
The only reason Bitcoin Cash works thus far is because nobody uses it. If it were to be working at scale (that is, full blocks) people running nodes would get kicked out of the network, eventually leading only to datacenters running the BCH network. Also 0 confirmation transactions would once again be nonviable, unless they keep raising the blocksize forever, guaranteeing there are only a couple nodes worldwide. At that point your coin is nothing but a Paypal with a token, and that is exactly what Roger Ver wants. BCH's whole scaling roadmap is an one way ticket to centralization, which is funny because this is what they say about LN. Well said, except that 0-conf was never viable; and that’s not a blocksize issue. It half-amuses, half-disgusts me that all the BCH Ver-sycophants are too stupid to ask one question: Why were Bitcoin fees low before? Well, that would be because it wasn’t popular! It was not so valuable; few people used it; thus, its blocks were almost empty. And why are BCH fees low now? (Crickets chirping.) Well now with coinbase support and BCH mining pairs, a lot of people are going to start using it. Wanna bet 1 BTC/5 BCH that the fees will remain low?
What a compelling argument for “Development & Technical Discussion”: Ignore the plain fact that fees will skyrocket in any blockchain with full blocks, and instead, toss off a wager you know nobody will take. Feels safe, doesn’t it? I’ll bet you don’t even have that much money—figuratively speaking, I mean. |
|
|
|
Full nodes can have their ledger of blocks that they verified. But who is using a non-mining node's ledger to mine on? Miners mine on the last block that is in the blockchain. The only way to get a block into the blockchain is to win the block by mining. If you are not mining you simply cannot vote on what blocks make it into the actual blockchain. The only person who's vote counts is the person who actually mined the block. So even if you have 99% of the hashpower but are so unlucky that you never win a block, you never actually have any say as to what makes it into the blockchain. the only way transactions are confirmed, is if they make it into the actual blockchain. thus the only people who "verify" transactions and actually have authority to enforce their verification, are miners.
What is so difficult to understand here? Invalid blocks are not “in the blockchain”. The only way to add a block to the blockchain, is to mine a valid block. Those who produce invalid blocks “never actually have any say as to what makes it into the blockchain.” ...I cannot but conclude that ir.hn is maliciously spreading misinformation. I write this post for the benefit of others. I am uninterested in arguing with somebody who is a deliberate liar and/or so manifestly ineducable as to appear braindead.
|
|
|
|
Both r/BTC and r/flatearth are equally cancerous. These individuals should stop reproducing.
Quoted because that makes me wish I had more available space in my signature. Bitmain has already been caught doing some shady shits in the past before the bcash split ... Go figure the terms: ASICBOOST and ANTBLEED scandals.
Some handy references: https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2017-9230https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-April/013996.htmlN.b. that the altcoin deceptively misnamed “Bitcoin Cash” is still wide open to covert exploitation of ASICBOOST. Add in the way its DAA could be gamed before its November hardfork, and there was in substantial essence an on-the-fly BCH premine with Jihan (Bitmain) getting up to a 30% cost advantage over other miners. That last advantage remains. Anybody who is not Jihan and mines BCH, is a patsy for Jihan.
Um yes they do. If 51% of miners want anything at all, they can fork everyone else off the blockchain that doesn't use their protocol.
This kind of uneducated nonsense will (hopefully) get you banned for a few days if you'll continue spreading misinformation on this board. If you are not trolling, you will have an incentive to read some good resources that explain Bitcoin's protocol (you can find a lot of quality stuff here: http://lopp.net/bitcoin.html), and if are trolling, it will be a good riddance. If I am wrong please explain my error instead of deliberately maliciously threatening me. Please explain why 51% of mining power cannot create a chain fork. You are deliberately, maliciously lying, and spamming your lies over multiple threads in a forum designated for well-informed technical discussion. But if you want to play stupid, go read my other recent reply, q.v.:[...]
General point: There is a common misconception about the role of miners. Miners have one, only one, and exactly one job: To provide the ordering of transactions in a Byzantine fault-tolerant manner (which in turn prevents double-spends). That’s what miners do. That is all miners do. Granted, it is an important and resource-intensive job; that’s why miners get paid for it. But that is the one and only security function of miners.
[...]
Full nodes do not blindly “follow the longest chain”. They follow the chain independently validated by them which has the highest total POW. A miner who produced invalid blocks would be wasting his hashrate, and likely risking widespread blacklisting of his IP address. It doesn’t matter if the invalid blocks steal money from Segwit transactions, steal money from old-style transactions, create 21 billion new coins, or are filled with gibberish from /dev/random. An invalid block is an invalid block, and shall be promptly discarded by all full nodes—period.
ir.hn is creating nonsensical non-arguments by exploiting the aforesaid misconception about the role of miners. After all the attempts others have made to explain on this and other points, I cannot but conclude that ir.hn is maliciously spreading misinformation. I write this post for the benefit of others. I am uninterested in arguing with somebody who is a deliberate liar and/or so manifestly ineducable as to appear braindead.
|
|
|
|
Please stop spreading misinformation. This "attack" is not just limited to segwit; miners could have chosen to not verify signatures anyways before segwit activated. Regardless of whether segwit is activated, if a miner produces an invalid block because it contains a transaction that does not have a valid signature (again, regardless of segwit or not), other non-mining full nodes on the network will reject that block and the miner will be wasting his time and electricity.
Lets say all the non-mining full nodes reject the block. Why would the miners care? the miners are the one creating the blockchain. You can cry foul all day long but unless you can vote with your hashpower on which chain is correct, you are yelling to the wind. ir.hn: You have no idea how Bitcoin works. You have no idea how Segwit works. Or at least, you are feigning gross ignorance. In this thread and others, intelligent and well-informed people have attempted to educate you. You shoot back with bare assertions and blatant misinformation. Enough.General point: There is a common misconception about the role of miners. Miners have one, only one, and exactly one job: To provide the ordering of transactions in a Byzantine fault-tolerant manner (which in turn prevents double-spends). That’s what miners do. That is all miners do. Granted, it is an important and resource-intensive job; that’s why miners get paid for it. But that is the one and only security function of miners. Of course, miners must validate each block they produce; if they didn’t, they would be unable to reliably produce valid blocks. But miners are not the parties responsible for enforcing validation on the network. Full nodes do that. Each individual full node does that, so as to provide better security for its owner; and all full nodes collectively do that, thus providing validation security for the whole network. Observe how here as everywhere, Bitcoin precisely aligns the individual’s selfish interest with the common good. Full nodes do not blindly “follow the longest chain”. They follow the chain independently validated by them which has the highest total POW. A miner who produced invalid blocks would be wasting his hashrate, and likely risking widespread blacklisting of his IP address. It doesn’t matter if the invalid blocks steal money from Segwit transactions, steal money from old-style transactions, create 21 billion new coins, or are filled with gibberish from /dev/random. An invalid block is an invalid block, and shall be promptly discarded by all full nodes— period. ir.hn is creating nonsensical non-arguments by exploiting the aforesaid misconception about the role of miners. After all the attempts others have made to explain on this and other points, I cannot but conclude that ir.hn is maliciously spreading misinformation. I write this post for the benefit of others. I am uninterested in arguing with somebody who is a deliberate liar and/or so manifestly ineducable as to appear braindead. |
|
|
|
Addendum, with apologies for the double-post: I see coins aging could be a viable on-chain scaling solution (scenario where coins that was not been moved for full halving period will automatically return to coinbase). If this will be the case - full nodes will only require to store blockchain for the past halving period since anything that remained unspent will transfer to the coinbase. This is drastic and, perhaps, cruel measure to take but that will also solve satoshi't billions, burned and lost coins problem.
I like how gmaxwell addresses this (bold/large text in the original) ( permalink): Here are a few of the ideas which I think would be most interesting to see in an altcoin. A few of these things may be possible as hardforking changes in Bitcoin too but some represent different security and economic tradeoffs and I don't think those could be ethically imposed on Bitcoin even if a simple majority of users wanted them (as they'd be forced onto the people who don't want them). (Some of these ideas are mine, some are from other people, some are old and obvious) [...] - UTXO aging
- Abandoned UTXO should be forgotten and become unspendable.
- Demurrage is one possible construction for this, but its economically and educationally complicated. Simpler would just be having a long but finite maximum. Unspendable coins could vanish forever, or be returned to mining— but returning the coins to mining is economically distorting and risks creating weird incentives ("I won't mine your txn because I want to collect its inputs as fees once you've been successfully denied")
- ATTENTION MORONS: THIS CANNOT BE DONE WITH BITCOIN. SEE THE LARGE BOLD TEXT AT THE TOP.
Good point about the “weird incentives”. Also, the “ATTENTION” part. |
|
|
|
It'a all about how fast block chain size approaches infinity with number of transactions/time approaches infinity and the ratio between those two derivatives.
I see coins aging could be a viable on-chain scaling solution (scenario where coins that was not been moved for full halving period will automatically return to coinbase). If this will be the case - full nodes will only require to store blockchain for the past halving period since anything that remained unspent will transfer to the coinbase. This is drastic and, perhaps, cruel measure to take but that will also solve satoshi't billions, burned and lost coins problem.
This idea has a name, demurrage. It’s not by any means your original invention; it is regularly proposed and shot down in various places. It’s a horrible idea, which will never be implemented in Bitcoin, period; and the reasons you give are the worst possible reasons for it. (Some people make economic arguments for demurrage, which I ignore here as irrelevant.) Since this will never happen in Bitcoin, I suggest that you should go put all your money in Freicoin (FRC), a coin created by people who make economic arguments for demurrage. Freicoin is currently ranked #675 on coinmarketcap.com, with a current market cap of $485,681 (27 BTC). (Current Bitcoin market cap: $307,305,229,550.) The idea that you should need to spend your money to not lose it—well, that idea is exactly as popular as it should be. Please be advised: - As explained earlier on this thread, the accumulated size of the blockchain is the least problem for scaling. Solving that would solve nothing. No, it’s not “all about how fast block chain size approaches infinity with number of transactions/time approaches infinity and the ratio between those two derivatives.” No, that’s not how Bitcoin works. For starters, go read up on the UTXO set—for starters.
- There is no “problem” with “[Satoshi’s] billions, burned and lost coins”. First of all, it is a total non-problem—even for coins which seem to be really lost, such as those sent to 1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE, 1111111111111111111114oLvT2, or 1QLbz7JHiBTspS962RLKV8GndWFwi5j6Qr. Consider by analogy the scenario of a shipload of gold which gets sunk in waters too deep for retrieval, effectually reducing the world’s gold supply. Does that hurt the value or usefulness of gold as money? Of course not! But that’s not even the most important point: Absent any evidence, who the hell are you to peremptorily decree that a coin is lost?
Do you know what happened to Satoshi and his private keys? I hate it when I see people salivating over Satoshi’s coins, declaring them a “problem”. What if he laser-engraved the private keys in corrosion-resistant nickel alloy plates and secreted them in a treasure cave for the benefit of his posterity, the future Nakamoto Royal Line? What if he’s still around, lurking in the forum or posting under another nym?
More generally, who the hell are you to find a “problem” in the unknown numbers of people who have simply made long-term plans? As opposed to children, adults measure “long-term” starting in decades. There are people out there who have moved a portion of their assets into a Bitcoin cold wallet, and written the BIP39 seed phrase therefor into a sealed Last Will and Testament. What makes you think you can steal their children’s inheritance?
If you think the foregoing comes off as harsh, stop and consider that Bitcoin’s value derives from its promise of safe, secure, stable currency in which everybody can participate without anybody’s permission, according to a set of rules declared in advance and known fairly to all. Any change to those fundamental rules which seized away people’s coins would instantly destroy Bitcoin altogether—which is why it will never happen. No, I haven’t been harsh; not by half. Firstly, not everyone sees that as a problem and I think you would struggle to find consensus for stealing peoples' property just because you believe they aren't using it when it's been there for a while. And secondly, the very act of moving idle coins around and reintroducing them into circulation would result in more transactions, which places more burden on the network. I have coins I haven't moved in four years and they're not going anywhere, thank you. This sounds very much like altcoin territory as it likely decimates Bitcoin's predictable supply ethos when "new" money would come flooding back into the economy every halving.
Not to mention the miners that grabbed the first block after that got approved could completely fuck the economy if the coinbase reward included Satoshi's stash along with all the other coins presumed lost. It would literally be the biggest block reward since crypto was invented. Potentially worth trillions of dollars depending on what the price is at the time. Those miners would be newly anointed Gods on Earth and everyone would lose confidence as it all comes crashing down. Think it through to conclusion, please.
The less-unreasonable demurrage proposals don’t throw giant lumps back into the coinbase, for this obvious reason. Anyway, it’s irrelevant to Bitcoin. Aside: To find a private key associated with a public key Hash160 of all zeroes would be worth the current exchange equivalent of about $1.2 million. It is highly probable that such a key exists—that many such keys exist!—though I myself would not try searching therefor in the public directory of all private keys. Are those coins “burned”? This is a philosophical question, though not a very deep one. The same applies as for the infamous BitcoinEater: There is an overwhelming probability that many, many private keys exist for that; though it’s worth less than the all-zeroes case. For backup and protection of your long-term assets, among other use cases, I’ve been toying on the mental whiteboard with a little idea involving secret sharing and similar magic. Ping me if curious. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is already too expensive and definitely a giant bubble, not question about that. I'm looking at Mycelium wallet and just can't believe that "normal" transaction fee is 16.89 USD/byte?! Add in/out fees (for example ATM fees 6%+, LocalBitcoin premium approx. 7%, bank wire at exchanges approx. min $20) When I started using BTC it was free to send them, after that it was symbolic, now... it's not even competitive to classic payment systems.
How are fees relevant to the question of whether or not Bitcoin’s valuation is in a bubble? Do you know how Bitcoin works? Also, Bitcoin fees are not denominated in USD/byte. Leaving aside spam attacks for the moment, fees are a proxy for network demand—in turn, a reasonable proxy for estimating demand for Bitcoin. Transactions used to be free or cheap, because Bitcoin itself was widely considered to be a worthless toy. This meant that blocks were almost empty. What you are really complaining about is that Bitcoin is now valuable—not some supposition that it be falsely valued. Blocks being full and fees being bid up are data points indicating the opposite of a bubble. Also, what is the relevance of fees from other services (ATMs, LBC, bank fees (!))? How can you blame Bitcoin for your bank’s wire transfer fees?
If I get a dollar for every person that will say bitcoin is a bubble then I'll be a millionaire by now. Bitcoin is not a bubble and I believe that its price now is cheaper compared on what it will be in the future.
If I had a satoshi for every time I’ve heard it said that Bitcoin is in a bubble, then in the future, I would be richer than you with your dollars. Zing. |
|
|
|
In your own words, why do you think BITCOIN is about to burst? Or, at which level it will burst?
This is a textbook example of begging the question. Tell me, have you stopped beating your wife?For my part, (1) I don’t think there is a bubble at all; therefore, (2) I don’t think there is such a thing as would burst. I’ve heard the term “hypermonetization” suggested to explain Bitcoin’s extraordinary growth; but I am lukewarm about that. I’m studying the evidence and working out my own theory. Also, (2) I have never beaten my wife—(1) assuming I have a wife; here, that is compound question-begging just like yours! That's true. The question had the presumption that bitcoin really is a bubble. Most of the bitcoin hodlers and users don't believe that. Obviously, bitcoin has a lot more potential to grow in the future and therefore wouldn't 'pop' very soon. With that being said, it won't burst anytime soon. The price will just continue to go up and grow even more. OP didn't even cite any reasons why it's a bubble and why it would burst - you simply assumed that it will. I am surprised that nobody else picked up on this. OP’s question-begging was exceptionally blatant. Crude. Artless. Real-life examples from professional politicians and marketers are usually much subtler, and delivered with finesse. For those in this thread who need an explanation: “Begging the question” is a commonplace rhetorical sleight of hand and informal fallacy, used to force acceptance of unexamined assumptions. A popular textbook example is, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” Either a “yes” or a “no” constitutes an admission of wife-beating. The unstated question being begged is, “Have you ever beaten your wife?”, with an assumed answer of yes.The only appropriate response is to reject the question entirely, and demand examination of its assumptions.N.b. that the term “begging the question” is oft misapplied, especially in Internet discussions. Here, I have applied it properly.
The real question is: when will people start to realize that this is not a bubble?
Calling Bitcoin a bubble is like calling the internet or smartphones a fad.
As I was just saying on another thread: Those who remember the 90s, also remember how some people explicitly compared the Web to Dutch tulip mania. Amazon.com was a “bubble” because a “web site” is not a real thing (just as Bitcoin isn’t “real”). Nobody will shop at a “website”. People want to go to the store, and pick things up in their hands. It’s a fad, driven only by hype and market speculation. It will fail. You’re investing in tulip bulbs.
By the end of the 90s, right before the shakeout which mass-exterminated the dot-com equivalent of ICOs, some financial advice columns were filled with mini-lectures about “tulip bulbs”.
I myself pick on Amazon now, because I remember specifically how some self-styled contrarians were obsessed with smug sneers at Amazon. Two decades later, I suppose the same people are now smug about sending tulip bulbs to Bitcoiners. Well, they need to make themselves feel better somehow.
|
|
|
|
Also when was this '90s tulip ponzi scheme? You're off by a few centuries friend.
Sigh. I explained this upthread: OP is advising you that Amazon.com stock is Dutch Tulip Mania, by analogy. If you bought Amazon.com stock in the 90s, then you are a fool and probably bankrupt. That whole “web” thing is just a fad. See how sound OP’s investment advice is? Can you sign me up for some? I'd love to get a basket (or something along those lines) of tulips one day. As a surprise, you know.
Actually, this is a good idea: We should all sign ourselves up to receive tulips. With a bit of luck, this will cause a shortage of tulip bulbs. Then, speculators will see the rising prices of tulip bulbs at market—oh joy, this promises to be fun! |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is now in bubble phase..reminding everyone of the Tulips ponzi scheme bubble of the 90's
Use the site to send symbolic message !(when the bitcoin bubble pops)
If you really think that we are in a giant bubble just like you are saying, why are you on a signature campaign? it makes no sense. if you do not like cryptos, then what the fuck are you posting in there to get paid? You are just a scumbag. Hah! Methinks the byword is, “Do as I say, not as I am paid to say in my signature.”
you are an idiot if you think bitcoin is not in a bubble
I’ll take you up on that: Please show me where I’m an idiot. I think Bitcoin is not in a bubble. This is not to say that the exchange rate couldn’t crash. A large country could ban Bitcoin. There are organized, powerful cliques continuing to attempt to wreck Bitcoin through a profusion of scam forks. The mass media contain elements strongly opposed to Bitcoin; they’d love to find, twist, or fabricate some headline story which would scare the public away. As all things of this Earth, Bitcoin has risks. But there is currently no bubble. A bubble occurs when false, flimsy demand is created by speculators, far in excess of real demand. Whereas current demand is strong, even excluding the admittedly rampant cheap speculation; and most importantly, it is reasonable to expect future demand will exceed current demand by several orders of magnitude. So—where am I an idiot? (Here quoting the rest for context, so as to not misrepresent you.) but you are an even bigger idiot if you believe what FUDsters are saying when they are talking about a bubble.
it is not even half as bad as they are showing it to be! they are ignoring all the adoption of past year and all the new people and all the money that has been coming in and close their eyes and repeat certain keywords such as bubble and Tulips...
Bitcoin is now in bubble phase..reminding everyone of the Tulips ponzi scheme bubble of the 90's
What is this ' Tulips ponzi scheme bubble of the 90's',that you are talking about? I think he means Amazon.com. Everybody knows that stupid “web site” will never turn a profit. That whole “web” thing was a fad. |
|
|
|
you yourself create them by hooking your gold storage wallet into a “payment channel”.
They require no trust, and impose no counterparty risk.
They are mathematically verifiable to represent actual gold; they are not promises to pay gold;
they can be magically transformed back into gold at any time, whenever you wish to do so.
These claims are the exact issue I need to research to gain technical understanding. Specifically, trustlessness and mathematically verifiable. For a good overview, please see the Lightning Network whitepaper (PDF). The security of Lightning relies on the property that in the event of any disagreement between transacting parties, either party can slam the payment channel closed by committing its current state to the blockchain. The blockchain has the final word; parties always have instantly available recourse to the blockchain; thus, the system is trustlessness. While the channel is open, it allows the parties to cooperatively keep a private ledger of their own transactions with each other (including transactions being routed on another party’s behalf, from another channel). Imagine that you and I kept a pen-and-paper accounting ledger of our Bitcoin-denominated transactions with each other— but the ledger has the magic property that after every mutually agreed update thereof, each of us has the right bits to claim our coins on the blockchain. That’s Lightning, in a nutshell. In your opinion, are people who use these exchanges right now “really [using] Bitcoin”? My opinion is, not really—not in the fullest sense; though they can still transact in actual Bitcoin with people who really use Bitcoin per the motto, “be your own bank”. At least they can, if the bank deigns to so permit. I hear that Coinbase closes the accounts of people who send to or receive from addresses disliked by Coinbase.
We agree that these people are not REALLY using bitcoin. Are they doing so because they are noobs and not up to speed on best practices in crypto? Are they aware of Mt. Gox but simply trust coinbase because they are FDIC insured on the USD side? Maybe they are just in it for the speculative gains and not for the underlying tech. Or perhaps they are sensitive to the friction of on chain transaction and require more liquidity. Either way, they will need a good alternative. Perhaps the alternative is off-chain scaling. I hate to break it to you, but the vast majority of ostensible humans are actually mewling ovine anthropoids who couldn’t care less about freedom, privacy, security, self-empowerment, or “being your own bank”. Their very noblest aspiration is to be kept warm, well-fed, and above all, entertained. N.b. use of the passive, to be kept.To illustrate, I distill here the essence of a conversation I once had with a person of far above-average intelligence—actually, a man with a science Ph.D.: “Bitcoin gives you ultimate power over yourself, and ultimate responsibility for yourself. Of course, these two principles are inseparable. You need no one’s permission to use the system. Nobody can freeze or seize your coins. If you mess up and lose your private keys, there is no higher authority with an override switch.” (I pause, awaiting the response of being impressed.) “So if I lose it, it’s gone?” “Yes. Bitcoin has no mercy. It is for smart, responsible people. But care of your coins is not rocket science; you can keep yourself safe with a userfriendly hardware wallet, plus a paper backup of your seed phrase locked in a safe and written into your last will and testament.” “If I lose it, it’s just gone forever? I don’t like that.” (Crickets chirping.) Out of respect for the sacred memory of our prophet Satoshi Nakamoto, I did not mention Coinbase. Specifically, the notion that the original white paper was a concept. A brilliant concept that requires iteration. The store of value vs peer to peer cash identity issue is largely a matter of branding. If we continue to brand Bitcoin as both, we are forced to deliver a solution to the cup of coffee problem that exhibits virtually all characteristics of on chain transacting. If we establish that Bitcoin as it was designed, is truly a settlement layer, we can brand the new layers accordingly.
As a matter of my own original thinking (not anything I read anywhere), I myself have taken to thinking in terms of a Bitcoin ecosystem:- Bitcoin, the Satoshi network, is the foundation.
- Bitcoin, the abstract currency unit, is created ex nihilo from within that foundation, secured by it, and ultimately controlled by it.
- Bitcoin, the abstract currency unit, can/will also power what I think of as “Bitcoin applications” on additional layers which build up and outward from the foundation horizontally (sidechains) and vertically (Lightning).
Distinguishing these concepts helps think clearly about the matter. That was off-the-cuff; I should try to draw up a more formalized, more rigorous taxonomy. /* XXX TODO */ 0. To keep on-chain transaction processing decentralized, outside the control of any person, entity, corporation, cartel, clique, or government. This in turn requires that any person of modest means must be able to run a full node. It is unimportant that the “little people” be able to use on-chain transactions to buy cups of coffee. It is an imperative absolute rule of Bitcoin that the “little people” must be empowered to run full nodes. If a full node were to require more resources than can be provided with an ordinary PC and a residential Internet connection, then that would not be Bitcoin anymore.
This is another issue I have yet to fully understand. How much security does a full node truly offer with no hashing power behind it? There is a common misconception that miners provide the security of the network. Miners have only and exactly one job: To determine the ordering of transactions in a Byzantine fault-tolerant manner, which in turn solves the double-spend problem. That is a very important job, and also quite resource-intensive; that is why miners get paid for it. Nevertheless, it is only one component in a machine with many moving parts. You may often hear that “miners validate transactions”. This is a trivial half-truth: Of course, miners must independently validate transactions so as to reliably produce valid blocks. But miners are not the power responsible for enforcing the validity of transactions across the network. Full nodes do that. Each and every full node is responsible for validation: Validation of transactions, and also validation of consensus rules. A node’s owner gains additional individual security from independently validating the blockchain; and the network as a whole gains the security of all nodes independently validating the blockchain. Observe how here as everywhere else, Bitcoin aligns the individual’s selfish interest with the common interest. A node owner protects the whole network by protecting his own security, first and foremost. The power of nodes is the reason why many ignorantly-proposed attacks by miners simply would not work. For example, a persistent mendacious bit of FUD against Segwit is the allegation that miners could steal all the funds from Segwit transactions. Well, I guess they could try, by creating a block which says “pay me all the money”. For that matter, a miner could create a block which pays himself 21 million (or 21 billion) bitcoins ex nihilo. Likewise, a miner could also mine a block filled with gibberish from /dev/random; and any miner could produce a block 8MB or 1GB in size. But these blocks would be invalid, and would thus be rejected by all full nodes. To nodes, it would be as if such blocks do not exist; as far as Bitcoin is concerned, they don’t. Miners who tried such nonsense “attacks” would only be throwing away their hashpower (plus probably getting their IP addresses widely blacklisted). Contra popular superstition, full nodes do not follow “the longest chain”. They follow the valid chain with the highest total POW. SPV clients do almost blindly follow “the longest chain”, which is why they are vulnerable to being misled onto forkchains (among other nasty attacks).
Lets look at that gold analogy some more.
The situation is you have one person hand delivering gold from Rome to Naples. This is bitcoin.
On chain scaling: Person makes the gold into jewelry so they can carry more, they can wear a bunch of chains and wear a bunch of rings etc.
Off chain scaling: The person carries gold IOU's so the gold doesn't actually have to move at all.
Clone scaling: You get 15 people to carry the gold instead of one person.
On-chain transactions are most analogous to physical exchange of bullion (coins and bars), not jewellery. Yes, off-chain transactions are more like gold notes—but magical, trustless notes, as I said! There is no such thing as “clone scaling”. That’s more akin to eschewing gold, and using silver instead. Or in this case, brass. I would rather keep and trade my wealth in car wash tokens than in so-called “clones”; at least, I could get my car clean that way. Anybody advocating forks, or this “clone” euphemism therefor, is in need of a dire warning: I emphasize this, for good reason. I seem to be throwing around that link several times per day, of late. Bitcoin derives its monetary value from social factors, which are enabled but not created by its technical infrastructure. The social part requires that there can be only one Bitcoin, unique and undiluted. This notion of so-called “clone scaling” is absolutely wrong from a social and monetary perspective; but from a technical perspective, it’s one of those ideas which is “not right, and not even wrong”. It does not make sense at all. That is why I seem to have ignored it above. |
|
|
|
I don’t know of any special-purpose hardware to generate Curve25519 PGP keys.
me too ... only general-purpose hardware such as ARM[1] stm32f103 Arm Holdings (Arm) is a British multinational semiconductor and software design company, owned by SoftBank Group ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SoftBank_Group) Well, I would think that any general-purpose hardware can do Curve25519, or any other computable algorithm. But thanks for the tip. With the questions you’re asking, I wonder if you looked at my keys and noticed my C is separate from S, E, and A. Between 2009 and 2014, SoftBank's market capitalization increased by 557%, the fourth largest relative increase among the 100 companies with the highest market capitalization in the world over that period.[10]
Oh, no. Softbank must be a bubble!
you people keep calling bitcoin a bubble for years. even when price was so much lower than this which makes me laugh to think about it! and i bet half of those who call bitcoin a bubble and compare it with Tulips don't even know what they are comparing bitcoin to!
Bitcoin is a bubble at $1200/BTC. You were a fool if you bought some imaginary Internet money at such a high price. A fool! Don’t buy at $300/BTC. It is only a speculative game, no better than casino gambling; you will lose all your money. Seriously, if you think “Bit Coin” is worth $100/BTC, just wait for the bubble to pop and you will see how stupid you are. Didn’t you ever hear of tulip bulbs? [Subject: can BTC ever return to significantly below $100?]
I've seen allot of people here and on reddit speculating that the value of BTC is likely to compensate back to much lower than current rates, like around $50. I personally don't see it, what with the whole world jumping on the band wagon, but I'm new to this.
Does anyone still think that there is a reason for it to return to a lower value other than government intervention or the 51% problem?
theoretical answer: YES IT CAN.
what the rest of the forum thinks: NO!!!! it will be over $50000000 in 3 minutes.
my guess: maybe.
30 (pessimist) to 60 (optimist) is what I expect too, long term. The buying sentiment is simply fading away: https://www.google.com/trends/explore?hl=en#q=btc-e%2C%20bitstamp&date=today%201-m&cmpt=qDitto for mtgox, but I think these smaller exchanges are more relevant for buying sentiment because they are less likely to be searched by someone who simply wants to know the "price" of bitcoins. Plotting the exchanges also addresses the "people don't search for bitcoin anymore because they know what it is" argument. This current dead cat is caused by people who were incentivized by the first run-up, sent their money to the exchanges, but the ddos and the attacks popped the bubble prematurely, before they could buy in. So they are seeing this as a chance to buy cheap, and the positive evolution confirms their expectation and fuels the greed. Trouble is, there are no greater fools filling the ranks from behind, people who were not caught in the initial whirlpool have seen the risk and will simply stay away. Hmmm... It's always possible to go below $100. Even significantly. However, everyone should be happy it's still below $1000. Not buying at any price now will only lead to tears when we are the new billionaires.
Dear reader: Do you wish that weren’t a matter of hindsight for you? Yes, I know of the market turmoil later that year. But in retrospect, the only lesson to be thus had is this: People who panic-sold when the Mt. Gox failure crashed a (small, immature) market, are now crying; and those who “ hodled” are now laughing. As with any other sound investment, those who calmly hold for the long term will perform better than those who get burnt trying to make a get-rich-quick speculative daytrade. That’s not a revelation.
The tulip mania that resulted into that famous historic bubble did not happened in the 90s but in the 1600s.
You needn’t lecture on history. Those who remember the 90s, also remember how some people explicitly compared the Web to Dutch tulip mania. Amazon.com was a “bubble” because a “web site” is not a real thing (just as Bitcoin isn’t “real”). Nobody will shop at a “website”. People want to go to the store, and pick things up in their hands. It’s a fad, driven only by hype and market speculation. It will fail. You’re investing in tulip bulbs. By the end of the 90s, right before the shakeout which mass-exterminated the dot-com equivalent of ICOs, some financial advice columns were filled with mini-lectures about “tulip bulbs”. I myself pick on Amazon now, because I remember specifically how some self-styled contrarians were obsessed with smug sneers at Amazon. Two decades later, I suppose the same people are now smug about sending tulip bulbs to Bitcoiners. Well, they need to make themselves feel better somehow. The debate whether Bitcoin is now in a bubble and whether that bubble is about to burst soon will never be settled unless what predicted will occur. So all we have to do is wait and for us Bitcoin loyalists we are hoping that Bitcoin can be different and this time the market will behave differently. One thing for sure is that we have to be prepared and those newbies in the trade should educate themselves so they will not be shocked come what may. There will always be risks associate with anything we go into and Bitcoin is never an exemption to that rule. Those people who took the risks will reap the immense benefits if the gamble will paid off. Good luck to all of us.
I generally agree with what you say there. But do you truly believe that the types who buy in excitement and sell in panic could be in any way educable? I suspect that’s what you mean by “newbies”—the ones who can be shocked. For Bitcoin newbies who have a bit more savvy, I’d prefer to educate them on how Bitcoin provides freedom, and why bitcoins are a fortune they should wish to leave to their great-grandchildren. |
|
|
|
Won't the CME investments make it stronger?
I am really not sure if its gonna brust this soon...
*CME is bringing investors
*We have a lot of hard forks this month
I think this is for sure that the bubble is going to stay in place till the next year or maybe more than that
Why do you speak of the hardforks as if beneficial to Bitcoin? The hardforks are attempts to attack Bitcoin, a negative. Of course, when Bitcoin crushes these scam forks, it will show itself to be stronger than the attackers. In the long term, that’s a positive. It’s also (sort of) a positive that well-funded attackers are willing to spend money trying to trash the Bitcoin name and market. At least, this demonstrates that Bitcoin is important. Mostly, I see CME as a sign of broader social acceptance, and the beginnings of mainstream financial acceptance. Those are altogether a double-edged sword. But on the whole, I think events are moving in a good direction for Bitcoin. I don’t see any bubble at all. Someday, everybody will want some Bitcoin. The supply is definitionally limited: If there ever could be more than 21 million currency units, then it’s not Bitcoin. Current demand is still orders of magnitude under possible demand. Where do you see a bubble in this? |
|
|
|
If you be wealthy, then you can move to a small town and buy a certain amount of instant goodwill by, e.g., donating money to build a park. But you cannot buy the status of having lived there twenty years. The difference ought be obvious.
Myself, if I could purchase higher membership ranks, then I would never want to obtain any higher membership rank—by purchase, or otherwise; for it would be worthless.
That is a well thought out analogy, imo. Don't be surprised if I use that somewhere else sometime, lol, it just seemed to sum up my perceptions of it very well :). Thanks. Feel free! By my calculation, I should rank up from Newbie to Junior Member when Activity Period #1251 dawns at 19:00:00 UTC today. The patience is worthwhile; I’ll toast the moment, as a rite of passage. Perhaps someday, I could be a Hero—or even Legendary. Cheers! |
|
|
|
If you truly believe in cryptocurrencies you must be a genius. You will get paid for those tulips and they will be never shipped. My respect.
I don’t believe in “cryptocurrencies”. I believe in Bitcoin. I say this, having lost a substantial amount on a decent altcoin. It was not a scammy one, I did not purchased it for speculation; I liked its technological innovation. What I received was a very expensive lesson about Bitcoin: Bitcoin is not only a technology; it’s a sociological phenomenon.
Genesis 3:19
“By the power of your private keys, you will hold your coins until you die; and though dust you may become, numbers are forever.” Yes, call me a believer in Bitcoin, a preacher of Bitcoin, a Segwit witness for Bitcoin!
yep, I follow a bit the cypherpunk list on Curve255 ... when I asked was because I was kind more interested on the hardware that generate that curve ( I also do Apologies for the 'offtopic' ( of course related to bitcoin it is not 'off topic' at all ) The were on question on why distrust RSA.... btw nice to review Ron Rivest, co-inventor of RSA "RSA-129" posed a challenge experts said would take 40 quadrillion years to solve - but took 17.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQw124CtvO0 ;) Featuring Ron Rivest, co-inventor of RSA Thanks for the link. I’ll need to watch that later. Assumptions about the difficulty of factoring large integers always made me nervous. I don’t mean rationally nervous: More a gut-hunch, spine-tingling kind of reaction. The significant factoring advances by mathematicians over the years and decades speak more to my brain, as does the persistent overestimation by RSA advocates of RSA’s strength at particular key sizes. I don’t know of any special-purpose hardware to generate Curve25519 PGP keys. |
|
|
|
10000x or some X times is to make my point of abnormal growth ..with some exaggeration
I am not against bitcoin,but the rogue manipulators/traders who will do more harm to bitcoins, than good
You can not compare amazon to bitcoin..
Amazon is regulated and do not pose any threat to Govt..where crypto currencies are opposite
(I am not against bitcoins or blockchain or the technology ..bit against speculative trading)
Fair enough. In principle, I am also against speculative trading; though I certainly do not complain about appreciation of my bitcoins’ value! I am in Bitcoin primarily for reasons of ideology. I know full well that not every person in the entire world can get rich by applying some magic formula, ICO scammers’ advertisements to the contrary notwithstanding. But 10x–20x growth in the course of a year is not ipso facto indicative of a bubble. It’s unusual, to be sure. Still, in growth per time, that’s five orders of magnitude different from 10000x in a fortnight. Again, the comparison to Amazon applies: The major web companies, the ones which survived the 2000 shake-out, have had points where they experienced >10x actual growth in a year. Had Amazon “grown” 10000x in two weeks—well, there would no longer be any such company. I do share your concern about certain apparent political collision courses, perhaps inevitable. That’s why I try to inform people about the historical incidence when gold was banned for four decades in the U.S. But rapid growth of the Bitcoin market enhances its robustness against such potential attacks; whereas comparisons to tulips seem only to befit calls for instant regulation, to “protect people from themselves”. I also don’t think that regulatory concerns negate the comparison to Amazon. Amazon also faced regulatory concerns, such as the enmity of states which were losing sales tax. On this, they eventually joined the enemy, so to speak. I hope the analogy is not too perfect here. If you have a large holding from 2011, then just enjoy it and support Bitcoin’s further development and social acceptance. This last is important, because Bitcoin is more than a technology: Bitcoin and its value are a sociological phenomenon. As the latter, Bitcoin does have an excellent prospect for surmounting all obstacles and becoming ubiquitous. If that happens, then in ten years, $20k/BTC will look like your 2011 exchange rates. Calling for smugness about tulip bulbs cuts in the opposite direction; it hampers social acceptance. It’s just cheap FUD. If you’re such a long-time Bitcoiner, I think you can do better than that!
somehow ( I am think as scientist ) all that debate about growth reminds me 'machine learning' and the famous "Iris flower data set" ...
Interesting thought. I will need to chew on that one for awhile. Thanks. ps-> nullius how did you get a PGP Ed25519: 0xC .... ?
GnuPG supports ECC since version 2.1. Requires options `--full-gen-key --expert` (or noninteractive key generation as I used). NIST and Brainpool curves are supported; but also: “For many people the NIST and also the Brainpool curves have an doubtful origin and thus the plan for GnuPG is to use Bernstein’s Curve 25519 as default. GnuPG 2.1.0 already comes with support for signing keys using the Ed25519 variant of this curve. This has not yet been standardized by the IETF (i.e. there is no RFC) but we won’t wait any longer....” Much PGP software does not yet support my Curve25519 keys. My .sig reminds me of the 90s, when people had both PGP2/PGP5 keys. In the mass market, interestingly, Keybase can use my ECC keys just fine. I’m not sure if that’s a good thing. (Apologies for the offtopic discussion. It’s an important issue, especially when asked by a GnuPG supporter!) |
|
|
|
When anything grows 10000x times over fortnight,it is not called growth..It must be a disease or bubble !
Either I’ve been under a rock, or you’re incompetent at maths. When did Bitcoin have growth of “10000x times over fortnight”? Seriously: Growth of ten thousandfold in two weeks?(I see you conveniently ignored what I said about Amazon and the Web in 1999.) Isn't it a bad image for people to link Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency with the Tulip scenario?
Um, yes. Congratulations, you understood the original poster’s point. For reasons unknown, BlackRock is trying to make a bad image for Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
