If Gavin is worried about not being able to fork after the next potential burst why not apply Justus idea [1], too much coding with not enough time?
[1]https://bitcoinism.liberty.me/2015/02/09/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-2-price-discovery/
Because who pays for that coding? And who can be sure that the proposal, even if completed and tested, will be adopted? Andresen's position seems to be: (i) he takes responsibility for coding and testing a solution that as far as he can see takes care of the issue well into the future (ii) he does this with sufficient time for others to analyze it, so that, whatever else happens (iii) there is at least one safe fall-back option. Can he guarantee his proposal is optimal? Of course not. It is just quite reassuring for it to be out. All you said is correct independently from the adopted solution. The chief scientist is in charge and he's doing what he think is the best compromise between techinal and political aspects to get the changes accepted. i got it. All come down to accountability and feasibility. And I want to underline that I really do appreciate the way is moving both on the technical and political ground. What I think is tha Justus' proposal has solid theoretical economic background, a brilliant way to introduce a price discovery mechanism for the P2P network and, more to the point, it kills to birds with one stone introducing an economic incentive for people to run full nodes. |
|
|
|
This is my fundamental disagreement with Gavin's proposal. It not only makes no attempt to figure it out, it takes away the impetus to do so for 20 years, when we have had Bitcoin for only a third of that time. This is what makes it such a jaw-droppingly misguided proposal unworthy of someone in his position.
Instead we are expected to undertake new risks without even the promise of the improvements needed to resolve the issue in either a long term manner (using a measured rate based on block-size need) or a permanent manner (removal of the limit based on it no longer being necessary).
Catching up after a week's absence. So fully agree with this sentiment. The change locks bitcoin onto an automatic 20 year ramp to essentially zero limit. None of us know for sure how this will play out. The only reason I can think Gavin would want to do this is maybe a fear that after the next jump in price and usage, bitcoin might start to become too large to effectively fork/change, and so it is best to make a change today that locks in future changes to remove the limit as a minimum bitcoin needs. Gavin's view seems to be that the market will figure it out. I agree it will, but believe it will figure itself out by becoming more centralized with a majority of nodes running in cloud datacenters (I already only run my full node in AWS). So I don't worry that bitcoin will technically break, but worry that the immediate solutions the market finds will make bitcoin less decentralized and easier for centralized governments to attack through regulation. I'd prefer bitcoin stay smaller if that is what it needs to do to remain more decentralized. If Gavin is worried about not being able to fork after the next potential burst why not apply Justus idea [1], too much coding with not enough time? [1]https://bitcoinism.liberty.me/2015/02/09/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-2-price-discovery/ |
|
|
|
Decentralized exchanges will destroy any fungability worries because there will be no way to choose what kind of coins get traded to you or that you can trade to someone else.
On that matter I've always wondered if a decentralized exchange could work for something else than decentralized crypticurrencies. I.e. I'm not able to imagine such a market place where you can trade fiat for btc (in both ways) in a "decentralized" fashion. Am I missing something obvious? |
|
|
|
At first I thought having green or black lists was a bad thing. After more thinking I came to the conclusion that the future WILL have them. They will be needed just like we have black and green IP lists. This isn't wrong and it will have a minimal impact on the majority.
Fungibility is an essential characteristic of money. Actually bitcoin hasn't a perfect fungibility due to the nature of the blockchain. Marking/listing coins will definitely remove it from bitcoin and this is not a "good thing" TM, no matter of much thoughts you put into it. |
|
|
|
Joking aside I just want to underline how this kind of ties could be suddenly cut for a reason or another.
Sure. If that kind of business was easy and straigthforward, everyone would be doing it. The particular way in which we do it makes it so that each of our customers has an account directly with the financial partner, which makes cutting the tie on a whim much harder for the bank. It protects our customers a lot in the sense that the bank can't simply and suddenly freeze our funds on a BS pretext, they have to answer to each and every customer individually. As of today there are only two entities doing this properly, Paymium, and bitcoin.de very well done. kudos to Paymium and bitcoin.de then. |
|
|
|
FWIW I am relatively new here, though, after having read the article, I can't avoid noticing that Paymium/Bitcoin-central
offers this services not directly but through a chain of partnership (Paymium -> Aqoba -> Crédit Mutuel Arkea).
I dunno if it still applies, the article's quite old as it was published on Dec 2012, but if it's the case I've seen more than once the
"Finance industry" fighting back trying cutting links between exchanges and the entity entitled of the actual money transmitter
license. I'm not saying that's the case, though.
Your reading and comprehension are accurate. Now that you've validated my skills I feel better. Joking aside I just want to underline how this kind of ties could be suddenly cut for a reason or another. |
|
|
|
LOL just wait til regulators comes after your piddly little Paymium services, just like how they came after Charlie Shrem, just like how they're blocking the Winklevoss ETF, just like how they went after every single money transmitter...
You must be new here. FWIW I am relatively new here, though, after having read the article, I can't avoid noticing that Paymium/Bitcoin-central offers this services not directly but through a chain of partnership (Paymium -> Aqoba -> Crédit Mutuel Arkea). I dunno if it still applies, the article's quite old as it was published on Dec 2012, but if it's the case I've seen more than once the "Finance industry" fighting back trying cutting links between exchanges and the entity entitled of the actual money transmitter license. I'm not saying that's the case, though. |
|
|
|
Yesterday daily volume, considering only the 4 (*) western major exchanges, was more or less 90K btc . If you take into in consideration also far-east (read: chinese) counterpart you'll reach a grand total of 520K btc. So 50K represents less than 1/10th of the daily exchanged bitcoin even in a depressed market phase like this one. That said, draw your conclusions. (*) Bitfinex, Bitstamp, BTC-e and Coinbase |
|
|
|
By the way, part 2 will be out... soonish. Great! I'm waiting for it eagerly. Monday. I'm going to let a proofreader go over this one rather than simply publishing the moment I finished writing the draft. Firstly, I really want to thank you for what you've done here. You've perfectly formalized (and theoretically solved) a problem that was in the back of my mind since I've properly understood the bitcoin network topology. Secondly, as of your knowledge, are the core devs aware of this issue? Do they agree with the given definition of the problem? And more to the point, is there a plan to develop something along the line of your proposed solution? By the way I've just discovered, thanks to 2112, the existence of a 2012 paper about this specific matter (introduce economic incentive to relay information through p2p bitcoin network) titled "On Bitcoin and Red Balloons": http://research.microsoft.com/apps/pubs/?id=156072 (1) I've gave just a quick glance to the paper and I don't even look to their proposed solution. I've just mention it as a proof that the issue at hand is a long standing one. (1) here http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/socialalgs/bitcoin-red-balloons.aspx you can find a brief overview/summary of the paper. |
|
|
|
i have leaved bitcoin-central a long time ago
So why do you have a 24h old account? don't get angry about it, it's the way normal people can change username at will without spending 50 btc to becoming a donator. |
|
|
|
Sidechains can not be done in a trustless manner without a hard fork of the Bitcoin protocol.
really? Technically speaking as far as I understand a soft fork should suffice to introduce the new needed OPCODE. Additional OPCODES or other mechanisms need to be introduced to allow validating the SPV proof for the sidechain. It remains to be seen if that will ever happen. Even if it does the SPV proof is significantly larger than the average txn and the potential of multiple sidechains means it is simply not viable under a 1MB block model. There will never be a consensus for SPV proof validation before there is a consensus for a larger block. Honestly there may never be consensus for SPV proof validation anyways but it is at least possible.
So to pin your hopes on sidechains and keeping the 1MB limit is just silly.
So you're saying that since that svp proof needed for ensure the 2 way peg mechanism between the main and the said chains is bigger than the avg txn we need a larger max block size, correct? But a single SVP proof should suffice to perform hundreds of txns on the side chains (depending on the side chains implementation / design), so maybe the max block size increase could be modelled in a more "gentle" way. As a side note, did somebody already read/evalute this paper http://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper-DRAFT-0.5.pdf? |
|
|
|
Continued mining decentralization:  Sure you're right. Nonetheless, from the same blog post, a more worrisome observation: Chinese pools control more than half the network
To be exact, pools identifying as Chinese contributed 52.8% of the networks blocks, with a 95% confidence interval of
approximately +/- 8.5%. The top four pools are all Chinese. This shouldn't be surprising, since most (all?) bitcoin mining
chips are fabricated there and much of the development appears to be Chinese as well.
My concern with this development is the same as if that much of the network was concentrated in any nation - what happens
to the network if the government decides to take an interest? Some pools have some of their equipment outside China, but
even so that still leave a large proportion of the network that could be controlled by one government.
I'm sure the Chinese pools are aware of this and have strategies in place to mitigate this risk, and I'd encourage them to
start moving at least some infrastructure to other countries.
emphasis' mine. |
|
|
|
Not noise at all. Please continue to post anything relevant.
I will  |
|
|
|
Don't know if someone already find it, but it seems to me that this thread
Yes it was discussed here a few pages back, and our researchers are examining it. sorry for the noise then. and keep up the good work! edit: feel free to delete my post if you wish |
|
|
|
Don't know if someone already find it, but it seems to me that this thread ring signature efficiencyhttps://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=972541.msg10619684#msg10619684is worth sharing here. To make a long story short Adam Back is speculating on how reducing ring signature used in cryptonote: This alternate linkable ring signature tends to 1/2 the size of the crypto note ring signature as the signature is 3+n values vs 2+2n values.
I haven't the skill to validate his claims but I thought than monero devs would be interested in such a claim. |
|
|
|
http://www.texpaste.com/ is an easy way to throw out some TeX; maybe mods would consider implementing formatting for it? it would be useful imho, look at Adam post "translated": http://www.texpaste.com/n/xaypn9nifancy, isn't it? Anyway I think that cryptonote based coins devs would find Adams's finding useful. |
|
|
|
|
Look at Peter Todd replace-by-fee effort. There's a lengthy recent discussion on bitcoin dev mailing list and also here on btctalk you shuold be able to find some threads abou it.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
