To be quite honest I don't see how any smart person (I consider you are one) can view reddit as anything more than some group think cargo cult full of loud but absolutely irrelevant voices.
Thank you. I also recognize that you are intelligent. I also believe that you are young. I think I may have had a view more inline with yours a decade ago. That's too bad.... Old dogs do indeed lose the will to fight  |
|
|
|
How do we (we = Bitcoin Community) come to "consensus"? I wouldn't say it's a democracy in the sense that every person loosely attached to Bitcoin has precisely "one vote"--that's not how Bitcoin works. But it's not that different either. In reality, each person has a vote that carries a weight in proportion to their influence. If influence accrues to those who are wiser, then the decision of the "influence-weighted majority" will be the best decision IMO.
Stop trying to nuance the discussion using "vote" as if this somehow ties it to democracy somewhere down the road. It is not a vote. It is a decision. A show of strenght. Power. You might not like it expressed as such but that doesn't particularly matter. In short, it is the people with the most resources and, yes, the most influence amongst their wealthy and powerful peers who will ultimately decide where the ship sails. No, influence as in "popular amongst reddit derps" is not valued nor accounted for. I think we're saying similar things but using different words. You also seem to discredit the community at /r/bitcoin as "powerless," whereas I think their sentiment reflects the desires of the economic majority. Time will tell, I suppose... Economic majority reflects the ownership of important stakes in either Bitcoin, its mining network, and to a lesser extent the exchanges & services infrastructure. As far as the two most important are concerned : owning a shitload of Bitcoin and or possessing a significant portion of the mining network I feel confident enough to say that those who share one or two of these criterias don't hang on reddit and therefore their "sentiment" is not reflected there. To be quite honest I don't see how any smart person (I consider you are one) can view reddit as anything more than some group think cargo cult full of loud but absolutely irrelevant voices. |
|
|
|
I've read it a dozen times already so, no, I know how this stuff works. http://www.blockstream.com/sidechains.pdfYou will notice that there is not ONE mention of Bitcoin or transaction capacity scaling inside.   I'll admit I was wrong. How'd I miss this  Anyway the point still stand and I think it is fair to say no one ever proposed sidechains would allow us to support a significant increase in transaction. In the quote from Hill referred above "scale" was used pretty liberally and it is clear his more important message was "faster transaction processing". From the same article: Gregory Maxwell, who first proposed two-way pegging, says that it could provide some relief for bitcoin, though:
"I don't think this will remove the need to increase bitcoin's throughput entirely, but if the technology matures fast enough it may allow for a more conservative approach that increases size only when its very clearly safe to do so." |
|
|
|
How do we (we = Bitcoin Community) come to "consensus"? I wouldn't say it's a democracy in the sense that every person loosely attached to Bitcoin has precisely "one vote"--that's not how Bitcoin works. But it's not that different either. In reality, each person has a vote that carries a weight in proportion to their influence. If influence accrues to those who are wiser, then the decision of the "influence-weighted majority" will be the best decision IMO.
Stop trying to nuance the discussion using "vote" as if this somehow ties it to democracy somewhere down the road. It is not a vote. It is a decision. A show of strenght. Power. You might not like it expressed as such but that doesn't particularly matter. In short, it is the people with the most resources and, yes, the most influence amongst their wealthy and powerful peers who will ultimately decide where the ship sails. No, influence as in "popular amongst reddit derps" is not valued nor accounted for. I would thus argue that the best approach to reaching consensus is to give the people the necessary tools to make expressing their free choice (e.g., BIP101 vs BIP100 vs no increase) as easy as possible. For this reason, I think the OP makes good sense.
There are several public forums where people might want to "express their free choice". I'm not sure what's the point of somehow tying this into the system as if this would somehow legitimize the process. To be fair I'm not even sure what it is OP is proposing. Seemed to me like a one hash, one vote miner governance which is quite honestly absurd. |
|
|
|
I'm increasingly convinced you are another one of Lambchamp sock puppet account.
I'm therefore not going to waste my time looking for the dozens of reference by Blockstream developers essentially saying that sidechains can hardly scale the transaction processing power of Bitcoin under current block size.
I quoted myself because the content remains valid: SPV Proofs are competing with transactions for space in blocks. Unless the blocksize increase or they become able to reduce the size of these proofs, the scale of side chains might remain limited.
I think that you're frustrated because your understanding ( or at least hopes) around blockstream are flawed. Since when do the views of employees trump the vision and mission of the boss? Your last statement tells me you are foundering and speed reading the white paper for a soundbite that might give the impression that you have a deeper understanding than you do. And finally: Unless the blocksize increase or they become able to reduce the size of these proofs, the scale of side chains might remain limited. Maybe they should try bitcoinXT? Or maybe you ought to read the white paper at least a couple of times instead of pulling things out your ass? I've read it a dozen times already so, no, I know how this stuff works. http://www.blockstream.com/sidechains.pdfYou will notice that there is not ONE mention of Bitcoin or transaction capacity scaling inside.
Miss me with your "arguments to ignorance" until then.
|
|
|
|
My original Bitcoin is essentially held in escrow
Thought as much. You are handing over your bitcoin to a 3rd party, and you rely on trust to get it back, like any escrow service. And dont give me "enforced with software" because it will be enforced by whoever has the majority in a 2-of-3 multisig. Read my post above. Then read the sidechains white paper. Then come back here when you actually understand how this stuff works
Miss me with your "arguments to ignorance" until then. |
|
|
|
How is this appreciably different than the way it already works today? If 90% of the miners want to do whatever, no one's stopping them.
Bitcoin is not a democracy. It is a system of voluntary consensus. Miners are financially motivated to follow the rules and also to enforce those rules upon everyone else that wishes to participate.
You are free to go ahead and fork your own democraticoin at any time. No one can stop you; just as no one can force a change upon the bitcoin network against the will of the participants.
And how this voluntary consensus is different from democracy? Because I can't see much difference. In democracy people do what they want or what they think is good because it will gain them profit or better government or something, miners are doing exactly the same they seek profit. The only difference that live democracy is fiction because not everyone vote, therefore we have something like votes 30% of whole nation, and from that 30% of people who voted option with 51% votes wins. With bitcoin everyone MUST choose. The difference is simple: stupid people don't get to have everyone in society shoulder the weight of their stupidity. |
|
|
|
Long has the development of bitcoin been slowed by the devs inability to agree on design decisions, it's time to put in place a system that ensures continued development / evaluation of the code base, in a low friction decentralized manner. Imagine a bitcoin where YOU as a user get a say in every design decision. we can do this today.
There is a design decision to be made, 3 possible implementations, each similar, impossible to say which way is the best way to go. Who ultimately makes the decision on which way to go? It is my belief that satoshi would want the decision to be made by community as a whole. we can achieve this today and use this process to put the block limit debate to rest.
We could have in place a system in which all the different BIP's ( design options ) can be voted on using hashing power. by having different version numbers corresponding to the different proposed implementations. once a version number achieves 90% of hashing power that would be considered the communities will, and that version would be implemented.
what do you think?
How is this appreciably different than the way it already works today? If 90% of the miners want to do whatever, no one's stopping them. Bitcoin is not a democracy. It is a system of voluntary consensus. Miners are financially motivated to follow the rules and also to enforce those rules upon everyone else that wishes to participate.You are free to go ahead and fork your own democraticoin at any time. No one can stop you; just as no one can force a change upon the bitcoin network against the will of the participants. and one more for "I don't believe in democracy" !  in all seriousness Adam you seem like a good lad, just a little misguided. you're from Montreal aren't you? I wouldn't mind going over this with you over a pint  |
|
|
|
I use it weekly to pay php freelancers I hire in India. I also have 3 clients whom I invoice in bitcoin. Works fine for me, as I'm sure it does for others.
I use Bitcoin for real transactions with some value behind them. Sounds like a PissAntCoin sidechain would be right up your alley.
But anyway, get back to my points above. How do investors handle the coins to be pegged? I thought that only the holder of the private key has any claim on a bitcoin. They will need to hand them over, no?
Again, you really need to brush up on some of the 'elements' technology that the Blockstream guys are working on. When you hear terms such as 'timelocks' and multi-party signatures perhaps they will start to mean more to you. Probably not though...you may simply not have what it takes to conceptualize some of the non-trivial use methods that others have moved on to.
All these things are features that either do not work or do not exist now - and implementing them will further increase the size of a transaction. Looks like you are curing blockchain bloat with.... blockchain bloat. Read my post above. Then read the sidechains white paper. Then come back here when you actually understand how this stuff works |
|
|
|
I find it strange that blockstream hold up Visa as the holy grail in terms of transaction throughput and the need for Bitcoin to adopt sidechains so they can reach these levels.
So many lines or worthless FUD and yet still not one fucking clue about what sidechains are about. So sidechains are not about facilitating a greater number of transactions? Do explain. You sound like you are getting frustrated. I have not performed a bitcoin transaction in over a year. It is not an appropriate solution for any transaction I've wanted to perform over that time period. I pay a .01 BTC transaction fee when I do because it was about right for the service I was getting. I very much look forward to being able to do minor transactions in such a way that will not compromise the core Bitcoin solution. As soon as a micro-tipping sidechain comes out, I will peg some BTC to it and transact frequently. In this way, one on-chain transaction will represent thousands of real-life transactions. As a side benefit, one will not be able to analyze my behavior just by reading the Bitcoin blockchain. I use it weekly to pay php freelancers I hire in India. I also have 3 clients whom I invoice in bitcoin. Works fine for me, as I'm sure it does for others. Your tipping example means that I cannot tip in Bitcoin anymore, I can only tip in the shitcoin that supports the sidechain its run on. But anyway, get back to my points above. How do investors handle the coins to be pegged? I thought that only the holder of the private key has any claim on a bitcoin. They will need to hand them over, no? No. Think of sidechains as a multi-signature. I can assign one Bitcoin to a sidechain by sending it to a special output which will essentially "lock" the bitcoin on the mainchain and use proof of this "deposit" to issue an equivalent share (token) on the sidechain. My original Bitcoin is essentially held in escrow until I issue a different transaction from the sidechain to another special output. Once enough work is piled on top of the proof that I sent back the coins to the mainchain (my transaction) then I can use this proof to unlock the special output holding my original bitcoin. |
|
|
|
I find it strange that blockstream hold up Visa as the holy grail in terms of transaction throughput and the need for Bitcoin to adopt sidechains so they can reach these levels.
So many lines or worthless FUD and yet still not one fucking clue about what sidechains are about. So sidechains are not about facilitating a greater number of transactions? Do explain. You sound like you are getting frustrated. No, for the 1000th million times, sidechains are not about scaling Bitcoin. They're about augmenting its features and capabilities. Never have I seen sidechains be proposed as an actual solution to scaling Bitcoin so I'm not certain how that holds true.
If my understanding is correct the proofs used in their concept to move coins between chains are in fact competing with transactions for space in blocks so it makes absolutely no sense to propose they profit from undue advantage by restricting block growth. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg12170746#msg12170746Austin Hill, chief instigator at Blockstream, respectfully disagrees with you..... But, there are several problems with bitcoin, too, says Hill, which is why exchanges like Coinbase generally run their own transactions outside the block chain.
Hill told CoinDesk: "There is a practical reason why some of those things can't operate on the block chain, and that's because at peak, they're doing more transactions than bitcoin can support right now."
Instead, Back and Hill want to 'shard' the block chain, creating another block chain, which has a two-way relationship with bitcoin's own.
This will have two major benefits, Hill suggests: functionality, and scalability.
Firstly, "We could have US and Canadian dollars, smart derivatives, option shares, and future contracts. A whole series of programmable trust instruments. A lot of people had talked about these things, and how the block chain could be adapted for this, but I hadn't seen anyone lay out how it would come to pass."
And secondly: "By sharding, you can have orders of magnitude faster transaction processing and you can start to scale bitcoin."
sourceSeriously, did you just quote your own opinion to back up your statement??? I'm increasingly convinced you are another one of Lambchamp sock puppet account. I'm therefore not going to waste my time looking for the dozens of reference by Blockstream developers essentially saying that sidechains can hardly scale the transaction processing power of Bitcoin under current block size. I quoted myself because the content remains valid: SPV Proofs are competing with transactions for space in blocks. Unless the blocksize increase or they become able to reduce the size of these proofs, the scale of side chains might remain limited. |
|
|
|
i like the voting idea; i am just not sure if mining is the best way to vote.
maybe a mix with hashrate and coinage fits better (coinage and not just amount of bitcoins because i dont want people to BUY votes for only one purpose; still possible though. but harder).
imho the biggest problem with any cryptocurrency seems to be that it cant change.
the alternative seems to be just to accept this fact and if we/someone wants a change just use an altcoin for this: but with this approach cryptocurrency cant go mainstream.
edit: btw dont call this democratic voting. democracy means one person one vote. any solution for bitcoin-voting i can imagine means somehow: bigger pockets/bigger involvement has more voting power.
Enter sidechains and payment networks. |
|
|
|
I find it strange that blockstream hold up Visa as the holy grail in terms of transaction throughput and the need for Bitcoin to adopt sidechains so they can reach these levels.
So many lines or worthless FUD and yet still not one fucking clue about what sidechains are about. So sidechains are not about facilitating a greater number of transactions? Do explain. You sound like you are getting frustrated. No, for the 1000th million times, sidechains are not about scaling Bitcoin. They're about augmenting its features and capabilities. Never have I seen sidechains be proposed as an actual solution to scaling Bitcoin so I'm not certain how that holds true.
If my understanding is correct the proofs used in their concept to move coins between chains are in fact competing with transactions for space in blocks so it makes absolutely no sense to propose they profit from undue advantage by restricting block growth. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg12170746#msg12170746 |
|
|
|
Democracy is the rule of the mob.
Bitcoin is a consensus system. Anyone trying to contaminate it with "democractic" process is proposing an attack at the heart of Bitcoin ethos.
Imagine we have a project that requires consensus. You've invested 1M$ and I've invested 1$. Now I would be able to blackmail you, not giving you my consensus until you give me most of your M$. And in the long run nobody will invest in such a project. So if you want a project to work, you'll have to use force against me, obstructing minority, i.e. to switch from consensus to democracy. At democracy majority oppresses minority. Brute force wins. At consensus minority blackmails majority. Those who care less wins. The both systems are inherently bad. The good solution is the free market. Consensus =! Unanimity If you only have 1$ at your disposition then you are by definition poor and at a disadvantage over someone with millions. In an ecosystem as big as BTC this will make you an outlier and no matter how strong you shout your voice will not be heard because it is not respected. Stop throwing "free market" around as if it makes any sense or is relevant in that situation. |
|
|
|
it does!
bitpay public stated that it will use wtv blockchain has the most hashing power behind it.
idk what to tell you this is just an idea i have to make the forking process more tolerable, I like the idea that bitcoin can fork, and i'd like to see it happen more often, i like to think this is how bitcoin will progress,
*facepalm* TIL the miners = the network Bitcoin will not progress by forking everytime a new issue or challenge comes up. The difficulty in consensus you are witnessing will only grow larger as adoption increases. Ultimately you should want the Bitcoin core protocol to ossify and require little to no change once it is considered good enough. Bitcoin will progress by building layers on top of it. Just like any economy grows. |
|
|
|
i find it hilarious 2 poeple have voted they don't believe in democracy. oh le bitcoiner, a puzzle wrapped inside an enigma, he is.
What good has ever come out of democracy? |
|
|
|
Why Votes Don’t Matter
Many of the proposals for the fork include a voting mechanism for miners to signal that they are upgraded. However, miners very easily can lie about their intentions. A miner may wish to trick other miners into mining the fork, then continue to mine the small block sizes in an attempt to have less competition by having miners waste efforts on a fork that will be orphaned. Votes will be extremely hard to trust. https://medium.com/@allenpiscitello/how-the-great-fork-will-occur-160f0e462371in the end votes don't matter, when the fork happens it happens.but you have to assume the marjoy of hashing power voting will do so to help reach consensus, once everyone is satisfied that everyone else is going to switch to wtv BIP gets 95% during the voting process, i think it safe to assume >51% of the network will actually make the switch. and if you have control over a huge % of the votes, vote for wtv it is you want to vote for, and you'll probably get the majority on your side quickly... You understand that for the fork to happen it needs at least 75% of nodes behind it do you. That's in XT case. The 75% thresold is such a tragic mistake on Mike and Gavin's part it risks putting the whole ecosystem in danger if ever it triggers. my understanding is you can fork the network with 0.1% of hashing power if you want, it will just be a useless fork no one usesand i agree with you 75% threshold is dangerous, but i can see why once 75% is onboard the rest will fallow, which is why i think we should vote first and then try to fork, way less dangerous, more polite, and also fun! i'd own a mining rig just to cast a vote! ( and mine some bitcoin too ) And you are aware why it is so? Because nodes will simply reject their blocks, right? So please explain why you would call me a troll for suggesting that the whole network is based on the consensus software that is run by NODES no one cares if some nodes are out of date and are rejecting the blocks that 99% of the hashing power is pumping out.  Sure let's use hyperboles to try and support our points. My turn: No one cares if 90% of the miners turn their hashing power to Aurora coins, the Bitcoin network remains although it witnesses a significant drop in its hash rate. The network doesn't fucking fork to Auroracoin does it? |
|
|
|
Why Votes Don’t Matter
Many of the proposals for the fork include a voting mechanism for miners to signal that they are upgraded. However, miners very easily can lie about their intentions. A miner may wish to trick other miners into mining the fork, then continue to mine the small block sizes in an attempt to have less competition by having miners waste efforts on a fork that will be orphaned. Votes will be extremely hard to trust. https://medium.com/@allenpiscitello/how-the-great-fork-will-occur-160f0e462371in the end votes don't matter, when the fork happens it happens.but you have to assume the marjoy of hashing power voting will do so to help reach consensus, once everyone is satisfied that everyone else is going to switch to wtv BIP gets 95% during the voting process, i think it safe to assume >51% of the network will actually make the switch. and if you have control over a huge % of the votes, vote for wtv it is you want to vote for, and you'll probably get the majority on your side quickly... You understand that for the fork to happen it needs at least 75% of nodes behind it do you. That's in XT case. The 75% thresold is such a tragic mistake on Mike and Gavin's part it risks putting the whole ecosystem in danger if ever it triggers. my understanding is you can fork the network with 0.1% of hashing power if you want, it will just be a useless fork no one uses and i agree with you 75% threshold is dangerous, but i can see why once 75% is onboard the rest will fallow, which is why i think we should vote first and then try to fork, way less dangerous, more polite, and also fun! i'd own a mining rig just to cast a vote! ( and mine some bitcoin too ) also as it stand we haven't many options, the vote could have been done on every single BIP, with maybe a few rounds of voting each round would eliminate the lowest BIP option? It seems to me what you want (miners voting) is actually happening as we speak. I'm not sure what difference you propose? |
|
|
|
Why Votes Don’t Matter
Many of the proposals for the fork include a voting mechanism for miners to signal that they are upgraded. However, miners very easily can lie about their intentions. A miner may wish to trick other miners into mining the fork, then continue to mine the small block sizes in an attempt to have less competition by having miners waste efforts on a fork that will be orphaned. Votes will be extremely hard to trust. https://medium.com/@allenpiscitello/how-the-great-fork-will-occur-160f0e462371in the end votes don't matter, when the fork happens it happens.but you have to assume the marjoy of hashing power voting will do so to help reach consensus, once everyone is satisfied that everyone else is going to switch to wtv BIP gets 95% during the voting process, i think it safe to assume >51% of the network will actually make the switch. and if you have control over a huge % of the votes, vote for wtv it is you want to vote for, and you'll probably get the majority on your side quickly... You understand that for the fork to happen it needs at least 75% of nodes behind it do you. That's in XT case. The 75% thresold is such a tragic mistake on Mike and Gavin's part it risks putting the whole ecosystem in danger if ever it triggers. my understanding is you can fork the network with 0.1% of hashing power if you want, it will just be a useless fork no one usesand i agree with you 75% threshold is dangerous, but i can see why once 75% is onboard the rest will fallow, which is why i think we should vote first and then try to fork, way less dangerous, more polite, and also fun! i'd own a mining rig just to cast a vote! ( and mine some bitcoin too ) And you are aware why it is so? Because nodes will simply reject their blocks, right? So please explain why you would call me a troll for suggesting that the whole network is based on the consensus software that is run by NODES |
|
|
|
I find it strange that blockstream hold up Visa as the holy grail in terms of transaction throughput and the need for Bitcoin to adopt sidechains so they can reach these levels.
So many lines or worthless FUD and yet still not one fucking clue about what sidechains are about. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
