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. What they fail to mention is that Visanet can get this throughput because they do not make payments. All they do is provide the checking and reporting mechanisms to support the payments. Chase Manhattan in NY and London do all the settlements ( the actual payments to accounts). Bitcoin, on the other hand, actually executes the payment. The danger here is that they will make bitcoin just another reporting system.
Pragmatic? You mean foolish and totally absent of any economic understanding. https://np.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3hyb1l/it_seems_like_theres_a_nonetrivial_number_of/cuc4hj6 |
|
|
|
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... So you understand that for the fork to happen it needs at least 75%* of nodes support... but a couple posts before you argue that miners are the ones calling the shot...  *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. |
|
|
|
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-160f0e462371 |
|
|
|
"Chinese governement coercion" LOL look 100% of the network is ran by humans, decentralized my ass. troll on troll on. I never thought I'd say this but it is obvious at that point that the dynamics at stake are well beyond your understanding. Better keep quiet while everything sorts itself out. |
|
|
|
you don't think the most popular solution would tend to be the one which appears to be well thought out technical solution to the problem??
If that were the case we'd have solved climate change through the election of politicians with well thought out technical solutions years ago.  A popular solution has absolutely nothing to do with being "sensible" or even "viable" for that matter. We all know politic is rigged by lobbies. The strongest ones are banking and petrolium consortium and those only care about their profits. The population have no real say. And somehow you propose that Bitcoin is safe from these politics game? bitcoin is political, and the way it evolves will gr8ly reflect the political views of those making the decisions, so who gets to make these decisions?? i say, go the democratic way, and let the users vote on these decisions. Bitcoin is not a democracy and in the hopes it prospers it shall never be. You are even more confused than I thought my friend. maybe it should be. Then you need better arguments because what you're essentially proposing is to have Bitcoin be governed by the rule of the mob. A surefire way to end up with totalitarian top down governance. no i'm just seeing a war break out ( XT Vs Core ) with hash rate as the determining factor, and saying COOL we should do this all the time! just without a "war" just politely polling the network to make a decision that reflect the majority hashing power, this whole network is based on the majority hashing power agreeing.Did someone hit you on the head with a bat overnight? What is this nonsense!? The whole network is based on the consensus software that is run by NODES... i'm i being trolled? answer me this, how is a fork resolved? That is a disingenuous question which is better expressed as "How is an accidental fork resolved" which quite honestly is beside the point. Now that I'm certain I am being trolled, I won't waste my time and quote directly: VII. The miners decide.
No, they do not. The miners make some minor decisions in Bitcoin, but major decisions such as block forks are not at their disposition alone, and this for excellent reasons you'll readily understand if you stop and think about it.
There are two specific methods to control miners on this matter, which will make the scamcoin Gavin is trying to replace everyone's Bitcoin with only replace some people's Bitcoin. The first and most obvious is that irrespective of what miners mine, each single full node will reject illegal blocks. This is a fact. If all the miners out there suddenly quit Bitcon and go mine Keiser's Aurora scamcoin instead, from the perspective of the Bitcoin network hash rate simply dropped and that's all. There's absolutely no difference between Keiser's scamcoin and Gavin's scam coin as far as the network is concerned k fine, how will the XT fork be resolved? By general consensus that XT was DOA and every simpleton running an XT node (or pretend ones https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3i1dra/psa_its_super_easy_to_manipulate_the_node_count_i/) coming back home to core with their heads down once the adults have carefully managed to put forward a sensible proposition that slowly but surely gains consensus. |
|
|
|
I see 53% of the network hashrate under a single point of failure: Chinese governement coercion. So much for decentralization heh! That's not even considering that most of these a pools which can be gamed by miners to create an illusion of decentralization. |
|
|
|
you don't think the most popular solution would tend to be the one which appears to be well thought out technical solution to the problem??
If that were the case we'd have solved climate change through the election of politicians with well thought out technical solutions years ago. A popular solution has absolutely nothing to do with being "sensible" or even "viable" for that matter. We all know politic is rigged by lobbies. The strongest ones are banking and petrolium consortium and those only care about their profits. The population have no real say. And somehow you propose that Bitcoin is safe from these politics game? bitcoin is political, and the way it evolves will gr8ly reflect the political views of those making the decisions, so who gets to make these decisions?? i say, go the democratic way, and let the users vote on these decisions. Bitcoin is not a democracy and in the hopes it prospers it shall never be. You are even more confused than I thought my friend. maybe it should be. Then you need better arguments because what you're essentially proposing is to have Bitcoin be governed by the rule of the mob. A surefire way to end up with totalitarian top down governance. no i'm just seeing a war break out ( XT Vs Core ) with hash rate as the determining factor, and saying COOL we should do this all the time! just without a "war" just politely polling the network to make a decision that reflect the majority hashing power, this whole network is based on the majority hashing power agreeing.Did someone hit you on the head with a bat overnight? What is this nonsense!? The whole network is based on the consensus software that is run by NODES... i'm i being trolled? answer me this, how is a fork resolved? That is a disingenuous question which is better expressed as "How is an accidental fork resolved" which quite honestly is beside the point. Now that I'm certain I am being trolled, I won't waste my time and quote directly: VII. The miners decide.
No, they do not. The miners make some minor decisions in Bitcoin, but major decisions such as block forks are not at their disposition alone, and this for excellent reasons you'll readily understand if you stop and think about it.
There are two specific methods to control miners on this matter, which will make the scamcoin Gavin is trying to replace everyone's Bitcoin with only replace some people's Bitcoin. The first and most obvious is that irrespective of what miners mine, each single full node will reject illegal blocks. This is a fact. If all the miners out there suddenly quit Bitcon and go mine Keiser's Aurora scamcoin instead, from the perspective of the Bitcoin network hash rate simply dropped and that's all. There's absolutely no difference between Keiser's scamcoin and Gavin's scam coin as far as the network is concerned |
|
|
|
i think we'd see poeple change camps purely to get consensus and have progress, lets face it BIP 100..105 are all the same with a twist, its only because ego's are at stake that the devs are unwilling to change their vote, without ego a clear runaway winner would emerge and at 75% everyone would change their vote, because they want progress above getting there way.
it would be interesting to say the least if we could put blocklimit to this "Decentralized decision making" process
 I don't know if you are a miner Adam hence why you proposed that only miners supposedly possess the technical understanding and implications behind Bitcoin related decisions but if you are and you actually can say with a straight face that "BIP 100...105" are all the same with a twist" then I should argue that you are the first and obvious example I can refer you to that some miners don't know WTF they're talking about. your right BIP 100...105 are all completely different 2MB 8MB 1MB with 5min block, all TOTALLY different! nope not a miner. but i don't mind giving miners the power to vote on stuff because i know they have invested interest in making bitcoin the best it can be. a small group of devs can be compromised and or be invested in other things which cloud their judgment
And that can't happen with miners? Yes, there are some major differences in the BIP proposed. The most obvious one being growth rate. Sorry but that's just an absolutely stupid thing to say. |
|
|
|
you don't think the most popular solution would tend to be the one which appears to be well thought out technical solution to the problem??
If that were the case we'd have solved climate change through the election of politicians with well thought out technical solutions years ago. A popular solution has absolutely nothing to do with being "sensible" or even "viable" for that matter. We all know politic is rigged by lobbies. The strongest ones are banking and petrolium consortium and those only care about their profits. The population have no real say. And somehow you propose that Bitcoin is safe from these politics game? bitcoin is political, and the way it evolves will gr8ly reflect the political views of those making the decisions, so who gets to make these decisions?? i say, go the democratic way, and let the users vote on these decisions. Bitcoin is not a democracy and in the hopes it prospers it shall never be. You are even more confused than I thought my friend. maybe it should be. Then you need better arguments because what you're essentially proposing is to have Bitcoin be governed by the rule of the mob. A surefire way to end up with totalitarian top down governance. no i'm just seeing a war break out ( XT Vs Core ) with hash rate as the determining factor, and saying COOL we should do this all the time! just without a "war" just politely polling the network to make a decision that reflect the majority hashing power, this whole network is based on the majority hashing power agreeing.Did someone hit you on the head with a bat overnight? What is this nonsense!? The whole network is based on the consensus software that is run by NODES |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is not a democracy and in the hopes it prospers it shall never be. You are even more confused than I thought my friend.
maybe it should be. Then you need better arguments because what you're essentially proposing is to have Bitcoin be governed by the rule of the mob. A surefire way to end up with totalitarian top down governance. Brg444, do you agree with this statement (in relation to the direction of Bitcoin's evolution): "Consensus is too important to be left to the people."Who is "the people"? I don't want to sound like a broken record but this is, again, meaningless socialist drivel. There is no such thing as "the people". Only individuals. Now do I agree that some individuals have absolutely no say in the decision making of Bitcoin? Absolutely. |
|
|
|
i think we'd see poeple change camps purely to get consensus and have progress, lets face it BIP 100..105 are all the same with a twist, its only because ego's are at stake that the devs are unwilling to change their vote, without ego a clear runaway winner would emerge and at 75% everyone would change their vote, because they want progress above getting there way.
it would be interesting to say the least if we could put blocklimit to this "Decentralized decision making" process
I don't know if you are a miner Adam hence why you proposed that only miners supposedly possess the technical understanding and implications behind Bitcoin related decisions but if you are and you actually can say with a straight face that "BIP 100...105" are all the same with a twist" then I should argue that you are the first and obvious example I can refer you to that some miners don't know WTF they're talking about. |
|
|
|
I like you Adam but this is so wrong I'd sell all my bitcoins the day we even consider using this decision process Why ? Because Bitcoin is not a democracy and in the hopes it prospers it shall never be.
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. It is beyond me how anyone could still be fooled by the pipe dream of democracy anyway. |
|
|
|
you don't think the most popular solution would tend to be the one which appears to be well thought out technical solution to the problem??
If that were the case we'd have solved climate change through the election of politicians with well thought out technical solutions years ago. A popular solution has absolutely nothing to do with being "sensible" or even "viable" for that matter. We all know politic is rigged by lobbies. The strongest ones are banking and petrolium consortium and those only care about their profits. The population have no real say. And somehow you propose that Bitcoin is safe from these politics game? bitcoin is political, and the way it evolves will gr8ly reflect the political views of those making the decisions, so who gets to make these decisions?? i say, go the democratic way, and let the users vote on these decisions. Bitcoin is not a democracy and in the hopes it prospers it shall never be. You are even more confused than I thought my friend. maybe it should be. Then you need better arguments because what you're essentially proposing is to have Bitcoin be governed by the rule of the mob. A surefire way to end up with totalitarian top down governance. |
|
|
|
A popular solution has absolutely nothing to do with being "sensible" or even "viable" for that matter.
Would you then agree with the statement (in relation to the direction of Bitcoin's evolution): "Consensus is too important to be left to the people."isnt that an oxymoron? it obviously wouldn't be the little poeple voting it would be the miners who has invested interest in seeing bitcoin grow in the best possible way. consider the alternative, Core Vs XT, while everyone is ready and willing to increase the block limit, egos and political BS turn a simple update into a full on war. ultimately the will of the majority will win, this is the nature of bitcoin, try as they might devs will never be able to make changes that a big % of users do not agree with, why not streamline the process so thing happen in a calm and orderly fashion? You make the classic mistake of assuming all miners are equal. This is somehow typical of classic socialist tendencies to group people of different background, resources, motives and intentions together as if there is somehow a way to generalize and predict their decisions. You need to get rid of that mindset immediately. Miners are individuals and therefore it is foolish to expect them to all share the same ideology as to how Bitcoin should grow. The consensus nature of Bitcoin is precisely there to defend ourselves against "the willtyranny of the majority" and their master puppeteer. |
|
|
|
you don't think the most popular solution would tend to be the one which appears to be well thought out technical solution to the problem??
If that were the case we'd have solved climate change through the election of politicians with well thought out technical solutions years ago. A popular solution has absolutely nothing to do with being "sensible" or even "viable" for that matter. We all know politic is rigged by lobbies. The strongest ones are banking and petrolium consortium and those only care about their profits. The population have no real say. And somehow you propose that Bitcoin is safe from these politics game? bitcoin is political, and the way it evolves will gr8ly reflect the political views of those making the decisions, so who gets to make these decisions?? i say, go the democratic way, and let the users vote on these decisions. Bitcoin is not a democracy and in the hopes it prospers it shall never be. You are even more confused than I thought my friend. |
|
|
|
The thing is, bitcoin not just code, it is money. The expertise here goes broader than just technical skills but should also take consideration of market makers expertise...
all code is written to perform a task. thankfully, the Core dev team are able to code, engineer and reason about market economics. but they clearly cannot be made to agree if bitcoin was a company there wouldn't be a problem, devs don't make decisions in a company the boss dose that, i propose we make the miners the boss, and force them to reach consensus, like a boss would listen to all the pros and cons weigh them respectively and then make a decision, the community would do the same. dev's are there to implement the will of the network, not decide what the network wants. if your argument is the network is to stupid to know what it wants, i respectfully disagree, and nothing you can say will change my mind. What the fuck adam This is a slippery slope if I've ever seen one. Your scenario seemingly makes no mention of arguably the most vital players in the game : the nodes. You're effectively saying they should be listening to the miners when one of their role is supposedly to put a check on them... What's stupid is to pretend the will of the miners = will of the network.
is this the best way to vote on changes? probably not. i like the hash rate idea, because it jives with what is currently going on, encourages more people to mine so they can participate in the voting. and weeds out non-tech poeple whose vote probably wouldn't have much thought behind it because they can't be bothered to have a mining rig. plus its easy to setup a lot of fake nodes while its impossible to fake hashing power. maybe a better way would be to have the 1 BTC 1 Vote system in which, bitcoin wallets would cast votes by signing a msg with their wallet? point is it would be really nice to have a more democratic and decentralized bitcoin dev decision making process, suddenly being thrown into a Core Vs XT war and being forced to pick one of the two extremist options isn't as elegant. The XT decision will never end up to the miner if there is a node consensus against XT. You seriously need to reconsider the whole democratic thing. I voted "I don't believe in democracy" because it has failed us times and times again and simply isn't an option. Democracy will have you pretend that every voice is equal. That is absolutely not the case in Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
you don't think the most popular solution would tend to be the one which appears to be well thought out technical solution to the problem??
If that were the case we'd have solved climate change through the election of politicians with well thought out technical solutions years ago. A popular solution has absolutely nothing to do with being "sensible" or even "viable" for that matter. We all know politic is rigged by lobbies. The strongest ones are banking and petrolium consortium and those only care about their profits. The population have no real say. And somehow you propose that Bitcoin is safe from these politics game? |
|
|
|
I like you Adam but this is so wrong I'd sell all my bitcoins the day we even consider using this decision process |
|
|
|
The thing is, bitcoin not just code, it is money. The expertise here goes broader than just technical skills but should also take consideration of market makers expertise...
all code is written to perform a task. thankfully, the Core dev team are able to code, engineer and reason about market economics. but they clearly cannot be made to agree if bitcoin was a company there wouldn't be a problem, devs don't make decisions in a company the boss dose that, i propose we make the miners the boss, and force them to reach consensus, like a boss would listen to all the pros and cons weigh them respectively and then make a decision, the community would do the same. dev's are there to implement the will of the network, not decide what the network wants. if your argument is the network is to stupid to know what it wants, i respectfully disagree, and nothing you can say will change my mind. What the fuck adam This is a slippery slope if I've ever seen one. Your scenario seemingly makes no mention of arguably the most vital players in the game : the nodes. You're effectively saying they should be listening to the miners when one of their role is supposedly to put a check on them... What's stupid is to pretend the will of the miners = will of the network. |
|
|
|
Just wait and see as I'm pretty sure it will massively move the market. Amazon is a big deal. The bull run may not last very long but it surely will generate a huge load of volume.
I don't see it myself. There would still be zero incentive for your average shopper to make use of it. If Amazon really thought it through properly they could offer modest discounts and it could open up markets for them that aren't presently plugged into the credit or debit card system but there doesn't seem to be much enthusiasm. This. The idea that "Amazon accepts Bitcoin therefore everyone should want to shop there using Bitcoin" is asinine. No amount of retail adoption is going to "massively move the market". You people need to think outside the box for a second and forget about the delusional blatter that Bitcoin is somehow so much better for online commerce than credit cards. That is simply not true. Average joes are perfectly comfortable shopping using credit cards and there is barely any incentive that would entice them to change these spending habit. This also means stop looking for the "killer app" that will somehow bring Bitcoin to the masses. It might be the case that eventually Bitcoin will be abstracted down to the public and create and actual use case for the retail/commercial segment but we are still a couple years away from this. As is stands Bitcoin is quite simply an absurd proposition from a consumer standpoint except for certain niche cases The Bitcoin price is going to blow up because institutional investors will want to hold it as a commodity to hedge against the fiat market and as a speculative instrument. It's not gonna happen because some corporation decides they will integrate Bitcoin to their payment processing option and then sell them on the market straight for fiat. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
