So brg444 thinks those were the words satoshi has waited so long to tell us. How about you iCE?
He always rose above the political BS
Sure, except for that one time when he gave "political BS" the starring role in the very act which created Bitcoin. Of course the Gavinistas are never going to accept even the slightest possibility it is him seeing the butthurt induced by his comments.
Confirmed. The genesis block refers to some sort of impetus for Bitcoin's existence. One I completely agree with, as btc's characteristics are of a somewhat political nature. That said, you must admit this tone is something else. The email, despite the double spaces, reeked of politics, the kind both of us are guilty of... something distinctly out of character for satoshi, he would have been more objective, more technical. One of us is talking silly. That it called out politics and attempt at governance does not make it "reek" of politics. How was he not objective? Would he not be expected to object at different attempts to bastardize his "vision"? |
|
|
|
Hearn has in the past been a consistent advocate for having more Bitcoin users pushed onto less reliable SPV wallets instead of fully validating Bitcoin nodes, a move that is dangerous in an environment with substantially larger blocks and a higher orphaned block rate. The use of SPV wallets clearly and plainly increases the risk of users being duped by double spend attacks during common one to three block forks triggered by orphaned blocks, events which would likely become far more common as increasingly large block sizes and block verification times make XTCoin security measurably weaker than that of Bitcoin. http://qntra.net/2015/08/hearn-releases-code-to-potentially-fork-xtc-from-bitcoin/Maybe XT should be renamed SPVcoin? Any takers? Bitcoin was designed to have most users on SPV wallets. Which seems like a mistake in retrospect, wouldn't you think? One that was accurately pointed out to Satoshi only days after his first Bitcoin email: http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09968.htmlNow I'm not saying they're completely useless but that naive reliance on SPV features is a dangerous game. |
|
|
|
Wow, just wow. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h9cq4/its_time_for_a_break_about_the_recent_mess/Thermos has really exposed himself and the rest of the intentions of the LN crew in this post. What is interesting is in the 24 hours he was off over the weekend just how pro-XT /r/bitcoin became. Huge upvotes and a large number of intelligent comments regarding the blocksize debate favoring XT and larger blocks determined by a free market.
Then thermos came back and poof, it was as if it never happened. At least the absurdity is fully out in the open It's increasingly apparent to me that this idea does not hold. Consider: Recently Bitcoin came close to unmitigated disaster, in the following way: Gavin diplomatically suggested that miners increase their block size, from the previous magic number of "250k" to something they themselves pick. This approach is flawed: the solution to the problem of having a magic number in the code is not passing the responsibility of choosing it to a larger group. It may work politically, in the sense that where large, vague groups are responsible for a bad move nobody will ever be hung. It does not work practically. http://trilema.com/2013/and-gavin-moves-on-to-the-dark-side-the-bitcoin-project-is-officially-hijacked/ |
|
|
|
So brg444 thinks those were the words satoshi has waited so long to tell us. How about you iCE?
What? You think he'd write you a fucking essay? A love letter to Gavin? Instead, we have a comment that points out with convincing reasoning that regardless of originalist doctrine, SN's early opinions are not canonical. Furthermore, it is equally plausible that a present-day SN would disagree with the approach of coercing a hard-fork to XT. |
|
|
|
About the Satoshi comment: Zeke says:
It's a brilliant comment, made even better by its plausible deniability. If the author really is SN, and he signed it to prove authorship, then he would be invoking personal authority rather than reason to influence the debate. And would also completely undermine even a reformed Gavin, b/c now we would know that SN is waiting in the wings to offer divine guidance. Instead, we have a comment that points out with convincing reasoning that regardless of originalist doctrine, SN's early opinions are not canonical. Furthermore, it is equally plausible that a present-day SN would disagree with the approach of coercing a hard-fork to XT. When you think about it, if Satoshi really had something to say that is exactly how he would do it. Of course the Gavinistas are never going to accept even the slightest possibility it is him seeing the butthurt induced by his comments. Yeah, the real SN would definitely invoke Barack Obama. Confirmed I don't see why he wouldn't? Care to explain your logic? Because you didn't "portray him" that way? I didn't "perceive" him that way? Maybe. He always rose above the political BS and focused on the bolts. And any message delivered in this manner, under the name "Satoshi Nakamoto"... is an ad verecundiam, regardless of whether you are able to contort your mind to believe otherwise. See it appears you either didn't read the post I mentioned or "perceive" Satoshi as a complete idiot. I for one think he's absolutely smart and perfectly conscious that the post would create confusion and that most would simply disregard it as just another scammer using an old, hacked satoshi email account. If we believe this to be true then it should follow that being the wise guy he is, he wouldn't sign the message and "confirm" his identity so that the nature of his message would shine through his action : let ideas stand on their own and stop idolizing idiots. You could say he "walked the walk" exactly to avoid "ad verecundiam". I'm not suggesting I actually believe 100% it was him. "Only god knows". Simply proposing it isn't out of character or a particular stretch of the mind. |
|
|
|
About the Satoshi comment: Zeke says:
It's a brilliant comment, made even better by its plausible deniability. If the author really is SN, and he signed it to prove authorship, then he would be invoking personal authority rather than reason to influence the debate. And would also completely undermine even a reformed Gavin, b/c now we would know that SN is waiting in the wings to offer divine guidance. Instead, we have a comment that points out with convincing reasoning that regardless of originalist doctrine, SN's early opinions are not canonical. Furthermore, it is equally plausible that a present-day SN would disagree with the approach of coercing a hard-fork to XT. When you think about it, if Satoshi really had something to say that is exactly how he would do it. Of course the Gavinistas are never going to accept even the slightest possibility it is him seeing the butthurt induced by his comments. Yeah, the real SN would definitely invoke Barack Obama. Confirmed I don't see why he wouldn't? Care to explain your logic? Because you didn't "portray him" that way? |
|
|
|
About the Satoshi comment: Zeke says:
It's a brilliant comment, made even better by its plausible deniability. If the author really is SN, and he signed it to prove authorship, then he would be invoking personal authority rather than reason to influence the debate. And would also completely undermine even a reformed Gavin, b/c now we would know that SN is waiting in the wings to offer divine guidance. Instead, we have a comment that points out with convincing reasoning that regardless of originalist doctrine, SN's early opinions are not canonical. Furthermore, it is equally plausible that a present-day SN would disagree with the approach of coercing a hard-fork to XT. When you think about it, if Satoshi really had something to say that is exactly how he would do it. Of course the Gavinistas are never going to accept even the slightest possibility it is him seeing the butthurt induced by his comments. |
|
|
|
Hearn has in the past been a consistent advocate for having more Bitcoin users pushed onto less reliable SPV wallets instead of fully validating Bitcoin nodes, a move that is dangerous in an environment with substantially larger blocks and a higher orphaned block rate. The use of SPV wallets clearly and plainly increases the risk of users being duped by double spend attacks during common one to three block forks triggered by orphaned blocks, events which would likely become far more common as increasingly large block sizes and block verification times make XTCoin security measurably weaker than that of Bitcoin. http://qntra.net/2015/08/hearn-releases-code-to-potentially-fork-xtc-from-bitcoin/Maybe XT should be renamed SPVcoin? Any takers? |
|
|
|
Speaking of sidechains, the one thing I never understood after reading the Blockstream paper was whether anyone had actually devised a technique to implement the "efficient SPV proofs." This is the "cutting-edge crypto" required to move the coins back to the main chain.
No, read again, absolutely not what Matt is referring to. I'm talking about the crypto required to produce an efficient SPV proof to move the coins from the sidechain back to the main chain (Appendix B). We don't have to call it "cutting edge" if you don't want to; however, can you link me to a paper that fully specifies how such an "efficient SPV proof" could be implemented for Bitcoin? To be quite honest I'm not sure of the technical details but I don't believe that an actual SPV proof involves any "cutting edge" crypto. I believe the confusion may come from several debates on how to make these proofs more compact as they can be rather large. Indeed, using straightforward crypto they could be very large. No worries, we've got large blocks now as well, haven't we  You'd think they are goddamned stubborn at Blockstream. Why worry about innovating zero-knowledge proof to scale their sidechain when we can just inflate the block size to infinity! |
|
|
|
Speaking of sidechains, the one thing I never understood after reading the Blockstream paper was whether anyone had actually devised a technique to implement the "efficient SPV proofs." This is the "cutting-edge crypto" required to move the coins back to the main chain.
No, read again, absolutely not what Matt is referring to. I'm talking about the crypto required to produce an efficient SPV proof to move the coins from the sidechain back to the main chain (Appendix B). We don't have to call it "cutting edge" if you don't want to; however, can you link me to a paper that fully specifies how such an "efficient SPV proof" could be implemented for Bitcoin? To be quite honest I'm not sure of the technical details but I don't believe that an actual SPV proof involves any "cutting edge" crypto. I believe the confusion may come from several debates on how to make these proofs more compact as they can be rather large. This might help? 3. the side-chain has no mining reward, but it allows you to mint coins at no mining cost by providing an SPV proof that the coin has been suspended as in 2 on bitcoin. The SPV proof must be buried significantly before being used to reduce risk of reorganization. The side-chain is an SPV client to the bitcoin network, and so maintains a view of the bitcoin hash chain (but not the block data). 4. the bitcoin chain is firewalled from security bugs on the side chain, because bitcoin imposes the rule that no more coins can be reanimated than are currently suspend (with respect to a given chain). 5. to simplify what they hypothetical bitcoin change would need to consider and understand, after a coin is reanimated there is a maturity period imposed (say same as fresh mined coins). During the maturity period the reanimation script allows a fraud proof to spend the coins back. A fraud bounty fee (equal to the reanimate fee) can be offered by the mover to incentivize side-chain full nodes to watch reanimations and search for fraud proofs. 6. a fraud proof is an SPV proof with a longer chain showing that the proof of burn was orphaned. There are a few options to compress the SPV proof, via Fiat-Shamir transform to provide a compact proof of amount work contained in a merkle tree of proofs of work (as proposed by Fabien Coelho link on http://hashcash.org/papers/) with params like 90% of work is proven. But better is something Greg proposed based on skip-lists organized in a tree, where 'lucky' proofs of work are used to skip back further. (Recalling that if you search for a 64-bit leading-0 proof-of-work, half the time you get a 65-bit, quarter 66-bit etc.) With this mechanism you can accurately prove the amount of proof of work in a compressed tree (rather than ~90%). |
|
|
|
Speaking of sidechains, the one thing I never understood after reading the Blockstream paper was whether anyone had actually devised a technique to implement the "efficient SPV proofs." This is the "cutting-edge crypto" required to move the coins back to the main chain.
No, read again, absolutely not what Matt is referring to. |
|
|
|
that was a good read. note the complexity. BlueMatt brought that up along with the greater size of the proof required for altcoins to return to MC: "00:37:09 <BlueMatt> yea, though depending on cutting-edge crypto is ugly..." Are you doing this on purpose? Did you consider or even understand the context in which this was said? Note to the reader: "the complexity" is brought forward when having to scale sidechains by making them more efficient through compacting the necessary proof required to move between chains using SNARKs. Absolutely not something that is necessary to have workable sidechains now or ever. |
|
|
|
Can you explain which insights you're referring to? It looks to me like mostly technical misunderstandings about how a fork would play out combined with a lack of knowledge about Bitcoin. For example, explain how this is true:
"If Gavincoin wins, Bitcoin holdhouts lose nothing and Gavin supporters gain nothing. If Gavincoin flounders, Gavin supporters lose everything"
I think you're just pulling for straws and interpreting "lose everything" in your own way but I will play along. Maybe quoting some Mircea will knock some sense into some people here. Don't worry I should spare you the ad hominems and try not to hurt anyone's feelings. Let's first point out general fallacies shared and painted all over this very forum & reddit: III. I don't understand why anybody would be against a larger block.
The popular name to this is "arguing to ignorance". What you understand or don't understand is not a proper subject of discussion, and you aren't welcome to try and foist it on intelligent people who aren't your parents. IV. Satoshi himself envisioned much larger blocks.
This is called "arguing to authority", and it tries to give pecuniary value to that only truly worthless article of all times and places : the esteem of the mob.
Later in the same article we observe a reasonable and practical observation of what a future with Bitcoin will and should look like. To quote : For the reasons noted and for many other reasons I am pretty much satisfied that Bitcoin is not nor will it ever be a direct means of payment for retail anything. You may end up paying for a month's worth of coffee vouchers at your favourite coffee shop via Bitcoin (so shop scrip built on top of Bitcoin), you may end up settling your accounts monthly at the restaurant in Bitcoin (so store credit built on top of Bitcoin), you will probably cash into whatever local currency from Bitcoin (be it Unified Standard Dubaloos or Universally Simplified Dosidoes or whatever else) but all that is entirely different a story. About our actual argument, he seemingly shares my concerns: VI. This is a clerical issue, because block propagation and other considerations incentivize miners to keep blocks small anyway. The 1MB is just a hard limit getting in the way of things, the marketplace of miners should be allowed to fix block size as it seems appropriate.
While this argument has been disingenuously brought by Gavin himself, the fact is that the proposed inverted bloom filters upgrade would allow all blocks to propagate in constant time, regardless of their size. Some might still ask: why is that? davout: gavinandresen: "oh, the IBLT stuff? yes, that’d make propagation O(1)" <<< so with that, there's no network bottleneck anymore, at least no real incentive for miners to keep blocks small, right?
gavinandresen:davout: Miners would only have the meta-incentive of “we can collectively maximize revenue if we make blocks THIS big” Except miners are not a person. They are multiple, geographically diverse groups of interests each bounded by different resources, costs and infrastructure. I kind of happen to think that this is what is broken with the "nodes and miners should be able to decide on whatever block size they like" proposition. I can also see clear as day through the attempt of many here at rationalizing this behavior as "free-market decides best, how dare you propose centrally designed SPAM CONTROL." The assumption you seem to make is that miners & nodes (through the magic of the "invisible hand" I suppose) will arrive at an equilibrium of decentralization in some kind of benevolent act "because incentives & game theory". If we consider that the argument about cost of creating large block is moot, the rational then becomes: miners will act in an altruistic way to conserve trust of the network. These points are not very clear to me. I don't imagine a scenario where several resourceful corporations do not turn this into an arms race that few will be able to keep up with. We are now only beginning to see mining and network infrastructure enter professional stage. If the incentive to mine Bitcoin increases the seemingly amateur and small scale set ups should soon be erased off the network and replaced by massive datacenters that should outnumber any of these small players so as to make their "voice" in the balance exercise of decentralization vs. block size worthless. You might imagine that as "bitcoiners" realize this issue they will "protest" but I suggest that by this point A. you will not be able to actually become aware of the problem and B. there will be nothing to do about it as the network will have become "captured" because of "network ossification" and the general laziness of the herd which will prefer comfort and stability over change and doubt. |
|
|
|
Sidechains are workable as of now under the existing protocol.
So this irc never happened? 00:51:22 <gmaxwell> the altcoin is also a bitcoin node, and monitors bitcoin for coins assigned to the altcoin, and then permits someone on the altcoin to emerge those coins from thin air.. and then when you want to send them back you make a special transaction in the altchain and prove you did it to bitcoin. 00:51:23 <adam3us> gmaxwell: i suppose the other thing is it itself requires bitcoin changes, perhaps non-trivial ones, and that is part of the reason for the exercise. 00:51:46 <gmaxwell> yea, unfortunately it requires changes to bitcoin.00:52:18 <gmaxwell> we could _almost_ do it in script without the disabled opcodes, but there are enough little corners that I suspect we can't. Which "altcoin" are they talking about here? Elements never happened? Which "sidechain" are we talking about here? What is the "fundamental" change to Bitcoin? |
|
|
|
The likelihood of sidechains becoming an integral part of Bitcoin is, I'd argue, far more important than any chance XT fork has at succeeding.
Keep burying your head in the ground and ignore innovation
But thats it - you're not arguing, you are just saying. sidechains require far more fundamental changes to bitcoin to work than anything being done in this patch.  Do you even know what you're talking about? make a point or shut up. Sidechains are workable as of now under the existing protocol. A softfork would allow more freedom in their functions, features and decentralization. |
|
|
|
The likelihood of sidechains becoming an integral part of Bitcoin is, I'd argue, far more important than any chance XT fork has at succeeding.
Keep burying your head in the ground and ignore innovation
But thats it - you're not arguing, you are just saying. sidechains require far more fundamental changes to bitcoin to work than anything being done in this patch. Do you even know what you're talking about? |
|
|
|
It looks like my post has been removed from r/bitcoin (it had 172 up-votes in 8 hours). It was near the top of the first page, and then 5 minutes later it was nowhere to be found. Both cartoons by /u/raisethelimit were removed too (and one was the second highest post). ..and all pro XT and angry censorship postings are removed from the front of /r/bitcoin. Disgraceful.
There's plenty of room for all of your Gavinista butt-ragings at https://voat.co/v/bitcoinxt . Just saying...  The cognitive dissonance is amazing. "Screw you guys we're forking and there's nothing you can do about it! We're gonna need our subreddit though..." Yes, and we don't want to move to a free country, we want the government to leave, they are the criminals after all ...  You know that's what millions of people throughout history actually did right? That's called an "exit". Seeing as an exit on the internet is not limited by costly physical constraints I really fail to see the point you're trying to make. |
|
|
|
It looks like my post has been removed from r/bitcoin (it had 172 up-votes in 8 hours). It was near the top of the first page, and then 5 minutes later it was nowhere to be found. Both cartoons by /u/raisethelimit were removed too (and one was the second highest post). ..and all pro XT and angry censorship postings are removed from the front of /r/bitcoin. Disgraceful.
There's plenty of room for all of your Gavinista butt-ragings at https://voat.co/v/bitcoinxt . Just saying... The cognitive dissonance is amazing. "Screw you guys we're forking and there's nothing you can do about it! We're gonna need our subreddit though..." |
|
|
|
Everyone rushing to be the first XTcoin recipients are economically advantaging MP & Co by writing them free options: This is a fight which, BY DESIGN, you Gavinistas cannot win. Poor thing, no wonder it's "doing your head in." Just incredible how much crap an early adopter can write. He just writes like an angry internet troll. His posts contain mostly personal attacks. His posts contain a lot of personal attacks. Yet only the simpletons clinging to these "because offended" are unable to recognize the insights. Truth hurts indeed |
|
|
|
Side chains are certainly altcoins.
Maybe in your universe. Lol how are they not? They are essentially watered down versions of Bitcoin lol with a separate block chain. Sidechains are not altcoins, nor are they "watered down," nor are their block chain's "seperate." Do you guys know what the phrase "TWO WAY PEG" means? Yes, something that is impossible. Ask the SNB (down) or PBOC (up). There is a world of difference between an economic peg (fiat) and a technical peg (sidechains) I have argued this before. The market is the proverbial gravity. If the peg is not allowed to break, all value will flow either to the sidechain or out of the sidechain. My personal guess is out of. Meaning the sidecoin fails. So keep talking about sidechains for ten years, collect and burn mountains of dollar risk capital, because if you try to implement it, it will prove its futility, and investor capital dries up The likelihood of sidechains becoming an integral part of Bitcoin is, I'd argue, far more important than any chance XT fork has at succeeding. Keep burying your head in the ground and ignore innovation |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
