[edited out]
part of me feels all this, node count, minning in china, bitcoin "centraliztion", is all completely over stated. sure its important to maintain a certain level of decentralization, but I dont think we are anywhere close to a dangerous situation. but ya building in some incentives that promote decentralization can't hurt. Yep, there seems to be some empirical difficulties in the bitcoin space in term of being able to measure exactly the mining and who are the miners, etc, etc. It seems to be kind of like a catch 22 in that it is difficult to measure exactly who are all the miners and to ensure that some of them are not collaborating in order to destroy bitcoin. we do have this :https://blockchain.info/pools we know that the bigger minning pools are each owned/governed by a dozen investors the other pools get hashes from ~100 large minning operation and thousands of hobbyist. to me this is just fine, better then fine. anycase too me its a Todd to think that minners would ever do anything other than what they perceive the majority to want, so who cares. I would like to see full-nodes have more weight when it comes to choosing which new features get adopted
they did this thing which allows minning to express there willingness / readiness for any particular BIP.
they should allow full-nodes to do the same thing.
I thought that attempting to accomplish something like this increased the likelihood for sybil attacks, and if so, how can you weight the votes properly if some rich folks are out their trying to imitate nodes as if they are real people? I guess so, we did see Classic node count reach almost 50% when clearly it never actually had that much support. it was pretty easy to see that they were mostly ran by amazon severs. maybe they could require nodes to sign a msg with a private key, that way its more clear that we are measuring econmic majority.
i guess its already like that, i could choose to run BitcoinUnlimited, and there by express my willingness to accept bigger blocks. but idk I just dont FEEL it would make any difference.
Probably in the current state it may not make a lot of difference to run BU. Probably, more effectively would be figuring out ways that maybe some other cryptos are able to better allow for governance and or input to be more balanced and to figure out ways in which to incorporate some of those mechanisms into bitcoin in order that, for example, too much centralization ends up taking over bitcoin. Some of this will likely evolve with time and monitoring, and surely we continue to hope for decent developments, including issues in which prices are controlled by quasi-centralized exchanges, and maybe there are continuing solutions being proposed to make more decentralized abilities/mechanisms to establish BTC prices. i think what needs to change is people's perception. despite SOME people's attempts at spreading the idea that having multiple competing implementations was a good thing. Most still have this idea that if the node isn't a core node its not valid, the idea that the other implementations like BU are written by amateurs and aren't a serious option. things like Mods declaring Classic or BU as an "altcoin" and going on a censorship rampage has fucked with poeple's perception.... shame on them. I remember a time when all development decisions where carried out by 1 guy rageless of any objections, minners didnt ask questions, users were blissfully unaware of what was included in new versions, while Mr Manipulator (Pirate40 was his name) painted whatever candles sticks he felt was appropriate. can't say things aren't improving with time, to me bitcoin has never been more decentralized as it is today. |
|
|
|
he probably flipped out when he realized he forever lost ALL his minted bitcoins from 2009 . |
|
|
|
[edited out]
what if we have 9billion GH's all coming from 3 mining pools... i agree with you 1,000,000 GHs is more then enough to secure the network from outside attacks but the concern ( altho unjustified ) is that minning is becoming more centralized which will make it easyer to push new changes onto the network. i think that the strong incentive miners have to keep users happy makes this concern of a mining cartel "taking over" a "Todd" def.Todd : (1) irrational fear base on the premise that miners might work together in an effort to undermine the very network that sustains them. You are not really going to get any argument from me that there is a need for a large number of miners and mining operations, and so there does likely need to be various kinds of protections regarding centralization. My post was mostly responding to the assertion that the halvening had potentially caused some kind of meaningful drop in the hashpower, bitcoin's price and the implications that bitcoin was in a perilous state because of such supposed drop in mining power... I will concede that due to risks of centralization there is a need for balancing and continuing an incentive for a relatively broad spread of miners..... yet I don't think that the halvening has had any meaningful impact yet on such centralization dynamics (if any exist).. and ultimately it seems pretty likely to me that BTC prices are going to go up because of the halvening - even though it could take a year or longer for such BTC supply cuts to become more painful in terms of availability of coins and causing BTC prices to increase more. In the shorter term, it is much harder to really make meaningful assessments regarding which small changes here and there (including the halvening) are causing what, because there are a lot of changes going on all of the time in bitcoinlandia and BTC prices are continued to be pushed in both directions (with relatively low volume in recent weeks - even around the time of the halvening). part of me feels all this, node count, minning in china, bitcoin "centraliztion", is all completely over stated. sure its important to maintain a certain level of decentralization, but I dont think we are anywhere close to a dangerous situation. but ya building in some incentives that promote decentralization can't hurt. I would like to see full-nodes have more weight when it comes to choosing which new features get adopted they did this thing which allows minning to express there willingness / readiness for any particular BIP. they should allow full-nodes to do the same thing. i guess its already like that, i could choose to run BitcoinUnlimited, and there by express my willingness to accept bigger blocks. but idk I just dont FEEL it would make any difference. |
|
|
|
Fourth: Are you suggesting a drop in hashing power too, or not? I don't see that, so far.
Yes the HR is down, how can you not see this? Hash Rate: 1,363,094,377 GH/s right now It was ~ 1,550,000 GH/s at halving, had been inching up until halving, held steady for a short while after halving and has recently declined. That is ~ 12% yeah, let's get caught up on meaningless information and follow microchanges in the hashrate. We are not really quibbling about the actual hashrate and its changes, but instead about the significance of such changes that we recognize to exist. For ease of reference, here's the actual hashrate in the past year. https://blockchain.info/charts/hash-rateAs we can see, the hashrate has been going up significantly, and we can zoom out, as well to see how exponential such growth has been. Wake me up if the hashrate goes below 1,000,000 GHs, and even that level may not really be that significant, but at least there is some kind of potential meaningful change if the hashrate starts to go below that point. You expect to continue to have ongoing exponential growth in the hashrate at all times, or otherwise bitcoin is broken?, which seems a bit ridiculous.. Even with a hashrate of 1,000,000 GHs is a very high and well able to secure a BTC market cap of 10x or 100x higher BTC prices. what if we have 9billion GH's all coming from 3 mining pools... i agree with you 1,000,000 GHs is more then enough to secure the network from outside attacks but the concern ( altho unjustified ) is that minning is becoming more centralized which will make it easyer to push new changes onto the network. i think that the strong incentive miners have to keep users happy makes this concern of a mining cartel "taking over" a "Todd" def.Todd : (1) irrational fear base on the premise that miners might work together in an effort to undermine the very network that sustains them. |
|
|
|
Of course, the long year trend showed that the price would be $660 the day of the halving (as predicted over 2 years ago).
https://foundersgrid.com/bitcoin-price/  Looks like your tomfoolery is coming to an end, Elwar... http://bitlegal.io/2016/07/24/eu-commission-to-propose-central-database-of-virtual-currency-users/EU Commission to propose Central Database of Virtual Currency UsersJuly 24, 2016 520 The EU Commission in its latest proposal to regulate virtual currency exchanges and custodian wallets (Proposal) suggests a further amendment to the 4th Anti-Money Laundering Directive (4AMLD) which may result in the creation of a central database of virtual currency users (Central VC User Database).Tomfoolery? I am very open about my use of bitcoins and whom I am. As part of my clearance I never do anything illegal outside of a few traffic violations. The EU is free to watch how I spend my bitcoins, maybe they will learn something and adopt it themselves. lol right, and so the only names that will ever appear there will be legit users using bitcoin for legal things. what do they hope to accomplish? |
|
|
|
|
"i'm 3 days late" she said
i think i'm gana puke....
|
|
|
|
|
635 is coming
one last good drop before we continue on moving forward
thats my wish.
|
|
|
|
Now we can resume our blitzkrieg towards the moon
Apollo One, how're you guys doing in there? ehhh sir, we have a red light here, i'm reading 651 Degrees Celsius in the cockpit... should we abort? |
|
|
|
A year from now, we'll have -650k coins fewer than we'd have without the halvening. So...
A year from now, you'll see 1,800 * 365 = 657,000 BTC *MORE* 500million dollars of value? better make it 5billion...  we MUST move UP! |
|
|
|
wtf happend to the ask wall?  come back ask wall we aren't done with you yet. |
|
|
|
|
that 649 target set on bitmovements was a pretty fucking good call, if i do say so myself.
but i may set it back to 599 next update.
the next 24 hours are critical... Elwar do you have another house to sell??
|
|
|
|
http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-core-ethereum-hard-fork-unsettling-precedent/why i am not surprised by peter todd's reaction. now he's extra paranoid about HF... personally i think they are viewing this in the wrong light. I find it encouraging to know that a crypto necessarily behaves EXACTLY as the marjoy want it to, and the fact that this very controversial and extreme version of a HF ( not one that simply changes protocol rules and leaves balances alone, but actually edits the blockchain! ) was not only smoothly deployed but also left the ETH markets unaffected, is proof of concept IMO.
|
|
|
|
Thank you price dumper. House sale money all converted finally after a month and a half voyage from check to bitcoins.
you sold your house and bought bitcoin with the money? Yep, 230 bitcoins added to my stash. i guess its not too hard to justify, still, very ballsy move, you are a true early adopter, congratulations. |
|
|
|
Thank you price dumper. House sale money all converted finally after a month and a half voyage from check to bitcoins.
you sold your house and bought bitcoin with the money? |
|
|
|
Buy opportunity or sell opportunity? Thoughts? you might be able to sell and get as much as 10% within a few days / weeks or you could buy and get a much as 300% within a few months / years tough call |
|
|
|
imagine we are stuck at 666 for 6 months  DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM Imagine 6 years 6 months and 6 days  |
|
|
|
|
ETH just had a HF, and ETH Classic is still alive, but ETH's value has not halved. ( not yet anyway )
let's keep watching...
|
|
|
|
imagine we are stuck at 666 for 6 months DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM |
|
|
|
|
for today i'd be content over joyed with a green candle to 699
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
