Bitstamp says. meanwhile, in stockland. $DJI -321:  |
|
|
|
Doesn't matter if the transaction fees are high or low. Doesn't matter if ....
To be honest, I have not previously considered the points you make above. I have always taken Satoshi's block rewards->fees evolution at face value, and am not convinced that the majority of miners will work for zero income. Obviously this does happen to some of them, occasionally. I'm pleasantly surprised to see you say this. Still, it's a hypothesis on my part, and the appropriate thing to do with a hypothesis is to file it away and match it against future observations. Another somewhat weaker hypothesis is that some of the value streams that I alluded to are quite valuable indeed if enough data can be collected. We could see mining completely subsidized in order to capture these value streams (and other's I've not thought of.) With respect to the 'who spends what where' data, the 'who' part is still the most challenging. Eventually Big Bro will probably solve that with a 'internet drivers license' type thing, but if/when that happens it's still not clear how available the data will be to private industry. It will probably be a 'public/private partnership' arrangement with horse-trading that favors the big guys would be my guess. In the here-and-now, when you see someone wanting you to use a particular authenticator, it's a pretty sure bet that that is what they are after. Outfits with a large network footprint have other ways of course, but authentication optimizes things significantly. A very common way to make money in tech is to achieve something that a big player will want then either sell it to them or sell the ability to obtain it (e.g., your company.) One of my (very initial) hypothesis about OpenTransaction is that this might be their game because a successful transport layer would be a high-value item in a bunch of ways. A real-world analogy must be the oil market. With the oil price down 45% a lot of producers are unprofitable, pumping for zero, and considering closing down. But there are profitable producers and the oil industry will continue, even if the price stays low and half of the producers go out of business.
The energy markets are probably about the worst example of a 'free market' that one could find. For one, there are huge national security issues which touch almost every aspect of it. For two, it's probably not a complete junk theory that our monetary system itself(!) is heavily tied in through what is monikered the 'petro-dollar' (and the 'world reserve currency' status of the USD.) None-the-less, the old supply/demand laws are so powerful that they cannot be buried forever and they can be expected to rear their 'ugly heads' even in a heavily manipulated market like energy...with time... actually, the hypothesis is a decent one (ouch, that's painful to say) and i have myself thought about this. but i don't think it's a potential problem until 2140 when Bitcoin inflation goes to zero. certainly, it could manifest itself earlier if the market perceives it as a bonafide problem and attempts to front run it. however, i agree with solex that it can probably be better modelled by what we have in the energy mkts. and oil companies don't seem to be having a problem; nor even smaller players who nip at their heels thru private oil wells or shale opportunities. also, Adrian pointed out that your claim of "unlimited HW" is really Econ 101. |
|
|
|
The Bitstamp hacking highlights the need for sidechains IMHO. Central bank's solution is to print money and bail out. Our solution should be sidechains. Bitshares could be forked onto a sidechain, potentially allowing all trade and storage to be done on protocol with bitcoin as the backing collateral... or perhaps the truthcoin model would work. Its time for this to happen.
no, not necessarily. your assumption is that SC's are more secure than current exchange models. the only way to achieve this is to obtain 100% MM cooperation from miners. there is no model for this and the best we have is about 55% for NMC. just given the fact that some miners won't be aware of SC existence if and when they do come to fruition means they won't be mining SC's which means there will be <100% for sure. theoretically, anything <100% MM'ing is vulnerable and i'm sure this can be mathematically modelled. plus, i'm not sure where all this desire comes from to "bailout" speculators on current exchanges. b/c that is what they are, imo. the reason i have never lost a coin is b/c i realize that Bitcoin is about increasing personal responsibility by becoming your own bank. i have never used an exchange as a trading mechanism and have just used them to buy and move coin to my privkeys. SC's are an attempt to bailout the individual speculator who wishes to leave their coin on some speculative trading platform. but even that doesn't work b/c of the MM'ing fallacies i've outlined above. Its not just speculators that use the exchanges. The sidechain model is not a bailout, it is a potentially more secure financial system where users have much less exposure to theft. While bitcoin is still in beta, I don't see any reason to not implement it. yes, there are users like me who simply use the exchanges to get in and out of BTC but over long time periods. anyone who does leave their BTC/fiat on the exchange for prolonged periods are the speculators i'm talking about. who of us here leave their fiat on Forex exchanges for prolonged periods. not many i'd suspect as we generally are more about sound money and not speculation. SC's are tempting us by claiming to be more secure; i question that b/c of the necessity for 100% MM. the 2wp is also suspect as it implies a way to get out w/o losses esp if you're using the SC for speculation. bailout is probably too strong a term so maybe my original "put" term applies. the spvp does sound generic based on what Adam has told us but it's the unexpected feedback effects on MC that i question. |
|
|
|
The Bitstamp hacking highlights the need for sidechains IMHO. Central bank's solution is to print money and bail out. Our solution should be sidechains. Bitshares could be forked onto a sidechain, potentially allowing all trade and storage to be done on protocol with bitcoin as the backing collateral... or perhaps the truthcoin model would work. Its time for this to happen.
no, not necessarily. your assumption is that SC's are more secure than current exchange models. the only way to achieve this is to obtain 100% MM cooperation from miners. there is no model for this and the best we have is about 55% for NMC. just given the fact that some miners won't be aware of SC existence if and when they do come to fruition means they won't be mining SC's which means there will be <100% for sure. theoretically, anything <100% MM'ing is vulnerable and i'm sure this can be mathematically modelled. plus, i'm not sure where all this desire comes from to "bailout" speculators on current exchanges. b/c that is what they are, imo. the reason i have never lost a coin is b/c i realize that Bitcoin is about increasing personal responsibility by becoming your own bank. i have never used an exchange as a trading mechanism and have just used them to buy and move coin to my privkeys. SC's are an attempt to bailout the individual speculator who wishes to leave their on some speculative trading platform. but even that doesn't work b/c of the MM'ing fallacies i've outlined above. If a) you build exchange as SC using SNARK and b) bitcoin protocol will be able to verify this SC (sequence of bid/ask/deposit/withdrawal signed by owners) using OP_SIDECHAIN_VERIFY then NO MM is required. It will impossible to stole bitcoins from exchange. -> this is how I see SC. that's interesting. i tried listening to that video of SNARK and boy was that complex. certainly not yet developed. but let's say SNARKS do come to fruition. wouldn't it be better to integrate it into Bitcoin if possible? this would prevent existing cold wallets from having to migrate to the SNARK SC which would save alot of ppl time and headache, not to mention all the ppl who WON'T have heard of this new SC and the need to move their BTC. if it turns out SNARKS are not implementable into Bitcoin and are somehow able to prove that it's functionality is SO MUCH better than Bitcoin, then maybe. we'll have to see about that. but that's not really what we're talking about here. we're discussing spvp, a 2 way peg. if what you're talking about comes to fruition, we'd be only needing a 1 way peg, which technically is simpler and probably safer for Bitcoin MC. |
|
|
|
Actually, a blockchain can have security without a currency.
It would be less decentralized though.
For example, you have GovBlockchain. Secured by proof of work. The blockchain could be so important, that government would secure it without any financial incentives, and mandate all record keeping to be done on this blockchain, secured by hundreds of 3 letter agencies.
but that is not practical nor realistic. at that level of abstraction, gvt's should not bother with a blockchain as no one would trust the data integrity of GovBlockchain. |
|
|
|
how does the IBLT scale with the size of the block UTXO set? linearly or by some other ratio?
edit: actually iirc, it scales with the size of the difference btwn UTXO set estimates across the network. iow, a UTXO set estimated to be 99% similar across the network will allow a miner to send a smaller IBLT when solving a block than a UTXO set estimated to be only 89% similar across the network. is that right?
Yes. The size of an IBLT does depend upon the average expected number of differences between the unconfirmed tx mempools of the majority of the nodes. Because each node has independent choice on which tx to accept or reject then it is impossible to be precise, in advance, about how efficient IBLT will be. Miners will always want to propagate small blocks, so there will be an incentive for mining nodes to find consensus on their tx mempools. Gavin describes it: RE: O(1) versus O(some-function-of-total-number-of-transactions):
Yes, it will depend on whether or not the number of differences goes up as the number of transactions goes up.
The incentives align so it is in everybody's best interest to make the differences as small as possible. I wouldn't be surprised if that causes innovations to drive the actual size to O(1) minus an increasing constant, as code gets better at predicting which transactions our peers do or don't have.
It is also worth noting that IBLT can be implemented on top of other block propagation models, such as Matt Corallo's block relay system, which already saves on bandwidth. with anything new like this, i'm interested in knowing the upper and lower bounds of the IBLT data size. lower bound: theoretically, as the UTXO set difference shrinks to zero with 0 network latency, the IBLT will shrink similarly but can never reach zero since it has to at minimum relay enough data to convey the exact subset of tx's included in the miner's block. how small can this data get esp in relation to the avg block size now? upper bound: if the UTXO set difference is 100%, how big does the IBLT data size get? or does the entire IBLT concept fall apart at some intermediate set difference? |
|
|
|
nice quote Marc Andreessen Paraphrasing (Bitcoin's value is it's blockchain not the BTC) My fundamental issue with SC is they don't secure the value just the BTC. SC offer economic hackers a way to steal that value. It's economic ignorance to believe the value in the blockchain is inherent. I thought the blockchain and the currency couldn't be separated. Can a blockchain exist without having a token to secure it? (or have I misinterpreted the entire thing - long day) No. The currency and the blockchain cannot be separated. A blockchain without a currency has no security. yep, this is the correct view. just goes to show you how early we all are. even our greatest public proponent seems not to get it. |
|
|
|
I'm still numb from reading the Side Chain white paper and trying to figure how they plan to wrangle their mining pools into a reliable source of metadata. I'll await details on that. If you think Side Chains are sketchy, check out the Internet of Coins white paper.I only glanced at it so far. First of all, why does everyone seem to think PoS is so great an incentive? Answer: Because human labor can be farmed cheaper and easier than technology. Then there's Proof of Allocation. The thing is, you have to trade something for something else. I came up with a rudimentary (and completely ignored) idea for a multicoin system in 2012 based on Rock Paper Scissors as the analog called Proof of Merit. I don't understand these kitchen sink mentalities. I'm starting to like Bitcoin as money more and more, because humans will always find greater levels of abstraction. What mining pools  talk about confused; even after Adam pointed out to you that federated servers are intermediaries that stand btwn the MC and SC. son, mining pools are who are needed to MM the SC for security and transactional integrity, remember? |
|
|
|
The Bitstamp hacking highlights the need for sidechains IMHO. Central bank's solution is to print money and bail out. Our solution should be sidechains. Bitshares could be forked onto a sidechain, potentially allowing all trade and storage to be done on protocol with bitcoin as the backing collateral... or perhaps the truthcoin model would work. Its time for this to happen.
no, not necessarily. your assumption is that SC's are more secure than current exchange models. the only way to achieve this is to obtain 100% MM cooperation from miners. there is no model for this and the best we have is about 55% for NMC. just given the fact that some miners won't be aware of SC existence if and when they do come to fruition means they won't be mining SC's which means there will be <100% for sure. theoretically, anything <100% MM'ing is vulnerable and i'm sure this can be mathematically modelled. plus, i'm not sure where all this desire comes from to "bailout" speculators on current exchanges. b/c that is what they are, imo. the reason i have never lost a coin is b/c i realize that Bitcoin is about increasing personal responsibility by becoming your own bank. i have never used an exchange as a trading mechanism and have just used them to buy and move coin to my privkeys. SC's are an attempt to bailout the individual speculator who wishes to leave their coin on some speculative trading platform. but even that doesn't work b/c of the MM'ing fallacies i've outlined above. |
|
|
|
The problem is not so much the storage. Bandwidth is where you'll run into a bottleneck
With that, IBLT can slash bandwidth requirements by at least 2 orders of magnitude. Only full node bootstrapping and re-sync will remain bandwidth intensive. It will cut full-node bandwidth requirements by no more than in half. IBLTs make propagation of solved blocks orders of magnitude more efficient, but that's only because the nodes already have the TXs in mempool. The TXs still need to be processed by each node as they're broadcast across the network; IBLTs simply prevent the TXs from being transmitted a second time with each solved block. Yes, but "simply" is an understatement. Real-time tx cross the network uniformly, with enormous capacity already available, perhaps 1000 TPS. It is block propagation which is time critical where milliseconds count. When a block is solved the rest of the mining network is then hashing uselessly until the block is fully propagated. Incentives are perverse, against large blocks which are ultimately needed to fund the network via fees rather than rewards. Removing the bottleneck for block propagation is a huge win for scaling Bitcoin. how does the IBLT scale with the size of the block UTXO set? linearly or by some other ratio? edit: actually iirc, it scales with the size of the difference btwn UTXO set estimates across the network. iow, a UTXO set estimated to be 99% similar across the network will allow a miner to send a smaller IBLT when solving a block than a UTXO set estimated to be only 89% similar across the network. is that right? |
|
|
|
And confirmed by Odalv, your partner in crime.
You are so confused. :-) actually i think you are incredibly confused since you're trying to secure all these supposed federated server SC's you claim are running with minimal MM'ing. you should let me know where these are located so i can go perform a 51% and destroy them  You do not understand tech. :-) - 1 timestamp is equal to 100% MM - SC can use POS or login to central server ... I really do not need to share my blockchain with 7B unknown people. (I work together with only few people, and do shopping in less than 100 local shops ) i think you do not understand SC's OR Bitcoin. :-) there is no reason for a private coalition of central servers to adopt a blockchain to secure its data. it's a waste and insecure. let's say you have 10 centralized server businesses (federated servers) in your local area securing your blockchain and with whom you do business. one of them, unbeknownst to you, is the head of Discus Fish. once your local blockchain acquires enough scBTC, one day you'll wake up and they will be all gone. It is not possible because I'll hire you as my personal SC advisor. Edit: And we will siphon all bitcoin from Discus Fish into my SC. :-) no offense, but it is difficult talking to you about this with all the sarcasm. Adam, is there a problem with my logic? |
|
|
|
And confirmed by Odalv, your partner in crime.
You are so confused. :-) actually i think you are incredibly confused since you're trying to secure all these supposed federated server SC's you claim are running with minimal MM'ing. you should let me know where these are located so i can go perform a 51% and destroy them You do not understand tech. :-) - 1 timestamp is equal to 100% MM - SC can use POS or login to central server ... I really do not need to share my blockchain with 7B unknown people. (I work together with only few people, and do shopping in less than 100 local shops ) i think you do not understand SC's OR Bitcoin. :-) there is no reason for a private coalition of central servers to adopt a blockchain to secure its data. it's a waste and insecure. let's say you have 10 centralized server businesses (federated servers) in your local area securing your blockchain and with whom you do business. one of them, unbeknownst to you, is the head of Discus Fish. once your local blockchain acquires enough scBTC, one day you'll wake up and they will be all gone. |
|
|
|
It doesn't matter how the back-end of a sidechain happens to work, and there are a vast number of possibilities (that's one of the main points of sidechains!)
if that's how you view SC's then we don't need them. |
|
|
|
And confirmed by Odalv, your partner in crime.
You are so confused. :-) actually i think you are incredibly confused since you're trying to secure all these supposed federated server SC's you claim are running with minimal MM'ing. you should let me know where these are located so i can go perform a 51% and destroy them |
|
|
|
Yet this from you: what is this bizarro world where any ledger of ownership qualifies as a blockchain You have spoken at length about federated servers without ever actually understanding how they work. Why should I take your opinion seriously or even consider your attacks on sidechains if I cannot trust anymore whether or not you grok them? This discussion has been all over the place and plastered with comments and critiques from people who have apparently not even taken a minute to understand the concepts behind the sidechain technology. What's more concerning is the actions of others who are blindly supporting these assertions and increasing the confusion. I appreciate the contributions of most here, especially Adam but some would really benefit from stepping outside this cacophony and sharpen their understanding instead of adding to the noise. It doesn't change any of the conclusions I've made. We've talked about this many times and you've never bothered to clarify the concept so I doubt you understand any better than the rest of us. Your noise to signal ratio is so high. |
|
|
|
And confirmed by Odalv, your partner in crime.
You are so confused. :-) Yeah right. I think you are based on what you've said. Why did you confirm what JStolfi said and that is the concept we've gone over many times. Id also like to see evidence of just who is MM'ing your federated servers that you claim are running. |
|
|
|
I've always been more inclined to favor more of a token system for 'exchange currency' duty. Under such a 'token flavored sidechain' I would only wish to be able to verify that I am in sole control of my tokens and could induce a particular native Bitcoin retrieval on demand. For such a system I would accept a certain amount of slop since this would go a long way toward implementation efficiency, and I won't die if I lose (or gain) a few nickles in some sort of a SC failure.
none of what you're saying then makes sense compared to what Adam has been saying. SC's are blockchains except in the case of federated server SC's (but even that definition is being fuzzed over by the SC ppl calling an internal ledger a SC ) I think it was more JorgeStolfi with the internal ledger (the sofa/couch in bitstamps office?), I would not call an internal ledger a chain - a chain has to be real-time publicly audited I think, to be called a chain. With federated peg there is a real side-chain, including mining, consensus rules etc and then the federated peg servers act as a protocol adaptor - the peg servers are full nodes on the side-chain, and pegged coins are paid to their multisig address (eg 10 of 15) and the side-chain fullnodes and miners watch the multisig address on the bitcoin network, and coins arriving there count as a peg to put coins into the side-chain; and when the side-chain hashrate majority approves a return peg to reanimate a coin, the federated pegs are watching the side-chain as they are full nodes there too, so they release the funds to the address the return peg tells them to. Now obviously the limitation is if >= 10 of the federated peg servers are hostile or compromised, they could take the coin without approval of the side-chain. But short of that it is the side-chain consensus and miners etc that arbitrate what coins move across the peg. Adam Ok, this is new info to all of here who assumed federated server implementations of SC's were just that, server based only, without blockchains. This sounds more like a Ripple type system with gateways and a blockchain.  Are you kidding me? I can't believe we've been discussing this for the last few hundred pages and you are yet to have a clue about the underlying tech. Don't bother with the simpleton.
He's been operating under the assumption that SC's are token, not blockchains, lol.
you are so, so confused. the last few pages were brillant really. I had a blast watching from the sidelines. Yet this from you: what is this bizarro world where any ledger of ownership qualifies as a blockchain merely pointing out some of you who are actually entertaining this false assumption proposed by professional troll jstolfi And confirmed by Odalv, your partner in crime. |
|
|
|
I've always been more inclined to favor more of a token system for 'exchange currency' duty. Under such a 'token flavored sidechain' I would only wish to be able to verify that I am in sole control of my tokens and could induce a particular native Bitcoin retrieval on demand. For such a system I would accept a certain amount of slop since this would go a long way toward implementation efficiency, and I won't die if I lose (or gain) a few nickles in some sort of a SC failure.
none of what you're saying then makes sense compared to what Adam has been saying. SC's are blockchains except in the case of federated server SC's (but even that definition is being fuzzed over by the SC ppl calling an internal ledger a SC ) I think it was more JorgeStolfi with the internal ledger (the sofa/couch in bitstamps office?), I would not call an internal ledger a chain - a chain has to be real-time publicly audited I think, to be called a chain. With federated peg there is a real side-chain, including mining, consensus rules etc and then the federated peg servers act as a protocol adaptor - the peg servers are full nodes on the side-chain, and pegged coins are paid to their multisig address (eg 10 of 15) and the side-chain fullnodes and miners watch the multisig address on the bitcoin network, and coins arriving there count as a peg to put coins into the side-chain; and when the side-chain hashrate majority approves a return peg to reanimate a coin, the federated pegs are watching the side-chain as they are full nodes there too, so they release the funds to the address the return peg tells them to. Now obviously the limitation is if >= 10 of the federated peg servers are hostile or compromised, they could take the coin without approval of the side-chain. But short of that it is the side-chain consensus and miners etc that arbitrate what coins move across the peg. Adam Ok, this is new info to all of here who assumed federated server implementations of SC's were just that, server based only, without blockchains. This sounds more like a Ripple type system with gateways and a blockchain. Are you kidding me? I can't believe we've been discussing this for the last few hundred pages and you are yet to have a clue about the underlying tech. Don't bother with the simpleton.
He's been operating under the assumption that SC's are token, not blockchains, lol.
you are so, so confused. the last few pages were brillant really. I had a blast watching from the sidelines. Yet this from you: what is this bizarro world where any ledger of ownership qualifies as a blockchain |
|
|
|
Gold outperformed every currency apart from the US $ in 2014, 0.8% down on the year  I think most people know how the US $ will end up so get some gold while you can  I was just going to point out similar that despite the thread title it has generally not been true that gold is collapsing. It went upto 1900 and has that true enough and its not gained anything but overall its not a losing asset in the longer term. Like this last yearly view, gold gained alot in 2014 before losing most of it again which is just holding steady in the big picture. As far as miners are concerned their costs have reduced from the oil price drop which generally means they make more money even though gold price has stayed level, I think they are better off in 2015 then 2014  Coffee is being used more in asia ? Not sure if its gaining but we can expect gold similarly to gain from any rise in use 2014 was simply a cooling off phase of the longer term trend of this thread which should reestablish itself in 2015. |
|
|
|
Some bizarre form of Tourette Syndrome If you have trouble understanding how businesses survive the economic reality that competition in a free market reduces the profitability of all ventures over time, then maybe you can go ask them for yourself how they manage to deal with it? There are millions of them in the world, so it shouldn't be too hard to find a few and talk with them. Let us know how your investigation goes. Don't bother with the simpleton. He's been operating under the assumption that SC's are token, not blockchains, lol. And what about his blather above that accounting doesn't need to pay attention to details, lol? I notice that cypherdoc also avoided my very simple and easy to understand question like the plague. I'll give you two a few days to come up with some sort of a plausible answer, but won't expect much more than ' because free market.' BTW, I know first hand how 'they manage to deal with it', and it's not pretty. Certainly it's not where I want to see Bitcoin go whether it makes me a fortune or not. What question? Btw, you said above you would prefer SC's to be tokenized systems because of efficiency, speed and ease of use. Are you crazy or is this a holdover from your socialist days? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
