If you only own bitcoin than your vote is counted far less than if you actively contribute to the ecosystem.
That's absolutely backwards. The best contribution to Bitcoin is every owner's respective economic share. Yes, that absolutely implies that large holders are de facto more powerful than those with less coins. No, your "activity" has nothing to do with this. TLDR: The investors run Bitcoin http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/who-controls-bitcoin/What are the implications of this conclusion? The motivation of investors is the value of the coin. The general rule about Bitcoin upgrades, therefore, is that upgrades which increase Bitcoin's value will be adopted and those which do not will not. |
|
|
|
It's by design a peer-to-peer electronic CASH system. your words. No wonder nobody takes you idiots seriously because you have no arguments just dumb half-baked economic theories, innuendo and then finally smearing and butthurt ragequit. But I also suspect this is not the real BJA but someone he sold his account to ... someone who is quite happy to troll endlessly on a seemingly divisive issue (but that in reality was settled long ago) to stir up the FUD and milk the confusion cow for as long as possible. It's the title of the motherfucking white paper, Marcus. If it's settled, then why do you even bother responding to me? Are you afraid your fear-mongering about centralization isn't as effective as you want it to be? Right. Notice the peer-to-peer part? |
|
|
|
>>>brg444
I think he meant "makes small transactions impractical." Imagine if every fiat transaction cost you a dollar to make. Sure, you still have pennies and dimes and stuff, but your prices can't go down to a penny anymore, thus "less divisible for practical purposes."
Except with Bitcoin there are alternatives. If you wanna send pennies around why not use Changetip? Do you really need 700,000,000 GH/s of security for your latte purchase? |
|
|
|
Money has five properties: Recognizable, portable, fungible, scarce and divisible.
Small blocks make bitcoin less divisible for practical purposes. Lack of divisibility is one reason why gold is no longer used as money, even in black markets. Been tracking gold prices lately? You want that to happen for Bitcoin?
 You should really stop posting. It's like you can't help but embarass yourself. |
|
|
|
Mining pools, exchanges and processors have no direct say. All that is needed for the BIP to be merged is agreement among the lead developers. That would be Van der Laan, Gavin Andresen, Jeff Garzik, Gregory Maxwell and Pieter Wuille. Correct me if I missed a name or am in error.
Miners have most of the power. No. We do. (assuming you hold any bitcoins) |
|
|
|
So you're saying... don't use bitcoin then? Great! Scale bitcoin by not using it!
don't use it for crap, like ads/spam, dice with 0,0000000001 tx, and so. Do you trade physical gold daily? Me neither. It's not a peer-to-peer electronic gold system. It's by design a peer-to-peer electronic CASH system. There may come a time when microtransactions will need to be off chain, but that time will never come if we don't get a critical mass of users first. This type of idiocy is often repeated but absolutely misguided. The term CASH stems from the notion that Bitcoin, like cash, is a bearer instrument, not that it should be freely spent on trinklets at no cost. |
|
|
|
And downloading terabytes of blockchain bloat will?
Bitcoin is a protocol and while it is true that scaling issues exist, they are being worked on to find solutions. But nobody says we all have to use just one blockchain for storing everything, and doing so with zero cost.
Having a second blockchain does absolutely nothing to reduce bloat. In order to use a federated blockchain in a trustless manner requires the user to download the entire bitcoin blockchain plus the entire federated blockchain. This can be no smaller than the bitcoin blockchain would be if all transactions were done in bitcoin. What's the point? Multiple blockchains do not reduce bloat on aggregate, they multiply it. However, you only download the blockchains you want. You are not forced to use 1000 blockchains if there are 1000 altcoins. You only download and use those that you like. So you're saying... don't use bitcoin then? Great! Scale bitcoin by not using it! Finally someone get it  HODL Bitcoin spend fiat ! |
|
|
|
I am desperately trying to quicken the path through Grayscale (really my custodian) to arbitrage but to be effective I would need to be able to turn it around in a small number of days (or less) and right now it has taken most of a year for the first batch (not encouraging).
tbh its a pretty silly contruct It was the first (and so far only?) way to get tax-favored retirement funds in; the lack of agility isn't utterly fatal. I already had/have as many non-retirement funds in that I wanted; if I want more it is pretty straightforward to get them. Bitcoins (or derivatives) in a retirement account (especially a Roth IRA) have a rather huge advantage over Bitcoins in a non-retirement account. *If* it goes to the moon then the tax difference will be enormous. I do fully expect the Roth IRA terms to be changed eventually; perhaps in part in response to the giant gains of Bitcoin. Except if.. you know... never cash out  *insert Morpheus meme* |
|
|
|
Were hash algorithms 1 through 11 added to any well known OpenPGP implementation before 2009?
All software would have supported it, and it even would have been possible to manually force GPG into creating a key with those preferences in 2008. But we already have a key for Satoshi. Everyone knows that it's accurate. It was created on Oct. 30, 2008, and it used the default GPG cipher preferences at the time. Now we're asked to believe that Satoshi had a secret additional key also created on Oct 30, 2008, but it used the default cipher preferences of today's version of GPG. Why would Satoshi create two keys on the same day with different cipher preferences (one of which is conveniently the default for modern GPG versions), and keep one totally secret? It's theoretically possible, but it makes no sense. By far the most likely explanation is that it was back-dated (easily possible with stock GPG) in order to trick gullible people into believing that this person is Satoshi. The other "evidence" is similarly worthless: Satoshi never used satoshin@vistomail.com (only satoshi@vistomail.com and satoshin@gmx.com), and the blogs were obviously back-dated as well. I am very disappointed in the community for (largely) being fooled by this obvious imposter. +1 it's like we're in the twilight zone. |
|
|
|
Please stop talking about this lunatic  |
|
|
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall a similar run-up when Darian Satoshi was claimed to be SN, thus setting a precedent for a subsequent run-up via a fake media campaign if that's what we're witnessing now. <post not meant as dis toward your research>
An actual, verifiable and conclusive reveal of Satoshi would put the fear of god into the market. The proposition that market rallied because of this news is bollocks. |
|
|
|
|
At risk of repeating myself.
That Satoshi hoax?
So bullish.
|
|
|
|
Okay so this guy is clearly not Satoshi but most certainly one hell of a sociopath  That'll get Bitcoin in the news though and a lot of people will notice the current price raise. Bullish. I don't follow. One hell of a sociopath how? It's rather clear this thing is a hoax. Don't ask me the intentions behind it but this egomaniac couldn't possibly be Satoshi. |
|
|
|
Okay so this guy is clearly not Satoshi but most certainly one hell of a sociopath That'll get Bitcoin in the news though and a lot of people will notice the current price raise. Bullish. |
|
|
|
This is fucking bearish, if true. I've read it and not yet convinced but I'll be damn if there's not some rather odd things in there. I truly hope they're wrong as it would be extremely bearish IMO. |
|
|
|
That's what we were waiting for all along. So.. when do you fork off? Maybe VeritasSapere can help you with the whitepaper? |
|
|
|
Actually I have been programming almost daily for the last 40 years. And I have watched from front row some of the best software developers in the world as they worked. As well as some terrible ones.
That is why I think that swapping Gavin for Greg was a disaster for bitcoin...
Actually the jokes on you, Jorgi. I'm a career programmer too, that's actually looked at some of the recent Core releases, and I can tell you that there's been maybe only a handful of lines of code added to Core in the last year or two. A. Handful. Of. Lines. In. Over. A. Years. Time. So let's don't over-glorify these so called developers and put them up on some sort of pedestal. Like they've got their noses to the grindstone every day, furiously cranking out mountains of code. If they had only coded that much in a business world white collar desk job setting, they'd be fired by now for being over-paid slackers. P.S.- And the truth/reason is, after 6 years of development, Bitcoin Core is pretty much complete and solid at this point. All the heavy lifting was done years ago. With the exception of increasing block size, and maybe a few other little things, there's very little left for the Core developers to actually do. So they're basically just downshifted into long term maintenance mode at this point, which anyone with their knowledge can do on the side for a few hours a week. That is because they are only working on their own company's off-chain solutions and stonewalling on any improvements to the client to enable scaling. Oh they also spend tons of time on reddit and other forums posting messages to argue why blocking the stream of transactions is necessary. Greg, Peter and several others have openly stated that they do not like Bitcoin's design and that it shouldn't work in practice. Despite the fact that it does. These are the people that have taken over control of the project because Gavin was too nice and wanted to share developer control, only to see these guys take over and shut him and the other early developers who actually built Bitcoin out. Under Satoshi and then Gavin we had don't of regular improvements in the client, now under Greg and Peter we have none.
That is complete and utter BS. The work done to scale Bitcoin to where it is today by Core developers is above and beyond most of what Gavin has ever done for Bitcoin. Gavin's solution to scaling: increase a constant. Give. me. a. break. Do you have any idea the amount of work and testing that went into libsecp256k1 and what it represents ? |
|
|
|
The biggest drawback of complexity is it increases the risk of centralization: If only a few guys knows how it works, then if these guys are compromised then the whole system is down. Currently bitcoin is understandable by thousands of developers, but if you go two chain implementation it will take decades to reach that level of understanding, at mean time simple solutions will gain more and more supporters jonnyj, your avatar text has always read "Beyond Imagination". May I submit that you have gone too far. Come back! Thanks, but that's Pieter's imagination to re-design bitocin: "What if we could redesign Bitcoin from scratch? What if you're designing an altcoin, there's really no reason why you would want to do this in Bitcoin. This is actually something we did in sidechain alpha." So far, I was talking hypothetically about the scheme presented so far, because the deployment would not be easy. All transaction data structures would have to be changed, which is a huge deployment friction. (...) This seemed like a hard problem. I personally dismissed this as a solution for a long time as something non-viable, until Luke-Jr discovered that it's possible to do this as a soft-fork. |
|
|
|
However, if a rogue node send out a block appears to be valid but with transactions with wrong signature, then if other nodes do not validate each transactions in the block, they have no way to know if those transactions are valid, if they approve those blocks and start to build block above this block then those invalid transactions can even spend satoshi's coins
That cannot happen. If the right signatures are not included along with the transactions data inside the blocks fully verifying nodes will reject them. Ok, so the fully verifying nodes are not going to benefit from the new design, then how does this design improve the communication speed between fully verifying nodes (which is the bottleneck of the current design) ? It doesn't. It was clearly implied that data propagation and bandwidth is not directly addressed by this proposal. Have you read Greg's scalability "roadmap"? There are other solutions on the drawing boards in that regard: Going beyond segwit, there has been some considerable activity brewing around more efficient block relay. There is a collection of proposals, some stemming from a p2pool-inspired informal sketch of mine and some independently invented, called "weak blocks", "thin blocks" or "soft blocks". These proposals build on top of efficient relay techniques (like the relay network protocol or IBLT) and move virtually all the transmission time of a block to before the block is found, eliminating size from the orphan race calculation. We already desperately need this at the current block sizes. These have not yet been implemented, but fortunately the path appears clear. I've seen at least one more or less complete specification, and I expect to see things running using this in a few months. http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011865.html |
|
|
|
The biggest drawback of complexity is it increases the risk of centralization: If only a few guys knows how it works, then if these guys are compromised then the whole system is down. Currently bitcoin is understandable by thousands of developers, but if you go two chain implementation it will take decades to reach that level of understanding, at mean time simple solutions will gain more and more supporters
Look, you need to step back and realize that you clearly don't understand the proposal. Granted that may be because it wasn't communicated well enough yet seeing as all details haven't been hashed out. I understand your precautionary approach but may I suggest you wait until the full BIP proposal is out? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
