|
Always wonder about Stellar. Their lead guy is being sued by Ripple who he used to work for, as it was suggested he ripped stuff from them... or at least was developing Stellar on company time and on their computers.
I always thought either Ripple or Stellar would get somewhere with the banks and so on and maybe reach a decent value that way, but hoping either of their prices move up much is about as likely as man taking to the skies before the Wright brothers invention.
In the case of Stellar it's a pity, as they seemed to have a less corporate outlook than Ripple.
|
|
|
|
Applying that level of security to all these other information systems would be stupendously brilliant, like living a sci-fi movie. Possibly it might be horrifying for the same reason, but fuck it, the 20th century is over.
LOL. I love the way you just waxed over a possible never ending dystopian nightmare with a 'fuck it, the 20th century is over'. I laughed hard and spat out my tortilla chips. I agree about the blockchain tech if it comes to fruition though. It'll be amazing. |
|
|
|
MyCoin promised clients a HKD 1 million (USD 128,976) return over a 4-month period
Honestly, It's staggering that anyone would believe this to be an actual possibility. As the saying always goes, if it looks too good to be true, it generally is. |
|
|
|
You are right and I think this is a very important moment for bitcoin. My hope is that block sizes will be increased via Core and that perhaps we will learn from this a better way to "choose the choices" or arrive at consensus on these questions.
You do realize that democratic voting capabilities that are transparent and can be seen via the Bitcoin blockchain have been available for quite a long time with the Counterparty protocol? Was this implemented so all could have a vote within a certain time frame, miners, users et all? Nope. One of the major utilities for Bitcoin blockchain use was completely ignored. Whichever proposals were voted for that gained a majority would have been clear to see and transparent, so everyone would have been able to move forward at least knowing this was a democratic decision, not a decision made by the few for the many. I find it more than a bit insulting that a users opinion is considered close to worthless bearing in mind we pump that fiat in there and more often than not keep it there, or use it within the Bitcoin economy to buy things, thus helping it expand. A democratic decision was possible, yet ignored. |
|
|
|
That's a hard question.... Theologically I would say core but economically I would say XT. I guess I would HODL both, 1 for moral reasons and 1 for less than moral. I would assume that in a fork most merchants and exchanges would switch as it would make more sence. In this case the Money would follow XT in the long run while killing most the value in both in the short term.
I pretty much agree with you, on both reasons, theologically and economically. Long run, XT. highly likely. But that short term store of core value can certainly grow and there's no exact way to know that new adopters won't look into the whole XT thing themselves and see the same things we do, that perhaps the core chain is more secure. Where money is concerned people often choose security over innovation, and ironically enough, Bitcoin (core) might end up as just that. Not saying it will though, but it's theoretically possible. |
|
|
|
IF XT reaches the 75% supermajority, Core will absolutely, positively adopt BIP 101 (or an alternative which is compatible with > 1MB blocks, such as BIP 102)
You can of course continue to run 1-MB-Cap-Core if you choose. Bear in mind, though, that this is not the first hard fork. Users who are running Bitoin Core from 2 years ago are on an alt-chain, just as you will be if you choose to stick with the Core version you have today. (Again, IF XT reaches 75%)
It could still be argued that XT is the alt chain. It even has a new name and branding, which never happened before. This huge schism also didn't happen before. Bitcoin's value comes from consensus, is that consensus based on its fast transaction utility or it's store of value? You can buy things with Bitcoin now, Bitcoin isn't broken. Even if 75% is reached, it can't be 100% sure that the Bitcoin core chain won't retain its own value and consensus. To say otherwise would necessitate the use of crystal ball 2.0 technology. That's not to say that the odds of higher value wouldn't rest with XT, because it probably would (assuming the 75%)... but the swathes of people who are hoped to come to Bitcoin are still some years away. There are still many in the Bitcoin world who have educated themselves on the technology enough to know that XT hasn't been tried and tested yet. Why wouldn't they hedge their bets so to speak? XT needs to pretty much totally eradicate core, but if core still keeps a 'hardcore' group value (sorry for the pun) what's to stop core going to the exchanges as a group and saying 'Hey, we've got nodes, we want representation, and we're called 'Bitcoin', not XT, not Bitcoin fudge, just Bitcoin, and we can prove it. Many exchanges have alts that are worthless (Correction: virtually worthless) and questionable in their existence, yet the exchanges still list them, will they turn away Bitcoin core that still has value - and considerably more value than the vast majority of alts? Bitcoins value comes from consensus first, and yes, one of the reasons for that consensus was its use as a transaction ledger for payments, but it wasn't the only one. Ideology played a large part, as does store of value that can't be messed with... yet it is true to say that XT messes with the idea of that store of value. I can only see that logically it'll pay to hold value in both chains and wait and watch. Yet if a group of us does that (which this poll can be seen to show will at this current time) then core retains value, and if it retains value read above. The XT discussion is a circle essentially, because the consensus value of Bitcoin itself is circular in nature. |
|
|
|
|
What I find interesting is that the assumption is that transaction values is what drives Bitcoin's price, in which case XT with 75% + wins and with that logic, everyone will go over to XT.
But, what about the fact that many people consider Bitcoin to be a store of value. I'll be honest, I don't much care about what I can buy with it at the moment, I prefer to use it at this time as a store of value. And I'm sure I'll be able to convert it to XT through an exchange when I want to spend my store of value.
What happens if XT gets 75% but core doesn't lose much of its value but XT does?
It could be the biggest financial f*ck up of the century, and early on in the century too.
Bitcoins value as a payment network is only one of its values. The others are being ignored.
Contrary to popular spin, it's entirely possible that XT Bitcoins could end up at the price of a Litecoin, while core Bitcoins retain a greater value.
Could go the other way too, though.
|
|
|
|
|
I think the core chain can survive, I'm not saying it would keep much of its value, but it is possible to still run it so therefore some hardcore ideologists will still use core. Most miners going over to XT would also mean Core blocks may be easier to make.
That seems like incentive enough. There are plenty of alts worth less than what coins from a usurped core chain would be worth, and miners still mine those.
I'm in the both camp.
|
|
|
|
Everybody likes Star Wars.
The whole generation grows up in fighting culture  That's why we had XT in the first place: We have been heavily influenced by the war 70 years ago and we accept that war is a way to reach a solution. In fact, vote is another form of war, achieving the same result: Winner rules the loser. The Gavin designed that voting mechanism in his XT code, this indicated that he have this "war mindset" Besides war, is there any other way that we can reach solution without fighting? I believe, if people are enough informative and be aware of the destructive nature of the war, they will avoid it at all costs If there are two countries each having enough nuclear weapon to wipe out the earth several times, they will never start a war, simply because they understand that every action that trigger a war is just suicide XT's voting is similar to such suicide, in the case of a fork without over 90% consensus, each side has enough coins to dump and wipe out the value of the other chain I think there's a lot to be said for the inherent weakness in us binary humans and our thought processes and emotions. No accident our computer systems so far are binary which mirror our leanings and view of reality. Too much win/lose yes/no black/white. I think there will be a paradigm shift in consciousness when quantum computing comes into force. Polarization has been the order of the day. I'm pretty sure we like the drama. |
|
|
|
I am even more convinced now that Szabo is Satoshi.
And I find it interesting that he sort of called Gavin Judas.
And by that rationale, he is therefore Jesus. I don't know. It is interesting the way the article writer framed the Core/XT issue as a good Vs evil thing. Personally I would have gone Skywalker Core block Vs the Darth Vader block, just to sex it up a bit. Everybody likes Star Wars. |
|
|
|
I'd buy more.  Then I'd have more pre-Judas Bitcoin blockchain coins to spend on either chain. |
|
|
|
No it doesn't talk about it at all, in fact it uses almost no logic or data. Current transactions are way less than 7, but thats his reasoning why we need bigger blocks. It's irrelevant and unsubstantiated. Erm. Turtle, I don't know if we are reading the same article, but the author of that article can generally be seen to be not in favor of XT (hence referring to an XT block as a 'Judas' block) and also not necessarily in favor of any block increase as he points out that at this stage it isn't needed, apart from when the stress test was implemented, and for scaling which he also points out can easily be brought out as a soft patch/fork. Isn't that your stance also? You appear to be against points which are your stated points elsewhere. |
|
|
|
Terrible article, shows no knowledge or understanding of the blocksize debate. I bet they just parsed the panic inducing articles from yesterday and used that as their research. I wonder if this person even uses bitcoin.
 Say what? That's the most definitive article/writing I've ever read on the block size debate, bar nothing. |
|
|
|
So whats the consensus here? Are we agreeing to differ?  Look, I think we all want bitcoin to succeed, or we would all be on pornhub right now. At the beginning of this thread when reading what Turtlehurricane had posted I asked if any coders could weigh in. FUD was called a bit too quickly, although I admit, there are some posts from Turtlehurrican which are often inflammatory in nature. I don't consider this a bad thing necessarily, as it draws attention and debate to things which may or may not be of concern. But... After reading all of this thread and others elsewhere, I find that although people who code have made their point - and it seems Turtlehurricane hasn't yet been able to exactly point to the code he refers to that isn't already in core - this subject is still confusing, for want of a better word. So far, this is what I understand. 1. Blacklisting/whitelisting is either already within the core code, or they are code terms that don't actually mean blacklisting/whitelisting in view of the English language usage, per se. 2. The above referred to blacklisting/whitelisting doesn't ban anyone, it simply deprioritizes Tor, as this is a defence against possible spam attacks. It only does this for the period of time of the spam attack, and then resumes as normal. 3. The blacklisting/whitelisting code in fact doesn't get (hidden) IP's, the only IP it's concerned with is a Tor operating IP(?) This is maybe/maybe not (as far as my understanding goes at the moment) a somewhat unfair penalization for Tor users, but at least it doesn't compromise the Tor users IP's. 4. Although many node users may not be aware of it, they are able to disable this part of the blacklisting/whitelisting code, but it is set to default. I'm sure I've missed something, so anyone feel free to add logic/proof based points. Although the above seems (somewhat) clear to me, I think it's hard to deny the recent spam attacks were quite obviously deliberate and used to push a certain agenda forward, ie. block size. A considerable amount of finances were used for those attacks and I think it's fairly safe to say that whichever party/parties did it, they stood to (financially) gain in return. So where do the fingers point to that financial gain? I'm not about to answer that question, and it would be useless to try. But I find it hard to believe Bitcoin has a mysterious benefactor that spends all that money out of the goodness or his/her/their own heart just to push further block size increase adoption for the common good. I should make it clear that I'm not against block size increase and scaling, undecided, maybe, but not against. Honestly, the most useful and enlightening post on the subject I've seen was posted in an XT alt coin thread by Canth, who I hope won't mind me posting it here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1157289.0 : BitcoinXT has an anti-ddos feature, it can block connections to certain IPs, it downloads a list from an SSL site. Yes, the site might get your IP address. The entire feature can be disabled with one flag in the config.
Unless you're running behind Tor and/or VPN, ALL bitcoin full node products 'leak' your IP address to other bitcoin nodes and the internet in general...
The bold is mine. That point surprised me. ps: I'm grateful for everyone in this thread that has taken their time to go over this as I really wanted to understand it. |
|
|
|
If that's text verbatim from the report, then it can indeed be seen as largely an endorsement.
It was selective cut and paste without changes, I chose points that I felt people would be most interested in here after a brief scan, but it's well worth reading the whole thing for a wider view. It's essentially the bullet points of a conference speech more than an in-depth report. |
|
|
|
I'm no big fan of the Bank of England, but this report is interesting. They are basically saying digital currency/Crypto/Bitcoin is better than gold. http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/research/Documents/conferences/ah0515.pdfA few bullets: • Digital currencies as a new form of (token-based) money – They are money (in all three functions) for at least for some people, and potentially for a great many more – Their monetary regimes are based on hard money (harder than the gold standard), with all of its corresponding problems – New tokens go to operators of the payment system and, • Digital currencies as a new payment system – Distributed: greater resilience, no central control, a coordination problem – Pseudonymous (and possibly anonymous) – Push-only (no ‘direct debits’): payments are final and cannot be imposed – Individually cheap, but socially expensive (but this could be fixed) On distributed payment systems, • Payments are direct and ‘push only’ • Pseudonymous (possibly anonymous) • No centralisation – (Massively) increased resilience – No central control of who pays whom • Massively reduced counterparty risk – Final settlement in minutes or seconds – Therefore less (or no?) need for collateral • No single ‘master’ ledger – How do (potentially untrusted) parties agree on the validity of a transaction? on Bitcoin: • The prices of digital currencies have been extremely volatile – σ(BTC/USD) = 17 x σ(GBP/USD) • But the more important point is that they have, and continue to have, a non-zero value at all • This seems to be self-sustaining order without any state backing and, • Transaction rates are extremely low, but definitely non-zero • Many companies ‘accept bitcoins’ – Probably several thousand worldwide – Includes Dell, Microsoft, Expedia, etc. Anyway, there's a lot in there and I recommend everyone takes a look at it. It's quite big news. First saw this mentioned here: http://cointelegraph.com/news/115155/bank-of-england-says-digital-currency-is-harder-money-than-gold-nigerias-bank-calls-for-bitcoin-regulationNote: I just noticed this report is dated 19th May 2015. No idea if it's just been released or if this is old news. Sorry if it is. Coin telegraph states that it was published on August 19th. |
|
|
|
That's a good find. 21 inc really does need to pull something out of the hat. I've been waiting with baited breath for all their light bulb/toaster mining gear. Pretty much any company that brings out some kind of mining tech like this will sell a bunch of them straight out of the gate... even if they barely work. I know I'd buy one of these. |
|
|
|
Remember "no one controls bitcoin"?
But if IP addresses can be blocked from making transactions, then something, essentially, does control Bitcoin - or at least the users of it, as a form of regulation. Which pretty much amounts to the same thing. Before you know it, there will only be 'verified' Bitcoin addresses/IP allowed to join/utilize the protocol. It's only a small jump to that, all you have to do is look at your Paypal's, Googles and so on to see where this kind of thing (always) goes. Make a bit of change, ride the small storm, wait for the calm, make another change, ride that storm... then rinse and repeat. |
|
|
|
|
If this is true this isn't just a case of FUD, it's rather damning. Again, I don't know if it's true, but it would essentially mean that it's a soft roll-out of removed anonymity which down the line becomes more apparent with further excuses/reasons for changing things further.
Intelligent infiltration always happens in increments.
Can someone weigh in on this code?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
