|
Thanks for the info Gavin. I will learn about how the relay nodes work and see whether I can add value. There is, of course, a bunch of reasons why this is the best approach.
|
|
|
|
I'd like some feedback from the Eurolanders out there, if possible I just got this in my email: This weekend, Swiss voters will be asked whether they want 20% of their currency, the Swiss franc, backed by physical gold.
The people I talk to here in Zürich are, at best, hopeful that the answer is no. They know that such a plan will cause a world of hurt to the Swiss economy and will hamstring the Swiss central bank and its efforts at managing the franc. They all say confidently that the majority of Swiss voters understand this and will veto the plan.
But you can clearly hear in their tone that worry tints their words. The polls are close. And they know that the Swiss feel their economy is too often manipulated by what happens with the euro and the dollar — and the Swiss are people with a deep independence streak.
Thus, there’s a better-than-good chance that Swiss voters shock the monetary world this weekend with a vote that signals the beginning of the end for modern fiat currencies. That will ripple through our world here in the States. But there are ways to prepare … Anyone who knows any thing about Switzerland think this it's even a remote possibility? The central banksters are running scared. Paypal has already been ordered to blacklist the Swiss Gold Initiative sponsors: On Wednesday, October 29, we have received an unexpected simple template notification from PayPal that they can no longer receive donations on behalf of Matterhorn Asset Management AG; that they do not take these decisions lightly and that their decision is final which includes any future regular business. Their formal reasons:
we are not a registered charity in Switzerland
our product is a risk
Under Swiss law we are totally in compliance with our effort to raise funds in support of the goldinitiative. In fact under Swiss law we are not required to be a registered charity to raise funds for any kind of political challenge and PayPal is aware of this.
https://goldswitzerland.com/swiss-gold-initiative-2014/ |
|
|
|
Yes but the thing is last time tim draper got badly burnt with his strategy of buying above market - and additionally the 50k coins currently up for auction arent even the entire stash. theres even more to come... If I were a bidder I would lowball the first auction and see if there was a demand before bothering to pay above market -
How did he get burnt? He was able to buy 50k bitcoins at a lower price than he could have paid on the exchange. This. Some users here simply can't or don't want to think. It was 30k that Draper bought earlier in the year. However, to some HNW individuals these are worth more than "normal" market-sourced bitcoins, because the US Marshal's coins have been laundered by the government. |
|
|
|
WOW, I guess we're going down then...
Just doesn't make a lot of sense to me
FWIW, probably just a retest of $350, before up up up |
|
|
|
You don't seem to give Satoshi himself much credit. He surely would have recognized the significance of slipping in the 1MB block size and commented on the commit if he felt like discussing it.
Nope. He made lots of changes and didn't comment on them. I actually don't think I was around when Satoshi put the 1mb limit in place. I played with Bitcoin back in early 2009 but nobody used it so I lost interest and came back later. Back then he routinely made big or hard forking changes to the protocol in giant commits that mixed many changes together and had no useful descriptions. It was still his personal toy/prototype thing, so he got away with things we wouldn't be able to do today.
I'd say he likely had something deeper in mind. But unlike our friends above, I don't pretend that my mind reading abilities are strong enough to overcome the space-time continuum.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman |
|
|
|
Looks to me like he was just smoothing over some ruffled feathers since someone happened to notice his 1MB protocol setting. Clever guy was the ol' Satosh.
Thought you might discount such clear evidence. Theymos had this interpretation: The main reason for the block size limit is disk space. At 1MB, an attacker can force every generator to permanently store 53GB per year. At 10MB, an attacker can force every generator to permanently store 526GB per year....
Caveden said this: Only recently I learned about this block size limit.
I understand not putting any limit might allow flooding. On the other hand, the smaller your block, the faster it will propagate to network (I suppose.. or is there "I've got a block!" sort of message sent before the entire content of the block?), so miners do have an interest on not producing large blocks.
I'm very uncomfortable with this block size limit rule. This is a "protocol-rule" (not a "client-rule"), what makes it almost impossible to change once you have enough different softwares running the protocol. Take SMTP as an example... it's unchangeable.
I think we should schedule a large increase in the block size limit right now while the protocol rules are easier to change. Maybe even schedule an infinite series of increases, as we can't really predict how many transactions there will be 50 years from now.
Honestly, I'd like to get rid of such rule. I find it dangerous. But I can't think of an easy way to stop flooding without it, though.
(my bold emphasis in both quotes) It's a sure bet that these guys are smart enough to know what Satoshi was thinking. |
|
|
|
Step 1: solidarity with Gavin once he formally presents a solution to the block size limit. Solidarity with Bitcoin excellence >> solidarity with any individual or proposal. It is our job to get the proposal up to acceptability rather than to support a substandard proposal. In a perfect world you are absolutely right, but in our imperfect world a substandard proposal is often the only alternative to nothing being done at all. That latter alternative is still a risk. Your blockchain feedback-determined limit and Gavin's pretty good, still unofficial, 20-40-20 proposal have only a cigarette paper between them compared to this: 03:57 wangchun gmaxwell: do you have plan to increase 1 MB block size limit in near future?
03:58 phantomcircuit wangchun, that is not going to happen
04:03 netg /
04:13 justanotheruser wangchun: it isn't his decision
http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/2014/11/05There are very entrenched different views, even in core dev. So, yes, solidarity with Gavin on the matter has got to be helpful. |
|
|
|
Step 1: solidarity with Gavin once he formally presents a solution to the block size limit. |
|
|
|
|
I can't get unexcited about IBLT so I just want to memo my recent thoughts here. Feedback always welcome :-)
Since only miners create IBLT blocks, but all nodes would need to process them, it seems the best implementation method is split the IBLT software into two parts:
a) IBLT encode
b) IBLT decode (set reconciliation)
The idea is to get the decode software widely adopted first, by giving it a head-start. It gets included with version 0.n, while the encode logic is delayed until version 0.n+x, any later version which is deemed appropriate. i.e. when an arbitrarily large majority of nodes have the decode software
A mining consensus would also be needed, probably requiring a new block version to indicate that decoding is supported, and encoded blocks only being acceptable when a super-majority exists for that block version.
If the decoding is as generic as possible, such that basic element dimensions (below) are parameters at the start of each IBLT, then the optimum values of these do not need to be agreed in advance, and may be in flux for a long time:
keySize
valueSize
keyHashSize
Number of cells
The nice thing is that no miner needs to change its own block propagation method, by super-majority. Hypothetically, if for example, only 10% of the hashing power ever wanted to propagate new blocks via IBLT then that would work fine.
|
|
|
|
- coins by busted people in the free world like EU or South America facing 1 till 5 years prison are safe this way
Unless the FBI has hacked into your computer, six months earlier, and the wallet software that you installed on your offline computer is a doctored version that picks keys from a predefined list. Or unless you are kidnapped by gangsters who offer you a more convincing deal. Or unless the police shows you what a Brazilian prison looks like. Brazilian prison ain't that bad, provided you have control of your money and are able to pay people off. If you hand over all your money and then you're facing prison with zero assets, it'd be a shitty situation. Same goes for the whole world, pretty much. enjoy...  |
|
|
|
I don't know where you get that Barry is keen not to be outdone. He is not buying but setting up a "syndicate" like last time. It seems most everybody in his syndicate last time wanted to low ball and make a quick profit. If this auction goes like the last one bidding market price will not win. They may have learned from last time but being that the syndicate is made up of many buy orders it's not like any individual of the syndicate would have incentive to buy over market because of slippage. Does it make reputational sense to publicly come up with zero multiple times? Yes, they should learn from previously. |
|
|
|
wow, he already dumped his first stash. smart. OK, so your theory is that he paid about $600 for 30k coins and dumped them, maybe at $300, being the smartest of bearwhales. I can see why he is filthy rich, and you are about half that. |
|
|
|
Cypher, your cri de coeur is clearly sincere, and I urge you to maintain your optimism, your Austrian perspective. Nothing is lost - yet. I have an open mind about the potential benefits of sidechains, by the taking of territory from altcoins. Bitcoin's percentage of the cryptocurrency monetary base hovers at 90%, down from a previous level of 95%, so there is a threat from alternative currency systems, which SC could mitigate. However (and I pointed this out early on), there is a serious flaw with how scBTC are presented: while the scBTC and BTC can be numerically pegged, they cannot be successfully value pegged: there will be a floating exchange rate. The reason is SCs have a different risk-profile from the MC, so the market will inevitably price each type of scBTC differently. This is guaranteed because even the abstract of the Sidechains paper says: Despite bidirectional transferability between Bitcoin and pegged sidechains, they are isolated: in the case of a cryptographic break (or malicious design) in a sidechain, the damage is entirely confined to the sidechain itself.
If an SC can implode, and BTC remains locked, inaccessible, then pegging is indeed Keynesian madness, and won't be viable long-term. Of course, BTC which are permanently lost increases the scarcity of those that remain on the MC. So, it is early days, and more important matters need attention, such as the 1MB constraint, implementation of IBLT, blockchain pruning, headers-first. As long as progress is made on these, I think its fine to wait and see how SC develops. |
|
|
|
ah thank you solex, kinda still suxx, because the image proxying is and was always buggy, so maybe great meaningful picture posts are gone  maybe eeh The image proxying has suffered since Theymos improved the security when bct was hacked. |
|
|
|
nearly 2000 posts cant be deleted manually (post by post), very, very unlikely
besides maybe some small manuall post dumpers, the real reason for this big loss of posts must be nuked (multiple) accounts of big time posting regs
(or small chance some people aka "post dumpers" found a way of automatization of deleteting own posts via an bot/script/macro)
This thread is so full of junk that people have stopped reading recent posts: Oh my dog, hundreds of very meaningful posts here have suddenly disappeared.
I assure you, that is not the case. They were all "The Bitcointalk Image Proxy Cannot Display This Image" or whatever guff it says. Doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure that "The Bitcointalk Image Proxy Cannot Display This Image" posts have been blitzed  . |
|
|
|
Remember when a 1000 page thread was almost unimaginably long? Yes, but that was before My Little Pony was invented. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
