And this is the best example I know to really start that training now (!), not when it's too late (typical human error ).
Your patronising tone doesn't really help your lost cause but go ahead and see if Gavin will start telling everyone that they need to do some serious hard-fork "training" (perhaps you can help him to organise a "keep fit for hard-fork" exercise regimen).  Yeah - now you got that - and yes I'd support any fittness trainings for this great experiment here, patronishly if needed. |
|
|
|
hm, but you're already selling. That's not ok.
Software doesn't require whitepaper to be sold. Agreed, for Investments it's a bit different. It's a grey zoon all here ... |
|
|
|
[excellent post]
So true. The best you can do is observe when experts debate, e.g. smooth and I, or gmaxwell and I. Then form a judgement based on that interaction. No expert has debated me on Ethereum's technology. Everyone ran away and hid, or implicitly agreed. So that should be an indication to you, that I am very likely correct on my technological analysis of Ethereum. Note I would not claim to be an expert on some aspects, such as the math of elliptic curve cryptography. Neither is smooth. And saying that, I was thinking now for long time we are lacking a proper risk metrics for all that. So what you think of starting new thread say "Claim for regorous risk analytics for crypto ccys" or better create an open Crypto Rating Label for any ccy & sidechain that would take this into account like Market Risk (Volatility, VaR,...) - standart stuff here. Liquidity Risks (exchanges, coin distribution, transparency,...) Cyber Risk (hacking, steeling of private keys,..) Systemic Risk (high level attac vectors, economics, centralization, Violation of CAP,...) Operational Risks ( DEVs, Community, Release cycles,..) ... I'd love to see such ! And would help so much for all Investors ( edit: Software Traders). |
|
|
|
Guess, that could be seen as a systemic risk, correct?
Did you communicate that in some paper transparently ?
Paper is not ready yet. hm, but you're already selling. That's not ok. |
|
|
|
Who should be the Bitcoin Hitler ?
Godwin's law strikes again. Just because the traditional democracy system is flawed and should not be applicable, that does not mean that there is a need for a 'Hitler'. Things aren't simply black and white. Yes- we would be better off having quantum comps, all those new enldess colours :-) |
|
|
|
Who runs that node?
Iota team. Guess, that could be seen as a systemic risk, correct? Did you communicate that in some paper transparently ? |
|
|
|
Its not a democracy and it should never be. We need intellectual specialists on deciding the best for bitcoin not uneducated dumbasses that know nothing about it.
You're wrong! Why else would people be voting for such a wonderful and intelligent man such as Trump in the US if democracy wasn't working 
</sarcasm> If the masses were making decisions Bitcoin would most likely self destruct within a very short amount of time. I also like the idea of voting and maybe if there are 2 or more options, generate needed adresses to vote into. From the winner devs get paid, loosers get back all. Win Win. Sounds good?
So basically you're saying that if I vote and my opinion "passes" I lose all my money? I don't see people voting in such a system. Did I misunderstand something? "Let's vote your coins out of your balance" Or "Let's change the mining algo so that every newbies gets 100 free bitcoins"
It sounds very dumb for bitcoin, yet these folks do the same thing in the fiat economy under democracy and socialism. I`m starting to think that democracy itself was a huge mistake. Who should do the Bitcoin Hitler ? |
|
|
|
Its not a democracy and it should never be. We need intellectual specialists on deciding the best for bitcoin not uneducated dumbasses that know nothing about it.
You're wrong! Why else would people be voting for such a wonderful and intelligent man such as Trump in the US if democracy wasn't working
</sarcasm> If the masses were making decisions Bitcoin would most likely self destruct within a very short amount of time. I also like the idea of voting and maybe if there are 2 or more options, generate needed adresses to vote into. From the winner devs get paid, loosers get back all. Win Win. Sounds good?
So basically you're saying that if I vote and my opinion "passes" I lose all my money? I don't see people voting in such a system. Did I misunderstand something? Needs to be poperly designed, that yes, winners'll lose some money, but you get the thing implemented & devs are paid. Loosers get mony back but nothing implemented. All win win  |
|
|
|
Haha, I already knew that problem would exist in their system at 0 adoption, but I always thought Come from Beyond would try to keep the network up on his own shoulders at day one. I guess he figures if no adoption ever comes, he doesn't want to be responsible to keep it up forever.
If they were to add fees collectable by miners, the problem might well simply fade with time, just as everyone hopes will happen to bitcoin when the block reward runs out. There still needs to be a competition at some level, though, IMO. .. when the block reward runs out, the fees come in (in BTC that happens already due to block size issue..) |
|
|
|
And this is the best example I know to really start that training now (!), not when it's too late (typical human error ).
Your patronising tone doesn't really help your lost cause but go ahead and see if Gavin will start telling everyone that they need to do some serious hard-fork "training" (perhaps you can help him to organise a "keep fit for hard-fork" exercise regimen). Maybe this was Gavin's biggest failure to not setup such a industrial style process, but who wants to blame him for that? Yes - I'd like to do so, but I'm out of industrial software dev about 10 years now and would mess it up as well... EDIT: BTW: I do lots of software testing right now, and UAT testing often is not possible, so you really need to do tests in the production to see proper effects. |
|
|
|
Yes - but as with Nike, if you stay on your nice couch & relax - you never start the important training (hope you agree here ) - so - do it , pls.
Really - that is just pathetic. Rather than slogans and stupidity I prefer considered engineering (it is obvious why you support an alt coin). And - btw - I don't develop Bitcoin so you should be telling others to "do it" rather than myself (although I'm pretty sure they'll be even less interested in your suggestions). Morning. No I do not support Monero, (that must be popped into your brain as you mined an empty block there), but that single concept. I support a proper industrial dev & deploy process where hard forks needs to be done w/o panicing due to a really minor change ( say 1MB -> 1.2 MB). And this is the best example I know to really start that training now (!), not when it's too late (typical human error ). |
|
|
|
Again per the theory of a link of crash of crypto with an upcoming crash in gold: Martin Armstrong is still emphasizing a dead-cat bounce of gold to perhaps $1309+, then a crash to a final low < $1000 and mostly likely < $850: We are targeting the reaction high and the final low.
I expect the same pattern in gold, but from the next low (= double bottom) I expect a very strong long run. Chinese (again!) are heavily buying physical gold - more than they report. On the other hand you see Monster paper trading (shoting) at CME - to get the physical cheap. You can imagine what will happen once that negative bubble go bust. Gold is still save heaven for the non-cryptos. |
|
|
|
But back to - 1) Might be the easyies way to start that training. And if sb has fear, so start with 1.1 MB - just do it.
Again - why the urgency? There is no urgency - except for people like you saying "just do it". This isn't Nike and we aren't creating running shoes in sweat shops so maybe "let's just not do it right now". Yes - but as with Nike, if you stay on your nice couch & relax - you never start the important training (hope you agree here ) - so - do it , pls. |
|
|
|
Hm - easy. a) You said it's an issue. b) Monero does it fine...
Monero is an alt with nothing like the capital that Bitcoin has behind it. So sure - an alt can hard-fork every day of the week and no-one will complain but Bitcoin is not an alt. Doesn't matter. Hard forks needs to be done in future to be flexible anyway. It's challanging yes - but altcoins (and other sowftware release cycles) are always good for looking how it could work. So'd would be good to train that at all. But back to - 1) Might be the easyies way to start that training. And if sb has fear, so start with 1.1 MB - just do it. |
|
|
|
3) Do hard forks on regular base
Why on earth would you propose that? You do realise that means everyone needs to upgrade their software? (or perhaps you confuse Bitcoin with your anti-virus software) Hm - easy. a) You said it's an issue. b) Monero does it fine... |
|
|
|
Why not separating the issue
1 ) Try do 2MB
2) If does not help work on incentives for filling blocks (not with fake..)
If it were a completely simple and painless thing to do it would have already been done (although I understand that Gavin keeps trying to promote that it is). A hard-fork is *not* a completely simple and painless thing to do (and that is required to do this). 3) Do hard forks on regular base |
|
|
|
2. the 2mb wont stop the greedy miners that happily just want to process 1tx of their block wins.. but it would halp the other pools that want to take in more transactions
Let's just go with this point - the majority of mining is in China (where also the majority of 1 tx blocks come from) and it is well known that they do SPV mining in China. So they aren't very keen in China to process more txs per block (and certainly not in a safe manner as SPV mining is unsafe and led to the last fork issue). Greed is unfortunately the very basis of Bitcoin mining so that is not going to change (and it does cost a lot to run a mining operation so I'm not sure just how altruistic you could expect anyone doing this to be). My point is that increasing the block size is not actually likely going to result in much bigger blocks (as the pools that are the majority will still keep their blocks small in order to propagate faster). If the size was increased a lot more then this pool behaviour would likely become pathological (i.e. most blocks might end up being just 1 tx). On the other hand technical improvements such as SegWit do offer a way forward that should work for everyone. Why not separating the issue 1 ) Try do 2MB 2) If does not help work on incentives for filling blocks (not with fake..) |
|
|
|
I suppose everyone understand this, but I will state it for the record.
With a $200,000+ monthly budget, Ethereum can afford fancy website design and paid promotion at sites such as Coindesk, etc..
We gave them $18 million to produce no solution to the fundamental challenges they never solved, and they spent our money on hype to fool other greater fools into buying at nosebleed, manipulated prices. We invested in screwing the newbies who come to crypto.
That is not a sustainable model for growing our ecosystem. We are poisoning the well from which we drink. back to Bitcoin might be even worse if scalability / decentralization stay low...  .. or better - who knows: https://www.tradingview.com/chart/ETHUSD/UcCzL0Mb-ETHUSD-BUBBLE-CYCLE/ |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
