I estimated the probability of reaching 1000 dollars per bitcoin to be 0.06%
How about now?  Edit: Just voted... ah hindsight  Dude that was stated in the context of hitting $1000 per BTC during the 2011 calender year. Don't be a dick. |
|
|
|
It doesn't follow that because you have frictionless transfer between two assets, the two assets do an equally good job of transferring purchasing power across time. All else being equal, you use the more liquid one for that. That's why the equilibrium is to converge on a single standard.
Why, and why not? We are not economists nor currency experts, so interested in the real reasons that this may be true. Silly boy. Just because you are no expert, doesn't follow that there are no experts on this forum. |
|
|
|
2 or three currencies will dominate before people start fully accepting crypto
Nah, dude. Once you go crypto, you never go back! that's not what I mean. I mean bitcoins too much of a beast that can't be handled for much longer. The bigger they are, they harder they fall. A new alt coin will be it's successor. and then that will grow like a cancer, then another one will take it's place. Until the general population gives way for crypto to be stabalized Oh, yeah. That's exactly how network effects work. The network grows so big that the heart can't pump the blood to the brain anymore.... |
|
|
|
2 or three currencies will dominate before people start fully accepting crypto
Nah, dude. Once you go crypto, you never go back! |
|
|
|
Selfish mining wouldn't change the number of tx confirmed.
I agree, but I think that it could still push up the average time to confirm. Transactions that were not yet available when the selfish pool found a block solution cannot be added to that block, but would likely be found in the public block. Then if the selfish pool releases their hidden block, any transactions that made it into the public block but not the selfish block would have to re-enter the transaction queue. But then there would be a delay, as most miners that accepted the public block would have already removed those transactions from their queues, and can't replace them until after that particular mining node had already discarded the public block as an orphan. What we are seeing here could be a side effect of selfish mining put into practice. |
|
|
|
|
Where can I get to the NXT whitepaper? Or somewhere else wherein the PoS system used here is described in details?
|
|
|
|
|
No, it's similar in nature, but not quite the same, I think.
However, after reading the whitepaper for it, I can see how the 'selfish mining pool' can gain a profit advantage. I don't agree that the end result is that all miners choose to join said cartel pool, because it would become rather obvious that one pool is doing this when they win block races too often for chance, and the rate of orphaned blocks increase. Also, I can think of a number of counter-stragedies other pools could use to negate the selfish pool's outsized advantages, not the least of which is to simply do the same thing. If all mining pools act in a similar manner, no pools can gain a profit advantage; but then orphaned blocks become much more common. Much better would be to simply identify pools that don't play by the rules and take counter-measures until they quit acting badly.
More research is required....
|
|
|
|
Prior art? http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/11/the-best-way-to-take-control-of-bitcoin-rally-other-greedy-selfish-miners/You claim that you've laid this attack out months ago. Perhaps you have. It's still not the first of this type of attack that I've seen claimed, but I have to admit that this is the first of it's type to earn it's own whitepaper. Of course, the authors of this same whitepaper also offer a simple solution to this kind of attack as well, that simply involves a small protocol change in how mining clients decide upon the block version that they build upon. I've yet to read this whitepaper myself, so I'm not yet ready to comment on their take on the attack. |
|
|
|
Just remember you blew your credibility to smithereens with your ignorance of proof-of-work math upthread. And every time you try to reply with subjective political grandstanding, I am going to repeat the same statement until you shut up. I'm amused. Can you envision any information that might force you to reconsider your position? Or are you truely this certain that you understand this topic? |
|
|
|
I think we need to find a name for an intermediate unit between 1 BTC and 1 Satoshi - 0.0001 BTC
mBTC or µBTC are just too awkward.
How about Nakamoto? or just Naka? or Moto?
It's called a gavin. |
|
|
|
...ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen
Seriously capable technical people don't view technical debates as public juries. They view them as founded in facts and objective consensus, because rational people know when they are wrong (or at least rationality is recognition of lack of sufficient expertise). Whereas, arrogant Dunning-Kruger technology neophytes who don't understand what they are talking about and motivated by what they naively perceive to be political "rewards", can filibuster forever and prefer a subjective political contest by obfuscating the information content with pages upon pages of 60 Hz noise. Political contests are won by whom every can make the most useless noise, because the other dolts in the public jury commit the erroneous conclusion the entire thread is noise. That is precisely a form of Tragedy of the Commons failure. This is one of the synergistic reasons why academics communicate using cryptic vocabulary and symbols, so the dolts are unable to participate. P.S. It is intentional that the dolts will perceive this post as a victory for them, and the technologically capable will realize who won the debate. The very fact that you regard this whole debacle as a form of a Tragedy of the Commons failure is evidence enough that only you regard yourself as a member of the "technologically capable". In fact, most people have resorted to mocking you simply because trying to reason with you is futile, and none of us are here for your benefit. |
|
|
|
From a fundamental point of view, a taper would push US treasury yields higher along with the US dollar. The combination of higher yields and a stronger dollar should pull the US stock market lower. Because bitcoin generally follows the overall trend of the US stock market, bitcoin should continue lower as well in this scenario. Although a lot of you guys believe that bitcoin is somehow different and excluded from overall risk trends, if the overall speculative environment turns bearish (the US stock market is an excellent barometer for risk-taking), bitcoin is going to suffer because bitcoin is undeniably a risky investment which people flee from during bear markets.
Is this perspective still true if Chinese speculators maintain a higher overall demand than US speculators? Or would the souring of the US outlook undermine the Chinese speculation as well? |
|
|
|
anth0ny has been placed on ignore.
MoonShadow, you will need to find a more convincing way to weasel out of your display of ignorance of the proof-of-work algorithm.
You might as well put me on ignore also, because I'm not the one displaying ignorance while feigning understanding. |
|
|
|
The reason is because the cartel needs to gradually consume the hashrate of the network, so it can delay the transactions of non-cartel customers who are on the blockchain. To force them to join the cartel or lose customers to the cartel.
Yes, much hand waving. Again, just because you can say it, does not make it so. There is zero evidence that a cartel of any size less than 51% of the total network can delay fee paying transactions issued by others to any noticible extent. Your ignorance of Satoshi's white paper and Bitcoin 101 stands out like a blackeye. The cartel's percentage of the hashrate controls the percentage of blocks won, which therefor controls the percentage blocks that the cartel can exclude non-cartel transactions.While the percentage of total hashrate controls the percentage of blocks that said cartel can control, they can't control the others in any fashion. Control of blocks is not akin to control of transaction processing, nor is it akin to delaying of transaction processing. You are displaying your ignorance of the proof-of-work technology. This is wonderful. You are destroying your reputation all by yourself.
You better go research, because what I wrote (above in bold text) is 100% correct.
(variance will mean it is not a level percentage but will vary greater and lower, but that is irrelevant)
You think it out, or go ask JoelKatz or any knowledgeable Bitcoin developer.
Perhaps you misunderstood what they were talking about. Have you ever considered the possibility that you're wrong? |
|
|
|
The reason is because the cartel needs to gradually consume the hashrate of the network, so it can delay the transactions of non-cartel customers who are on the blockchain. To force them to join the cartel or lose customers to the cartel.
Yes, much hand waving. Again, just because you can say it, does not make it so. There is zero evidence that a cartel of any size less than 51% of the total network can delay fee paying transactions issued by others to any noticible extent. Your ignorance of Satoshi's white paper and Bitcoin 101 stands out like a blackeye. The percentage of the hashrate controls the percentage of blocks won, which therefor controls the percentage blocks that the cartel can exclude non-cartel transactions. While the percentage of total hashrate controls the percentage of blocks that said cartel can control, they can't control the others in any fashion. Control of blocks is not akin to control of transaction processing, nor is it akin to delaying of transaction processing. I can accept that, under some rather extreme conditions, such a cartel could force up the market rate for transaction fees, and perhaps backlog transactions with insufficient fees for a period of time if blocks are regularly full; however this is a far cry from the assumption that such a cartel can delay those transactions to any noticable degree. (It might be measureable, but not likely noticable to the average bicoin consumer/merchant) That all changes at the 50% mark, ut getting there is no small task. As I write this, the network Petaflops rate is roghly 1000 petaflops higher than when I mentioned it yesterday. It took three years to build the 33 petaflop supercomputer that holds the top spot worldwide. |
|
|
|
One thing that all of you have failed to do is argue why I shouldn't fix the attack?
Because you don't know what you are doing. You must have powers greater than a mind reader and a prophet, I think I am aware of what I am doing. Character assassination is not an argument. It wasn't an argument, it was my personal opinion. Please spread that opinion as much as you want to. That helps me. You think that is so? You must not be much of a libertarian. Reputation matters a great deal here, and I have a very good reputation. A great many members here will take my opinion of you on faith, whether or not I come across as a dick or not. |
|
|
|
The reason is because the cartel needs to gradually consume the hashrate of the network, so it can delay the transactions of non-cartel customers who are on the blockchain. To force them to join the cartel or lose customers to the cartel.
Yes, much hand waving. Again, just because you can say it, does not make it so. There is zero evidence that a cartel of any size less than 51% of the total network can delay fee paying transactions issued by others to any noticible extent. With 51% of total hashrate, such a cartel could do so, but there are other consequences to that cartel for doing so, and even then it requires that the cartel keep it up. If they ever stop, those delayed transactions complete nearly immediately. It's apparent to many of us that you still don't really grok how the p2p protocol actually does what it does, so you have made up a theoretical flaw based upon what you believe happens. |
|
|
|
One thing that all of you have failed to do is argue why I shouldn't fix the attack?
Because you don't know what you are doing. You must have powers greater than a mind reader and a prophet, I think I am aware of what I am doing. Character assassination is not an argument. It wasn't an argument, it was my personal opinion. |
|
|
|
Alright, I loaded in my backed-up wallet, and I got my coins back!
I sent them to BTC-e with a fee of BTC0.001, and it's stuck again... The transaction won't even show up on blockchain.info
That's probably because there are now two different transactions that attempt to spend the same coins, so any nodes that saw the first one (almost all of them) would regard the second one as invalid and refuse to forward it. You're just going to have to wait until the delayed transaction gets picked up. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
