 Very sharp.
|
|
|
|
so your argument for why BitcoinXT Must Never Gain Consensus is that it would allow it to potentially compete with Visa?
Well I am convinced. I would much rather pay a 3% tx fee to visa in the forum of higher prices then pay around $0.04 in tx fees to the miners, especially for thousand dollar transactions. here the coup de grâce, if we stick to 1MB blocks we'll pay minner 10-100X more on TX fees and they will continue to deliver a system that can't handle more the 1/100000 th Visa's system. pay more for less, FUCKING BRILLIANT In the end of the day, the funny thing is that visa net does not make payments. Its a reporting network only. It moves not a single dollar. I dont know why I think that is significant in the context of everyone comparing ti to bitcoin - a digital peer-to-peer cash payment system. |
|
|
|
Just going to copy/past this here until one of the trolls addresses it I didn't bother reading this thread at all.
Let me just say:
Proofs used to reconcile between mainchain and sidechains compete with normal transactions for block space. Blockstream would be one of the main entity to benefit from bigger block size.
I say Blockstream benefits from smaller, not bigger blocks (which is why the blockstream guys don't want to raise the limit). But, please... explain. How will blockstream benefit from bigger blocks?  Can you read? Proofs used to reconcile between mainchain and sidechains compete with normal transactions for block space.
What you "say" has no implication on reality no matter how distorted your view of the world is. You ignoramus. Just answer the question. By limiting the blocksize, they create an artificial upwards price pressure between high value users. This will eventually make the price of putting a low value transaction on the native bitcoin blockchain uneconomic. Low value users will be forced on to alternatives - conveniently implemented using sidechains. Yhe value proposition of side chains is their use for frequent, low value transactions, and fixing the block size at 1mb will ensure demand. your point above is bullshit - if you move 80% of traffic off-chain, you have enough room to bloat the chain as much as you like. You could put a 100kb spv proof script in there if you like, there will be nothing else in the block except a few sidechain consolidations. |
|
|
|
So in the space of a single post, it's gone from "MultiBitch-class users who add no value" who you'd happily see on a chain that you ideally want to see dead or dying, to finding "robust solutions which are tuned to their needs". As usual, you're nothing if not consistent.  It certainly sounds far more pleasant when you phrase it that way, but the overall message I'm still hearing from you is "GTFO my chain". My message is "make me". Oh wait, you can't. If I can contribute to the preservation of the robustness of Bitcoin and get you to pay a fair rate for using it as a system with these properties, I perfectly happy to have you stick around. If you are part of the 'Free Shit Nation' who demands some sort of entitlement on the basis of your having primate features, I'm happy to see you led away because you are one of the biggest problems Bitcoin has at the moment. Well, I will say one thing for Blockstreamers, you certainly have the common touch. Good for you.  |
|
|
|
Maybe these guys know the difference between ownership and verification? |
|
|
|
My original Bitcoin is essentially held in escrow
Thought as much. You are handing over your bitcoin to a 3rd party, and you rely on trust to get it back, like any escrow service. And dont give me "enforced with software" because it will be enforced by whoever has the majority in a 2-of-3 multisig. Read my post above. Then read the sidechains white paper. Then come back here when you actually understand how this stuff works
Miss me with your "arguments to ignorance" until then. A what now? I won't bother arguing with you until you understand or have read the white paper. My "escrow" comment was a shortcut for your small brain to grasp. Concentrate on SPV Proof. Until then. Miss me with your "arguments to ignorance"
Yawn. SPV proofs are about verification. I'm talking about 'ownership'. You could have just simply said "You send your Bitcoins to a specially formed Bitcoin address. The address is specially designed so that the coins will now be out of your control...." source[ yeah, there is a load of proposed stuff which will absolutely, definitely, without a shadow of a doubt GUARANTEE you will get them back, you know, because rules, right?] But, no. Don't reply. I think we are done here. I feel I'm flogging a donkey that has long since died. |
|
|
|
Stupid f*ckwit. Moores law and Storage? hdfuck would have to go to grade school to qualify as retarded. |
|
|
|
Tor exit nodes are automatically downloaded which is a bad thing and Tor exit nodes IPs have lower priority.
Not ideal, but not necessarily a bad thing. It will only occur if you are running your node in the open - in which case you are broadcasting your iP address anyway. If you are running behind a proxy, then the download doesn't occur at all, and no attempt is made to intervene in possible dDos attacks. |
|
|
|
bitfinex back, problems not solved though by the look of things.
I'm hoping this is still glitch territory..
How so? Seems to be trading just fine? My screen showed about 2 minutes of intense selling, down to 212, before recovering to 217. I presume that any cascade or multiple sells would have been cleared manually before the resumption, yet that doesn't seem to be the case, so I just concluded that the same sell-sell-sell spiral was occurring. But I'm open to correction - I haven't been watching that close (I'm on Kracken in euros), so apologies in advance if I misinterpreted it. |
|
|
|
|
bitfinex back, problems not solved though by the look of things.
I'm hoping this is still glitch territory..
|
|
|
|
Perhaps the problem is that Bitcoin has some leadership issues. Perhaps the problem is that Bitcoin under the leadership of government-centric Mike Hearn is the worst possible scenario for the bitcoin community? Perhaps, but it takes quite a bit of incompetence to lose the status core has. Core without government tools like Mike and Gavin is a much better team with much better status. Indeed. The markets are clearly reflecting that.. |
|
|
|
Blatant and bogus propaganda on several levels:
- Open source means that they not only welcome competition but foster it. So down goes the 'one company' BS. Blockstream only need to do it better, and that is highly likely given the makeup of the entity.
- Nothing about sidechains in any way detracts from the ability for individuals to use native Bitcoin except perhaps that they won't be subsidized and will thus have to pay transaction fees proportional to the cost of operating a secure system.
- Given the level of talent who were induced to work on this project, you should think a little bit about who looks like a clown when you label it as 'nonsensical'.
I do sense that you are deeply hopeful that Bitcoin will collapse. Again, I suspect that this is why Blockstream and sidechains bothers you so much.
Hmmm, genuine and trustworthy propoganda trumps bogus propoganda? 1. Open competition? If you are not afraid of competition, increase the blocksize *and* then do your sidechains when they are ready. 2. Nothing to stop regular folk using bitcoin? Except being priced out of it by sidechain operators depending on restricted blocksize to drive up fees. 3. Its not the level of talent, its the amount of money that's riding on it that is the cause of concern. Money has a weird way of distorting peoples reality. |
|
|
|
The scaling debate is an open question, but it's now settled that XT is not the answer: https://forum.blockstack.org/t/blockstack-community-thoughts-on-block-size-bitcoin-xt-debate/152My general opinion on the matter is "data or STFU." The motivation for this debate is to help Bitcoin scale up in both the transaction rate and transaction volume. Will making the blocks bigger actually address this in a consequence-free manner, or will it just push the problem down the road, and result in more blockchain bloat and fewer full nodes along the way? I don't know--as far as I know, there's no empirical data on how well an XT network performs compared to a Bitcoin network under similar conditions. Until I see data, I'm calling BS.
Part of the reason I'm skeptical is because distributed systems typically scale by growing sub-linearly with the scaling parameter. For example, DHT nodes do not store every single piece of data, or even routes to every single node; they each store O(k/n) data and O(log k) routes for n nodes and k records. As another example, Internet routers do not store routes to every single publicly-routable host; they assign route prefixes to their neighboring routers, and send packets along the interface with the longest IP prefix match (leading to O(log n) expected number of routing hops for n hosts, and O(1) memory per router).
This does not appear to be the case with Bitcoin XT. Bitcoin XT's might be able to do better than Bitcoin by a constant factor. But, the XT approach is like trying to scale a small computer network by buying a bigger switch and making everyone's ARP table bigger. The system might bear a little bit more load for a proportional resource investment (and probably with unintended consequences), but it won't solve the underlying scalability limitation (feature?) that everyone still needs to mine the same blocks, no matter how big they get or how often they are added.
So, I need to see some extraordinary results from the XT proposal before I believe that it solves the scalability problem, especially if the proposed solution is to do better by a constant factor. People dont keep their money in DHT's, so they can be scaled for performance with little or no regard to security or immutability. Bitcoin has to prevent double spending and enforce immutability in a trust-less way, so is not necessarily free to simply pick the most efficient method. The scaling debate is certainly not over. But you are only partially right: bitcoinXT is not the ONLY answer. But its the closest one to ring fencing bitcoins core foundation as a peer-to-peer trust-less network. |
|
|
|
My original Bitcoin is essentially held in escrow
Thought as much. You are handing over your bitcoin to a 3rd party, and you rely on trust to get it back, like any escrow service. And dont give me "enforced with software" because it will be enforced by whoever has the majority in a 2-of-3 multisig. Read my post above. Then read the sidechains white paper. Then come back here when you actually understand how this stuff works
Miss me with your "arguments to ignorance" until then. A what now? The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary. Usually best described by, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” You said it behaves like escrow. And what I said was, it is placing it into a 3rd party that you need to trust. There is no lack of evidence on this, surely? place in custody or trust of 3rd party until a specified condition has been fulfilled. What this is doing is changing Satoshis view of bit coin from a "peer-to-peer payment network" to something different. Its so fundamental to what bitcoin is, I frankly dont understand why we are even arguing about it. First line of the white paper makes it pretty clear: A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online
payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a
financial institution Note the use of the word " Purely". Also note that he also foresaw the possibility of 3rd parties getting involved, and expressly mentioned their exclusion in the opening gambit. But if you still aren't convinced, try reading a bit further into his white paper. Like to the next lineDigital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main
benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending So, where is your argument to ignorance? The only ignorance I see is your own refusal to accept that side chains introduce 'trusted' 3rd parties into what was conceived to be a trust-less peer to peer network. |
|
|
|
I'm increasingly convinced you are another one of Lambchamp sock puppet account.
I'm therefore not going to waste my time looking for the dozens of reference by Blockstream developers essentially saying that sidechains can hardly scale the transaction processing power of Bitcoin under current block size.
I quoted myself because the content remains valid: SPV Proofs are competing with transactions for space in blocks. Unless the blocksize increase or they become able to reduce the size of these proofs, the scale of side chains might remain limited.
I think that you're frustrated because your understanding ( or at least hopes) around blockstream are flawed. Since when do the views of employees trump the vision and mission of the boss? Your last statement tells me you are foundering and speed reading the white paper for a soundbite that might give the impression that you have a deeper understanding than you do. And finally: Unless the blocksize increase or they become able to reduce the size of these proofs, the scale of side chains might remain limited. Maybe they should try bitcoinXT? |
|
|
|
My original Bitcoin is essentially held in escrow
Thought as much. You are handing over your bitcoin to a 3rd party, and you rely on trust to get it back, like any escrow service. And dont give me "enforced with software" because it will be enforced by whoever has the majority in a 2-of-3 multisig. |
|
|
|
I use it weekly to pay php freelancers I hire in India. I also have 3 clients whom I invoice in bitcoin. Works fine for me, as I'm sure it does for others.
I use Bitcoin for real transactions with some value behind them. Sounds like a PissAntCoin sidechain would be right up your alley.
But anyway, get back to my points above. How do investors handle the coins to be pegged? I thought that only the holder of the private key has any claim on a bitcoin. They will need to hand them over, no?
Again, you really need to brush up on some of the 'elements' technology that the Blockstream guys are working on. When you hear terms such as 'timelocks' and multi-party signatures perhaps they will start to mean more to you. Probably not though...you may simply not have what it takes to conceptualize some of the non-trivial use methods that others have moved on to. Annnndddd.... you still haven't answered the question. If you wanna play the sidechain game, hand over your bitcoins. Simple. All these things are features that either do not work or do not exist now - and implementing them will further increase the size of a transaction. Looks like you are curing blockchain bloat with.... blockchain bloat. |
|
|
|
I find it strange that blockstream hold up Visa as the holy grail in terms of transaction throughput and the need for Bitcoin to adopt sidechains so they can reach these levels.
 So many lines or worthless FUD and yet still not one fucking clue about what sidechains are about. So sidechains are not about facilitating a greater number of transactions? Do explain. You sound like you are getting frustrated. I have not performed a bitcoin transaction in over a year. It is not an appropriate solution for any transaction I've wanted to perform over that time period. I pay a .01 BTC transaction fee when I do because it was about right for the service I was getting. I very much look forward to being able to do minor transactions in such a way that will not compromise the core Bitcoin solution. As soon as a micro-tipping sidechain comes out, I will peg some BTC to it and transact frequently. In this way, one on-chain transaction will represent thousands of real-life transactions. As a side benefit, one will not be able to analyze my behavior just by reading the Bitcoin blockchain. I use it weekly to pay php freelancers I hire in India. I also have 3 clients whom I invoice in bitcoin. Works fine for me, as I'm sure it does for others. Your tipping example means that I cannot tip in Bitcoin anymore, I can only tip in the shitcoin that supports the sidechain its run on. But anyway, get back to my points above. How do investors handle the coins to be pegged? I thought that only the holder of the private key has any claim on a bitcoin. They will need to hand them over, no? |
|
|
|
I find it strange that blockstream hold up Visa as the holy grail in terms of transaction throughput and the need for Bitcoin to adopt sidechains so they can reach these levels.
So many lines or worthless FUD and yet still not one fucking clue about what sidechains are about. So sidechains are not about facilitating a greater number of transactions? Do explain. You sound like you are getting frustrated. No, for the 1000th million times, sidechains are not about scaling Bitcoin. They're about augmenting its features and capabilities. Never have I seen sidechains be proposed as an actual solution to scaling Bitcoin so I'm not certain how that holds true.
If my understanding is correct the proofs used in their concept to move coins between chains are in fact competing with transactions for space in blocks so it makes absolutely no sense to propose they profit from undue advantage by restricting block growth. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg12170746#msg12170746Austin Hill, chief instigator at Blockstream, respectfully disagrees with you..... But, there are several problems with bitcoin, too, says Hill, which is why exchanges like Coinbase generally run their own transactions outside the block chain.
Hill told CoinDesk: "There is a practical reason why some of those things can't operate on the block chain, and that's because at peak, they're doing more transactions than bitcoin can support right now."
Instead, Back and Hill want to 'shard' the block chain, creating another block chain, which has a two-way relationship with bitcoin's own.
This will have two major benefits, Hill suggests: functionality, and scalability.
Firstly, "We could have US and Canadian dollars, smart derivatives, option shares, and future contracts. A whole series of programmable trust instruments. A lot of people had talked about these things, and how the block chain could be adapted for this, but I hadn't seen anyone lay out how it would come to pass."
And secondly: "By sharding, you can have orders of magnitude faster transaction processing and you can start to scale bitcoin."
sourceSeriously, did you just quote your own opinion to back up your statement??? |
|
|
|
Stop throwing "free market" around as if it makes any sense or is relevant in that situation.
Jesus, you really are batshit crazy. You are afraid that stakeholders might act in the best interest of Bitcoin, and not in the self interest of a private for-profit company which controls 80% of Bitcoin Core. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
