Anything on requiring auditing yet? We're in-between exchange fuckups at the moment so it would be best to have that in place before the next one happens. its probably more focused on KYC and AML then actually protecting consumers Monetas is coding voting pools as fast as humanly possible. Real-time automatic auditing which both prevents operators from stealing customer deposits and also prevents operators from refusing valid withdrawals. |
|
|
|
Who here has interpreted the SC paper to mean that you can get your BTC back from scBTC in the case of a SC failure?
I don't interpret it that way. Before you can get your BTC back, you've got to perform burn transaction on the sidechain. So if the sidechain ceases to function entirely, you have no way to generate the SPV proof that lets you claim your BTC. |
|
|
|
Science doesn't start with philosophy and try to back baseless assertions. Science does it the other way around. Correlation is often what we use to find causation. Well, sometimes scientists do this in experimental design, but they use statistics to filter out the bias part. Be careful around philosophers with their mind tricks. If American non-unionized capitalism is so great, then why don't Americans stop killing each other so much. I live in a very poor country now and have never felt safer. BTW, Di Lorenzo is an economist. You ought to know by now that economics is my favorite social science to hate on. I mean at least psychologists get their hands dirty helping people get a second chance, but economists feel nothing about destroying an entire nation. I'll read a book by an economist that works directly with average Joes rather than sits in an Ivory Tower. So on the one hand we have detailed research and a strong theoretical basis from a theory that has repeatedly generated more reliable predictions than competing theories and on the other hand we have... your enjoyment of hating on certain concepts. Yes, I can see how these two things are equally credible. |
|
|
|
The point was that without regulation energy became a game of speculation and now it's happening again starting with Enron. Your energy brokers are financializing the commons needed to create a healthy economy. I pity that you don't see history repeating itself. You want to blame Central Banks for being a monopoly, but don't see it happening in other commons.
I pity that you're falling victim to a "correlation = causation" fallacy. The problems you see are real, but they aren't caused by a lack of regulation, as DiLorenzo and others have amply demonstrated. |
|
|
|
That's the same argument they gave to deregulate electricity in the 1930s. It caused power companies to refuse service to farmers because of the line maintenance costs. It hurt rural development and farming. If there isn't regulated bandwidth then only densely populated regions will have adequate bandwidth for bitcoin. We don't even have good enough bandwidth for bitcoin nodes in most of rural America let alone poorer countries. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/blackout/regulation/timeline.htmlIf you're going to source history, then at least make sure you're being remotely accurate. All the just so stories that supposedly prove the natural monopoly fallacy are fairy tales that fall apart with the slightest bit of investigation: http://mises.org/daily/5266/ |
|
|
|
The solution I'm suggesting is for the protocol to charge block generating nodes for the blocks they create, based on how much data is contained in the block, and distribute fees collected to other block generating nodes (proportional to their share of the network hashrate). This would not solve the centralization problem, but it would solve the problem of txs becoming a net cost to the block generating nodes as a whole. For this proposed solution to work, we need to pick a magic number to represent the minimum number of block generating number we believe the network needs to be sufficiently decentralized, and the protocol needs a way to reach consensus on the cost of bandwidth in relation to bitcoin. Multiplying these two numbers together would give us an estimation of the cost of bandwidth for the network per byte of data included in a block.
There's no need for magic numbers, which are wrong by definition. The blocks miners produce are meaningless unless they reach an economic majority of the network. Therefore miners should be willing to pay relay nodes to ensure this happens. Other users of the network require timely access to the most recent blocks in order to know the state of the ledger. Therefore users of the network should be willing to pay relay nodes to deliver the blocks to them. Users want their transactions to reach the miners. Therefore they should be willing to pay relay nodes to deliver them. Miners want to receive transactions, because the fees embedded within those transactions is a source of revenue for them. Therefore they should be willing to pay relay nodes to deliver those transactions to them. The only thing needed to make a market for block/transaction relaying work is a mechanism for price discovery and payments. Price discovery will ensure that relay nodes are sufficiently compensated by an amount that covers their costs, and will also regulate the number of relay nodes to meet the demand of the users, including their demand for decentralization (a user who wants to buy more decentralization does so by connecting to more relay nodes than they would otherwise need). No magic numbers needed, no central planning needed. The fact that Bitcoin has a magic number acting as a production quota for transaction processing is a flaw that was supposed to be temporary. Replacing one magic number with a different magic number isn't a long term solution. |
|
|
|
Can someone explain to me why this is a 'meme' and by inference of the comments above untrue; I have always thought "its the technology, not the currency" is pretty much on the nose as a precis for BTC. It's been around for some time now.
Or is this just the cool internet kids thinking that anyone in finance couldn't possibly 'understand' and therefore this must simply be parroted.
Please ... you really do not understand why bitcoin needs to be valuable for a decentralised blockchain to function? It's just clueless idiots that are saying this, amazingly they seem to be able to get repeated without critique. It's the bargaining stage of grief for people who procrastinated about buying Bitcoins. |
|
|
|
This would require that nodes prove they are in fact running a node (which is surprisingly difficult, especially when payments would instinctive people to fake running a node). This would also mean that Bitcoin would no longer mine via PoW (at least not exclusively) but rather would be mined via PoN (proof of node) or a combination of PoN/PoW. It is said that if Bitcoin were to be forked so that it no longer uses PoW (among other things) then it would no longer be considered Bitcoin
Everything in this post is incorrect. |
|
|
|
However, this doesn't address how to create a consensus on the price of bandwidth, so that block generating nodes that generate large blocks can be charged by the protocol for the bandwidth they force all other block generating nodes to pay. The point is there is no need for global consensus. |
|
|
|
I think the most interesting part is that it forces alt-coin developers to have a good answer to: "Why do you need a new completely independent new unit?" Altcoins are 4% of the market. Why are people so obsessed with them? |
|
|
|
but it would be worse than just using Bitcoin. The more I look at this proposal the more I get the idea that sidechains might be a distraction that they don't ever intend anyone to actually use. Maybe there's something else that could be done with those new opcodes. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin was a great idea but its over...get on with real life
How sad your life must be to spend time commenting on the forum of an idea whose time has past instead of getting a real life of your own. |
|
|
|
|
I buy bitcoins with a paycheck, and so I'd rather the price stay as low as possible so that I can keep adding to my savings.
|
|
|
|
This looks really bad...
what the rally that just started ?  A rally before the end of the month would be bad. |
|
|
|
|
I'll just summarize.
The mechanism is micropayment channels. Any two between nodes can set up a micropayment channel between them for handling the actual payments.
All that's left is for the nodes to figure who gets paid and how much. So, some kind an accounting system.
What nodes want to obtain is relevancy, as defined by access to the most recent transactions.
They keep records of which transactions they've sent to each peer first (before the peer sent the same transaction to them) and vice versa. Only transactions that eventually make it into a block count.
Based on this accounting, each node knows if it is more relevant, less relevant, or equally relevant compared to each of its peers.
It uses this information to decide whether to pay a peers, or to charge a peer, or if no net payment is appropriate.
Then it's a matter of each node haggling with its peers, attempting get the best price for its relevancy from the nodes it is charging, while minimizing the amount it spends on the nodes which it pays.
Nodes would also want to improve their position in the network by competing for low-relevancy nodes (source of revenue) while attempting to find equal relevancy peers to lower their costs.
The net flow of funds from the bandwidth-consuming nodes to the bandwidth-supplying nodes means that you can achieve price discovery for bandwidth and compensate the providers for the costs they incur.
|
|
|
|
Link?
He hasn't published yet. But soon... |
|
|
|
How?
The best I could come up with is that we choose a magic number for how many mining nodes we think a decentralized should have at minimum, like say, 1,000, and then that would leave us to discover the cost of bandwidth, which we could get from having miners 'vote', through blocks, on what the market price of bandwidth is. We wouldn't need to use any fiat currencies as a reference. The price of bandwidth could be measured in BTC: e.g. 0.002,857 bits per GB of bandwidth (their client could have them input their local cost of bandwidth, and the price of bitcoin in their currency, and that could be used to calculate the BTC value of bandwidth in their region).
But then this makes Bitcoin highly gameable by miners, even more so than it is now.
I'll let Daniel Krawisz explain, since it's an algorithm he developed, but it's far simpler than that. There is no voting required, nor any centralized coordination. Every node in the network independently negotiates prices with its immediate peers - that is all that is required. |
|
|
|
because the shared costs related to Bitcoin mining make it very much unlike a free market This isn't difficult to fix. All it takes is a price discovery mechanism for bandwidth. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
