What is the relate to BTC ? Why any collapse on currency and economics of countries always lees you to BTC ? There is no necessary ......
"What I think is now reasonably clear is that the payment technology embodied in (digital currency) Bitcoin has real potential." |
|
|
|
I was just thinking to myself, "but how will the initial distribution be handled under this coin?"... and then I suddenly realised the problem is already solved  . This, or similar such ideas, sound like a potential solution to the possible problems when bitcoin hits the zero block reward stage. To be exploring that area so early is an optimistic sign  no need of coin initial distribution in the case it is operated as a sidechain, right? |
|
|
|
That'd defeat the point. Edit logs are primarily for scam investigations.
thanks the indirect reply. |
|
|
|
|
@theymos why is there a need for edit logging?
|
|
|
|
An XT FAQ It’s been a little over 10 days since the announcement of Bitcoin XT with BIP 101 support. The XT website has an FAQ but some questions keep popping up over and over, so I want to address them here too. by Mike Hearn https://medium.com/@octskyward/an-xt-faq-38e78aa32ff0Pay attention or your thread could be locked, XT is a taboo (sorry for the OT). |
|
|
|
I believe congratulations are in order. We've been moved to the alt-coin section!
Incredible. I can't believe what I'm seeing. Really sad though. ed: I used to know the url where mod actions log is reported, anybody has the link handy? I just want to know which mod actually moved the thread. |
|
|
|
In the meantime on another thread gmaxwell commented on, supposedly, Satoshi's last email sent to btc-dev mailing list (1) The node incentives thing doesn't seem technically feasable. Or rather, the system had that built in but it was undermined by pooled mining. We now know how to avoid any _need_ to run pooled mining now, but it's always less costly to do so (due to the costs of running a node).
He was referring to this particular Satoshi's (?) statement " I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism". Maybe I'm too naive but I can't see why Justus' idea based on micropayment channels (2) shouldn't be "technically feasible". Secondly, even if we found a way to decrease the cost of running a node to 0, this wouldn't remove pooled mining. The main two factor that are limiting solo mining are: operational node cost and variance. i.e. people join a pool to reduce variance rather than limit cost, especially if they represent a tiny fraction of the total hashing power. (1) http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.html(2) https://bitcoinism.liberty.me/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-2-price-discovery/ |
|
|
|
Nodes are great an all, but consensus is derived from miners. 100% of nodes could be running XT but it wouldn't matter if the miners don't. What is needed an each way to track each pool and how they are voting, that way individual miners could vote with their feet and move to pools that match their views. Jeff Garzik stated today that more than 80% of the hashpower supports blocks larger than 1MB https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/632877777688006656 |
|
|
|
The only possible attack here is that over the next several months MP will explicitly reject blocks from nodes advertising they are 70010 protocol. For this to have any material effect though, he would need >50% of the current network hashing power to also explicitly reject those blocks, so that people running XT are disincentivised to continue doing so.
I have joined btc way too late to have a clear picture of MP's "arsenal" consistency, but it's not the first time that I heard a respectable member of the community to refer to his disruptive potential in a serious manner. To make a long story short, is he really so powerful? |
|
|
|
Another hoax?
Sig or it didn't happen. +1 |
|
|
|
I don't know, but you are saying we shouldn't do anything, because doing something might not be quite enough?
I'm saying that the pretense that 1 MBers are playing central bankers seems funny in the light considering most block increase proponents are the ones arguing for arbitrary control of supply. really? I must have missed something along the way, couldyou please share pointers to evidence on which the bolded claim is based? (serious question) Blocksize limit = supply. Unless you advocate lifting it completely most block increase suggestions amounts to a control of supply based on projected demand. (of course 1MB is an equally arbitrary quota but that is beside the point I was making) you know what I can't stop thinking that the max block size is a transport layer constraint that have crept in consensus layer. So I'd say that yes "space" in the blockchain is a scarce resource (*), hence you need to pay a price for it (i.e. txs fee), but to me the max block size mustn't be used to determine (or influence) the price of such resource . Bitcoin tokens emission process (miner subsidy) and free market should be the main forces in the blockchain space price discover mechanism. (*) scarcity is directly connected to bitcoin trustlessness |
|
|
|
I don't know, but you are saying we shouldn't do anything, because doing something might not be quite enough?
I'm saying that the pretense that 1 MBers are playing central bankers seems funny in the light considering most block increase proponents are the ones arguing for arbitrary control of supply. really? I must have missed something along the way, couldyou please share pointers to evidence on which the bolded claim is based? (serious question) |
|
|
|
|
t0.com
"The Trade is the Settlement"
the new Overstock's blockchain based trading platform.
|
|
|
|
How would this work if you issue (say) one txn per day on average? I mean, wouldn't it take a month or even a year before the SPV client summed up enough use to make it worth committing the txn? Are there risks to having a payment channel or LN connection open for these durations? I agree that implementation of such payment system has to be carefully crafted. that said I'm not knowledgeable enough to evaluate which solution are better. (1) I just want to say that even at current level of adoption there's enough SPV traffic to support a market based on supply and demand. e.g. 1 txn per day per SVP client, supposedly half a million of active SPV clients would generate: 500000÷(3600×24) ~ 5.7tx/s clearly we are not there since 5 tx/s per second is above the actual network capacity, but it is not so far fetched to estimate at least 500K SPV clients once we gain a wider users base. (1) fwiw I'm following LN mailing list and it seems to me that keeping a channel open even for long period of time is not impossible. |
|
|
|
Support from an unexpected camp:
Within our mandate, the bitcoin community is ready to do whatever it takes to expand the bitcoin blocksize. Even if we have to implement the evil bit. Believe me, it will be enough.
Mario Draghi
sarcasm? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
