Bitcoin Forum
November 21, 2018, 06:57:00 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.17.0 [Torrent].
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 [30] 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 ... 239 »
581  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Is it good or bad that Core development is virtually controlled by one company? on: February 05, 2016, 05:40:25 PM
Your incessant use of this canard only weakens your arguments. bitcoinocracy is no more credible than consider.it.
A few people here here keep arguing about some landslide "community opinion"-- and yet, strangely, that opinion is only visible in venues which are highly vulnerable to manipulation and not in person or, currently, on cryptographically verifiable counters.

The bitcoinocracy poll, as crappy and limited as it is-- both demonstrates that there is significant economically backed opposition to those views, and suggests that so much of that "landslide" is just bullshit manipulation.


With over 51% of hash power, you essentially control the bitcoin network consensus
You can keep repeating it, but it isn't true. I doubt you really believe it yourself. Otherwise, why aren't you calling your argument lost?
582  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Is it good or bad that Core development is virtually controlled by one company? on: February 05, 2016, 08:37:20 AM
Jeff registered this very forum.
Nah, the forum was kicked off Bitcoin.org in 2011 due to concerns about the lax moderation-- even I was part of that discussion.

In terms of commits: Matt and Luke predated Jeff on the project (by months in Luke's case). Pieter came nine days after him, Wladimir 51 days after that. I was 8 months behind on the commits, though most of what I do has never been coding-- I my logs show that I was the most active person in the development discussion channel the same month as Wladimir's first commit.

Characterizing someone who came later or who was earlier by mere days and less involved as "senior" is a bit of an insult.


583  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Is it good or bad that Core development is virtually controlled by one company? on: February 05, 2016, 02:06:27 AM
You could say it is implicit.
Any other efforts you have to skew this are just spin.
You can say it's "implicit" -- but there are also many other lies you can tell.  The paper describes a mechanism where nodes verify and enforce the system's rules for themselves, using POW for ordering. It doesn't describe a system where nodes stop enforcing their rules if the are overpowered, nor is that how Bitcoin was written.

the most senior core devs such as Gavin and Jeff, reject the settlement system.

"The fundamental engineering truths diverge from that misty goal:
Bitcoin is a settlement system, by design." -- Jeff Garzik

Ahem.

And the claim that Jeff and Gavin are more senior is bunk. Unless you mean to say that someone whos first changes were merged a few days earlier, regardless of how much involvement they've had since is "more senior".
584  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Is it good or bad that Core development is virtually controlled by one company? on: February 04, 2016, 08:47:29 PM
transaction fee's do not need to be a revenue stream for atleast 2 decades
On one hand, you're saying that Bitcoin is fine even with the rewards being 64 times lower (that is what it is roughly 20 years from now.).. and yet you also think that 75% of the hashrate can force people into accepting rule changes.

585  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Estranged Core Developer Gavin Andresen Finally Makes Sensible 2MB BIP Proposal! on: February 04, 2016, 08:40:21 PM
It would be very impractical, expensive and inefficient to do that.
Why do you assume that, last I checked "datacoin" cost under 0.0005$/MB per data stored.

Quote
If people did choose to pay for that who are we to say that they should not. It is a permissionless network after all. Smiley
Because Bitcoin is digital cash, not a dumping ground for other applications. If the load or legal problems that come from use for other applications diminish Bitcoin's utility as digital cash then these activities are effectively stealing from all the people who own Bitcoins.
586  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Bitcoin-Core connections in, advice for n00bs like me :) on: February 04, 2016, 12:07:31 PM
So if i've understood correctly there was no benefit for network at all from my node
Is there something you read that made you think this? If so we could go get it fixed.

As others pointed out, connections are bidirectional and you participate too even if you are only inbound.

But the _biggest_ benefit in running a node is having it protect your own transactions and traffic; that is where the decentralized security-- the rules that can't be violated no matter what, and ultimately what makes Bitcoin Bitcoin, come from. And that property is just as true even if you only have a single connection to the network.
587  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Is it good or bad that Core development is virtually controlled by one company? on: February 04, 2016, 11:45:18 AM
In one hand they are stopping block size increase citing lack of consensus, and in other hand they are force feeding RBF & SegWit without consensus.
Removing the rules against actions that the network protocol expressly forbids against the will of an economically significant portion of users, and risking a persistent ledger split in the process is not a comparable thing. It's something that Bitcoin Core strongly believe it does not have the moral or technical authority to do, and attempting to do so would be a failure to uphold the principles of the system. It's not something to do lightly, and people who think that it's okay to change the system's rules out from under users who own coins in it are not people that I'd want to be taking advice from-- that kind of thinking is counter to the entire Bitcoin value proposition.

The other things you're talking about are fully compatible updates which users can voluntarily choose to participate in or can choose to ignore. Users opt into applying them to their own transactions, and they shouldn't really be anyone elses business.  Neither of them are forces applied to third parties.

In the case of Opt-In RBF-- that is purely local node policy, not even a consensus rule. If even one miner wants to use it it could not be prevented even if all the other users and developers and all miners agreed that it was desirable to prevent. Worse, there are already miners out there doing full replacement without the signaling. Without the positive uses being able to opt in and voluntarily choose to use replacement, we will likely see more of that spread sooner. So you have something that causes no harm, potentially delays harm, and is fully optional being used to attack Bitcoin Core? I think that is really lame. Especially since replacement of non-final transactions was a feature in the _very first_ version of Bitcoin that was only turned off much later because as it was originally implemented it was a flooding vulnerability. In people's zest to politically manipulate others into disliking Bitcoin Core it seems that some have really lost the plot.

In fact, 51% is explicitly defined as consensus.
We all wait with abated breath while you go and cite that "explicit" definition for us.

It's nonsense in any case: When you're talking about the hard rules of the system-- the limits that make it valuable and tractable-- no amount of hashpower is enough to override it. Not 99.9%.  If a miner violates the hard rules of the system they are simply not miners anymore as far as all the nodes are concerned. This is an integral part of the checks and balances that create and preserve the incentives of the system: Miners can't just steal a bit on the side, their power is very strongly shifted to either participate honestly or DOS attack the whole thing (in which case the users would presumably change the proof of work), but not attack the system while continuing to have it usable.

But really, if any of you have an honest desire to continue a conversation-- go convince the OP to retract the wonky and non-factual claim. Otherwise this is all just a hall of mirrors.
588  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Is it good or bad that Core development is virtually controlled by one company? on: February 04, 2016, 11:19:27 AM
Everyone just has it out for Blockstream simply because they contribute to development [does that make sense to anyone?]... could be GCHQ (just kidding). Calling people who honestly disagree with you a sockpuppet campaign is a surefire strategy for success, not a sign of ego enabled self-delusion or anything.
That there is a sockpuppet campaign is an objective fact, and not up for debate. (see the hundreds of vigorous and dishonest attacks that inevitably are posted by single use throwaway accounts.)

Core development used to be literally controlled by one individual (at least entity ), first Satoshi Nakamoto and later Gavin Andresen. I think it may be more meaningful to ask another question: Is the interest of the Bitcoin economic majority well aligned with the interest of the company doing most of the protocol maintenance?
There was never a period when it was just Gavin working on Bitcoin; this is a common narrative people spin but it is incorrect.

I can't speak for everyone. But I own a lot of Bitcoin. Blockstream's compensation is setup to make sure everyone receives time locked bitcoins so that everyone at blockstream has an interest there too-- I am aware of no other company in the Bitcoin space that this can be said for... Not to mention that no question ever seems to be asked about incentives or funding sources for the people opposing.

Judging by the lack of coins showing up on the bitcoinocracy polls, the vigorously attacking groups may not be big investors in Bitcoin.

Quote
Even if there is no company, you can't rule out the possibility of most core devs suddenly go evil and conspire to destroy Bitcoin - They might have a better chance that way.
Indeed. Well more over, if someone were out to be evil they could just as well _not tell anyone_. I could _legally_ if not ethically be off working for EvilCorp and not tell a soul.  Based on what I've seen in this, people do a pretty poor job at asking probing questions. It's not the risks that you know about that are the most likely to cause harm, it's the ones you don't know about.
589  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Is it good or bad that Core development is virtually controlled by one company? on: February 04, 2016, 07:27:13 AM
Only 1 out of the 7 people who have commit access work for blockstream. gmaxwell used to but he voluntarily gave up his commit access for personal reasons.
Pedantically, it's 1 out of 5 now.   But yes, it just shows the dishonesty and the hippocracy of the attacks.  They claimed I was the problem. I _left_ and now it's still "blockstream controls bitcoin core". It's just going to be bullshit lies and threats until the end of time.

Quote
Furthermore, blockstream was founded by several developers who worked on Bitcoin Core before blockstream existed and those people have contributed greatly to Bitcoin Core. This isn't some company that was founded by a bunch of people who then hired Core devs to do their work, this is Core devs who wanted to do something and founded a company for it.
Part of the answer is that there are lot of people who do not want any work done improving Bitcoin.

There are people who do not want sidechains to exist; because it undermines their plans with altcoins and, especially, "spinoffs"... or want there to be drama in bitcoin so they can peddle their "hardfork upgrade to ethereum's design" as the grand solution.

There are people who do not want strong personal and commercial privacy to exist: They run services predicated on undermining the privacy of users or they own an interest in competing systems that bill privacy as their advantages.

There are people who don't care if Bitcoin is decentralized at all, but have raised millions on promises to store random third party data for practically no cost into the Bitcoin ledger.

And so on...

I don't believe there are many of each of these type; but there are some without scruples who don't mind faking it. And they're super busy spinning up lies like one of the only companies funding bitcoin tech development _at all_ somehow "controls" Bitcoin core because they employ one person that has commit access, or pay a half dozen people who have contributed out of several dozen while other companies pay no one to contribute.  And that is why we see that forums that are easily sockpuppeted like reddit are overrun with fabricated "increase blocksize at any cost" yelling, places like here less so.. and in person gatherings or [cryptographic measurements](http://bitcoinocracy.com/arguments/if-non-core-hard-fork-wins-major-holders-will-sell-btc-driving-price-into-the-ground) see far less.  

All this fabricated noise, right out of a GCHQ playbook (not that really think any state actors are involved)-- and it just may win: Because at the end of the day, the few with the courage to stop it gain nothing but the preservation of a dream of decentralized currency that changes the world; and too many others sit too quietly, hoping that others will take the heat. Dreams only go so far.

And some decades from now when your grandkids ask where were you when they took the shining hope of decentralized money away, more than a few people here will be able to tell them how they were fooled and fought to make it happen, or how simply stood idly by.
590  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why Peter Rs Fee Market Wont Work on: February 02, 2016, 03:36:18 AM
And who erects the fences? Who wears the crown?
The same force that prevents you from spending my coins: the hardcoded rules that define the Bitcoin system, autonomously enforced by every user.

Rather than cap the blocksize, I would rather raise the minimum non-zero fee, to say 1 penny.
Either pay a penny, or don't.
Who decides what a bitcoin is worth?

Quote
Consider that 200tps would give you $172,800 a day in security under such a scheme.
What reason do you have to believe that 200 TPS is viable in a decentralized consensus system or will be in an interesting timeframe?

What happens if 200 TPS _is_ in fact viable, but at the limit of it... but the offered load at a 1ct fee is 40000 TPS? Do you expect the miner(s) to turn down an extra $34m/day in income to preserve decentralization?

Why do you believe $172k/day is adequate security?  That is only $1200/block.  If someone accepts a single confirm, then it would be pretty profitable (200% ev) to attempt a reorg attack against them if you have access to--say-- 10% of the hashpower and can make a vulnerable $12k transaction with them.
591  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why Peter Rs Fee Market Wont Work on: February 01, 2016, 07:13:07 PM
Sounds like you are simply describing a tragedy of the commons.
Indeed, you can look at it like that. And one that can be avoided in the standard way: by not allowing unrestricted exploitation of the commons.

Even if there's no "orphaning risk" due to propagation because
of relays, etc... wouldn't miners still prefer to solve the
blocks with the biggest fees anyway?
Indeed, and absent a limit, flexcap, or forced collusion (or something no one has described yet), that is the one that involves taking pretty much all transactions that pay any fee at all.

Peter_R's argument was that a limit isn't needed to achieve this effect because orphaning will accomplish it, but we see now that he finally agrees that volume related orphaning pressures can be more or less completely sidestepped by miners:

schemes that completely eliminate block size dependent orphaning risks, it's easy to come up them.
And then he goes on to describe one of the schemes I emailed him.
592  Bitcoin / Alternative clients / Re: Safest bitcoin (not cold) wallet on: February 01, 2016, 12:21:03 PM
even using blockchain you'll be safe if you can sure your pc didnt infected with virus and you'd enable 2fa google auth
Or until they screw up their RNG again. Or until their website gets hijacked or XSS or until they get hacked...
593  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: COIN WARS: And the battle begins... on: February 01, 2016, 11:56:55 AM
2) Core/Blockstream supporters seem deadset on causing as much confusion and destruction as possible.  There have been comments in support of DDOS attacks on Classic Nodes.
Care to back up your defamation with hyperlinks?
594  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why Peter Rs Fee Market Wont Work on: February 01, 2016, 05:51:50 AM
Anyways, if your fixated on schemes that completely eliminate block size dependent orphaning risks, it's easy to come up them.

If you're aware of this, why do you keep repeating as fact that it isn't possible? e.g.

In regards to your comment about using pre-consensus techniques to completely eliminating block-size dependent orphaning risk, you were wrong about that too, as I demonstrated in the subchain paper.

it's easy to come up them.I mentioned one early in the thread in response to Jonald (i.e., miners agree to mine a "practice" blockchain first such that the real blockchain is a verbatim copy [minus the blockheaders of course] but lagging by 1 hour).

By "easy to come up" you mean it's easy to copy them from the previously linked private email correspondence I had with you on this subject months ago? -- even including the time constant:

Quote from: Greg Maxwell
Miners volutarily participate in a fast consensus mechenism which
commits to transactions-- it could be a merged mined blockchain (like
the P2Pool chain, which commits to transactions) or something entirely
different.  No reward is given for participation in this scheme.  In
their Bitcoin blocks miners only include transactions which are at
least 6 blocks deep in that chain
, moreover they include all
transactions which are in it, in a determinstic order.

I am cannot fathom what you are thinking.
595  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why Peter Rs Fee Market Wont Work on: February 01, 2016, 05:42:41 AM
I'm not suggesting that miners engage in a wild scheme that acts against their own self-interests.

I'm pointing out that they merely need click a box and lose orphaning risk from adding new transactions. Miners who do this will be more profitable, even if some did not-- they will be out competed by more profitable miners who do, end up operating at profit levels that are uninteresting and exit the system.

It is _locally_ more profitable for them to do so-- the scheme you describe is NOT an equilibrium. Any miner can add a commitment for what they'd like to include and do so at no cost. Any miner can use any existing commitments to decide to include transactions earlier. No coordination is needed-- beyond the one time act of someone writing the software, no orphaning cost taken to move out of that state.

Miners making local decisions that are somewhat adverse to the health of the network but profitable for themselves is not a hypothetical-- it's an observed effect. Without it we never would have had huge mining pools, to give one example. (arguably: we'd have no GPU or asic miners, either!)

Expecting miners to continue indefinitely to take considerable orphaning costs against their own self-interests in order to uphold some abstract 'good of the network' that comes from the 'virtue' of orphaning is isomorphic to expecting them to just pay a $1 sin tax for every transaction they include without any enforcement mechanism. They simply won't.  

Even if you assume the existence of some conspiracy to punish people who behave locally rationally-- and ignore the potentially devastating effects this would have on the other properties of the system--, these schemes can be arbitrarily undetectable... anyone who didn't like it couldn't even tell it was happening.
596  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why Peter Rs Fee Market Wont Work on: February 01, 2016, 03:58:39 AM
In regards to your comment about using pre-consensus techniques to completely eliminating block-size dependent orphaning risk, you were wrong about that too, as I demonstrated in the subchain paper.
Your work is not a non-existence proof, it's an analysis of a specific scheme. You made the same error in reasoning in your prior orphaning work, where you erroneously concluded that orphaning was proportional to the size of the block-- this later work implicitly admits the error by saying it is proportional not to size but to the rate of additions, but does not go far enough.

You proposed a needlessly deficient design, one which was inferior to what I'd already described to you, due to having the flaw of increasing orphaning risk to add new transactions.

This flaw can be simply (and compatibility with your design!) corrected by miners: in your scheme miners add transactions by adding them to a block attempt, thus taking orphaning risk.  Instead, miners could add transactions by first adding then to a separate hash tree, committed to by the block whos data is only shared with weak blocks, not full block solutions.  Only when a transaction is well and buried in this second tree, do miners then add it to their blocks.  Avoiding the orphaning risk resulting from doing so.

Not only can miners do this this mitigate the orphaning from the new addition, but you cannot prevent them from doing so.
597  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Finally, Bitcoin Core = REKT on: January 31, 2016, 11:28:48 AM
which got basicaly monopolized by BlockStream and Bitcoin
Can you explain this for me?  Bitcoin Core is a project with dozens of people. One of the main developers of Bitcoin Core is a founder of Blockstream. And this is "monopolized"? Please, help me understand what you're thinking here.

Meanwhile, the developers of other implementations just don't bother to tell you about their business partnerships at all. Makes me sick.
598  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What is a team and is what not a team. on: January 30, 2016, 06:16:41 AM
None of us have to take funding from anywhere in particular. Do you have any idea what experienced people in the domains we are knowledgeable in can get paid-- even entirely outside of the Bitcoin space?  Often more than attorneys.

Where we choose to work is a matter of optimizing our time and interests. We have the incredible fortune that none of us are forced to compromise our principles to put bread on the table.

It's true that the employment situation for many around the world isn't amazing, but right now (and for the last decade at least) any concern for systems programing, cryptography, network programing, security, etc. is misplaced.

I have spent two days unemployed, a weekend, in the last 21 years.
599  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: I "Think" that I found Satoshi Nakamoto on: January 30, 2016, 06:10:31 AM
paper submitted to International Association for Cryptography Research (IACR)
This paper is completely unrelated to bitcoin other than using the word's digital cash. It it is typical for contemporary digital cash papers.
600  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Estranged Core Developer Gavin Andresen Finally Makes Sensible 2MB BIP Proposal! on: January 30, 2016, 01:23:47 AM
So many critics! Hey, Gavin's trying to help!
So were the doctors who performed frontal lobotomies on unruly children.

The Bitcoin market price doesn't seem to think much of his help.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 [30] 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 ... 239 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!