|
1181
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Increasing the block size is a good idea; 50%/year is probably too aggressive
|
on: October 13, 2014, 05:17:44 PM
|
It doesn't make sense to guess at this. Any guess is bound to be wrong.
If after picking the low hanging fruit, there is still an issue here (and there may be).
It ought not be resolved by a guess when there is data within the block chain that would be useful for making a determination on max block size.
In the same way that difficulty adjustment is sensitive to data within the block chain, so also this could be.
I don't know what the right answer is anymore than Gavin does, but making an estimation would not be the best way to solve this in any case.
.....
One example of a better way would be to use a sliding window of x number of blocks 100+ deep and basing max allowed size on some percentage over the average while dropping anomalous outliers from that calculation. Using some method that is sensitive to the reality as it may exist in the unpredictable future give some assurance that we won't just be changing this whenever circumstances change.
Do it right, do it once.
There isn't a way to predict what networks will look like in the future, other than to use the data of the future to do just that.
Is this 50% per year intended to be a hardcoded rule like the block reward? That's not how I interpreted Gavin's report. It sounded more like a goal that the developers thought was attainable. That said, 50% per year does seem aggressive. At some point, the opportunity cost of including more transactions is going to exceed the tx fee value, certainly as long as the block reward exists, so the blocksize cannot increase indefinitely. And so what if there is little room in the blockchain? Not every single tiny transaction needs to be recorded indefinitely. Since the (I expect) cost of increasing the block size is increased centralization, shouldn't the developers be hesitant to make such a commitment without allowing for discretion? I also wonder what the best approach will be, way out in the future, when the block reward is near zero. Can there be an equilibrium transaction fee if the difficulty is allowed to continue to fall? A simple, kludgy solution might be to fix the difficulty at some level, allowing blockrate to depend on the accumulated bounty of transaction fees. Though I'm sure some new kind of proof of work/stake approach could best solve this problem and make the network more secure and cheaper. It also may be contrary to the eventual goal of usage driven mining, where transaction fees ultimately overtake block reward in value. This proposal may drive TX fees to zero forever. Block chain is a somewhat scarce resource, just as total # of coins. Adding an arbitrary 50% yearly inflation changes things detrimentally. If this forks as currently proposed, I'll be selling all my BTC on Gavin's fork and mining on the other. I suspect I will not be the only one. |
|
|
|
|
1183
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: Anyone following the ebola outbreak?
|
on: October 13, 2014, 04:55:15 PM
|
Bah. The war we have with small organisms and/semi alive things like viruses is not subject to the whim and caprice of our wars with other humans.
Are you familiar with the term biological warfare? "Biological warfare (BW)—also known as germ warfare—is the use of biological toxins or infectious agents such as bacteria, viruses, and fungi with intent to kill or incapacitate humans, animals or plants as an act of war." "Biological weapons may be employed in various ways to gain a strategic or tactical advantage over the enemy, either by threats or by actual deployments." I do not think YOU understand. The essential fact of survival of these organisms is predicated on their not needing "helpful terrorists" to spread them around. They don't care. They do quite well on their own, thank you kindly. It is true that certain weaponized concoctions do require them to be purposefully spread around in target areas to have an effect. It is a ridiculous false flag alarm and an exercise in futility to raise such fears with ebola. When you counter "Yeah but THEY COULD...." ...that's an example of what's called in logic an "irrefutable hypothesis" ..."Yeh, but there COULD be a God.." "...Yeah, but there COULD be a big forest fire..." and so forth. People like arguing. The silly part is that you both are correct, about different things, and arguing against each other anyhow. These are two separate points and effects. 1) Virus don't need wickedness to spread, there exist killer microbes, and one day they'll come. 2) Government expands its power absurdly in response to crises (it doesn't take a false flag, any ol' flag will do, in this case CT for example has already done so preemptively). I agree it's silly. Rather like someone in a crowded theater filled with smoke, with people shouting "FIRE! FIRE!" wanting to lecture the person next to him on how it COULD have been a conspiracy by a government agent.... Is that the assertion that was being made? I'd missed that. |
|
|
|
|
1184
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: Anyone following the ebola outbreak?
|
on: October 13, 2014, 04:49:20 PM
|
Bah. The war we have with small organisms and/semi alive things like viruses is not subject to the whim and caprice of our wars with other humans.
Are you familiar with the term biological warfare? "Biological warfare (BW)—also known as germ warfare—is the use of biological toxins or infectious agents such as bacteria, viruses, and fungi with intent to kill or incapacitate humans, animals or plants as an act of war." "Biological weapons may be employed in various ways to gain a strategic or tactical advantage over the enemy, either by threats or by actual deployments." I do not think YOU understand. The essential fact of survival of these organisms is predicated on their not needing "helpful terrorists" to spread them around. They don't care. They do quite well on their own, thank you kindly. It is true that certain weaponized concoctions do require them to be purposefully spread around in target areas to have an effect. It is a ridiculous false flag alarm and an exercise in futility to raise such fears with ebola. When you counter "Yeah but THEY COULD...." ...that's an example of what's called in logic an "irrefutable hypothesis" ..."Yeh, but there COULD be a God.." "...Yeah, but there COULD be a big forest fire..." and so forth. People like arguing. The silly part is that you both are correct, about different things, and arguing against each other anyhow. These are two separate points and effects. 1) Virus don't need wickedness to spread, there exist killer microbes, and one day they'll come. 2) Government expands its power absurdly in response to crises (it doesn't take a false flag, any ol' flag will do, in this case CT for example has already done so preemptively). http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-10-10/public-health-emergency-declared-connecticut-over-ebola-civil-rights-suspended-indef |
|
|
|
|
1185
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
|
on: October 13, 2014, 02:24:22 PM
|
Due to cherry picking graph start and end points you fail to make your point here. Be less arbitrary in your favor. This is not how science is done. No? lol Right. That wasn't science either. It is not science when you decide that 9/11 and the financial meltdown of the last decade are going to be repeated simply because some stock index reaches the same price it was when those previous two events happened. |
|
|
|
|
1186
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: Anyone following the ebola outbreak?
|
on: October 13, 2014, 02:17:18 PM
|
It seems to be spreading without anyone trying, are you thinking there is very little chance that it could be worse than it is now if the virus conscripts human wickedness in its war on humanity?
Sneezing and coughing on crowded buses/trains/events. Yes, they could do that first.
I don't really believe in this. Ebola supposedly killed 4000 people in nearly one year. (Please note that lots of cases were only suspected to be ebola, but no rock solid proof for that.) In addition those places are the poorest countries on the world, right after some civil wars, no sanitation, contaminated tap water, poor hygienic standards, poor health care system, incompetent authorities. I think those bio-terrorists would be more successful even by spreading flu. That kills 250000-500000 ppl worldwide each year. They really haven't anything to sell yet.
I'm sure they will turn up with something pretty soon if there will be enough demand. If can't then they can pull Tamiflu and Relenza out of the hat again as wide spectrum antiviral drugs  . Perhaps you don't really have a handle on the mechanism of operation here. Its not about # of deaths, its about amount of terror (government over-reaction in response to politically motivated violence). Wars were started over a little over 3000 deaths on 9/11. Flu virus just doesn't have the effect. |
|
|
|
|
1187
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: Anyone following the ebola outbreak?
|
on: October 13, 2014, 10:21:59 AM
|
BTW how can we know if this isn't just the latest WHO/pharma scam like the swine flu "pandemic" a few years ago?
Ebola is a fine candidate to spread fear and sell tons of stuff again.
They really haven't anything to sell yet. Not a high margin on Saline solution and vitamin C which seems to be the most effective treatment regime so far. |
|
|
|
|
1188
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: Anyone following the ebola outbreak?
|
on: October 13, 2014, 10:20:39 AM
|
The bubonic plague did work for the mongols. Killing 1/3 of the population of europe. If ISIS use ebola as a weapon I don't think this will not work for them. Ebola just infected an american nurse in dallas without the terrorist help how much more if the terrorists is added to the equation.
Probably trying to spread ebola wouldn't be a great success. How these infected terrorist can inject their bodily fluids into many people without being noticed? Sneezing and coughing on crowded buses or trains? Yes that could do some harm but I think they would be more effective with a few dozens of traditional hand grenades. It seems to be spreading without anyone trying, are you thinking there is very little chance that it could be worse than it is now if the virus conscripts human wickedness in its war on humanity? Sneezing and coughing on crowded buses/trains/events. Yes, they could do that first. Historically, also by blowing one's self up in crowded places so that it can be time-synchronized in multiple locations for maximal terror effect. The few dozen grenades would be optional, or even improvised mines in the places where people would naturally run from the chaos. This could put infected people in hospitals for stays long enough so where symptoms would ultimately manifest in the hospitals. The win for the terrorist here, is the imposition of martial law by your own state. |
|
|
|
|
1190
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Increasing the block size is a good idea; 50%/year is probably too aggressive
|
on: October 13, 2014, 08:58:44 AM
|
(e.g. by using transaction hashes and/or IBLT), once implemented, will certainly keep the new block message size growth rate much lower than the bandwidth growth rate.
Keep in mind these techniques don't reduce the amount of data that needs to be sent (except, at most, by a factor of two). They reduce the amount of latency critical data. Keeping up with the blockchain still requires transferring and verifying all the data. Not a big deal? Well, except that we can expect the power of nodes to follow some sort of curve ("exponential" in the vernacular) such that most nodes are barely above the threshold to be viable. Meaning that this event would mean that the majority of nodes would shut down, likely permanently. Right. There is a decentralization trade-off at the margin. But this isn't scaleless-- there is _some_ level, even some level of growth which presents little to no hazard even way down the margin. The a a soft stewardship goal (not a system rule, since it can't be) the commitment should be that the system should be run so that it fits into an acceptable portion of common residential broadband, so that the system does not become dependant on centralized entities. As some have pointed out, being decenteralized is Bitcoin's major (and perhaps only) strong competitive advantage compared to traditional currencies and payment systems. How to meet that goal best is debatable in the specifics. At the moment there are a bunch of silly low hanging fruit that make running a node more costly than it needs to be; we're even at a case where some people developing on Bitcoin core have told me they've stopped running a node at home. It's hard to reason about the wisdom of these things while the system is still being held back by some warts we've long known how to correct and are in the process of correcting. It doesn't make sense to guess at this. Any guess is bound to be wrong. If after picking the low hanging fruit, there is still an issue here (and there may be). It ought not be resolved by a guess when there is data within the block chain that would be useful for making a determination on max block size. In the same way that difficulty adjustment is sensitive to data within the block chain, so also this could be. I don't know what the right answer is anymore than Gavin does, but making an estimation would not be the best way to solve this in any case. ..... One example of a better way would be to use a sliding window of x number of blocks 100+ deep and basing max allowed size on some percentage over the average while dropping anomalous outliers from that calculation. Using some method that is sensitive to the reality as it may exist in the unpredictable future give some assurance that we won't just be changing this whenever circumstances change. Do it right, do it once. There isn't a way to predict what networks will look like in the future, other than to use the data of the future to do just that. |
|
|
|
|
1192
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;)
|
on: October 12, 2014, 12:44:51 AM
|
BTW, the price of BTC is currently below the mining cost for a majority of miners if you include the price of equipment as well.
If it stays this way, network will crash hard (hashing will decline ~50%) soon.
Non sequitur. The equipment costs will not come into play the way you suggest. No one is going to let mining rigs sit idle unless the cost of electricity (plus whatever other maintenance costs exist) is greater than the yield in bitcoin. The high purchase price of equipment would mean they won't be buying any more. But it would not make them turn off what they already have. True re equipment costs as the only cause, but if no new equipment is deployed, but old equipment is decommissioned, then the network speed WILL decrease. here is the first mining "bearwhale" for you, but there will be more https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=813649.0There are at least two self-correcting mechanisms that will kick in to support the network speed. The question is not whether they will kick in, but when. We should not be alarmed when we see them kick in, because these mechanisms are part of the design. 1. Every decrease in hash power makes all the rest of the mining rigs more profitable. 2. If network speed becomes a problem, then users of the network will be willing to pay more in mining fees. yeah, i am not concerned at all, just commenting on BTC price vs network speed. In 2011 we did have ~50% reduction in hashing power. I would welcome it right now because even the best current rigs available for consumer purchases are unprofitable. In a long run it did not change anything. There is much more mining then is needed for security of the network currently, but for the concentration of the mining control. The worst effect is that these that are the least profitable tend to be the most decentralized. |
|
|
|
|
1193
|
Other / Archival / Re: delete
|
on: October 12, 2014, 12:04:08 AM
|
Also if an attacker possessed those private keys from the centralized exchanges and could rewind the block chain with a 51% attack, he could in theory double-spend everyone's coins on the block chain. Checkpoints exist to try to unwind such, yet if a 51% attack was sustained and many users got their desired transactions intertwined with the attacker's sustained chain, one might be able to envision political fighting over which chain to revert to. Also centralized exchanges pool risk (e.g. cascade from double-spend attacks) and can be subject to massive theft.
Yes this applies to most every cryptocoin... Yes. It is important the new poster understand his theories were already covered upthread. If UnunoctiumTesticles sees "this was already discussed upthread" instead of walls of text that obfuscate that fact and try to make it is appear that there is no risk from centralized exchanges, then he (or she  ) might toss his balls into this thread to make that clear. UnunoctiumTesticles is interested in decentralized exchanges. UnunoctiumTesticles doesn't give a left statestical about political ramifications on BTT. UnunoctiumTesticles is interested in factual statements about the merits of technological alternatives. UnunoctiumTesticles contemplates that centralized exchanges present some risks which may in theory be alleviated with decentralized exchanges. Thus UnunoctiumTesticles is interested in unmasking the obfuscation (by the walls of text on this page) of the new poster's concern about centralized exchanges. UnunoctiumTesticles is very entertaining.  Yes, he's quite the noble gas, but I'm concerned about his half-life. |
|
|
|
|
1194
|
Other / Off-topic / Re: Looking to sell my forum account for btc. Is there any interest in this?
|
on: October 11, 2014, 11:27:38 PM
|
I am a bit short of btc for a major purchase and don't know what else to do. If your interested PM me and let me know what its worth to you. Thanks
Would you take 21,000,000.00000001 BTCIf you say no then I offer .11 for you account You have to go first and i don't escrow PM sent. You did not send a PM??? are you trying to scam me? That is my job Really? I got your PM in response and I agree that's fine. Ok, I scam you. Send me your PW. Can I talk to you about this thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=819446.0You're at least a little bit insane aren't you? That thing you want to do with Great Danes and bananas is sickening. Eww, you're right. I wish you hadn't shared that PM with me. There is no way to unread something once its been read. I'm tainted, now I need hypnotherapy. |
|
|
|
|
1195
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
|
on: October 11, 2014, 11:20:28 PM
|
I'm waiting for the next world financial crisis first before I even think of selling my coins.
When people run from fiat it will be epic...
We don't have to wait. I've got the popcorn out for Venezuela already, and Argentina is next on the timetable. Don't forget Ecuador in that region. They are outlawing Bitcoin altogether and releasing a state sponsored cryptocurrency. Their state currency today is at about 55% inflation per annum. >50% per month is consider hyperinflation, so the clock is running for them. With their weakening currency, and the strengthening dollar, they are on the path of currency failure, so this will be interesting. Either way if their state crypto works or fails it will be bullish for bitcoin. Bitcoin will be in Ecuador, it just won't be legal, which will allow the state to seize any they find as contraband. (much easier said than done) |
|
|
|
|
1196
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;)
|
on: October 11, 2014, 06:50:51 PM
|
Did any of you stop to think that Satoshi = Sir Richard?
yes, and then I started thinking again One thing is clear, satoshi is either british or someone educated or living in Great Britain. Why? Because his software have reference to the "Chancellor of Exchequer" and second bailout of british banks. Nobody outside of UK even know about this title (position). Illogical (by denial of antecedent), on account of I knew about the "Chancellor of Exchequer" and the bailout, I am American, and I am also not Satoshi. This is insufficiently arcane knowledge to qualify nationality. I am merely well traveled and well read, as also is Satoshi. Most folks who have made a study of financial history also know that Winston Churchill held this position and attempted to return GB to a gold standard. Unfortunately a market based gold standard (a gold coin standard) was not attempted, and so this effort was doomed to fail as governments are not good at managing monetary policy when citizens are able to vote the treasure be handed on them without paying for it (thanks to Keynes, gold coin standards are considered old fashioned). Ecuador is about to face this same issue with their government created crypto-currency. I wish them luck and wisdom, it will be a great challenge for them. Please stop trying to dox Satoshi. It is unbecoming of you, as well as rude and disrespectful. |
|
|
|
|
1197
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
|
on: October 11, 2014, 12:09:24 AM
|
...
But how would Coinbase getting raided be bullish for btc? This would destroy all kinds of businesses acceping btc...
I doubt Coinbase would be shut down as they've gone overboard with their AML. it's just a rumor at this point anyways, probably from an altscam proponent. I don't think anyone said anything about Coinbase. Here's the original IRC transcript of this rumor: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2iujgv/secfincen_preparing_action_against_us_bitcoin/Appears solely relevant to "Bitcoin 2.0" companies. The tldr quote: "[6:08:29 PM] taariq lewis: If you are in USA and you run a Bitcoin Business that issues tokens and you are not registered with FinCen, expect these fines to be established guidelines going forward" BitsharesX seems vulnerable to this, if true. |
|
|
|
|
1198
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: Anyone following the ebola outbreak?
|
on: October 10, 2014, 11:47:34 PM
|
Ebola isn't effective enough as a weapon. Influenza H7N9 would be much more attractive in such application, because asymptomatic carriership could be quite regular scenario in case of H7N9 infection. According to Beijing' Health Bureau deputy director (Zhong Dongpo), asymptomatic carriership introduces a serious threat in case of H7N9 epidemy. http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/16/world/asia/china-birdflu/In theory, yes. Yes it would. So would many other things. It is a bit harder to get ahold of at the moment, however. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
