communism is a radical type of socialism.
In my understanding of the Communist Manifesto, that is not strictly correct. Marxist Socialism is a necessary intermediate stage leading to Communism, which is a classless, stateless society. |
|
|
|
There are more people in China then any other country on this planet why shouldn't they have the majority of the hashing power? The US government or the Russian or the British are just as likely to crack down on bitcoin mining farms as the Chines Government.
They have more people than any other country but they only have about 20% of the global population, so why should they have more than 50% of the hashing power? What they do have is cheap energy, but cheap energy accelerates climate change, which is a very serious problem. The electricity costs in Iceland are even lower than China, and it's mostly geothermal, so presumably not so much of an environmental problem. Maybe someone should look into that...  |
|
|
|
Unfortunately, when there are so many interpretations of the term "Anarchy"
Isn't that true of any generic socio-political term? 'Socialism' can mean anything from Nazis to Communists to European social Democrats. To an extent. Most human language words are ambiguous. "Socialism" is loosely defined as "social ownership and democratic control of the means of production." That's a big thing to have in common, and makes it a useful word. Anarchism is hard to pin down like that, it doesn't have that "necessary and sufficient" component defining it. Not to say it can't be misused, like someone calling their party "Capitososialist." But "Socialism" works fine in "Nazis to Communists to European social Democrats." See what I mean? The point is simply that if you choose to use imprecise terminology, you should not be surprised if your meaning is ambiguously interpreted. It's not a unique quality of 'anarchy'. It's a question of degree. The problem with "Anarchy" is it has become a meaningless term (outside of its colloquial usage, as in "he must ensure public order in a country threatened with anarchy"). When you say "I'm an Anarchist," I don't know what you're trying to say. Think of it like X in the formula Y=Z+X-X. I can eliminate it, and the formula stays the same. It add nothing. It's the same with "Anarchist." After calling yourself an Anarchist, you still have to go through exactly the same list of explanations if the word "Anarchy" didn't exist. See what I'm trying to say? Yeah, that's true enough. So many socio-political terms have become genericized to the point of meaninglessness. In America, it's amazing how almost any political term you use will end up being interpreted by your listener as either 'Democrat' or 'Republican', i.e. left-wing = liberal = Democrat, right-wing = conservative = Republican. Kind of sad really, because all of those words have distinct, useful meanings of their own. No use in complaining about it though - all you can do is try to take that into account, and speak (or write) more precisely. There's no way around the ultimate semiotic dilemma, though, that when I present a symbol to you to convey meaning, the meaning you get will come from you, not from me. |
|
|
|
Unfortunately, when there are so many interpretations of the term "Anarchy"
Isn't that true of any generic socio-political term? 'Socialism' can mean anything from Nazis to Communists to European social Democrats. To an extent. Most human language words are ambiguous. "Socialism" is loosely defined as "social ownership and democratic control of the means of production." That's a big thing to have in common, and makes it a useful word. Anarchism is hard to pin down like that, it doesn't have that "necessary and sufficient" component defining it. Not to say it can't be misused, like someone calling their party "Capitososialist." But "Socialism" works fine in "Nazis to Communists to European social Democrats." See what I mean? The point is simply that if you choose to use imprecise terminology, you should not be surprised if your meaning is ambiguously interpreted. It's not a unique quality of 'anarchy'. |
|
|
|
Unfortunately, when there are so many interpretations of the term "Anarchy"
Isn't that true of any generic socio-political term? 'Socialism' can mean anything from Nazis to Communists to European social Democrats. |
|
|
|
Why would core include it if they're not going to raise the limit anyway? Makes sense.
Maybe they are planning to raise it eventually? |
|
|
|
Thanks for the info. I did not know about this. Skimming over the comments... I wonder what's your rebuttal to this: There's a pretty significant flaw in reasoning here: The other miners will be busy mining away on blocks that don't contain this hypothetical 11-minute transaction, so they'll likely surpass the chain that has it in the time it takes to verify it and build another on top... It is far more likely that the monster block would just get orphaned if it took that long to verify. The problem is that every node on the network - not even just miners - will be validating that transaction, regardless of whether it ever actually ends up being in a mined block. It is a valid transaction, which will be broadcast to all nodes. And an attacker could broadcast many such transactions. I'm not sure that is a sufficient reason to have/keep a blocksize limit at the protocol level. Why can't problematic transactions should be rejected by nodes, for example, by a simple timeout mechanism? My understanding is that there is going to be a limit on the number of sigops a scipt can require that will fix this problem, but I don't know when it's coming. It's not in 0.12. |
|
|
|
This seems to be a controversial point. I believe even Adam Back thinks 2MB blocks are safe. I’d have to find the sauce tho...
Why do you say they are not safe?
Because it is possible to construct a transaction that takes too long to validate (10 minutes any more). Can you link to some paper or something? I've never heard this claim before and would like more information on what you're talking about. If Adam Back thinks 2MB are safe, then I agree with the good Mayor and would say that it is in fact controversial at least. It isn’t just Adam. There are a few Core developers (including Jeff and Gavin) behind a hard fork to 2MB. BitFury, the biggest western mining pool is behind it; quite a few economic players with a lot at stake are equally convinced Lauda is wrong. I should add that larger block capacity via SegWit does not make the script problem any worse, because the max 'witness-less' blocksize would still be 1MB, so the largest possible script would still be 1MB. |
|
|
|
I'm hope the Chinese decide to stick with Core. I think we need to address the "Core" of the problem instead of splintering off into factions.
Any attempt by core to pick up the pieces and get back on track will be a too little too late act of desperation similar to the content of the OP. Those who think core continuing with their fiasco will somehow be a boon for say goldcoin or litecoin or crypto in general are living in fantasyville. Considering that bitcoin in its current technical state is not broken, splintering the community into different factions and bitcoin into different brands seems extremely counterproductive. The fact that Coinbase and Circle Pay are so quickly ready to jump aboard the bitcoin classic Titantic is also cause for concern. It seems to me that the core developers have the cooler heads and are being conservative and well intending. I think divided bitcoin will be conquered, but united it will stand. I think it's a classic divide between techies and marketers. Techies still treat it as if it's a testnet, marketers treat it as core of their business and want exponential growth YESTERDAY! But it is naive to expect that miners will support anything that would render their ASICs useless. Greg Maxwell was the one to say that if a fork happens where miners go to Classic, that he will push through a change to the POW so current ASICs are incompatible. Sounds to me like with that out there now, miners would be safer going with Classic. Is that what you are insinuating as well? I'm pretty sure GMaxwell never said that. He was asked to comment on the feasibility of such an action, and he confirmed that it could be done, hypothetically. That's all. |
|
|
|
Thanks for the info. I did not know about this. Skimming over the comments... I wonder what's your rebuttal to this: There's a pretty significant flaw in reasoning here: The other miners will be busy mining away on blocks that don't contain this hypothetical 11-minute transaction, so they'll likely surpass the chain that has it in the time it takes to verify it and build another on top... It is far more likely that the monster block would just get orphaned if it took that long to verify. The problem is that every node on the network - not even just miners - will be validating that transaction, regardless of whether it ever actually ends up being in a mined block. It is a valid transaction, which will be broadcast to all nodes. And an attacker could broadcast many such transactions. |
|
|
|
This seems to be a controversial point. I believe even Adam Back thinks 2MB blocks are safe. I’d have to find the sauce tho...
Why do you say they are not safe?
Because it is possible to construct a transaction that takes too long to validate (10 minutes any more). Can you link to some paper or something? I've never heard this claim before and would like more information on what you're talking about. |
|
|
|
I don't know really. But I do know that in the recent past, it became obvious that some miners were, for example, mining without verification (SPV), which suggests that they were not mining to any Bitcoin Core s/w, right?
They were still using Bitcoin Core to do that (if you didn't realise this then why post incorrect suggestions?). A more careful reader would note that my post was as much a question as a 'suggestion'. No need to be insulting. Maybe you know more about the situation than me, or maybe you don't, but we can't know either way without having the discussion :| |
|
|
|
Or am I misinterpreting the meaning of all the different version strings?
I think that you are (if miners are using completely different code to Bitcoin Core then please give me the github link to their source). I don't know really. But I do know that in the recent past, it became obvious that some miners were, for example, mining without verification (SPV), which suggests that they were not mining to any Bitcoin Core s/w, right? I think 'completely different' is unlikely, in any case. But you could change a lot of stuff and still not be 'completely different'. |
|
|
|
some people really need to realise that bitcoin-core and the blockstream dev team are not unique. anyone can replicate the code and then change things that do not affect the main rules.. and it will still work
Again - you are clearly not a programmer as you simply don't understand that Bitcoin is *not a protocol* in the same sense the say SMTP is. To try and explain it to you - if your SMTP software doesn't work so well then you just end up missing out on an email - but if your blockchain software doesn't work so well then you are on a fork. No existing internet protocol has this problem - so stop comparing Bitcoin to existing internet protocols (it is just *stupid*). That's a pretty good point. |
|
|
|
do you really think all miners are using the exact same software..
No, but they are all using the exact same protocol. If you use a different protocol, you will fork. exactly.. protocol.. meaning the rules... not the GUI.EXE not the one sided group of programmers.. any one write the same rules(protocol) and be part of the network.. it doesnt have to be bitcoin-core or nothing as long as the main rules are followed to allow handshaking between the nodes (no matter who programmed the node).. they can all work happily beside each other as they are all using the same rules.. some people really need to realise that bitcoin-core and the blockstream dev team are not unique. anyone can replicate the code and then change things that do not affect the main rules.. and it will still work I don't think many big mining pools use Bitcoin-QT for mining. When I look at the debug.log in my bitcoin directory, I see many different user-agent strings from different node implementations that are not Bitcoin-Core-based. I don't think Bitcoin Core has any kind of a monopoly on node software. Or am I misinterpreting the meaning of all the different version strings? |
|
|
|
do you really think all miners are using the exact same software..
No, but they are all using the exact same protocol. If you use a different protocol, you will fork. |
|
|
|
Who obtained those headers, and how do do we know they are legit?
Only a few people must have acess to the linuxfoundation.org mail servers. Does the linuxfoundation publish all the headers for the public to view, or do you need access to its mail servers to view them? If I can't view the originals myself I want proof they came from a reliable source.
On a mailing list such as the one in question, the headers associated with a list message are replicated to everyone on the list, with each list item they receive from the list. |
|
|
|
By the way, there was another message by "Satoshi" recently, denying that he was Craig Wright -- and then adding "We are all Satoshi". That last part is obviously something that Satoshi would not have written. I can only think that the hacker is aware that everybody is aware that the account has been compromised, and does not care to pretend anymore.
Theymos is the one who pointed out that that email was spoofed, and even posted the IP from which it was spoofed: From https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3w6vy4/i_am_not_craig_wright_we_are_all_satoshi_satoshi/ : Received: from mail.vistomail.com (cpe-104-231-205-87.wi.res.rr.com
[104.231.205.87])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 01BCADF
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 10 Dec 2015 06:53:42 +0000 (UTC) This IP is obviously a TW customer in Wisconsin, where Theymos lives. How much more obvious does he have to make the joke? |
|
|
|
Developers
Jonathan Toomim
Gavin Andresen
Ahmed Bodiwala
Jeff Garzik
Peter Rizun
Hopefully there will be some reconciliation between Core and Classic and the can find consensus together as there is a lot of support and talent within both groups.
What does Peter Rizun develop exactly? |
|
|
|
Not sure what you mean here... The mempool is, by definition, the set of transactions a node has received and validated, but have not yet been included in a block, right?
Maybe I am missing some context or something?
Correct. But between when a block has been mined and when it has been transferred and processed, other miners do not know which transactions in their mempool were included in that block and thus do not know which transactions are safe to start mining on. So they mine empty while they're waiting. If you look at the timings, most empty blocks come very quickly after the previous blocks for this reason. Yeah, ok, I see what your are trying to say now. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
