Bitcoin Forum
September 01, 2015, 04:09:44 PM *
News: New! Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.11.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  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 ... 427 »
341  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin 20MB Fork on: February 10, 2015, 04:38:23 AM
Don't forget, there are altcoins with 1MB blocks every minute. They don't seem to be complaining about bandwidth problems.
342  Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion on: February 10, 2015, 04:34:33 AM
Too early to tell conclusively but could another big diff. increase be ahead ?

Quote
Bitcoin Difficulty:   44,455,415,962
Estimated Next Difficulty:   47,324,210,159 (+6.45%)
Adjust time:   After 1935 Blocks, About 13.3 days

Most likely it will continue to bounce up and down and not change much for awhile. When price spikes again, we'll see diff spike lagging.
343  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: February 09, 2015, 04:41:07 PM

Thanks for writing that. It finally clears up what you've been talking about. Just curious, what are your thoughts about how price discovery will deal with Bitcoin price fluctuation?
344  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin 20MB Fork on: February 08, 2015, 03:05:30 PM
Tell me when TOR has ever been compromised by itself and not involving javascript/flash/other useless plugins that you should have OFF exploits, .
I don't think it has ever happened.

http://securityaffairs.co/wordpress/27193/hacking/attacks-against-tor-network.html

Quote
The security advisory explains that bad actors were leveraging a critical flaw in Tor to modify protocol headers in order to perform a traffic confirmation attack and inject a special code into the protocol header used by attackers to compare certain metrics from relays to de-anonymize users. The advisory reports that 115 malicious fast non-exit relays (6.4% of whole Tor network) were involved in the attack, the servers were actively monitoring the relays on both ends of a Tor circuit in an effort to de-anonymize users.
345  Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion on: February 08, 2015, 03:01:35 PM
It is in fact cheaper for online transactions, safer for protecting your identity, simpler for international transactions, faster for online payments, and more secure

Yeah, how stupid are people for not seeing that.

Shout it from the mountaintop! I wish all teachers would just tell their students they are stupid. They world would be a lot better off. Education is a waste of time and money.  Roll Eyes
346  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin 20MB Fork on: February 08, 2015, 02:50:09 PM
Initially, at least, I'll only use a sidechain which can recognize an attack and freeze peg operations until the attacker gets tired of wasting his effort and goes away.  If it even takes that to protect the sub-system.  In the mean time I'll expect many designs to be able to operate just fine but just cannot inflate or deflate while an attack is underway.

In my conception of the world one of the marvelous things about sidechains is that they are much more free to adapt to various kinds of threats (and service more types of needs.)  Indeed, that is one of the ways that sidechains support Bitcoin...by creating an endless whack-a-mole for entities trying to attack crypto-currencies more generally.   only totally critical thing is that native Bitcoin itself remains solid and well defended.

You sure are putting a lot of faith in side chains.

This is in no small part due to the people who are behind them.  Also, as I've said, I've been thinking about them for some time and the advantage/dis-advantage ratio is huge as I see it.  Lastly, the theory is simple which usually means that it is practical.
Keep believing, Brother. But don't force your religion on me.

The only totally critical thing is that native Bitcoin itself remains solid and well defended.
Greed is the only thing needed for that. Engineers will sort out the details.

As I've said before, I'm open to a conversation about blocksize as long as there is a well defined problem and proposed solution regarding scaling.

How magnanimous of you to allow others to define the problem and solution for you to criticize. Where's your well defined problem and solution?

I'm cool with things as they are.  The only valid argument I see is that mainstream VCs won't fork over any more money for us early adopters to put into our pockets unless they can have some assurance that they can subvert the system.  Boo-hoo as far as I'm concerened.  I've pocketed enough of their money already and am willing to try for the best of both worlds.  That is, to shoot for a Bitcoin that is worth having as well as a pocket full of green.
I'll disagree with you why Bitcoin price went down. It's not because there aren't enough investors, it's because exchanges are unregulated and it's too easy and tempting to cheat the system. Many, if not most of the exchanges are playing right out of the central bank's playbook using fractional reserve.

I've made no bones about the fact that I myself have serious concerns about 4-7 tps even when most native Bitcoin transactions are sidechains balancings and user 'safe deposit box' style transactions if/when crypto-currencies are more than a tiny tiny part of the world's financial activity.
You have an interesting prediction on the future of transactions. In fact, the goal is for Bitcoin proper to scale as needed for the types of payments it best serves. It will be much higher than 4-7 tps. Bitcoin only needs to serve where cash would best serve because Bitcoin is cash.

As I've said, Bitcoin means different things to different people.  Bitcoin is much more like gold bricks to me.  Most useful when never touched.  Unlike gold, BTC can be inventoried, split, and moved with relative safety.
Bitcoin absolutely is like gold. Its original moniker was gold related according to Satoshi. Gold used to be money. Money used to be saved, but people still spent some. It didn't sit untouched.

None of you pro-fork people have given anything to hint at where you want to stop with your simplistic 'increase block size to scale' scheme, or where you want to draw the line with exclusions.  
That's like asking scientists when they will be done discovering stuff.

It would be cool if Hawking figured out the secrets of the universe before he kicks the bucket, but it won't make a difference one way or another to my financial statement.
He was wrong about black holes. Don't get me wrong. Hawking is truly inspirational in ways that even Sagan couldn't reach. But finding an equilibrium for block size and all the network variables involved will be a continuous and unending effort, just like science. If Hawking does solve the secrets of the 'Verse, then we won't need money anyway because we will then walk among the stars.

All I hear is 'faith based' assertions that market forces will make everything work out.  Start talking numbers and we'll start analyzing.
You contradict yourself. Market forces use numbers by definition. Besides, you are the one with faith based in side chains that will make everything work out.

It's always been a no-brainer to me.  I'm no where near certain that they will solve some of the economic problems necessary for infrastructure support, but it's by far the best hope.  The alternative is to start over from scratch on Bitcoin.  No alt I've seen seems to be targetting the role I see as important (to my amazement.)  I'm for trying Bitcoin first and seeing if it can be made to work in spite of the resistance from within (be it ignorance or malice.)
Many have tried to start over from scratch. There are teams developing Bitcoin exodus strategies in the very unlikely event of catastrophic failure of Bitcoin. Altcoins are providing empirical data that can help with Bitcoin's development.

In the mean time, we have one chance to stay within the constraints of what is achievable behind TOR and realistically likewise hardening methods.  I'm not interested in throwing it away... especially when there is no need and a very promising solution is around the corner.

TOR has nothing to do with the Bitcoin protocol. TOR was compromised recently. If it was used, it would be in very limited fashion.

I've never trusted TOR as many of my posts here in trolltalk make clear.  That's why I phrased things as I did.  Onion routing generally is adds overhead that can dwarf a small payload such as a Bitcoin transaction and other kinds of cloaking (specifically steganography) can add much more.

I think it more likely than not that at some point there will be the long promised 'cyber 9/11' and some big changes to the global internet even here in the 'free world'.  I've no intention of walking away from my stash just because some douche-bag government administrator and media echo-chamber says that a peer-2-peer internet fosters terrorism or whatever.  If it never happens then that is fine and great, but it means that crypto-currencies are just toys and never did become indispensable tools for wealth protection.  If it does then I want to be prepared and have my wealth protected by the most robust solution available.
Bitcoin will be using alternative payment channels in the future. There will be a place for p2p then, but block production by miners will always need to be visible.
347  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin 20MB Fork on: February 08, 2015, 04:53:40 AM
Initially, at least, I'll only use a sidechain which can recognize an attack and freeze peg operations until the attacker gets tired of wasting his effort and goes away.  If it even takes that to protect the sub-system.  In the mean time I'll expect many designs to be able to operate just fine but just cannot inflate or deflate while an attack is underway.

In my conception of the world one of the marvelous things about sidechains is that they are much more free to adapt to various kinds of threats (and service more types of needs.)  Indeed, that is one of the ways that sidechains support Bitcoin...by creating an endless whack-a-mole for entities trying to attack crypto-currencies more generally.   only totally critical thing is that native Bitcoin itself remains solid and well defended.

You sure are putting a lot of faith in side chains.

The only totally critical thing is that native Bitcoin itself remains solid and well defended.
Greed is the only thing needed for that. Engineers will sort out the details.

As I've said before, I'm open to a conversation about blocksize as long as there is a well defined problem and proposed solution regarding scaling.

How magnanimous of you to allow others to define the problem and solution for you to criticize. Where's your well defined problem and solution?

I've made no bones about the fact that I myself have serious concerns about 4-7 tps even when most native Bitcoin transactions are sidechains balancings and user 'safe deposit box' style transactions if/when crypto-currencies are more than a tiny tiny part of the world's financial activity.
You have an interesting prediction on the future of transactions. In fact, the goal is for Bitcoin proper to scale as needed for the types of payments it best serves. It will be much higher than 4-7 tps. Bitcoin only needs to serve where cash would best serve because Bitcoin is cash.

None of you pro-fork people have given anything to hint at where you want to stop with your simplistic 'increase block size to scale' scheme, or where you want to draw the line with exclusions.  
That's like asking scientists when they will be done discovering stuff.

All I hear is 'faith based' assertions that market forces will make everything work out.  Start talking numbers and we'll start analyzing.
You contradict yourself. Market forces use numbers by definition. Besides, you are the one with faith based in side chains that will make everything work out.

In the mean time, we have one chance to stay within the constraints of what is achievable behind TOR and realistically likewise hardening methods.  I'm not interested in throwing it away... especially when there is no need and a very promising solution is around the corner.

TOR has nothing to do with the Bitcoin protocol. TOR was compromised recently. If it was used, it would be in very limited fashion.
348  Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion on: February 08, 2015, 04:12:20 AM
Jorge,
What metric would you use to consider bitcoin a success?
I mean a minimum success you would think about personal use.
Is there a daily equivalent a USD transacted that equals minimum success or a number of transactions (excluding change if that could be quantified)?
What about use for the supply chain? I.e. sell goods for btc and pay for wages or purchase supplies with that btc

I was asked this soon after I started posting here, and my answer is still basically the same:

Bitcoin will be a success (as a currency) when a significant number of people spontaneously choose it to pay for legal purchases, because it is better for them than the alternatives. "Better" may include cheaper, safer, simpler, faster, or any other operational advantage.  
Here's another fallacy: cart before the horse
It is in fact cheaper for online transactions, safer for protecting your identity, simpler for international transactions, faster for online payments, and more secure

But I would not count people who use it just out of curiosity, because they are invested in bitcoins, for political/ideological reasons, or because they are interested in the technology.
That's why VCs are wealthy and you are not. They recognize the value of ideas and help them get executed, while you troll.

I don't see that happening yet.

But I'm sure your hindsight will be 20/20

However, since then I have come to realize that bitcoin was never intended for large-scale use, 
Yes he addressed scaling in the whitepaper.

but only to test whether the solution proposed by Satoshi to the "distributed ledger problem" (block reward + proof-of-work + longest-chain-wins) would indeed motivate the miners to maintain the ledger and protect it from malicious attacks.

The experiment has been running for 6 years, which is remarkable; but it exposed one flaw -- the centralization of mining -- which may require another genial idea to solve.

You are contradicting yourself here. You say the ledger is protected from attacks and then say it is threatened by centralization. Satoshi addressed this in the white paper as well.
349  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: Dark Exchange: a 100% decentralized p2p exchange on: February 07, 2015, 09:10:38 AM
Any interest in developing a decentralized marketplace, not an exchange. I.e. I can sell a fountain pen or keyboard on a P2P eBay system?
I developed for PlayerAuctions.com, and I want to create a decentralized marketplace. I.e. I'm a developer seeking link minders.
Why not just use Open Bazaar and have a decentralized storefront?
350  Economy / Economics / Re: Quantity theory of money and cryptos. on: February 07, 2015, 07:37:17 AM
I've been proposing this for years to be added to the Bitcoin mining protocol; although not being an economist, I didn't realize it was an actual theory. The problem is collecting the data statistical analysis. I wouldn't base the security on it, but the value could be denoted on the blockchain not as a measure of very manipulated markets, but actual coins in circulation.
351  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: My jaw is still on the floor. on: February 07, 2015, 07:24:35 AM
Now is final days to buy cheap coins  Cool

Final days? what makes you say that?
The next 24 hours is critical! Wait, when did this turn into a speculation thread? Oh yeah, it's speculation about something else.  Cool
352  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What the next step should be. My 2c. on: February 07, 2015, 07:18:38 AM
While it's nice to have an option like Tether, Tether is not the solution we need.  It provides central points of attack. 

I can certainly see a scenario where Tether fiat accounts get frozen.  So much for your Tether redemptions at that point.

BitShares has a good solution.  It just needs more traction.   With more liquid on & off ramps into BitUSD.

I see this project as a great bridge for that (just so long as they add alt coins such as BitUSD)...

https://bitsquare.io/

While it won't provide realtime trading functionality, it could provide a decentralized platform for moving USD in and out of the P2P exchanges. 

It's a piece to the crypto ecosystem we need badly.

They are in their funding cycle.  They deserve some support.
I'm not endorsing Tether, what I'm saying is that colored coins denoted as legal tender would be useful for adoption. I like Mycelium, Localbitcoins, and I suppose Bitsquare will be similar in function as a reputation based OTC app. These apps could be integrated into DEX trading systems. They would be particularly useful for arbitrage.
353  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What the next step should be. My 2c. on: February 06, 2015, 05:57:22 AM
A pegged asset like Tether would be a good item for regulators to look at. Since it is more than just payment processing it should be treated like cash. One way to limit it's use is to allow limited licenses for its issuance in some arbitrary proportion to the m-zero money supply. Then there is no reason to track it afterward, just like cash. Regulators can inflate its issuance with Keynesian alacrity.

This type of money supply manipulation would not be accepted by the community (tethers are backed assets, not pegged assets).

The tether creation/destruction events are recorded on the blockchain, for starters.  In order to retain the trust of the community, the amount of tethers in circulation could never be bigger than the number of dollars in the reserve.  If the number of tethers on the blockchain exceeded the number of dollars in the reserve (entering fractional reserve territory), the entire premise of the token, and the trust of the community would be lost.

Craig


A Tether doesn't need to be accepted by a community, it only needs to be licensed and provide liquidity. It doesn't matter if they are fractional reserve any more than your bank account. Any entity licensed for them will be insured with as much assurance as your government can demand.

I’d be concerned with the moral hazard of having the ability to extend the fractional reserve beyond the probability of a bank run, just because one could.  Are you saying that this isn’t a legitimate concern?
I'm saying this fundamental technology will create spinoff technologies. They will be be exploited for good or ill depending on your optics. Moral hazards are sociological. Colored Coin instruments like Tether will be a panacea and a Pandora's Box. A bank run in this case would not be cashing out for fiat, but abandoning fiat for Bitcoin. Tether is a transitional instrument for people with motion sickness.
354  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Satoshi is amomg us on: February 06, 2015, 03:17:43 AM
He is probably dead, but his coins are a cancer on Bitcoin.

It is the one mistake he has made not resolving the issue of his million coins.
He probably wanted a nice round 20 million bitcoins, so he mined the first million into a bit bucket.
355  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What the next step should be. My 2c. on: February 06, 2015, 02:49:13 AM
A pegged asset like Tether would be a good item for regulators to look at. Since it is more than just payment processing it should be treated like cash. One way to limit it's use is to allow limited licenses for its issuance in some arbitrary proportion to the m-zero money supply. Then there is no reason to track it afterward, just like cash. Regulators can inflate its issuance with Keynesian alacrity.

This type of money supply manipulation would not be accepted by the community (tethers are backed assets, not pegged assets).

The tether creation/destruction events are recorded on the blockchain, for starters.  In order to retain the trust of the community, the amount of tethers in circulation could never be bigger than the number of dollars in the reserve.  If the number of tethers on the blockchain exceeded the number of dollars in the reserve (entering fractional reserve territory), the entire premise of the token, and the trust of the community would be lost.

Craig


A Tether doesn't need to be accepted by a community, it only needs to be licensed and provide liquidity. It doesn't matter if they are fractional reserve any more than your bank account. Any entity licensed for them will be insured with as much assurance as your government can demand.
356  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: February 05, 2015, 09:43:13 AM
Federated version of the Sidechains will be released in 1-2 months

http://insidebitcoins.com/news/gregory-maxwell-demo-sidechains-to-be-available-in-a-few-months/29531

Quote
Testing sidechains before the soft-fork

After explaining how this federated, demo version of sidechains would work, Maxwell went on to explain what happens after this version of sidechains has been tested in the wild:

“Beyond [federated sidechains], we have to see where it goes from there. It’ll take some time for the initial system to mature and for people to gain confidence enough to start saying, ‘OK. Well where can we start introducing the soft-forking, additional scrypt opcodes to make it so you can do it without the functionaries — without the federation.”

can't wait to see some of this in the wild. 
Maybe The History Channel will do a show about that someday.  Grin
357  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin 20MB Fork on: February 05, 2015, 08:43:57 AM
I personally will leave btc behind for good with a larger chain[/s] (just refuse using Gavincoin - it isn't even 'bitcoin' - it is really 'gavincoin') or stick to the old fork in case it can survive.
I'm afraid you are a victim of propaganda and lies.
The 1MB cap was always a temporary measure, bitcoin is just following it's original game plan of removing it. The true bitcoin will be the chain removing the choke.
I compare the 1M cap to training wheels.
358  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin 20MB Fork on: February 04, 2015, 06:50:31 AM

Apologies for thinking you were in that camp originally defending MP. ...

I'm pretty independent.  I've been reading the bitcoin-assets stuff and would say that some of my conceptions are a startling mirror of what they are up to so it would be fair to consider me 'in their camp'.  I don't know what the MP crew's actual driving motivations are so I cannot really go to bat for them.  I like what I see though.

Actually, in my mind the union of a defensible Bitcoin backing healthy sidechains ecosystem is where I really see value.  I've got nothing to do with the Blockstream guys either, but it would be even more appropriate to consider me as 'in their camp'.  Again, it's really the symbiosis of the two efforts where I really see a future worth working towards.  Success of either effort is a positive, but the combination would be, in my mind, a home run and may be tenable.
What makes you think side chains are real? They have all the earmarks of a vaporware funding scam. They have no analogy in other commodities or services. Immutable pegging can't exist in the real world because there is no logic to it. Supply and demand is decentralized and real, pegging is a unicorn. Nothing in real life is truly two-way pegged. Government made pegs are always broken.
359  Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion on: February 04, 2015, 06:17:08 AM
looks like even bitcoin is not immune to Feudalism anymore... why the secrecy? are the elite bagholders extremely worried serfs will know what they are up to...?

http://www.infowars.com/bitcoin-elites-plan-secret-bilderberg-style-confab/

There Satoshi will reveal himself, make a short but moving speech, and then the Kool-Aid will be served.
Nah, they are catching a flight there on Extraordinary Rendition Airlines.
360  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin 20MB Fork on: February 04, 2015, 06:10:19 AM

What hard fork did you think I was talking about? According to MP , tvbcof, et. al. many miners would not switch to the new 20M fork.

I never said anything one way or another about that and never thought much about it until about 20 seconds ago.  Now that I do, however, it is kind of interesting...

I've heard (but don't know) that some outfits are shutting down their hashing due to being in the red (which, as I've said multiple times, is an almost inevitable situation which we must assume will occur from time to time no matter what the price, fees, blocksize, whatever due to simple economics and supply/demand.)  Those blinking off must be pools who own most of their own gear because it should not cost much to run a pool generally and if you can find a few miners who will hash for you (for whatever reason) then why not keep running?

This means that there are idle resources which can power up.  Let's guesstimate that 95% of miners are straight up good corporate citizens and who appropriately love Big Brother and The Bitcoin Foundation.  They'll upgrade to 'gavincoin' like they should and keep right on hashing (and honor the appropriate red-lists when they come out.)

This leaves the other 5%.  Some of these will hash on bitcoin-legacy.org (domain free to a good home, BTW.)  Maybe the BTC they get will be worth less, and maybe there is a better chance that they'll be worth almost nothing compared to the state approved GVC [gavcoin|govcoin], but they'll win a lot more of them since the difficulty will plummet.

bitcoin-legacy will have to live under the Sword of Damocles having only a minority of the world's sha256, but there are probably some kludgy protections against some of the mischief which could be wrought upon it through attack though.

You know what?  A light, tight, and defensible Bitcoin core is exactly what 'sidechains' needs, and sidechains have the potential to attract a great deal of sha256 since they would be created by-and-for autonomous entities who simply need the benefits of a solid exchange currency.  Here's an idea.  The so-called 'mpcoin' could patch in the SPVP op-code which would benefit sidechains (and others) and leave the gavin-bloat behind as a play for resources.

Here's to living in interesting times.


Apologies for thinking you were in that camp originally defending MP. I too would like to see a side chain demonstrated on testnet, but am skeptical of its concept. I'll remain agnostic until it is released as an open source. Until then, I am perfectly okay with altcoins handling local currency needs and Bitcoin serving as reserve currency. I still think it should increase tps somehow to be taken seriously as a payment system. Until an argument for low tps finds traction, it's hard to take it seriously.
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 ... 427 »
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!