Bitcoin Forum
August 20, 2017, 10:02:35 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.14.2  [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 ... 62 »
41  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Andreas Antonopoulos about censorship on bitcointalk and reddit on: September 19, 2015, 03:07:11 PM
Bitcoin will continue to work just fine without ever having a hard fork.

For example X (window system) has 30years of backwards comparability, and still counting. - Backwards comparability is part of their user contract (note, this isn't a legal contract, rather just a contract that is kept by consensus by the Xorg developers).


If we never reach consensus for hard-forking Bitcoin, this is ok. Even if 90% hard-fork, the remaining 10% can still successfully run a bitcoin network. - This would enter into a Bitcoin civil war.

Another interesting fact is that is that is that Satoshi actually gets to decide what fork wins. People don't notice that in the case of a hard fork, Satoshi has a 1000000 BTC stake in both forks.  He can choose to sell his coins in one fork, buying more coins in the other. - This alone will dictate the winner of the fork.  So if Satoshi wants to stay at 1MB blocks - well nobody else can out-compete his economic power.
42  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Lightning is really cool! on: September 16, 2015, 05:28:15 AM
In studying the implications of lighting networks, it quickly becomes apparent that they may be just as revolutionary as basic Bitcoin transactions themselves.

If you view Bitcoin as a censorship resistant global settlement service, then it is logical to build systems that only go to settlement in the case of disagreement.

In the future, I forsee the the Bitcoin network layer 0 will only be used in the cases of fowl play (for adjudication), and public audibility (such as proof of reserves).

The future general case will be where transactions never even touch the Bitcoin network.

Thus it is logical that optimising for scale over security for the layer 0 network is completely foolish.  The later 0 network will gain it's value from being exceptionally secure.

Do you take the fact that the clerk at the the corner store failed to give you the correct change to the highest court in the land?

- Well, no, in general this is not necessary.  However if all other forms of justice fail, there should be an avenue to take the dispute for final adjudication.
43  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: the 1MB limit will centralize bitcoin on: September 11, 2015, 01:23:21 AM
Block-size "debate" summarized:

  • Most Bitcoin tx are spam
  • Blocks are getting full
  • Must increase block-size or transactions will get more expensive!
  • ? ? ? ?
  • Profit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
44  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: BlockStream or BitcoinXT? Those are your choices, gentlemen. on: August 22, 2015, 09:24:11 AM
We have to act early to avoid these problems. And Bitcoin XT is not being forced on anyone. 75% consensus is more of a majority than it takes to vote in a president of the United States. I think it is very reasonable to allow people to "vote" in the way Bitcoin XT is being presented.

First, this is a terrible analogy. Changes to the Bitcoin protocol should not be made in any way similar to the way presidents are elected. In any case, presidents can be (and often are) elected by a plurality, not a majority. A candidate with less than 50% of the vote won in 1992, 1996 and 2000.

I think the fear that people are expressing is being caused by people who have a deep interest in BlockStream, not a deep interest in Bitcoin.

I don't have an interest in BlockStream at all. I think the threat of a hard fork with only approximately 75% of the mining power and with a significant portion of the community against it is very dangerous. I started to write that I have a "deep interest" in Bitcoin, but I'm not sure that's true anymore. What I see happening now makes me tend to think the Bitcoin "community" isn't so different from other communities. People split into tribes, shout at each other, call each other names, and then celebrate their victories or console themselves with their losses. I suppose I was too optimistic to think a cryptocurrency community would be different. One reason I thought it was different was that I had the impression that the fundamental rules were fixed and no longer in the hands of fallible humans. It turns out this isn't true.

Regarding BlockStream, it's clear that much of the Bitcoin community finds them controversial. It's also clear that they're doing some groundbreaking research, and that this research would apply to other cryptocurrencies than Bitcoin. Perhaps BlockStream should just implement their ideas for Litecoin and leave it to those in control of XT to develop what Bitcoin is to become. Would you find that preferable to the current situation?

I require a logical argument to oppose Bitcoin XT and I have yet to find one!

Present a logical argument against increasing the block size or admit you are harming Bitcoin by perpetuating this split!

I'm not sure what you would consider a "logical argument." As a logician, I'm inclined to interpret it literally, but I suspect it's not what you intended. A logical argument is a deduction starting from some axioms and leading to a conclusion. In your post you actually referenced two different possible conclusions: XT should be opposed. vs. The block size should not be increased. Now, it should be easier to give a logical argument for why XT should be opposed, since if someone already shows the block size should not be increased, then it logically follows that XT should be opposed.

Of course, it's impossible to conclude that XT should either be opposed, supported or even ignored unless we start from some axioms. This gets to the root of the issue. Different people have different fundamental beliefs about what Bitcoin is and what it should be.

Often I've seen the argument that Bitcoin should be censorship-resistant way for individuals to control their finances free from government control. We could take this as an axiom. Another axiom could be that for a cryptocurrency to remain censorship-resistant it is vital that it can be safely run behind Tor. Finally, we could add an axiom that states that some of the new code in Bitcoin XT makes it difficult to run Bitcoin XT safely behind Tor. With axioms like these, and possibly some more, we could chain together a logical argument ending with "XT should be opposed." I'll flesh out the details of the argument upon demand.

Now, of course, you could say it isn't a logical argument because you don't accept one or more of the axioms, but this is not a criticism of the argument. It's a criticism of the axioms. I could give many logical arguments (and for a reasonable donation I'd be willing to formalize them), but you could always reject the conclusion by rejecting some axioms used. That's just how logic works.

You have certain axioms of your own that I've seen expressed in many places. An assertion that is often made by supporters of XT is that BlockStream wants to keep the block size limit in 1MB so they can make more profit. Using this as an axiom, and probably a few other axioms, one could probably logically argue that BlockStream has nefarious motives for opposing XT. However, even this wouldn't logically rule out the possibility that BlockStream (or, more precisely, the employees of BlockStream) have both nefarious and intellectually pure motives for opposing XT. The possibilities aren't exclusive. Maybe one could argue about whether their primary motive is nefarious or pure, as presumably there is only one primary motive. Logic forces one to be annoyingly precise.

It's natural when people get into these kind of tribal arguments that statements such as "XT should be opposed" or "XT should be supported" themselves rise to the level of axioms, or, fundamental beliefs. Once that happens, any statements that would contradict the fundamental belief are immediately rejected. At that point it's impossible to have a consistent set of beliefs/axioms that would imply the opposing statement. In other words, eventually people are so sure of their position that it's impossible to convince them of anything contrary to it. If that's what's happened here, then every logical argument someone could give which concludes "XT should be opposed" would necessarily have at least one axiom you would reject. Your only other choices would be to change your mind about the conclusion or ignore the argument. Realistically, ignoring arguments is typically what people do in these situations.

Thank you! That was one of the most enjoyable posts I have read on this forum for quite a long time.
45  Bitcoin / MultiBit / Re: MultiBit 0.1.2 released on: July 15, 2015, 12:00:58 PM
Great Work on the new release!

about fees:

You support tickers such as USD and EUR.  Could it be possible (or reasonable) for there to be a ticker for 'fee-data' that could taken from a trusted (and signed) bitcoin full-node?

Sure it could be hacked, however if there is reasonable hard-coded limits the only real hack is giving miners a few extra cents, or the transactions never confirming.

I guess the 'too low fee' attack is more annoying that the 'slightly too high fee' attack.

Full-RBF is going to solve all these issues, however that is a while off.


edit: add complement for the new release.
46  Economy / Games and rounds / Re: Bitcoin User Not Affected Meme Contest! on: July 01, 2015, 04:12:56 AM
I lol'd https://blockchain.info/tx/f34b88041498b419ef4f9663be7f649c0bb548060095abaa49382eaf7b5931eb
47  Economy / Games and rounds / Re: Bitcoin User Not Affected Meme Contest! on: June 29, 2015, 11:58:19 PM
How about some more Greek memes? Tongue  Shocked
48  Economy / Games and rounds / Re: Bitcoin User Not Affected Meme Contest! on: June 29, 2015, 11:51:54 PM

My prediction for Thursday....


wooo!!!

sent some bits to: 18JwWGyMqgvkr7XbnUo23aAyHjR2bw2TDJ
49  Economy / Games and rounds / Bitcoin User Not Affected Meme Contest! on: June 29, 2015, 10:58:54 PM
I'm going to give some bits to people who make some great meme images! Smiley

Like mine here: https://twitter.com/da2ce7/status/615654069781200896


I will give the bits out in any way I like.  But have fun!
50  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: June 24, 2015, 06:47:39 AM
let's list a few of the tactics employed by the Blockstream devs:

1.  appeal to authority- "the entire dev/technical community is against this"-which they're not if you look outside core dev.
2.  scare tactics- "if Bitcoin forks, it will fail"
3.  character assassination- "Gavin hasn't coded for over a year", "we are shocked by his behavior", "he's out courting merchants, exchanges, & miners behind our backs".

i honestly ask you, which of the 3 tactics has Gavin employed on Reddit or here?  my answer is NONE.  and here we yet another example of #2 tonite by gmax:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3awomg/how_the_bitcoin_experiment_might_fail/

he's getting pounded too.  and these are the reasons Blockstream will lose in the end.  no one trusts them.


I've been closely following the debate, in-fact I even tried my hand at a proposal.

I'm a very cautious man by nature. I first want to comment how the core development team has so-far done an underrepresented engineering work in computer science in keeping the Bitcoin network running.  This achievement should not be under-stated.  They have really done an remarkable job.

Part of their success has been their extremely conservative nature. In the past, when changes have been rushed through, such as BIP 16 https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0016.mediawiki , without full consideration of the proposed alternatives (BIP 17) https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0017.mediawiki we have found serious issues with them in hindsight.

To quote:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/34mrtj/eli5_why_is_peter_todd_important_and_why_do_some/
Quote
[]nullcGreg Maxwell - Bitcoin Expert 14 points 1 month ago*

To give an external perspective from Luke's on this;

I now agree that BIP17 was better; not just slightly better but very clearly better in important, meaningful ways.

At the time I preferred BIP16, in hindsight I made an error in reasoning-- part of this was that I incorrectly believed that the difference was smaller than it actually was: There were substantial differences in terms of limitations of P2SH that none of us (probably not even Luke) understood at the time. (I say not even Luke because Luke's primary argument was about the "aesthetics" of the implementation, which were not-- by themselves-- that persuasive to anyone.)

A lack of care in this deployment resulted in substantial non-trivial (3-5 blocks) network forks for a period of about two months. BIP16's irregularity resulted in alternative implementers being somewhat slower to implement and more error prone. Luke just gave a concrete example (the idiotic 520 byte limit; which I think we didn't even realize existed in BIP16 at the time, spec was updated later to mention it); another is that you can't combine multiple P2SH scripts, e.g. to get an OR where you can spend a coin with either a small script or a big one-- that one we knew existed but didn't give adequate thought to, it's turned out to be a rather annoying limitation.

At the time the fact that the BIP16 approach had more testing and work on it, especially after the embarrassing design reboot after OP_EVAL turned out to be vulnerability introducing, and Gavin's strong preference for it, combined with the assessment of "little difference" made me prefer BIP16; as anything else would have meant additional delays. In reality, it was basically years before there was widespread P2SH use, an additional delay would have been better. It's worth noting that the person (roconnor) who found the OP_EVAL flaw also preferred BIP17-- which was probably a sign we should have paid more attention to. It's not a big regret but I do consider it a lesson.

It didn't help that some people (mostly not Luke himself) tried to construct a public drama with non-technical community members over what was still just a kind of boring technical argument. Unfortunately; trying to make drama can have exactly the opposite effect of embedding people in their positions and making them immune to reason. It's almost universally a bad move if you care about achieving a high quality result. I keep trying to remind myself of the importance of deciding to be immune to political drama in order to avoid the failure modes it creates if you let it influence you.

You can see a chart of opinions at the time: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/P2SH_Votes BIP16 was a condorcet winner; but most people considered either approach acceptable.

Rushing important decisions is a fools game. A prudent person makes well informed and slow careful choices.


I would much prefer to suffer the discomfort of transaction fees being a few more cents, than to rush a hard fork and fuck up the community (the most valuable thing that Bitcoin has).

(From a Old Hat).
51  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: June 23, 2015, 06:55:00 AM


While I'm moderately against just increasing the block size. (I think that we should sort out the rest of the hard engineering infrastructure so we can actually support larger blocks first).

The main point is even on this forum we have nowhere near the 95%+ consensus that we need to do a hard-fork.

Gavin's latest proposal is just dangerous with only needing 75% of the miners to agree.

I would much prefer Bitcoin to continue to work with 1MB blocks, than be destroyed on the reckless quest for larger blocks.
52  Economy / Speculation / Hope Bitcoin Price continues to stagnate (not up or down) for another 6 mth. on: March 01, 2015, 05:18:14 AM
Quite frankly, the Bitcoin infrastructure isn't ready for another big rally just now.  But I think in 6 months this will be looking much more solid for a hard rally.
53  Economy / Speculation / Re: Trezor and other Secure Wallets will have a large effect on the Bitcoin Price on: February 09, 2015, 12:06:50 PM
When this happens, I believe significantly because of secure wallets, we will be officially at the start of the next major bull market. (it is important to remember that the bitcoin prices is dictated by people who do not spend bitcoins rather those who do).

Security is definitely a large roadblock for those considering to buy bitcoins, but I don't agree that the bitcoin price is dictated by people who don't spend or sell any bitcoins. It's a part of a much more complex equation, because if nobody would spend or sell any coins the market would be extremely illiquid which also deters potential buyers (no sellers, no buyers). So it's not that easy.

The price of Bitcoin is dictated by it's scarcity. If half the number of bitcoins are traded at twice the price the liquidity stays the same.
54  Economy / Speculation / Trezor and other Secure Wallets will have a large effect on the Bitcoin Price on: February 08, 2015, 04:14:38 AM
I believe one of the main reasons for the slow decline of the bitcoin prices is that people who wish to invest a large amount of money do not feel comfortable about securely storing a large amount of value.

With BIP32 and TREZOR investors are starting to feel more confident that they can indeed manage holding their own Bitcoins.

Once a significant proportion of investors move to such secure Bitcoin storage technologies I believe that the incentive to sell will become much diminished.

I suspect that the in unofficial markets (such as Local Bitcoins and OTC) will be the first places to dry up in excess liquidity. (as in the average price on these markets will be higher than say on Bitstamp).

When this happens, I believe significantly because of secure wallets, we will be officially at the start of the next major bull market. (it is important to remember that the bitcoin prices is dictated by people who do not spend bitcoins rather those who do).

 Wink
55  Bitcoin / Alternative clients / Re: A minimal full node client in F# on: January 24, 2015, 04:25:34 PM
If you wish to have additional exposure, you could compose and send an email to the the Bitcoin Development Mailing List.
56  Bitcoin / Alternative clients / Re: A minimal full node client in F# on: January 24, 2015, 04:24:22 PM
Great Work!  Grin Grin

Have you picked a license for the code yet?
57  Economy / Speculation / Re: Time to say goodbye on: January 18, 2015, 01:50:28 AM
Goodbye! (from a bitcointalk vagrant).
58  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: Moneychanger (Windows Builds) - Out of Date! on: October 30, 2014, 01:01:37 AM
These builds are out of date.

The new version uses cmake, and is in super-heavy active development.

https://github.com/Open-Transactions/opentxs

My old windows build system dosent work with it.
59  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: October 30, 2014, 12:58:28 AM
Meanwhile, Gold collapsing,  bitcoin (also collapsing)

Oil too.

What is up? Just USD?

The USD is entering the 'red giant' phase, having exhausted its primary fuel of gold and silver backing and now being powered by the less dense energy source of hydrocarbon hegemony.  Although less productive, the economic bloat of malinvestment results in a higher apparent magnitude via the financialization process. 

That is why gold/silver/BTC (stuff you have) are collapsing, while insurance/food/medicine/education (stuff you need) costs are soaring.

While less massive bodies of fiat may ultimately wind up as harmless white dwarfs, the USD is so large it will enter a phase equivalent to carbon-burning when runaway debt-monetization overcomes the hydrostatic equilibrium provided by petrodollars.

This will result in a supernova of hyperinflation, and finally a black hole will remain where the global reserve currency once existed.

that's good  Cheesy

Really good analogy! (Except I would expect to see a deflationary collapse of the red-giant, before an hyperinflationary super-nova explosion.)
60  Economy / Speculation / Re: Been here before. on: August 16, 2014, 10:32:51 AM
At some price it only take as small amount of new money invested to keep the price afloat.

Unless you expect that people are genuinely going to forget about Bitcoin and move on to something else...   In that case I would recommend you take your investment elsewhere and hold naked shorts on Bitcoin.

However I don't see the 'core' interest in Bitcoin decreasing; instead I see a huge amount of the worlds most talented people building infrastructure to support and build the possibilities of what blockchain technology can provide.  Every month that goes past the Bitcoin infrastructure is in a better position to support a larger and larger popular movement into cypto.

Over the years, I've seen the following cycles:

1.  base infrastructure is developed to support a market.
2.  popular investment movement into bitcoin.
3.  infrastructure is over strained and hacks, companies collapse, and legal issues arise.
4.  bitcoin price progressively collapses for the all-time highs.
5.  the 'core' bitcoin community tirelessly work to build better infrastructure.
6.  the cycle repeats.

I believe we are the phase 4-5 phase as listed above.  At some point the infrastructure will become ready again, and the popular movement will overshoot the price again.  However maybe this time we will be looking it overshooting to $50 000, and retracing to $10 000.  I however suspect that the next cycle is going to be shorter, as the network effects at such such sizes are extremely powerful.

So.  I don't know what will indeed happen... However there certainly are established adoption cycle pattens that are quite observable and tested.

TLDL:  Have fun and and be ready to change your short position into a long.
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 ... 62 »
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!