Lol. What company is going to run the second layers?
Do you even know what second layers are?
LN hubs, to be effective, have to be very big hubs with a lot of little customers connected to them with their small channels. In other words, banking nodes with a lot of capital to use as collateral on their customers' links, and inter-bank links. Big financial groups. In the LN you have a huge economy of scale if you can put in a lot of collateral. In fact, the LN will centralize even faster than the proof of work because the economies of scale are more important. Can you cite the documentation that you must be referring to. Banking nodes may exist in this future world obviously, but where is it that the system is reliant upon them. Please provide your sources. So as I stated, what company is going to run the second layers? You are talking about Lightning Network. That is one proposed idea for second layers. |
|
|
|
You must be a moron, a troll, or a propagandist.
Network centralization is different than miner centralization.
There could be one miner in the whole world, who couldn't do jack if
the network denied his larger blocks.
Yes, you fall for that erroneous propaganda. If you would think for yourself, you would be able to understand why that is totally flawed as an idea. If there is only one miner in the whole world, there is only one block chain, right ? Nobody else is able to make another block chain, right ? Because you need a lot of proof of work to make one. Now, tell me, that single sole block chain made by the sole miner doesn't suit you. The whole network "denies" its blocks. So what is "the whole network" now doing ? Nothing. No transactions get processed. No wallets update. You cannot put coins on an exchange, you cannot withdraw them, nothing. All nodes came to a standstill. So if you are a user, you have the choice of accepting the sole block chain that is being made, or not having a block chain at all. Bet that you will adapt your node to accept the sole block chain that is around. Bet that exchanges will do the same. And in order to get it, you better connect directly to the miner's node infrastructure, if most of your peer nodes came to a grinding halt. If there's one miner, that makes a block chain according to his wishes, you have no choice but to use it, or to leave the coin all together and all your addresses on it. I know that's not what the propaganda tells you, but think for yourself, and find a hole in this reasoning. That's why it is called "consensus by proof of work", not by "number of nodes". You fail because you are trying to make points that are not valid to real world situations. If a single miner did come about, then Bitcoin is done and everyone goes to a new coin. So this example is worthless. Pose an example that is worthy of discussion. BTW "consensus by proof of work" was defined when miners and validators were a single entity. Your definition of it, stopped appling to Bitcoin when GPUs and ASICs came about. What is actually occurring now is "proof of work block building reliant on node network consensus". |
|
|
|
With a second layer, all the things I love about bitcoin vanish.
If you control the flow of money, you have power.
Remember when Visa, MC, and PayPal stopped processing donations to Snowden's living expense and legal defense fund?
There was nothing illegal about donating, but they didn't want you to so they didn't let you.
Right now, British banks look to see who is buying a lot of contraceptives and giving that information to police in case a lot of contraceptives are being bought for sex work.
Shouldn't the purchase of contraceptives, whether it is a small amount or large amount, be private?
With a second layer that we have to use for transactions, you can bet your ass both of those kinds of things will happen with Bitcoin too.
A second layer puts a private company in control over the flow of your money and that power will be abused, it always is abused.
Bitcoin will survive but Satoshi's vision will be dead.
Lol. What company is going to run the second layers? Do you even know what second layers are? Are you talking about third party second layers? Are you aware some of the proposed second layers will be anon? BTW Satoshi's true dream died when someone started using GPUs and then ASICs. So talking about second layers being the problem is 8 years too late. |
|
|
|
Segwit allows for optimization which gives some scaling while keeping the basic status quo and network decentralized.
BU allows for direct increase of on-chain scaling which give more power to miners and centralizes the network.
This is the official propaganda. Segwit calls for centralisation through a banking layer on top of bitcoin, the lightning network. BU implements dynamic block sizes. The totally ridiculous argument that BU would centralize, is that non-mining nodes, which have nothing to say in bitcoin, contrary to all the propaganda that tells the opposite, would need somewhat better network connections and bigger hard disks. But bitcoin is a *proof of work* consensus system, not a *count of node* consensus system, so no matter if there are many, or few, non mining nodes, the only true consensus mechanism in bitcoin is delivered by miners: proof of work. And that is inevitably centralizing. The people making decisions in bitcoin are the mining pools: they decide what blocks to build, according to what protocol, on which other blocks. They decide of the choice of transactions and on all the rest. Strictly speaking, if you have 51% of the hash power, you can decide all you want in bitcoin. Well, here they are: https://blockchain.info/poolsCount the number of deciders that need to collude to reach 51%. THIS is bitcoin's centralisation. Not the poor guys installing nodes in their basement that do not mine. These are nothing but proxy servers to the chain that these people decide to make. So at this moment, bitcoin is decentralized over 5 entities for a small majority. 9 entities if you need 75% majority. Put 5 people in a room, and you decide with small margin. Put 9 people in a room, and they decide with 75% majority. That's bitcoin's centralization. I know the propaganda tells you otherwise, nodes blah blah blah. It ain't so. Bitcoin is an oligarchy of less than 10 people. But they do their jobs correctly. Because bitcoin is a proof-of-work consensus system, and proof of work is in the hands of less than 10 people. The miners' hardware aren't in their hands, true. But the miners' hardware is not deciding upon which blocks to build, according to what protocol. They only sell hashes to the pools. You must be a moron, a troll, or a propagandist. Network centralization is different than miner centralization. There could be one miner in the whole world, who couldn't do jack if the network denied his larger blocks. What I stated is correct. You are a noob. I'm mostly independent and only care about a decentralized network into the future. Almost every word you stated above is spin and gibberish that has no basis in what I stated. |
|
|
|
Can we not have code that does both?
Can some one answer this, why would it not satisfy both parties?
why could BU people not accept segwit code as this seem to just make the block size more efficient and Segwit people accept BU as this just allows block size to be larger
Are not Segwit and BU solutions orthogonal to each other for the most part and so can both exist in a mutually beneficial manner?
Can some one address this?
Segwit allows for optimization which gives a scaling side effect while keeping the basic status quo and network decentralized. BU allows for direct increase of on-chain scaling which give more power to miners and centralizes the network. They are both opposites. Each are killing blows to the others "world view" (bitcoin world). Personally, I believe that decentralization is our only purpose and where the value comes from. There is no other system in the world currently that does what Bitcoin does. The world doesn't need another Paypal. |
|
|
|
Do U mean my 1 coin will become two coins? I am giggling.
In a way, yes. In an unsuccessful hardfork, you will not have two coins on one chain, but one coin on two viable chains. Both of these two separate chain coins will each correspond to the same privatekey, that you control. In the event of a hardfork that is 100% supported, then you will only have one viable coin. The "two coins" only come about if "two chains" survive. Will exchange give you two coins if your coin is in their address?
Depends on the exchange. See the policy of your exchange or ask them for clarification in their support. They may be obligated by law within certain jurisdictions to provide you both coins after a failed hardfork (two chain surviving fork). Some in some countries, may not. |
|
|
|
People are not buying altcoins because of instant send or low fees.
That makes no sense since the other person in the transaction would need to accept that alt as well.
There is no worthy infrastructure or economy for those alts.
The reason why those alts are rising is not adoption by noobs, but whale attempting to trick you.
They are using the higher bitcoin fees to take advantage. This is 2013-2014 altcoin pump all over again.
Eventually, majority will be converted back into btc, like always.
People are buying alts for profit hedge and features. Fictitious whales are not an argument against real division and to much friction in the BTC economy due to high fees, and a choke point via block size. If you were knowledgeable, you would know that the average bitcoin user is ignorant of the blocksize issue. The average user sends a tx and walks away, never participating or paying attention to the arguments. The average bitcoin user is not buy altcoins as hedges. The average bitcoin user has less than 0.5 btc, they aren't going to risk that into an alt. Only the whales are buying those altcoins as pure speculation. The Dumps will come like always. |
|
|
|
...
Certain alts of recent should be a serious wake up call. They have proven the market is prepared to discount the faults instamines, some centralization whatever.
The market demand for instant send, open policy dev discussion and the ability to implement change is to high.
People are tired of the fight, and want solutions exacerbated by the fact they can see the solutions. The BTC network is being driven to a halt for normal users as it becomes expensive to send BTC with current blocksize.
...
I disagree. The current altcoin rise is based on pure pump speculation from statements such as yours, which only feeds into what they are attempting. At the end of the day, majority of altcoins are worthless and not as secure. If noobs think those are viable alternatives, they will soon get what they deserve. Don't mistake a good old fashion altcoin pump, with actual utilization. If you look at the charts, they are clearly pumps. Instant send, and low transaction fee features are agnostic to being an alt. The non speculative part of my statement is that here is an operating system that I can cheaply and isntantly send my coins, vs here is a system where I can not. This is where the value is being arbitraged out. Looking at the charts, Percentage wise I am not sure btc dominance has ever been lower. People are not buying altcoins because of instant send or low fees. That makes no sense since the other person in the transaction would need to accept that alt as well. There is no worthy infrastructure or economy for those alts. The reason why those alts are rising is not adoption by noobs, but whale attempting to trick you. They are using the higher bitcoin fees to take advantage. This is 2013-2014 altcoin pump all over again. Eventually, majority will be converted back into btc, like always. |
|
|
|
So, again: What useful role can banks play in Bitcoin at all?  Everything they can do, the individual can do better. If you mean that everyone becomes their own bank, I guess the statement could be sensibly argued, but I doubt that's what Nash meant Just for sake of argument: the banks could hold your privatekeys in this proposed future, since the average person could not be trusted to protect their own wealth. The banks would hold and insure their btc. This is contrary to what Satoshi intended, "be your own bank", but ultimately the average person is not qualified to fully protect themselves from all types of btc theft. |
|
|
|
...
Certain alts of recent should be a serious wake up call. They have proven the market is prepared to discount the faults instamines, some centralization whatever.
The market demand for instant send, open policy dev discussion and the ability to implement change is to high.
People are tired of the fight, and want solutions exacerbated by the fact they can see the solutions. The BTC network is being driven to a halt for normal users as it becomes expensive to send BTC with current blocksize.
...
I disagree. The current altcoin rise is based on pure pump speculation from statements such as yours, which only feeds into what they are attempting. At the end of the day, majority of altcoins are worthless and not as secure. If noobs think those are viable alternatives, they will soon get what they deserve. Don't mistake a good old fashion altcoin pump, with actual utilization. If you look at the charts, they are clearly pumps. |
|
|
|
if it requires a binary answer (even if that binary answer is converted to ascii or other readable thing) the end result is within 6 months there will exist pools of either node sybil syndicates or mining farms doing it more efficiently than solo.
Yes, that is why I think the idea would need to be done between either provable parties (not possible) or between corporations and governments in a closed mining system. I don't think it could ever work in an open public way, without exploitation. |
|
|
|
How would you prove that something was a real AI without centralization?
Proof of AI would likely rely on servers and be government or corporate controlled.
What would be the purpose of this in general?
To advance AI or to create a new warfare system?
So I guess then that it wouldn't need to be necessarily be AI. It would need to be a cryptographic task requiring neural network level processing, or abstract computation. Humans would be welcome to compete too, and might even stand a chance until supra-human neural nets became common. Consider that we already have superhuman neural nets in many specific tasks like Go. So, it's basically still Proof of Work, but strictly performed by artificial and/or human neural networks as opposed to ASICs and other mining devices? If yes, then it could be done, and the AI network would improve over time, but it would only be specializing in whatever the Work task is. This would also be centralized, I think, since you still need to prove neural network is true, when participating. Is there something specifically you want this neural network to be doing? A type of specific Work? Brain mapping or something? |
|
|
|
Proof-of-work creates a competitive environment where the ability to solve cryptographic problems using raw computational power wins.
Could there theoretically exist a proof where the strongest AI neural network would win?
This seems important.
How would you prove that something was a real AI without centralization? Proof of AI would likely rely on servers and be government or corporate controlled. What would be the purpose of this in general? To advance AI or to create a new warfare system? |
|
|
|
(2) You can gather all your low inputs together in such a way that you can move them all with an appropriate fee.
(Compromises privacy since it links all those addresses together.)
No matter whether you include the input in a larger transaction, or create a transaction that uses the input all by itself, the input is still going to add at least 147 bytes to the transaction. Since fees are calculated as satoshis PER BYTE there is going to be a cost associated with getting it confirmed. I think the viabtc accelerator requires that your transaction pay a fee of at least 10 satoshi per byte. That means that any UTXO valued at less than 0.00001470 BTC would cost more to spend than it is worth. Unless the typical fee for confirmation drops below 10 satoshi per byte, you'd be better off just abandoning the input than trying to spend it. It isn't even worth trying to include the UTXO as a fee for another transaction. You'd have to pay more in fees because of the additional input than the input supplies. UTXO that are valued at exactly 0.00001470 BTC (or just slightly above) would probably be best to just spend entirely as a transaction fee (included in other transactions or not) which would at least eliminate them from the UTXO set and increase the miners reward a bit. ... Yes, you are correct. When I made that statement, I was thinking about low inputs, like around 0.0001 btc or more. In #3 I referenced "dust" but I intended higher than "dust". In my second comment, I began talking about "dust" and UTXOs with less than 1000 satoshis in the context you are referring to. When I stated #2, I really meant combining low inputs (0.0001) with higher inputs so that the higher inputs would carry the burden. I wasn't specific enough with my terms and wording in #3 and intended low input again, as opposed to "dust". But yes, dust UTXOs are almost impossible to move currently, which is why I proposed in my second comment the free relay/burn token conversion, only as a way to lower the UTXOs. I'm not a coder or in computer science so I don't use termonology correctly. (Also I have a limited vocabulary in general, lol.) |
|
|
|
|
Probably should add to the title: "BU node exploit, exploited".
So that users know that something occurred, as opposed to just another flame thread.
Normally, when something like this is discovered, it should remain secret until patched.
Surprised that it was added to the GitHub for the public to see, if this is true.
|
|
|
|
This site, though not what you were asking about, may help in some way: https://oxt.me/chartsClick on the "/distributions" tab. Thanks for the link. There's quite a bit of worthless change on the blockchain. Yes. From the data I see from that site, about 2.5 million UTXOs are under 1000 Satoshi. Heres is an idea: It could be interesting if an agreement could be created with miners that they agree to relay those UTXOs for free within each block ONLY to a specific burn address. When users do this, they could be awarded a burn coin equivalent that can serve some purpose or just be traded on exchanges. It could be beneficial for the bitcoin community by (1) help clean up the dust UTXOs by consolidating them to one burn address and (2) add to bitcoin's deflation by destroying all those inputs from future use and (3) incentivizing people who do not want to retain their dust UTXOs by converting them into a new token for some other use. (For clarification, this UTXO token is an altcoin with a separate blockchain, obviously.) May not be necessary, but could be interesting way to deal with dust UTXOs. |
|
|
|
...
It could show the amount of UTXO's which are either completely unspendable, or that would cost a high proportion of their BTC's to actually spend those UTXO's. People could put their addresses in and get an estimate of how much BTC they really have if they where to attempt to spend it in a given block confirmation estimate.
...
There are some options. (1) You can wait till the amount of txs in the mempool are very low (5k or lower), then move with low fee. (Takes time and luck.) (2) You can gather all your low inputs together in such a way that you can move them all with an appropriate fee. (Compromises privacy since it links all those addresses together.) (3) Hold those dust accounts until the future, when those UTXOs become worthy of movement due to price. What is important is that if you move low UTXOs, they should consolidate to reduce the UTXO size. This site, though not what you were asking about, may help in some way: https://oxt.me/chartsClick on the "/distributions" tab. |
|
|
|
My understanding is a one line patch to core will make it compatible with block created by BU miners.
So those who do not trust the BU developers can still use a core client with bigger block nodes.
Not really. The BU client protocol changes are more complex than just a CORE "blocksize" patch. Also, CORE currently has things implemented that are not in or not allowed in BU. In theory, after a BU hardfork with a surviving chain, certain implementations like CPFP and RBF are not allowed to be used since they "harm" the reliability of zero confirmation txs (oxymoron IMO). This is my understanding. |
|
|
|
|
It was a pretty obvious decision from a legal point of view.
This is why decentralization and unregulatably of the network is so important.
If the governments had a chance, they would attempt to "deny" Bitcoin to their citizens as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
