|
2
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why am I an atheist?
|
on: April 04, 2016, 03:47:28 AM
|
Why am I an atheist? Because God caused you to not believe so that you will not repent and He will destroy you in hell. Romans 9:22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? |
|
|
|
|
5
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Mike Hearn: In about 1-2 weeks, Bitcoin XT will include support for 20mb blocks
|
on: June 20, 2015, 03:38:19 PM
|
What would happen if I dont like XT or XT crash, may I come back to BTC?
Yes, if you did not touch the BTC chain after the fork. If your Bitcoin was only transacted on the XT fork, then if you decide to use the old BTC chain, you will have however many BTC you had prior to the fork. This is not true, and anyone who follows this advice will lose their funds for sure. Unless you go out of your way to double-spend your pre-fork coins so that they end up in different outputs on each chain, it is very likely that any transaction you make on one chain will be mirrored on the other. Since the ledger and the unconfirmed transaction pool are public, anyone can copy your transactions and broadcast them on the competing chain. If you plan to keep funds on the real chain as a backup for your XT derpitude, you should better split them first so that it is impossible for others to mirror your transactions in the future. |
|
|
|
|
8
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Block chain size/storage and slow downloads for new users
|
on: June 04, 2015, 03:45:46 PM
|
I haven't got blockchain on my pc and I am still bitcoin user.
Aight but the whole "be your own bank" thing depends on you maintaining your own full node. Otherwise you might as well be using PayPal. It doesn't do much good signing transactions if you don't also have a record of all the other transactions. I mean, centralized services could just as easily implement a "sign a message with a key" option for authorizing account actions. The whole point of bitcoin is keeping track of the public ledger so that nobody can get away with inflating the supply of money or double spending already spent outputs. These are the things that you cannot do, and by my estimation this makes you *not* a bitcoin user. |
|
|
|
|
10
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: We're getting married! We're going to record it on the blockchain!
|
on: May 29, 2015, 05:32:30 PM
|
I haven't quite yet figured out how to yet but in my 2 minutes of research it looks pretty simple! It's simple enough. First, get in the WoT. Then, submit a deed. Why is the first step necessary? Because recording something like a marriage contract without also binding it to people, is pointless. That's where the WoT comes in. This would be unprecedented, if you did it. I'm not even sure what the contract should be. Should the groom and father of the bride both sign it? You could use it to publicly declare the dowry or something. |
|
|
|
|
11
|
Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: [OFFICIAL] █ Bitproof.io █ Say Hello to True Certification in the Blockchain
|
on: March 23, 2015, 04:24:10 AM
|
Using a hash as a private key is not as efficient as using OP_RETURN because it will require more transactions. You'll have to send some coins to the derived public key to prove existence of the hash, then you'll eventually want to transfer the coins back (2 transactions = takes more space).
Using a hash as a public key will just "burn" the coins (which is bad - increases deflation).
OP_RETURN has been created for the purpose of storing data in the blockchain, the inputs become fees and are given to the miners (no money is lost). The "2 transactions" thing is a feature; not a bug. You can leave the funds there for scavengers to sweep as a verification that the process is working correctly. Using a hash as public key is indeed bad, but not because of deflation. Decreasing the total supply of bitcoin is like giving a donation to all holders proportional to their holdings. A "burn" is bad because it permanently increases the pool of unspent outputs. This is a burden on full nodes. The block chain was never intended to store data beyond what is necessary to record the transfer of funds between addresses. The private key method, although hack, does not betray this purpose.
This project is a rip-off, likely backed by UnSavoryGarnish i. Users should be highly suspicious of the fact that you require registration. That's not unlike regulators desire to taint bitcoin addresses with personally identifying information for the purposes of tax collection and cash flow restrictions. Your justification for the registration is moot considering that the same end can be met with the use of GPG contracts.
i : #bitcoin-assets log |
|
|
|
|
12
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin 20MB Fork
|
on: March 21, 2015, 03:19:34 AM
|
This thread sucks. That is entirely because of people like you, rehashing previously refuted arguments.
No limit, let the miners decide. VII. The minersi decide.No, they do not. The miners make some minor decisions in Bitcoin, but major decisions such as block forks are not at their disposition alone, and this for excellent reasons you'll readily understand if you stop and think about it. There are two specific methods to control miners on this matter, which will make the scamcoin Gavin is trying to replace everyone's Bitcoin with only replace some people's Bitcoin. The first and most obvious is that irrespective of what miners mine, each single full node will reject illegal blocks. This is a fact. If all the miners out there suddenly quit Bitcon and go mine Keiser's Aurora scamcoin instead, from the perspective of the Bitcoin network hash rate simply dropped and that's all. There's absolutely no difference between Keiser's scamcoin and Gavin's scam coin as far as the network is concerned : while one's a scammer that I humiliatingly defeated in the past whereas the other a scammer that I humiliatingly defeat in the future, this makes no difference for Bitcoin. As far as anyone will be able to perceive, miners simply left. The second and perhaps not as obvious has nevertheless been discussed at length on multiple occasions on #bitcoin-assets. Consider this terse explanation from March. 2013. mircea_popescu: whoever has enough money to matter is likely to pick one chain for whatever reason
mircea_popescu: since fork means btc can be spent independently on either chain
mircea_popescu: he will sell his btc on one and perhaps buy on the other.
mircea_popescu: as a result prices will rapidly diverge, panicking the mass of users, and the fork is economically resolved. The situation here is aggravated by the fact that the fork proposed is not simply nondeterministic behaviour ii, and so the holdings on the two chains aren't notionally equivalent. Instead, all the holdings on the Bitcoin chain are accepted as valid on both Bitcoin and Gavincoin, but holdings on Gavincoin are rejected by Bitcoin. Consequently, everyone involved with the fork is writing options to everyone in Bitcoin, free of charge. That they have no ready way to finance these should be obvious, and consequently the grim prospects of the Gavin side of the fork should be just as obvious. At least, to people who understand economy to any degree.
I advocate letting the free market decide the block size, and some troll accuse me of advocating socialism? VI. This is a clerical issue, because block propagation and other considerations incentivize miners to keep blocks small anyway. The 1MB is just a hard limit getting in the way of things, the marketplace of miners should be allowed to fix block size as it seems appropriate.
While this argument has been disingenuously brought by Gavin himself, the fact is that the proposed inverted bloom filters upgrade would allow all blocks to propagate in constant time, regardless of their size. Just the sort of deceitful poison flowing out of USG through its few remaining (but apparently well entrenched) Bitcoin moles.
On the other hand, it's clear that the majority wants the 1MB limit obliterated.. XIV. We all agree.Good for you, too bad you're irrelevant. Bitcoin is about money and about power, not about opinion and social media. You can agree until you are blue in the face, that's not what makes a difference. Your public humiliation on this score - in case your shepherd be dumb enough to actually take the field and be humiliated ii - should be instructive for you. Take notice on the why and the how you don't matter, understand why "MP doesn't cater to my idiocy which makes me want to support anything else" doesn't actually do anything, break through the shell of your own idiocy and start actually developing as a human being already. Going by your infantile behaviour this is clearly the first time you had the chance, but going by the messy state of the world around you it might actually be your last, too. Try and make the best of the very little you have at your disposal. |
|
|
|
|
13
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Block chain size/storage and slow downloads for new users
|
on: March 21, 2015, 02:47:09 AM
|
I am thinking that BitPay or Coinbase is able to setup various full nodes all over the globe and the small users can whitelist their nodes so that they shouldn't worry that much about the blockchain being altered! In the Bitcoin ecosystem the security is the same for the big companies and for the small individual and a change in the blockchain history would affect both in the same time. The big companies will focus more on the blockchain security since they have much more to lose while the small guys can just leech the blockchain history from them. I am thinking I don't want to rely on the say-so of companies that are already in bed with the USG. I am thinking that if a small group of USG-friendly companies has a monopoly on the full node market, they will eventually start rewriting history to airdrop free bitcoin into government coffers. These are the kinds of conclusions a thinking person can arrive at; what is it you're doing? You call it thinking?
As previously said if you trust Google servers to host your Google Chrome copy then you will definitely trust Exchangers and Payment Processors to have an unaltered blockchain at everyone's disposal. Google Chrome isn't responsible for the world's money supply.. But I get what you're trying to suggest -- that bitcoin to FIAT exchanges must have only the best intentions.. Pay no mind that they are FIAT companies; not bitcoin companies i! Does the block chain demand KYC compliance? Nope; that's a FIAT requirement. These companies will do what it takes to remain in the good graces of their FIAT overlords, and I "definitely" don't trust them to keep an unaltered block chain if left alone with the task.
i : Actual Bitcoin corporations (ABCs) versus fiat-based frauds trying to masquerade as Bitcoin companies (while masquerading as companies in the first place) on the solid theory that the general public is too stupid to make any difference, this one included, and on the flimsy theory that the general public matters in Bitcoin (FBF-TTMABC-WMACITFP-OTSTTTGPITSTMAD-TOI-AOTFTTTGPMIBs, alphabets for short).The situation is exactly the same in Bitcoin : on one hand there are the actual Bitcoin companies, dedicated to building a new house. These mostly gather around MPEx. Then there are the pseudo-Bitcoin companies, which use Bitcoin like they used "synergy" or "dotcom" before. To them it's a simple buzzword, intended as a means to separate dollar-holders from their dollar-holdings. |
|
|
|
|
14
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin 20MB Fork
|
on: March 20, 2015, 04:05:13 PM
|
I doubt you meant to advocate socialism, but that's what's going on here.
You say this as if it were a bad thing. Socialism is a very bad thing i; it is the sort of bad thing that bitcoin is here to destroy. If you desire socialism, what is it you are doing here on a forum about the most capitalist thing to ever fall into man's lap? The ideal money for a socialist is one which is centrally controlled, and with the Federal Reserve you have exactly that. So then what role do you see bitcoin having in a world in which money can be taken from the rich and given to the poor? It is no surprise that you are in favor of changing bitcoin if your goal is socialism; as it stands, unchanged, it makes such a thing impossible ii.
i :  ii : Bitcoin and the poorWell... Bitcoin is absolutely nothing of the sort. Bitcoin doesn't make it easier for anti-capitalists, it makes it harder. Bitcoin doesn't make it easier for anti-corporatists, it makes it harder. Bitcoin especially does not make it easier for socialists, for those people that despise hierarchy and pretend equality : it makes it impossible. Plain impossible. |
|
|
|
|
15
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin 20MB Fork
|
on: March 20, 2015, 02:40:49 PM
|
No limit, let the miners decide.
It's what they've been doing anyway and removing that silly 1MB limit is the best representative of a free market. You like the "free market," eh? Are you familiar with the "tragedy of the commons?" Miners get the benefit from making large blocks, and the rest of us bear the costs. I doubt you meant to advocate socialism, but that's what's going on here.
I suspect this double post thing is how spammers like RoadStress get their "activity" so high. Since I'm replying to someone else anyway, might as well attach this: If we can have trusted places where we can download software without the fear of them being infected with viruses/malware then we can have trusted operators/nodes so that some users can use only a lightweight client without burdening them with a full node requirement. If you're gonna just go trusting people, then why do you need your transaction on the block chain? The block chain is for when you don't trust anyone. You are arguing in favor of what amounts to security theater. People are worse off if they think simply having a private key is what makes their funds safe. Instead of them trusting a node to relay their petty transactions, they can just as well trust a bitcoin denominated bank to make a promise on their behalf. The banks can then settle balance differences in large chunks on a daily basis, thereby keeping the size of the block chain minimal. In this way, anybody can verify the process with an inexpensive node plugged into their home router. Whereas with your proposal, only a few wealthy people can verify the process despite everyone having access. You have conceded that the common man will have to trust someone. Please stop with this nonsense that we must also make the block chain impossible for the common man to verify. It is not necessary to have both these results; only one is needed. |
|
|
|
|
16
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Block chain size/storage and slow downloads for new users
|
on: March 20, 2015, 02:28:12 PM
|
If we can have trusted places where we can download software without the fear of them being infected with viruses/malware then we can have trusted operators/nodes so that some users can use only a lightweight client without burdening them with a full node requirement. If you're gonna just go trusting people, then why do you need your transaction on the block chain? The block chain is for when you don't trust anyone. You are arguing in favor of what amounts to security theater. People are worse off if they think simply having a private key is what makes their funds safe. Instead of them trusting a node to relay their petty transactions, they can just as well trust a bitcoin denominated bank to make a promise on their behalf. The banks can then settle balance differences in large chunks on a daily basis, thereby keeping the size of the block chain minimal. In this way, anybody can verify the process with an inexpensive node plugged into their home router. Whereas with your proposal, only a few wealthy people can verify the process despite everyone having access. You have conceded that the common man will have to trust someone. Please stop with this nonsense that we must also make the block chain impossible for the common man to verify. It is not necessary to have both these results; only one is needed. |
|
|
|
|
17
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin 1400MB Fork
|
on: March 19, 2015, 09:16:59 PM
|
If they can transmit transactions with a light client it's equal to having the banking software to me.Maybe I got it wrong but I know that nobody can spend your money without having the private key. A private key kept private makes it impossible for anyone else to spend your money. That's "equal to having" a web browser that you can use to log into your bank's web site. So no, you aren't being "your own bank." You got it very wrong; they don't need to "spend your money" when they can rewrite history so that you never had any. They don't need your private key in order to create fraudulent coin bases that debase the unit of account.
I said nothing about the number of full bitcoin nodes being up or down. I said the number of PCs capable of running full nodes is increasing and will not be decreasing any time soon. Maybe one day it will, but this decade is not it, and I seriously doubt the next decade is, either. If the block size limit were to increase, it would. But the fork ain't happening, so you're right.
Centralization can be good, especially in say e.g. mining. If mining pools did not exist and it was purely a peer-to-peer operation and a hard or even a soft fork happened that required immediate tending to, it would be virtually impossible to get enough clients to change in a fast enough time frame to save bitcoin. You'd have a massive hard fork and lots of angry people and a complete loss of confidence in bitcoin. This is not a problem; miners will quickly find the correct chain because they have a lot of money to lose if they don't. Anybody who is mining and isn't aware of the politics of block chain rules is a fool that deserves to go out of business. The network itself is anti-fragile; it isn't going away just because of a disagreement. You're spinning this to sound like if it weren't for USGavin, bitcoin would wither and die. And who cares if "lots of angry people" lose confidence? Does someone who loses confidence in gravity magically start floating? They can whine all they want and then when they've tired themselves out, they can continue using bitcoin because there is no choice in the matter.
I'm not saying centralization is great, or even good. But it is the lesser of two evils in some instances and if it's a choice between a somewhat centralized bitcoin and no bitcoin at all, I'd say centralization falls on the side of good. What even is the point of bitcoin if it's not decentralized? A centralized bitcoin is certainly "more evil" than no bitcoin at all simply because it's a self-defeating concept. This is what I mean by "trendier hipsterish." Is bitcoin nothing more than a way to pick up chicks to you? A nerdy new conversation starter instead of the world burner it truly is.
As for the counterbalance, one example is lined above. Having a centralized structure housed in 4 or 5 or even 15 top pools means if there's an attack or threat, the blockchain can evolve rapidly. Having a "centralized structure" is the threat! An "evolving blockchain" is the threat! These were exactly the arguments used to create the Federal Reserve! Is that what you want? A new-age FED?
Neither is a perfect solution, but what I do know is that limiting the transaction volume to a paltry 1 MB is going to not only hurt bitcoin, but completely kill it as far as global, massive uptake goes. And how do you "know" that? I see a lot of people making this assumption, but nobody has provided any evidence that it is true. Whereas, I have explained very thoroughly how bitcoin will do just fine with a fixed limit on the block size.
Off chain solutions are a brain dead solution to a problem that doesn't exist. The problem is how to fix bitcoin and make it scalable... not how to make new software to accomplish the same task but in a different way. It isn't broken! It already scales just fine! The bitcoin you are imagining is exactly what you explain here: "new software to accomplish the same task but in a different way." You are imagining a hip new version of the Federal Reserve.
I'm sorry, maybe I don't understand where you're coming from, but why are you quoting Mircea Popescu? I admit I have not read this entire thread, so maybe there's a reason... but I don't see what value there is to quoting an insane, misogynistic, racist drug addict here? The guy has shown time and again that he has no idea what he's talking about and everything he has ever done in his life is complete garbage (just going by what I've read of and from him, so I could be incorrect). His quotes are like quoting "1, 2, 3, potato!" for all the value it brings. Drug addict!? Oh this part of your post is so precious! MP will surely get a kick out of it. |
|
|
|
|
18
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Block chain size/storage and slow downloads for new users
|
on: March 19, 2015, 07:47:27 PM
|
well... with a p2p network uptime is not really important.
its the amount of connectible nodes that count.
though 6k is not much. for that reason i started a node.. (well only one... btw why does mp not fire up a few? he has way more resources than me) Well, a node isn't "connectible" if it isn't turned on and caught up. As to making more nodes, we're working on it.
How does the number of active nodes compare with the number of active miners? I'm guess there are way more miners than there are people running full nodes. I do both in support of the network.
A miner is necessarily a full node; there must always be more full nodes than there are miners. And it's not just "in support of the network;" it's in support of yourself. The only way to really know if you have funds or not is to check the full transaction history. |
|
|
|
|
19
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin 1400MB Fork
|
on: March 19, 2015, 03:21:47 AM
|
In addition let me tell you that by suggesting the use of a 3rd party wallet is simply denying one of the most important features of Bitcoin. The ability to keep your money and to be your own bank. Just because you can't afford to keep one computer plugged 24 hours per day. This must be one of the most stupidest ideas that I've seen on this forum. How are you "your own bank" without actually having the banking software?? A private key does not a bank make! I can generate all sorts of keys and sign all sorts of messages; that doesn't mean I have money! The "most important feature" of bitcoin is the block chain: the full history of transactions and coin bases. Without this, your signed messages and private keys are for naught.
I don't think you can use the argument that the number of computers capable of running a full node will be declining, because if it ever does, it won't be any time soon. This is false; the number is already shockingly low. It can only get lower with an increase in the cost of maintaining a node. Satoshi also envisioned ASICs dominating the network and being run in a more centralized manner, but many people forget that as well. Centralization is not necessarily a bad thing, depending on the circumstances and if that centralization can be counterbalanced with the ability to quickly and decisively eliminate the negative forces of centralization, then I think that outweighs the risks. This is false as well i. Sure, many things benefit from centralization ii, but the money supply is not one of them. And then you go on to say something that doesn't make sense.. What is the "counterbalance" to "quickly and decisively eliminate the negative forces of centralization?" You say this but fail to explain it. I see the risk in centralizing the full nodes; I don't see any benefit to it, especially when the same effect can be achieved via off-chain solutions that do not compromise the security of the network as a whole.
i : Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash SystemThe proof-of-work also solves the problem of determining representation in majority decision
making. If the majority were based on one-IP-address-one-vote, it could be subverted by anyone
able to allocate many IPs. Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote. ii : In which we discuss Datskovskiy's discussion of MPExJust so is the case with Bitcoins and markets : it makes perfect sense for the currency itself to be decentralized. It makes absolutely no sense at all for the marketplace to be decentralized. In fact, a decentralized market is about as much a market as a deenginized car is a car. The market is precisely where economic agents come together, that's what it does, it centralizes trade. Further, it is sensible for the currency itself to be as trustless as possible, and thus mechanisms that implement trustlessness are a net gain in that field. A market can never exist at all without trust, and so mechanisms that purportedly implement "trustlessness" are nothing but clunk in this field. |
|
|
|
|
20
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Block chain size/storage and slow downloads for new users
|
on: March 19, 2015, 02:58:08 AM
|
The system should be crafted around a mix of security and easy of use. No; security should be the #1 priority of the network. The "ease of use" side should be provided off the block chain. Those who favor easy over secure can have their cup of punch without there being a turd in the bowl.
Also by your logic you just denied Bitcoin to AT LEAST 2 bil people who can't afford to keep a rPi plugged in all the time. Those people can use whatever they currently use but with bitcoin backing it instead of FIAT. They can use their local node to confirm that the money supply is not being debased. And do not use the raspberry pi; it sucks.
Last that I've checked there were mode than 6k nodes all spread all over the world. Which government are you talking about? And how do they plan to do it? Just as they did with torrents? You don't seem to trust the technology that is behind Bitcoin or you simply don't understand it. Even if that "6k" figure were accurate i, it should still be a great concern; that is a shockingly low number! It isn't going to get larger by making the cost to run one greater. The government I am talking about is the U.S. Government; the one currently in control of the world's reserve currency; the one that stands to lose a lot when bitcoin takes over. How do they do it? It's too late for them to kill it via the hashing route, and shorting it hasn't worked. They seem to think they can kill it by breaking it from within. People like you, whether on their payroll or just stupid, are helping them by pushing this bad idea that the rules need to change. I don't trust the technology? You're the one who wants to change it!
i : it isn'tmircea_popescu: there are 1433 nodes with 90% uptime mircea_popescu: there are 323 nodes with 99% uptime. mircea_popescu: and just 60 with 99.9% uptime. thestringpuller: MP where are you getting these stats? mircea_popescu: people keep derping about uh oh, 7k nodes. BULLSHIT. we're down from 270k to 61. mircea_popescu: thestringpuller http://log.b-a.link/?date=03-02-2015#1004122assbot: Logged on 03-02-2015 05:21:45; asciilifeform: http://bitcoin.sipa.be/seeds.txtmircea_popescu: and whilke this massacre's going on, "uh oh, 20mb blocks, it will work fine" mircea_popescu: gavin's mother on black cocks will work fine. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
