|
It's mostly me that says the mining cartel should be broken up with a PoW hardfork (on bitcointalk.org, at least).
I'm going to say it again in this case: if 1 powerful company have protected intellectual property related to significant performance gains for mining chips (i.e. SHA256 ASICs), then that company essentially owns the mining market.
That is terrible news for Bitcoin's security model, as Intel could control the whole mining market and in turn control Bitcoin software development. Bitcoin's market value would be seriously impacted, and unless a similar 35% could be found in an unpatented method (its unclear whether Intel's technique could be used with the overt form of ASIC Boost), a PoW hard fork would be inevitable.
|
|
|
|
Provide an example of any consensus rules that have ever been enforced on the Bitcoin network that were not introduced by the developers working on the core client.
Regardless of the examples that anyone comes up with, the fact is that Bitcoin Core does not define consensus. The choices of the users (merchants, wallet creators, exchanges, miners, mining pools, etc) define the consensus. At the moment the users are choosing to use the rules of Bitcoin Core as the current set of consensus rules. At any time in the future, the users could change their minds and choose some other source of consensus rules (such as some other software). That's true. Regardless of that, it's not a good idea to have competing consensus rules on the same network. Consensus on the rules, and consequently on the validity of blocks, is what makes the Bitcoin network stable, and hence provides a fundamental part of it's market value (i.e. the Bitcoin price). Promoting forking of the network in anything but the most dire circumstances is very reckless, and very anti-social. Why would you want to threaten the value of everyone's BTC over non-issues?
The way to handle technical proposals in a way that is responsible is to discuss it with the rest of the developers. If that can't be achieved, trying to disenfranchise a minority of Bitcoin users by promoting a contentious hard fork is morally highly questionable: it's far more respectful to everyone simply to release a new coin using the consensus rules rejected by the other Bitcoin developers. I think anyone that's been following the various external fork battles can reasonably conclude that, every unrealised fork and every fork that did happen has been woefully ineffective in it's stated purpose and achieved questionable market share. And some Bitcoin forks were clearly entirely cynical in their genuine motives. This is not to say that the Core team could not become corrupted or make poor choices of direction in future, nobody's perfect. But this issue should be highlighted in the fullest way possible, and if that's to be so, it should be made clear that in Bitcoin's history up to now, the free-for-all reality of the consensus rules in Bitcoin has only ever been used in a malign way. |
|
|
|
Provide an example of any consensus rules that have ever been enforced on the Bitcoin network that were not introduced by the developers working on the core client.
BIP 91 Reduced threshold for enforcing Segwit activation. It happened but code enforcing BIP 91 was never merged into Bitcoin Core. The author of the BIP is also not someone that many would consider to be a Bitcoin Core developer. BIP 91 wasn't actually enforced by the Bitcoin network, only among the miners that adopted it. There was no consensus adoption of BIP 91. It was a proxy to get Segwit activation signalling above a level that made BIP 141 (i.e. Segwit) a certainty. BIP 141 was enforced on the Bitcoin network, not BIP 91. |
|
|
|
As long as they satisfy the consensus rules provided by the reference implementation, they're good to go.
Or to be absolutely precise, as long as they satisfy the rules which consensus currently enforces. It just happens to be the case that most people use what tends to be referred to as the "reference implementation". It doesn't mean that one implementation sets the rules that all other nodes are forced to abide by. Provide an example of any consensus rules that have ever been enforced on the Bitcoin network that were not introduced by the developers working on the core client. Note to Bitcointalk.org: DooMAD consistently uses carefully crafted statements like these to undermine the working and proven model of bitcoin development, and has consistently used carefully crafted language to support other (bad) actors in the bitcoin space to undermine the working & proven model of bitcoin development. |
|
|
|
I think that a time will come when as citizens, we would have to be ready to organize and demand our right to choose crytpocurrencies over Bank-backed fiats. It's probably going to be an exciting but demanding time.
You're misunderstanding both this technology and the concept of rights. If this is really a democratic system for free people, then why are regular people asking governments for permission to do something that's in their own interests? If we express that the other way around, so-called democratic governments can prevent people from doing things that would be good for them (assuming your model of asking politicians who are mandated to represent our views to actually do so, instead of conveying to us in various aggressive or manipulative ways that our views are wrong). The truth is that you already have the right to choose cryptocurrency instead of fiat currency. It's impossible to take that right away from you, because of how well Satoshi designed his network (as well as some further improvements building on the foundations of Satoshi's design). Governments can take many of your freedoms away for refusing to choose money that's a part of their system (and isn't that a strange kind of free-market capitalism). But it doesn't matter what they do, they cannot take away your rights to cryptocurrency you own (i.e. your private keys) without getting your permission (assuming you adequately secure your private keys, of course). Cryptocurrency bestows you with qualitatively the most powerful type of rights one could seek: rights you can secure for yourself in an absolute way. We don't own other types of money (or any other asset), in truth, we are only given permission to use them. Bitcoin is about asserting self-provided right to own your money. The only person you have to ask is yourself, and the question is: are you ready for that responsibility? |
|
|
|
|
Be a part of the solution. Set up a Lightning node, open some channels with some other well connected nodes. But on testnet of course, mainnet Lightning is still only recommended for dedicated Bitcoin users that can afford to lose BTC in the event of unforeseen bugs.
|
|
|
|
|
lol
Yet again, this is their way of saying "we give up". We've had headline stories about "crackdowns" or "regulatory frameworks" pretty much every week for nearly 10 years, and nothing significant ever actually happens. Ultimately, there's nothing that can be do, peer-to-peer tech cannot be controlled if well designed enough, and that's the whole point.
The world is slowly coming to realise that we can be free & independent of the banks and governments. The real question is: is everyone ready?
I don't think everyone is, but the tech isn't gonna disappear just because some people have their eyes closed and their fingers in their ears. A tipping point will be reached, when more than half the world are using cryptocurrencies. Beyond that, nothing will ever be the same.
The repercussions are possibly difficult to predict, so much else is changing even now, let alone when it gets to the point cryptocurrencies dominate other currencies. The immediate first order effects (legacy banking & finance gone forever, governments losing either alot or all of their power) are obvious, but it's probably gonna be a hell of a time to be alive while the situation stabilises. Maybe these "leaders" would be more responsible to start a public conversation about such events, but don't hold your breath for that.
|
|
|
|
If only handful of well connected nodes with high up-time were to open channels with each other, both your scenarios won't happen.
A well connected node is another word for hub and spoke... Also, why don't you explain a topology that could exist in LN that would not result in LN payments failing due to LN peer node downtime? I don't think there is one. I did If only handful of well connected nodes with high up-time were to open channels with each other, both your scenarios won't happen.
Some nodes would be well connected, but not in a hub & spoke fashion. This is not hypothetical, Lightning network is currently running and already beginning to resemble my description. |
|
|
|
Even when LN is activated I don't know if it would solve things up. [...] As long as the incentives work out, it could be so widely used that scaling will rival incumbent payment networks (Mastercard, Amex etc) and completely eclipse SWIFT. [...] This is unlikely. If there are exactly 1 million participants in the LN network, in order for every participant to be able to make a payment to any other participant in the network using no more than 6 "hops" (the last hop being the person you are paying), then each participant must, on average have at least 6 open channels with distinct participants. If Alice needs to pay Bob, and the shortest route between the two is 6 hops, then all 6 LN nodes must be online at the same time, and if any one of the LN nodes are not online (or otherwise fails to sign the necessary transactions), the payment will fail. If LN resembles anything close to a mesh network, the majority of the time participants will be unable to transact with the majority of the network if you assume each LN node has 67% uptime (each node is turned off for 8 hours per day -- a mesh network would mean that most LN nodes would be compromised of "home users"). If the LN network were to resemble something closer to a 'hub and spoke' network, the issue of LN nodes downtime would not be as prevalent, however there would be other issues. Each hub would have an outsized influence over the network, and would have the ability to wreck havoc on the network either by raising fees substantially, censoring transactions of those directly connected to each hub, and downtime of a small number of hubs would have the potential to fragment the entire LN network. Also, running a hub node would be incredibility risky because private keys would need to be kept effectively 100% online (on a computer connected to many other people), and the hub's private keys must control a large amount of bitcoin. If you assume that hubs collectively control 25% of bitcoin, then hubs must collectively keep ~$34 billion worth of bitcoin online. You're suggesting that only 2 possible patterns in node topology can exist. That's false. And you've chosen 2 topological examples that might cause a certain rate of failure. You've painted an incredibly biased picture by assuming there are limits that don't exist. If only handful of well connected nodes with high up-time were to open channels with each other, both your scenarios won't happen. |
|
|
|
|
Strange how Visa only have something to say when Bitcoin looks like it can challenge them in the near term (i.e. once Lightning matures).
|
|
|
|
Are there plans for a minor or bugfix update for Core, Yes. or is the next version going to be 0.17? I think there are plans to change the versioning scheme, such that 0.17 will actually be 17.0 |
|
|
|
I'm quite sure you don't need to do this manually. The lightning node software is doing this for you automatically when it identify an unfair player.
But for that you have to be online (at least to be online again before the time lock of your channel partners transaction is reached).
It's correct that you don't need to be online 24/7 as this time lock is quite high. I think 1000 blocks or so, which are roughly 7 days. But I could be wrong with this. Better look up yourself if you want the correct time.
The lightning software will generally be opening channels for you automatically too. This means remembering the expiry points of maybe dozens of locktimes, which won't be practical. Really, it's better to keep your node up as permanently as possible. This is the "be your own bank" movement, after all. |
|
|
|
having to manually submit the newer signature to steal the other guys funds back for cheating is not very mass adoption friendly.
Just add this to the long list of computing issues that are best handled by running your own server 24/7 - Want private email? Run your own email server
- Want private social media that you control? Run your own social media server
- Want private internet? Run your own meshnet router
- Want private money? Run your own cryptocurrecy node
Maybe none of that's user friendly, but it's in everyone's interests to either learn to do it, or find someone they know and trust to help them. Letting internet based corporations do these things for you should be looking less and less attractive every day. Regular adults used to treat all computing as a "nerds only" thing, running private servers will eventually follow that pattern. |
|
|
|
If what they mean by destabilization is making poor people to middle class, and middle class family to becoming rich then they are correct. Cryptocurrencies as a form of investment will make a lot of people change their lives in a good way. These cryptocurrencies are injecting new money to their economy which will result to a inflow of money coming from different classes of citizens. To keep it simple, people earning from cryptocurrency must be viewed in a good way as it will have a long term positive effect on their country's economical growth.
Yep, as soon as incumbent (soon to be legacy) financial system notices innovation that cuts any fellow gang member out of their respective monopoly, they all start throwing around perjoritives such as "scam", "criminals", "terrorists" etc. The problem, of course, is that the only concrete evidence in existence condemns central banks, consumer banks & the financial markets of these slurs. Even when cryptocurrencies do see some (any) actual proven cases of these accusations, it's difficult to see how the financial system could ever claim to be somehow less guilty of the exact same legal infractions. |
|
|
|
|
Yep, after 106 years of "protected" financial markets in Indonesia, regular Indonesians are tired of being "protected".
It seems that all the financial markets have achieved in Indonesia is no different to the rest of the world: a tiny super-class of corporate cronies have their ability to make a fortune protected, and regular people get to buy things at the fixed premium prices established in the so-called markets.
Give people a real free marketplace (i.e. cryptocurrency trading), and sign-ups quickly outnumber the corrupt protected marketplaces, all willing to the take risks that government and the finance world don't want them to worry themselves with.
It won't be too long before viable platforms for selling shares in businesses happens in the same decentralised & permission-less way, there are many businesses looking to raise money selling equity stakes who are tired of getting their fingers burned by the financial market mafias around the world. No wonder mouthpieces from both finance & banking talk trash about the new breed of independent currencies and their underlying uncensorable technology: marketplaces are set to be usurped by the same tech, and monopolist gangsters don't like to be out-maneuvered. Shit, that would be like, I dunno, free market capitalism. And we can't have that!
|
|
|
|
LN is not activated yet. It's not a soft fork, so it doesn't activate. Your statement therefore doesn't make any sense So what's the right term to use here? And why the term 'activate' can only be used for soft forks? Lightning is already running, but still in a beta form. The UX is fairly clunky and there are potential bugs in the various implementations. It's not ready for mainstream use yet.
I get that, if it was ready it would be "out?" (since I can't say activated :p ) already. Activation implies a binary state, "on" or "off". With Lightning, judging "readiness" is more complicated than that. Lightning works now, there are (I think) around 1000 lightning nodes. But don't use it yet if you're neither technically adept, or willing to lose money. As for when it's "out", that doesn't make sense either really. The Lightning protocol has been "out" since version 0.1 was published, but it was then (and remains now) a bad idea to use mainnet BTC on Lightning. Don't try to use it until at least 1 of the different Lightning wallet software developers officially submits finished client software to the public. Even when LN is activated I don't know if it would solve things up. The transaction capacity of Lightning is only really limited by it's BTC capacity & it's routing resolution. As long as the incentives work out, it could be so widely used that scaling will rival incumbent payment networks (Mastercard, Amex etc) and completely eclipse SWIFT. How much more capacity could Bitcoin need than that? I read that: Lightning is 180 times (17,900%) more efficient than basic Bitcoin. But please help me with this question, will LN be available for the normal user with a small internet bandwidth? or does it require certain setup? Bandwidth will not be noticeably different to using your regular Bitcoin wallet software, if you have the internet connection to handle Bitcoin wallets now, you'll be fine. |
|
|
|
LN is not activated yet. It's not a soft fork, so it doesn't activate. Your statement therefore doesn't make any sense Lightning is already running, but still in a beta form. The UX is fairly clunky and there are potential bugs in the various implementations. It's not ready for mainstream use yet. Even when LN is activated I don't know if it would solve things up. The transaction capacity of Lightning is only really limited by it's BTC capacity & it's routing resolution. As long as the incentives work out, it could be so widely used that scaling will rival incumbent payment networks (Mastercard, Amex etc) and completely eclipse SWIFT. How much more capacity could Bitcoin need than that? |
|
|
|
|
BREAKING NEWS: FORMER MONOPOLY TRASH TALKS COMPETITION
|
|
|
|
|
Confused sounding article.
Yet another inappropriate use of blockchain tech is being touted (recording energy usage is not an application that needs to be uncensorable). What happens when faulty equipment fails to records correct Wh figures for this blockchain? The blockchain has to be amended in those circumstances, which means blockchain isn't suitable, as it's purpose is the complete opposite of being amendable.
Lightning network is a payment channel system for the Bitcoin network, and nothing to do with recording other types of data (electricity usage or otherwise)
|
|
|
|
Iceland hosts a significant proportion of EU based mining
Iceland is not an EU member The general air is pragamatic and utilitarian, which I believe would make them amenable to taxation of energy extraction for crypto mining, if only to reduce their high personal taxation levels.
Although the leverage games played by banks and the crypto industry are qualitatively different, it would be understandable for Icelanders to lump them together as uncontrollable and with potentially highly negative influences on their country Bitcoin is meritocratic, regular Icelanders stand to benefit from mining themselves when they mine Bitcoin in their homes or as a small business, so regular people are less likely to see it as a "them and us" situation. Also, Iceland has a huge amount of untapped geothermal energy, so if energy shortages began to affect energy costs for Icelanders, there would be more than enough investment capital available to pay for new capacity for geothermal electric production. It makes far more sense to encourage a growing, profitable industry than to stifle it, particularly as Iceland is so well suited to cryptocurrency mining. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
