Bitcoin Forum
March 06, 2015, 07:29:18 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.10.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
  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 69 70 71 ... 367 »
401  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What does the bible say about Bitcoin? on: December 04, 2013, 03:57:56 AM
Quote from: Rev 13:16 NIV
16 It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, 17 so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name.
Keeping people from buying and selling was nearly impossible in Bible days, but we see it now with Visa, Mastercard and PayPal blocking whoever they don't like.

I've got to say, you're stretching the limits of imagination trying to squeeze that conclusion out of that verse.
402  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: I am pretty confident we are the new wealthy elite, gentlemen. on: December 04, 2013, 03:54:23 AM
No, unless the slaves voluntarily sold themselves to slavedom,

I'm sure that you have to realize on an intellectual level that this statement is impossible.  Even the S&M sex slaves aren't really slaves, they're just play-acting.  You cannot 'sell yourself' beyond a limited term and under very limited conditions, thus nothing like chattel slavery at all.  Even those same S&M sex slaves have that 'safe word' that makes it all stop.
403  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: I am pretty confident we are the new wealthy elite, gentlemen. on: December 04, 2013, 03:50:27 AM
But I have chosen to try to change from within, working politically and voluntarily serving in the armed forces on my spare time rather than refusing to pay taxes..

Wait, what?  Are you serving in the National Guard and donating your service pay to the Iraqi Orphans' Fund or what?
404  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What does the bible say about Bitcoin? on: December 04, 2013, 03:45:13 AM
I am going to give you a non ignorant non ridiculing answer to your question sense you asked in sincerity and people mocked what you asked.

The bible does teach that the root of all evil is money.


That's actually a very common misquotation of the verse in 1 Timothy 6:10, which started with a poor translation under King James...

"For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."  -King James

But a much more accurate translation is this....

"For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. And some people, craving money, have wandered from the true faith and pierced themselves with many sorrows."  -New Living Translation

The latter is a better translation into more modern English.  There are many independent translations that come up with pretty much the same take on things. http://biblehub.com/1_timothy/6-10.htm

To put it another way, to love money is the source of a great many evils that men commit against one another, but it's not quite the only cause.  However, the very nature of money does not make it evil, nor is the possession of money alone a sin.

405  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What does the bible say about Bitcoin? on: December 04, 2013, 03:34:21 AM
And why Catholics and Protestants don't like eachother much to this day.  Smiley

I was raised Catholic, my wife was Protestant.  We get along fine.
406  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: I am pretty confident we are the new wealthy elite, gentlemen. on: December 04, 2013, 03:24:48 AM
Yes, so far. When a better way is introduced I will embrace it.

Do you really think that there will ever be a totally libertarian society? Of course not, no thinking person believes that, thats why it is utopian. You can however by working politicaly and with different civil activities try to change the current society.
And in a libertarian society those who want to pay taxes are free to do so, and I choose to pay.

No, sir.  That is why it's realistic.  Even libertarians regard a libertarian society on a sliding scale, not an absolute.  That is why striving towards the goal would, and should, become harder with successes.  Unlike socialism, however, an imperfect liberty isn't a broken society.  An imperfect socialism simply requires that a iron-fisted government 'correct' the imperfections with force.  This is what we saw happen during the last century, all the while the Politburo complained that the problems the people saw was a result of an imperfect socialism, and that more work need be done.  Libertarianism, however, is fundamentally different.  A libertarian minded society can tolerate a socialist sub-culture, even while most people consider it a mistake.  A socialist minded society cannot tolerate a libertarian sub-culture, because that is the very embodiment of the 'imperfect socialsim' that they must eradicate.  Socialism cannot exist, because it requires forcing some minority to participate against their own desires and/or nature.  Libertarianism doesn't care what your personal desires or nature is, if you don't like liberty, you are (ironicly) free to dispose of it however you like.  No one is going to bother to 'force' you to live free.  However, that absolute libertarian society that you speak off is at the end of the long tail of the political bell curve.  We know that we can never get there, but that doesn't imply that doing our best isn't worthwhile; in part because an imperfect liberty is still a good place to live in the meantime.

Bur, sir, that is exactly what I am saying and why I call it utopian.
I wholeheartedly agree with all the rest of your text.

Utopians don't see the impossibility of the end goal, nor the value in a partial victory.
407  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: I am pretty confident we are the new wealthy elite, gentlemen. on: December 04, 2013, 03:23:28 AM
Yes, so far. When a better way is introduced I will embrace it.

You're inside it.  The lifeblood of any civilization is it's trade currency.  Up until Bitcoin, a dependable trade currency pretty much required the intervention into the monetary policy by the soveign, if only to garrantee that gold was indeed gold if it had his face on it.  This is no longer neccessary.  The transaction fees you may or may not choose to pay for are this society's voluntary taxation.  Nothing more is 'required' of you here.

Quote
And in a libertarian society those who want to pay taxes are free to do so, and I choose to pay.

Very well.  But by doing so, you also choose to accept the culpablity of the wrongs persecuted in your name, because you can't really separate the taxes that you pay for paving roads from those use to kill brown people that don't speak English.  You can imagine that your taxes are paying for education of inner city kids all you like, but someone is paying to catch, prosecute and incarcerate addicts for victimless crimes against the state.  I pay taxes as well, but I'm not under any illusions that anything more than a very small minority of it is used to pay for anything I would volutarily contribute towards.  My taxes are 'protection' money, from the greatest protection racket around, and there is nothing noble about it at all.
408  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: I am pretty confident we are the new wealthy elite, gentlemen. on: December 04, 2013, 03:11:38 AM
Yes, so far. When a better way is introduced I will embrace it.

Do you really think that there will ever be a totally libertarian society? Of course not, no thinking person believes that, thats why it is utopian. You can however by working politicaly and with different civil activities try to change the current society.
And in a libertarian society those who want to pay taxes are free to do so, and I choose to pay.

No, sir.  That is why it's realistic.  Even libertarians regard a libertarian society on a sliding scale, not an absolute.  That is why striving towards the goal would, and should, become harder with successes.  Unlike socialism, however, an imperfect liberty isn't a broken society.  An imperfect socialism simply requires that a iron-fisted government 'correct' the imperfections with force.  This is what we saw happen during the last century, all the while the Politburo complained that the problems the people saw was a result of an imperfect socialism, and that more work need be done.  Libertarianism, however, is fundamentally different.  A libertarian minded society can tolerate a socialist sub-culture, even while most people consider it a mistake.  A socialist minded society cannot tolerate a libertarian sub-culture, because that is the very embodiment of the 'imperfect socialsim' that they must eradicate.  Socialism cannot exist, because it requires forcing some minority to participate against their own desires and/or nature.  Libertarianism doesn't care what your personal desires or nature is, if you don't like liberty, you are (ironicly) free to dispose of it however you like.  No one is going to bother to 'force' you to live free.  However, that absolute libertarian society that you speak off is at the end of the long tail of the political bell curve.  We know that we can never get there, but that doesn't imply that doing our best isn't worthwhile; in part because an imperfect liberty is still a good place to live in the meantime.
409  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: A simple newb question. on: December 04, 2013, 02:58:32 AM
Way more than a few, but most of us are long past having such conversations on an open Internet forum.  Most of the important stuff is still in the archives, though.
410  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: I am pretty confident we are the new wealthy elite, gentlemen. on: December 04, 2013, 02:34:02 AM
No need to discuss. I used to be a libertarian so I know what you mean. I just slowly realized as I got older that it is as utopian as the communist societies.

Then you are regressing, not maturing.
Quote
Taxes are actually the simplest and easiest way to fund some things and democratic decisions are the easiest, and in some ways, fair way to decide how to distribute the taxes.

So far...
411  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Any other Americans considering a claim against the FBI over SilkRoad? on: December 04, 2013, 01:55:08 AM
Why would you use a blackmarket as an online wallet in the first place?

Because I had already been taken by another online wallet service that closed with much of my funds.  Mybitcoin.com IIRC.  So I figured that a hidden website that doesnt' even pretend to be legal wouldn't be a worse risk.  I figured (incorrectly) that as long as it had already been up and not seized, that DPR must have known what he was doing in the security realm.  I was keeping it there as I transitioned from one computer system to another and moving from one home to another.  I just hadn't gotten around to logging back into it and sending myself the funds yet before the FBI takedown.  I was procrastinating.
412  Other / Politics & Society / Any other Americans considering a claim against the FBI over SilkRoad? on: December 04, 2013, 01:40:31 AM
I was using SilkRoad only to store a selection of bitcoins offsite.  I've never bought any drugs from the site, and I'm sure that I'm not the only one.  They took about 30 bitcoins from me when they snatched Silk Road, and I'm considering sueing them now considering their present value.  Anyone else thinking about this?  Anyone here have any experience with such a claim?
413  Economy / Economics / Re: Do you really believe in bitcoin as a currency? on: December 03, 2013, 11:35:11 PM
And in the long term, I think that both mining and running a full node needs to be easy and provide no-one any reason to not do it.

Build the water heater / miner.
Then you can get one in every home that needs hot water.

Or the heat trace cable asic miner, so that institutions can freeze protect their plumbing assets while also protecting their bitcoin assets.  No, really, I'm not joking here.
414  Economy / Economics / Re: Do you really believe in bitcoin as a currency? on: December 03, 2013, 11:33:48 PM
Right.  The plan as I understand it is that miners will announce the blocks with a list of tx, and then the rest of the network (who already have most of these tx in their memory pool) will assemble the blocks to store in the local blockchains themselves.  

That reduces the size of blocks (for propagation purposes only) by 90%, making inclusion of a particular tx only about 10% as expensive in orphan costs as it is now. It has no effect on the size of the stored blockchain, unfortunately.



By itself, no.  However this is simply leveraging the merkle tree to reduce bandwith redundency.  There is nothing that requires that all nodes, even all mining nodes, store a complete blockchain.  Locally set pruning rules will permit any nodes that choose to prune to maintain a fairly stable blockchain size, as each new transaction confirmed permits at least one older transaction to be pruned, after a point.
415  Economy / Economics / Re: Do you really believe in bitcoin as a currency? on: December 03, 2013, 10:03:14 PM
I know they are working on two parallel blockchains, one consisting of headers, the other of actual blocks, so a new full node will essentially start working the same way as Multibit, being ready for use within a minute or two once it downloads the headers, and then downloading the rest of the blockchain in the background.

Well, it's not really parallel blocks.  It's just that the blocks will be "naked"; in the sense that a block is really just the 80 byte header, the 'reward' transaction and the merkle tree.  The transactions can be included, or not, by any node.  However, as a matter of simplicity of the early network, blocks are still published with all of the transactions included.  This has never been the end goal.  It was intended from the start that blocks be published naked, which will reduce the network's overall bandwidth because transactions won't have to propogate twice.
416  Economy / Economics / Re: Do you really believe in bitcoin as a currency? on: December 03, 2013, 09:54:55 PM
Okay, the limits I'm talking about are this.   Currently there's a maximum block size that won't allow more than 8 transactions per second.  And in practice blocks are mostly limited to about 250k by the miners.  They're limiting size because bigger blocks are more likely to be orphaned, so they'd lose the block reward. It's not worth it to them to include tx above that limit without fees of $3.30 per tx according to Gavin's figures.


This figure is based upon a rising risk of orphan blocks, and includes a great many assumptions about how the "average" miner is connected.  The figure varies based upon the current exchange rate, the current block reward, the average rate of orphans and the difference between the average rate and the rate that adding the extra transactions provide.  In short, the figure is a very well educated guess, but it's still a guess.  The fact that it exists, can be calculated based upon a lot of changing variables, and is higher than the minimum transaction fee only establishes that a market rate for transactions will always exist. If you need your transaction processed faster, provide a fee that exceeds whatever Gavin's Cost is at any given moment.  If you don't need your transaction included immediatly, then lower your fee and you can still expect it to process at some point.  This is not an issue at the moment, and with the decreasing block reward, isn't likely to be a limiting factor in the future.

Quote

So he's working on a plan to reduce block size by 90% which ought to reduce the miners disincentive to include tx in a block.  That would reduce the risk of an orphaned block by 90% but it wouldn't change the tx per second limit.


Are you taling about the plan to permit blocks to be published as only the header and merkle tree?  And letting the netowrk nodes aquire the transactions that fit into those merkle trees from their peers "loose", in a manner similar to how the Stratum network functions?  This would do that, but this isn't the primary motive for doing this.  Right now, blocks are published complete, which means that the network bears the burden of propogating all transactions twice, which is just inefficient since most nodes already have all of these transactions in their own queues by the time any block is published.

Quote
We've already given up on doing micropayments.  That's a huge opportunity lost. But there's no way the current protocol can do it cheaply enough.

We haven't given up on that, such solutions are simply off network/ out of band; take a look at the Stratum overlay netowrk, which does some things similar, and then imagine what happens when wallet services/bitcoin banks agree to link together over a similar overlay network.  They can simply agree to accept the word of their institutional peers that a member of theirs has issued a payment of such-n-such to a member of the receiveing institution.  Would work much like Ripple is intended to work with individuals, but can't really because individuals don't really know enough about each other to really develop the credit trust.  While there would have to be an imbalance limit, to be settled up periodically over the main bitcoin network, most of the time major instituions' interlinked balances would simply cancel each other out.  Micropayments of arbitrarily small amounts of bitcoin then become possible.

Quote

And it wouldn't eliminate the disincentive.  It would just reduce the fee level needed to overcome it.  To about ten times what people are paying now.

GAvin's Cost will naturally decrease over time, as it's primarily the block reward (and the market price) and the risks of losing all of one that imposses this theoretical costs of including transactions.  If the market rate remains steady, Gavin's Cost cuts in half the next time the block reward drops.  Eventually the transaction fees become the primary finacing method of professional miners, and Gavin's Cost only sets a theoretical price floor over time.

Quote

The block chain is already a barrier to entry for running a full node. It's huge. Downloading it takes a week with the current protocol.  You might get lucky and get a high bandwidth peer to download from but most people don't.


There is a method of mining that does not require a full blockchain, that was noted by Satoshi in the white paper.  Also, rapid bootstrapping of a fresh node is also possible out-of-band, simply by downloading a recent snapshot of the blockchain from a trusted source and letting the new client scan it.  Neither method is yet implimented, simply because it's not really an issue.

Quote
The block chain can come down to a tenth of that time by optimizing the protocol but that's still too long. And the block chain is growing faster and faster.

It wold reduce to less than that by simply instituting block pruning, which was described in the white paper as well, and is the real reason that the merkel trees were included in the protocol from the start.  You can hack your node to prune your own client now, if you like.  It's just not a standard feature in the reference cleint yet.

Quote
The client eats a lot of upstream bandwidth and currently allows no way to throttle it,  so nodes drop out of the network and catch up every so often.  That turns them into a drag on the network rather than an asset.


Again, take a look at Stratum.

Quote

The client can be made better behaved, but bandwidth will continue to scale with the number of transactions.  Even a better behaved client will still crumble under a transaction volume that justifies Bitcoin's current price.


Maybe, but I'm still willing to bet that hardware will outpace Bitcoin network demand growth.

417  Economy / Economics / Re: Transactions Withholding Attack on: December 03, 2013, 09:20:25 PM
Except that I demostrated several reasons why that is not an economic fact; and that it's long been understood that there will be institutions willing to mine zero margin or less for other economic reasons.  One of which I actually do, wchich is use the heat for zone heating in winter (roughly 15% of the network hash power is "other unknown" which I would be part of) another being the competing cartels (Walmart&McDonalds versus Target & Burger King) mining for major players in competing industries, for which finance is not tehir primary business, but is already a cost center.

Ignoring Mr. Mint's concerns for a bit, I woonder, do you, or others, believe that part of the mining sincentive will also be for wealthy establishments to simply secure their wealth? E.G. if I am rich without Bitcoin, I pay large fees to my bank and security to keep my money, gold, and other wealth safe. If I am rich with bitcoin (or even if I am a wealthy corporation that has a lot of bitcoin) and want to hedge against mining attacks and help maintain the status quo, I pay to run my own mining hardware, even if it is a small portion of the whole network, and even if I have to do it at a loss.

I'm sure we discussed this point two+ years ago, and likely every year this discussion has come up since, but what are people's opinions on this, now that mining has moved from complex GPU rigs, to simple and compact ASIC appliances?

Actually, we did discuss this exact thing in detail about two years ago, RAssah.  My short answer is, of course any very well heeled individual and/or bitcoin based finance institution is going to go to great lengths to secure their own miing operations.  For comparision, most consumer bank branches have very large, very expensive valut systems; even though in our modern digital age such an expense is no longer neccessary for their primary business.  Bitcoin 'banking' institutions are going to compete in many different ways, and touting their hashing capacity is as much a psycological benefit for an online bitcoin bank as a time-lock safety deposit box safe is for a brick & mortor institution.  Also, I expect such banks to compete by advertising their ability to offer free transactions.  One might be able to offer those free transactions because the bank itself has recepriprocity agreements with major retailers such as Walmart, or they might just e able to do so by sponoring some significant mining operations of their own, similar to my Walmart example.  While Walmart would do it to process their own "free" transactions at their own meatspace counters in a timely manner, actual bitcoin based financial institutions would do it as a benefit to their membership.  While free transactions can be sent by anyone, only a bank with their own mining under contract can promise that those same transactions will be processed for "free" within any time frame.  It thus becomes a comparative advantage over a bank that just offered basic bitcoin banking services, and didn't sponsor their own mining gear.

Bitcoin banks offering free transactions, for their own reasons, would by itself undermine AnonyMint's transactions withholding attack theory.  If numerous institutions are offering free transactions within their own limited scopes, then no cartel can develop with the premise that free transactions processing is an advantage that only a cartel member would have access to.
418  Economy / Economics / Re: Transactions Withholding Attack on: December 03, 2013, 07:07:55 PM
Cutting out noise to address a particular point.


He makes too many assumptions about how other nodes will respond.

Exactly the opposite. I make far fewer assumptions about the choices of nodes. See the Cracking the Code thread in the Bitcoin discussion subforum where they assume that 100% of the nodes will run a centralized designed client software. And where they assume that the convergence of nodes will be to the attacked chain. I make no assumptions. I call it a risk.

Since when did 100% become more likely than a range of possibilities? That defies a fundamental comprehension of entropy, chaos and nature.

He assumes that all (non-negligible) nodes will react in what he considers to be the highest profit seeking manner; thus completely ignoring the fact that many nodes have economic incentives to resist the formation of a cartel,

Rather I assume that miners can't continue if their electricity costs more than the income they receive. That seems to be a basic accepted economic fact.


Except that I demostrated several reasons why that is not an economic fact; and that it's long been understood that there will be institutions willing to mine zero margin or less for other economic reasons.  One of which I actually do, wchich is use the heat for zone heating in winter (roughly 15% of the network hash power is "other unknown" which I would be part of) another being the competing cartels (Walmart&McDonalds versus Target & Burger King) mining for major players in competing industries, for which finance is not tehir primary business, but is already a cost center.

Quote

that many nodes have economic incentives to try to outcompete and otherwise undermine the primary cartel membership (in this case Amazon, and because Amazon has real competitors, just not direct ones) and that many nodes have no significant economic incentive in either case, but do have a vested interest in the network's 'status quo'.

Noise sounds good. But is completely devoid of relevant information content. I will not explain.


And that is the point Rassah & I have been making.  You don't respond to critisisms of your theory.  If you can't manage my objections to your theory, then you don't have a theory.
419  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Only 500 persons owns 36% of all bitcoins? on: December 03, 2013, 06:51:59 PM
If any of Satoshi's btc is spent, I am sure there will a flood of "OMG, satoshi is back!!!" posts.

If any of Satoshi's btc move i think the price will collapse instantly.

Based upon what, exactly?

So if the creator and original programmer of bitcoin moves his ,untouched for years coins, wouldn't that raise some flags for you?


Not really.  Not only would I have to be able to know which coins are Satoshi's (only the first few hundred blocks can be assumed to be Satoshi's), I'd also have to know that he didn't sell those block reward addresses out-of-band.  Neither of these things are knowable, unless he tells us.  We'd also have to know that Satoshi himself was still alive, and some heir wasn't finally making moves with inherited funds.  Keep in mind that he stopped talking to us shortly before the last Tsunami killed thousands of Japanese in a single day.  If Satoshi is actually Japanese & actually an individual, he might be dead.

Quote
I mean most people will speculate that he is moving coins in order to sell them. And if satoshi sells coins then hell i 'll sell to. Every single one of them.


Go right ahead.  I don't agree that everyone will sell them, but I'll offer you an early deal.  Get out now and I'll pay you half price on all that you have.
420  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Only 500 persons owns 36% of all bitcoins? on: December 03, 2013, 02:57:54 PM
If any of Satoshi's btc is spent, I am sure there will a flood of "OMG, satoshi is back!!!" posts.

If any of Satoshi's btc move i think the price will collapse instantly.

Based upon what, exactly?
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 69 70 71 ... 367 »
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!