Bitcoin Forum
March 29, 2015, 04:06:10 PM *
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 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 ... 852 »
681  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: January 04, 2015, 06:02:20 PM
d to explain it.
If lots of people buy the etf and its price goes up then the BTC price gets driven up through arb, so yes buying the ETF does affect BTC

That is a non-trivial "if"...

What is it exactly that prevents those potential COIN buyers from buying BTC directly, or SMBIT shares?   The fact that they are not traded on an exchange like NASDAQ?  Or some intrinsic property of the asset?

Note that COIN shares will uninsured against theft or loss, besides being backed only by a "stock" (BTCs) that itself has no backing assets.

The Fortress investment group bought a bunch of BTC in 2013.  Those BTC were the only red stain in their Q1/2014 report.  So Fortress promptly swapped those BTC for equity in the Pantera Fund's managing company (not shares of the fund itself).  If COIN existed in 2013, and Fortress had bought COIN instead of BTC, the result would probably have been pretty much the same.

What I mean is that COIN may not be much more attractive to large investors than BTC itself.  Large investors are not likely to be impressed by a 5-year logscale plot with a red straight line on it.  In case you have not been paying attention, to people outside the bitcoin community bitcoin does not look like the financial miracle that it seemed to be 13 months ago.

And it is a fact that no one who has some money to spare believes that bitcoin will be worth 3000 $ in 2015.  Otherwise they would rush to buy those coins that are now being offered for sale at 290 $/BTC, and no one is buying.

Permit me to quote myself from another thread.....

Quote
One point that's been overlooked in this discussion: ETFs allow institutional and qualified/professional investors to purchase regulated securities, pursuant either to their own internal bylaws and product placement memoranda, or to securities laws by which they must abide. For example, a professional investment fund, such as a mutual fund or hedge fund or pension fund, is limited in how it may allocate investors' funds insofar as the fund is only permitted to purchase securities regulated under such-and-such provisions. A fund may indeed wish to purchase bitcoins right now, but it cannot due to the aforesaid regulatory provisions; however an ETF investment vehicle would allow the fund to purchase shares in the bitcoin ETF right now, shares that would presumably track the Bitcoin price, and may be bought, sold, and traded—in a regulated environment—as any other shares would be.


this
682  Economy / Speculation / Re: sidechains discussion on: January 04, 2015, 05:57:39 PM

shouldn't the addresses and amounts that emerge onto SC be reflected/displayed/shown within its blockchain?

I would hope not.  I see no reason for it and a bunch of reasons to not have it.  I would like to see things be such that the native Bitcoin network neither knows about nor cares about nor is loaded in any way more than a sidechain being just another user.

Of course Bitcoin is an open network so various kinds of analysis could probably elucidate a lot about what users (individual and group proxys like a sidechain) might be up to.



so what is the point of MM'ing the SC to begin with then?  isn't a blockchain (SC in this case) supposed to verify the integrity of what's going on?  might as well keep a secret ledger on a central server maintained by Karpeles.

I clarified a bit as an edit.

I've always been more inclined to favor more of a token system for 'exchange currency' duty.  Under such a 'token flavored sidechain' I would only wish to be able to verify that I am in sole control of my tokens and could induce a particular native Bitcoin retrieval on demand.  For such a system I would accept a certain amount of slop since this would go a long way toward implementation efficiency, and I won't die if I lose (or gain) a few nickles in some sort of a SC failure.



none of what you're saying then makes sense compared to what Adam has been saying.

SC's are blockchains except in the case of federated server SC's (but even that definition is being fuzzed over by the SC ppl calling an internal ledger a SC  Huh)
683  Economy / Speculation / Re: sidechains discussion on: January 04, 2015, 05:36:29 PM

shouldn't the addresses and amounts that emerge onto SC be reflected/displayed/shown within its blockchain?

I would hope not.  I see no reason for it and a bunch of reasons to not have it.  I would like to see things be such that the native Bitcoin network neither knows about nor cares about nor is loaded in any way more than a sidechain being just another user.

Of course Bitcoin is an open network so various kinds of analysis could probably elucidate a lot about what users (individual and group proxys like a sidechain) might be up to.



so what is the point of MM'ing the SC to begin with then?  isn't a blockchain (SC in this case) supposed to verify the integrity of what's going on?  might as well keep a secret ledger on a central server maintained by Karpeles.
684  Economy / Speculation / Re: sidechains discussion on: January 04, 2015, 05:11:41 PM
The point of moving transactions on-chain is that the user can then own their own coins, rather than delegating ownership to a third party like mtgox.

But each SC has its own spvp (single address)  that everyone has to move through to the SC? In other words,  everyone has to send their BTC to that address and then are somehow going to receive individually assigned scBTC on the other side?  

So the spv peg transactions (which anyone can create at any time) includes a list of addresses and amounts to emerge on the sidechain, so that could be one user, or a group of users each contributing inputs a bit like CoinJoin.  However its going to be more efficient to use an arbitrageur or cross-chain atomic swap for all but large liquidity calls if the trade gets imbalanced.

Adam


shouldn't the addresses and amounts that emerge onto SC be reflected/displayed/shown within its blockchain?

685  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: January 04, 2015, 05:09:59 PM
what is this bizarro world where any ledger of ownership qualifies as a blockchain  Huh
*ahem*


if he's confused, we're all in trouble.
686  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: January 04, 2015, 04:24:31 PM
If mtgox had had you design a SC for them, would you have structured a single specific SPVmtgox SC to which everyone would have sent their BTC (one address), then waited 2d for confirmation, before allowing those individuals to be assigned their own specific  scBTC to be traded p2p , all the while securing this SC with 100% MM?

The point of moving transactions on-chain is that the user can then own their own coins, rather than delegating ownership to a third party like mtgox.

Adam


But each SC has its own spvp (single address)  that everyone has to move through to the SC? In other words,  everyone has to send their BTC to that address and then are somehow going to receive individually assigned scBTC on the other side? 
687  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: January 04, 2015, 03:45:52 PM
Adam,

If mtgox had had you design a SC for them, would you have structured a single specific SPVmtgox SC to which everyone would have sent their BTC (one address), then waited 2d for confirmation, before allowing those individuals to be assigned their own specific  scBTC to be traded p2p , all the while securing this SC with 100% MM?
688  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: January 04, 2015, 02:52:49 AM
cypherdoc: it seems you are against side-chains on an economic principle rather than a specific technical implementation

multiple reasons:  economic (risks sound money function by encouraging speculative asset trading on SC's inside the Bitcoin system), technical (depends on a miner gratuity of 100% MM to be as safe as Bitcoin), fairness aka conflict of interest (5 devs in same for profit can "block" altcoin op_codes and even improvements to Bitcoin Core if a threat to SC business)
Quote
Does this principle then extend to all other provably-backed (cryptographically-linked) bitcoin substitute tokens? And would you like to specify/define exactly what that principle is so that future technical improvements can be evaluated equally?

i'd like to see any improvements to Bitcoin be done on MC with testing on federated servers or on Testnet
Quote
There are many new innovations to come that will achieve the same or similar results in principle to the side-chain conversion SPV 2wp, using multi-sig and time-locks, ZKP, etc ... are you going to be opposed to all these innovations also? (Hint: they will allow fast, off-chain, private settlement, or ttx bundling, with near zero-trust, i.e. blockchain level security and low costs).

I think that the economic principle of operation you seem to be vehemently opposed to is inevitable in some form or another. There will be token money substitutes that really will be cryptographically "as good as bitcoin", in a way that paper money substitutes were never "as good as gold".



hard to evaluate what ifs.  i'm not opposed to innovation, just do it on MC.  
one thing these guys haven't explained is how does one evaluate success of a SC innovation when the conditions can never be exactly those that exist on MC?  price?  lack of attacks?  #users?  market cap?
689  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: January 04, 2015, 01:35:53 AM
weekly all time LTC/USD chart.  really does not look good:

690  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: January 04, 2015, 01:25:04 AM
this can't be good.  there's a higher purpose:

691  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: January 04, 2015, 12:42:35 AM
However, there are no details in the paper to even tell what applications could be "sidechains", how the integration would work, what concrete benefits they would derive from that, why other projects could not obtain the same benefits without being "sidechains of bitcoin" -- and why would bitcoin be saved as a result.  Needless to say, there is also no analysis of possible failure modes.
So I take it you didn't read the paper  Undecided
I did read it, and also the "sidechains for dummies" blogpost that people recommended, and some more posts.

So what you are saying is that I did not understand it at all.  Perhaps.  But then I ask, for example, why Bitstamp is not already a "sidechain".  OK, it is not decentralized nor merge-mined, but does the whitepaper say that a sidechain must be those things?

My impression is that the paper did not want to rule out anything, for fear that it might prevent co-opting a possible "bitcoin killer".

For a thing to be a sidechain I guess it would need to first be a chain. Can you point me to Bitstamp's blockchain?
They have a ledger but it isn't a block chain.



so why does the WP, Odalv, and Adam refer to these federated server models as an implementation of SC's?  which by my definition means involving a blockchain?
692  Economy / Speculation / Re: sidechains discussion on: January 04, 2015, 12:32:54 AM
About cypherdoc particularly he said this:

Quote from: cypherdoc link=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg9989162#msg9989162
Quote from: adam3us
I am not sure if you are aware sidechains are nearly possible with zero changes to bitcoin.  Its already programable via the script language.  It may even be doable with zero changes with some chained contorted big script to validate compact SPV proofs.

great, then do it if it doesn't involve a source code change.  i have no problem with that.


So that seems a little inconsistent to me.  ie if this is really a bad idea why would cypherdoc not have a problem with it regardless of whether it required changes or not.  I mean if its a principle you'd be arguing to please not do it even though its possible.  Or to remove something from the language to prevent it, or put a technical defense preventing it if such a thing existed (seems unlikely but I havent explored it much).  Not saying "I have no problem with that."

if you can implement spvp based SC's w/o a source code change, then i can't stop that.  i might not like it or agree with the principle but that's where the "I have no problem with that" comes from.  tho from everyone's understanding and the WP, you need the spvp obtained via a source code change.  what's important to protect, for me, is the mining and investment assumptions that are based on the current code as it stands. if what you say is true about you being able to implement SC's w/o any source code changes, presumably the market has already factored that into the price and i wasn't aware of that and can't argue with that.  but if you do have to change source code specifically to accomplish what you want, then i do know for sure the market will have to adjust to that new information.  the effects of that will be unpredictable in my mind and upset certainly my assumption of how the source code was never supposed to change to allow a for-profit company to benefit.  i know you say it's generic but you do have a head start in this area along with 5 devs and should establish a monopoly quickly by my estimation.  that is, if the idea and concept works.  which as you already know, i have my doubts.  
Quote
fundamentally, none of the technical enhancements to Bitcoins money function couldn't be done on the MC.  not easy to gain consensus but it CAN be done.  i'm all for that.  this is what we have testnet and federated server SC's for.  experimentation.  esp when we're only at the $4B market cap.

While its possible, its very much harder, and when changes are made its very much riskier and less secure.  If you care about the security of your coins you should be for having a firewalled live beta and firewalled extension mechanism (if you support improvements "i'm all for that." you said).

it's not the improvements proposed for SC's that i worry about.  it's about speculators like Truthcoin who not only proposes all sorts of assets but also a altcoin (TC) which will ride on the SC.  
Quote

Quote from: cypherdoc
it also looks like CP and colored coins will bring us other assets to MC.  that's good too.

CP = CounterParty.  That doesnt bring anything to the chain, other than bloat, its a layered consensus system with its own alt-coin.  If you valued the price of bitcoin, probably you'd be better pushing for sidechains than CP because its bitcoin denominated and increases demand and features for bitcoin.


as i understand CP, it's just an embedded hash into a 40 byte op_return that originally was 80 bytes.  they were able to compensate so how is that a problem?
Quote
Quote from: cypherdoc
who knows how much further MC achievements might have been accomplished if BS core devs were spending all that time working on Bitcoin Core that they undoubtedly have been dedicating to the spvp for the last year and a half.  forget that shit and get behind Gavin and increase blocksize.  now is the time to do this.

No they spent more time on core than before, because they quit their full time jobs/occupation and Mark said somewhere else on reddit he figured they'd spent 50% of their time at blockstream on core.  (Unrelated to sidechains most of it .. eg in Pieter's case the headers-first speed up you were mentioning, though he's been working on that for a long time).  You could check by looking at bitcoin github, there's a stats page.

hmmm
Quote
Quote from: cypherdoc
fundamentally, i think allowing an offramp for BTC units over to insecure SC's is economically and technically flawed for all the Sound Money reasons i've already articulated.

I fail to see the connection between sound money and an ability to freeze coins with an spv-multisig instead of a multisig.
Bitcoin is protected with a firewall from features on the sidechain.  The bitcoins never leave the chain, they're just frozen in an spv-multisig instead of a multisig.  Lots of people are using multisigs, daily, to effectively do the same thing, its more secure to do it with an spv-multisig.  Lots of people are not even doing that, they're using pure offchain in a shared wallet, for reasons that in time could be fixed on sidechains and then with a year of live testing with $1b on it kind of assurance, ported back into bitcoin main.


i know you've been saying they're equivalent for a while now but i see a difference.  multisig is currently used just for security purposes as in 2of3.  when necessary, the funds at those addresses can be mobilized immediately, no 2 day delay.  the p2sh used to facilitate these multisigs are not meant to reanimate scBTC on the other side of a 2wp as in your proposal.  with your 2wp (spvp), there is an entire "industry" awaiting on the other side of the 2wp that you wish to capitalize on.  i don't like the concept you used earlier of the BTC still being on the MC.  i see the 2wp as a "pass through" that reanimates those BTC into scBTC on a SC which then facilitates all sorts of speculation and trading of assets or even scCOINS like TC.  the SC's can be anything at all as you've described it and it's BS business plan to sell these newly designed and constructed SC's to willing buyers and maybe even gvt's as you've said.  i think that is risky.

and then there's the whole mining thing.  i'm not sure if you addressed some of my concerns above regarding attacks.
693  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: January 03, 2015, 11:09:06 PM
For a thing to be a sidechain I guess it would need to first be a chain. Can you point me to Bitstamp's blockchain?

That seems to be an assumption some people make, but I did not see that stated in the paper.  To be meaningful, that statement would require a defintion of what is a "blockchain" and what is not.  Without such definition, I can give several "stupid answers" to that question:

* The sofa in Bitstamp's lounge is "Bitstamp's blockchain".

* Bitstamp's internal ledger, where the accounts are kept, is "Bitstamp's blockchain".

* Bitstamp can create some junk altcoin, say a bitcoin clone, that can be traded on their site; set up an old laptop to start mining its blockchain; and call that "Bitstamp's blockchain".

And also an answer that may not be so stupid:

* Bitstamp could implement @GMaxwell's scheme for "proof of solvency", using a Merkle tree (not linear, but bushy) of the account balances, updated once a day, secured by strategically inserting some hashes in the bitcoin chain; and call that tree "Bitstamp's blockchain".

The last example may show that trying to restrict what a sidechain can be and do is pointless (because there is no practical way to enforce those restrictions) and stupid (because it would arbitrarily exclude many interesting systems, perhaps even the feared "bitcoin killer")


Jorge brings up an interesting point. 

Odalv, perhaps you can comment on whether all these federated server SC's that are in action already involve a true blockchain that are MM'd?  i doubt it.  they're probably just internal ledgers.  that doesn't sound like a true SC to me.
694  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: January 03, 2015, 11:02:31 PM
The 2 papers that come to mind are Sirer's Selfish Mining paper and the Red Balloon paper from Microsoft. I've listened to Sirer talk before which is even more puzzling that he can be so pedantic about it. For Christ's sake, if you're going to stake your academic reputation on such a  theory, at least attack the network to prove it or release the code to meet everyone inspect it for flaws in reasoning or assumptions. He won't do either which should show you what the quality of his thesis is.

Well, Ph. D. theses are often like that. Cheesy  Speaking as an advisor, after I have stolen five of the best years of someone's life, it would be a crime to send him/her away with empty hands.

Seriously, I did not quite understand how Sirer's Selfish Mining attack works either, but I did not spend much time trying to.
Anyway, even if it works, it does not seem to be fatal, but only make life less fair for miners.  Or is it claimed to be worse than that?

I haven't seen the other paper you mention.

is Sirer the advisor or a co-grad student with co-publisher Eyal?
Quote
Quote
To me though, as through the 5 other bubbles we've had, is the protocol still hasn't been hacked, tx's are going up, time has advanced (6yrs), dev is getting done, user adoption is growing worldwide, VC's investment continues to accelerate, and huge companies like Microsoft are coming on board.

Well, I am not so optimistic about those things:

* By my understanding of the past bubbles, a new large bubble would require a new large market, comparable to that of the Chinese speculators who adopted Bitcoin in Nov/2013.

that's possible.  but Bitcoin advances in waves.  we are ebbing right now awaiting the next tidal wave.  probably flight from some currency somewhere.
Quote
* The cryptographic security of the basic protocol, properly implemented, is assured as long as the basic tools are.  However, people can easily make mistakes when using or even implementing it.  See the recent BCI fiasco, for example.  Claiming that those problems are not bugs "in the protocol" is a weak argument; for prospective users, what matters is the system's security, not the security of the central part.  It is not reassuring to know that Chernobyl, TMI, and Fukushima were not caused by flaws in the physics of nuclear fusion, but to errors in its use.

what part of the current financial system has been trouble free for the last 100 yrs?  no part.  i wouldn't make that huge a deal of the R value problem of BCI.  most of those coins got returned as well so there haven't been great losses.
Quote
* The blockchain traffic has been falling recently: tx/day down 18% last week, BTC/day down 44% last month, USD/day down 55%.

that's a short term occurence
Quote
* VC investment is almost all in ventures that will make money no matter what happens to the price.  Most merchants who "accept bitcoin", including the large ones, do not want to touch it, they want dollars.  When asked about its future plans for bitcoin, Microsoft dodged the question.  The few minimally reliable data on bitcoin usage for e-payment through BitPay show stagnation in BTC amount over 2014, drop in USD amount.

all those examples are too negative imo.  it's not simply a matter of wanting dollars.  many are holding back some BTC and Bitpay did confirm that.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2oypbo/bitpay_employee_here_around_50_of_our_merchants/

MS just accepted BTC even after their Red Ballon paper back in 2012.  i guarantee you they aren't going to tell you or i what their long range plans are but this is a turnaround:
http://research.microsoft.com/apps/pubs/?id=156072
695  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: January 03, 2015, 09:19:44 PM
The SC's WP was disjointed to me. On the one hand, parts of it complain about alcoins, but them turns right around and gives a whole section to Freicoin, of all things. Talk about a screwed up economic policy. Adam even mentioned it again just the other day.  This tells me they are not on board with Bitcoins sound or hard money principles. Probably different guys on their team contributed different sections or thi  was a bone thrown to one of them. I seem to recall that Poelstra might be the one into demurrage. 
696  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: January 03, 2015, 09:02:08 PM
i have a question for the computer scientists in the crowd.  

i've noticed some things about the WP's over the last coupla years, including Satoshi's, that i wasn't aware of. first, there doesn't seem to be any peer review.  not only that but what strikes me is that it seems that authors come up with a particular logic pattern that makes sense to them and then construct maths to support that logic.  i often don't even see large data sets, testing, or simulations performed.  that supposedly is a standard for proof of a theory.  is this correct?  this is not a criticism of the CS field but just an inquiry to help me understand your field.

in many fields, a hypothesis is asked, then an experiment with blinded investigators along with large #'s of subjects and controls is carried out over a statistically significant time period to rule out investigator bias (can never do that completely) and prove that the hypothesis is correct within a std dev often of p<0.05 or 5%.  i realize these are different methods in different fields so it's hard to determine which is more rigorous.

Satoshi's whitpaper is not a "scientific" paper but a good "technology advance" paper.  It specifies a concrete real-world problem (build an e-cash system that does not depend on trusted 3rd parties) and an open sub-problem of that (how to motivate the volunteers to maintain and secure the ledger).  It then describes a proposed solution for that sub-problem, with enough detail that any competent programmer could implement it.  The paper concludes with some logical arguments and computations showing that the proposed solution does not have some flaws that one may think of.  Then Satoshi built an implementation that would be sufficient to prove the soundness of the solution.  He set that implementation running, and recruited enough interested people to make the test meaningful.

The Sidechains whitepaper is nothing like that.  It does not define concrete real-world problem(s) to be solved, and then develop suitable solution(s) for it/them.  Instead, the "problem" that it sets to solve is how to save bitcoin from being superseded by centralized payment systems and other altcoins.  The "solution" they propose is basically to rebrand the best  altcoins plus some unspecified array of other network services as "sidechains of bitcoin",  in exchange for some unspecified advantages involving merged mining and the prestige of bitcoin.  However, there are no details in the paper to even tell what applications could be "sidechains", how the integration would work, what concrete benefits they would derive from that, why other projects could not obtain the same benefits without being "sidechains of bitcoin" -- and why would bitcoin be saved as a result.  Needless to say, there is also no analysis of possible failure modes.

Just as bitcoin reminds me of the Wright Brothers' Flyer One, the sidechains proposal reminds me of their unsuccessful efforts to commercialize their invention.  (AFAIK, the first commercially successful series-produced airplane, still only a toy for aeronautics nerds, was this one.)

"Dear investors, you are all aware of the hard times that Ford Motor Co. has been going through, because of competition from manufacturers of cars that are cheaper, faster, more beautiful, or more reliable than ours.  You know that, while we could incorporate their advantages in our Model T, modifying our assembly lines is very expensive and would take too long.  But we have come up with an idea that will surely save us.  We will allow the other manufacturers to rebrand themselves: "Ford Jeep" instead of "Jeep", "Ford Jaguar" instead of "Jaguar", "Ford Mercedes" instead of "Mercedes", etc..  We will allow them to use our great assembly lines, as long as they don't require any special change or interfere with our production.  We will also build a yard where our customers will be able to safely trade their Model Ts for cars of our competitors, at values established by the latter.  Thus we expect to turn our most formidable competitors into our allies, and, with their help, retain our dominant share of the billion-dollar revenue to be made in the car market."

I'm going to stop calling you a troll despite our differences about Bitcoin. I can respect that .

The 2 papers that come to mind are Sirer's Selfish Mining paper and the Red Balloon paper from Microsoft. I've listened to Sirer talk before which is even more puzzling that he can be so pedantic about it. For Christ's sake, if you're going to stake your academic reputation on such a  theory, at least attack the network to prove it or release the code to meet everyone inspect it for flaws in reasoning or assumptions. He won't do either which should show you what the quality of his thesis is.

My problem with BS is that i think they represent the "entrepreneurs"  in Daniel's article. Those who are either underwater on their bitcoin holdings or are late to the game and feel they need to change Bitcoin in some fundamental way that will lower their risk all the while screaming everything wrong about the current system. The difficulty is in determining whether they're right, of course, as the price drop always makes everyone question their original thesis. ButiI have seen this before several time. 

To me though, as through the 5 other bubbles we've had, is the protocol still hasn't been hacked, tx's are going up, time has advanced (6yrs), dev is getting done, user adoption is growing worldwide, VC's investment continues to accelerate, and huge companies like Microsoft are coming on board.

I think the entrepreneurs need patience and need to buy in to the MC.
697  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: January 03, 2015, 06:58:07 PM
i have a question for the computer scientists in the crowd. 

i've noticed some things about the WP's over the last coupla years, including Satoshi's, that i wasn't aware of. first, there doesn't seem to be any peer review.  not only that but what strikes me is that it seems that authors come up with a particular logic pattern that makes sense to them and then construct maths to support that logic.  i often don't even see large data sets, testing, or simulations performed.  that supposedly is a standard for proof of a theory.  is this correct?  this is not a criticism of the CS field but just an inquiry to help me understand your field.

in many fields, a hypothesis is asked, then an experiment with blinded investigators along with large #'s of subjects and controls is carried out over a statistically significant time period to rule out investigator bias (can never do that completely) and prove that the hypothesis is correct within a std dev often of p<0.05 or 5%.  i realize these are different methods in different fields so it's hard to determine which is more rigorous.
698  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: January 03, 2015, 06:39:29 PM
much of what drives Bitcoin is logic and the prediction of human behavior.

geeks don't have a monopoly on that.
699  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: January 03, 2015, 06:32:32 PM
...
about 90%+ of satoshi's code has been rewritten.  we ARE seeing steady improvements to the code like the recent 0.1 with 3h MC download times now.  that's an extraordinary improvement of about 10x.  i put up that link of that Seagate 8TB SSD the other day.  storage is outpacing MC growth and now costs $0.03/GB.  i'm actually quite satisfied with where we are even now.  with a few, or even one, tx hop one can have provable deniability for anonymity reasons if they want.  10 min block times isn't conceptually ideal but works perfectly well for me.  i'm not sure what all the complaining is about.

No you didn't.  Words (e.g., 'SSD') mean things.  We've been around and around on this storage thing over the years.  Everyone agrees that bulk storage is not and has never been an issue (until Gavin slips in his exponential growth scheme at least...).  Total blocksize is a useful tool to fool fools in trying to make a point.  Most people cannot conceptualize that just sitting on data is quite a different thing than actually accessing it so discussions here are aggravating, pointless, and futile.


who knows how much further MC achievements might have been accomplished if BS core devs were spending all that time working on Bitcoin Core that they undoubtedly have been dedicating to the spvp for the last year and a half.  forget that shit and get behind Gavin and increase blocksize.  now is the time to do this.

When one has worked on code and complex systems it becomes very apparent that the gains and optimizations one can achieve are highly exponential
in nature.  It is common to be able to obtain a 10x improvement with minimal effort at first.  Very quickly it becomes physically impossible to achieve even a 1x improvement.  This is what people are talking about when they mention 'low hanging fruit.'

this headers only first download capability just got implemented with the last update.  i thought you said we were already at the stodgy stage?
Quote

fundamentally, i think allowing an offramp for BTC units over to insecure SC's is economically and technically flawed for all the Sound Money reasons i've already articulated.

Not to be offensive, but most of what you say about most things (economic, engineering, technology, investment, etc) is very primitive and often enough laughable incorrect.  Another short-hand term I've used in the recent past to describe this is 'ass-clown'.



there's only one way for me to address these types of insults unfortunately but you force me to.  and i'm not bragging:

so how do you explain me being the first to publicly state that M-Pesa could be a great target case for Bitcoin, how do explain me posting to sell/short gold and silver at their peaks in May and August 2011 despite your objections and trolling which turned out to be wrong?  how do you explain me (& you) buying at $1.98?  how do you explain me stating that mining centralization will even out & not become a problem (we see striking evidence of this in the pool chart i always put up)?  how is it that i got into Bitcoin 2.5 yrs before Adam as close as i can pinpoint it?  is it all luck?  if so, i'll take it. no ones perfect, esp me over the last 6 mo of price drop, but at least i get more concepts right than wrong in this Bitcoin space and that has not been easy to do.  and the fact is, many ppl understand and agree precisely with the line of reasoning i've provided regarding this SC issue.  sure, we could be wrong, so i'm still listening.  but when i read about Adam ruminating (not recommending) changing the issuance curve or allowing gvts to construct a SC depending on his definition of what they're doing as not being evil, i get concerned.  as NewLiberty said a while back, why would you want a competing altcoin (Truthcoin) or a gvt coming in and setting up business next to your core engine business (on a SC which can siphon BTC from MC)?

no one remembers you for predicting anything except when i acknowledge you being with me @1.98.  most of what you say is just socialistic babble.
700  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: January 03, 2015, 05:23:28 PM
Do you suppose that anyone involved with Bitcoin dev had any ideas or involvement in efforts which could have made use pay-to-script-hash when it was integrated?  I don't remember you pitching a bitch about that.

yes, b/c p2sh is how multi-sig tx's get constructed.  that is a fundamental MC security improvement that all of us benefit from.
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 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 ... 852 »
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!