Bitcoin Forum
June 30, 2015, 12:43:10 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.10.2 [Torrent]
 
  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 ... 925 »
681  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: June 03, 2015, 06:37:19 AM
[gossip about personalities]

This seems very plausible.

It's also irrelevant.

20MB blocks aren't a Gavinista vs Greg issue.  The XT controversy has set the Gavinistas against all our other core devs.

All other core  devs are acting as a block called Blockstream. Wladimir is just temporarily confused over full nodes vs users.
682  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: June 03, 2015, 06:34:48 AM
How did this go from a gold collapsing bitcoin up thread to a poll about Gavin?

The ongoing Gavinista coup and looming Great Schism are widely considered the most serious and credible threats yet to cypher's bullish "Bitcoin UP" prediction/outlook.

Is not the Chicago boys any of us have to worry about. It's the Monero boys. 
683  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: June 03, 2015, 06:11:58 AM
How did this go from a gold collapsing bitcoin up thread to a poll about Gavin?

frap.doc's man crush on gavin the g-man turned into a cheerleading rally session to get the plebes onto the new bitcoin spook-fork.



both frap.doc and karpeles want to frap it up on the blockchain.

Is that even supposed to be funny marcus? Surely you have more imagination than iCELatte?

Of course, you're not man enough  to admit you always throw the first stone are you?:

http://reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/381ygv/who_is_in_favour_of_reducing_the_blocksize_limit/crsjw15
684  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: June 02, 2015, 11:32:27 PM
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=287.msg8810#msg8810
685  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: June 02, 2015, 11:17:06 PM
I'm working for Nick Szabo.

Quote
Szatoshi will back Back and Maxwell.

enough with the hints, spill the beans please.

The beans were spilled a long time ago, but most people (including StarbucksDoc apparently) weren't paying attention:

Quote
The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  -David Chaum 1996

i also like iCELatte.  has a nice ring to it.
686  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: June 02, 2015, 05:47:03 PM
i read about this here one time but i don't fully understand it nor the implications, not being a coder.

a spec is a written, detailed, normal language description of how the protocol works, is that correct?  wouldn't the current developer's guide qualify as something similar?

where as the code is what actually executes within the operating system and carries out the protocol rules?

and why NL, do you believe it would've prevented what we have going on now?
The Bitcoin Core is in such bad shape that fully specifying its behaviour is indistinguishable from impossible.

You could say this is Satoshi's fault. What we now call Bitcoin Core started out life as a prototype and evolved into its present condition - it is not an engineered piece of software.

Yes the Bitcoin core evolved in a convoluted and non-ideal manner, but I think the reason we have a situation where "the code" = "the specification" is more basic. Even if the Bitcoin core code was well designed, we would still be in the same situation where the code is the specification.

The reason is in a distributed system such as Bitcoin, there is no rule enforcer. i.e. a centralized entity with the power to tell the distributed system when it is not functioning according to spec.

The result is if the majority of nodes run a common set of code, that code becomes the specification even if the code deviates from the spec. The majority will follow that deviation, because it is the code they are running. If you think about it, that is exactly what a hard fork is. A hard fork is a majority of nodes agreeing to deviate from the existing specification. This holds true whether the hard fork was intentional or if the hard fork was unintentional (due to a bug).

Since the majority of nodes in the beginning ran the bitcoin core, that core became the spec, and any other implementation that deviated from the core would be kicked out of the system.

I think the best course of action would be to acknowledge that the prototype has served its purpose and retire it in favour of treating a non-prototype codebase as the reference implementation for which a specification can be written.

Even if we did this, and put a large amount of open effort into creating the a new perfect core, we would still have the above issue. That core would be the specification if the majority ran it, including all of it's unknown bugs.

The problem is that there are two very different things in play here:

  • How humans think the Bitcoin protocol behaves
  • What Bitcoin Core actually does

There is no case where a divergence between these two things is good. It means that despite years of effort Bitcoin Core is in some ways still a black box capable of surprising behaviour instead of predictable behaviour.

We have no guarantee that Bitcoin Core is self-consistent (like it wasn't in March 2013). Due to the way that code was written, it's likely that we never will have such a guarantee.

The only way out of this mess is to deprecate Bitcoin Core in favour of more-specifiable implementations as rapidly as possible.

If Bitcoin Core (and derivatives) were a minority of the nodes in the network, then the next time one of Bitcoin Core's surprises manifested it would be a problem that a minority of the network would need to fix instead of newly-discovered behaviour that the entire network would need to implement.

And that there is the solution IMHO, we need two things.
  • A clear specification, and
  • A situation where there are many separate individually developed cores run on the network, where no one core represents a majority of nodes

If you have those two things, then if any core has a bug, it is up to that core to fix itself to adhere to the spec. Without both, then we are back to the situation where a bug becomes the spec, no matter how well engineered the core is.  

that's helpful tho i'm alittle confused about a couple things.

when you say different "cores", you mean like Bitcoin Core & btcd?  i thought everyone was referring to them as different "implementations" of the bitcoin protocol?

so is a spec a generalized description written in plain language that is supposed describe what the protocol does from a practical standpoint and thus acts like a broad ruleset to which different cores or implementations are to adhere?
687  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: June 02, 2015, 05:30:20 PM
if you doubt that everyone in the world will ever get an internet connection, here you go:

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/537956/emtech-digital-project-loon-head-details-how-the-balloons-interact/
688  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: June 02, 2015, 02:23:31 PM
Wladimir van der Laan, who seems to be Gavin's appointed lead for the project now, is "weakly against in the near future" because the solution seems to delay better ones. Seems he'd go along if it came down to a fork:

Quote
I understand the advantages of scaling, I do not doubt a block size increase will *work* Although there may be unforseen issues, I'm confident they'll be resolved. However, it may well make Bitcoin less useful for what sets it apart from other systems in the first place: the possibility for people to run their own own "bank" without special investment in connectivity and computing hardware.

see, this is where i think the devs understandably relate to the wrong fundamental unit of the system; the full node as opposed to the user.

no, the individuals bank is not the full node, it's the user and his wallet.  yes, to a degree, the security of that wallet depends on full nodes and miners but fundamentally it's the user and his wallet and why so much emphasis is placed on it via security R&D and specialized wallet implementations.  MetCalfe's Law applies to the user base.  that base will only grow via access to easy, cheap, reliable tx's.
689  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: June 02, 2015, 02:12:56 PM
Bitcoin XT is a poison pill for all the newbs and unwary, certain bug fix commits that went into Core have already been omitted. Both Hearn and Andresen have been covertly anti-privacy from day zero, paying it only lip service when pressed. Don't trust it. Not to mention it is poorly maintained and totally untested. I can't believe I'm reading such a mad approach being championed on these pages ... it's like a twilight zone episode wtf are you people thinking !!! following Pied Pipers now?

wish there was a thanks button on BCT

same with me

he posts the same BS over on Reddit.
690  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: June 02, 2015, 04:54:57 AM
Gavin's strength is his maturity and calm demeanor, imo.  he'll win if it comes down to a battle.

Nope.  Szatoshi will back Back and Maxwell.  The cypherpunks will stick together (or hang separately).

You should change your handle to 'FrappuccinoDoc.'   Grin

Bitcoin XT is a poison pill for all the newbs and unwary, certain bug fix commits that went into Core have already been omitted. Both Hearn and Andresen have been covertly anti-privacy from day zero, paying it only lip service when pressed. Don't trust it. Not to mention it is poorly maintained and totally untested. I can't believe I'm reading such a mad approach being championed on these pages ... it's like a twilight zone episode wtf are you people thinking !!! following Pied Pipers now?

both versions are on github.  Hearn's claims there is only 2 functional differences.

how hard would it to run a diff?  shouldn't be.  have you?
691  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: June 02, 2015, 04:44:46 AM

that was a great read. thanx.

i had suspected as much.  not being a coder but watching dozens of coders here and on reddit criticize bitterly not only Bitcoin's code but other code as well, i always got the feeling that it is just a given that everyone criticizes everyone elses code either out of envy or just trying to appear smarter than everyone else.  it's not like anyone can really tell or hold them accountable.  Peter Todd fell right into that trap yesterday on LTB with that stupid remark that Satoshi made a mistake.  just who the hell is Peter Todd?  answer: just an armchair critic who hasn't done anything significant with his life.  Satoshi was the best thing that ever happened to him; he provided himself as a target that can't defend himself from the likes of Peter.
692  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: June 02, 2015, 03:46:53 AM
i read about this here one time but i don't fully understand it nor the implications, not being a coder.

a spec is a written, detailed, normal language description of how the protocol works, is that correct?  wouldn't the current developer's guide qualify as something similar?

where as the code is what actually executes within the operating system and carries out the protocol rules?

and why NL, do you believe it would've prevented what we have going on now?
The Bitcoin Core is in such bad shape that fully specifying its behaviour is indistinguishable from impossible.

You could say this is Satoshi's fault. What we now call Bitcoin Core started out life as a prototype and evolved into its present condition - it is not an engineered piece of software.

I think the best course of action would be to acknowledge that the prototype has served its purpose and retire it in favour of treating a non-prototype codebase as the reference implementation for which a specification can be written.

Doing that would have the beneficial effect of increasing the number of developers who can participate, since the reference would be more understandable and better documented.

but there is truth to the fact that those embedded bugs and general messiness somehow "contribute" to the behavior of how the system works in unknowable but apparently predictable and stable ways which seem to work.  by changing those bugs or trying to clean up the mess, someone somewhere along the line will disrupt the predictability to where how the code operates may become unstable or unpredictable.  that would be bad.  it would take someone or some group truly exceptional to be able to rewrite the entire code and have it function exactly like it does today.  and with billions on the line, that would be a tremendous responsibility for a volunteer, would it not?
693  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: June 02, 2015, 03:30:40 AM
"The code is the spec."
This is the source of the problem.  It was a shortcut, but one that has costs long term.

Justus is right about that.
Until the code is frozen/deprecated and we have an functional spec, we will have this quandry.

i read about this here one time but i don't fully understand it nor the implications, not being a coder.

a spec is a written, detailed, normal language description of how the protocol works, is that correct?  wouldn't the current developer's guide qualify as something similar?

where as the code is what actually executes within the operating system and carries out the protocol rules?

and why NL, do you believe it would've prevented what we have going on now?
694  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: June 02, 2015, 03:27:07 AM
note how gmax and Luke pull the same perverted "consensus" argument out of there pocket in a political battle where they, as a minority of 5(?) devs argued their wishes should hold sway over just about the entire community's?

Luke presented the idea that the "devs = Bitcoin" and should have ultimate say, before he backpedaled on it. I can understand how devs would think that way, but it's of course silly for the reasons you mentioned there.

As for Greg, he does make unfair points whenever he feels he can veil it sufficiently (though so do Gavin and especially Hearn, from what I've seen - is this part of the core dev culture?), but more importantly he has this weirdly cognitively dissonant "I know best and get to decide, but everyone's equal" thing going on, and he's able to make his writing look watertight so that it can't be proven conclusively so he cannot really be caught on it so easily.

It's like he feels like he doesn't get enough respect for what he does, and is owed more sway in the sense of actual control rather than just influence and core dev status. That impulse explains his comment yesterday when he was lamenting all the work he'd done to make it just so things don't break with 1MB blocks (if not for those optimizations Bitcoin with 1MB blocks would be a "smoking hole in the ground" were I believe his words) and yet no one seems to appreciate it, they just want to march forward with even bigger blocks and keep working the hamster while Gavin gets all the glory.

The old underappreciated tech guy syndrome? (But with high-level writing skills)

i'm open to looking at examples of Gavin's unfairness.  anyone?

we all want recognition but Greg goes over the top.  and this is why he started Blockstream, to be the CEO of something potentially significant where he will get that recognition he so covets.   it's dangerous for a project like Bitcoin though.

Gavin's strength is his maturity and calm demeanor, imo.  he'll win if it comes down to a battle.
695  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: June 02, 2015, 01:17:26 AM
do you see his handling of the PressCenter.org situation as being reasonable or were you not around at that time to know?

I got into Bitcoin in mid-2012. Looks like it was before my time, unless I missed something.

well, no. it occurred April 2013.

since you said you've been reading all about Greg and the other devs to get a better understanding of them, you should add this to your reading list.  it's a big part of the story to understanding:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181168.msg1973084#msg1973084

have you ever heard Andreas or Trace Mayer get so mad?  such language!

and then this gem of an interaction in which i participated:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/162

note how gmax and Luke pull the same perverted "consensus" argument out of there pocket in a political battle where they, as a minority of 5(?) devs argued their wishes should hold sway over just about the entire community's?  for color, Andreas got so mad, he coded up the alternative press center that exists today in fine fashion.  gmax just yesterday, fails to learn and takes a cheap shot by saying his failed exclusion of Ver back then was "vindicated" by the Ripple action just a couple months ago.  which totally ignores the well functioning, long lasting site Andreas was forced to code up that still includes Ver to this day.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37vg8y/is_the_blockstream_company_the_reason_why_4_core/crqakk9
696  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: June 02, 2015, 12:31:20 AM
Note: While the following is all highly speculative as it must be, and though I'm wont to talk about people rather than actual issues, this case seems to warrant it.

I've been looking into Greg Maxwell quite a bit recently. All the core devs actually (except Wladimir), and the blockstream people. Greg seems a sincere and extremely intelligent fellow with the right kind of bent for the job. The way he knocked the wind out of Stellar's sails on Hacker News was quite something, just as one example.

However, I do sense that he and Gavin have a bit of an oil-and-water dynamic going on. I have never seen them debate directly, though that could be because he was busy recently and "caught a bit flat-footed" on Gavin's proposal, as he said. Seems like classic nerd/jock or cat/dog dynamic (I realize Gavin's also a nerd) with weird passive-aggressive miscommunications aplenty. The thing where Gavin said he spent an afternoon reviewing Greg's idea only to not have it acknowledged reminded me of that especially. Still need both sides of the story, and Gavin has his own subtle ways of being bitchy at times if you read between the lines so I won't draw conclusions.

It's most interesting to me, though, that Gavin and Greg have both proposed a series of 50% increases, yet these two seem as you said the main sticking point for this debate. Pieter seems not very entrenched, and Matt I suspect would go along with Greg and Pieter. Luke I'm not sure but on a hunch I'd say he would go wherever the action is dev-wise, despite his principled stances and eccentricities. He's not Mircea Popescu. Adam overall seems eminently reasonable and would probably not do anything disappointing, but that's just my cursory read.

Perhaps it's time to work some social magic to have Greg relax his position a bit. Since I've been reading almost all his posts, I've noticed he gives little glimmers of sunshine at times. He's not an unreasonable person, and despite his hardline stance I can tell he wants more than anything for Bitcoin to succeed. I could swear he gets less accommodative when Gavin's in the thread, though. The rays of sunshine seem to be buried deep in the comments when he's talking to someone else in a thread where Gavin is absent. Maybe just my imagination.

There are issues among such a group of people that we probably can't hope to understand. The politics, the interpersonal clashes, the miscommunications, the lingering grudges tinting things. Again, I think your implication may be right, this may be more a social issue than a technical one.

do you see his handling of the PressCenter.org situation as being reasonable or were you not around at that time to know?
697  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: June 02, 2015, 12:10:09 AM
Reddit. i'm not the only one frustrated.  notice how this discussion has been going on since 2010:

from awemany via /r/Bitcoin/ sent 10 minutes ago
show parent

Relevant: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg23049#msg23049
From frigging 2010, nonetheless.

context full comments (443)reportmark unreadreply
698  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: June 01, 2015, 11:58:17 PM
i think the problem is that they've identified the wrong fundamental unit in the system. as geeks, they identify with the full node as that unit.

otoh, the economic majority identifies the user as that fundamental unit, which i think is correct. Metcalfe's Law will work off the user who needs cheap, reliable tx's to be onboarded.

and the full node and user are not mutually exclusive. increasing users will result in increasing nodes.

edit:  if you listen to Gavin & Peter's debate on LTB yesterday, the node is all that Peter ever talks about.
699  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: June 01, 2015, 08:47:30 PM
...
Smooth self-adjustment with properly aligned incentives, as opposed to sudden random jumps, is the preference of the non-Gavin core dev consensus.

The 20x jump seems like a lot, but it actually would not completely destroy Bitcoin.  Nor would it do jack-shit toward the starry-eyed dreams of a one-world currency by the mouth breathing newbs (and cypherdoc.)  What the 20mb thing is is mostly a cover for the real meat which is exponential growth.  That locks in the seeds of destruction and the 20mb mostly just acts as a valve to make sure there is no possibility to back out of the trap.

I don't know what happens next, and neither do you.  Monero aside, a bloody civil war might set us back a bit.

Sure it will set us back in some ways, but it could be a golden (and only) opportunity to move forward on some really important fronts as well, and get beyond some obvious flaws in the early implementation of Bitcoin.  I'm not holding my breath for this but it would be nice if it happened.  As a guy who planned on sitting on most of my stash for many years in most circumstances, took one major pay-day already, and didn't put all my eggs in the Bitcoin basket anyway, a setback in price is not really that scary.  Also, of course, with chaos comes opportunity.



actually, it's great to hear both of you guys backpedaling along with your hero-conflicted /u/nullc.  i actually would look forward to adopting XT and leaving all you behind to wallow in stunt-coin confined here in the states.  it would be a match made in heaven.
700  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: June 01, 2015, 06:01:56 PM
hey iCE,

did u see ZB's link above; which i can't verify, btw:

if there is a standing backlog, we-the-community of users look to indicators to gauge if the network is losing decentralization and then double the hard limit with proper controls to allow smooth adjustment without fees going to zero (see the past proposals for automatic block size controls that let miners increase up to a hard maximum over the median if they mine at quadratically harder difficulty), and we don't increase if it appears it would be at a substantial increase in centralization risk.

/u/nullc is already backpedaling.  and you know what happens next?
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 ... 925 »
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!