Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. [NooNooPol]

[Peter R]

I've read it a dozen times already so, no, I know how this stuff works.

http://www.blockstream.com/sidechains.pdf

You will notice that there is not ONE mention of Bitcoin or transaction capacity scaling inside.

[brg444]

I've read it a dozen times already so, no, I know how this stuff works.

http://www.blockstream.com/sidechains.pdf

You will notice that there is not ONE mention of Bitcoin or transaction capacity scaling inside.

 

I'll admit I was wrong. How'd I miss this 

Anyway the point still stand and I think it is fair to say no one ever proposed sidechains would allow us to support a significant increase in transaction. In the quote from Hill referred above "scale" was used pretty liberally and it is clear his more important message was "faster transaction processing".

From the same article:

Gregory Maxwell, who first proposed two-way pegging, says that it could provide some relief for bitcoin, though:

"I don't think this will remove the need to increase bitcoin's throughput entirely, but if the technology matures fast enough it may allow for a more conservative approach that increases size only when its very clearly safe to do so."

[iCEBREAKER]

The scaling debate is an open question, but it's now settled that XT is not the answer:

https://forum.blockstack.org/t/blockstack-community-thoughts-on-block-size-bitcoin-xt-debate/152

My general opinion on the matter is "data or STFU." The motivation for this debate is to help Bitcoin scale up in both the transaction rate and transaction volume. Will making the blocks bigger actually address this in a consequence-free manner, or will it just push the problem down the road, and result in more blockchain bloat and fewer full nodes along the way? I don't know--as far as I know, there's no empirical data on how well an XT network performs compared to a Bitcoin network under similar conditions. Until I see data, I'm calling BS.

Part of the reason I'm skeptical is because distributed systems typically scale by growing sub-linearly with the scaling parameter. For example, DHT nodes do not store every single piece of data, or even routes to every single node; they each store O(k/n) data and O(log k) routes for n nodes and k records. As another example, Internet routers do not store routes to every single publicly-routable host; they assign route prefixes to their neighboring routers, and send packets along the interface with the longest IP prefix match (leading to O(log n) expected number of routing hops for n hosts, and O(1) memory per router).

This does not appear to be the case with Bitcoin XT. Bitcoin XT's might be able to do better than Bitcoin by a constant factor. But, the XT approach is like trying to scale a small computer network by buying a bigger switch and making everyone's ARP table bigger. The system might bear a little bit more load for a proportional resource investment (and probably with unintended consequences), but it won't solve the underlying scalability limitation (feature?) that everyone still needs to mine the same blocks, no matter how big they get or how often they are added.

So, I need to see some extraordinary results from the XT proposal before I believe that it solves the scalability problem, especially if the proposed solution is to do better by a constant factor.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

My original Bitcoin is essentially held in escrow

Thought as much. You are handing over your bitcoin to a 3rd party, and you rely on trust to get it back, like any escrow service.

And dont give me "enforced with software" because it will be enforced by whoever has the majority in a 2-of-3 multisig.

Read my post above. Then read the sidechains white paper. Then come back here when you actually understand how this stuff works

Miss me with your "arguments to ignorance" until then.

A what now?

The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary.  Usually best described by, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

You said it behaves like escrow.

And what I said was, it is placing it into a 3rd party that you need to trust. There is no lack of evidence on this, surely? 

place in custody or trust of 3rd party until a specified condition has been fulfilled.

What this is doing is changing Satoshis view of bit coin from a "peer-to-peer payment network" to something different. Its so fundamental to what bitcoin is, I frankly dont understand why we are even arguing about it. First line of the white paper makes it pretty clear:

A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online
payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a
financial institution

Note the use of the word "Purely". Also note that he also foresaw the possibility of 3rd parties getting involved, and expressly mentioned their exclusion in the opening gambit.

But if you still aren't convinced, try reading a bit further into his white paper. Like to the next line

Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main
benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending

So, where is your argument to ignorance?   The only ignorance I see is your own refusal to accept that side chains introduce 'trusted' 3rd parties into what was conceived to be a trust-less peer to peer network.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

The scaling debate is an open question, but it's now settled that XT is not the answer:

https://forum.blockstack.org/t/blockstack-community-thoughts-on-block-size-bitcoin-xt-debate/152

My general opinion on the matter is "data or STFU." The motivation for this debate is to help Bitcoin scale up in both the transaction rate and transaction volume. Will making the blocks bigger actually address this in a consequence-free manner, or will it just push the problem down the road, and result in more blockchain bloat and fewer full nodes along the way? I don't know--as far as I know, there's no empirical data on how well an XT network performs compared to a Bitcoin network under similar conditions. Until I see data, I'm calling BS.

Part of the reason I'm skeptical is because distributed systems typically scale by growing sub-linearly with the scaling parameter. For example, DHT nodes do not store every single piece of data, or even routes to every single node; they each store O(k/n) data and O(log k) routes for n nodes and k records. As another example, Internet routers do not store routes to every single publicly-routable host; they assign route prefixes to their neighboring routers, and send packets along the interface with the longest IP prefix match (leading to O(log n) expected number of routing hops for n hosts, and O(1) memory per router).

This does not appear to be the case with Bitcoin XT. Bitcoin XT's might be able to do better than Bitcoin by a constant factor. But, the XT approach is like trying to scale a small computer network by buying a bigger switch and making everyone's ARP table bigger. The system might bear a little bit more load for a proportional resource investment (and probably with unintended consequences), but it won't solve the underlying scalability limitation (feature?) that everyone still needs to mine the same blocks, no matter how big they get or how often they are added.

So, I need to see some extraordinary results from the XT proposal before I believe that it solves the scalability problem, especially if the proposed solution is to do better by a constant factor.

People dont keep their money in DHT's, so they can be scaled for performance with little or no regard to security or immutability. Bitcoin has to prevent double spending and enforce immutability in a trust-less way, so is not necessarily free to simply pick the most efficient method.

The scaling debate is certainly not over. But you are only partially right:  bitcoinXT is not the ONLY answer. But its the closest one to ring fencing bitcoins core foundation as a peer-to-peer trust-less network.

[sgbett]

The scaling debate is an open question, but it's now settled that XT is not the answer:

Doing nothing is worse.

[hdbuck]

The scaling debate is an open question, but it's now settled that XT is not the answer:

Doing nothing is worse.

Lol no.

Or is it based on the same bs that you extrapolated to get your 500k$ bitcoin?

On piece of advice, when you do not qualify, you STFU.

[n2004al]

Where do you see you that bitcoin is UP? I see the price of bitcoin at one of the lowest in the last months? Or you meaning the price in the months or years to come?

[sgbett]

The scaling debate is an open question, but it's now settled that XT is not the answer:

Doing nothing is worse.

Lol no.

Or is it based on the same bs that you extrapolated to get your 500k$ bitcoin?

On piece of advice, when you do not qualify, you STFU.

You seem scared. Just relax, let it happen.

[hdbuck]

The scaling debate is an open question, but it's now settled that XT is not the answer:

Doing nothing is worse.

Lol no.

Or is it based on the same bs that you extrapolated to get your 500k$ bitcoin?

On piece of advice, when you do not qualify, you STFU.

You seem scared. Just relax, let it happen.

it wont happen, not even considering all the noobish fud you guys seems to bite on.

and then please feel free to gtfo of bitcoin.

[hdbuck]

The scaling debate is an open question, but it's now settled that XT is not the answer:

Doing nothing is worse.

Lol no.

Or is it based on the same bs that you extrapolated to get your 500k$ bitcoin?

On piece of advice, when you do not qualify, you STFU.

You seem scared. Just relax, let it happen.

it wont happen, not even considering all the noobish fud you guys seems to bite on.

and then please feel free to gtfo of bitcoin.

He's right you know.  Relax!  Who knows, you might learn to enjoy it.

zomg the "he is right" noobs that cant think for themselves are out..



gimme a break

[brg444]

My original Bitcoin is essentially held in escrow

Thought as much. You are handing over your bitcoin to a 3rd party, and you rely on trust to get it back, like any escrow service.

And dont give me "enforced with software" because it will be enforced by whoever has the majority in a 2-of-3 multisig.

Read my post above. Then read the sidechains white paper. Then come back here when you actually understand how this stuff works

Miss me with your "arguments to ignorance" until then.

A what now?

I won't bother arguing with you until you understand or have read the white paper. My "escrow" comment was a shortcut for your small brain to grasp.

Concentrate on SPV Proof.

Until then.

Miss me with your "arguments to ignorance"

[hdbuck]

https://twitter.com/cypherdoc2/status/635882565090607105

[Carlton Banks]

The scaling debate is an open question, but it's now settled that XT is not the answer:

Doing nothing is worse.

Lol no.

Or is it based on the same bs that you extrapolated to get your 500k$ bitcoin?

On piece of advice, when you do not qualify, you STFU.

You seem scared. Just relax, let it happen.

rape! raaaaaaaaaaaaaaape!

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

My original Bitcoin is essentially held in escrow

Thought as much. You are handing over your bitcoin to a 3rd party, and you rely on trust to get it back, like any escrow service.

And dont give me "enforced with software" because it will be enforced by whoever has the majority in a 2-of-3 multisig.

Read my post above. Then read the sidechains white paper. Then come back here when you actually understand how this stuff works

Miss me with your "arguments to ignorance" until then.

A what now?

I won't bother arguing with you until you understand or have read the white paper. My "escrow" comment was a shortcut for your small brain to grasp.

Concentrate on SPV Proof.

Until then.

Miss me with your "arguments to ignorance"

Yawn.

SPV proofs are about verification. I'm talking about 'ownership'. You could have just simply said "You send your Bitcoins to a specially formed Bitcoin address. The address is specially designed so that the coins will now be out of your control...."  source
[ yeah, there is a load of proposed stuff which will absolutely, definitely, without a shadow of a doubt GUARANTEE you will get them back, you know, because rules, right?]

But, no. Don't reply. I think we are done here. I feel I'm flogging a donkey that has long since died.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Maybe these guys know the difference between ownership and verification?

[iCEBREAKER]

https://twitter.com/cypherdoc2/status/635882565090607105

Frap.doc: "any ideas where to rehost "Gold collapsing, Bitcoin UP"? this is the only 1 i'm aware of: http://bitco.in/forum/"

[RealBitcoin]

How about decentralization for big transactions and centralization for small ones?

It's pretty hard to achieve decentralization on all levels, but we could use XAPO, COINBASE, BITPAY etc to transfer inhouse small payments, and their API could be integrated in any bitcoin merchant's system.

And for larger transactions, with larger fee, we will use the blockchain.

If this system would be realized then we would not need XT , and the blocksize increase can be postponed for alteast 20 years, until then hopefully miners will have better internet connection and bigger hard disks.

Why is it not viable? I just cant understand how the developers cant reach a consensus. It is embarrasing, and I start to lose big faith in them.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

How about decentralization for big transactions and centralization for small ones?

[Zarathustra]

https://twitter.com/cypherdoc2/status/635882565090607105

Frap.doc: "any ideas where to rehost "Gold collapsing, Bitcoin UP"? this is the only 1 i'm aware of: http://bitco.in/forum/"

The cheerleaders of banning and censoring still don't realise that they are the best supporters of their enemies. That's amazing.



https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1157185.msg12224149#msg12224149