Bitcoin Forum
June 25, 2019, 03:08:01 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: Will you support switching Bitcoin over to Hearn's XT alt with it's exponential bloat by the first of the year 2016?
Fuck No! - 55 (43%)
Hell Yeah! - 73 (57%)
Total Voters: 128

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. [NooNooPol]  (Read 15077 times)
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162
Merit: 1007



View Profile
August 24, 2015, 12:57:27 AM
 #221

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.



Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
1561432081
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1561432081

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1561432081
Reply with quote  #2

1561432081
Report to moderator
1561432081
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1561432081

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1561432081
Reply with quote  #2

1561432081
Report to moderator
1561432081
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1561432081

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1561432081
Reply with quote  #2

1561432081
Report to moderator

0% MINING FEES FOR THE NEXT MONTH. GET PAID IN BTC, ETH, XMR or RVN.

www.cudominer.com Learn More
Easily run CudoOS from a USB flash drive.
Designed for rigs. Manage your mining remotely from Cudo Console.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1561432081
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1561432081

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1561432081
Reply with quote  #2

1561432081
Report to moderator
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644
Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 24, 2015, 01:28:15 AM
 #222

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.




 Cheesy

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

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:

Quote
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."

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1067


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
August 24, 2015, 03:49:28 AM
 #223

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

Quote
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.


██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine
whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." 
David Chaum 1996
"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect."  Adam Back 2014
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
Is Dash a scam?
sAt0sHiFanClub
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


Warning: Confrmed Gavinista


View Profile WWW
August 24, 2015, 08:43:04 AM
 #224

Quote
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?

Quote from: Argument_from _ignorance
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? 

Quote from: Escrow
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:

Quote from: Satoshi
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

Quote from: Satoshi
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.

We must make money worse as a commodity if we wish to make it better as a medium of exchange
sAt0sHiFanClub
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


Warning: Confrmed Gavinista


View Profile WWW
August 24, 2015, 08:50:28 AM
Last edit: August 24, 2015, 12:30:57 PM by sAt0sHiFanClub
 #225

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

Quote
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.

We must make money worse as a commodity if we wish to make it better as a medium of exchange
sgbett
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1820
Merit: 1045



View Profile
August 24, 2015, 10:23:04 AM
 #226

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

Doing nothing is worse.

"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" - Satoshi Nakamoto
*my posts are not investment advice*
hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274
Merit: 1000



View Profile
August 24, 2015, 11:58:29 AM
 #227

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 1000


View Profile
August 24, 2015, 12:02:58 PM
 #228

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1820
Merit: 1045



View Profile
August 24, 2015, 01:54:08 PM
 #229

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.

"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" - Satoshi Nakamoto
*my posts are not investment advice*
hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274
Merit: 1000



View Profile
August 24, 2015, 01:55:39 PM
 #230

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274
Merit: 1000



View Profile
August 24, 2015, 02:12:46 PM
 #231

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644
Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 24, 2015, 04:41:22 PM
 #232

Quote
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"


"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274
Merit: 1000



View Profile
August 24, 2015, 07:08:57 PM
 #233


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



Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2408
Merit: 1692



View Profile
August 24, 2015, 07:52:54 PM
 #234

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!

Vires in numeris
sAt0sHiFanClub
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


Warning: Confrmed Gavinista


View Profile WWW
August 24, 2015, 08:56:31 PM
 #235

Quote
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.

We must make money worse as a commodity if we wish to make it better as a medium of exchange
sAt0sHiFanClub
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


Warning: Confrmed Gavinista


View Profile WWW
August 24, 2015, 09:11:43 PM
 #236

Maybe these guys know the difference between ownership and verification?

We must make money worse as a commodity if we wish to make it better as a medium of exchange
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1067


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
August 24, 2015, 11:59:10 PM
 #237


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



██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine
whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." 
David Chaum 1996
"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect."  Adam Back 2014
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
Is Dash a scam?
RealBitcoin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 1000


JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK


View Profile
August 25, 2015, 12:08:48 AM
 #238

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


Warning: Confrmed Gavinista


View Profile WWW
August 25, 2015, 12:34:14 AM
 #239

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



We must make money worse as a commodity if we wish to make it better as a medium of exchange
Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 1000



View Profile
August 25, 2015, 10:22:39 AM
 #240


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
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

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!