Bitcoin Forum
March 28, 2024, 11:42:31 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [All]
  Print  
Author Topic: Szabo just tweeted this  (Read 3969 times)
slaveforanunnak1 (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 743
Merit: 502



View Profile
August 21, 2015, 02:58:11 AM
 #1

http://wallstreettechnologist.com/2015/08/19/bitcoin-xt-vs-core-blocksize-limit-the-schism-that-divides-us-all/
Bitcoin mining is now a specialized and very risky industry, just like gold mining. Amateur miners are unlikely to make much money, and may even lose money. Bitcoin is much more than just mining, though!
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1711669351
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711669351

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711669351
Reply with quote  #2

1711669351
Report to moderator
slaveforanunnak1 (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 743
Merit: 502



View Profile
August 21, 2015, 03:13:12 AM
 #2

It's like Szabo doesn't have any clue on how XT is being implemented. Which I think is very weird.

I'm not sure if you actually read the whole thing.
knight22
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000


--------------->¿?


View Profile
August 21, 2015, 03:20:36 AM
 #3

It's like Szabo doesn't have any clue on how XT is being implemented. Which I think is very weird.

I'm not sure if you actually read the whole thing.


Quote
The attack goes as follows: If blocks were allowed to be ‘too big’ (big enough to add plausible delays to propagate to all nodes) then a miner would be incentivized to stuff the block they are mining full of txns that pay himself (or a cohort), up to the allowable block limit.

I mean come on.

tl;dr Szabo is afraid of the free market having a choice. Well guess what, it happens now and will happen countless of time in the future.

AgentofCoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 1001



View Profile
August 21, 2015, 03:23:51 AM
 #4

This is basically it right here:

Quote
[XT Supporters] believe that Bitcoin should be able to handle all the transactions on planet earth, from everyone’s daily coffee purchase, to everyone’s house purchase, to how Google cars should be paid for their services.  On the other hand, you have those who believe Bitcoin’s core value is the fact that it is a hedge against fiat currencies, and by extension, governments (in the case they decide to infringe upon your liberties).  Bitcoin CANNOT be both. It’s just not possible.

The above is the real argument, everything else is FUD and just craziness.

Do we want it to handle all world daily transactions,
or do we want protection from current monetary systems and government involvement?

I support a decentralized & unregulatable ledger first, with safe scaling over time.
Request a signed message if you are associating with anyone claiming to be me.
knight22
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000


--------------->¿?


View Profile
August 21, 2015, 03:28:29 AM
 #5

This is basically it right here:

Quote
[XT Supporters] believe that Bitcoin should be able to handle all the transactions on planet earth, from everyone’s daily coffee purchase, to everyone’s house purchase, to how Google cars should be paid for their services.  On the other hand, you have those who believe Bitcoin’s core value is the fact that it is a hedge against fiat currencies, and by extension, governments (in the case they decide to infringe upon your liberties).  Bitcoin CANNOT be both. It’s just not possible.

The above is the real argument, everything else is FUD and just craziness.

Do we want it to handle all world daily transactions,
or do we want protection from current monetary systems and government involvement?


It is absolutely possible. Impossible is a very bold word. Solving the byzantine generals problem was once considered impossible btw.

crazywack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1000


View Profile
August 21, 2015, 03:30:08 AM
 #6

Good artical! Read threw it, don't skip to the end.

AgentofCoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 1001



View Profile
August 21, 2015, 03:35:06 AM
 #7

This is basically it right here:

Quote
[XT Supporters] believe that Bitcoin should be able to handle all the transactions on planet earth, from everyone’s daily coffee purchase, to everyone’s house purchase, to how Google cars should be paid for their services.  On the other hand, you have those who believe Bitcoin’s core value is the fact that it is a hedge against fiat currencies, and by extension, governments (in the case they decide to infringe upon your liberties).  Bitcoin CANNOT be both. It’s just not possible.

The above is the real argument, everything else is FUD and just craziness.

Do we want it to handle all world daily transactions,
or do we want protection from current monetary systems and government involvement?


It is absolutely possible. Impossible is a very bold word. Solving the byzantine generals problem was once considered impossible btw.

I'm no expert, I'm far from it. I'm actually a noob.
But how could it reasonably be possible to be both?
The more mainstream it gets, in theory, it should be easier for the governments to exert control over it.
The only reason Bitcoin/bitcoin has survived is, I believe, governments can't actually control a decentralized system.
Who owns it? Who runs it? Where is it maintained?
Because of that, governments have left it alone. Legally, it is hard to control.

So, if it did get gigantic (say 200 million users each with 3-4 daily txs each) how can it also remain immune to gov control?
How can we have our cake and eat it too?

I support a decentralized & unregulatable ledger first, with safe scaling over time.
Request a signed message if you are associating with anyone claiming to be me.
slaveforanunnak1 (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 743
Merit: 502



View Profile
August 21, 2015, 03:36:41 AM
 #8

Good artical! Read threw it, don't skip to the end.

This part made me sad because It's true (to me) and apparently to szabo

Quote
So with all these scary uncertainties, you may ask why hasn’t Satoshi come out to speak on the behalf of one side or the other in order to settle the dispute?  Indeed it would be akin to him coming out to act as a 3rd party mediator, such as when a parent comes in to break up a fight among siblings.  There has in fact been a post by someone claiming to be Satoshi, from a valid known Satoshi email address, claiming pretty much that the XT fork is unnecessarily dangerous, see here: Satoshi? Despite the many allegations that if this was really Satoshi, he would have signed his message with a known PGP key or perhaps moved some of his coins to prove that it was him, he has not done so.  I for one do not believe that he would.  If you read the message, (ignoring for a second who it is from) he is saying that Bitcoin’s vision is not one where it is subject to the egos of charismatic leaders, including Satoshi Nakamoto.  People who harp on the fact that Satoshi has not made a provably authenticated statement is clearly missing the whole point of this message.  If he were to do so, rest assured the whole of the community will rally with him, but that is exactly what he doesn’t want to happen, a whole community blindly following authority!  Consistently so, the author points out that if it takes a benevolent dictator to pull us out of this mess “deux ex machina” then Bitcoin, as a project in decentralized money resistant to authority, has failed.  That tautological statement, is provably true if you can wrap your head around it.  Therefore, if Satoshi wants it to succeed, he won’t use his ‘God card’ and settle disputes.  If Bitcoin continually needs Satoshi to keep us from going astray, then Bitcoin isn’t worth saving.   Considering that Satoshi has likely the most coins at risk than anyone else, and him coming forward to break the impasse would likely save us (and the value of his own coins) it is truly commendable that he has not done so.  The fact that he hasn’t tells me that he (where ever he or she is) is truly acting in an altruistic manner.  He is more willing to let Bitcoin die, than to let it continue on as a system that does not value consensus as its first and foremost priority.
knight22
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000


--------------->¿?


View Profile
August 21, 2015, 03:41:14 AM
Last edit: August 21, 2015, 04:03:25 AM by knight22
 #9

Quote
Gavin and Hearn are trying to force consensus in an “Inception” like manner, betting on the fact that if 75% agree with him (whether they are well informed actors or not) then the 25% remaining will be forced to fall in line otherwise risk breaking Bitcoin for everyone.  Why are they doing this?  One can only imagine they feel that Bitcoin needs to grow otherwise risk being overtaken by a competing cryptocurrency. (Or maybe because businesses want bitcoin to scale to scale their operations because core does shit about it?)  Although current transaction volumes are not hitting the limit yet, they believe that adding capacity will stimulate growth. (Maybe because businesses can't do mass marketing even if their products are soon to be ready but can't because bitcoin doesn't scale for years to come?) That sounds more like strategy that Ben Bernanke or Janet Yellen might believe (Like giving choice to the free market?).  What they may end up doing is that they will cause the end of Bitcoin themselves if the 25% minority believe it is better to continue running a reduced (hash power) version of Bitcoin that values consensus (Never gonna happen because of economic incentive), over one that is run by a charismatic leader who is willing to force changes onto the network, or split it off into separate sects if he doesn’t get his way (And what about the Blockstream way?).  If we choose that to be the overriding model of Bitcoin, then Bitcoin as Satoshi envisioned it, (Satoshi himself envisioned hardforks of that nature...) as far as an experiment in “collective consensus building money, free from authority”, has failed.  So just ask yourself one question, given all the unknowns and potential existential risks to Bitcoin, — What is the rush?  Why the urgency? (Maybe because most businesses can't run in a deficit waiting for bitcoin to scale forever?)

This guy might be a genius in terms of technical skills but clearly not a pro in terms of social behaviors and market dynamics.  

crazywack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1000


View Profile
August 21, 2015, 03:43:05 AM
 #10

Good artical! Read threw it, don't skip to the end.

This part made me sad because It's true (to me) and apparently to szabo

Quote
So with all these scary uncertainties, you may ask why hasn’t Satoshi come out to speak on the behalf of one side or the other in order to settle the dispute?  Indeed it would be akin to him coming out to act as a 3rd party mediator, such as when a parent comes in to break up a fight among siblings.  There has in fact been a post by someone claiming to be Satoshi, from a valid known Satoshi email address, claiming pretty much that the XT fork is unnecessarily dangerous, see here: Satoshi? Despite the many allegations that if this was really Satoshi, he would have signed his message with a known PGP key or perhaps moved some of his coins to prove that it was him, he has not done so.  I for one do not believe that he would.  If you read the message, (ignoring for a second who it is from) he is saying that Bitcoin’s vision is not one where it is subject to the egos of charismatic leaders, including Satoshi Nakamoto.  People who harp on the fact that Satoshi has not made a provably authenticated statement is clearly missing the whole point of this message.  If he were to do so, rest assured the whole of the community will rally with him, but that is exactly what he doesn’t want to happen, a whole community blindly following authority!  Consistently so, the author points out that if it takes a benevolent dictator to pull us out of this mess “deux ex machina” then Bitcoin, as a project in decentralized money resistant to authority, has failed.  That tautological statement, is provably true if you can wrap your head around it.  Therefore, if Satoshi wants it to succeed, he won’t use his ‘God card’ and settle disputes.  If Bitcoin continually needs Satoshi to keep us from going astray, then Bitcoin isn’t worth saving.   Considering that Satoshi has likely the most coins at risk than anyone else, and him coming forward to break the impasse would likely save us (and the value of his own coins) it is truly commendable that he has not done so.  The fact that he hasn’t tells me that he (where ever he or she is) is truly acting in an altruistic manner.  He is more willing to let Bitcoin die, than to let it continue on as a system that does not value consensus as its first and foremost priority.

I actually felt that part of the artical popped out to me the most. I know the majority around this thread feel it was a scam/fake who got into his email but as he said, Satoshi wouldn't play the "God card". Who knows could be a hacker or Satoshi. One things for sure is the artical hit the nail on the head.


Sourgummies
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728
Merit: 500


Never ending parties are what Im into.


View Profile
August 21, 2015, 03:46:37 AM
 #11

Good artical! Read threw it, don't skip to the end.

This part made me sad because It's true (to me) and apparently to szabo

Quote
So with all these scary uncertainties, you may ask why hasn’t Satoshi come out to speak on the behalf of one side or the other in order to settle the dispute?  Indeed it would be akin to him coming out to act as a 3rd party mediator, such as when a parent comes in to break up a fight among siblings.  There has in fact been a post by someone claiming to be Satoshi, from a valid known Satoshi email address, claiming pretty much that the XT fork is unnecessarily dangerous, see here: Satoshi? Despite the many allegations that if this was really Satoshi, he would have signed his message with a known PGP key or perhaps moved some of his coins to prove that it was him, he has not done so.  I for one do not believe that he would.  If you read the message, (ignoring for a second who it is from) he is saying that Bitcoin’s vision is not one where it is subject to the egos of charismatic leaders, including Satoshi Nakamoto.  People who harp on the fact that Satoshi has not made a provably authenticated statement is clearly missing the whole point of this message.  If he were to do so, rest assured the whole of the community will rally with him, but that is exactly what he doesn’t want to happen, a whole community blindly following authority!  Consistently so, the author points out that if it takes a benevolent dictator to pull us out of this mess “deux ex machina” then Bitcoin, as a project in decentralized money resistant to authority, has failed.  That tautological statement, is provably true if you can wrap your head around it.  Therefore, if Satoshi wants it to succeed, he won’t use his ‘God card’ and settle disputes.  If Bitcoin continually needs Satoshi to keep us from going astray, then Bitcoin isn’t worth saving.   Considering that Satoshi has likely the most coins at risk than anyone else, and him coming forward to break the impasse would likely save us (and the value of his own coins) it is truly commendable that he has not done so.  The fact that he hasn’t tells me that he (where ever he or she is) is truly acting in an altruistic manner.  He is more willing to let Bitcoin die, than to let it continue on as a system that does not value consensus as its first and foremost priority.

Agree that also stood out to me, hopefully we can cool off and sort it out but profit seems to be driving this.
knight22
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000


--------------->¿?


View Profile
August 21, 2015, 03:47:31 AM
 #12

This is basically it right here:

Quote
[XT Supporters] believe that Bitcoin should be able to handle all the transactions on planet earth, from everyone’s daily coffee purchase, to everyone’s house purchase, to how Google cars should be paid for their services.  On the other hand, you have those who believe Bitcoin’s core value is the fact that it is a hedge against fiat currencies, and by extension, governments (in the case they decide to infringe upon your liberties).  Bitcoin CANNOT be both. It’s just not possible.

The above is the real argument, everything else is FUD and just craziness.

Do we want it to handle all world daily transactions,
or do we want protection from current monetary systems and government involvement?


It is absolutely possible. Impossible is a very bold word. Solving the byzantine generals problem was once considered impossible btw.

I'm no expert, I'm far from it. I'm actually a noob.
But how could it reasonably be possible to be both?
The more mainstream it gets, in theory, it should be easier for the governments to exert control over it.
The only reason Bitcoin/bitcoin has survived is, I believe, governments can't actually control a decentralized system.
Who owns it? Who runs it? Where is it maintained?
Because of that, governments have left it alone. Legally, it is hard to control.

So, if it did get gigantic (say 200 million users each with 3-4 daily txs each) how can it also remain immune to gov control?
How can we have our cake and eat it too?


It's a fallacy to think that bitcoin will centralized to the point it will be controllable by a single entity just because it scales. I mean, how can it be more centralized than having 8 mining pools providing 75% of the total hashrate?

Do you think internet is decentralized? Because it is and does anybody have the capacity to run an ISP? No. Only big companies does but noone controls the internet.

knight22
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000


--------------->¿?


View Profile
August 21, 2015, 03:50:29 AM
 #13

People should also read this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946236.0

slaveforanunnak1 (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 743
Merit: 502



View Profile
August 21, 2015, 03:52:47 AM
 #14

https://www.reddit.com/r/NOXT/
AgentofCoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 1001



View Profile
August 21, 2015, 03:58:38 AM
 #15

This is basically it right here:

Quote
[XT Supporters] believe that Bitcoin should be able to handle all the transactions on planet earth, from everyone’s daily coffee purchase, to everyone’s house purchase, to how Google cars should be paid for their services.  On the other hand, you have those who believe Bitcoin’s core value is the fact that it is a hedge against fiat currencies, and by extension, governments (in the case they decide to infringe upon your liberties).  Bitcoin CANNOT be both. It’s just not possible.

The above is the real argument, everything else is FUD and just craziness.

Do we want it to handle all world daily transactions,
or do we want protection from current monetary systems and government involvement?


It is absolutely possible. Impossible is a very bold word. Solving the byzantine generals problem was once considered impossible btw.

I'm no expert, I'm far from it. I'm actually a noob.
But how could it reasonably be possible to be both?
The more mainstream it gets, in theory, it should be easier for the governments to exert control over it.
The only reason Bitcoin/bitcoin has survived is, I believe, governments can't actually control a decentralized system.
Who owns it? Who runs it? Where is it maintained?
Because of that, governments have left it alone. Legally, it is hard to control.

So, if it did get gigantic (say 200 million users each with 3-4 daily txs each) how can it also remain immune to gov control?
How can we have our cake and eat it too?


It's a fallacy to think that bitcoin will centralized to the point it will be controllable by a single entity just because it scales. I mean, how can it be more centralized than having 8 mining pools providing 75% of the total hashrate?

Do you think internet is decentralized? Because it is and does anybody have the capacity to run an ISP? No. Only big companies does but noone controls the internet.

My point is, if it truly becomes the system of our dreams, where everyone uses it for everything,
wouldn't the government co-op it under National Security interests and mandate total control in ways unknowable now?

I'm not concerned about non-governmental centralization, only the centralization that can effect an individuals rights.

The internet is not controlled by anyone, but it can be shut off in many countries during emergencies or "other", including the USA.

I support a decentralized & unregulatable ledger first, with safe scaling over time.
Request a signed message if you are associating with anyone claiming to be me.
Sourgummies
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728
Merit: 500


Never ending parties are what Im into.


View Profile
August 21, 2015, 03:59:54 AM
 #16

This is basically it right here:

Quote
[XT Supporters] believe that Bitcoin should be able to handle all the transactions on planet earth, from everyone’s daily coffee purchase, to everyone’s house purchase, to how Google cars should be paid for their services.  On the other hand, you have those who believe Bitcoin’s core value is the fact that it is a hedge against fiat currencies, and by extension, governments (in the case they decide to infringe upon your liberties).  Bitcoin CANNOT be both. It’s just not possible.

The above is the real argument, everything else is FUD and just craziness.

Do we want it to handle all world daily transactions,
or do we want protection from current monetary systems and government involvement?


It is absolutely possible. Impossible is a very bold word. Solving the byzantine generals problem was once considered impossible btw.

I'm no expert, I'm far from it. I'm actually a noob.
But how could it reasonably be possible to be both?
The more mainstream it gets, in theory, it should be easier for the governments to exert control over it.
The only reason Bitcoin/bitcoin has survived is, I believe, governments can't actually control a decentralized system.
Who owns it? Who runs it? Where is it maintained?
Because of that, governments have left it alone. Legally, it is hard to control.

So, if it did get gigantic (say 200 million users each with 3-4 daily txs each) how can it also remain immune to gov control?
How can we have our cake and eat it too?


It's a fallacy to think that bitcoin will centralized to the point it will be controllable by a single entity just because it scales. I mean, how can it be more centralized than having 8 mining pools providing 75% of the total hashrate?

Do you think internet is decentralized? Because it is and does anybody have the capacity to run an ISP? No. Only big companies does but noone controls the internet.

For the every day person the internet is very much controlled by a google search. Most will not think of looking beyond that.
knight22
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000


--------------->¿?


View Profile
August 21, 2015, 04:00:31 AM
 #17


Wow this has a lot of momentum  Shocked Shocked

 Roll Eyes

knight22
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000


--------------->¿?


View Profile
August 21, 2015, 04:01:23 AM
 #18

This is basically it right here:

Quote
[XT Supporters] believe that Bitcoin should be able to handle all the transactions on planet earth, from everyone’s daily coffee purchase, to everyone’s house purchase, to how Google cars should be paid for their services.  On the other hand, you have those who believe Bitcoin’s core value is the fact that it is a hedge against fiat currencies, and by extension, governments (in the case they decide to infringe upon your liberties).  Bitcoin CANNOT be both. It’s just not possible.

The above is the real argument, everything else is FUD and just craziness.

Do we want it to handle all world daily transactions,
or do we want protection from current monetary systems and government involvement?


It is absolutely possible. Impossible is a very bold word. Solving the byzantine generals problem was once considered impossible btw.

I'm no expert, I'm far from it. I'm actually a noob.
But how could it reasonably be possible to be both?
The more mainstream it gets, in theory, it should be easier for the governments to exert control over it.
The only reason Bitcoin/bitcoin has survived is, I believe, governments can't actually control a decentralized system.
Who owns it? Who runs it? Where is it maintained?
Because of that, governments have left it alone. Legally, it is hard to control.

So, if it did get gigantic (say 200 million users each with 3-4 daily txs each) how can it also remain immune to gov control?
How can we have our cake and eat it too?


It's a fallacy to think that bitcoin will centralized to the point it will be controllable by a single entity just because it scales. I mean, how can it be more centralized than having 8 mining pools providing 75% of the total hashrate?

Do you think internet is decentralized? Because it is and does anybody have the capacity to run an ISP? No. Only big companies does but noone controls the internet.

My point is, if it truly becomes the system of our dreams, where everyone uses it for everything,
wouldn't the government co-op it under National Security interests and mandate total control in ways unknowable now?

I'm not concerned about non-governmental centralization, only the centralization that can effect an individuals rights.

The internet is not controlled by anyone, but it can be shut off in many countries during emergencies or "other", including the USA.

Which government will control bitcoin? US? China? Russia? France?

Dire
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10

Crypto-Games.net: DICE and SLOT


View Profile
August 21, 2015, 04:11:47 AM
 #19

Terrible article, shows no knowledge or understanding of the blocksize debate. I bet they just parsed the panic inducing articles from yesterday and used that as their research. I wonder if this person even uses bitcoin.

Huh

Say what?

That's the most definitive article/writing I've ever read on the block size debate, bar nothing.
AgentofCoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 1001



View Profile
August 21, 2015, 04:17:32 AM
 #20

It's a fallacy to think that bitcoin will centralized to the point it will be controllable by a single entity just because it scales. I mean, how can it be more centralized than having 8 mining pools providing 75% of the total hashrate?

Do you think internet is decentralized? Because it is and does anybody have the capacity to run an ISP? No. Only big companies does but noone controls the internet.

My point is, if it truly becomes the system of our dreams, where everyone uses it for everything,
wouldn't the government co-op it under National Security interests and mandate total control in ways unknowable now?

I'm not concerned about non-governmental centralization, only the centralization that can effect an individuals rights.

The internet is not controlled by anyone, but it can be shut off in many countries during emergencies or "other", including the USA.

Which government will control bitcoin? US? China? Russia? France?
Well it all comes down to, who wants the most economic control?
If you can control this system (when it or if it becomes full mainstream), you can control the world, ultimately.
A new era of economic control over humanity can come into existence, if governments take actual control to the system.

I assume the USA would attempt control, China Gov doesn't really trust or understand it, or pretend they don't.
There may be mandated Government Transfer Nodes that all nodes must pass tx through, in the USA, I don't know.
If your Node or company Node does not pass the data, that Node is considered illegal and will be raided under new laws.

I see it like this... Coinbase, Bitpay, all those companies must conform to regulations and laws within their respective countries.
They are based on bitcoin and sell/trade/etc bitcoin, but they must conform to the laws.
But Bitcoin/bitcoin is outside all of that, currently. It can not conform nor be controlled in its current state.

We can not allow Bitcoin/bitcoin to be regulated or changed to allow it to be conformed into a normal company and be governed by laws.


And I ask again, Is it really possible to have our cake and eat it too? I don't know, I have no technical background.

I support a decentralized & unregulatable ledger first, with safe scaling over time.
Request a signed message if you are associating with anyone claiming to be me.
slaveforanunnak1 (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 743
Merit: 502



View Profile
August 21, 2015, 04:18:12 AM
 #21


I made it 15 minutes ago
Dire
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10

Crypto-Games.net: DICE and SLOT


View Profile
August 21, 2015, 04:22:36 AM
 #22

Did he even mention how transaction fees increase when a backlog happens?

Yes.

And more besides.

See paragraph four, titled 'The block limit debate in a Nutshell'

http://wallstreettechnologist.com/2015/08/19/bitcoin-xt-vs-core-blocksize-limit-the-schism-that-divides-us-all/
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4564
Merit: 1276


View Profile
August 21, 2015, 04:33:38 AM
 #23

Good artical! Read threw it, don't skip to the end.

This part made me sad because It's true (to me) and apparently to szabo

Quote
So with all these scary uncertainties, you may ask why hasn’t Satoshi come out to speak on the behalf of one side or the other in order to settle the dispute?  Indeed it would be akin to him coming out to act as a 3rd party mediator, such as when a parent comes in to break up a fight among siblings.  There has in fact been a post by someone claiming to be Satoshi, from a valid known Satoshi email address, claiming pretty much that the XT fork is unnecessarily dangerous, see here: Satoshi? Despite the many allegations that if this was really Satoshi, he would have signed his message with a known PGP key or perhaps moved some of his coins to prove that it was him, he has not done so.  I for one do not believe that he would.  If you read the message, (ignoring for a second who it is from) he is saying that Bitcoin’s vision is not one where it is subject to the egos of charismatic leaders, including Satoshi Nakamoto.  People who harp on the fact that Satoshi has not made a provably authenticated statement is clearly missing the whole point of this message.  If he were to do so, rest assured the whole of the community will rally with him, but that is exactly what he doesn’t want to happen, a whole community blindly following authority!  Consistently so, the author points out that if it takes a benevolent dictator to pull us out of this mess “deux ex machina” then Bitcoin, as a project in decentralized money resistant to authority, has failed.  That tautological statement, is provably true if you can wrap your head around it.  Therefore, if Satoshi wants it to succeed, he won’t use his ‘God card’ and settle disputes.  If Bitcoin continually needs Satoshi to keep us from going astray, then Bitcoin isn’t worth saving.   Considering that Satoshi has likely the most coins at risk than anyone else, and him coming forward to break the impasse would likely save us (and the value of his own coins) it is truly commendable that he has not done so.  The fact that he hasn’t tells me that he (where ever he or she is) is truly acting in an altruistic manner.  He is more willing to let Bitcoin die, than to let it continue on as a system that does not value consensus as its first and foremost priority.

Some people argue that Szabo is likely to be Satoshi.  I never paid a lot of attention to these kinds of conjectures or cared a lot about them, but this text is the strongest bit of evidence I've seen yet that the it might be true.


sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
knight22
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000


--------------->¿?


View Profile
August 21, 2015, 04:37:22 AM
 #24

Good artical! Read threw it, don't skip to the end.

This part made me sad because It's true (to me) and apparently to szabo

Quote
So with all these scary uncertainties, you may ask why hasn’t Satoshi come out to speak on the behalf of one side or the other in order to settle the dispute?  Indeed it would be akin to him coming out to act as a 3rd party mediator, such as when a parent comes in to break up a fight among siblings.  There has in fact been a post by someone claiming to be Satoshi, from a valid known Satoshi email address, claiming pretty much that the XT fork is unnecessarily dangerous, see here: Satoshi? Despite the many allegations that if this was really Satoshi, he would have signed his message with a known PGP key or perhaps moved some of his coins to prove that it was him, he has not done so.  I for one do not believe that he would.  If you read the message, (ignoring for a second who it is from) he is saying that Bitcoin’s vision is not one where it is subject to the egos of charismatic leaders, including Satoshi Nakamoto.  People who harp on the fact that Satoshi has not made a provably authenticated statement is clearly missing the whole point of this message.  If he were to do so, rest assured the whole of the community will rally with him, but that is exactly what he doesn’t want to happen, a whole community blindly following authority!  Consistently so, the author points out that if it takes a benevolent dictator to pull us out of this mess “deux ex machina” then Bitcoin, as a project in decentralized money resistant to authority, has failed.  That tautological statement, is provably true if you can wrap your head around it.  Therefore, if Satoshi wants it to succeed, he won’t use his ‘God card’ and settle disputes.  If Bitcoin continually needs Satoshi to keep us from going astray, then Bitcoin isn’t worth saving.   Considering that Satoshi has likely the most coins at risk than anyone else, and him coming forward to break the impasse would likely save us (and the value of his own coins) it is truly commendable that he has not done so.  The fact that he hasn’t tells me that he (where ever he or she is) is truly acting in an altruistic manner.  He is more willing to let Bitcoin die, than to let it continue on as a system that does not value consensus as its first and foremost priority.

Some people argue that Szabo is likely to be Satoshi.  I never paid a lot of attention to these kinds of conjectures or cared a lot about them, but this text is the strongest bit of evidence I've seen yet that the it might be true.



Not at all. Not even his writing style.

slaveforanunnak1 (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 743
Merit: 502



View Profile
August 21, 2015, 04:41:23 AM
 #25

Good artical! Read threw it, don't skip to the end.

This part made me sad because It's true (to me) and apparently to szabo

Quote
So with all these scary uncertainties, you may ask why hasn’t Satoshi come out to speak on the behalf of one side or the other in order to settle the dispute?  Indeed it would be akin to him coming out to act as a 3rd party mediator, such as when a parent comes in to break up a fight among siblings.  There has in fact been a post by someone claiming to be Satoshi, from a valid known Satoshi email address, claiming pretty much that the XT fork is unnecessarily dangerous, see here: Satoshi? Despite the many allegations that if this was really Satoshi, he would have signed his message with a known PGP key or perhaps moved some of his coins to prove that it was him, he has not done so.  I for one do not believe that he would.  If you read the message, (ignoring for a second who it is from) he is saying that Bitcoin’s vision is not one where it is subject to the egos of charismatic leaders, including Satoshi Nakamoto.  People who harp on the fact that Satoshi has not made a provably authenticated statement is clearly missing the whole point of this message.  If he were to do so, rest assured the whole of the community will rally with him, but that is exactly what he doesn’t want to happen, a whole community blindly following authority!  Consistently so, the author points out that if it takes a benevolent dictator to pull us out of this mess “deux ex machina” then Bitcoin, as a project in decentralized money resistant to authority, has failed.  That tautological statement, is provably true if you can wrap your head around it.  Therefore, if Satoshi wants it to succeed, he won’t use his ‘God card’ and settle disputes.  If Bitcoin continually needs Satoshi to keep us from going astray, then Bitcoin isn’t worth saving.   Considering that Satoshi has likely the most coins at risk than anyone else, and him coming forward to break the impasse would likely save us (and the value of his own coins) it is truly commendable that he has not done so.  The fact that he hasn’t tells me that he (where ever he or she is) is truly acting in an altruistic manner.  He is more willing to let Bitcoin die, than to let it continue on as a system that does not value consensus as its first and foremost priority.

Some people argue that Szabo is likely to be Satoshi.  I never paid a lot of attention to these kinds of conjectures or cared a lot about them, but this text is the strongest bit of evidence I've seen yet that the it might be true.



Not at all. Not even his writing style.

Um.. guys.. he didn't write this! he tweeted this article, which means he agrees with it.

This is what "satoshi" wrote.

knight22
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000


--------------->¿?


View Profile
August 21, 2015, 04:42:27 AM
 #26

Good artical! Read threw it, don't skip to the end.

This part made me sad because It's true (to me) and apparently to szabo

Quote
So with all these scary uncertainties, you may ask why hasn’t Satoshi come out to speak on the behalf of one side or the other in order to settle the dispute?  Indeed it would be akin to him coming out to act as a 3rd party mediator, such as when a parent comes in to break up a fight among siblings.  There has in fact been a post by someone claiming to be Satoshi, from a valid known Satoshi email address, claiming pretty much that the XT fork is unnecessarily dangerous, see here: Satoshi? Despite the many allegations that if this was really Satoshi, he would have signed his message with a known PGP key or perhaps moved some of his coins to prove that it was him, he has not done so.  I for one do not believe that he would.  If you read the message, (ignoring for a second who it is from) he is saying that Bitcoin’s vision is not one where it is subject to the egos of charismatic leaders, including Satoshi Nakamoto.  People who harp on the fact that Satoshi has not made a provably authenticated statement is clearly missing the whole point of this message.  If he were to do so, rest assured the whole of the community will rally with him, but that is exactly what he doesn’t want to happen, a whole community blindly following authority!  Consistently so, the author points out that if it takes a benevolent dictator to pull us out of this mess “deux ex machina” then Bitcoin, as a project in decentralized money resistant to authority, has failed.  That tautological statement, is provably true if you can wrap your head around it.  Therefore, if Satoshi wants it to succeed, he won’t use his ‘God card’ and settle disputes.  If Bitcoin continually needs Satoshi to keep us from going astray, then Bitcoin isn’t worth saving.   Considering that Satoshi has likely the most coins at risk than anyone else, and him coming forward to break the impasse would likely save us (and the value of his own coins) it is truly commendable that he has not done so.  The fact that he hasn’t tells me that he (where ever he or she is) is truly acting in an altruistic manner.  He is more willing to let Bitcoin die, than to let it continue on as a system that does not value consensus as its first and foremost priority.

Some people argue that Szabo is likely to be Satoshi.  I never paid a lot of attention to these kinds of conjectures or cared a lot about them, but this text is the strongest bit of evidence I've seen yet that the it might be true.



Not at all. Not even his writing style.

Um.. guys.. he didn't write this! he tweeted this article, which means he agrees with it.

This is what "satoshi" wrote.



No signatures = fake

crazywack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1000


View Profile
August 21, 2015, 04:44:08 AM
 #27

I have seen some interesting treads somewhere. Comparing Satoshi emails and white paper to the writing styles of other big names in the community's writing styles. I would be interested to see if the newest email matched simmarly to some of his older stuff.

slaveforanunnak1 (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 743
Merit: 502



View Profile
August 21, 2015, 04:51:50 AM
 #28

Good artical! Read threw it, don't skip to the end.

This part made me sad because It's true (to me) and apparently to szabo

Quote
So with all these scary uncertainties, you may ask why hasn’t Satoshi come out to speak on the behalf of one side or the other in order to settle the dispute?  Indeed it would be akin to him coming out to act as a 3rd party mediator, such as when a parent comes in to break up a fight among siblings.  There has in fact been a post by someone claiming to be Satoshi, from a valid known Satoshi email address, claiming pretty much that the XT fork is unnecessarily dangerous, see here: Satoshi? Despite the many allegations that if this was really Satoshi, he would have signed his message with a known PGP key or perhaps moved some of his coins to prove that it was him, he has not done so.  I for one do not believe that he would.  If you read the message, (ignoring for a second who it is from) he is saying that Bitcoin’s vision is not one where it is subject to the egos of charismatic leaders, including Satoshi Nakamoto.  People who harp on the fact that Satoshi has not made a provably authenticated statement is clearly missing the whole point of this message.  If he were to do so, rest assured the whole of the community will rally with him, but that is exactly what he doesn’t want to happen, a whole community blindly following authority!  Consistently so, the author points out that if it takes a benevolent dictator to pull us out of this mess “deux ex machina” then Bitcoin, as a project in decentralized money resistant to authority, has failed.  That tautological statement, is provably true if you can wrap your head around it.  Therefore, if Satoshi wants it to succeed, he won’t use his ‘God card’ and settle disputes.  If Bitcoin continually needs Satoshi to keep us from going astray, then Bitcoin isn’t worth saving.   Considering that Satoshi has likely the most coins at risk than anyone else, and him coming forward to break the impasse would likely save us (and the value of his own coins) it is truly commendable that he has not done so.  The fact that he hasn’t tells me that he (where ever he or she is) is truly acting in an altruistic manner.  He is more willing to let Bitcoin die, than to let it continue on as a system that does not value consensus as its first and foremost priority.

Some people argue that Szabo is likely to be Satoshi.  I never paid a lot of attention to these kinds of conjectures or cared a lot about them, but this text is the strongest bit of evidence I've seen yet that the it might be true.



Not at all. Not even his writing style.

Um.. guys.. he didn't write this! he tweeted this article, which means he agrees with it.

This is what "satoshi" wrote.



No signatures = fake

He has never publicly signed anything.. so you will never EVER see a signed msg from him! why can't people get that though their head?
slaveforanunnak1 (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 743
Merit: 502



View Profile
August 21, 2015, 04:52:45 AM
 #29

I have seen some interesting treads somewhere. Comparing Satoshi emails and white paper to the writing styles of other big names in the community's writing styles. I would be interested to see if the newest email matched simmarly to some of his older stuff.

Doublespace after periods. Check.
British spelling.. check!

but those things can be faked of course.
knight22
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000


--------------->¿?


View Profile
August 21, 2015, 04:53:45 AM
 #30

Good artical! Read threw it, don't skip to the end.

This part made me sad because It's true (to me) and apparently to szabo

Quote
So with all these scary uncertainties, you may ask why hasn’t Satoshi come out to speak on the behalf of one side or the other in order to settle the dispute?  Indeed it would be akin to him coming out to act as a 3rd party mediator, such as when a parent comes in to break up a fight among siblings.  There has in fact been a post by someone claiming to be Satoshi, from a valid known Satoshi email address, claiming pretty much that the XT fork is unnecessarily dangerous, see here: Satoshi? Despite the many allegations that if this was really Satoshi, he would have signed his message with a known PGP key or perhaps moved some of his coins to prove that it was him, he has not done so.  I for one do not believe that he would.  If you read the message, (ignoring for a second who it is from) he is saying that Bitcoin’s vision is not one where it is subject to the egos of charismatic leaders, including Satoshi Nakamoto.  People who harp on the fact that Satoshi has not made a provably authenticated statement is clearly missing the whole point of this message.  If he were to do so, rest assured the whole of the community will rally with him, but that is exactly what he doesn’t want to happen, a whole community blindly following authority!  Consistently so, the author points out that if it takes a benevolent dictator to pull us out of this mess “deux ex machina” then Bitcoin, as a project in decentralized money resistant to authority, has failed.  That tautological statement, is provably true if you can wrap your head around it.  Therefore, if Satoshi wants it to succeed, he won’t use his ‘God card’ and settle disputes.  If Bitcoin continually needs Satoshi to keep us from going astray, then Bitcoin isn’t worth saving.   Considering that Satoshi has likely the most coins at risk than anyone else, and him coming forward to break the impasse would likely save us (and the value of his own coins) it is truly commendable that he has not done so.  The fact that he hasn’t tells me that he (where ever he or she is) is truly acting in an altruistic manner.  He is more willing to let Bitcoin die, than to let it continue on as a system that does not value consensus as its first and foremost priority.

Some people argue that Szabo is likely to be Satoshi.  I never paid a lot of attention to these kinds of conjectures or cared a lot about them, but this text is the strongest bit of evidence I've seen yet that the it might be true.



Not at all. Not even his writing style.

Um.. guys.. he didn't write this! he tweeted this article, which means he agrees with it.

This is what "satoshi" wrote.



No signatures = fake

He has never publicly signed anything.. so you will never EVER see a signed msg from him! why can't people get that though their head?

Because at this point anybody can create a fake acount an clam to be Satoshi. No proof = no credibility.

AgentofCoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 1001



View Profile
August 21, 2015, 04:54:24 AM
 #31

He has never publicly signed anything.. so you will never EVER see a signed msg from him! why can't people get that though their head?
What about this? This says its Satoshi Nakamoto's PGP Key.
https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/commit/19e0c74df2162d4510db5df9e50d5ac53b38c498

I support a decentralized & unregulatable ledger first, with safe scaling over time.
Request a signed message if you are associating with anyone claiming to be me.
Bitcoininspace
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 250


View Profile
August 21, 2015, 04:55:43 AM
 #32

It's like Szabo doesn't have any clue on how XT is being implemented. Which I think is very weird.

I'm not sure if you actually read the whole thing.


Quote
The attack goes as follows: If blocks were allowed to be ‘too big’ (big enough to add plausible delays to propagate to all nodes) then a miner would be incentivized to stuff the block they are mining full of txns that pay himself (or a cohort), up to the allowable block limit.

I mean come on.

tl;dr Szabo is afraid of the free market having a choice. Well guess what, it happens now and will happen countless of time in the future.

Is this the next trick to hunt the price down so rich hands can buy cheaper bitcoins?
slaveforanunnak1 (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 743
Merit: 502



View Profile
August 21, 2015, 04:56:02 AM
 #33

He has never publicly signed anything.. so you will never EVER see a signed msg from him! why can't people get that though their head?
What about this? This says its Satoshi Nakamoto's PGP Key.
https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/commit/19e0c74df2162d4510db5df9e50d5ac53b38c498

oh wow.. this is new to me
AgentofCoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 1001



View Profile
August 21, 2015, 05:01:06 AM
 #34

He has never publicly signed anything.. so you will never EVER see a signed msg from him! why can't people get that though their head?
What about this? This says its Satoshi Nakamoto's PGP Key.
https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/commit/19e0c74df2162d4510db5df9e50d5ac53b38c498
oh wow.. this is new to me
Yeah, it comes from the bitcoin.org Github, so it seems somewhat creditable.
I don't actually know where it originally came from though.
Maybe from an early Bitcoin release, like v 0.1.0, or something.

I support a decentralized & unregulatable ledger first, with safe scaling over time.
Request a signed message if you are associating with anyone claiming to be me.
AgentofCoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 1001



View Profile
August 21, 2015, 05:07:23 AM
 #35

One of many examples of how this guy doesn't know what he's talking about. There is research on this for damn sure, he just didn't educate himself on it, so he tells the public that there is no research. This is the problem with media in general, presuming things that aren't true which causes a butterfly effect of misinformation and idiocracy.

Quote
So unlimited block limit is clearly bad, and 20Mb is generally agreed upon as pretty risky (up to 8sec propagation delays).  What’s wrong with just 8Mb?  Frankly, it’s probably ok.  Probably.  The problem is that nobody knows.  Because nobody has finished researching the issue to a satisfactory level yet.

I don't really want to get involved in what you are saying, but...
He actually said there is research, but it hasn't been finished to a satisfactory level yet.
In theory, no one really knows what will or will not happen.
The Core Devs are requesting more time for more tests.
At-least that is what i remember reading somewhere.

I support a decentralized & unregulatable ledger first, with safe scaling over time.
Request a signed message if you are associating with anyone claiming to be me.
coinableS
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442
Merit: 1179



View Profile WWW
August 21, 2015, 05:19:57 AM
 #36

No signatures = fake

What a cop out response.
The email address it was sent from is the same email used when Satoshi first wrote about bitcoin.

So instead of speculation, we can look at these facts:

1) It is Satoshi's email address
2) Either Satoshi wrote this email or a someone that gained access to his account did
3) A signed PGP message would have proven it was Satoshi
4) An unsigned PGP message doesn't prove OR DISPROVE that it was Satoshi

XT is not the only solution to larger blocks. Core could support larger blocks as well once there is a consensus and an actual need to increase the block size. Blocks aren't filing up yet, except during the 'stress tests'. A fork will be required either way to support larger blocks but the way this fork is being done with XT, I cannot get behind.

slaveforanunnak1 (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 743
Merit: 502



View Profile
August 21, 2015, 05:21:18 AM
 #37

No signatures = fake

What a cop out response.
The email address it was sent from is the same email used when Satoshi first wrote about bitcoin.

So instead of speculation, we can look at these facts:

1) It is Satoshi's email address
2) Either Satoshi wrote this email or a someone that gained access to his account did
3) A signed PGP message would have proven it was Satoshi
4) An unsigned PGP message doesn't prove OR DISPROVE that it was Satoshi

XT is not the only solution to larger blocks. Core could support larger blocks as well once there is a consensus and an actual need to increase the block size. Blocks aren't filing up yet, except during the 'stress tests'. A fork will be required either way to support larger blocks but the way this fork is being done with XT, I cannot get behind.

Please bring any new info about the down sides of XT to /r/noxt
Possum577
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 250

Loose lips sink sigs!


View Profile WWW
August 21, 2015, 05:26:18 AM
 #38

It's like Szabo doesn't have any clue on how XT is being implemented. Which I think is very weird.

I'm not sure if you actually read the whole thing.


Quote
The attack goes as follows: If blocks were allowed to be ‘too big’ (big enough to add plausible delays to propagate to all nodes) then a miner would be incentivized to stuff the block they are mining full of txns that pay himself (or a cohort), up to the allowable block limit.

I mean come on.

tl;dr Szabo is afraid of the free market having a choice. Well guess what, it happens now and will happen countless of time in the future.

Presumably the free market will choose XT or Core, but did the free market have an opportunity to choose this XT over another XT, an alternative alternative? No.

Crestington
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 882
Merit: 1024



View Profile
August 21, 2015, 05:36:29 AM
 #39

Interesting, I wonder what Crypto would be like without Bitcoin?
Dire
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10

Crypto-Games.net: DICE and SLOT


View Profile
August 21, 2015, 05:37:10 AM
 #40

Did he even mention how transaction fees increase when a backlog happens?

Yes.

And more besides.

See paragraph four, titled 'The block limit debate in a Nutshell'

http://wallstreettechnologist.com/2015/08/19/bitcoin-xt-vs-core-blocksize-limit-the-schism-that-divides-us-all/
No it doesn't talk about it at all, in fact it uses almost no logic or data. Current transactions are way less than 7, but thats his reasoning why we need bigger blocks. It's irrelevant and unsubstantiated.


Erm. Turtle, I don't know if we are reading the same article, but the author of that article can generally be seen to be not in favor of XT (hence referring to an XT block as a 'Judas' block) and also not necessarily in favor of any block increase as he points out that at this stage it isn't needed, apart from when the stress test was implemented, and for scaling which he also points out can easily be brought out as a soft patch/fork.

Isn't that your stance also?

You appear to be against points which are your stated points elsewhere.
slaveforanunnak1 (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 743
Merit: 502



View Profile
August 21, 2015, 05:37:35 AM
 #41

Interesting, I wonder what Crypto would be like without Bitcoin?

ethereum ??!?!
johnyj
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988
Merit: 1007


Beyond Imagination


View Profile
August 21, 2015, 05:43:28 AM
 #42

It's like Szabo doesn't have any clue on how XT is being implemented. Which I think is very weird.

I'm not sure if you actually read the whole thing.


Quote
The attack goes as follows: If blocks were allowed to be ‘too big’ (big enough to add plausible delays to propagate to all nodes) then a miner would be incentivized to stuff the block they are mining full of txns that pay himself (or a cohort), up to the allowable block limit.

I mean come on.

tl;dr Szabo is afraid of the free market having a choice. Well guess what, it happens now and will happen countless of time in the future.

I have lived in different continents and I have never seen anything that is close to free market idealism. The market is either controlled by the government like in eastern or by banks in western. If you know what is "Market Maker" from large banks then you know market is typically made by a specific institution, and that institution usually have total control over what market can do, they could even shutdown the market in case of emergency

Take bitcoin for example, can free market decide what code goes into bitcoin protocol? Not as I know. Any code must be approved by core devs before they can be commited into GIT, otherwise they will just become an alt-coin. Someone must design and maintain the game rules so that others can play the game, but if someone is challenging the game rule maker, then it becomes politics

johnyj
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988
Merit: 1007


Beyond Imagination


View Profile
August 21, 2015, 05:59:30 AM
 #43

This article basically echo the Jeff Garzik's view

Unfortunately it is still too complex for majority of users to understand. At this level of complexity, any kind of explanation from one side will be claimed as biased by the opponents

Maybe that's the reason that war never ends in human's history. Human is just incapable of keep peace and work towards the same goal. Or to say, they will eventually develop a conflict of interest in the end, and start to fight against each other

Kprawn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1073


View Profile
August 21, 2015, 06:03:44 AM
 #44

This is the crux of the matter to me --> " If such a system existed (like VISA), it would no longer be immune to government coercion or control.  The opponents of XT will argue that it is inevitable, and nay, necessary that sub-domains riding on top of the Bitcoin network be setup to handle local payments between local parties, thus keeping the required number of txns on the main net of Bitcoin manageable.  A current project under development, Lightning Network, is exactly one such solution."

Mike developed the Lightning Network, and he needs XT to succeed to support his project. This will give governments more control and it seems as if this is no problem to them. They want their projects to succeed at the

possible expense to the bitcoin network. {Possible 51% attacks / Spam etc..} How can people support XT if it goes against all common sense?

Give Wladimir and his team some time to experiment with bigger block sizes and scale when we know it's not a risk to the network or if the need force it to increase.  Huh  

THE FIRST DECENTRALIZED & PLAYER-OWNED CASINO
.EARNBET..EARN BITCOIN: DIVIDENDS
FOR-LIFETIME & MUCH MORE.
. BET WITH: BTCETHEOSLTCBCHWAXXRPBNB
.JOIN US: GITLABTWITTERTELEGRAM
AGD
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2069
Merit: 1164


Keeper of the Private Key


View Profile
August 21, 2015, 06:15:03 AM
 #45

Quote
If it seems like the limit is getting hit persistently, and confirmation times are becoming a problem, an emergency limit increase is something that the core devs can patch very simply and quickly.  They can execute such an emergency block size “QE” if you will, at a moments notice.  They have demonstratively done this kind of deployment before, during the one previous hard fork, and with the F2Pool bug.  So what is the rush?

That's my question: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1154636.0

Bitcoin is not a bubble, it's the pin!
+++ GPG Public key FFBD756C24B54962E6A772EA1C680D74DB714D40 +++ http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x1C680D74DB714D40
gmaxwell
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4158
Merit: 8343



View Profile WWW
August 21, 2015, 06:18:00 AM
 #46

Do we want it to handle all world daily transactions,
or do we want protection from current monetary systems and government involvement?
If we achieve the second, we can have both.  But if we only achieve the first, we likely cannot have the second (and wouldn't find it to be a substantial improvement over the fiat systems we have now, even if).

The reason for this is that if Bitcoin is secure and trustworthy, trustless decenteralized micropayment facilities can be built on top of it and extend Bitcoin's transaction security with arbritary speed or scale.  But if the system is fragle and underminable by attackers (government or otherwise) then it won't be robust enough to underpin these things.

(and things like micropayment channels were't my invention, they were recommended by the system's creator-- thats part of why Bitcoin has smart contracts to begin with.)
gmaxwell
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4158
Merit: 8343



View Profile WWW
August 21, 2015, 06:20:10 AM
 #47

Quote
If it seems like the limit is getting hit persistently, and confirmation times are becoming a problem, an emergency limit increase is something that the core devs can patch very simply and quickly.  They can execute such an emergency block size “QE” if you will, at a moments notice.  They have demonstratively done this kind of deployment before, during the one previous hard fork, and with the F2Pool bug.  So what is the rush?
That's my question: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1154636.0
This is correct, and it was a point I made previously and was pretty agressively attacked for being "against planning" (though what I suggest is precisely the opposite: having a planned contingency that you use when you have a strong consensus that its the right choice is good planning)-- clearly people promoting this stuff with the massive uncertanty created by XT and the irritation of "stress tests" can't honestly be concerned with there being a bit of turbulance.
gmaxwell
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4158
Merit: 8343



View Profile WWW
August 21, 2015, 06:22:11 AM
 #48

ethereum ??!?!
Even that slopply designed mess of bugs has effective blocksize and resource usage controls. Try something more like "Liquidcoin" if you want to see what a system looks like with no thought given to the incentives and stability of the system.
monsanto
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1241
Merit: 1005


..like bright metal on a sullen ground.


View Profile
August 21, 2015, 07:05:39 AM
 #49

I have seen some interesting treads somewhere. Comparing Satoshi emails and white paper to the writing styles of other big names in the community's writing styles. I would be interested to see if the newest email matched simmarly to some of his older stuff.

Doublespace after periods. Check.
British spelling.. check!

but those things can be faked of course.

Initially I had dismissed the email out-of-hand as being from an imposter. But now we have Szabo, the clear frontrunner in the Satoshi sweepstakes, tweeting an article which conspicuously proposes the email should be taken as genuine

The plot thickens! Why tweet this article? The most notable thing about it is its take on the Satoshi email. I am now reconsidering the emails legitimacy. And upon reading the email again, I can't help but wonder what the implications of the following could be:

"...I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project."

If someone is sitting on the world's largest stash of bitcoins because they believe in the project, but they then decide it's a failure, what incentive would they have to keep holding said bitcoins? Maybe he is trying to warn us...... of the Big Cashout™.
Crestington
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 882
Merit: 1024



View Profile
August 21, 2015, 07:19:57 AM
 #50

Bitcoin XT will and won't be a failed project. I admire the boldness of putting in the fork and to have people to fight it because it is motion and has stirred debate like nothing before.

Aguing will end up spurring innovation either way so let the Blocksize war begin!

YarkoL
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 996
Merit: 1010


View Profile
August 21, 2015, 07:35:17 AM
 #51

Even though biased, that was an excellent article, best one
that I've read yet on the subject.

Couple of things spring to mind:

1) The author rightly points out that the fact that both Core and
XT share the same network will lead to a real messy situation.

That being so, would it make sense for Core to make a pre-emptive
strike by releasing a fork that switches to use another IP port
as soon as supermajority of nodes have adopted the release? How
would that affect XT?

2) The author rightly points out that the real issue is about philosophy
of "vision" of what Bitcoin is meant to be. To caricature a bit, will it be
some nice, safe Disney-friendly means of payment (XT) or the angry
testosterone-laden cypherpunk hell we here have gotten used to?

It would seem that there is actually demand for both. Which means
that even if Gavin's and Mike's project were thwarted, big players like
Paypal or Google might very well start building something very similar,
because there is a business opportunity here.

The end result being that we would have a semi-centralized payment
network for "ordinary folks" and a plethora of more anonymous alt
chains for those of geekish bent. Something for everyone.
Only the myopic fixation on One True Coin prevents people realizing that
this is the most likely outcome for crypto in the long run.








“God does not play dice"
gmaxwell
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4158
Merit: 8343



View Profile WWW
August 21, 2015, 07:44:04 AM
 #52

That being so, would it make sense for Core to make a pre-emptive
strike by releasing a fork that switches to use another IP port
Someone would just bridge it. Switching proof of work algorithims might be much more effective and would have a potentially beneficial effect of resetting the currently highly centeralized mining climate... if one really did want to go the total war route. I don't currently believe it will be an issue.

Quote
The end result being that we would have a semi-centralized payment
network for "ordinary folks" and a plethora of more anonymous alt
Freedom that is only availble to people who dedicate their lives to it isn't really freedom. To be free you have to be free to do as you will, not forced to be nothing but a freedom fighter.

With few exceptions there has seldom in history been a kind of freedom that wasn't available to those few who really worked to achieve it at any cost. What fighting for peoples rights is fundimentally about is fighting for rights to be reconized by default or at least at a reasonable cost to people-- so that they are pratically available rather than merely theoretically available.

Quote
Only the myopic fixation on One True Coin prevents people realizing that
this is the most likely outcome for crypto in the long run.
Money gains its value from network effect. For a pure money, like Bitcoin, virtually all its value comes from network effect. Money is probably the worlds greatest natural monopoly. Oh just have seperate things is not a cheap and easy choice.
YarkoL
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 996
Merit: 1010


View Profile
August 21, 2015, 08:01:17 AM
 #53

Money gains its value from network effect. For a pure money, like Bitcoin, virtually all its value comes from network effect. Money is probably the worlds greatest natural monopoly. Oh just have seperate things is not a cheap and easy choice.

This boils down to whether one views Bitcoin as
currency or a commodity.

I believe there are good social and historical
reasons for believing that the former is untrue,
therefore it is a commodity with specific use
and this generalizes to all cryptocoins.

If you opt for the currency view, then of course there
can only be One.

Time will tell....

“God does not play dice"
jubalix
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2618
Merit: 1022


View Profile WWW
August 21, 2015, 09:28:05 AM
 #54

Do we want it to handle all world daily transactions,
or do we want protection from current monetary systems and government involvement?
If we achieve the second, we can have both.  But if we only achieve the first, we likely cannot have the second (and wouldn't find it to be a substantial improvement over the fiat systems we have now, even if).

The reason for this is that if Bitcoin is secure and trustworthy, trustless decenteralized micropayment facilities can be built on top of it and extend Bitcoin's transaction security with arbritary speed or scale.  But if the system is fragle and underminable by attackers (government or otherwise) then it won't be robust enough to underpin these things.

(and things like micropayment channels were't my invention, they were recommended by the system's creator-- thats part of why Bitcoin has smart contracts to begin with.)

whats interesting is Peercoin Achieves the second, now by design.

It heads of the whole Block size issue by going for the backbone, which is now becoming the problem for BTC as it tries to be 1 and 2, without being 2 first.

It seems that something like peercoin will take the lions share of large value transactions and BTC is falling into the middle of not being doge Ie doge can handle a high TPS at sacrifice of security [but who cares when your buying an ice cream and dont get hit up huge credit card fees], and not being good as a backbone.

Dont get me wrong I am a hardened BTC supporter, its just the boundary conditions do not support backbone currecy as well as Peercoin and so a debated like this rages.

I have being saying this for some time now, and it has come to fruition.

Admitted Practicing Lawyer::BTC/Crypto Specialist. B.Engineering/B.Laws

https://www.binance.com/?ref=10062065
Elwar
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3598
Merit: 2384


Viva Ut Vivas


View Profile WWW
August 21, 2015, 10:17:31 AM
 #55

I am even more convinced now that Szabo is Satoshi.

And I find it interesting that he sort of called Gavin Judas.

First seastead company actually selling sea homes: Ocean Builders https://ocean.builders  Of course we accept bitcoin.
gmaxwell
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4158
Merit: 8343



View Profile WWW
August 21, 2015, 10:32:13 AM
 #56

whats interesting is Peercoin Achieves the second, now by design.
By, by design, requring the blockchain to be periodically signed by a trusted authority... you have a weird notion of resistance to state attacks.
Dire
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10

Crypto-Games.net: DICE and SLOT


View Profile
August 21, 2015, 10:38:24 AM
 #57

I am even more convinced now that Szabo is Satoshi.

And I find it interesting that he sort of called Gavin Judas.

And by that rationale, he is therefore Jesus.

I don't know. It is interesting the way the article writer framed the Core/XT issue as a good Vs evil thing.

Personally I would have gone Skywalker Core block Vs the Darth Vader block, just to sex it up a bit. Everybody likes Star Wars.
YarkoL
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 996
Merit: 1010


View Profile
August 21, 2015, 10:39:54 AM
 #58


And I find it interesting that he sort of called Gavin Judas.

Nick Szabo did not write that article. He just
approved it by retweeting the link.

The author is Jerry David Chan, former employee of
JP Morgan & Goldman Sachs, now founder-president
of startup called Bittoku.

http://en.gravatar.com/digitsu99


“God does not play dice"
Elwar
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3598
Merit: 2384


Viva Ut Vivas


View Profile WWW
August 21, 2015, 10:41:50 AM
 #59


And I find it interesting that he sort of called Gavin Judas.

Nick Szabo did not write that article. He just
approved it by tweeting the link.

The author is Jerry David Chan, former employee of
JP Morgan & Goldman Sachs, now founder-president
of startup called Bittoku.

http://en.gravatar.com/digitsu99

Yes, I finally realized that. I still think Szabo is likely Satoshi.

First seastead company actually selling sea homes: Ocean Builders https://ocean.builders  Of course we accept bitcoin.
Mickeyb
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798
Merit: 1000

Move On !!!!!!


View Profile
August 21, 2015, 10:58:00 AM
 #60

Good artical! Read threw it, don't skip to the end.

This part made me sad because It's true (to me) and apparently to szabo

Quote
So with all these scary uncertainties, you may ask why hasn’t Satoshi come out to speak on the behalf of one side or the other in order to settle the dispute?  Indeed it would be akin to him coming out to act as a 3rd party mediator, such as when a parent comes in to break up a fight among siblings.  There has in fact been a post by someone claiming to be Satoshi, from a valid known Satoshi email address, claiming pretty much that the XT fork is unnecessarily dangerous, see here: Satoshi? Despite the many allegations that if this was really Satoshi, he would have signed his message with a known PGP key or perhaps moved some of his coins to prove that it was him, he has not done so.  I for one do not believe that he would.  If you read the message, (ignoring for a second who it is from) he is saying that Bitcoin’s vision is not one where it is subject to the egos of charismatic leaders, including Satoshi Nakamoto.  People who harp on the fact that Satoshi has not made a provably authenticated statement is clearly missing the whole point of this message.  If he were to do so, rest assured the whole of the community will rally with him, but that is exactly what he doesn’t want to happen, a whole community blindly following authority!  Consistently so, the author points out that if it takes a benevolent dictator to pull us out of this mess “deux ex machina” then Bitcoin, as a project in decentralized money resistant to authority, has failed.  That tautological statement, is provably true if you can wrap your head around it.  Therefore, if Satoshi wants it to succeed, he won’t use his ‘God card’ and settle disputes.  If Bitcoin continually needs Satoshi to keep us from going astray, then Bitcoin isn’t worth saving.   Considering that Satoshi has likely the most coins at risk than anyone else, and him coming forward to break the impasse would likely save us (and the value of his own coins) it is truly commendable that he has not done so.  The fact that he hasn’t tells me that he (where ever he or she is) is truly acting in an altruistic manner.  He is more willing to let Bitcoin die, than to let it continue on as a system that does not value consensus as its first and foremost priority.

Yes, definitely the best part of the whole article. Satoshi coming back and settling the dispute would be the worst thing for Bitcoin in the long run. This would go against all that Satoshi has imagined Bitcoin to be. And that is a self-sustained system not dependent on any person, government, etc..

This definitely shows hom much Satoshi cares about Bitcoin, when he even doesn't care about his coins for the good of the whole ecosystem.

So to conclude, if Bitcoin can't win this battle that means that it doesn't need to exist. If it doesn't win this battle, sure as hell it won't win any bigger battle in the future.
johnyj
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988
Merit: 1007


Beyond Imagination


View Profile
August 21, 2015, 12:57:50 PM
 #61

Everybody likes Star Wars.

The whole generation grows up in fighting culture  Cheesy

That's why we had XT in the first place: We have been heavily influenced by the war 70 years ago and we accept that war is a way to reach a solution. In fact, vote is another form of war, achieving the same result: Winner rules the loser. The Gavin designed that voting mechanism in his XT code, this indicated that he have this "war mindset"

Besides war, is there any other way that we can reach solution without fighting? I believe, if people are enough informative and be aware of the destructive nature of the war, they will avoid it at all costs

If there are two countries each having enough nuclear weapon to wipe out the earth several times, they will never start a war, simply because they understand that every action that trigger a war is just suicide

XT's voting is similar to such suicide, in the case of a fork without over 90% consensus, each side has enough coins to dump and wipe out the value of the other chain


luv2drnkbr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 793
Merit: 1016



View Profile
August 21, 2015, 01:02:14 PM
 #62

This is basically it right here:

Quote
[XT Supporters] believe that Bitcoin should be able to handle all the transactions on planet earth, from everyone’s daily coffee purchase, to everyone’s house purchase, to how Google cars should be paid for their services.  On the other hand, you have those who believe Bitcoin’s core value is the fact that it is a hedge against fiat currencies, and by extension, governments (in the case they decide to infringe upon your liberties).  Bitcoin CANNOT be both. It’s just not possible.

The above is the real argument, everything else is FUD and just craziness.

Exactly.  That's the ONLY argument ever presented by anti-big blocks folk.  (These are the same folks who claim Bitcoin mining is getting more centralized, which reality also contradicts.)  They extrapolate that big blocks increases centralization because it makes it more prohibitive to mine.  And thus if Bitcoin scales to the point where it can handle all the world's transactions, it will be too centralized.

Unfortunately for them, there's no fucking evidence to support that.  Bitcoin can easily be both.  It's like these people just straight up ignore Moore's Law and the history of technological growth.  It's quite baffling.

The rest of the arguments they make are economic ones which look good on paper but are starkly and obviously contradicted by reality and data.  But the math seems to work on paper and they're so blindly sure they've accounted for all the variables (which reality tells us they haven't) that they just don't see what's right in front of them.

I'm honestly disappointed with how fucking stupid so many smart people can be.  It's like they forgot basic economics 101:  if nobody can use the currently, then nobody will use it; and if nobody uses it, merchants won't use it; and if users and merchants don't use it, miner's can't sell it, which means the tokens they mine aren't worth anything which means they stop mining, which breaks the whole system.  They're actually helping *destroy* Bitcoin in the name of saving it, and they're all too stupid to see it.  It's frustrating as fuck.

Not only CAN bitcoin be both a secure store of value and a transactions system for everybody, it MUST BE BOTH in order for it to be one or the other.

The only reason metals are a store of value is because we expect others to believe they are too.  Their physical scarcity partly implies that.  But with Bitcoin, when anybody can just go make an altcoin, that scarcity only comes from the network effect of USAGE, which incentivizes miners to protect the blockchain.

Bitcoin MUST be a transactional medium in order to be a store of value safe from government meddling.  It CANNOT be one without the other.

How the fuck is that not patently fucking obvious?

Kazimir
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001



View Profile
August 21, 2015, 01:03:32 PM
 #63

No signatures = fake
How about focusing on the content, rather than the author? (Just like with Bitcoin itself)

Regardless if it was actually Satoshi or someone else who wrote this, I'd say (s)he makes a very good point.


In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.
Insert coin(s): 1KazimirL9MNcnFnoosGrEkmMsbYLxPPob
AGD
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2069
Merit: 1164


Keeper of the Private Key


View Profile
August 21, 2015, 01:42:16 PM
 #64

No signatures = fake
How about focusing on the content, rather than the author? (Just like with Bitcoin itself)

Regardless if it was actually Satoshi or someone else who wrote this, I'd say (s)he makes a very good point.



The Author himself seemed to care about making his statement look important by writing it in the name and email of Satoshi Nakamoto. If the content was such a good point, why he needs to do that? Wouldn't the content speak for itself?

Bitcoin is not a bubble, it's the pin!
+++ GPG Public key FFBD756C24B54962E6A772EA1C680D74DB714D40 +++ http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x1C680D74DB714D40
Dire
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10

Crypto-Games.net: DICE and SLOT


View Profile
August 21, 2015, 04:43:11 PM
 #65

Everybody likes Star Wars.

The whole generation grows up in fighting culture  Cheesy

That's why we had XT in the first place: We have been heavily influenced by the war 70 years ago and we accept that war is a way to reach a solution. In fact, vote is another form of war, achieving the same result: Winner rules the loser. The Gavin designed that voting mechanism in his XT code, this indicated that he have this "war mindset"

Besides war, is there any other way that we can reach solution without fighting? I believe, if people are enough informative and be aware of the destructive nature of the war, they will avoid it at all costs

If there are two countries each having enough nuclear weapon to wipe out the earth several times, they will never start a war, simply because they understand that every action that trigger a war is just suicide

XT's voting is similar to such suicide, in the case of a fork without over 90% consensus, each side has enough coins to dump and wipe out the value of the other chain



I think there's a lot to be said for the inherent weakness in us binary humans and our thought processes and emotions. No accident our computer systems so far are binary which mirror our leanings and view of reality. Too much win/lose yes/no black/white. I think there will be a paradigm shift in consciousness when quantum computing comes into force.

Polarization has been the order of the day. I'm pretty sure we like the drama.
slaveforanunnak1 (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 743
Merit: 502



View Profile
August 21, 2015, 04:50:53 PM
 #66

It's like Szabo doesn't have any clue on how XT is being implemented. Which I think is very weird.

I'm not sure if you actually read the whole thing.


Quote
The attack goes as follows: If blocks were allowed to be ‘too big’ (big enough to add plausible delays to propagate to all nodes) then a miner would be incentivized to stuff the block they are mining full of txns that pay himself (or a cohort), up to the allowable block limit.

I mean come on.

tl;dr Szabo is afraid of the free market having a choice. Well guess what, it happens now and will happen countless of time in the future.
Looks like the theory that Szabo is satoshi is no longer holding water then, Satoshi seemed much more for market having its choice.

Don't read tl;dr. Read the actual article. You will make a more informed decision
Sentinelrv
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 647
Merit: 318



View Profile
August 21, 2015, 05:09:05 PM
 #67

whats interesting is Peercoin Achieves the second, now by design.
By, by design, requring the blockchain to be periodically signed by a trusted authority... you have a weird notion of resistance to state attacks.


This won't be the case forever. As many Peercoiners know, checkpoints are similar to training wheels. They are an added protection when the network is young. Once minting participation increases and the network strengthens, centralized checkpoints will be removed by Sunny King and Peercoin will be able to exist without them.

The Nu Network, which is one of our Peercoin forks has already removed centralized checkpoints due to its higher participation of minting by shareholders. The participation is higher because of the requirement of shareholders to place votes when minting, which are needed in order to successfully run the network and change the supply of NuBits. Nu has run without checkpointing for almost a year now with no problems and Peercoin will eventually reach this state. It's just a matter of time.
coinableS
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442
Merit: 1179



View Profile WWW
August 22, 2015, 12:08:23 AM
 #68

No signatures = fake
How about focusing on the content, rather than the author? (Just like with Bitcoin itself)

Regardless if it was actually Satoshi or someone else who wrote this, I'd say (s)he makes a very good point.



I think too many people get stuck into the mentality that XT = bigger blocks and bigger blocks = institutional investor adoption and intitutational investor adoption = moon.  XT IS NOT THE ONLY WAY TO INCREASE THE BLOCKSIZE! It can be done with core, with consensus if it were needed, but it's not needed right now. Yes it would still require a fork, but why Gavin wants to rush to push through a hostile fork, I do not know.

jubalix
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2618
Merit: 1022


View Profile WWW
August 22, 2015, 03:38:37 AM
 #69

whats interesting is Peercoin Achieves the second, now by design.
By, by design, requring the blockchain to be periodically signed by a trusted authority... you have a weird notion of resistance to state attacks.


This as pointed out by others Is due to the cold minting development that is going on and again a product of the boundary conditions of peercoin, which include a relatively much longer wind up period then other coins because its pointed directly at backbone and large value itself.

As pointed out by others NuBits has removed this and its ok. With PeerCoin it is done to protect it until features such as cold minting are in place.

Bitcoin has of course similar features to cost to include so called spam, but the boundary conditions are not nearly so prohibitive on spam behavior as Peercoin nor as encourageing to transfer large amounts nor to allow people to join in without large set up costs so resists centralization.

Much like the boundary conditions in the Navier Stokes Equation can see quite different outcomes, so to do the boundary conditions in a Coin. This coupled with the POS, SK and others as Devs, the length of time PeerCoin has been going, its interesting now to see BTC essentailly having to face up to the fact its needs to be able to be a backbone currency first to be largely relevant.

The problem is most BTC'rs cannot see this.

All they can see is "Muh Amazon", Ebay etc etc, and the reality is the money nor value simply is not in retail, its a minor part of the economy and value transfer proposition.

So BTC is wedged between wanting TPS and needing Backbone and the discussion by those who understand such as yourself, interestingly identify that it is the Backbone component that grounds relevance, which is a class of argument that PeerCoin has be propounding since day 1 and by design.

I think the Checkpointing argument is orthogonal to what I am saying in this matter.

Admitted Practicing Lawyer::BTC/Crypto Specialist. B.Engineering/B.Laws

https://www.binance.com/?ref=10062065
Sentinelrv
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 647
Merit: 318



View Profile
August 22, 2015, 05:21:49 AM
 #70

Just in case anyone is not clear on what Jubalix is saying here, Sunny King coined the term "backbone currency" in an interview on October 24th, 2013 where he laid out his vision for Peercoin and explained why he designed it the way he did. Here is the main quote...

https://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=2218.0

Quote from: Sunny King
"Both PPC and XPM are designed to last. PPC is designed with energy efficiency, XPM is designed with energy multiuse. Bitcoin has a long term uncertainty as to whether transaction fees can sustain good enough level of security. Before that the main concern is how to balance transaction volume and transaction fee levels. Currently I get the feeling that bitcoin developers favor very low transaction fees and very high transaction volume, to be competitive against centralized systems (paypal, visa, mastercard etc) in terms of transaction volume, to the point of sacrificing decentralization. This also brings major uncertainties to bitcoin's future.

From my point of view, I think the cryptocurrency movement needs at least one 'backbone' currency, or more, that maintains high degree of decentralization, maintains high level of security, but not necessarily providing high volume of transactions. Thinking of savings accounts and gold coins, you don't transact them at high velocity but they form the backbone of the monetary systems.

Pure proof-of-work systems such as bitcoin is not 100% suitable for this task. This is because transaction fee is not a reliable incentive to sustain network security. If the mining generation amount is kept constant (there have been several such attempts in altcoins) it would work better security-wise but then it would also significantly weaken the scarcity property of the currency. XPM's inflation model is designed in such a way that it could serve as backbone currency better than bitcoin if needed, because it could maintain high security reliably for longer, with reasonably good scarcity property as well. Of course that's only from architect's point of view, whether or not it would be chosen by the market is a whole different matter.

PPC is designed to serve even better as a backbone currency. The proof-of-stake technology in PPC is not only energy efficient; it also maintains high level of security without relying on transaction fee. Thus PPC could be safely designed with strong scarcity property yet serving well as backbone currency. Both PPC and XPM use protocol enforced transaction fees, which reflects my preference that high transaction volume is discouraged in favor of serving as backbone currencies.

Right now if we are talking about micropayments in the US$1 range, both PPC and XPM still handle them with much lower overhead than credit card network. In the long term micropayments should be provided by centralized providers, or a less decentralized network optimized for high capacity transaction processing.

On the other hand there is no promise that minimum transaction fee wouldn't be adjusted. If processing capacity of personal computers continues to advance at the current pace, both max block size and minimum transaction fee could very well be adjusted at some point. However I do take a very cautious approach to adjusting transaction fees, as opposed to bitcoin devs. The impact to the fitness of the currency as a backbone currency is of great concerns to me."

Therefore, Peercoin is designed first and foremost as a secure store of value which prioritizes decentralization over speed and transaction volume. This is the definition of a backbone currency. Further, Sunny said in the quote that large volume and high-speed microtransactions can be achieved by using off-chain networks, which could range anywhere from centralized solutions to semi-decentralized to trustless. This allows Peercoin to remain a highly decentralized network and store of value while the majority of transactions take place off-chain. Peercoin just turned 3 years old and its blockchain is only around 400 MB. This is a result of Sunny King's very specific design. The Peercoin community has been promoting these ideas for a long time now. It seems that certain people are only now starting to realize the importance of them.
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2156
Merit: 1070


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
August 30, 2015, 04:22:37 AM
 #71

Szabo is afraid of the free market

^^^ Pure.  Comedy.  Gold. ^^^

When the XT fad is completely over (which is very soon), I'll miss you Gavinista assclowns and your surreal sense of absurdist humor.


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

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?
knight22
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000


--------------->¿?


View Profile
August 30, 2015, 04:33:25 AM
 #72

Szabo is afraid of the free market

^^^ Pure.  Comedy.  Gold. ^^^

When the XT fad is completely over (which is very soon), I'll miss you Gavinista assclowns and your surreal sense of absurdist humor.

No matter the outcome, Xt opened a pandora's box. It is just the beginning, get used to that.
You should also stop shitting your pants. Bitcoin will do just fine nonetheless.

iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2156
Merit: 1070


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
August 30, 2015, 04:46:28 AM
 #73

Szabo is afraid of the free market

^^^ Pure.  Comedy.  Gold. ^^^

When the XT fad is completely over (which is very soon), I'll miss you Gavinista assclowns and your surreal sense of absurdist humor.

No matter the outcome, Xt opened a pandora's box. It is just the beginning, get used to that.
You should also stop shitting your pants. Bitcoin will do just fine nonetheless.

My pants are fine, and XT is going nowhere fast.

XT has done nothing but expose hearn@sigint.google.mil and gavin@tla.mit.gov as incompetent charlatans who can't even successfully carry out a social engineering attack on a tiny FOSS project (despite the advantage of much-vaunted Chief Scientist/Main Dev credentials handed down from Satoshi Himself).

Now, please tell us more about how "Szabo is afraid of the free market."   Grin Grin Grin Grin


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

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?
knight22
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000


--------------->¿?


View Profile
August 30, 2015, 04:57:56 AM
 #74

Szabo is afraid of the free market

^^^ Pure.  Comedy.  Gold. ^^^

When the XT fad is completely over (which is very soon), I'll miss you Gavinista assclowns and your surreal sense of absurdist humor.

No matter the outcome, Xt opened a pandora's box. It is just the beginning, get used to that.
You should also stop shitting your pants. Bitcoin will do just fine nonetheless.

My pants are fine, and XT is going nowhere fast.

XT has done nothing but expose hearn@sigint.google.mil and gavin@tla.mit.gov as incompetent charlatans who can't even successfully carry out a social engineering attack on a tiny FOSS project (despite the advantage of much-vaunted Chief Scientist/Main Dev credentials handed down from Satoshi Himself).

Now, please tell us more about how "Szabo is afraid of the free market."   Grin Grin Grin Grin

He's obviously afraid of free choice, just like you. Otherwise both of you won't be losing your time debating this. Not that you are really debating, it's much more like screaming and throwing poo everywhere.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [All]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!