Bitcoin Forum
May 21, 2019, 08:07:57 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: What year will we achieve a new ATH?
2019 - 26 (28.3%)
2020 - 39 (42.4%)
2021 - 22 (23.9%)
2022 - 3 (3.3%)
2023 - 0 (0%)
Never - 2 (2.2%)
Total Voters: 92

Pages: « 1 ... 19681 19682 19683 19684 19685 19686 19687 19688 19689 19690 19691 19692 19693 19694 19695 19696 19697 19698 19699 19700 19701 19702 19703 19704 19705 19706 19707 19708 19709 19710 19711 19712 19713 19714 19715 19716 19717 19718 19719 19720 19721 19722 19723 19724 19725 19726 19727 19728 19729 19730 [19731] 19732 19733 19734 19735 19736 19737 19738 19739 19740 19741 19742 19743 19744 19745 19746 19747 19748 19749 19750 19751 19752 19753 19754 19755 19756 19757 19758 19759 19760 19761 19762 19763 19764 19765 19766 19767 19768 19769 19770 19771 19772 19773 19774 19775 19776 19777 19778 19779 19780 19781 ... 23905 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion  (Read 21170403 times)
This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic. (23 posts by 12 users deleted.)
itod
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456
Merit: 1017


^ Will code for Bitcoins


View Profile
February 25, 2018, 02:07:24 PM

My opinion is that preparing for a soft PoW change would be a good thing. Keywords: preparing and soft.

A monopoly on mining is an evil thing. It keeps decentralization from really taking place. However, changing PoW drastically without a grace period would only alienate the "good" miners - probably ruin them, and piss them off enough to turn them (rightfully) bad.

One way could be to have a PoW that alternates between a few different hash functions - some of which hard to implement on ASICs, probably because of insane RAM requirements although there are alternatives. The alternance should be based on past history; the percentage of SHA-256 blocks could be dynamic, so "good" miners are incentivized to keep their percentage high by maintaining good demeanor. Or there could be a multiple PoW in each block, so that both a SHA-256 proof and some other proof(s) are necessary for validation. Each PoW function should maintain a different difficulty scale, and the difficulties could be combined into some overall metric. Such a system would be highly tweakable, and adapt dynamically.

(EDIT - about "softness". The initial conditions could be 100% ASIC-based, 0% others, as it is now. Then in times of mempool storms, or fork FUD, or whatever, the "others" might be gently pushed up until the situation gets back to normal.)

Any working solution should be designed with game theory in mind, not only the obvious complexity theory. A long check on testnet would be necessary, to figure out at least the complexity part, if not the game theory part.

(Inb4 - Bitcoin is a scam designed to centralize because no digital money can ever blah blah the Joos blah blah gold and silver.)

There can not be soft fork PoW change, it's the hardest of all hard forks. As much as most of us hate Bitmain, PoW change can not be justified because someone has market dominance and is in position to attack the blockchain.

There are PoW algos that are ASIC resistant (Cuckoo Cycle), but this is not a technical question at all.

Keep in mind that no one would more encourage such a change than Jihan Wu. If such thing happen, he will have a ground to a claim BCash is the real Bitcoin, and he knows that claim is false in current situation. I'm afraid he may even really attack Bitcoin just to make some more incentive for PoW change.

IMHO the only thing that can justify PoW change is Quantum computing attack on SHA2, and Cuckoo Cycle is Quantum resistant btw. Doing it now is jumping in the abyss just for the sake of change.
1558426077
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558426077

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558426077
Reply with quote  #2

1558426077
Report to moderator
1558426077
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558426077

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558426077
Reply with quote  #2

1558426077
Report to moderator
1558426077
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558426077

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558426077
Reply with quote  #2

1558426077
Report to moderator
New Generation Antminer S17 Mining Plan Available Now! Highly Reduced Electricity Fee $0.067/T/DAY! Register To Experience
Free Mining Plan!
GET STARTED!
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1558426077
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558426077

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558426077
Reply with quote  #2

1558426077
Report to moderator
1558426077
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558426077

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558426077
Reply with quote  #2

1558426077
Report to moderator
1558426077
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558426077

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558426077
Reply with quote  #2

1558426077
Report to moderator
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1918
Merit: 1175



View Profile
February 25, 2018, 02:09:33 PM

Also fuck quantum clowns. We would be using them to mine if they were ever to become more than a nerdish fantasy.

(your quantum waifu does not love you)
mindrust
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428
Merit: 1373



View Profile
February 25, 2018, 02:11:29 PM
Merited by Biodom (1), d_eddie (1)


IMHO the only thing that can justify PoW change is Quantum computing attack on SHA2, and Cuckoo Cycle is Quantum resistant btw. Doing it now is jumping in the abyss just for the sake of change.

Core devs can come out and say "We upgrading the btc protocol to keep it safe against Quantum computers so a PoW change is necessary".

Bitmain will have no ground against this.  Grin
itod
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456
Merit: 1017


^ Will code for Bitcoins


View Profile
February 25, 2018, 02:14:47 PM

Also fuck quantum clowns. We would be using them to mine if they were ever to become more than a nerdish fantasy.

You can not do it mate, if Quantum breaks SHA256 it will be useless. It's not an option. I don't believe it's realistic, but big boys are pouring a lot of money into it and you never know what the results will be.
d_eddie
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 571



View Profile
February 25, 2018, 02:16:55 PM

People who can't compete always want to change the rules of the game.
Especially if the game is about keeping open competition.

Quote
I don't care if there is only one shovel maker. Good for them for being successful at what they do.
I do care, if they can charge whatever they want for their shovels, to the point of suppressing shoveling when they don't want it to happen.

Monopoly is never good, except for the monopolist. Don't jbreher yourself into a corner.
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1918
Merit: 1175



View Profile
February 25, 2018, 02:17:21 PM

Also fuck quantum clowns. We would be using them to mine if they were ever to become more than a nerdish fantasy.

You can not do it mate, if Quantum breaks SHA256 it will be useless. It's not an option. I don't believe it's realistic, but big boys are pouring a lot of money into it and you never know what the results will be.
Like I said NERDISH FANTASY. Show a functional product. I read plenty of sci-fi as it is, don't need more of it here.
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1918
Merit: 1175



View Profile
February 25, 2018, 02:18:43 PM

People who can't compete always want to change the rules of the game.
Especially if the game is about keeping open competition.

Quote
I don't care if there is only one shovel maker. Good for them for being successful at what they do.
I do care, if they can charge whatever they want for their shovels, to the point of suppressing shoveling when they don't want it to happen.

Monopoly is never good, except for the monopolist. Don't jbreher yourself into a corner.
If they raised prices a hundredfold from here, and it was still profitable to buy their stuff, then that's fair game.

The market can bear whatever it can bear. Let's not turn into pretend-communists.

And why would you compare me to yogi? That makes no sense.
d_eddie
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 571



View Profile
February 25, 2018, 02:20:35 PM

I'd posted my reply about PoW change before reading the posts by Icygreen, flipperish, flynn and others.

I, too, would like the full nodes to have a say in the relative distribution of hash functions, but full nodes are too easy to sybyl attack. PoS vote is also dangerous, because established miners have huge availability they could employ to crush GPU- or CPU- friendly functions. That's why we will eventually need to figure out more game theory to have a stable solution.
Could you elaborate on the bold part?

PoS - Those who can prove ownership of coin get more votes.

Short: An established miner has (or can quickly have) lots of coin lying around, so he can steer the voting result more easily than a few hodlers with the same total stake (read: stash).

Longer: Giving each satoshi the same voting weight is a hard problem, possibly unsolvable. What is needed is a hypothetical system of incentives that makes GPU- and CPU- miner owned satoshis as heavy as ASIC-miner owned ones. Is such a system practical to implement? Does it ever exist? I doubt it. That's why PoS is dangerous.

Proof of Stake has coin age to consider, any participant has to first be fully upto date and part of a network for some time in order to then be part of the staking process which even then is randomised not on demand.    Theres only some average rate at which a large holder will stake not that they can force participation.   POS is dangerous if the majority of a crypto currency is liquid on an exchange perhaps, its unlikely to be especially cheap to undermine in this way
That's a good point that I haven't considered fully. Guess I need to read up a bit more.

Quote
I do imagine Proof of stake is going to be part of Ethereum this year as they move to make their transactions cheaper, faster and more efficient.   Vitalik Buterin seems quite focused on avoiding the problems bitcoin transactions had with mining fees and POS is the most viable route ?
Buterin would do better to first make sure transactions are irreversible.
d_eddie
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 571



View Profile
February 25, 2018, 02:27:15 PM

(snip)

(EDIT - about "softness". The initial conditions could be 100% ASIC-based, 0% others, as it is now. Then in times of mempool storms, or fork FUD, or whatever, the "others" might be gently pushed up until the situation gets back to normal.)

There can not be soft fork PoW change, it's the hardest of all hard forks.
But but... initial 0%? It's as soft as can be. As long as it doesn't budge from 0%, it's still good ol'bitcoin.

Quote
Keep in mind that no one would more encourage such a change than Jihan Wu. If such thing happen, he will have a ground to a claim BCash is the real Bitcoin, and he knows that claim is false in current situation. I'm afraid he may even really attack Bitcoin just to make some more incentive for PoW change.
I haven't considered this. It seems a bit far fetched, but not totally out of this world.

Quote
IMHO the only thing that can justify PoW change is Quantum computing attack on SHA2, and Cuckoo Cycle is Quantum resistant btw. Doing it now is jumping in the abyss just for the sake of change.
Yes, a quantum computing breakout (unlikely for several years to come) would destroy Bitcoin as we know it. Having the necessary machinery for PoW in place could be a safety exit. Just insert Cuckoo Cycle into an "other hashing algos" slot.
d_eddie
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 571



View Profile
February 25, 2018, 02:33:24 PM
Last edit: February 25, 2018, 03:50:00 PM by d_eddie

People who can't compete always want to change the rules of the game.
Especially if the game is about keeping open competition.

Quote
I don't care if there is only one shovel maker. Good for them for being successful at what they do.
I do care, if they can charge whatever they want for their shovels, to the point of suppressing shoveling when they don't want it to happen.

Monopoly is never good, except for the monopolist. Don't jbreher yourself into a corner.
If they raised prices a hundredfold from here, and it was still profitable to buy their stuff, then that's fair game.

The market can bear whatever it can bear. Let's not turn into pretend-communists.
You don't need to be a communist to expect markets to be as efficient as they can be. In fact, market efficiency is not a primary concern in communist utopy. For capitalists, however, monopolies and oligopolies are the primary source of market inefficiency.

Quote
And why would you compare me to yogi? That makes no sense.
Nothing personal, and probably not too accurate. All right, I apologise. The point is, although you come from very different places, you can end up arriving at the same point. Big blocks, miner power and progressive irrelevance of the network of users (as in "full nodes").
d_eddie
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 571



View Profile
February 25, 2018, 02:35:58 PM


IMHO the only thing that can justify PoW change is Quantum computing attack on SHA2, and Cuckoo Cycle is Quantum resistant btw. Doing it now is jumping in the abyss just for the sake of change.

Core devs can come out and say "We upgrading the btc protocol to keep it safe against Quantum computers so a PoW change is necessary".

Bitmain will have no ground against this.  Grin
Just merited you - even with that fuckface avatar  Wink
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1918
Merit: 1175



View Profile
February 25, 2018, 02:38:00 PM
Merited by mindrust (1)

People who can't compete always want to change the rules of the game.
Especially if the game is about keeping open competition.

Quote
I don't care if there is only one shovel maker. Good for them for being successful at what they do.
I do care, if they can charge whatever they want for their shovels, to the point of suppressing shoveling when they don't want it to happen.

Monopoly is never good, except for the monopolist. Don't jbreher yourself into a corner.
If they raised prices a hundredfold from here, and it was still profitable to buy their stuff, then that's fair game.

The market can bear whatever it can bear. Let's not turn into pretend-communists.
You don't need to be a communist to expect markets to be as efficient as they can be. In fact, market efficiency is not a primary concern in communist utopy. For capitlaists, however, Monopolies and oligopolies are the primary source of market inefficiency.

Quote
And why would you compare me to yogi? That makes no sense.
Nothing personal, and probably not too accurate. All right, I apologise. The point is, although you come from very different places, you can end up arriving at the same point. Big blocks, miner power and progressive irrelevance of the network of users (as in "full nodes").

Adam Smith was right. Stop trying to control things and everything works out. So there is only one shovel maker? That means their products are functional and their prices are reasonable. The moment either of those stop being the case, someone else will overtake them.

Green is an ugly color.

As for yogi. If bcash was objectively better than bitcoin then I would be supporting it. I go with what works, not what I would like to work. It's not, so that's the end of that.
d_eddie
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 571



View Profile
February 25, 2018, 02:42:17 PM

Adam Smith was right. Stop trying to control things and everything works out. So there is only one shovel maker? That means their products are functional and their prices are reasonable. The moment either of those stop being the case, someone else will overtake them.

The invisible hand only works if there are no hidden hand-choppers, like unnaturally high entry barriers to the business or vast discrepancies in the price of energy.
xhomerx10
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2016
Merit: 2124


Godspeed Elwar and Nadia.


View Profile
February 25, 2018, 02:42:57 PM

I think it's an English mistake. I read it as "less and less people own homes". Which is true.

 I wondered about that but the post seemed well-written otherwise.
Thanks.
mindrust
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428
Merit: 1373



View Profile
February 25, 2018, 02:44:57 PM

Andreas has an opinion on this %51 attack debate also.
https://twitter.com/Xentagz/status/967432856745193473

I am convinced.
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1918
Merit: 1175



View Profile
February 25, 2018, 02:52:29 PM

Adam Smith was right. Stop trying to control things and everything works out. So there is only one shovel maker? That means their products are functional and their prices are reasonable. The moment either of those stop being the case, someone else will overtake them.

The invisible hand only works if there are no hidden hand-choppers, like unnaturally high entry barriers to the business or vast discrepancies in the price of energy.
Alright, point them out.
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1918
Merit: 1175



View Profile
February 25, 2018, 02:58:08 PM

Andreas has an opinion on this %51 attack debate also.
https://twitter.com/Xentagz/status/967432856745193473

I am convinced.
Governments that can do IT. Heehee.
d_eddie
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 571



View Profile
February 25, 2018, 03:04:34 PM
Merited by jojo69 (1)

Adam Smith was right. Stop trying to control things and everything works out. So there is only one shovel maker? That means their products are functional and their prices are reasonable. The moment either of those stop being the case, someone else will overtake them.

The invisible hand only works if there are no hidden hand-choppers, like unnaturally high entry barriers to the business or vast discrepancies in the price of energy.
Alright, point them out.
I'll point out just one: delayed access to leading edge mining hardware. A jus primae noctis of sorts, imposed by the lord to the commoners.
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1918
Merit: 1175



View Profile
February 25, 2018, 03:10:05 PM

Adam Smith was right. Stop trying to control things and everything works out. So there is only one shovel maker? That means their products are functional and their prices are reasonable. The moment either of those stop being the case, someone else will overtake them.

The invisible hand only works if there are no hidden hand-choppers, like unnaturally high entry barriers to the business or vast discrepancies in the price of energy.
Alright, point them out.
I'll point out just one: delayed access to leading edge mining hardware. A jus primae noctis of sorts, imposed by the lord to the commoners.
You're saying nobody else can make something on par? Why not?
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1918
Merit: 1175



View Profile
February 25, 2018, 03:10:36 PM
Merited by BobLawblaw (1), flynn (1), micgoossens (1)

I can see 8000 where I will purchase another $100k Of BTC. What is your plans?
My plan is to ignore you.
Pages: « 1 ... 19681 19682 19683 19684 19685 19686 19687 19688 19689 19690 19691 19692 19693 19694 19695 19696 19697 19698 19699 19700 19701 19702 19703 19704 19705 19706 19707 19708 19709 19710 19711 19712 19713 19714 19715 19716 19717 19718 19719 19720 19721 19722 19723 19724 19725 19726 19727 19728 19729 19730 [19731] 19732 19733 19734 19735 19736 19737 19738 19739 19740 19741 19742 19743 19744 19745 19746 19747 19748 19749 19750 19751 19752 19753 19754 19755 19756 19757 19758 19759 19760 19761 19762 19763 19764 19765 19766 19767 19768 19769 19770 19771 19772 19773 19774 19775 19776 19777 19778 19779 19780 19781 ... 23905 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!