Bitcoin Forum
May 26, 2019, 04:49:49 PM *
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 - 43 (28.7%)
2020 - 59 (39.3%)
2021 - 34 (22.7%)
2022 - 8 (5.3%)
2023 - 1 (0.7%)
Never - 5 (3.3%)
Total Voters: 150

Pages: « 1 ... 20669 20670 20671 20672 20673 20674 20675 20676 20677 20678 20679 20680 20681 20682 20683 20684 20685 20686 20687 20688 20689 20690 20691 20692 20693 20694 20695 20696 20697 20698 20699 20700 20701 20702 20703 20704 20705 20706 20707 20708 20709 20710 20711 20712 20713 20714 20715 20716 20717 20718 [20719] 20720 20721 20722 20723 20724 20725 20726 20727 20728 20729 20730 20731 20732 20733 20734 20735 20736 20737 20738 20739 20740 20741 20742 20743 20744 20745 20746 20747 20748 20749 20750 20751 20752 20753 20754 20755 20756 20757 20758 20759 20760 20761 20762 20763 20764 20765 20766 20767 20768 20769 ... 23966 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion  (Read 21181037 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. (24 posts by 13 users deleted.)
cAPSLOCK
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2198
Merit: 1332


UNLEASH THE FURY!


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 05:55:52 PM

If you haven't seen this before it's worth a watch.

Andreas explains why Big Blocks are not going to work. (watch time: 5-6mins, Petabyte Blocks & Streaming Money)

https://youtu.be/AecPrwqjbGw?t=11m39s
Segwit in its current form can't handle hundreds of millions of users either. That was never what it was about. We needed a step up, a year earlier than we got it, and we had a few options to do so. For the current leg, and I repeat myself yet again, why was segwit better than simply doubling the blocksize? Nobody seems willing to explain that bit, for whatever reason.

Because Segwit is an upgrade that enables many new technolgies, L2 & L3. Technologies that will enable millions of TX's per second.

We don't need an incremental step in the wrong direction, as perfectly illustrated by Andreas, big blocks can never fullfill the Bitcoin dream, because PetaByte blocks are effectively impossible.

I guess if you think doing the wrong thing as a temporary fix, and incurring the associated Technical debt is OK. There is little I can do to defend segwit, but in my mind and the minds of many other developers, it's not acceptable, so Big Blocks are not an option at all.
If bigger blocks are a bad idea then why are you not advocating for a blocksize decrease? Why do we have Precisely the Correct Blocksize as things now stand? Also I'll need to see some convincing numbers for the millions claim.

Most people who see LN and other Layer 2+ solutions as being the way forward for scaling also realize bigger blocks are an eventual necessity.  But I would want to be conservative.  Since shit expands to fill the space available we should see how we can do with efficiency BEFORE we add resources.  
People keep saying that and I call bullshit on it. Why would people start making more transactions just because the network has more capacity? It makes no sense at all.

If you don't see it, you don't see it.  But it is the tragedy of the commons.  Since BTC is permissionless ANYONE can write data to the blockchain.  Therefore they will use the resources available for profit to the extent they can.  The more is given the more will be used.  Some will have commercial (selfish) incentive to do so.

For example anyone building sidechains (think Counterparty) that anchor to the main chain will have to pay fees for everything they write.  These type of projects will chew through resources as fast as they are added.  It's the way of the world.  We don't see it yet because BTC is still in Pre-k.

The base layer has to stay VERY comfortably within Moore's law.

In my opinion we want to be able to run full nodes on cellphones (eventually) and raspberry pi type hardware.  

This means we will just need to be uncomfortably conservative at least at the start.

Block size increases are not the answer to the TSUNAMI of traffic that is on the way.

Like I said... If you don't see it, you don't see it.
1558889389
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558889389

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558889389
Reply with quote  #2

1558889389
Report to moderator
1558889389
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558889389

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558889389
Reply with quote  #2

1558889389
Report to moderator
PLAY OVER 3000 GAMES
LIGHTNING FAST WITHDRAWALS
PLAY NOW
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1558889389
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558889389

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558889389
Reply with quote  #2

1558889389
Report to moderator
mymenace
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596
Merit: 1061


Smile


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 05:56:12 PM

I've been reading anonymint's writings for the past week or so, which also prompted me to dive into some other rabbit holes.

I'm more convinced now of the dangers of segwit. Don't mistake that for being a promotion of bcash.

Give us thickos some bullet points then.

I think it would be possible for BitDNS to be a completely separate network and separate block chain, yet share CPU power with Bitcoin.  The only overlap is to make it so miners can search for proof-of-work for both networks simultaneously.

The networks wouldn't need any coordination.  Miners would subscribe to both networks in parallel.  They would scan SHA such that if they get a hit, they potentially solve both at once.  A solution may be for just one of the networks if one network has a lower difficulty.

I think an external miner could call getwork on both programs and combine the work.  Maybe call Bitcoin, get work from it, hand it to BitDNS getwork to combine into a combined work.

Instead of fragmentation, networks share and augment each other's total CPU power.  This would solve the problem that if there are multiple networks, they are a danger to each other if the available CPU power gangs up on one.  Instead, all networks in the world would share combined CPU power, increasing the total strength.  It would make it easier for small networks to get started by tapping into a ready base of miners.



This is satoshis "Last Vision"


He worked really hard on this before fleeing

sidechain

sidechain

sidechain
Raja_MBZ
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Activity: 1218
Merit: 843


Be safe, Elwar & Nadia!


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 05:57:23 PM

Binance Set to Launch Its First Crypto-Fiat Exchange in Uganda

https://cointelegraph.com/news/exclusive-binance-set-to-launch-its-first-crypto-fiat-exchange-in-uganda

An interesting statement by CZ:

“Uganda [is a] really interesting situation, only 11 percent of the population has bank accounts. It’s both a challenge and an opportunity. So it may be easier to adopt cryptocurrency as a form of currency instead of trying to push for bank adoption. It’s an interesting experiment - Africa’s a big market, that’s why we’re there.”
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1918
Merit: 1175



View Profile
June 28, 2018, 06:03:22 PM

If you haven't seen this before it's worth a watch.

Andreas explains why Big Blocks are not going to work. (watch time: 5-6mins, Petabyte Blocks & Streaming Money)

https://youtu.be/AecPrwqjbGw?t=11m39s
Segwit in its current form can't handle hundreds of millions of users either. That was never what it was about. We needed a step up, a year earlier than we got it, and we had a few options to do so. For the current leg, and I repeat myself yet again, why was segwit better than simply doubling the blocksize? Nobody seems willing to explain that bit, for whatever reason.

Because Segwit is an upgrade that enables many new technolgies, L2 & L3. Technologies that will enable millions of TX's per second.

We don't need an incremental step in the wrong direction, as perfectly illustrated by Andreas, big blocks can never fullfill the Bitcoin dream, because PetaByte blocks are effectively impossible.

I guess if you think doing the wrong thing as a temporary fix, and incurring the associated Technical debt is OK. There is little I can do to defend segwit, but in my mind and the minds of many other developers, it's not acceptable, so Big Blocks are not an option at all.
If bigger blocks are a bad idea then why are you not advocating for a blocksize decrease? Why do we have Precisely the Correct Blocksize as things now stand? Also I'll need to see some convincing numbers for the millions claim.

Most people who see LN and other Layer 2+ solutions as being the way forward for scaling also realize bigger blocks are an eventual necessity.  But I would want to be conservative.  Since shit expands to fill the space available we should see how we can do with efficiency BEFORE we add resources.  
People keep saying that and I call bullshit on it. Why would people start making more transactions just because the network has more capacity? It makes no sense at all.

If you don't see it, you don't see it.  But it is the tragedy of the commons.  Since BTC is permissionless ANYONE can write data to the blockchain.  Therefore they will use the resources available for profit to the extent they can.  The more is given the more will be used.  Some will have commercial (selfish) incentive to do so.

For example anyone building sidechains (think Counterparty) that anchor to the main chain will have to pay fees for everything they write.  These type of projects will chew through resources as fast as they are added.  It's the way of the world.  We don't see it yet because BTC is still in Pre-k.

The base layer has to stay VERY comfortably within Moore's law.

In my opinion we want to be able to run full nodes on cellphones (eventually) and raspberry pi type hardware.  

This means we will just need to be uncomfortably conservative at least at the start.

Block size increases are not the answer to the TSUNAMI of traffic that is on the way.

Like I said... If you don't see it, you don't see it.
No, it is not the tragedy of the commons. That is about eating your seed crop. It's not even an analogy to what we are talking about here.

Explain it. With numbers if you can, that would be best given what we are dealing with. Nobody cares about fifteen cent fees so it's not that, people are doing the transactions they want to be doing for their own purposes. What else is there? What makes you believe this is a real thing? And if it is why aren't we still sitting at $20 fees? What is missing from your story?
bitserve
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 732


HODL.


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 06:06:16 PM
Merited by JayJuanGee (1)

I've been reading anonymint's writings for the past week or so, which also prompted me to dive into some other rabbit holes.

I'm more convinced now of the dangers of segwit. Don't mistake that for being a promotion of bcash.

Could you be more verbose about that? What are those dangers?

P.S.: But not as much verbose as a thousands words dissertation. Just a simple explanation of your own thinking about the subject.
mymenace
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596
Merit: 1061


Smile


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 06:13:27 PM

I've been reading anonymint's writings for the past week or so, which also prompted me to dive into some other rabbit holes.

I'm more convinced now of the dangers of segwit. Don't mistake that for being a promotion of bcash.

Could you be more verbose about that? What are those dangers?

P.S.: But not as much verbose as a thousands words dissertation. Just a simple explanation of your own thinking about the subject.



it goes against the very idea, that is all

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=423.msg3819#msg3819

I believe it'll be possible for a payment processing company to provide as a service the rapid distribution of transactions with good-enough checking in something like 10 seconds or less.

The network nodes only accept the first version of a transaction they receive to incorporate into the block they're trying to generate.  When you broadcast a transaction, if someone else broadcasts a double-spend at the same time, it's a race to propagate to the most nodes first.  If one has a slight head start, it'll geometrically spread through the network faster and get most of the nodes.

A rough back-of-the-envelope example:
1         0
4         1
16        4
64        16
80%      20%

So if a double-spend has to wait even a second, it has a huge disadvantage.

The payment processor has connections with many nodes.  When it gets a transaction, it blasts it out, and at the same time monitors the network for double-spends.  If it receives a double-spend on any of its many listening nodes, then it alerts that the transaction is bad.  A double-spent transaction wouldn't get very far without one of the listeners hearing it.  The double-spender would have to wait until the listening phase is over, but by then, the payment processor's broadcast has reached most nodes, or is so far ahead in propagating that the double-spender has no hope of grabbing a significant percentage of the remaining nodes.



cAPSLOCK
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2198
Merit: 1332


UNLEASH THE FURY!


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 06:15:33 PM


No, it is not the tragedy of the commons. That is about eating your seed crop.

Your seed crop (corn, you mean really) is a centralized private resource.  It is guarded by the farmer.  There is no common use outside of his *centralized* family.  The blockchain is more like the office refrigerator.  It is a public shared resource.  Tragedy of the commons is an absolutely applicable concept.

As to doing a bunch of math for you, sorry no.  I don't need to prove it to you.  And at that I assume we are at an impasse.

Time will tell which of us is right.

I'd say we should have a decent idea by 6/28/2028

BobLawblaw
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288
Merit: 1916


BitcoinTalk's Most Fabulously Gay Black Power-Top


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 06:20:20 PM

Even if so: LN is by design centralized.

Get the fuck out of here, guy. You're bloating the forums database with your inane prattling.
bitserve
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 732


HODL.


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 06:20:35 PM

I've been reading anonymint's writings for the past week or so, which also prompted me to dive into some other rabbit holes.

I'm more convinced now of the dangers of segwit. Don't mistake that for being a promotion of bcash.

Could you be more verbose about that? What are those dangers?

P.S.: But not as much verbose as a thousands words dissertation. Just a simple explanation of your own thinking about the subject.



it goes against the very idea, that is all

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=423.msg3819#msg3819

I believe it'll be possible for a payment processing company to provide as a service the rapid distribution of transactions with good-enough checking in something like 10 seconds or less.

The network nodes only accept the first version of a transaction they receive to incorporate into the block they're trying to generate.  When you broadcast a transaction, if someone else broadcasts a double-spend at the same time, it's a race to propagate to the most nodes first.  If one has a slight head start, it'll geometrically spread through the network faster and get most of the nodes.

A rough back-of-the-envelope example:
1         0
4         1
16        4
64        16
80%      20%

So if a double-spend has to wait even a second, it has a huge disadvantage.

The payment processor has connections with many nodes.  When it gets a transaction, it blasts it out, and at the same time monitors the network for double-spends.  If it receives a double-spend on any of its many listening nodes, then it alerts that the transaction is bad.  A double-spent transaction wouldn't get very far without one of the listeners hearing it.  The double-spender would have to wait until the listening phase is over, but by then, the payment processor's broadcast has reached most nodes, or is so far ahead in propagating that the double-spender has no hope of grabbing a significant percentage of the remaining nodes.





I don't follow you.... How do Segwit impairs detecting/blocking double spendings?
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1918
Merit: 1175



View Profile
June 28, 2018, 06:21:32 PM


No, it is not the tragedy of the commons. That is about eating your seed crop.

Your seed crop (corn, you mean really) is a centralized private resource.  It is guarded by the farmer.  There is no common use outside of his *centralized* family.  The blockchain is more like the office refrigerator.  It is a public shared resource.  Tragedy of the commons is an absolutely applicable concept.

As to doing a bunch of math for you, sorry no.  I don't need to prove it to you.  And at that I assume we are at an impasse.

Time will tell which of us is right.

I'd say we should have a decent idea by 6/28/2028
The typical example is a shared field of grass for multiple households. Anyway this is a waste of time, read up on it. And then spend some time thinking about it, that's actually the most important part.

There is no shame in saying "I don't know", by the way. I keep hoping to be able to type those words with every post here. But nobody will give me a chance.
BobLawblaw
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288
Merit: 1916


BitcoinTalk's Most Fabulously Gay Black Power-Top


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 06:23:11 PM
Merited by cAPSLOCK (1)

For the current leg, and I repeat myself yet again, why was segwit better than simply doubling the blocksize? Nobody seems willing to explain that bit, for whatever reason.
Answer why doubling the block size is even needed at this point in time. With actual logic and facts to back your argument.

JFC I'm glad I ignored that idiot.

* BobLawblaw grumbles something about the the additional space in SegWit being compressed data, and thus, more efficient than "simply doubling the blocksize"
infofront
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666
Merit: 1686


Shitcoin Minimalist


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 06:30:37 PM
Last edit: June 28, 2018, 08:49:57 PM by infofront
Merited by Ibian (10), vapourminer (1), HI-TEC99 (1), bitebits (1), acquafredda (1)

I've been reading anonymint's writings for the past week or so, which also prompted me to dive into some other rabbit holes.

I'm more convinced now of the dangers of segwit. Don't mistake that for being a promotion of bcash.

Give us thickos some bullet points then.

I'll give it a shot.

- Non-segwit transactions require 51% of the hashpower and a private key to steal. Segwit transactions just require 51% of the hashpower.
- This decreases the security of segwit transactions. However, we assume that it will be in the best interest of the miners to not steal Segwit coins. If one of the miners were to take all the segwit coins, we assume most other miners wouldn't recognize the theft, and the thieved coins would be on a forked chain that would soon die.

The previous part is basically non-controversial. The rest is speculation and conjecture. Anonymint and some others, such as Mircea Popescu, are of the opinion that it's almost an inevitability the segwit coins will be stolen. Here is their reasoning, as I see it:

- Miners did not want the segwit soft fork. They went along with it just to prevent the UASF
- Bcash was essentially "plan a" to keep most transactions on the main bitcoin layer, so they can protect their fees.
- If bcash doesn't succeed (hint: it won't), plan B is a future fork that will remove segwit. In this case, miners will take all the segwit coins.
 - Plan B seems unlikely, but:
 - As more and more Bitcoins pile into segwit addresses, there is an ever-increasing incentive for miners to steal these.
 - Technically it wouldn't even be theft, as segwit transactions are "anyone can spend". You don't need a private key, as mentioned earlier.
 - Even though the majority of users would be pissed, the super wealthy would support the non-segwit chain. To them, securing their wealth is the single most important thing, and the non-segwit chain offers higher security.
 - Mining is centralized, and even if it becomes more decentralized due to new ASIC manufacturers, etc. miners will operate as a cartel. At the end of the day, they all want to make as much money as possible.
 - As we head toward the future, mining rewards taper down to almost nothing. Miners need to increasingly rely on transaction fees. It would be in the best interest of miners to maximize these fees. Segwit cuts into these fees.
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1918
Merit: 1175



View Profile
June 28, 2018, 06:36:39 PM

I've been reading anonymint's writings for the past week or so, which also prompted me to dive into some other rabbit holes.

I'm more convinced now of the dangers of segwit. Don't mistake that for being a promotion of bcash.

Give us thickos some bullet points then.

I'll give it a shot.

- Non-segwit transactions require 51% of the hashpower and a private key to steal. Segwit transactions just require 51% of the hashpower.
- This decreases the security of segwit transactions. However, we assume that it will be in the best interest of the miners to not steal Segwit coins. If one of the miners were to take all the segwit coins, we assume most other miner's wouldn't recognize the theft, and the thieved coins would be on a forked chain that would soon die.

The previous part is basically non-controversial. The rest is speculation and conjecture. Anonymint and some others, such as Mircea Popescu, are of the opinion that it's almost an inevitability the segwit coins will be stolen. Here is the reasoning, as I see it:

- Miners did not want the segwit soft fork. They went along with it just to prevent the UASF
- Bcash was essentially "plan a" to keep most transactions on the main bitcoin layer, so they can protect their fees.
- If bcash doesn't succeed (hint: it won't), plan B is a future fork that will remove segwit. In this case, miners will take all the coins.
 - Plan B seems unlikely, but:
 - As more and more Bitcoins pile into segwit addresses, there is an ever-increasing incentive for miners to steal these.
 - Technically it wouldn't even be theft, as segwit transactions are "anyone can spend". You don't need a private key, as mentioned earlier.
 - Even though the majority of users would be pissed, the super wealthy would support the non-segwit chain. To them, securing their wealth is the single most important thing, and the non-segwit chain offers higher security.
 - Mining is centralized, and even if it becomes more decentralized due to new ASIC manufacturers, etc. miners will operate as a cartel. At the end of the day, they all want to make as much money as possible.
 - As we head toward the future, mining rewards taper down to almost nothing. Miners need to increasingly rely on transaction fees. It would be in the best interest of miners to maximize these fees. Segwit cuts into these fees.
Welp. We know how high level money and power works. When it's financially worthwhile to do so, someone will get together the required processing power and buy off the proper authorities and make an honest attempt to steal segwit coins. Whether it succeeds or fails, it will be a big blow to the faith people have in the system (bitcoin in all its forms, authorities, moneyed people (us, even if simply by association)).

Just the first line in your post sold it for me. What in the actual fuck.
gentlemand
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2016
Merit: 1699


Baby Blue Panties


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 06:46:27 PM

I'll give it a shot.

Thank you.

Mr. Mint and that other one seem like flat out nutters to me though. I'd like to hear the thoughts of others but of course it's seemingly impossible to get impartial thoughts on this.

I find the idea of the super rich raping Segwit and relaxing in Bitcoin Original watching it burn laughable myself. Everyone and everything would be swatted in a tsunami of shit.

It does look like extra risk that certainly most could do without taking, but the incentive not to raze everything to the ground is still as strong as ever. If it's that gaping I'm surprised there's that much faith in the incentives alone though.



kalehon
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 252
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 06:48:42 PM
Merited by jbreher (1)

New ethereum logo:

mindrust
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442
Merit: 1380



View Profile
June 28, 2018, 06:52:10 PM
Merited by BobLawblaw (1)

I've been reading anonymint's writings for the past week or so, which also prompted me to dive into some other rabbit holes.

I'm more convinced now of the dangers of segwit. Don't mistake that for being a promotion of bcash.

Give us thickos some bullet points then.

I'll give it a shot.

- Non-segwit transactions require 51% of the hashpower and a private key to steal. Segwit transactions just require 51% of the hashpower.
- This decreases the security of segwit transactions. However, we assume that it will be in the best interest of the miners to not steal Segwit coins. If one of the miners were to take all the segwit coins, we assume most other miner's wouldn't recognize the theft, and the thieved coins would be on a forked chain that would soon die.

The previous part is basically non-controversial. The rest is speculation and conjecture. Anonymint and some others, such as Mircea Popescu, are of the opinion that it's almost an inevitability the segwit coins will be stolen. Here is their reasoning, as I see it:

- Miners did not want the segwit soft fork. They went along with it just to prevent the UASF
- Bcash was essentially "plan a" to keep most transactions on the main bitcoin layer, so they can protect their fees.
- If bcash doesn't succeed (hint: it won't), plan B is a future fork that will remove segwit. In this case, miners will take all the coins.
 - Plan B seems unlikely, but:
 - As more and more Bitcoins pile into segwit addresses, there is an ever-increasing incentive for miners to steal these.
 - Technically it wouldn't even be theft, as segwit transactions are "anyone can spend". You don't need a private key, as mentioned earlier.
 - Even though the majority of users would be pissed, the super wealthy would support the non-segwit chain. To them, securing their wealth is the single most important thing, and the non-segwit chain offers higher security.
 - Mining is centralized, and even if it becomes more decentralized due to new ASIC manufacturers, etc. miners will operate as a cartel. At the end of the day, they all want to make as much money as possible.
 - As we head toward the future, mining rewards taper down to almost nothing. Miners need to increasingly rely on transaction fees. It would be in the best interest of miners to maximize these fees. Segwit cuts into these fees.

Pretty much this.

I wonder If any of these people will be able to make a public appearance after a coup like this.



See this photo?

Do you think any of these 3 are bold enough to trigger a world war and strong enough to survive through it? Are they brave enough to spend the rest of their lives in an underground bunker with the fears of getting killed at any second?

All I see here is 3 *aggots.
infofront
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666
Merit: 1686


Shitcoin Minimalist


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 06:52:36 PM

This is not a way to steal coins, this is a way to destroy Bitcoin. After the attack there is no value left, so nothing to steal.

Therefore the attack is only important to someone who wants to destroy Bitcoin, and a 51% attack will destroy Bitcoin with or without Segwit. Therefore Segwit is not an additional risk.

Some counter argument would be that:
- Bitcoin is necessary, inevitable, and has shown immense resilience to all attacks (is indestructible).
- The miners and wealthy elites know what's coming (or what may come), so they're storing their coins in legacy addresses. So, only the plebs like us will be screwed, and no one will give a shit. Look at the 2008 financial crisis. Millions of ordinary people lost their homes. The banks got bailouts and the executives still got their 8-figure bonuses. This seems to happen over and over throughout history.
- Another bitcoin civil war would just be a tiny blip in the history of bitcoin.

Elwar
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2800
Merit: 1383


Viva Ut Vivas


View Profile WWW
June 28, 2018, 06:55:32 PM
Merited by mindrust (1)

All I know is bcash is down to .11 BCH/BTC. I was only selling my bcash at .2 BCH/BTC but may need to re-think that as I doubt it will ever come back and continue to wither away.

I'm all for people pumping it to get me more BTC but the more time passes, the less likely some alt coin is going to magically become Bitcoin.

With the amount of progress being made with Lightning Network I doubt people would drop it all once mass adoption begins just for slightly bigger blocks.


I was agnostic through the whole thing. My hope was that whatever choice was made, that everyone get behind one and we move forward in a disrupting way. The hard fork did not achieve that.

I believe that bcash has shown that hard forks will be a very difficult thing to do which I feel is a very good thing. The hard fork should be left for huge emergencies like finding a bug that makes Bitcoin vulnerable to collapse (as was done in the past). Upgrades should be done via soft fork if possible. This ensures that the bitcoin I own today are backed by the same algorithm (or very close to it) decades from now.
cAPSLOCK
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2198
Merit: 1332


UNLEASH THE FURY!


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 06:56:26 PM


No, it is not the tragedy of the commons. That is about eating your seed crop.

Your seed crop (corn, you mean really) is a centralized private resource.  It is guarded by the farmer.  There is no common use outside of his *centralized* family.  The blockchain is more like the office refrigerator.  It is a public shared resource.  Tragedy of the commons is an absolutely applicable concept.

As to doing a bunch of math for you, sorry no.  I don't need to prove it to you.  And at that I assume we are at an impasse.

Time will tell which of us is right.

I'd say we should have a decent idea by 6/28/2028
The typical example is a shared field of grass for multiple households. Anyway this is a waste of time, read up on it. And then spend some time thinking about it, that's actually the most important part.

There is no shame in saying "I don't know", by the way. I keep hoping to be able to type those words with every post here. But nobody will give me a chance.

Ultimately I don't know.  You don't know.

But this is the "computer" processing the transactions for satoshis.place:

Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1918
Merit: 1175



View Profile
June 28, 2018, 06:57:54 PM

I've been reading anonymint's writings for the past week or so, which also prompted me to dive into some other rabbit holes.

I'm more convinced now of the dangers of segwit. Don't mistake that for being a promotion of bcash.

Give us thickos some bullet points then.

I'll give it a shot.

- Non-segwit transactions require 51% of the hashpower and a private key to steal. Segwit transactions just require 51% of the hashpower.
- This decreases the security of segwit transactions. However, we assume that it will be in the best interest of the miners to not steal Segwit coins. If one of the miners were to take all the segwit coins, we assume most other miner's wouldn't recognize the theft, and the thieved coins would be on a forked chain that would soon die.

The previous part is basically non-controversial. The rest is speculation and conjecture. Anonymint and some others, such as Mircea Popescu, are of the opinion that it's almost an inevitability the segwit coins will be stolen. Here is the reasoning, as I see it:

- Miners did not want the segwit soft fork. They went along with it just to prevent the UASF
- Bcash was essentially "plan a" to keep most transactions on the main bitcoin layer, so they can protect their fees.
- If bcash doesn't succeed (hint: it won't), plan B is a future fork that will remove segwit. In this case, miners will take all the coins.
 - Plan B seems unlikely, but:
 - As more and more Bitcoins pile into segwit addresses, there is an ever-increasing incentive for miners to steal these.
 - Technically it wouldn't even be theft, as segwit transactions are "anyone can spend". You don't need a private key, as mentioned earlier.
 - Even though the majority of users would be pissed, the super wealthy would support the non-segwit chain. To them, securing their wealth is the single most important thing, and the non-segwit chain offers higher security.
 - Mining is centralized, and even if it becomes more decentralized due to new ASIC manufacturers, etc. miners will operate as a cartel. At the end of the day, they all want to make as much money as possible.
 - As we head toward the future, mining rewards taper down to almost nothing. Miners need to increasingly rely on transaction fees. It would be in the best interest of miners to maximize these fees. Segwit cuts into these fees.
Welp. We know how high level money and power works. When it's financially worthwhile to do so, someone will get together the required processing power and buy off the proper authorities and make an honest attempt to steal segwit coins. Whether it succeeds or fails, it will be a big blow to the faith people have in the system (bitcoin in all its forms, authorities, moneyed people (us, even if simply by association)).

Just the first line in your post sold it for me. What in the actual fuck.


This is not a way to steal coins, this is a way to destroy Bitcoin. After the attack there is no value left, so nothing to steal.

Therefore the attack is only important to someone who wants to destroy Bitcoin, and a 51% attack will destroy Bitcoin with or without Segwit. Therefore Segwit is not an additional risk.
No, you are not getting away with calling two different things the same. That's what the bcashers do. What the fuck is wrong with half of you people lately?
Pages: « 1 ... 20669 20670 20671 20672 20673 20674 20675 20676 20677 20678 20679 20680 20681 20682 20683 20684 20685 20686 20687 20688 20689 20690 20691 20692 20693 20694 20695 20696 20697 20698 20699 20700 20701 20702 20703 20704 20705 20706 20707 20708 20709 20710 20711 20712 20713 20714 20715 20716 20717 20718 [20719] 20720 20721 20722 20723 20724 20725 20726 20727 20728 20729 20730 20731 20732 20733 20734 20735 20736 20737 20738 20739 20740 20741 20742 20743 20744 20745 20746 20747 20748 20749 20750 20751 20752 20753 20754 20755 20756 20757 20758 20759 20760 20761 20762 20763 20764 20765 20766 20767 20768 20769 ... 23966 »
  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!