Bitcoin Forum
November 25, 2017, 10:01:48 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 [26] 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs  (Read 33369 times)
danda
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 163


View Profile WWW
March 05, 2017, 10:16:18 PM
 #501

anyway, by that time I think that bitcoin would be embedded into so many systems that changing it would be literally impossible.   like ipv4 is today.   So a new blockchain and market based adoption becomes literally the only possible upgrade path.   There would of course be a lengthy transition period, where the new co-exists with the old and people buy/sell back and forth between them.

mybitprices.info - wallet auditing tools
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511604108
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511604108

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511604108
Reply with quote  #2

1511604108
Report to moderator
1511604108
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511604108

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511604108
Reply with quote  #2

1511604108
Report to moderator
1511604108
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511604108

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511604108
Reply with quote  #2

1511604108
Report to moderator
traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350


View Profile
March 05, 2017, 10:17:58 PM
 #502

...
Core is trying to increase the tps without considering the significant effects and this is BAD!
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834



View Profile
March 05, 2017, 10:19:47 PM
 #503

of course it does.  if it did not, there would be no debate, no soft fork proposal.  any client could just do it.

Or at least I am advocating against any changes to the consensus level code.

Segregated witness without tps increases doesn't change the consensus parameters. I don't know how much more plainly to say that. 1MB segwit is no problem.

No.

Consensus rules are not the only aspects of the protocol that forks can affect. For instance, the additional opcodes added in BIP 65 and 66 are not part of the consensus rules, but were still implemented as soft forks.

Whether it's a part of consensus rules or not, certain additions need soft forks so that older versions of the client can interpret blocks made by newer clients using those additions safely, i.e. without causing hazardous network splits between old nodes and new nodes should the old nodes reject blocks with the additional features.

Vires in numeris
traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350


View Profile
March 05, 2017, 10:20:58 PM
 #504

carlton, speak to the REAL proposal on the table TODAY.
danda
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 163


View Profile WWW
March 05, 2017, 10:21:27 PM
 #505

I do not believe that any consensus level change can be made that would not affect its value "in the nashian sense", even if made for that intended goal.  And by granting devs moral authority to make a "good" change, it also opens the door to bad change.   slippery slope.

mybitprices.info - wallet auditing tools
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834



View Profile
March 05, 2017, 10:22:22 PM
 #506

carlton, speak to the REAL proposal on the table TODAY.

I was talking about something else.

Vires in numeris
traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350


View Profile
March 05, 2017, 10:24:02 PM
 #507

I do not believe that any consensus level change can be made that would not affect its value "in the nashian sense", even if made for that intended goal.  And by granting devs moral authority to make a "good" change, it also opens the door to bad change.   slippery slope.
I'm saving this realization because its completely not palatable to nearly anyone.  But its based on reason and founded arguments. And so did you say this was your feeling from the start?  Or in other words do you see the significance of the relevance of Ideal Money?
danda
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 163


View Profile WWW
March 05, 2017, 10:24:24 PM
 #508

I define consensus rules to be anything that all bitcoin clients need to agree on.  So your "certain additions" would fall under that, and in my view should not be allowed.  except when released with a new genesis block.  I don't know how to be more clear.

Whether it's a part of consensus rules or not, certain additions need soft forks so that older versions of the client can interpret blocks made by newer clients using those additions safely, i.e. without causing hazardous network splits between old nodes and new nodes should the old nodes reject blocks with the additional features.

mybitprices.info - wallet auditing tools
traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350


View Profile
March 05, 2017, 10:24:33 PM
 #509

carlton, speak to the REAL proposal on the table TODAY.

I was talking about something else.
You have everything in your hands to tell core that they need to change their proposal to yours.
traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350


View Profile
March 05, 2017, 10:27:39 PM
 #510

I define consensus rules to be anything that all bitcoin clients need to agree on.  So your "certain additions" would fall under that, and in my view should not be allowed.  except when released with a new genesis block.  I don't know how to be more clear.

You can't be more clear.  You are saying bitcoin is what it is and no rational entity would change this.  Gavin tried to give a proper definition for this: http://gavinandresen.ninja/other-definitions-of-bitcoin

Quote from: gavin's constitutional bitcoin definition
“Bitcoin” is the ledger of not-previously-spent, validly signed transactions contained in the chain of blocks that begins with the genesis block (hash 000000000019d6689c085ae165831e934ff763ae46a2a6c172b3f1b60a8ce26f), follows the 21-million coin creation schedule, and has the most cumulative double-SHA256-proof-of-work.1

But he is creating that definition from the wrong direction.  He will always miss "something" by trying to define it constitutionally.  I agree with his attempt but when we have the "nashian" definition and we can say any changed alters its nashian implications, we have a far stronger attempt at a definition than gavin. we have done what gavin was trying to do, but properly.

I think you can understand this danda, but it will be a long time before the "group" does.
danda
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 163


View Profile WWW
March 05, 2017, 10:29:47 PM
 #511

Yes, from the first day I read about bitcoin I realized it's importance to curtail central banks influence and bring about a sound money.   Though I was not aware of Nash's ideal money and tended to think in terms of Thiers' law.  I see bitcoin as the first practical application of Theirs' law, because it appears immune to legal tender laws that have killed other attempts.

Edit:  i have always intuitively sensed that fiat would have to follow suit with bitcoin, and thus impove or die.  Essentially that bitcoin can be used as a measuring stick.  This is already beginning to happen.

I do not believe that any consensus level change can be made that would not affect its value "in the nashian sense", even if made for that intended goal.  And by granting devs moral authority to make a "good" change, it also opens the door to bad change.   slippery slope.
I'm saving this realization because its completely not palatable to nearly anyone.  But its based on reason and founded arguments. And so did you say this was your feeling from the start?  Or in other words do you see the significance of the relevance of Ideal Money?

mybitprices.info - wallet auditing tools
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834



View Profile
March 05, 2017, 10:31:05 PM
 #512

carlton, speak to the REAL proposal on the table TODAY.

I was talking about something else.
You have everything in your hands to tell core that they need to change their proposal to yours.

It's possible we could build community consensus around 1MB segwit. I won't be the voice in the wilderness shouting about it though, we've got enough of that as things are.

Vires in numeris
traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350


View Profile
March 05, 2017, 10:33:36 PM
 #513

Yes, from the first day I read about bitcoin I realized it's importance to curtail central banks influence and bring about a sound money.   Though I was not aware of Nash's ideal money and tended to think in terms of Thiers' law.  I see bitcoin as the first practical application of Theirs' law, because it appears immune to legal tender laws that have killed other attempts.


When we agree the common goal is to levate a stable metric of value, which all rational players will, then it is easy to highlight which arguments are founded.  Thus ideal money reveals players hands.

Once we understand this to be the goal, once enough people support an inquiry into Nash's works and understand the relevance, I can begin to speak beyond it.  It's only the tip of the iceberg, but it sounds like irrational jibberish until we understand the concept of a stable metric of value AND that we can use bitcoin as a catalyst to bring such a concept to REALITY.
traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350


View Profile
March 05, 2017, 10:35:19 PM
 #514



It's possible we could build community consensus around 1MB segwit. I won't be the voice in the wilderness shouting about it though, we've got enough of that as things are.
The reason we have all the shouting is because no body is basing their understanding or beliefs on the rational well founded argument which is the pursuit of a stable metric of value.  Nash shows that if we guard bitcoin's qualities in the Nashian sense, then our legacy institutions will naturally levate a stable metric of value.

Then all founded proposals must speak to this end.  If they do not, then they do not serve the world thus they are not founded.
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834



View Profile
March 05, 2017, 10:38:21 PM
 #515



It's possible we could build community consensus around 1MB segwit. I won't be the voice in the wilderness shouting about it though, we've got enough of that as things are.
The reason we have all the shouting is because no body is basing their understanding or beliefs on the rational well founded argument which is the pursuit of a stable metric of value.  Nash shows that if we guard bitcoin's qualities in the Nashian sense, then our legacy institutions will naturally levate a stable metric of value.

Then all founded proposals must speak to this end.  If they do not, then they do not serve the world thus they are not founded.

Again, calm yourself. You're not the shoutiest contingent by a long stretch, there's only 2 of you so far.

Vires in numeris
traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350


View Profile
March 05, 2017, 10:39:30 PM
 #516



Again, calm yourself. You're not the shoutiest contingent by a long stretch, there's only 2 of you so far.
Both sides are pushing for an irrational means to an irrational ends, that's why the debate is unending.
franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862



View Profile
March 05, 2017, 10:41:56 PM
 #517


because he wants to halt utility and dampen desire by limiting how many people can use it effectively... which leaves price as the main "value" umbrella left.

EG
if gold was halted at the point of only being used to make egyptian dog face masks. and only accessible through egyptian kings personal goldsmiths..
(no modern jewellery, no circuits, no gold vending machines at dubai hotels airports).. do you think people would care about gold today
Yup you have conflated everything again. We are taking about changing bitcoin's tps.  This has never been done to gold, and if someone had a magic button to arbitrarily change the tps in gold then it would be valued as something that doesn't change.

you have in many posts said gold is stable and other things about gold and you comparing bitcoin to gold and even confusing golds commodity (as a raw material in the commodoty market) with the separate asset credentials of gold to assum bitcoine is a commodity too..

yet by you saying bitcoin is like gold, and gold is stable. and/or bitcoin should be more like gold
then gold should halt its ability to change how many transactions in a certain time period can occur.

golds tx/s has been changed, does change. will change
1940's only physical tx taking days to move.
1980's computer age. gold transactions move via computer transactions. and also physical gold coins. from banks pawnn brokers etc
millennium gold vending machines and even electronic stores.

yet you want to assume gold is a great store of value because its tx/s is stable and so bitcoins tx/s should be stable too...

seriously. your fixated too much on one little thing and not seeing the bigger picture. your narrative.. oops nashative to attempt to persuade the community that 1mb should be fixed is flawed.

we get you love nash. thats undeniable. but bitcoin is beyond nash. bitcoin is even beyond the concept of money. bitcoin is its own new revolutionary paradigm



in short.. limiting. fixing increase or decreasing will not stabilise "value" (of any sort) as there are many things that give bitcoin value. stopping one wont stabilise the rest



gold has changed. it was not used for solar panels 50 years ago(didnt exist) now it is
it was not used for GPU's now it is
it was not used for many things ... now it is

gold has changed and will change

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Don't take any information given on this forum on face value. Please do your own due diligence & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. If you wish to seek legal FACTUAL advice, then seek the guidance of a LEGAL specialist.
traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350


View Profile
March 05, 2017, 10:43:38 PM
 #518


yet by you saying bitcoin is like gold, and gold is stable. and/or bitcoin should be more like gold
then gold should halt its ability to change how many transactions in a certain time period can occur.

golds tx/s has been changed, does change. will change
1940's only physical tx taking days to move.
1980's computer age. gold transactions move via computer transactions. and also physical gold coins. from banks pawnn brokers etc
millennium gold vending machines and even electronic stores.

These aren't examples of the nature of gold changing.

And you are wrong, bitcoin isn't beyond nash, nash spoke many years in the future beyond the advent of bitcoin. This is clear, and he was clear about this.
danda
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 163


View Profile WWW
March 05, 2017, 10:43:58 PM
 #519

I think that some (most?) core devs really do care about preserving bitcoin's value and keeping it stable and not making changes that would create winners and losers.  (paraphrasing gmawell writing some time ago.)  That's why they fought back against Gavin's proposed blocksize increases early on.

But there has been so much community pressure to increase TPS, that they felt they must release something in that direction, hence segwit.

it may be that some of them would not be so averse to these ideas, if exposed.   I'm curious if this thread has come to gmaxwell's attention yet, or any other core dev.

The reason we have all the shouting is because no body is basing their understanding or beliefs on the rational well founded argument which is the pursuit of a stable metric of value.  Nash shows that if we guard bitcoin's qualities in the Nashian sense, then our legacy institutions will naturally levate a stable metric of value.

Then all founded proposals must speak to this end.  If they do not, then they do not serve the world thus they are not founded.

mybitprices.info - wallet auditing tools
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834



View Profile
March 05, 2017, 10:44:20 PM
 #520



Again, calm yourself. You're not the shoutiest contingent by a long stretch, there's only 2 of you so far.
Both sides are pushing for an irrational means to an irrational ends, that's why the debate is unending.

Well, as I've said, I privately preferred a more conservative blocksize increase anyway (between none and 1), 4MB was a compromise I mistakenly believed would end the debate. I'm considering the "none" option far more carefully, given the information you're eliciting.

Vires in numeris
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 [26] 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 »
  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!