Bitcoin Forum
January 28, 2022, 02:57:08 AM *
News: Vote on the 2021 community awards
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: Miner cartel, bankster cartel, or an altcoin? Your choice?
miner cartel (aka Bitcoin Unlimited fork) - 22 (16.9%)
bankster cartel (aka Bitcoin Core fork) - 50 (38.5%)
an altcoin (not Dash cartel) - 54 (41.5%)
Evan Inc cartel (aka Dash aka RogerCoin) - 4 (3.1%)
Total Voters: 130

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 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Miner cartel, Bankster cartel, or an altcoin? Your choice?  (Read 33138 times)
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 2905


Terminated.


View Profile WWW
March 22, 2017, 03:53:44 PM
 #41

Lauda, most people don't agree with what you said, considering how things evolved.
What people? The speculators just waiting to profit from ETH or the bagholders/developers? Roll Eyes

You're a victim of barry and chandler and you should seek help.
I am a victim of no one but the truth. I have neither traded nor had any interactions with either chain. ETC is the original ETH, and the current ETH is the altcoin as it was a contentious HF also known as 'bailout fork'.

I would bet that vitalik by himself would be able to end this war by choosing to support one camp. Because arguably he's the most respected individual in public blockchain scene.
This is one of the biggest jokes I've recently heard. Vitalik is a loon.

I'd rather have large nodes but anyone is free to send anonymous transactions than everyone is free to run a node, but you have to register with some third party to transact.  
Who has been feeding you these kinds of doomsday scenarios for the Core roadmap? In no way will you ever need to 'register with some third party to transact'.

-snip-
Dash follows Satoshi's vision, and Dash is Bitcoin done Right !
Mining early != insta mining. The latter was done by the DRK scam coin developer(s) && cartel. DASH is one of the biggest pyramid schemes / scam coins that I've even seen in crypto.

"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
😼 Bitcoin Core (onion)
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1643338628
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1643338628

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1643338628
Reply with quote  #2

1643338628
Report to moderator
1643338628
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1643338628

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1643338628
Reply with quote  #2

1643338628
Report to moderator
Technologov
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 203
Merit: 100


View Profile
March 22, 2017, 03:57:12 PM
 #42

Dash had a partial pre-mine. Ethereum had a partial-pre-mine too.

Dash and ETH are equal in that regard.

And Satoshi was mining silently way before I heard about Bitcoin for the 1st time (in 2013). I consider it almost like pre-mine. So I don't care either way.
dfd1
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 100


View Profile
March 22, 2017, 04:00:49 PM
Last edit: March 22, 2017, 04:47:00 PM by dfd1
 #43

Large blocks are a weapon which kill decentralization due to the issue of propagation and relative orphan rates. It is a bit complex to grasp.

There is no decentralization, same 20 computers solve all blocks for years and will continue like this forever.
Personally, I think SegWit is fine. One more party added to form consensus can improve decentralization in some weird way, banksters are fine.

But the miners don't agree to allow SegWit and LN or anything that will reduce the fees they can collect.

Centralization by mining means they decide (if they have 80+% of the hashrate, not the node count). We can only veto that level of centralization by cratering the price and transaction volume, so reduce their profits.

But for them the alternative of losing all future revenue to LN hubs is apparently worth a fight of attrition now. And we token hodlers are stuck in the crossfire.
There is only 20 real miners, these are called pools. And there are plenty of people who want to sell their hashrate for bitcoins, or dash, or monero. These care only about income. If some pool propose them a bit more payout for minig on "lets do a 51% attack and kill bitcoin forever" chain - they would do it with pleasure and switch to some other coin after. They already "mine" on litecoin against development and improvements, they don't care about coins at all.

And since we have heavy centralization big blocks are fine too, bitcoin can run with 1gb blocks just fine, average user don't install full node anyway. This is acceptable decision for scaling too. Worst decisions is stagnation or split, and we have both of worst ones at the moment Smiley.
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302
Merit: 1002


Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


View Profile
March 22, 2017, 04:01:12 PM
 #44



I'd rather have large nodes but anyone is free to send anonymous transactions than everyone is free to run a node, but you have to register with some third party to transact.  
Who has been feeding you these kinds of doomsday scenarios for the Core roadmap? In no way will you ever need to 'register with some third party to transact'.
 

Its a conceivable doomsday scenario of transaction-based centralization, just as governments attacking full nodes is a conceivable doomsday scenario of node-based centralization.

BillyBobZorton
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204
Merit: 1024


View Profile
March 22, 2017, 04:08:28 PM
 #45



It's called a fee market (I don't mean to sound pejorative).   Miners will try to maximize revenue but they also need to compete with each other and with other payment methods.   Their total revenue won't necessarily be higher with small blocks because there will be less transactions in the blocks even though they might be getting more per transaction.  If there is a huge demand for large volumes, they will get much more with bigger blocks.  On the other side of the spectrum, they have to stay competitive with (be cheaper than)  PayPal, and other cryptocurrencies.

Like I said before, segwit + LN would bring way more volume of transactions than a blocksize increase under buggy software and a concept that has been proved to be flawed by technologically sound people (EC)

But miners will reject segwit because they want to milk fees as high as possible, yet BUcoin followers want to give them full control over fees. Does not compute. Short-sighted miners will keep stopping anything that means less fees. If they really cared to compete against Paypal and think long term they would enable segwit.



Well its kind of like the OP is alluding to, pick your poison.   I'd rather have large nodes but anyone is free to send anonymous transactions than everyone is free to run a node, but you have to register with some third party to transact.  You can disagree and that's fine.  Cheers.



We have already centralized mining. Why would anyone want centralized mining + centralized nodes and in what planet can such a system provide anonymous transactions? And running under insecure software with devs that resort to closed source releases. Get real.
mining1
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


View Profile
March 22, 2017, 04:11:09 PM
 #46

about Dash premine:
yes it existed. I admit. But everyone takes money home.

Satoshi Nakamoto of Bitcoin pocketed 1 million BTC.
Vitlik Buterin of Ethereum pocketed 600,000 Ethers.
Evan Duffield of Dash pocketed about 1 million Dash.

There are huge differences:
1. Sathoshi started it as a personal project and released it to the public. He didn't promise anything nor tried to hide anything. It was what it was and people accepted it as it was.
2. Vitalik and few others created ethereum, ICO and development funds were official and known, everything was transparent. It is normal to take benefits from the project you create especially if it becomes succesful, nobody works for free. And what he has is worth anything now because ethereum so far is a success ( with setbacks, but nevertheless a success ).
3. Evan duffield is a scammer, because the bug was there, wether it happened to be there intentionnaly or not doesn't matter. Then he promised to fix things but he didn't so he pocketed the money. And the instamined dash represents 30% of total supply which is now used to further increase both in number and value his supply with masternodes and an insane ROI of ~10% per year.

If you cannot see the difference you are either stupid or you're liar because you are too invested in dash.
BillyBobZorton
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204
Merit: 1024


View Profile
March 22, 2017, 04:20:23 PM
Last edit: March 22, 2017, 04:33:00 PM by BillyBobZorton
 #47

Dash had a partial pre-mine. Ethereum had a partial-pre-mine too.

Dash and ETH are equal in that regard.

And Satoshi was mining silently way before I heard about Bitcoin for the 1st time (in 2013). I consider it almost like pre-mine. So I don't care either way.

So satoshi was mining silently because you heard about bitcoin the first time in 2013? give me a break.
Satoshi released the bitcoin whitepaper and code into the wild on the internet, anyone was free to get involved, but at the beginning nobody cared because bitcoin was worthless and few understood its importance.




Can you prove it is not a "bankster cartel"?  Undecided

I just don't see how it is a "bankster cartel" when you have devs like gmaxwell constantly pushing for anonymity features like confidential transactions, mimblewimble etc, and guarantee that the network remains decentralized by letting the small man have a role by being able to run nodes.

There are altcoins which are not as likely to get attacked over the next weeks. The poll is there to determine what people are thinking about doing. I am curious what they choose after they know all the facts. I wish they would wait and read more of the discussion before voting. Informed votes are more meaningful.

The altcoin market is a gamble right now, so is BTC hard fork happening or not. I believe it will not happen, miners cant be that insane.




Can you tell me whether BTC currently has the necessary replay protection so that my transaction selling BTU won't be relayed to the BTC chain and also sell my BTC? The ETH vs. ETC fiasco suffered from replayed transactions on both chains.

Which is another reason why there will be no hardfork. Exchanges will be exposed by lawsuits everywhere after customers see their BTU disappear thanks to buggy incompetent software.

BitFury has threatened legal attacks against Core if they change the PoW algorithm. You say there are whales who will step up to provide mining security, but fact is that botnets (even Amazon EC instances botnets) are for sale. Are these whales going to avail of these botnets so they can get the most hashrate per $$? And so then we become beholden to a new small block mining cartel. Then the common man will never again be able to do an onchain transaction. They'll long said that onchain should only be for clearing transactions between the big whales and not for us. We get only centralized LN hubs which afaics means KYC, confiscation of funds by the authorities, etc..

Pretty sure Core devs give 0 fucks about BitFury's crying and whinning. There are huge whales out there invested in BTC that will help them. Also if they are bankster funded pretty sure they got the money to deal with the idiotic concept of a lawsuit over open source software that tries to defend itself from an obvious incoming attack.
About LN being centralized, KYC's etc.. again I fail to see how that's the case:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gF_ZQ_eijPs




How can we replace hashrate with nodes  Huh
Difficulty will look succulent if all of Jihan's hashing power is out, new miners will come in, people will also jump in if they have powerful computers/GPUs and hashrate will self adjust eventually. The incentive is there: better software over BU. Miners can be easily replaced, top software devs can't (as we are seeing).
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302
Merit: 1002


Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


View Profile
March 22, 2017, 04:22:24 PM
 #48

Get real.


Ayers
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1932
Merit: 1001


View Profile
March 22, 2017, 04:24:31 PM
 #49

Dash had a partial pre-mine. Ethereum had a partial-pre-mine too.

Dash and ETH are equal in that regard.

And Satoshi was mining silently way before I heard about Bitcoin for the 1st time (in 2013). I consider it almost like pre-mine. So I don't care either way.

it's not premine lol that is supporting the network if satoshi was not mining who would support the network back then? no one, so he was forced to mine together with other people, bitcoin has no value in 2009, and the diff was 1, that is not premine or instamine at all don't be stupid
dinofelis
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 618


View Profile
March 22, 2017, 04:40:04 PM
 #50

Miners getting to choose the maximum blocksize = miner cartel, why?

Read more at the linked thread and it is explained there. I just posted again at that other thread another summary post.

Large blocks are a weapon which kill decentralization due to the issue of propagation and relative orphan rates. It is a bit complex to grasp.

I proved/explained that Bitcoin Unlimited's whitepaper (written by @Peter R) is flawed. There is no equilibrium with unbounded block size and rather it is a weapon for the mining cartel to achieve full centralization. Several smart developers have peer reviewed my analysis.

OTOH, that is already mainly the case right now.   So I don't see what would be lost.  You can't lose (any more) what you don't have (any more).
miscreanity
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316
Merit: 1005


View Profile
March 22, 2017, 04:57:46 PM
 #51

Difficulty will look succulent if all of Jihan's hashing power is out, new miners will come in, people will also jump in if they have powerful computers/GPUs and hashrate will self adjust eventually. The incentive is there: better software over BU. Miners can be easily replaced, top software devs can't (as we are seeing).

Nodes can be doubled overnight. Hash power could take weeks or months to double. GPUs are a drop in the bucket, and then there's the problem of corralling thousands of disparate users with varying quality of network connection and technical skill. Apples and oranges.

Talented devs can build, but what if nobody comes? Or in this case, a minority?

Different illnesses, same symptoms - concentrated control.
iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 258



View Profile
March 22, 2017, 05:11:39 PM
Last edit: March 22, 2017, 05:24:23 PM by iamnotback
 #52

Ponder this:

But I have stated what happens, which it is always devolves to majority-collusion.

My point is that this is outcome is not affected by the cap on maxblocksize.

Might be true. I've been pondering that today. If BU can successfully attack the token holders, then that should be proof that even small 1MB blocks don't stop mining cartelization/centralization.

In which case, larger blocks along with LN would provide more choice to users. As I wrote upthread, Core has masterfully fooled some people into believing they are rational with no ulterior motive.

But then I don't understand how Core could have ever expected to succeed, since the miners would naturally fork the protocol and increase the block size so they can get more revenue. Core's apparent goal of forcing users to use LN appears to be impossible to enforce (mining will always be a cartel and the cartel will not agree to be stripped of revenue).

But on the flip side, the mining cartel ostensibly doesn't want to allow off chain LN scaling (which is why they won't fix malleability) because that would compete with the miners for on chain fees.

Some have argued that enabling LN would increase overall usership and thus increase onchain transaction fee revenue.

So if BU was sincere, they could demonstrate it by including the necessary fixes to enable LN in their planned HF. Because otherwise we can look forward possibly to a monopoly on block size and thus miners squeezing the market for maximum fees inhibiting the scaling of Bitcoin.

(I'm duplicating this to two other places, because readers can't go clicking links off to so many other places to find the key points, but I am linking it here, so you can decide to reply just here if you want. Your decision obviously. I'd like to finish this discussion asap if possible.)

Point being that the small blocks = decentralization might be an erroneous strawman argument constructed to fool us into thinking we couldn't have larger blocks sooner.

Why is Core trying to fool us? Is it to keep the illusion of decentralization alive? Perhaps some of you who are more intimately familiar with Core's arguments can clue me in. I haven't been following all the wranglings over the past year.
iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 258



View Profile
March 22, 2017, 05:34:04 PM
Last edit: March 22, 2017, 05:48:01 PM by iamnotback
 #53

about Dash premine:
yes it existed. I admit. But everyone takes money home.

...

Basically I see nothing wrong with it, as long as it is a partial pre-mine, rather than 100% centralized pre-mine (like Ripple XRP).

Dash follows Satoshi's vision, and Dash is Bitcoin done Right !

In addition to the detailed links which @mining1 and @cryptohunter provided upthread detailing the alleged ONGOING "scam", I want to reiterate that evidently (proof has been provided) Evan even reduced the protocol money supply limit by ~75% after the instamine to make it a larger portion of the eventual total, and he refused to restart the mining to correct the instamine even though he had restarted the mining previously for other reasons.

The ONGOING "situation" is described more as follows:

The difference is when the float is so extremely concentrated in just a few hands, then they can paint the market prices which ever direction they want them to go. This is known as a non-aggregate market.

Did you see the compounding math advantage on earlier and larger capitalized masternodes? Evan Inc. has probably ~80+% of the money supply by now.

The small float concept works well to draw in the greater fools, and the masternode concept to keep recycling the sold coins back to yourself. It is quite ingenuous.

...

There is a cost to painting the market and constricting the float and milking the greater fools in a pyramid. It means your ecosystem will always be fake and have no real viral growth. All of Dash's ecosystem is some fools regurgitating technological lies, not actually millions of developers changing the world as the Internet is doing as we speak.


Reminds me of when I found a high school level probability error in the masternode security model in Dash's InstantX white paper, not to mention how egregiously flawed the Dash the Instant X design is. Evan Duffield replied, but then ran away. Even the economic arguments for Dash's flawed design were refuted. Note that Dash's required premixing (and even not premixing if not employing homomorphic encryption of transaction values, i.e Monero before RingCT) eliminates the possibility of merging UTXO balances and thus causes an exponential blowup in UTXO, which is an issue for scaling to trillions of microtransactions given that performance requires keeping UTXO in RAM.


Quote from: iamnotback in private chat @ 19 Mar., 10:03 pm
But it is the very low float because Evan Inc controls all the money supply, so they can buy from themselves on the exchanges and manipulate the price.

Their only problem is that if the price goes too high, some of their own whales may dump on them and also the people who are buying now may take profits. The higher they push the price, the less control they have over the float in the selloff scenario.




For this very reason, Evan Inc. can in theory push the "market" as high as they want.

Except if they grow the pyramid too fast and can't sustain those who want to cash out:

In order for it to dump, someone must own a lot of Dash. Does anyone own a lot except insiders?

it won't be dumped.  BU will soon be created, DASH will be the first choice to put their money into and the more you have right now the more profit you get. thats what you get when you join dash this time and not a year after. because by then, you'd be buying dash 5x more than what is it today.

More likely is PIVX at $2-5. Most everyone can afford a masternode at 10-20 cents a coin and you don't have to reward a few instaminers.

The Dash pyramid scheme will continue to have an advantage in FOMO over any aggregate freer market, until the base of the pyramid can't grow fast enough to allow the earlier buyers to cash out:

Your debunking of DASH didn't stop the market from appreciating it.

Dash doesn't have a market. It is allegedly a couple of guys working for Evan Inc. running accounts at the major exchanges buying and selling from themselves. It is a greater fool pyramid scheme.

You even stated that no one with large size dared tried to enter that market without a deal with Evan Inc.. So that tells you Roger Ver is in bed with the alleged "fraud" (aka dis-aggregate non-market) or he didn't buy much Dash.

dinofelis
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 618


View Profile
March 22, 2017, 05:44:27 PM
 #54

@iamnotback yes and no, because BU-core war is different. Everyone knew ETH is official even before ETC was born. The "problem" was this: barry and chandler dumped ETH and pumped ETC, and obviously miners followed the price. Even though most mined ETC just to convert into ETH because everyone knew it is the official one,

This is why ETH is a centralized coin too.

We're not going to go over this again, but remember that ETH was the fork to save the DAO investor's stake, and ETC continued the "unstoppable and immutable" chain in the spirit of the original idea.  Yes, yes, I know, "mistakes, and abusing mistakes is criminal, and lot of important money at stake, and still beta testing" and whatever.  But fact is that ETH was the hard fork, in order to negate the principles of ethereum of unstoppable and immutable because a lot of money was at stake, people had made mistakes, and someone had found them and took the idea of unstoppable and immutable to the extreme by exploiting it, from which a large majority concluded that unstoppable and immutable is OK, unless it is not OK, and ETH was born.  ETC continued as the original chain, with 10% of the hash power, and the market preference.

From the success of ETH over ETC, I learn that bitcoin has nothing to fear from centralization ; the market seems to like centralized things with "official leadership", mimicking as decentralized.  This is why I have good faith in DASH too.

Bitcoin can very well prosper in a centralized way, as long as the centralized cartel, happy with its generous rewards, processes the transactions and keeps up the illusion of bitcoin being decentralized, unstoppable, permissionless and immutable which they think is OK, until not.

Quote
it fueled the illusion created by  barry sillbert and chandler gao that a flippening was happening and that Ethereum foundation was going to switch aswell to ETC. But the illusion broke when vitalik officially stated that the vote was already cast out, the result both before and after the fork was clear ( like 95%+ of the hashrate followed the fork updating their client ). So, the result of the manipulation wouldn't have mattered because the EF was going to develop on ETH no matter what.

This is indeed when the market appreciates much more central leadership than decentralization and the principles that go with it.  It is something to keep in mind in crypto: principles are OK, until they aren't, and big money is at stake.

iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 258



View Profile
March 22, 2017, 06:25:23 PM
Last edit: March 22, 2017, 06:54:20 PM by iamnotback
 #55

This is why ETH is a centralized coin too.

Because ETH is implicitly "honest" about the BDFL being Vitalik and that its raison d'être (at least for the current juncture) is ongoing R&D experimentation (or at least that is the geekcool idealism marketing to drag in the greater fools to part them from their money), so it is clear that it is not intended to be immutable at this time. My mistake when I originally sided with ETC was I was projecting my idealism (protocol immutability) on the project, but the project's community has a different priority (also a form of idealism) which is about decentralizing experimentation in blockchain apps.

Thus ETH's overriding mandate isn't "code is the law" and instead is "decentralized community governance" is the law.

In the case of Dash, the governance is alleged to be a farce with Evan Inc. controlling more than a majority of the nodes and even some budget votes quorums don't require all masternodes to participate.

ETC continued the "unstoppable and immutable" chain in the spirit of the original idea.

Afair, that phrase appeared verbatim on the DAO website, so the marketing of blockchains has always been about the delusion of idealism obscuring the reality of what we are really achieving and doing.

From the success of ETH over ETC, I learn that bitcoin has nothing to fear from centralization ; the market seems to like centralized things with "official leadership", mimicking as decentralized.  This is why I have good faith in DASH too.

Bitcoin can very well prosper in a centralized way, as long as the centralized cartel, happy with its generous rewards, processes the transactions and keeps up the illusion of bitcoin being decentralized, unstoppable, permissionless and immutable which they think is OK, until not.

...

This is indeed when the market appreciates much more central leadership than decentralization and the principles that go with it.  It is something to keep in mind in crypto: principles are OK, until they aren't, and big money is at stake.

Yeah the key is "until not". Centralization bites back. Citizens who believed in the Socialist Utopia are finding out the totalitarianism hard way that centralization is a boot on your throat eventually. But let's not get too melodramatic. Why not let Bitcoin be what it can be? It certainly can't have decentralized mining. Core needs to stop fooling us.

After writing the following (the quoted part), I think I may have realized why everyone is so focused on maintaining the illusion of decentralization. Maybe it is because they/we fear governments? Decentralization is what keeps the governments from trying to step in and take national sovereignty over a blockchain.

I think we are trying to find some happy path where we can get scaling while also convince ourselves that we aren't just duplicating Visa and Paypal. At least ETH is doing more than just payment systems!

Also I think we tend to think Core has a better chance of getting Bitcoin into mainstream use. I think we see the mining cartel as a bunch of, well miners. And thus lacking the range of skills to get the code where it needs to be in terms of scaling out payment systems, etc.. Blockstream has seriously well recognized cryptographers and other experts.

But I have stated what happens, which it is always devolves to majority-collusion.

My point is that this is outcome is not affected by the cap on maxblocksize.

Might be true. I've been pondering that today. If BU can successfully attack the token holders, then that should be proof that even small 1MB blocks don't stop mining cartelization/centralization.

We don't think of it as an attack, but as an upgrade. I haven't participated in mining in years, yet I am convinced that BU delivers more value to me than does the core plan.

Quote
So if BU was sincere, they could demonstrate it by including the necessary fixes to enable LN in their planned HF.

Again, BU is not resistant to a malleability fix (at least as far as I discern). As recent events display however, we have a dev bandwidth issue. We must prioritize the things we wish to accomplish. Abolition of this stupid centrally-planned production quota is the most pressing problem faced by Bitcoin. So we are focusing upon that. Longer term, we would like to enable LN, but not with the current built-in anticompetitive disincentive for on-chain transactions (i.e., the aforementioned maxblocksize limit).

(And LN is still possible without a malleability fix, but that is kind of an aside, in that it is acknowledged that such is suboptimal).


My reaction is you need better communication with the token holders. My thought or idea is to raise the level of competence, PR, communication and planning on all levels BEFORE attacking.

You don't win my confidence by having incorrect technological arguments such as the unlimited block size equilibrium white paper which is a meaningless model and can only serve to fool n00bs, which doesn't impress those who try to understand the technology deeply. Core is able to impress us, because they get their technological facts more well organized.

And your promises are as trustable as Core's promises (e.g. to increase block size with HF after softfork is approved), so why should we believe BU will do what you say they will do.

Perhaps if you get more of the community behind your with better communication and admitting that the mining is centralized and there is nothing we can do about it, then perhaps more resources will come your way.

But I guess they've strategized on this already and have reasons for doing what they are doing? Perhaps the war is fake and pre-planned to shake cheap BTC from the trees? Or to sustain the illusion of decentralization? I think the last item is the most likely. Neither Core nor the miners want us to realize the system is centralized, so they fight proxy issues instead of going directly to the point:

Point being that the small blocks = decentralization might be an erroneous strawman argument constructed to fool us into thinking we couldn't have larger blocks sooner.

Why is Core trying to fool us? Is it to keep the illusion of decentralization alive? Perhaps some of you who are more intimately familiar with Core's arguments can clue me in. I haven't been following all the wranglings over the past year.
iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 258



View Profile
March 22, 2017, 07:32:10 PM
 #56

Sorry for the walls of text, but I want to hit all the points.

Miners getting to choose the maximum blocksize = miner cartel, why?

Read more at the linked thread and it is explained there. I just posted again at that other thread another summary post.

Large blocks are a weapon which kill decentralization due to the issue of propagation and relative orphan rates. It is a bit complex to grasp.

I proved/explained that Bitcoin Unlimited's whitepaper (written by @Peter R) is flawed. There is no equilibrium with unbounded block size and rather it is a weapon for the mining cartel to achieve full centralization. Several smart developers have peer reviewed my analysis.

OTOH, that is already mainly the case right now.   So I don't see what would be lost.  You can't lose (any more) what you don't have (any more).

So why is BU preaching equilibrium with unlimited blocks as the most prominent item in its FAQ.

Because they want to sustain the illusion of decentralization. Their supporting white paper is meaningless and doesn't model anything that can exist in reality (it models a perfectly uniform distribution of propagation and hashrate where all miners experience the same orphan rate, but if that were the case then no miner would make any profit because in that impossible scenario marginal cost = lowest cost).
krile
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 746
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 22, 2017, 07:35:37 PM
 #57

about Dash premine:
yes it existed. I admit. But everyone takes money home.

Satoshi Nakamoto of Bitcoin pocketed 1 million BTC.
Vitlik Buterin of Ethereum pocketed 600,000 Ethers.
Evan Duffield of Dash pocketed about 1 million Dash.
===

Same for the big corporations:
Bill Gates of Microsoft pocketed a ton of MS shares
Zuckerberg of Facebook pocketed a ton of Facebook shares
..and so on.

For me a crypto-coin is both a digital gold coin and a share in the network

Basically I see nothing wrong with it, as long as it is a partial pre-mine, rather than 100% centralized pre-mine (like Ripple XRP).

Dash follows Satoshi's vision, and Dash is Bitcoin done Right !

You sir was brainwashed with their propaganda. An "honest" announced premine is one thing (ICOs, XRP, etc...) but this DASH launch is just straight out scamming and lying.

I soon fixed this issue at block 4500, but none of us realized the amount of coins that had been issued at the time. At that point we didn’t even have a block explorer yet.

How the hell can a "core developer" write something like this publicly. Block explorers are for grandmas looking at their transactions, not for devs launching a coin. How does he dare to say that, blaming the absence of a block explorer for the instamine? "Ups, look at all those blocks flying around every second, a shame I dont have a block explorer to check if the network is ok. Oh well, I guess I will just sit here now"

A "core developer" would know exactly how to check the amount of blocks and the money supply. (a simple getinfo rpc call gives you everything you need to know and tailing the debug log)

This claim linked above is obviously a filthy lie to cover up the fact that it was planed in advance to instamine the shit out of that coin.

dinofelis
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 618


View Profile
March 22, 2017, 07:46:46 PM
 #58

This is why ETH is a centralized coin too.

Because ETH is implicitly "honest" about the BDFL being Vitalik and that its raison d'être (at least for the current juncture) is ongoing R&D experimentation (or at least that is the geekcool idealism marketing to drag in the greater fools to part them from their money), so it is clear that it is not intended to be immutable at this time. My mistake when I originally sided with ETC was I was projecting my idealism (protocol immutability) on the project, but the project's community has a different priority (also a form of idealism) which is about decentralizing experimentation in blockchain apps.


I am on exactly the same line as you here.  I was also seriously shocked by the ETH decision, and I sided with ETC, the "truly immutable system".  I still think it is the "right" ethereum ; but, as I said, I realise that the market didn't want that strictness.  

Quote
Thus ETH's overriding mandate isn't "code is the law" and instead is "decentralized community governance" is the law.

My idea is that that is an impossible notion.  Decentralized and governance don't go together.  I take as a definition of decentralized, that there is no governance, and that everything that happens in the system must be emergent phenomena, and not a rational plan.  For me, decentralisation is the absence of rationality, because when you say, rationality, you say, a plan with an objective, and when you say, a plan with an objective, you say "planned beneficiaries and losers".

I think that the only notion of "the common good" is emergent, and never a plan, because if it is a plan, it is the good of the plan maker at the cost of the non-plan maker.

But there are people who take "decentralized" as something like "democratic".   If you start even the remotest form of democratic leadership, you end up in systems like the ones we live in.  You can think that is fine, or you can hate it.  But fact is, if you allow for "governance" (even with democratic rules), you end up with a hierarchic system, and if that is what you like, then  there's no reason to do something else than use the systems that are in place.  There is no complicated consensus mechanism to be had.  You vote for a trusted central authority, that authority defines the consensus in a transparent way, and is regularly exposed to the renewal, or not, of the trust by the majority.   No hassle, no block chain.  Banks.  Our real world system as of today.


Quote
Afair, that phrase appeared verbatim on the DAO website, so the marketing of blockchains has always been about the delusion of idealism obscuring the reality of what we are really achieving and doing.

Right.  The only question is how far one should go in this delusion, before it becomes an outright scam.

The more I understand crypto systems, the more I understand that my idea of decentralisation is technically difficult (but not impossible) but is interesting nobody and his cat.  People need illusionary principles, but don't like to adhere to them.

They want to be leaderless, but want governance.  They want to have permissionlessness, but want to be able to exclude the bad guys.  They want trustlessness, on the condition that people are honest.  

This is why I think there's no point in trying to develop truly decentralized systems even though they are technically not impossible: nobody wants them really.

Quote
Yeah the key is "until not". Centralization bites back. Citizens who believed in the Socialist Utopia are finding out the totalitarianism hard way that centralization is a boot on your throat eventually. But let's not get too melodramatic. Why not let Bitcoin be what it can be? It certainly can't have decentralized mining. Core needs to stop fooling us.

I think bitcoin is fine, but clunky and oldfashioned.  As long as the centralized powers continue to make block chains in which transactions are taken, people will live in the illusion that they are putting their money in the "safest cryptographic system ever, secured by hundreds of millions of dollars worth of computing that no government can take them away", and buy a pair of shoes with bitcoin for fun, twice in their life, and whine about how the children don't use bitcoin.

Quote
After writing the following (the quoted part), I think I may have realized why everyone is so focused on maintaining the illusion of decentralization. Maybe it is because they/we fear governments? Decentralization is what keeps the governments from trying to step in and take national sovereignty over a blockchain.

Yes, we fear them and "we" want them.    We hate them, and they have to solve all our problems.  We vote for them and we find that they are idiots.  

Like with the unstoppable ethereum, until you REALLY learn what it means, you go and whine for the leader to take action and stop the unstoppable, and mute the immutable.

We are like 16-year olds, wanting to be independent and hating our parents, until we have a problem and call for mom and dad.

The only difference is that in many cases, mom and dad really love you, and "leadership" only likes to make you think so.
dinofelis
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 618


View Profile
March 22, 2017, 07:54:36 PM
 #59

Sorry for the walls of text, but I want to hit all the points.

Miners getting to choose the maximum blocksize = miner cartel, why?

Read more at the linked thread and it is explained there. I just posted again at that other thread another summary post.

Large blocks are a weapon which kill decentralization due to the issue of propagation and relative orphan rates. It is a bit complex to grasp.

I proved/explained that Bitcoin Unlimited's whitepaper (written by @Peter R) is flawed. There is no equilibrium with unbounded block size and rather it is a weapon for the mining cartel to achieve full centralization. Several smart developers have peer reviewed my analysis.

OTOH, that is already mainly the case right now.   So I don't see what would be lost.  You can't lose (any more) what you don't have (any more).

So why is BU preaching equilibrium with unlimited blocks as the most prominent item in its FAQ.


My intimate conviction is that BU's only purpose is to stop segwit, not to get activated or whatever.  I would even not be surprised that BU signalling pools actually run core software, but "signal" BU.  If BU was a simple for loop, it would be good enough.  And then you need to tell stories, because saying "we just want to keep small blocks, and have you, users, fight over the 3 transactions  per second we grant you when 4 billion people will have adopted bitcoin and pay their coffee with it in the fee market" was not going to cut it.  So they have to have some mumbo jumbo that they can "solve" the problem of scaling OTHER than segwit, while "solving" the problem is the last thing they want.

So BU must signal a strong adherence that makes any illusion over getting a consensus over segwit without hope, that gets Core out of central protocol control, but far not enough to get BU REALLY activated.  No miner wants big blocks if small blocks make people pay big fees.  But miners can't say that bitcoin will be limited "for ever" to 3 transactions per second and maintain the illusion of armies and armies of greater fools marching in and pumping the price somewhere between Jupiter and Saturn.  So they have to pretend wanting a "simple" solution, that unfortunately, cannot happen "for the moment", because, well, nothing.
iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 258



View Profile
March 22, 2017, 08:02:47 PM
Last edit: March 22, 2017, 08:25:41 PM by iamnotback
 #60

Lauda, most people don't agree with what you said, considering how things evolved.

What people? The speculators just waiting to profit from ETH or the bagholders/developers? Roll Eyes

Or the centralized MtGox and Bitfinex heists waiting to profit on the decentralization-minded Bitcoin "investors".

You're a victim of barry and chandler and you should seek help.

I am a victim of no one but the truth. I have neither traded nor had any interactions with either chain.

What truth? That you had interactions with the chain that was heisted on MtGox and Bitfinex. (And don't tell me that there is nothing that can by done on chain to prevent losing funds on centralized exchanges, because there is something that can be done but your stupendous Core hasn't apparently realized or proposed it afaik)

The hypocrisy and double-standard reminds me of the arrogance of Core. Are you going to ban me again for posting too much about how China was centralizing mining (yeah I have 1% of all posts on this forum apparently more than you and I even remember you before you became a mod)?

ETC is the original ETH, and the current ETH is the altcoin as it was a contentious HF also known as 'bailout fork'.

So much for the absolute veracity of relative perspectives huh.

I'd rather have large nodes but anyone is free to send anonymous transactions than everyone is free to run a node, but you have to register with some third party to transact.  

Who has been feeding you these kinds of doomsday scenarios for the Core roadmap? In no way will you ever need to 'register with some third party to transact'.

Can you guarantee that? Just like when you mods banned me for posting too much about China's mining cartel.

Sorry for being too outspoken. I better be a good boy now and not try to go against the trend of ignorance. But now finally the n00bs have started to awaken to what I was warning about years ago. I should have known not to try to speak to people who weren't ready to hear. I am learning.

The brow beating pisses people off. Please don't talk down to us (always in discrediting others mode to keep Core up on a untouchable pedastal in the minds of readers). Learn to have a civil dialogue.
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 »
  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!