Bitcoin Forum
November 20, 2017, 02:21:02 PM *
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 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Why Bitcoin Core Developers won't compromise  (Read 10998 times)
dinofelis
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700


View Profile
May 14, 2017, 06:59:51 AM
 #41

If we are talking about the purpose of Bitcoin, we should remember the context of its inception and the message encrypted in the genesis block:

"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"

This was probably intended to comment on the instability caused by fractional-reserve banking and to provide people with another option:   peer-to-peer cash.  

This is in fact extremely ironic.  The banking crisis of 2007-2008 was NOT caused by any failure of the fiat currency system.  It was caused by reckless speculation of financial institutions on "virtual assets" which were the toxic complex derivatives, of which the backing in real economic terms was totally unfathomable by their complexity and hence became unbacked assets, and which essentially crashed, exposing these financial institutions with worthless paper.  This SPECULATION is what was at the cause of the crisis, not any quirks in the issuing of fiat money, as can be seen by the relative price stability of most fiat currency in that period.

Now, as a reaction to that, bitcoin's creator invented an asset, bitcoin, that has a severe deflationary spiral built into it, and hence is entirely designed to be a heavily speculative asset (as is observed in reality), exactly of the same kind as the kind of hollow derivatives speculation that caused the crisis.

So, bitcoin pretended to fix a problem that wasn't one (namely the pretended problem with the fiat payment system), while inventing an asset that was of the same speculative type as the stuff that DID cause the problem.

That said, bitcoin did pave the way for a "freedom currency", that would allow people to win back their economic freedom, from law, state and tax.  So the fact that a freedom currency could exist, is an interesting aspect of bitcoin.  However, in my opinion, it contains too many fatal design flaws to become such a large scale currency (if even there's a demand for it) ; but for a smaller community of people, it can have this usage on occasions even though its overall design makes it into a speculative asset.
Join ICO Now A blockchain platform for effective freelancing
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511187662
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511187662

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511187662
Reply with quote  #2

1511187662
Report to moderator
ImHash
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546


MatrixCoin - Creating Bright Future Together


View Profile
May 14, 2017, 07:30:06 AM
 #42

If I understand this correctly miners can filter spams?
Why are other miners confirm the blocks containing such obvious spams and why don't they reject such blocks?

So now Jonald is Wu?

I can see BU fans are desperate enough they even beg for a SW+2MB upgrade, damn receiving double the fees and mining with ASICboost must be tasting good.


I blame Satoshi, he should've known better how does these things work, where is the copy right for bitcoin? he could've sued BU for trying to violate the copy rights.


██████████.......█████......
████████████.....███████.....
███....█████.....███████.....
███....█████.....███████.....
████....██████...█████████....
██████......██████████...█████████....
█████......██████......████....██...█████████....
█████......██████......████....███.███████████...
█████......██████......████....███.███████████...
███...................█████████████████.███████████...
███..███..█████.......██████████.████████████.█████████..
███..█████.......██████████.████████████.█████████..
█████.......██████████.████████████.█████████..
██████......███...███████████...██████████.
██████......███...███████████...██████████.
██████......███...███████████...██████████.
██████......██.....█████████.....██████████
██████████.....█████████.....██████████
██████████.....█████████.....██████████
   
██
█  ██  █
█  ██  █
█  ██  █
█  ██  █
█  ██  █
█  ██  █
█  ██  █

█  ██  █

█  ██  █

█  ██  █

█  ██  █

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

█  ██  █

█  ██  █

█  ██  █

█  ██  █

██
   
➤  TWITTER
➤  FACEBOOK
➤  INSTAGRAM
Sr.Urbanist
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224


View Profile
May 14, 2017, 07:32:48 AM
 #43

If we are talking about the purpose of Bitcoin, we should remember the context of its inception and the message encrypted in the genesis block:

"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"

This was probably intended to comment on the instability caused by fractional-reserve banking and to provide people with another option:   peer-to-peer cash.  

This is in fact extremely ironic.  The banking crisis of 2007-2008 was NOT caused by any failure of the fiat currency system.  It was caused by reckless speculation of financial institutions on "virtual assets" ... not any quirks in the issuing of fiat money, as can be seen by the relative price stability of most fiat currency in that period.

Jajajaja ... it's totally ironic.  I think it provides people with another option.  Andreas Antonopolis told a story in an interview about how he convinced his mother to put all of her money into Bitcoin in 2011.  She finally did.  Shortly after, the government took 20% from everyone's bank accounts.  There is nothing wrong with fiat currencies, except politics, and that's also true with Bitcoin.

Now, as a reaction to that, bitcoin's creator invented an asset, bitcoin, that has a severe deflationary spiral built into it, and hence is entirely designed to be a heavily speculative asset (as is observed in reality), exactly of the same kind as the kind of hollow derivatives speculation that caused the crisis.

Do you think maybe it was to mimic gold, as some have suggested? Perhaps it was to say "DON'T PRINT MONEY TO BAIL OUT BANKS!" We'll never know [hopefully] and that's the fun part.  Probably some of both.

That said, bitcoin did pave the way for a "freedom currency", that would allow people to win back their economic freedom, from law, state and tax.  So the fact that a freedom currency could exist, is an interesting aspect of bitcoin.  However, in my opinion, it contains too many fatal design flaws to become such a large scale currency (if even there's a demand for it) ; but for a smaller community of people, it can have this usage on occasions even though its overall design makes it into a speculative asset.

Yes. That is true.  I never thought about Silk Road.

It will be interesting to see where it goes.  It has a lot of benefits by being the first, but other currencies are able to adapt.  DASH has seen the Bitcoin scaling debate and built it into their Masternode.  They also have 100 DASH limit to vote.  ETH is exploring proof of stake, which is a flaw with BTC; people can say all they want without having a dime invested and it takes time to distinguish on these sites.

I don't think Bitcoin will go away.  I think it's great, but I am diversifying my portfolio (along with many others) and am mostly interested in LiteCoin and DASH.  Having said that, I think any cryptocurrency that has a public blockchain can be legitimate and competes with BTC.  If it's an internal blockchain, then, it probably has less value.  I'm thinking Ripple.
Sr.Urbanist
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224


View Profile
May 14, 2017, 07:42:40 AM
 #44

If I understand this correctly miners can filter spams?

I don't think so.  I think they are just stupid computers that try to guess the answer.  If they get it right, they get a prize.

I can see BU fans are desperate enough they even beg for a SW+2MB upgrade,

Nope. Just slowly showing more and more support for BU and less and less for Segwit: https://coin.dance/blocks  It's the high transaction fees.  If we have larger blocks, then the fees go down because more transactions are picked up per block.  Lower fees = higher quantity demanded = higher price

damn receiving double the fees and mining with ASICboost must be tasting good.

It helps to offset the constant difficulty increase, but the amount of BTC per hash continues to decrease.  I used to get 0.02 BTC per day and it's now down to 0.013 because of the additional hashers - even with high fees.  We need to pay bills though and often transact at least a couple times per day, so any gains from the fees are eaten up by paying higher fees.


dinofelis
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700


View Profile
May 14, 2017, 09:02:54 AM
 #45

If we are talking about the purpose of Bitcoin, we should remember the context of its inception and the message encrypted in the genesis block:

"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"

This was probably intended to comment on the instability caused by fractional-reserve banking and to provide people with another option:   peer-to-peer cash.  

This is in fact extremely ironic.  The banking crisis of 2007-2008 was NOT caused by any failure of the fiat currency system.  It was caused by reckless speculation of financial institutions on "virtual assets" ... not any quirks in the issuing of fiat money, as can be seen by the relative price stability of most fiat currency in that period.

Jajajaja ... it's totally ironic.  I think it provides people with another option.  Andreas Antonopolis told a story in an interview about how he convinced his mother to put all of her money into Bitcoin in 2011.  She finally did.  Shortly after, the government took 20% from everyone's bank accounts.  There is nothing wrong with fiat currencies, except politics, and that's also true with Bitcoin.

Sure, it is another option.  That said, when government wants to take assets from people, they will always find a way, especially when the assets become "publicly accepted" (and hence also "declared"). 

But there's a difference between "freedom money" (of which I'm fond), and "sound money doctrine" (finite set of assets).   Nothing stops freedom money from having an issuing mechanism that more or less regulates its value to a constant, and hence can become a much better unit of account than an inelastic amount of assets which will always turn into speculative items, because of their volatility (and especially, if "growing", by their greater-fool potential).

In as much as bitcoin was a great idea to have a decentralized monetary token, its economic policy is very naive and bound to failure (as an ideal monetary asset), especially because it has no elasticity.

Quote
Do you think maybe it was to mimic gold, as some have suggested? Perhaps it was to say "DON'T PRINT MONEY TO BAIL OUT BANKS!" We'll never know [hopefully] and that's the fun part.  Probably some of both.

But gold never was a great money, and gold is special, because of its historical ground.  Rare stuff just becomes speculative, and when it is speculative, it has not stable value, and when it has no stable value, it is not a good unit of account, and when it is not a good unit of account, it is not a fluid currency.

Also, gold "always existed" in a certain way, and the only thing that new gold sources did, was a "gold rush" which was always an economic disaster, from the demise of the native American civilisations to the disasters elsewhere ; but gold never faced the problem of extremely severe seigniorage, making huge fortunes of a few. 

Quote
It will be interesting to see where it goes.  It has a lot of benefits by being the first, but other currencies are able to adapt.  DASH has seen the Bitcoin scaling debate and built it into their Masternode.  They also have 100 DASH limit to vote.  ETH is exploring proof of stake, which is a flaw with BTC; people can say all they want without having a dime invested and it takes time to distinguish on these sites.

I don't think Bitcoin will go away.  I think it's great, but I am diversifying my portfolio (along with many others) and am mostly interested in LiteCoin and DASH.  Having said that, I think any cryptocurrency that has a public blockchain can be legitimate and competes with BTC.  If it's an internal blockchain, then, it probably has less value.  I'm thinking Ripple.

My take on it is that bitcoin will stay, of course.  But I think bitcoin has so many flaws, is based upon so many misconceptions, that it will never be what it was said it was going to be ; and bitcoin has been withholding serious crypto competition until recently, by its de facto monopoly of the market. 

That said, my idea is that most of crypto, as of this day, is heavily speculative, and that this will only get worse, not better, because almost no token has self-regulating systems, and if they are, nobody is interested in it.  Bitcoin has killed the dream of free money by being a get-amazingly-rich-quickly scheme like rarely has been seen before, and by having many imitators of that same scheme.  DASH, for instance, even amplified the deflationary spiral with its master node scheme. 

It is very easy to make a speculation-capped crypto asset, that will never fall into a deflationary spiral, but nobody would use it, because, exactly, the get-rich-quickly dream would not be included, and all the deflationary bullshit of bitcoin's monetary theory would be baffled: the simple thing to do would be to have PoW without automatic adaptation, but with a slowly rising curve.  As such, a coin would never be worth more than the economic cost of the PoW of its creation, and the monetary mass would adapt to its market value to keep it essentially constant (the rising curve would compensate for the improving technology) ; exactly like central banks do.  But nobody actually wants "internet money" - except dark markets.  People want "digital gold on steroids" to become rich quickly in a greater fool game.  My idea is that this is what kills crypto's soul, and that we're just seeing the crypto version of a huge "complex derivatives" market on which people speculate.

jonald_fyookball
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


View Profile
May 14, 2017, 01:15:09 PM
 #46

I understand PoW used for both insuance and consensus... still, i think its kind of pointless to say "PoW not as good as DSA".  You can't solve the double spend problem simply with digital signatures.  That's why they invented Bitcoin Wink

cryptoanarchist
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106



View Profile
May 14, 2017, 03:02:39 PM
 #47

How do you maintain the promise of so called "peer to peer cash" to scale globally without centralizing the network due huge blocks that people cannot afford to run at home, therefore not anymore peer to peer cash but peer to corporation to peer transaction? (aka what we have already in the current baking system)

I'm amazed that this point is repeated over and over, and I've been arguing, demonstrating, proving.... that there's no *power* to be had in running a full node that is not a mining node.  There is *information* to be had when running a full node: indeed, if you want to *verify yourself* what the system is doing *but without any means to act on it*, you can run a full node.  But that's informational, and is not a matter of power.

I'm amazed that people always put forward the "decentralization aspect" of full nodes, while Satoshi himself explained from the very beginning:
1) that the consensus system is Proof of Work, especially to avoid "proof of node" simply because that would be open to Sybil attacks, and as such, nullifying the decision power of non-mining full nodes ON PURPOSE.  PoW was introduced exactly for that !
2) that if the block chain becomes very succesfull, only people mining new coins need to run a full node, and that other users can use their light wallets to connect to them.

So, concerning the decentralization of bitcoins consensus mechanism, there's absolutely no use for non-mining full nodes.  As an individual power user, you may want to check for yourself whether bitcoin is still working how they told you it was working, and invest in a full node - but the only thing you will get out of that is *information* ; you cannot INFLUENCE bitcoin that way.

I've argued this very logical point, nobody has ever countered it, and it is fairly obvious from the writings of its creator that non-mining full nodes have no consensus power at all.

In other words, your permissionlessness, and your ability to transact peer-to-peer are totally INDEPENDENT of whether there are a lot of non-mining full nodes or not, because ALL THAT is decided by the consensus of miners.  The protocol they agreed upon to build the block chain, is the de facto protocol of bitcoin, and they decide if they include your transaction or not.  You don't need full nodes to transmit them your transaction: if you connect DIRECTLY to their nodes, they will get it.  And that was how bitcoin was designed !  Consensus is decided by those who deliver proof of work and explicitly NOT by the number of full nodes.

It is rather strange that one argues that the peer-to-peer ability to pay is compromised because Joe cannot run his full node in his basement any more (while this node never intervened in any consensus decision). but that the peer-to-peer ability would NOT be compromised by needing a lot of hubs in the LN network to agree to your transaction: hubs to which you are TIED with a payment channel which you cannot settle easily (as per definition that the on chain system is "compromised" and doesn't have, per design, the capacity for you to easily settle).  Being forced off-chain looks to me like a much higher danger to the peer-to-peer permissionlessness of transactions, than having to rely on the consensus of Proof-of-work providers only.

The current, actual reality is that all of bitcoins' consensus, including the protocol, the permission to transact, the fees, and everything, are the consensus that happens between about 20 entities, the pools, that together, have more than 99% of the decision power (PoW) under their control.  The consensus that emerges between these 20 entities is what we call "bitcoin", and bitcoin was designed to be like that.  




This is the perfect explanation that I've been too lazy to write out for people. I'm saving this to copy and paste for people.
dinofelis
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700


View Profile
May 14, 2017, 03:22:40 PM
 #48

I understand PoW used for both insuance and consensus... still, i think its kind of pointless to say "PoW not as good as DSA".  You can't solve the double spend problem simply with digital signatures.  That's why they invented Bitcoin Wink

Of course you can, it is called proof of stake (for instance).  Some call it "check points" (which is signature of the dev).  Proof of stake has a known problem which is "nothing at stake", but ONLY because one combines proof of stake also with block rewards.  Proof of stake as a non-rewarded consensus mechanism doesn't suffer from that.  

Bitcoin could not really start with *rewarded* PoS, because then Satoshi was the only one who could "stake" in the beginning, so he would be the only one receiving new coins, and the only people obtaining bitcoin would be people getting them directly from Satoshi, which would look too much like Satoshi printing an infinite amount of money that he would then sell.
However, Satoshi could have had the idea of using PoW for coin CREATION, but keeping the consensus mechanism with PoS, non-rewarded.  At that time, it probably seemed a good idea to reward people doing the consensus signature thing ; but it turned bitcoin in a "mining industry" where the users are now "external customers".  If the consensus mechanism had been based upon staking signatures (with no reward) then "miners" would only be people making new coins, but would have had nothing to say about the protocol, the block size, or whatever, which would have remained in the hands of the bitcoin owners (the stakers).
It seemed a good idea to do everything in one go, but it turns out it probably wasn't.
cryptoanarchist
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106



View Profile
May 14, 2017, 03:30:31 PM
 #49


In fact, as long as these 20 entities are not attackers, and they have never been
As of today. But that "20" will continue to shrink until someone can control 51%. It's inevitable assuming "all things" stay the same.



History seems to indicate the opposite. I remember when the pie chart was mainly 3-4 pools, and there were a few times a pool DID achieve 50%+. There are more pools today than ever, and it will keep growing.
BillyBobZorton
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008


MatrixCoin - Creating Bright Future Together


View Profile
May 14, 2017, 03:56:14 PM
 #50

Fact: If you raise the blocksize up to a point where people can't run their own nodes, you cannot call it a peer to peer network anymore.

get the "gigabytes by midnight" script out of your head. the rises of blocksize can grow at a natural progressive rate that nodes can cope with.
core already admit 8mb is safe..
with all the code efficiencies since 2009 (libsecp256k1=5x efficient for instance),
the fact that we are not average homeline of 512mbit/s(38mbyte/10min) ADSL, but alot more as an average now
the fact that hard drives ar cheaper
the fact that the baseline raspberry Pi is now raspberrypi3

all show that 8mb is safe and admitted as such, but even so just going to 4mb is also ok. with a few tweaks ONTOP to further becoming extra safe such as limiting txsigops to 4k per tx or less forever...
all would show that there is nothing technically hindering the ability to run a full node at home


No amount of tricks can overcome the importance of a full validating node, so forget about SPV. The moment people can't have full validating nodes the whole concept of "peer to peer cash" it's game over.

and i now hope you see why the whole filters(gmaxbuzz) bridging(lukeJrbuzz) to create a cesspit of a TIER network by going soft is something i have hate of.


And 8MB is shit compared to mainstream payment transactors. You will never achieve mainstream adoption onchain.

8MB right now is not safe, it's too much, nodes will drop likes flies. Im dumping my node for sure at 8MB.


The Lightning Network can take a huge amount of transactions largely offchain.  The idea of having all transactions fully onchain is not a matter of principle, it's a matter of control from miners so that they can receive transaction fees more often.  SegWit allows a slight increase in onchain capacity which is enough for the short term while this offchain scaling can also be implemented.

You're wrong because off-chain transactions are against the nature of Bitcoin and Satoshi vision. All transactions must be ON CHAIN due to many reasons, technology is not in cause here. The decentralization model should also be for Core Dev we have to rethink the process of BIP proposal and reward Dev for it.


For exemple Bitgo Instant is great tool and might be considerated as Off-chain transactions network. You don't need a solution On the network but Off the network it's called business man

Satoshi's vision was "peer to peer cash". How can you call "peer to peer cash" something that is peer to corporation running nodes to corporation running miners to peer, peer to peer cash? Get real.




How do you maintain the promise of so called "peer to peer cash" to scale globally without centralizing the network due huge blocks that people cannot afford to run at home, therefore not anymore peer to peer cash but peer to corporation to peer transaction? (aka what we have already in the current baking system)

I'm amazed that this point is repeated over and over, and I've been arguing, demonstrating, proving.... that there's no *power* to be had in running a full node that is not a mining node.  There is *information* to be had when running a full node: indeed, if you want to *verify yourself* what the system is doing *but without any means to act on it*, you can run a full node.  But that's informational, and is not a matter of power.

I'm amazed that people always put forward the "decentralization aspect" of full nodes, while Satoshi himself explained from the very beginning:
1) that the consensus system is Proof of Work, especially to avoid "proof of node" simply because that would be open to Sybil attacks, and as such, nullifying the decision power of non-mining full nodes ON PURPOSE.  PoW was introduced exactly for that !
2) that if the block chain becomes very succesfull, only people mining new coins need to run a full node, and that other users can use their light wallets to connect to them.

So, concerning the decentralization of bitcoins consensus mechanism, there's absolutely no use for non-mining full nodes.  As an individual power user, you may want to check for yourself whether bitcoin is still working how they told you it was working, and invest in a full node - but the only thing you will get out of that is *information* ; you cannot INFLUENCE bitcoin that way.

I've argued this very logical point, nobody has ever countered it, and it is fairly obvious from the writings of its creator that non-mining full nodes have no consensus power at all.

In other words, your permissionlessness, and your ability to transact peer-to-peer are totally INDEPENDENT of whether there are a lot of non-mining full nodes or not, because ALL THAT is decided by the consensus of miners.  The protocol they agreed upon to build the block chain, is the de facto protocol of bitcoin, and they decide if they include your transaction or not.  You don't need full nodes to transmit them your transaction: if you connect DIRECTLY to their nodes, they will get it.  And that was how bitcoin was designed !  Consensus is decided by those who deliver proof of work and explicitly NOT by the number of full nodes.

It is rather strange that one argues that the peer-to-peer ability to pay is compromised because Joe cannot run his full node in his basement any more (while this node never intervened in any consensus decision). but that the peer-to-peer ability would NOT be compromised by needing a lot of hubs in the LN network to agree to your transaction: hubs to which you are TIED with a payment channel which you cannot settle easily (as per definition that the on chain system is "compromised" and doesn't have, per design, the capacity for you to easily settle).  Being forced off-chain looks to me like a much higher danger to the peer-to-peer permissionlessness of transactions, than having to rely on the consensus of Proof-of-work providers only.

The current, actual reality is that all of bitcoins' consensus, including the protocol, the permission to transact, the fees, and everything, are the consensus that happens between about 20 entities, the pools, that together, have more than 99% of the decision power (PoW) under their control.  The consensus that emerges between these 20 entities is what we call "bitcoin", and bitcoin was designed to be like that.  



Wrong:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNk7nYxTOyQ


██████████.......█████......
████████████.....███████.....
███....█████.....███████.....
███....█████.....███████.....
████....██████...█████████....
██████......██████████...█████████....
█████......██████......████....██...█████████....
█████......██████......████....███.███████████...
█████......██████......████....███.███████████...
███...................█████████████████.███████████...
███..███..█████.......██████████.████████████.█████████..
███..█████.......██████████.████████████.█████████..
█████.......██████████.████████████.█████████..
██████......███...███████████...██████████.
██████......███...███████████...██████████.
██████......███...███████████...██████████.
██████......██.....█████████.....██████████
██████████.....█████████.....██████████
██████████.....█████████.....██████████
   
██
█  ██  █
█  ██  █
█  ██  █
█  ██  █
█  ██  █
█  ██  █
█  ██  █

█  ██  █

█  ██  █

█  ██  █

█  ██  █

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

█  ██  █

█  ██  █

█  ██  █

█  ██  █

██
   
➤  TWITTER
➤  FACEBOOK
➤  INSTAGRAM
dinofelis
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700


View Profile
May 14, 2017, 04:10:39 PM
 #51

Fact: If you raise the blocksize up to a point where people can't run their own nodes, you cannot call it a peer to peer network anymore.

get the "gigabytes by midnight" script out of your head. the rises of blocksize can grow at a natural progressive rate that nodes can cope with.
core already admit 8mb is safe..
with all the code efficiencies since 2009 (libsecp256k1=5x efficient for instance),
the fact that we are not average homeline of 512mbit/s(38mbyte/10min) ADSL, but alot more as an average now
the fact that hard drives ar cheaper
the fact that the baseline raspberry Pi is now raspberrypi3

all show that 8mb is safe and admitted as such, but even so just going to 4mb is also ok. with a few tweaks ONTOP to further becoming extra safe such as limiting txsigops to 4k per tx or less forever...
all would show that there is nothing technically hindering the ability to run a full node at home


No amount of tricks can overcome the importance of a full validating node, so forget about SPV. The moment people can't have full validating nodes the whole concept of "peer to peer cash" it's game over.

and i now hope you see why the whole filters(gmaxbuzz) bridging(lukeJrbuzz) to create a cesspit of a TIER network by going soft is something i have hate of.


And 8MB is shit compared to mainstream payment transactors. You will never achieve mainstream adoption onchain.

Bitcoin will never go mainstream as payment system, that's obvious (*), so one shouldn't aim for something that will never happen.  Bitcoin is a speculative asset, it is not a currency.  Of course, it is a speculative asset that can be transmitted, and hence, can be used somewhat as a payment in those cases where normal payments don't work well (such as dark markets, bribing, murder on command, financing prohibited political activity, doing business away from taxes, and many other applications where fiat can only go with difficulty).  But it is not a stable currency that can be used as a general payment system so that's not necessary.

It only needs to carry the load of these niche payment applications, and of course, its main application, which is speculative trading.  Now, 1 MB is maybe a bit low for that, but I would be surprised if bitcoin needs orders of magnitude more for speculation transactions.  After all, they essentially serve to go to exchanges, and back to wallets.

Quote

Could you argue with text please ?  I'm sure you can give a logically constructed argument on which we can reason, instead of some or other video.  I can't reason with videos.  I watched the beginning of it, and it sounded like some rhetoric about the analogy with the internet, but rhetoric doesn't cut it.

I think my argument is quite watertight concerning the non-power of full nodes, and I've never seen a LOGICALLY ARGUMENTED rebuttal to it, that doesn't confuse full nodes with users, or doesn't confuse it with the power game of a hard fork.

(*) it is obvious because bitcoin is not a good unit of account, there's no mechanism in it that adapts the emission of bitcoin with its value with the aim to stabilize it, and bitcoiners are even proud of that.  Something that is not a good unit of account (volatile value) cannot be generally used as a currency in a payment system.
dinofelis
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700


View Profile
May 14, 2017, 04:17:58 PM
 #52

8MB right now is not safe, it's too much, nodes will drop likes flies. Im dumping my node for sure at 8MB.

Do you understand the importance hence of a serious logical and rational (not rhetorical) argument of why these non-mining nodes are essential ?

You are going to make a decision upon restricting the use of a system, maybe based upon an argument (we need lots of non mining nodes for "decentralization") that doesn't hold water, and of which one cannot give, visibly, a strongly argumented proof ?
cryptoanarchist
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106



View Profile
May 14, 2017, 04:30:26 PM
 #53


(*) it is obvious because bitcoin is not a good unit of account, there's no mechanism in it that adapts the emission of bitcoin with its value with the aim to stabilize it, and bitcoiners are even proud of that.  Something that is not a good unit of account (volatile value) cannot be generally used as a currency in a payment system.


Bitcoin has perfect stability - it has always maintained a value of 1BTC = 1BTC.

Oh, you meant its price in USD? Why would that be relevant to its stability? You are using a very unstable currency (USD) as a measuring stick. Any currency that replaces fiat must be volatile, because it has a lot of growing to get to that point, and its not going to chart a straight line on the way.

Quote
8MB right now is not safe, it's too much, nodes will drop likes flies. Im dumping my node for sure at 8MB.

Are you talking to us from 2005? 1MB, 8MB, 32MB...these are all insignificant amounts in today's world. To argue otherwise just ruins any credibility you may have had.
dinofelis
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700


View Profile
May 14, 2017, 04:32:19 PM
 #54


(*) it is obvious because bitcoin is not a good unit of account, there's no mechanism in it that adapts the emission of bitcoin with its value with the aim to stabilize it, and bitcoiners are even proud of that.  Something that is not a good unit of account (volatile value) cannot be generally used as a currency in a payment system.


Bitcoin has perfect stability - it has always maintained a value of 1BTC = 1BTC.

Oh, you meant its price in USD? Why would that be relevant to its stability? You are using a very unstable currency (USD) as a measuring stick. Any currency that replaces fiat must be volatile, because it has a lot of growing to get to that point, and its not going to chart a straight line on the way.

No, I mean in Big Mac of course.  How many Big Macs could you buy with 1 BTC in November last year ?  And how many big macs can you buy now with 1 BTC ?

How many Big Macs could you buy with $1000, in November ?  And right now ?
cryptoanarchist
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106



View Profile
May 14, 2017, 04:35:53 PM
 #55


(*) it is obvious because bitcoin is not a good unit of account, there's no mechanism in it that adapts the emission of bitcoin with its value with the aim to stabilize it, and bitcoiners are even proud of that.  Something that is not a good unit of account (volatile value) cannot be generally used as a currency in a payment system.


Bitcoin has perfect stability - it has always maintained a value of 1BTC = 1BTC.

Oh, you meant its price in USD? Why would that be relevant to its stability? You are using a very unstable currency (USD) as a measuring stick. Any currency that replaces fiat must be volatile, because it has a lot of growing to get to that point, and its not going to chart a straight line on the way.

No, I mean in Big Mac of course.  How many Big Macs could you buy with 1 BTC in November last year ?  And how many big macs can you buy now with 1 BTC ?

How many Big Macs could you buy with $1000, in November ?  And right now ?


Big Macs are priced in dollars.
See the difference? One is the established currency, and one is replacing an established currency. The replacer inherently CAN'T have the same pricing stability as the currency it is replacing. The former has to rise against the latter which includes against items priced in the latter.

Trying to peg a new currency to an established one is a fool's dream because it goes against non-fiat monetary fundamentals. A currency needs to grow in value organically ie. go up in price as it is adopted so that price is an indicator. Trying to rig that is no better than a fiat scheme.
dinofelis
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700


View Profile
May 14, 2017, 06:23:47 PM
 #56

Big Macs are priced in dollars.[/b] See the difference?

No, Big Macs are priced in many currencies, and this is used to find relative over or under-evaluations of currencies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Mac_Index

Big Macs expressed in, say, Yen, and calculated in Euro by their conversion rate, can be compared to Big Macs bought directly in Euros.

There are of course differences, which can also be partially accounted for by different *valuations* of the specific item of a Big Mac in different societies, but it gives a rather rough index of "true value of exchange".  They indicate differences on the 10-20% level or so.

Bitcoin went up from 10 000 BTC for one pizza, to about 200 pizza for 1 BTC in 7 years or so.   That's not a unit of account.  In Big Mac terms, that's 6 orders of magnitude.

It is a known economic experience that collectibles are never good units of account: it takes active steering (which can be automatic, as I said before) to keep the value of a currency more or less stable.

In fact, you can measure it in another way: if you can get genuinely rich with it by just hoarding it, it isn't a currency.  It is a speculative asset.

dinofelis
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700


View Profile
May 14, 2017, 06:32:09 PM
 #57

The replacer inherently CAN'T have the same pricing stability as the currency it is replacing. [/u] The former has to rise against the latter which includes against items priced in the latter.

Of course not.  In Europe, many currencies were replaced by the Euro, and the Euro didn't "rise" against these currencies to replace them.   The Euro got more and more participants, and replaced bigger and bigger markets, as new countries adopted the Euro, but the Euro didn't "rise" against these other currencies.  

Imagine that an imaginary bitcoin was emitted at against, say, $1 in the beginning, and that it had an emission scheme to keep it around $1.  (my proposal is to have proof of work that is about $1 worth, and can do as much proof of work as you want and emit as many coins as you want with that: if you are willing to burn about a million $ worth in proof of work, you own now a million coins ; if you want to burn a billion $ worth of PoW, you now own a billion coins).  Suppose that people like it, and start using it more and more.  Slowly, it starts to replace payments about everywhere.  The extra demand for the currency, to be able to use it (Fisher's formula) would make it rise in value, but that makes it more interesting to mine it, and it costs about the value of $1 to mine it, so people will mine a lot of it until it lowers again to near $1 value.  If it is less than $1 in value, nobody will spend PoW on it to make more of them, and none get emitted.  But if more people use them, more and more coins are in circulation.  The monetary mass, the market cap rise, and they replace soon most payments.  But nobody can get rich with it.  It is a currency.  Its value is stable (the value of about $1 of proof of work).  You can write a contract in it.  You know its value will remain stable (at least, will not deflate like crazy and become a rare collector's item).

2112
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974



View Profile
May 14, 2017, 07:33:44 PM
 #58

I think my argument is quite watertight concerning the non-power of full nodes, and I've never seen a LOGICALLY ARGUMENTED rebuttal to it, that doesn't confuse full nodes with users, or doesn't confuse it with the power game of a hard fork.
You've spent too much time arguing with dumbasses and marketroids which caused you to start believing in your own bullshit.

Almost from the inception people understood the importance of distributed node network, even if under centralized control:

1) ability for nearly anyone and relatively cheaply audit (in the accounting sense) the totality of the system.

2) distributed node architecture makes it easy and cheap to hide the actual expensive nodes (either due to mining or transacting/exchanging) from both attacks launched over the network.

3) not currently implemented by Core, but possible, the broadcast architecture makes it possible to use non-Internet methods of communication with super-extreme bandwidth asymmetry (high download but little upload).

Dinofelis, you clearly seem to have some academia background. But it must have been some theology school (or something equally anti-scientific) to be so unwilling to actually refer to the available references and verify your own assumptions.

Please comment, critique, criticize or ridicule BIP 2112: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=54382.0
Long-term mining prognosis: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=91101.0
cryptoanarchist
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106



View Profile
May 14, 2017, 08:11:55 PM
 #59

The replacer inherently CAN'T have the same pricing stability as the currency it is replacing. [/u] The former has to rise against the latter which includes against items priced in the latter.

Of course not.  In Europe, many currencies were replaced by the Euro, and the Euro didn't "rise" against these currencies to replace them.   The Euro got more and more participants, and replaced bigger and bigger markets, as new countries adopted the Euro, but the Euro didn't "rise" against these other currencies.  

Imagine that an imaginary bitcoin was emitted at against, say, $1 in the beginning, and that it had an emission scheme to keep it around $1.  (my proposal is to have proof of work that is about $1 worth, and can do as much proof of work as you want and emit as many coins as you want with that: if you are willing to burn about a million $ worth in proof of work, you own now a million coins ; if you want to burn a billion $ worth of PoW, you now own a billion coins).  Suppose that people like it, and start using it more and more.  Slowly, it starts to replace payments about everywhere.  The extra demand for the currency, to be able to use it (Fisher's formula) would make it rise in value, but that makes it more interesting to mine it, and it costs about the value of $1 to mine it, so people will mine a lot of it until it lowers again to near $1 value.  If it is less than $1 in value, nobody will spend PoW on it to make more of them, and none get emitted.  But if more people use them, more and more coins are in circulation.  The monetary mass, the market cap rise, and they replace soon most payments.  But nobody can get rich with it.  It is a currency.  Its value is stable (the value of about $1 of proof of work).  You can write a contract in it.  You know its value will remain stable (at least, will not deflate like crazy and become a rare collector's item).



Comparing fiat to crypto is apples to oranges. Replacing one fiat with another is not the same thing as replacing fiat with a non-government currency. I think you are arguing details and failing to see the point. When I wrote that I was referring to private money replacing fiat, not one slavery note being swapped for another.

Your emission scheme is just that - a scheme. Why would you want to peg to something you want to replace? That doesn't make sense. My guess is you're an older fellow who probably just can't wrap your head around life without the USD, and definitely not without fiat at all. How do I know? Because you are blurring the lines between fiat that derives its value from government force, and crypto which is private money that derives its value naturally, in the eyes of the consumer. Fiat and private money are totally different and you can't take circumstances from one and apply them to the other.

It takes years of brainwashing, like majoring in Economics-style-brainwashing, to think deflationary currencies are bad and elastic money supplies are good. Its the foolishness, if not downright insanity, of thinking that there is a magic algo or philosopher kings who can decide what the volume and value of money should be on any given day rather than leaving it to the market.
Qartada
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574


BlockWake.com Bitcoin Doubler


View Profile WWW
May 14, 2017, 08:23:09 PM
 #60

The replacer inherently CAN'T have the same pricing stability as the currency it is replacing. [/u] The former has to rise against the latter which includes against items priced in the latter.

Of course not.  In Europe, many currencies were replaced by the Euro, and the Euro didn't "rise" against these currencies to replace them.   The Euro got more and more participants, and replaced bigger and bigger markets, as new countries adopted the Euro, but the Euro didn't "rise" against these other currencies.  

Imagine that an imaginary bitcoin was emitted at against, say, $1 in the beginning, and that it had an emission scheme to keep it around $1.  (my proposal is to have proof of work that is about $1 worth, and can do as much proof of work as you want and emit as many coins as you want with that: if you are willing to burn about a million $ worth in proof of work, you own now a million coins ; if you want to burn a billion $ worth of PoW, you now own a billion coins).  Suppose that people like it, and start using it more and more.  Slowly, it starts to replace payments about everywhere.  The extra demand for the currency, to be able to use it (Fisher's formula) would make it rise in value, but that makes it more interesting to mine it, and it costs about the value of $1 to mine it, so people will mine a lot of it until it lowers again to near $1 value.  If it is less than $1 in value, nobody will spend PoW on it to make more of them, and none get emitted.  But if more people use them, more and more coins are in circulation.  The monetary mass, the market cap rise, and they replace soon most payments.  But nobody can get rich with it.  It is a currency.  Its value is stable (the value of about $1 of proof of work).  You can write a contract in it.  You know its value will remain stable (at least, will not deflate like crazy and become a rare collector's item).



Comparing fiat to crypto is apples to oranges. Replacing one fiat with another is not the same thing as replacing fiat with a non-government currency. I think you are arguing details and failing to see the point.

Your emission scheme is just that - a scheme. Why would you want to peg to something you want to replace? That doesn't make sense. My guess is you're an older fellow who just can't wrap your head around life without the USD.

It takes years of brainwashing, like majoring in Economics-style-brainwashing, to think deflationary currencies are bad and elastic money supplies are good. Its the foolishness, if not downright insanity, of thinking that there is a magic algo or philosopher kings who can decide what the volume and value of money should be on any given day rather than leaving it to the market.
Right, let's just get this straight. 

The US dollar is not volatile compared to Bitcoin.  Furthermore, the volatility in the day that it has typically varies around the same price range, while Bitcoin can swing by huge percentages in the course of a few days.

People here can imagine a life without USD, but that's just it:  imagining.  It will take time because Bitcoin's volatility is based on people's confidence, which is not as high as it will be yet.

Sure, it's not 100% accurate (the Big Mac Index is pretty close), but it's a damn good way to determine what the value and spending power of your Bitcoin is and what it has been in the few years that it's existed for.

Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 »  All
  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!