Bitcoin Forum
December 03, 2016, 11:55:20 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Why not 10 coins per block and a block every 2 minutes?  (Read 5206 times)
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
July 30, 2011, 04:23:41 AM
 #61

Then what is the disconnect?  Have you read the white paper?  If so, are you sure that you understood it?  Bitcoin has a lot of moving parts, really.  The possibility of a blockchain attack doing any lasting harm is directly addressed in Satoshi's white paper, and what I think that you guys are describing isn't possible with less than a majority hashing power. 

The disconnect here is that you're talking about "lasting harm" in the context of the network.  If I get one confirm, give you the keys to my car, you drive off and the blockchain reorganizes so your payment goes someplace else (due to double spending on another branch)— lasting harm was done by any sane measure.
 

Not to me or the rest of the network.  Such harm is limited to you, the seller who didn't take prudent steps.  Have you ever bought a car from a dealership wherein you were not in the dealership for at least 30 minutes?  This does not qualify as lasting harm in the context of bitcoin itself or the network.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480766120
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480766120

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480766120
Reply with quote  #2

1480766120
Report to moderator
1480766120
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480766120

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480766120
Reply with quote  #2

1480766120
Report to moderator
iopq
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644


View Profile
July 30, 2011, 04:39:40 AM
 #62

tl;dr stop mining from deepbit

gmaxwell
Moderator
Legendary
*
qt
Offline Offline

Activity: 2016



View Profile
July 30, 2011, 10:58:42 AM
 #63

Not to me or the rest of the network.  Such harm is limited to you, the seller who didn't take prudent steps.  Have you ever bought a car from a dealership wherein you were not in the dealership for at least 30 minutes?  This does not qualify as lasting harm in the context of bitcoin itself or the network.

By making the block time faster the risk from shorter confirmation or the number of confirmation needed to reduce risk is increased. This is a cost to all bitcoin users, especially since its users can suffer from the loss of confidence in addition to the loss itself.
bji
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


View Profile
July 30, 2011, 09:25:07 PM
 #64

[content omitted]

Something must be wrong with the forum.  That post is attributed to me but I didn't write it, although I think the points are all valid and good.
bji
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


View Profile
July 30, 2011, 09:27:31 PM
 #65

YES, but NO. Not unless you are discussing competing malice or network isolation. Honest nodes will acknowledge defeat, malicious nodes will not, much like this thread.

I will admit defeat if you will admit that these veiled insults you post are uncalled for,
netrin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322


FirstBits: 168Bc


View Profile
August 01, 2011, 02:21:53 AM
 #66

This is the real bji, right?

I certainly did intend to directly and personally tease you with Moynihan's quote because I hope we've all been arguing not between differences of opinion but assertions of fact.

 "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion. But, Senator, you are not entitled to your own facts"
     -- Daniel Patrick Moynihan, 2003 or James R. Schlesinger, 1973

I then continued to quote your post, commenting throughout. I agreed with you that this thread has had multiple sub-threads and I tried to address those diversions as I saw them. My veiled insult ("Honest nodes will acknowledge defeat, malicious nodes will not, much like this thread") was a side note directed at the general inconclusive sub-threads and the posters who propagated them, not to you specifically. I hope you will accept my apology. I sincerely did not mean to single you out, but I can see that by quoting you exclusively, that is what I've done. I am sorry.

More than any other post, I appreciated your attempt to put your argument in numbers. Despite Kjj pointing out the limited domain, I hoped to see revised attempts to quantifying the difficulty of a double-spend attack, both within a few blocks and over a sustained attack.

Greenlandic tupilak. Hand carved, traditional cursed bone figures. Sorry, polar bear, walrus and human remains not available for export.
bji
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


View Profile
August 02, 2011, 08:04:38 AM
 #67

This is the real bji, right?

Yes, it's me, I have no idea what the forum software did because someone else's entire post is attributed to me!  You can tell that I didn't write it because it's pointing out flaws in some of my own logic and not written from my perspective on the matter.  Weird.

Quote
I certainly did intend to directly and personally tease you with Moynihan's quote because I hope we've all been arguing not between differences of opinion but assertions of fact.

 "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion. But, Senator, you are not entitled to your own facts"
     -- Daniel Patrick Moynihan, 2003 or James R. Schlesinger, 1973

I then continued to quote your post, commenting throughout. I agreed with you that this thread has had multiple sub-threads and I tried to address those diversions as I saw them. My veiled insult ("Honest nodes will acknowledge defeat, malicious nodes will not, much like this thread") was a side note directed at the general inconclusive sub-threads and the posters who propagated them, not to you specifically. I hope you will accept my apology. I sincerely did not mean to single you out, but I can see that by quoting you exclusively, that is what I've done. I am sorry.

More than any other post, I appreciated your attempt to put your argument in numbers. Despite Kjj pointing out the limited domain, I hoped to see revised attempts to quantifying the difficulty of a double-spend attack, both within a few blocks and over a sustained attack.

Well, I admit to being a little more affronted by your post than was really called for; so I apologize for my own haste to judgement about your intentions.  And anyway I appreciate your conciliatory words here.

I think that some good points were made in this discussion about the resilience of the bitcoin protocol to attacks by anyone with less than 50% hashing power.  I think I was wrong in claiming that the effects of a "lucky" lower-power hasher with bad intentions could be disruptive; the honest majority will always win and should win quickly enough that anyone waiting for a reasonable number of confirmations can have high confidence in confirmed transactions.

I do believe that we've fairly well shown why reducing the block generation time to every 2 minutes would be a bad idea (because it would make all of the points about why bitcoin is resilient against these kinds of attacks less strong and make such attacks much more likely to succeed, in addition to generally creating lots more block chain forking and general uncertainty).
Maged
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260


View Profile
August 02, 2011, 05:03:00 PM
 #68

This is the real bji, right?

Yes, it's me, I have no idea what the forum software did because someone else's entire post is attributed to me!  You can tell that I didn't write it because it's pointing out flaws in some of my own logic and not written from my perspective on the matter.  Weird.
Sorry, I think someone hit edit instead of quote. We're working to figure out who.

Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]  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!