Bitcoin Forum
March 29, 2024, 12:27:52 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: What solution would you prefer?
Unconditional income (extremely high taxation inevitable) - 174 (77.3%)
Planned economy (with full employment provided by state) - 51 (22.7%)
Total Voters: 225

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Technological unemployment is (almost) here  (Read 88206 times)
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035



View Profile WWW
November 13, 2013, 10:13:15 PM
 #141

...C) You may still be wrong in understanding how bitcoin works, and are missing a variable either in it's technology, or in the game theory it's designed on?

Specifically?


Some assumptions we have to clarify:

  • Is it in the best interest of a mining pool or conglomerate to have 51% of the hashing power? (Y/N)
  • Are threats such as deliberately mining blocks with zero transactions a legitimate concern? (Y/N)
  • Do miners have majority control over which blocks are considered valid? (Y/N)
  • Are people in general altruistic, being ok with seeing their wealth diminish if it goes to "the greater good," if allowed to make that choice in private without coersion? (Y/N)
  • Are people stupid apathetic sheep who don't care about what happens as long as it doesn't affect them directly?(Y/N)

I would suspect your answers are Y, Y, Y, and maybe Y and Y. If that is true, I would say you may be wrong on the first one (read my sig), definitely wrong on the second one, and mostly wrong on the third. Fourth and fifth are a tossup, and fifth may be a major issue, depending on how things pan out. Specifically whether a drastic decrease in social services will force people to start caring and being more responsible. Also, as is the point of my sig, just as P2P file sharing is forcing people to rethink intellectual property, threat of 51% attacks may force people to rethink democracy and majority control. If that happens, the first thing will become a big N, as will the idea of "democracy" and minarchy.

But, these are really assumptions that neither of us can answer concretely (except for the second one, which is trivially easy to fix), so...
1711715272
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711715272

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711715272
Reply with quote  #2

1711715272
Report to moderator
1711715272
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711715272

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711715272
Reply with quote  #2

1711715272
Report to moderator
1711715272
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711715272

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711715272
Reply with quote  #2

1711715272
Report to moderator
"With e-currency based on cryptographic proof, without the need to trust a third party middleman, money can be secure and transactions effortless." -- Satoshi
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1711715272
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711715272

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711715272
Reply with quote  #2

1711715272
Report to moderator
1711715272
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711715272

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711715272
Reply with quote  #2

1711715272
Report to moderator
AnonyMint
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 521


View Profile
November 13, 2013, 10:19:40 PM
 #142

You better learn what deflation really is.

Jabs aside, your post starts off with this:

The basic point is that capital sitting in a hole FOREVER is theft from production and new knowledge creation. Savings and delayed gratification are important, but they are not so important that capital should grow in value FOREVER for doing nothing but sit in a hole.

There is a very subtle but extremely important question here that you may be missing, which I think deserves it's own post, and that is:
Does capital chase production and new knowledge creation? Or does production and new knowledge chase capital? Depending on how that question is answered may make the rest of your post completely irrelevant.

I had written extensively on this issue in the past:

http://www.coolpage.com/commentary/economic/shelby/Demise%20of%20Finance,%20Rise%20of%20Knowledge.html#Financeability_of_Knowledge

(above article was also published by gold-eagle.com, financialsense.com, etc)

http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html#Knowledge_Anneals

http://www.coolpage.com/commentary/economic/shelby/Housing%20Recovery%20Illusion.html


But I can now explain it more succinctly than my previous attempts. Smaller things grow faster, because only the person close to the opportunity can best leverage it. Capital is large, pooled, monolithic, and thus dumb.

Try to go to a bank and tell ask them to finance your altcoin R&D. I'd waste months trying to get financing that I could instead be using to actually code and release one.

Sorry I created CoolPage.com in a Nipa Hut in the Philippines. I was the programmer of it all, the janitor, the marketer, the artist, everything. And it reached a million users by 2001, well ahead of friendster. In fact, they came to me and bought a 7 figure non-exclusive license via Homepage.com.

Don't tell me knowledge chases capital. Not in this software age.

You should also study the 160 IQ genius Eric S Raymond and his economic writings on open source and knowledge creation:

http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/magic-cauldron/magic-cauldron-5.html

The Industial Age is dying (or dead). Capital is dying (or dead). We are in the knowledge age, and you can't buy my knowledge for less than $100 billion (which you soon will although I have no clue what I could do good with that much money).

unheresy.com - Prodigiously Elucidating the Profoundly ObtuseTHIS FORUM ACCOUNT IS NO LONGER ACTIVE
giantdragon (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582
Merit: 1002



View Profile
November 13, 2013, 10:20:10 PM
 #143

That confirms my statement that police will fight for whoever pays their paycheck. It's just that in this example, their paycheck is being paid for by the tax paying rioters, who are pissed off at the broke, moneyless government.
I wanted to show that automation affects police as well as any other professions (in fact already affecting with cameras and recognition software) so they will understand what is going. The part of police staff who share left-leaning ideas will definitely support rioters no matter if they get paid to do opposite. Look at the revolutions in the past - many times some cops/soldiers turned to the opposite side just for idea, regardless they receive payments from the govt.
AnonyMint
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 521


View Profile
November 13, 2013, 10:25:32 PM
 #144

That confirms my statement that police will fight for whoever pays their paycheck. It's just that in this example, their paycheck is being paid for by the tax paying rioters, who are pissed off at the broke, moneyless government.
I wanted to show that automation affects police as well as any other professions (in fact already affecting with cameras and recognition software) so they will understand what is going. The part of police staff who share left-leaning ideas will definitely support rioters no matter if they get paid to do opposite. Look at the revolutions in the past - many times some cops/soldiers turned to the opposite side just for idea, regardless they receive payments from the govt.

Who are the police and the rioters rioting against? The banks? So okay write-down all the debt great. Then they will all be in severe poverty for 2 years, then we can rebuild from a small government.

No! They rioting because they want to continue the social system they had. Nobody wants to admit that the system is bankrupt and all past gravy will come to an end.

They don't realize they are rioting against themselves. The elite think it is hilarious-- cows shouting "mooo".

unheresy.com - Prodigiously Elucidating the Profoundly ObtuseTHIS FORUM ACCOUNT IS NO LONGER ACTIVE
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035



View Profile WWW
November 13, 2013, 10:47:49 PM
 #145

You better learn what deflation really is.

Jabs aside, your post starts off with this:

The basic point is that capital sitting in a hole FOREVER is theft from production and new knowledge creation. Savings and delayed gratification are important, but they are not so important that capital should grow in value FOREVER for doing nothing but sit in a hole.

There is a very subtle but extremely important question here that you may be missing, which I think deserves it's own post, and that is:
Does capital chase production and new knowledge creation? Or does production and new knowledge chase capital? Depending on how that question is answered may make the rest of your post completely irrelevant.

Don't tell me knowledge chases capital. Not in this software age.

Well, then we are actually in agreement.

Quote
You should also study the 160 IQ genius Eric S Raymond and his economic writings on open source and knowledge creation.

I will, but I must say, I know some stupid people with high IQ. They're not stupid because they are not intelligent, they are stupid because they are misinformed, or cling to incorrect assumptions on which all the rest of their claims are built on, and are so convinced in their intelligence that they have stopped accepting new theories long ago.

As the 160 IQ genius Dmitry once said, "I know some stupid people with high IQ. They're not stupid because they are not intelligent, they are stupid because they are misinformed, or cling to incorrect assumptions on which all the rest of their claims are built on, and are so convinced in their intelligence that they have stopped accepting new theories long ago."
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035



View Profile WWW
November 13, 2013, 10:49:26 PM
 #146

That confirms my statement that police will fight for whoever pays their paycheck. It's just that in this example, their paycheck is being paid for by the tax paying rioters, who are pissed off at the broke, moneyless government.
I wanted to show that automation affects police as well as any other professions (in fact already affecting with cameras and recognition software) so they will understand what is going. The part of police staff who share left-leaning ideas will definitely support rioters no matter if they get paid to do opposite. Look at the revolutions in the past - many times some cops/soldiers turned to the opposite side just for idea, regardless they receive payments from the govt.

Yeah, that's true, And if we stay on topic, more and more police will become ex-police, and thus join the rioters. So it will be more and more up to the private security, paid for by the entrenched wealth, to stop the rioters.

No! They rioting because they want to continue the social system they had. Nobody wants to admit that the system is bankrupt and all past gravy will come to an end.

They don't realize they are rioting against themselves. The elite think it is hilarious-- cows shouting "mooo".

I think they are rioting because they think those who have money, and are refusing to give up to 100% of it away to support their social system, are somehow "stealing" from them, since how else does one make so much money? (obviously they don't know, otherwise they would have had it)
AnonyMint
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 521


View Profile
November 13, 2013, 11:10:21 PM
 #147

Rassah so we are in agreement on those last points.

Btw, I linked to the wrong article, here is the one that got widely published and it has more charts and graphics:

http://www.coolpage.com/commentary/economic/shelby/Understand%20Everything%20Fundamentally.html#centralization

unheresy.com - Prodigiously Elucidating the Profoundly ObtuseTHIS FORUM ACCOUNT IS NO LONGER ACTIVE
AnonyMint
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 521


View Profile
November 13, 2013, 11:26:35 PM
Last edit: November 13, 2013, 11:45:12 PM by AnonyMint
 #148

I missed this. We are still disagreeing on this. below...

...C) You may still be wrong in understanding how bitcoin works, and are missing a variable either in it's technology, or in the game theory it's designed on?

Specifically?


Some assumptions we have to clarify:

  • Is it in the best interest of a mining pool or conglomerate to have 51% of the hashing power? (Y/N)

If you are the government then yes. Government is a monopoly on force (a well accepted definition by most academics). Without that monopoly, they lose their reason to exist.

  • Are threats such as deliberately mining blocks with zero transactions a legitimate concern? (Y/N)

No. But you miss the point. The cartel will put all the transactions in their blocks and withhold those transactions from the other miners, thus starving the other miners of income to pay electricity for PoW.

  • Do miners have majority control over which blocks are considered valid? (Y/N)

I have no idea what you mean or what is your point?

  • Are people in general altruistic, being ok with seeing their wealth diminish if it goes to "the greater good," if allowed to make that choice in private without coersion? (Y/N)

What greater good? You mean Bitcoin is a greater good? No it is a certain monopoly for cartels and thus the government.

  • Are people stupid apathetic sheep who don't care about what happens as long as it doesn't affect them directly?(Y/N)

Mostly yes. Self-interest is very powerful and myopia is extensive, even you fail to see what I see. Yet I think you will finally realize it with my comment on #2 above.

threat of 51% attacks may force people to rethink democracy and majority control. If that happens, the first thing will become a big N, as will the idea of "democracy" and minarchy.

You don't understand how human action works. It isn't a group consciousness where we act rationally as a group. It is the individualized motivations that yield the domino effects that cause the group wave effect.

To analyze the game theory, you have to analyze those individual incentives.

This is precisely why democracy is failure, because the individuals are motivated to receive benefits from the collective:

Some Iron Laws of Political Economics

But, these are really assumptions that neither of us can answer concretely (except for the second one, which is trivially easy to fix), so...

I just did.

Sorry I can't continue this. I have work to do. Thanks.

unheresy.com - Prodigiously Elucidating the Profoundly ObtuseTHIS FORUM ACCOUNT IS NO LONGER ACTIVE
DoomDumas
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1002
Merit: 1000


Bitcoin


View Profile
November 14, 2013, 03:15:08 AM
 #149

Cant vote, both choice are'nt good from my POV !

I vote for a "Ressources Based Economy" ..  See : http://futurewewant.org/portfolio/resource-based-economy/
I myself would like to support resource based economy, but it requires extreme case - full automation to be sustainable (which may not happen within our lifetime, as well as Moore's law could stop at any time). In this topic I try to discuss implications of the existing or current-in-development automation deploying which will have effect now or after 5-10-20 years.

A ressource based economy could be implemented in 25 years.  See the free eBook : THE FIRST CIVILIZATION by Jas Garcha
grondilu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288
Merit: 1076


View Profile
November 14, 2013, 03:31:36 AM
 #150

A ressource based economy could be implemented in 25 years.

Then we'll talk about it in 25 years, ok?

Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035



View Profile WWW
November 14, 2013, 06:02:57 AM
 #151

Sorry I can't continue this. I have work to do.

For later, then (P.S. I started writing this earlier in the day, had to get to some bitcoin related work, by the time I got back it was 1am, and I'm sleepy and not entirely lucid. So, apologies if I don't make too much sense here)

Quote
  • Is it in the best interest of a mining pool or conglomerate to have 51% of the hashing power? (Y/N)

If you are the government then yes. Government is a monopoly on force (a well accepted definition by most academics). Without that monopoly, they lose their reason to exist.

If you are the government, unless you are a totalitarian dictatorship, or want to deliberately destroy bitcoin, then the answer is "not necessarily." If you gaining 51% puts your voter's money in jeopardy, and gets your politicians voted out, or worse, ruins the wealth of the senators already in power, it may be something that governments will avoid. Don't forget that people who run the place and make all the decisions are wealthy as hell, too. Also, as in the selfish miner countermeasure, if a government or some pool threatens to take over with a 51% attack, and is considered malicious, some pools can band together and create a "Bitcoin" fork that would split from the new "Govcoin." Though that will likely result in massive forking, chaos, and general collapse of the monetary system. And subsequent beheadings of government officials...
Personally, I think governments will lose the funding to support their monopoly on force before they realize what is happening...

  • Are threats such as deliberately mining blocks with zero transactions a legitimate concern? (Y/N)

No. But you miss the point. The cartel will put all the transactions in their blocks and withhold those transactions from the other miners, thus starving the other miners of income to pay electricity for PoW.


All transactions get propagated through the entire network of bitcoin users, with miners eventually also hearing them. So if you suggest that a mining cartel can somehow keep transactions from being broadcast, and keep other competing miners from hearing about them and mining them too, you are mistaken.
What I was asking about was the attack where a 51% cartel mines blocks that include only the transactions they wish to include, or includes no transactions at all, effectively stopping all transactions and freezing bitcoin. The simple solution to this problem is just to modify all clients to only accept blocks that have the most amount of transactions included, which can, and likely will, be done way before that becomes a problem.


  • Do miners have majority control over which blocks are considered valid? (Y/N)

I have no idea what you mean or what is your point?

I mean, can miners screw with Bitcoin by implementing arbitrary rules, such as increasing the total number of bitcoins, or creating nonstandard transactions, and forcing everyone else to eat them. I think the answer is no, since their blocks simply would not propagate. Point is that it is the clients that largely control the blockchain, not the miners. So if there are fixes, such as to accept blocks with the most transactions, already implemented into the clients, then the 51% attacker won't be able to do all that much harm.

  • Are people in general altruistic, being ok with seeing their wealth diminish if it goes to "the greater good," if allowed to make that choice in private without coersion? (Y/N)

What greater good? You mean Bitcoin is a greater good? No it is a certain monopoly for cartels and thus the government.

Greater good as in social programs. Or greater good as in seeing their bitcoin wealth slowly diminished, for the benefit of a government mining operation taking bitcoins to use for social programs or whatever.

  • Are people stupid apathetic sheep who don't care about what happens as long as it doesn't affect them directly?(Y/N)

Mostly yes. Self-interest is very powerful and myopia is extensive, even you fail to see what I see. Yet I think you will finally realize it with my comment on #2 above.

Obviously there will be a battle between people's self interest as bitcoin owners, and government's self interest as an authoritative body. I think people are too apathetic to care now, but may not be as more and more responsibility is put on them by bitcoin itself.

threat of 51% attacks may force people to rethink democracy and majority control. If that happens, the first thing will become a big N, as will the idea of "democracy" and minarchy.

You don't understand how human action works. It isn't a group consciousness where we act rationally as a group. It is the individualized motivations that yield the domino effects that cause the group wave effect.

To analyze the game theory, you have to analyze those individual incentives.

The incentive that I think individuals will have will mostly be "mine" and "gimme." These are the incentives that drive file sharing, to the detriment of the ultra-authoritative RIAA, Silk road users (and drug users in general) to the detriment of the DEA, soon 3D printed gun makers to the detriment of the ATF, and likely sooner bitcoin users to the detriment of the IRS. The simple incentive with bitcoin is "My bitcoins woth more = good, my bitcoins worth less = bad." That incentive can lead to "group wave effect" (?) of believing 51% power over mining, and possibly eventually everything, as bad, since that will make individual's wealth decrease


This is precisely why democracy is failure, because the individuals are motivated to receive benefits from the collective:

Oh yes, not arguing that point. The major change between past and future is that a big mob of people used to be able to wield enough power to take the funds needed to support the benefits, and soon enough that will not be an option any more. Well, to a point. They can still take possession and control of physical property.
AnonyMint
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 521


View Profile
November 14, 2013, 03:54:21 PM
 #152

You compelled me to reply, even though I want to stop. Because you made false statements.

Sorry I can't continue this. I have work to do.

For later, then (P.S. I started writing this earlier in the day, had to get to some bitcoin related work, by the time I got back it was 1am, and I'm sleepy and not entirely lucid. So, apologies if I don't make too much sense here)

Quote
  • Is it in the best interest of a mining pool or conglomerate to have 51% of the hashing power? (Y/N)

If you are the government then yes. Government is a monopoly on force (a well accepted definition by most academics). Without that monopoly, they lose their reason to exist.

If you are the government, unless you are a totalitarian dictatorship, or want to deliberately destroy bitcoin, then the answer is "not necessarily." If you gaining 51% puts your voter's money in jeopardy, and gets your politicians voted out, or worse, ruins the wealth of the senators already in power, it may be something that governments will avoid. Don't forget that people who run the place and make all the decisions are wealthy as hell, too. Also, as in the selfish miner countermeasure, if a government or some pool threatens to take over with a 51% attack, and is considered malicious, some pools can band together and create a "Bitcoin" fork that would split from the new "Govcoin." Though that will likely result in massive forking, chaos, and general collapse of the monetary system. And subsequent beheadings of government officials...
Personally, I think governments will lose the funding to support their monopoly on force before they realize what is happening...

Cartels will take over first. Once the cartels control 100% of mining, then the government will take over the cartels in "retaliation" (with winks and handshakes behind the scenes).

That is the normal course of events in democracy.

  • Are threats such as deliberately mining blocks with zero transactions a legitimate concern? (Y/N)

No. But you miss the point. The cartel will put all the transactions in their blocks and withhold those transactions from the other miners, thus starving the other miners of income to pay electricity for PoW.


All transactions get propagated through the entire network of bitcoin users, with miners eventually also hearing them. So if you suggest that a mining cartel can somehow keep transactions from being broadcast, and keep other competing miners from hearing about them and mining them too, you are mistaken.
What I was asking about was the attack where a 51% cartel mines blocks that include only the transactions they wish to include, or includes no transactions at all, effectively stopping all transactions and freezing bitcoin. The simple solution to this problem is just to modify all clients to only accept blocks that have the most amount of transactions included, which can, and likely will, be done way before that becomes a problem.

You are incorrect. If Amazon offers a downloadable client (or even one that runs from their website), which sends the transactions to their server, they have no obligation to forward the transactions to other miners.

  • Do miners have majority control over which blocks are considered valid? (Y/N)

I have no idea what you mean or what is your point?

I mean, can miners screw with Bitcoin by implementing arbitrary rules, such as increasing the total number of bitcoins, or creating nonstandard transactions, and forcing everyone else to eat them. I think the answer is no, since their blocks simply would not propagate. Point is that it is the clients that largely control the blockchain, not the miners. So if there are fixes, such as to accept blocks with the most transactions, already implemented into the clients, then the 51% attacker won't be able to do all that much harm.

Cartel can once it has destroyed all other miners and has 100% of the network hashrate.

This is precisely why democracy is failure, because the individuals are motivated to receive benefits from the collective:

Oh yes, not arguing that point. The major change between past and future is that a big mob of people used to be able to wield enough power to take the funds needed to support the benefits, and soon enough that will not be an option any more. Well, to a point. They can still take possession and control of physical property.

Cartels will own 100% of mining. No improvement at all for humanity. Worse we will be on a public ledger with no privacy nor anonymity. This is the 666 system.

unheresy.com - Prodigiously Elucidating the Profoundly ObtuseTHIS FORUM ACCOUNT IS NO LONGER ACTIVE
giantdragon (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582
Merit: 1002



View Profile
November 14, 2013, 05:59:47 PM
 #153

Seems that even scientists (!) cannot evade this problem:
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/blog/BizNext/2013/11/biomerieux-builds-lab-of-the-future.html
grondilu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288
Merit: 1076


View Profile
November 15, 2013, 04:18:23 AM
 #154


No wonder.  In the pharmaceutical industry, research involves a lot of repetitive process based on trials and error.  I'm not surprised it can be easily automated, it requires much more brute force testing than brain power.

I add to my TODO list that I have to increase my position on Biomerieux.

AnonyMint
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 521


View Profile
November 15, 2013, 06:59:02 AM
 #155

I hope voters realize that this popular choice for the poll:

Unconditional income (extremely high taxation inevitable)

Will just make everything more Madmax horrific.

unheresy.com - Prodigiously Elucidating the Profoundly ObtuseTHIS FORUM ACCOUNT IS NO LONGER ACTIVE
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035



View Profile WWW
November 16, 2013, 04:33:46 AM
 #156

Cartels will take over first. Once the cartels control 100% of mining, then the government will take over the cartels in "retaliation" (with winks and handshakes behind the scenes).

That is the normal course of events in democracy.

I don't think people will care if the 51% is owned by an organization that calls itself "cartel" or "government," either one will be considered a threat, and likely either one coming close to getting 51% will cause concern and threat of price collapse. Remember when BTCGuild got close to having 51% hashing power? Instead of continuing to increase their share, they increased their fees to get miners to leave their pool, because they know they will earn more by keeping Bitcoin secure and distributed, than by getting 51% power. Before that happened, everyone including the developers believed as you did. Now wee have evidence that that may not be the case.


All transactions get propagated through the entire network of bitcoin users, with miners eventually also hearing them. So if you suggest that a mining cartel can somehow keep transactions from being broadcast, and keep other competing miners from hearing about them and mining them too, you are mistaken.

You are incorrect. If Amazon offers a downloadable client (or even one that runs from their website), which sends the transactions to their server, they have no obligation to forward the transactions to other miners.

So, if you are using an Amazon wallet app, and I am using some other wallet app, and you try to send me coins, how will I know whether you sent them if you only send them to Amazon's servers? It would essentially cut everyone using Amazon clients off from the rest of the bitcoin network. Why would anyone want to use such an app? Bitcoin transactions primarily work because they are propagated P2P through the network from person to person. Miners just sit on the perifere catching these transactions as they pass by and adding them to blocks.

I mean, can miners screw with Bitcoin by implementing arbitrary rules, such as increasing the total number of bitcoins, or creating nonstandard transactions, and forcing everyone else to eat them.

Cartel can once it has destroyed all other miners and has 100% of the network hashrate.

Once they get beyond 51%, the bitcoins they are working so hard to mine and get control of will start rapidly losing value, as people abandon it and move to a more distributed system. Even getting close will be considered a threat. Just knowing this is likely to keep anyone from trying.

Cartels will own 100% of mining. No improvement at all for humanity. Worse we will be on a public ledger with no privacy nor anonymity. This is the 666 system.

How would miners know which address belongs to whom, if no IP's are tied to it, and their miners may only hear about a transaction after it has passed through multiple clients? And don't forget, if a 51%+ cartel implements nonstandard changes, their blocks will not be accepted by any of the clients, and won't even propagate. Their 51% will instantly become 0%, because, again, bitcoin rules are enforced first by the clients, and second by the miners.
hieroglyph
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70
Merit: 10



View Profile
November 16, 2013, 05:14:25 PM
 #157

I agree with what most of what is said in the OP but the opinions given in regards to the outcomes of technological unemployment and options  or paths we had I got a little confused so I'll read threw this thread to get more depth on the matter before I give my own opinion.

AnonyMint
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 521


View Profile
November 17, 2013, 01:25:34 AM
 #158

Cartels will take over first. Once the cartels control 100% of mining, then the government will take over the cartels in "retaliation" (with winks and handshakes behind the scenes).

That is the normal course of events in democracy.

I don't think people will care if the 51% is owned by an organization that calls itself "cartel" or "government," either one will be considered a threat, and likely either one coming close to getting 51% will cause concern and threat of price collapse.

Fact:

The cartel can hide how much hashrate it has, by using many IP addresses and sharing transactions until it has 50+% or more and is ready to move to the next stage.

All transactions get propagated through the entire network of bitcoin users, with miners eventually also hearing them. So if you suggest that a mining cartel can somehow keep transactions from being broadcast, and keep other competing miners from hearing about them and mining them too, you are mistaken.

You are incorrect. If Amazon offers a downloadable client (or even one that runs from their website), which sends the transactions to their server, they have no obligation to forward the transactions to other miners.

So, if you are using an Amazon wallet app, and I am using some other wallet app, and you try to send me coins, how will I know whether you sent them if you only send them to Amazon's servers? It would essentially cut everyone using Amazon clients off from the rest of the bitcoin network. Why would anyone want to use such an app? Bitcoin transactions primarily work because they are propagated P2P through the network from person to person. Miners just sit on the perifere catching these transactions as they pass by and adding them to blocks.

Fact:

You are conflating the publication of block solutions with the propagation of transactions before the fact.

You don't understand well the way Bitcoin works.

I mean, can miners screw with Bitcoin by implementing arbitrary rules, such as increasing the total number of bitcoins, or creating nonstandard transactions, and forcing everyone else to eat them.

Cartel can once it has destroyed all other miners and has 100% of the network hashrate.

Once they get beyond 51%, the bitcoins they are working so hard to mine and get control of will start rapidly losing value, as people abandon it and move to a more distributed system. Even getting close will be considered a threat. Just knowing this is likely to keep anyone from trying.

Fact:

If the cartel waits until they have 80 or 90% of the hashrate and transactions before attacking, then you will not get most of the commerce on your new fork. You lose.

The cartel's customers are not going to change which websites they send their transactions on. They will be happy with the service they are getting.

This is known as installed base networking effects, or inertia.

Cartels will own 100% of mining. No improvement at all for humanity. Worse we will be on a public ledger with no privacy nor anonymity. This is the 666 system.

How would miners know which address belongs to whom, if no IP's are tied to it, and their miners may only hear about a transaction after it has passed through multiple clients? And don't forget, if a 51%+ cartel implements nonstandard changes, their blocks will not be accepted by any of the clients, and won't even propagate. Their 51% will instantly become 0%, because, again, bitcoin rules are enforced first by the clients, and second by the miners.

None of that makes any sense.

unheresy.com - Prodigiously Elucidating the Profoundly ObtuseTHIS FORUM ACCOUNT IS NO LONGER ACTIVE
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035



View Profile WWW
November 21, 2013, 09:52:27 PM
 #159

Fact:

The cartel can hide how much hashrate it has, by using many IP addresses and sharing transactions until it has 50+% or more and is ready to move to the next stage.

Fact: moving to the next stage, i.e. announcing to the world that they do have 51% power, will be tantamount to them shooting themselves in the foot. Bitcoin will crash, as will their investments, OR they will be seen as hostile, and punished. IP or not, you can tell who has how much hashing power by how much each bitcoin address gets paid. The reason you can tell that BTCGuild, Ghash.io, Eligius, etc have so much hashing power is not from their IP addresses, but from the bitcoin addresses from the blocks they publish.
Let's say BTCGuild and GHash both owned 33% of the hashing power, and were actually owned by the same person, so you couldn't tell that someone owned 51% of the hashing power. What could this person do with these two pools that would not immediately expose them as having majority hashing/decision control, send bitcoin into a panick, and have miners leave those two pools en-masse?


So, if you are using an Amazon wallet app, and I am using some other wallet app, and you try to send me coins, how will I know whether you sent them if you only send them to Amazon's servers? It would essentially cut everyone using Amazon clients off from the rest of the bitcoin network. Why would anyone want to use such an app? Bitcoin transactions primarily work because they are propagated P2P through the network from person to person. Miners just sit on the perifere catching these transactions as they pass by and adding them to blocks.

Fact:

You are conflating the publication of block solutions with the propagation of transactions before the fact.

You are assuming that bitcoin wallets must wait for a solved block (~10 minutes) to see whether someone sent them money. That's not how it works. If your case was ever encountered, where you tried to use your Amazon wallet app to send me coins, and your app only send the transaction to Amazon's miners, I would claim that you have not sent me any money, since it hasn't shown up on the network (not within the first 10 minutes), and walk away, OR notice that your software is hiding transactions, and consider you suspect. Besides, with version 0.9 that's coming out, you would be sending me money from your Amazon app in the form of a signed transaction, and I would be the one to broadcast it. As a recepient of the coins, I have incentive to broadcast it to everyone I can, not just to your Amazon. So...

Quote
You don't understand well the way Bitcoin works.

Fact:

You are full of shit. And have quite the gall to come in here as some newbie who only recently heard about bitcoin, doesn't even own any, and spends time trying to shit on it without even understanding the basic underlying technology, telling me that I'm the one who doesn't understand.

Fact:

If the cartel waits until they have 80 or 90% of the hashrate and transactions before attacking, then you will not get most of the commerce on your new fork. You lose.

The cartel's customers are not going to change which websites they send their transactions on. They will be happy with the service they are getting.

Fact: the cartel's customers will be VERY unhappy when their currency crashes 90% in value, as large holders and investors dump the now broken currency for something else. That is what you, and those guys who wrote the Selfish Mining paper, are ignoring, or refusing to connsider.

Cartels will own 100% of mining. No improvement at all for humanity. Worse we will be on a public ledger with no privacy nor anonymity. This is the 666 system.

How would miners know which address belongs to whom, if no IP's are tied to it, and their miners may only hear about a transaction after it has passed through multiple clients? And don't forget, if a 51%+ cartel implements nonstandard changes, their blocks will not be accepted by any of the clients, and won't even propagate. Their 51% will instantly become 0%, because, again, bitcoin rules are enforced first by the clients, and second by the miners.

None of that makes any sense.


This:

"Worse we will be on a public ledger with no privacy nor anonymity."

does not work, because of this:

"How would cartel miners know which address belongs to whom, if no IP's are tied to it"

There is no identifiable information that miners, even 100% miners, can get on people's bitcoin addresses. IP's are not tied to them, and neither is anything else.

As for this:
"And don't forget, if a 51%+ cartel implements nonstandard changes, their blocks will not be accepted by any of the clients, and won't even propagate. Their 51% will instantly become 0%, because, again, bitcoin rules are enforced first by the clients, and second by the miners."

if that does not make any sense to you, then you need to figure out how bitcoin and its distributed consensus system works, before telling others they don't understand how bitcoin works. I would explain it to you, but I don't want to waste my time on someone as full of shit as you. And that doesn't happen often.
AnonyMint
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 521


View Profile
November 22, 2013, 03:35:49 AM
 #160

Rassah I responded to you.

unheresy.com - Prodigiously Elucidating the Profoundly ObtuseTHIS FORUM ACCOUNT IS NO LONGER ACTIVE
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 »
  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!