Bitcoin Forum
April 06, 2020, 07:19:43 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Long term advance notice!  (Read 3057 times)
hv_
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Activity: 1512
Merit: 572

Clean Code and Scale


View Profile WWW
June 10, 2019, 06:31:50 AM
 #121

I guess the only thing I want to reply to is point 2 about centralization. Yes, megagigaterapetablocks will likely result in fewer fully-validating, non-mining entities. It will also likely result in fewer full-stack mining entities. So what?

People keep talking about decentralization as if it is an end in itself. Why? AFAIC, as long as there are no structural barriers to entry by new participants, the network is as decentralized as it need be. If there is no discernible marginal benefit from adding one more participant to the network, then by definition further decentralization is of no benefit.

And quite frankly, all public blockchains -- to the extent that said blockchain is economically significant -- will centralize thusly - at least with respect to mining. How many parties make up 51% of BTC hashpower? Four. Already.

Not to mention the fact that non-mining nodes provide zero benefit to the network anyhow. If you have sufficient economic interest to be a first-class tx creator, then fine. Pony up for a validating client. But don't delude yourself that your participation brings any benefit to anyone but yourself.

By having megagigaterapetablocks you are giving full control of blockchain audit to the "operators". I guess the only way some people would understand why centralization is bad is when forces collude to censor certain transactions, such as donating to Wikileaks or anything else that wouldn't comply with what they consider a morally correct transaction.

The main reason Bitcoin has value is the fact that it works irrespective of any legal frameworks. CSW misses this main premise.

UASF control by hobby bitcoiners and PoSM change management

Or

Decent registered mining industry ( yes , it is also decentralized enough) in control to NOT change base protocol





Easy choice when scaling needed for global adoption , but some see only CSW and stop thinking


Carpe diem  -  understand the White Paper and mine honest.
Memo: 1AHUYNJKPfY7PjVK1hNQFo5LrdGixuiybw  -  https://metanet.icu/
The simple way is the genius way - in Moore's Law and Satoshi's WP we trust.
1586200783
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1586200783

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1586200783
Reply with quote  #2

1586200783
Report to moderator
AWARD-WINNING
CRYPTO CASINO
ASKGAMBLERS
PLAYERS CHOICE 2019
PROUD
PARTNER OF
1500+
GAMES
2 MIN
CASH-OUTS
24/7
SUPPORT
100s OF
FREE SPINS
PLAY NOW
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1586200783
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1586200783

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1586200783
Reply with quote  #2

1586200783
Report to moderator
1586200783
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1586200783

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1586200783
Reply with quote  #2

1586200783
Report to moderator
infofront
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974
Merit: 1959


Shitcoin Minimalist


View Profile
June 10, 2019, 04:51:19 PM
 #122


Decent registered mining industry ( yes , it is also decentralized enough) in control to NOT change base protocol


I hope you're right.

Here's another Shelby reply:

Quote from: Shelby Moore

Craig seems sincere but perhaps he’s just a good actor. I loved his argument at the end about equality in law is the antithesis of equality in outcomes. That is a high IQ conceptualization. Kudos. I rarely have the patience to watch a 1 hour video.

The flaws I see in his reasoning:

1. Recording of all data—without any options for privacy so that omniscient governments can be held accountable—is totalitarianism. Because accountability does nothing to fix nor even mitigate the Iron Law of Political Economics which insures that democracy will always be about selling infinite debt to infinite wants. Obligatory transparency of data can’t rectify that inherent flaw of democracy. So given the Weberian definition of government is a “monopoly on violence”, removing our voluntary option for privacy will enable absolute enslavement. Governance will become an Orwellian winner-take-all 666 if we follow Craig’s naivete. Our wise forefathers understood this and thusly recognized in the U.S. Constitution our inalienable right to bear arms and made direct taxation unconstitutional.

2. The “solution” provided by BSV for transaction volume scaling is essentially centralization. Thus the outcome of totalitarian control or failure due to infighting due to the inability for one mining/dev group to subjugate the will of another.

Both points are evidence that Craig is fighting against decentralization. Craig wants to return to the old dysfunctional political order which will die in flames of totalitarianism over the next decade(s).

So in short, Craig’s Vision (an impostor pretending to be Satoshi’s Vision) is worthless. He either knows this, or is incredibly naive.


Please forward my criticisms to Craig.

Btw, I debated Craig a couple years ago in one of his private slack channels and they ended up banning me because I was winning arguments. Go ask @kLee et al.



I guess the only thing I want to reply to is point 2 about centralization. Yes, megagigaterapetablocks will likely result in fewer fully-validating, non-mining entities. It will also likely result in fewer full-stack mining entities. So what?

Because I already provided a link upthread several times which explains in detail why automatically (e.g. via miner consensus) adaptive block size does not function correct decentralized. Ostensibly the only reason it is functioning now is because Craig’s group controls most of the mining and because they have the centralized political power to fork the code and influence all the miners to adhere.

It is not the size of the blocks that it is the issue per se. But the fact that changes to the size can not be decentralized.

Also very large block sizes that are not currently fully utilized can be used to destroy other miners and entirely centralize the mining. Well the mining is already centralized, so this is their poison pill to make sure it remains centralized. Craig will never tell you this and he will ban me from any discussions so I can not debate him. I will destroy him in any debate.

Put me on a live youtube debate with Craig and I will roast his ass so badly that he will lose all credibility. Not because I hate him, but because he does not tell the entire story. He hides information that he does not want you to know. Or he is incredibly naive.

Do you not know how large blocks can be used to destroy other miners? Simple, they drive the transaction fees too low. This is not an issue while the coinbase rewards are significant, but will be an issue later.

In short, BSV is technologically inept and will die a fiery death eventually.


People keep talking about decentralization as if it is an end in itself. Why? AFAIC, as long as there are no structural barriers to entry by new participants, the network is as decentralized as it need be. If there is no discernible marginal benefit from adding one more participant to the network, then by definition further decentralization is of no benefit.

You ostensibly just do not see holes in his inept designs which will cause them to crash and burn eventually. Centralization is an entire waste of time. Not trustless, not permissionless. Just use Facebook coin then.

Craig is no Satoshi. I am much closer to being Satoshi than he is (and yet I’m still not and very far from being), from the standpoint of technological knowledge. Craig is an erudite, learnt man. I am a (unfortunately chronically ill, as was Craig’s former partner) mad-scientist, primary researcher. These are facts, not hubris.

And quite frankly, all public blockchains -- to the extent that said blockchain is economically significant -- will centralize thusly - at least with respect to mining. How many parties make up 51% of BTC hashpower? Four. Already.

Nope. I expect something totally new and closer to perfect will arrive on the scene at an opportune time. It will not be Bitcoin, nor any fork of Bitcoin.

Not to mention the fact that non-mining nodes provide zero benefit to the network anyhow.

Agreed, but AFAICS irrelevant to my points above.



1. The argument is that govs can / must globally compete and the open ledger is the correct way how to do. ( see Swissy regulation here...)

And I rebuked that theory. Competition between democracies does nothing to rectify the inherent flaw of democracy. Only decentralization, trustlessness, permissionlessness, and (optional) anonymity can help us. We need a symmetrical power to resist tyranny. If you think the Swiss aren’t also destroying themselves, I have bridge on Mars to sell you. Do you need me to cite some Armstrong blogs about the political corruption in Switzerland?

2. We both know that profitable systems ALWAYS centralize but profit is the only working incentive to keep Bitcoin stable and valuable to all users.

Satoshi v0.5.3 protocol Bitcoin is decentralized enough, except for the dominance of ASICs and the fact that for example solar power in the middle of rural areas is not as viable as hydropower, because ASICs improve too fast so need to keep the hardware running all the time. I believe there may be a technological solution to this. Did you know that solar power is now less expensive than grid power (as low as 1.5 cents per kwh) in places such as Chile and the Middle East.

Then of course we need scaling but with constant block sizes. Again there may possibly be a technological solution for this as well.

And we need anonymity that is not entirely broken and centralized as is the case for Monero (I am entirely vindicated!)


The only repulsive force that works against the profit attractor is maximum fricktion gained by max openess for any operational risks including legal risks that e.g. are mainly responsible to break up chinese mining cartells atm.

Lol. Depending on the government to ameliorate the Iron Law of Political Economics centralization due to the game theory of political control. Sounds very logical.  Roll Eyes

Craig simply offers nothing new and just wants to take us back to old centralized Internet.

Sorry. Facts.



The UASF non-mining node army is ostensibly what pressured the miners into bending over and accepting Segwit. So history has shown that they can indirectly provide benefit, depending on what you'd consider a benefit.

Benefit of fooling people to idolize non-meritorious voting/democracy and encouraging so many foolish people to think that Core is Bitcoin. Core is a BitcOn-job. Sort of like a blow-job, will give an illusion of satisfaction for a short-term, but doesn’t accomplish anything of value.

Again none of you want to read what the Lord warned about this in 1 Samuel 8 and then fulfilled his warning in 1 Samuel 15. You all do not want to come out of statism. You do not want to be Christians. And thus you all want to be enslaved. Then some idiots will claim God in 1 Samuel 15 is cruel because he ordered even the babies to be slaughtered. Men refused what he warned about and thus reaped what they sowed. The teaching is about human nature. One could even remove the “Lord” from the scriptures and it would still be valid wisdom about the outcomes of joining in statism.

Again I wrote it all in the following blog but nobody cares about their future:

https://steemit.com/religion/@anonymint/ethics-of-religion-money-and-bitcoin

That is certainly a possibility. Why miners would bother listening to what a sybillable agglomeration of entities that have no demonstrable relationship to economic power is an exercise in understanding delusional stupidity. But there it is.

So yes. In at least one instance, it has been demonstrated that a detriment can be foisted upon the network by PoSM. But in no way was this demonstrative of forcing a benefit upon the network via the power of non-mining fully-validating entities.

Craig Wright and all of his followers are equivalent to Core and all of their follows, in that they are all idolizing statism in the sense of joining together in a collective of voting/governance. 1 Samuel 8. Core advocates voting for soft forks that later become hard forks (actually hard butt fucks in the ass of foolish followers). BSV advocates idolizing governance and law in general, as if some competition amongst nations will rectify human nature in political collectives. :roll eyes:
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2702
Merit: 1426


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
June 10, 2019, 06:13:17 PM
 #123

Quote from: Shelby Moore

Craig seems sincere but perhaps he’s just a good actor. I loved his argument at the end about equality in law is the antithesis of equality in outcomes. That is a high IQ conceptualization. Kudos. I rarely have the patience to watch a 1 hour video.

The flaws I see in his reasoning:

1. Recording of all data—without any options for privacy so that omniscient governments can be held accountable—is totalitarianism. Because accountability does nothing to fix nor even mitigate the Iron Law of Political Economics which insures that democracy will always be about selling infinite debt to infinite wants. Obligatory transparency of data can’t rectify that inherent flaw of democracy. So given the Weberian definition of government is a “monopoly on violence”, removing our voluntary option for privacy will enable absolute enslavement. Governance will become an Orwellian winner-take-all 666 if we follow Craig’s naivete. Our wise forefathers understood this and thusly recognized in the U.S. Constitution our inalienable right to bear arms and made direct taxation unconstitutional.

OK, I'll now respond to point 1. Your characterization of BSV as having no options for privacy is just false. While it is true that all data on the blockchain is publicly visible is true, this is also true of all other public blockchains. So no, you cannot so castigate BSV for this 'sin' without so castigating BTC, BCH, 0.5.3, etc.

But more germane, a characteristic shared by public blockchains is that the data wrapped in a tx (negligible in possible size on some blockchains, capacious in others) can be wrapped in encryption before being wrapped in a tx. Such encryption being in complete control of whichever party creates the tx.

Further, where exactly do you see BSV as a bastion of democracy? Nay, it is explicitly a meritocracy.

For these reasons, I reject your characterization of BSV as a tool of totalitarianism. At least without discussion of some other vector thereof.

Quote
2. The “solution” provided by BSV for transaction volume scaling is essentially centralization. Thus the outcome of totalitarian control or failure due to infighting due to the inability for one mining/dev group to subjugate the will of another.

Both points are evidence that Craig is fighting against decentralization. Craig wants to return to the old dysfunctional political order which will die in flames of totalitarianism over the next decade(s).

So in short, Craig’s Vision (an impostor pretending to be Satoshi’s Vision) is worthless. He either knows this, or is incredibly naive.

Craig's rhetoric is rather state-loving*, this is true. However, I have yet to hear him advocate any protocol changes in order to make the blockchain more useful for the state. His rhetoric is descriptive, not prescriptive. So what's your point?

*To put a finer point on it, not so much state-loving as civilization-loving or society-loving, with the state being merely proxy these otherwise nebulous 'collective-pseudo-entities'.

Quote
I guess the only thing I want to reply to is point 2 about centralization. Yes, megagigaterapetablocks will likely result in fewer fully-validating, non-mining entities. It will also likely result in fewer full-stack mining entities. So what?

Because I already provided a link upthread several times which explains in detail why automatically (e.g. via miner consensus) adaptive block size does not function correct decentralized.

No. As stated earlier (maybe our async communication is just crossing?), you cannot make this claim until you explain how the system persevered through the eras of the soft block size caps.

Quote
People keep talking about decentralization as if it is an end in itself. Why? AFAIC, as long as there are no structural barriers to entry by new participants, the network is as decentralized as it need be. If there is no discernible marginal benefit from adding one more participant to the network, then by definition further decentralization is of no benefit.

You ostensibly just do not see holes in his inept designs which will cause them to crash and burn eventually. Centralization is an entire waste of time. Not trustless, not permissionless. Just use Facebook coin then.

Do I understand you to be claiming some difference in centralization force between BSV and BTC or even 0.5.3? If so, you need to explain to me how it is any different. In lieu such explanation, I will simply respond 'bullshit'.

Quote
And quite frankly, all public blockchains -- to the extent that said blockchain is economically significant -- will centralize thusly - at least with respect to mining. How many parties make up 51% of BTC hashpower? Four. Already.

Nope. I expect something totally new and closer to perfect will arrive on the scene at an opportune time. It will not be Bitcoin, nor any fork of Bitcoin.

Great. Then again, you've been claiming to have the ultimate anonymous decentralized cryptocurrency design for years. Maybe it is time to get coding?

Quote
BSV advocates idolizing governance and law in general, as if some competition amongst nations will rectify human nature in political collectives.

I refer you to my point above. Rhetoric is merely rhetoric. The protocol is what it is. I'm surprised I need to point out the difference to you.

Anyone with a campaign ad in their signature -- for an organization with which they are not otherwise affiliated -- is automatically deducted credibility points.

I've been convicted of heresy. Convicted by a mere known extortionist. Read my Trust for details.
THX 1138
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 206
Merit: 103



View Profile
June 11, 2019, 09:25:07 AM
Last edit: June 11, 2019, 10:17:52 AM by THX 1138
 #124

Shelby has asked me to pass on his response:

Quote from: Shelby

How many parties make up 51% of BTC hashpower? Four. Already.

In my haste, I failed to respond to this specific claim of yours. You’re ostensibly referring to pools. There are available protocols for pools that can even enable individual miners in the pool to dictate what goes in the block which they find the winning solution for. Miners can switch from pools at any time.

If you’re instead referring to ASIC vendors, contrary to my expectations more and more fabs are available for ASIC vendors, such as Samsung and Fujitsu recently. And the number of ASIC vendors are also increasing with greater competition. And recently solar power has been as cheap as 1.5 cents per kwh. China has banned Bitcoin mining and an industry insider claims 90% of it has left China. It actually seems that Bitcoin mining is becoming more decentralized, which was surprising.




No, you still have not addressed how the network was not so damaged through the eras of the 250K and 500K soft caps.

Work that puzzle out, then tell me how those episodes were somehow exempt from your so-called fatal flaw.

I will explain below AFAICS there’s no puzzle. You appear to be mixing domain knowledge ineptitude and condescending hubris, which is a recipe for being humiliated and impoverished. I will try to be respectful and friendly despite the fact that you’re (just slightly) abusing me and trampling my effort in the mud like swine, with your what appears to be Dunning-Kruger-ness (?). I don’t go out of my way to be condescending and project lazy, ineptitude as hubris. JJG is an expert at doing that. As has been the case with other Coretards who are offended by facts, JJG misperceives my effort as cocky when in fact it is a humble (and pita, painstaking) attempt to help others. My words do become more sharp-tongued to those who refuse to stop trampling my effort in the mud. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and try to be factual and withhold my sharp tongue this time. Please take this opportunity to be more circumspect and improve your research and domain knowledge before you reply.

How about you tell us what puzzle you think you have worked out? Explain it to us or link us to some document which explains it. Full transparency please, not time-wasting obfuscation, political tactics. You are an engineer. Where is your technological document explaining this?

As I told you before (perhaps in a private communication), I have not studied in great detail all the machinations from that period of Bitcoin’s history. I do remember that Luke Jr. was (and apparently still is) adamant about smaller block sizes. Do you have a document which summarizes in sufficient detail what occurred so I can analyze it?

I did a Google search and found the following:

By default Bitcoin will not created blocks larger than 250kb even though it could do so without a hard fork. We have now reached this limit. Transactions are stacking up in the memory pool and not getting cleared fast enough.

What this means is, you need to take a decision and do one of these things:

  • Start your node with the -blockmaxsize flag set to something higher than 250kb, for example -blockmaxsize=1023000. This will mean you create larger blocks that confirm more transactions. You can also adjust the size of the area in your blocks that is reserved for free transactions with the -blockprioritysize flag.
  • Change your nodes code to de-prioritize or ignore transactions you don't care about, for example, Luke-Jr excludes SatoshiDice transactions which makes way for other users.
  • Do nothing.

If everyone does nothing, then people will start having to attach higher and higher fees to get into blocks until Bitcoin fees end up being uncompetitive with competing services like PayPal.

If you mine on a pool, ask your pool operator what their policy will be on this, and if you don't like it, switch to a different pool.

I added extra emphasis to the key statement above.

AFAICS, the key point is a hard fork would only have occurred if miners had chosen sizes greater than the 1 MB hard limit that Satoshi had put in immutable “v0.1”.

So AFAICS there’s no “puzzle”. The miners could make any size block they wanted to up to 1 MB and the Satoshi protocol would accept it with no hard fork. Any consensus around which “soft limit” to use was always overhead limited by the 1 MB hard cap limit dictated by Satoshi’s immutable protocol. Immutable because there was no Schelling point to hard fork the protocol. Hard forks are always worthless compared to (worth less than) the original, immutable Satoshi protocol, because otherwise it would require a Schelling point wherein the majority of wealth decides to sell the original and buy the new. But the problem is what new block size value do we agree on? We will never agree on one value. Thus the choice is between selling the original and buying innumerable competing forks, and thus the “unforgeable costliness” can never be transferred to hard forks. That is the game theory of proof-of-work. Learn it. Drill it into your mind. It will never change.

So Core was worthless because it did not force the Bitcoin wealth to make a decision. It sneakily injected a temporary “soft fork” deception to delay the decision of the wealthy. And of course the Bitcoin wealth have already made their decision about BSV and BCH. Just look at the relative market caps. And no the Bitcoin wealth is never going to sell out and buy BSV. For the reason I explained in the prior paragraph. Get real man. Wake up from the hocus pocus spell that Craig put on you.

And that is a critical distinction from the inept nonsense in BSV, which either has a) no hard limit, b) has a hard limit that is so high it can drive transaction fee revenue too low, or c) has a centralized protocol hard limit that is periodically raised. The last possibility #c is explicit centralization and the former two #a and #b enable a winner-take-all miner centralization that I explained already in my prior posts. With the adaptive unbounded block sizes limited by miner consensus in #a, a miner with sufficient percent of the network hashrate can (via economics) drive the adaptive consensus block size too large and thus is equivalent to #b. Multiple times upthread I provided a link which explains the problem with adaptive block sizes in more technological detail.

A block size which is too large as in #b (and what #a degenerates to) can force transaction fees too low, which enables bankrupting the marginal miners until the winner-take-all most efficient miner (or mining oligarchy) totally centralizes mining. I have explained this concept so many times to you over the years in various bitcointalk.org threads. I have never seen a cogent, correct, detailed rebuttal from you. Why do you continue obfuscating your thoughts by referring to some nebulous “puzzle” that you never specify?

Work that puzzle out, then tell me how those episodes were somehow exempt from your so-called fatal flaw.

Maybe it is time to get coding?

[…]

I'm surprised I need to point out the difference to you.

Character assassination (aka argument via ad hominem) instead of factual discussion, is not cooperation nor a meritocracy. That’s (along with Coretards’ appeal to authority, e.g. when they cite the BitcOn-job, hack Gregory Maxwell) the Dunning-Kruger, political trough tactics and laziness of Coretards such as JJG. I would prefer they tried to argue technological facts without attempting to personalize discussion (i.e. not resorting to the trough of politics), but they’re incapable of doing so and so they force me to judge their character. But I speak factually about them. They do not speak factually about me. They bear false witness and they will reap what they sow. They are not worth a further mention from me. Let JJG carry on with his nonsense in the W.O. thread. It’s reality to him in his corner of “reality”.

Perhaps one could argue that my articulation is not comprehensive enough (even though it is exhausting enough to write what I do write) and that being a suitable justification for why others malign me or trample my effort in the mud. As if it is totally my responsibility to educate every person who thinks they know more about blockchain technology, economics, and game theory than they actually do. Nevertheless I put a lot of effort in, and my antagonists typically flippantly expend the minimum effort into trampling my effort with their ad hominem drivel and do not even try to grok the technological, economic, and game theory issues I have explained.

I understand you may feel slighted when I characterize BSV as inept nonsense. I think I am speaking factually and it is not directed to any person. I even stated in my prior post that I am not against Craig Wright in any personal sense. Also I have tried my best to protect you from scams, and I will admit that I have written to you private (or hinted in public) that I think you (and others) are contemplating potentially ruinous actions (not just on BSV but as you know other topics in private discussions such as not coming out of statism). So maybe this has sowed some minor resentment or maybe not. My intentions were sincere, but I can see where perhaps that is analogous to the judgemental relative who thinks they know what is best. So I should stop that and I will.



OK, I'll now respond to point 1. Your characterization of BSV as having no options for privacy is just false. While it is true that all data on the blockchain is publicly visible is true, this is also true of all other public blockchains. So no, you cannot so castigate BSV for this 'sin' without so castigating BTC, BCH, 0.5.3, etc.

Please provide a link to those privacy options on BSV which are not a hard fork of Bitcoin’s protocol (aka “Satoshi’s Vision”)? I will then proceed to explain why these technologies are insufficient. You seem to forget that I am something of an autodidact “expert” on anonymity (remember I was the “Legendary” @Anonymint who was one of the first who pushed for anonymity technology in 2013 for cryptocurrency) and recently been entirely vindicated about the flaws I alleged in Monero since 2014.

If you are referring to some hard fork of Bitcoin (other than the block size), then you will be merely confirming my anticipation of something that is not Bitcoin and which will be an improvement over Bitcoin for the medium-of-exchange function which Bitcoin was not designed to be.

But more germane, a characteristic shared by public blockchains is that the data wrapped in a tx (negligible in possible size on some blockchains, capacious in others) can be wrapped in encryption before being wrapped in a tx. Such encryption being in complete control of whichever party creates the tx.

What part of—‘encryption’ has as much to do with anonymity mix sets, as warm-blood has to do with mammals—do you not understand? Yeah encryption is usually needed for form anonymity over the Internet but it is an insufficient condition by itself.

In the context of anonymity that is an ignorant statement. Do I need to explain why? Encryption is not a mix set. You apparently understand nothing about anonymity technology.

Further, where exactly do you see BSV as a bastion of democracy? Nay, it is explicitly a meritocracy.

Your handwaving lack of domain specific technological knowledge apparently induces you to write meaningless statements.

Craig is correct that BSV does not provide both untraceability and unlinkabiilty. Thus AFAICS his rhetoric about transparency and accountability matches the technological reality of what BSV is. I doubt you will be able to provide a valid technological refutation.

For these reasons, I reject your characterization of BSV as a tool of totalitarianism. At least without discussion of some other vector thereof.

I respect that you are a talented engineer in your domain of specialization (presumably more knowledgeable than me in your engineering specialty). But so far you have convinced me that your blockchain domain knowledge is too weak to have a correct interpretation of the reality you are trying to perceive about BSV. Whereas, I am reasonably confident that my blockchain domain knowledge is far beyond yours. Of course I am open to being corrected by your future reply. This is not an appeal to authority, as I have refuted you with facts, not authority. Rather this is a suggestion to be circumspect about your mistakes so you do not fall in Craig’s woodchipper along with the Maxwelled-Coretards, Fluffy-Monerotards, Vitaklans, Larimereameds, etc..

Craig's rhetoric is rather state-loving*, this is true. However, I have yet to hear him advocate any protocol changes in order to make the blockchain more useful for the state. His rhetoric is descriptive, not prescriptive. So what's your point?

*To put a finer point on it, not so much state-loving as civilization-loving or society-loving, with the state being merely proxy these otherwise nebulous 'collective-pseudo-entities'.

I also deduced the possibility of that finer conceptualization of his stance. I just can’t write everything I think, else it would be a novel. I also expected that sort of retort to my stance that Christians must reject statism and especially I expected that you would precisely be thinking that (I read your mind really no joke). The retort is that if we reject civilization, then we reject prosperity. Note Romans 13 tells us to cooperate with governments that are good. This means we can participate in civilization but we should stand our ground on unconstitutional income taxes and the God given inalienable right to bear arms (without need for permitting and permission from any State). IOW, we can cooperate with a State that does not demand a Weberian monopoly on violence and which respects private property rights and freedom of religion. But when the State metamorphoses to a Beast the collects income taxes, we are to come out of her the Great Harlot. Every now and then the tree of liberty has to be replenished with the blood of tyrants and believers. Bear in mind who my ancestor was (and he did not even have the warlike Cherokee ancestry I also have from my mother’s side):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Shelby
(fmr. Confederate General and Governor of Kentucky)

I’m relieved that I was not there in the South when these SJWs were tearing down the statues of my ancestors. I don’t know if I would have been able to restrain myself.

Kentucky is where the “shots heard round the world” were first fired. Male readers should listen to this pastor and learn to be a man:

https://youtu.be/zZeBUipC388?t=2381

He gets into the story of the battle at Lexington, Kentucky at the following linked juncture in the video:

https://youtu.be/zZeBUipC388?t=3060

[True not fake taught in most churches] Christianity is all about cooperation and respect for private property. It is the only philosophy of life that is fully compatible with Libertarianism. Again I explained it in more detail in a recent blog:

https://steemit.com/religion/@anonymint/ethics-of-religion-money-and-bitcoin

We Westerners were nothing before Christianity (and especially the form of it West of the Hajnal line) and we will be nothing again soon as we have departed from the only thing that made us great:

https://steemit.com/philosophy/@anonymint/geographical-cultural-ethos-science-is-dead-part-2


Quote
I guess the only thing I want to reply to is point 2 about centralization. Yes, megagigaterapetablocks will likely result in fewer fully-validating, non-mining entities. It will also likely result in fewer full-stack mining entities. So what?

Because I already provided a link upthread several times which explains in detail why automatically (e.g. via miner consensus) adaptive block size does not function correct decentralized.

No. As stated earlier (maybe our async communication is just crossing?), you cannot make this claim until you explain how the system persevered through the eras of the soft block size caps.

Done. In this post above.

Quote
People keep talking about decentralization as if it is an end in itself. Why? AFAIC, as long as there are no structural barriers to entry by new participants, the network is as decentralized as it need be. If there is no discernible marginal benefit from adding one more participant to the network, then by definition further decentralization is of no benefit.

You ostensibly just do not see holes in his inept designs which will cause them to crash and burn eventually. Centralization is an entire waste of time. Not trustless, not permissionless. Just use Facebook coin then.

Do I understand you to be claiming some difference in centralization force between BSV and BTC or even 0.5.3? If so, you need to explain to me how it is any different. In lieu such explanation, I will simply respond 'bullshit'.

Real, immutable, one-and-only Satoshi v0.5.3 (aka “v0.1”) Bitcoin has an immutable block size. Thus no centralization possible around block size changes. BSV and BCH are and will always be centralized (by politics and eventually even mining if not already) because of not keeping the immutable block size.

How was that not obvious? I have been stating that all along.

Quote
And quite frankly, all public blockchains -- to the extent that said blockchain is economically significant -- will centralize thusly - at least with respect to mining. How many parties make up 51% of BTC hashpower? Four. Already.

Nope. I expect something totally new and closer to perfect will arrive on the scene at an opportune time. It will not be Bitcoin, nor any fork of Bitcoin.

Great. Then again, you've been claiming to have the ultimate anonymous decentralized cryptocurrency design for years. Maybe it is time to get coding?

I stated very clearly that I am too ill to code. I do spotty research. I am obviously referring to the possibility that ideas are out there and someone will create the medium-of-exchange coin eventually.

Why do you assume I am talking about myself? Why do you assume I think I have a monopoly on ideas? For example, have I ever claimed to have invented zk-starks?

Trolls character assassinate me, then I respond by pointing out how many times I have been correct about so many technological issues, and so they then assume I am claiming to be so cocky that they think I am thinking I am the only person in the world who could create a decentralized medium-of-exchange cryptocurrency. I have never stated that in public. In fact, I did not start that asinine “Bitcoin killer” thread. The user @thejaytiesto created it and I certainly did not ask him to do it. And recently he honored my request to close the thread to further posts since I can not defend myself there. Remember when that thread was posted, I was incredibly ill given I had gut Tuberculosis and many other ailments and was taking 5000mg a day of very toxic antibiotics that made me extremely, extremely ill. I tried to defend myself in that thread against trolls when I was very, very discombobulated and ill. You guys are so friendly and fair like true Christians. :rolleyes:

Maybe you just want something to exist which does not exist. So maybe you are angry/frustrated with me when I call a spade a spade, because you think I am unfairly villifying a reasonable experiment (as if at least trying is better than doing nothing and only talking) because presumably you want so much for the medium-of-exchange cryptocurrency to exist when it does not exist. So blame it on me by writing something very hurtful like the above. As if you expect that creating such a cryptocurrency can be done overnight. How can one code when they are still doing research? Coding can not start until someone solves all of the flaws in the research. I am not a person who slaps nonsense together in code and then sell garbage to the community so they get scammed, lose their wealth, create nothing of value, and end up in the woodchipper. I have some German ancestry (in addition to Welsh and French-Italian) so I admire quality, not slop.

Besides I will not be launching any altcoin. It is too much for one person to accomplish by themself even if they did have all the research sorted out, and no way that such an altcoin can be launched by a team which is not anonymous.

Readers every altcoin which has a team you can identify is of course never going to be decentralized. If it begins with politics and personalities, then so it will die by them as well.

I suspect some anonymous group will accomplish it eventually. It will likely appear with no fanfair, very spartan matter-of-fact documentation, and when we least expect it such as at the bottom of a cryptowinter when nobody is paying attention.

Quote
BSV advocates idolizing governance and law in general, as if some competition amongst nations will rectify human nature in political collectives.

I refer you to my point above. Rhetoric is merely rhetoric. The protocol is what it is. I'm surprised I need to point out the difference to you.

I am not surprised that I have to point out to people that if their premises are flawed, then their dependent character assassination drivel is flawed. Touché.


jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2702
Merit: 1426


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
June 11, 2019, 05:35:51 PM
Last edit: June 11, 2019, 05:51:36 PM by jbreher
 #125

Shelby has asked me to pass on his response:

Thanks, THX. How's LUH? Fine, I hope.

I've taken the liberty to unroll a quote level.



First, calm down. For someone so hasty to dish out negative classifications, you sure do have a thin skin. There was no character assassination in my post. This is not the first time you've run off the handle after some merely-imagined slight. I apologize for any offense. None was meant.

Quote from: Shelby
How many parties make up 51% of BTC hashpower? Four. Already.

In my haste, I failed to respond to this specific claim of yours. You’re ostensibly referring to pools. There are available protocols for pools that can even enable individual miners in the pool to dictate what goes in the block which they find the winning solution for. Miners can switch from pools at any time.

If you’re instead referring to ASIC vendors, contrary to my expectations more and more fabs are available for ASIC vendors, such as Samsung and Fujitsu recently. And the number of ASIC vendors are also increasing with greater competition. And recently solar power has been as cheap as 1.5 cents per kwh. China has banned Bitcoin mining and an industry insider claims 90% of it has left China. It actually seems that Bitcoin mining is becoming more decentralized, which was surprising.

My _explicit_ point was that BCH, BTC, 0.5.3, and all other public PoW blockchains suffer this same tendency for mining centralization. I made no claim that BSV was somehow immune from this force. How about you actually address this point, instead of some straw man invention of your own?

Quote
No, you still have not addressed how the network was not so damaged through the eras of the 250K and 500K soft caps.

Work that puzzle out, then tell me how those episodes were somehow exempt from your so-called fatal flaw.

I will explain below AFAICS there’s no puzzle.

Yes, there is the puzzle of how -- as you claim -- any blockchain without an immutable block size cap is doomed to certain failure (that is your claim, right?), that Bitcoin survived through the era of the successively abandoned lesser soft block size caps. And I would not have worded the preceding so forcefully, had you not previously indicated to me that you would study these events -- of which you admitted your ignorance -- and provide a suitable explanation of how your theory is congruent with these facts.

Quote
How about you tell us what puzzle you think you have worked out?

I'm not claiming to have worked out any puzzle. I am just saying that the previously-existing soft block caps are puzzling, as they seem to provide direct counter evidence of your theory.

Quote
Explain it to us or link us to some document which explains it.

Here's a place to start: http://hashingit.com/analysis/39-the-myth-of-the-megabyte-bitcoin-block , complete with handy pointers to further evidence. Let me know if you need more.

Quote
AFAICS, the key point is a hard fork would only have occurred if miners had chosen sizes greater than the 1 MB hard limit that Satoshi had put in immutable “v0.1”.

So AFAICS there’s no “puzzle”. The miners could make any size block they wanted to up to 1 MB and the Satoshi protocol would accept it with no hard fork. Any consensus around which “soft limit” to use was always overhead limited by the 1 MB hard cap limit dictated by Satoshi’s immutable protocol. Immutable because there was no Schelling point to hard fork the protocol. Hard forks are always worthless compared to (worth less than) the original, immutable Satoshi protocol, because otherwise it would require a Schelling point wherein the majority of wealth decides to sell the original and buy the new. But the problem is what new block size value do we agree on? We will never agree on one value. Thus the choice is between selling the original and buying innumerable competing forks, and thus the “unforgeable costliness” can never be transferred to hard forks. That is the game theory of proof-of-work. Learn it. Drill it into your mind. It will never change.

See, here's the kicker, Shelby. Let's set aside the issue that -- given enough time and incentive -- the difference between hard and soft forks are merely academic. Set aside the issue that further increases to the max block size are impossible due to immutability. The fact is that the original protocol (i.e., satoshi's 0.1 protocol) -- which you refer to as immutable -- had no 1 MB max block size cap.

At 0.1 there was no block size limit in the protocol. The code (not the protocol) was limited in that no provision had yet been coded to allow a block to span multiple TCP segments. But even that limitation was well in excess of 1MB.

So what you claim to be an "immutable" protocol has already undergone a change in the exact dimension you claim it cannot.

Now I am not arguing against your claim of centralization pressure. But as pointed out above, the exact same pressures are being felt on all public PoW blockchains. Not only BSV, but BCH, BTC, 0.5.3, whatever. You seem to believe this is fatal. I do not. All experience hath shewn that, absent outside regulatory force, detrimental natural monopolies are unstable.

Quote
OK, I'll now respond to point 1. Your characterization of BSV as having no options for privacy is just false. While it is true that all data on the blockchain is publicly visible is true, this is also true of all other public blockchains. So no, you cannot so castigate BSV for this 'sin' without so castigating BTC, BCH, 0.5.3, etc.

Please provide a link to those privacy options on BSV which are not a hard fork of Bitcoin’s protocol (aka “Satoshi’s Vision”)?

Again with the straw man. In direct conflict with what I posted so clearly only one paragraph previously. I am not claiming any hard fork which absolves BSV of the privacy sins of BTC, et al. I am explicitly claiming that they all sit in the same bucket in this regard.

Quote
But more germane, a characteristic shared by public blockchains is that the data wrapped in a tx (negligible in possible size on some blockchains, capacious in others) can be wrapped in encryption before being wrapped in a tx. Such encryption being in complete control of whichever party creates the tx.

What part of—‘encryption’ has as much to do with anonymity

What's with the 'anonymity'? Did you see me employ that term in my arguments above? No. The discussion is not anonymity. It is privacy. Different animals. If you want to discuss anonymity, that's fine, but that's a separate issue. But frankly, my discussion here is merely to compare and contrast BSV with the other Bitcoin forks (to include 0.5.3, which one could argue is either a fork or not a fork).

Quote
Quote
I guess the only thing I want to reply to is point 2 about centralization. Yes, megagigaterapetablocks will likely result in fewer fully-validating, non-mining entities. It will also likely result in fewer full-stack mining entities. So what?

Because I already provided a link upthread several times which explains in detail why automatically (e.g. via miner consensus) adaptive block size does not function correct decentralized.

No. As stated earlier (maybe our async communication is just crossing?), you cannot make this claim until you explain how the system persevered through the eras of the soft block size caps.

Done. In this post above.

Not done. You have provided no explanation which I can discern which explains away the events of the block size soft caps not resulting in the armageddon you foretell for lack of immutable block size caps. Perhaps with the info leading to comprehensive links I provided above, you will be able to work these into your theory.

Quote
Quote
People keep talking about decentralization as if it is an end in itself. Why? AFAIC, as long as there are no structural barriers to entry by new participants, the network is as decentralized as it need be. If there is no discernible marginal benefit from adding one more participant to the network, then by definition further decentralization is of no benefit.

You ostensibly just do not see holes in his inept designs which will cause them to crash and burn eventually. Centralization is an entire waste of time. Not trustless, not permissionless. Just use Facebook coin then.

Do I understand you to be claiming some difference in centralization force between BSV and BTC or even 0.5.3? If so, you need to explain to me how it is any different. In lieu such explanation, I will simply respond 'bullshit'.

Real, immutable, one-and-only Satoshi v0.5.3 (aka “v0.1”) Bitcoin has an immutable block size. Thus no centralization possible around block size changes. BSV and BCH are and will always be centralized (by politics and eventually even mining if not already) because of not keeping the immutable block size.

For someone so forceful in application of the power law, your willingness to ignore it completely as a force for mining centralization is aggravating. If you can quantify the centralization forces due to your so-called (ad argumento) 'lack of block size cap Schelling point' and due to the power law distribution of resources and capabilities, and then show how the latter is insignificant as compared to the former, then you will have made a point. Otherwise, no.

And again, the original v0.1 protocol did not and does not have a 1MB block size cap.

Quote
Quote
BSV advocates idolizing governance and law in general, as if some competition amongst nations will rectify human nature in political collectives.

I refer you to my point above. Rhetoric is merely rhetoric. The protocol is what it is. I'm surprised I need to point out the difference to you.

I am not surprised that I have to point out to people that if their premises are flawed, then their dependent character assassination drivel is flawed. Touché.

There was no character assassination expressed or implied. You seem to have been so aggravated by the imagined slight such that you walked right over my point. To wit: It matters not what the rhetoric surrounding a coin is, as long as is does not affect the protocol. And the reality is that the loudest voices in 'state loving' within BSV are the very same voices advocating protocol stability.

Until such time as you see significant credible call for modifying BSV's protocol to further serve the state, appeals to base emotion based upon suspicion of the state are invalid in technical argument.

Touche' indeed.

Anyone with a campaign ad in their signature -- for an organization with which they are not otherwise affiliated -- is automatically deducted credibility points.

I've been convicted of heresy. Convicted by a mere known extortionist. Read my Trust for details.
hv_
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Activity: 1512
Merit: 572

Clean Code and Scale


View Profile WWW
June 11, 2019, 06:02:01 PM
 #126

I really wonder why u guys still try to solve 'decentralized mining' where u migh start with decent definition and maths measurement for that first.

There is only clear central like fiat or xrp, hyperledger ... even PoS is here imo

Or

Open PoW blockchain where hardest competition and highest degrees of freedom = highest friction does ensure the killing of any too big to fail / monopolist over time.  Even the inner force of a potential monopolist that a central dictated coin has no value will stop him to grow over a specific ownership, wouldn't it?

Increase the degrees of freedom, get rid of artificial limits that are lowering  some miners risks (... bandwidth...)

Carpe diem  -  understand the White Paper and mine honest.
Memo: 1AHUYNJKPfY7PjVK1hNQFo5LrdGixuiybw  -  https://metanet.icu/
The simple way is the genius way - in Moore's Law and Satoshi's WP we trust.
hv_
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Activity: 1512
Merit: 572

Clean Code and Scale


View Profile WWW
June 12, 2019, 09:38:58 AM
 #127

Kinda belongs here

https://mobile.twitter.com/Silver_Watchdog/status/1138313445982515201

When implode?

Carpe diem  -  understand the White Paper and mine honest.
Memo: 1AHUYNJKPfY7PjVK1hNQFo5LrdGixuiybw  -  https://metanet.icu/
The simple way is the genius way - in Moore's Law and Satoshi's WP we trust.
infofront
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974
Merit: 1959


Shitcoin Minimalist


View Profile
June 12, 2019, 12:34:01 PM
 #128

Quote from: Shelby Moore
I really wonder why u guys still try to solve 'decentralized mining' where u migh start with decent definition and maths measurement for that first.

There is only clear central like fiat or xrp, hyperledger ... even PoS is here imo

Agreed that PoS (and it’s equivalent of a single personality or dev group that has the political power to fork the protocol at will) are 100% centralized. So include: Monero, BCH, BSV, DASH, IOTA, etc.

For example, Fluffy-Monero recently became the only major PoW cryptocurrency to fork its PoW algorithm, bricking many ASICs and causing changes in the economics for other miners. Chaos.

But the PoW algorithm change was just on heels of multiple changes to the protocol of Monero and Ethereum for example over the years. These are not anything like Bitcoin, which entirely resists consensus changes and politics. They are more like Corporations. Corporations are a prime feature of statism.

Open PoW blockchain where hardest competition and highest degrees of freedom = highest friction does ensure the killing of any too big to fail / monopolist over time.  Even the inner force of a potential monopolist that a central dictated coin has no value will stop him to grow over a specific ownership, wouldn't it?

Yeah seems to have been proven to be true thus far for “real immutable Bitcoin” (i.e. not Core). But not true for all the other PoW coins, because they’re not immutable and thus are centralized analogous to statism.

I thought Bitcoin might centralize due to economies-of-scale of control over fabs and ASICs. But what I failed to incorporate into my thinking at that prior juncture is that apparently fabs are not as difficult to replicate as I thought. Watching TMSC on the way to conquering Intel has opened my eyes a bit.

However, the end game of Bitcoin still appears to be diabolical. I will blog my thoughts about this when I have available time.

I still would prefer a PoW that worked with commodity hardware, but this may be impossible. I recently thought I had a solution, but then I found a flaw in it. Seems the power-law applies in spades. But I am still pondering it deeply at the technology level. In fact that is what I have been researching lately when I’m not distracted by this discussion. You have no idea of how deep my mental thoughts about various PoW designs has delved. Seriously I (and presumably many others) have really explored it very, very deeply with ideas for complex Rube Goldberg machines of various types and configurations.

Increase the degrees of freedom, get rid of artificial limits that are lowering  some miners risks (... bandwidth...)

The low bandwidth is necessary so that connectivity is irrelevant. So Bitcoin survives even if the Internet is turned off. So that even a satellite or short-wave radio connection is sufficient. So that mining in remote locations is even viable. Bitcoin will survive the extreme global totalitarianism and wars that are coming. Bitcoin was put here by the global elite so their wealth can survive what they are planning to do to world over the next decade(s):

https://thechive.com/2012/03/08/something-is-rotten-in-the-denver-airport-25-photos/

https://steemit.com/money/@anonymint/rise-of-hard-money-is-a-harbinger-of-misery

Bitcoin was not designed to scale transaction volume. It was designed to have the maximum resistance against loss of store-of-value. Please understand that apparently a medium-of-exchange design must make tradeoffs which sacrifice some of the store-of-value assurances. However, research continues so we’ll see…



I've taken the liberty to unroll a quote level.

Which you obviously should do, since @THX 1138 obviously was not posting his own thoughts. Let’s presume he is entirely unbiased and just trying to faciliate the back-and-forth of the discussion. Given that I have made a pledge to not attempt to circumvent the idiotic ban by using sockpuppets. I really would prefer to not be having this discussion on this forum, but unfortunately you guys continue to reward Theymos for his role in the Core scam. Analogously  we continue to reward the USGovt for its scams by paying an unconstitional income tax. Ditto all the income taxes in all the nations of earth which are all corrupt. I left this forum. Did not even seek to have any information posted here for the past months. But this issue is rather important, so I sacrifice my time to provide the only voice in this entire forum who is capable or willing to provide the explanations that I do. I do it even I should not.

Thanks, THX. How's LUH? Fine, I hope.

I see you’re reminding him that he is your friend. Political/peer pressure?

Peer pressure is incompatible with a search for truth.

First, calm down.

Lol. Did you calm down when you wrote to me “absurd” and “maybe you should proof read before sending” in private messages when I explained that you had not grabbed my latest email when you posted my response upthread. My latest email had been sent to you many hours before you posted. Is it absurd for me to be multitasking, fall asleep in the middle of the day due to my illness, and then think of edits from time-to-time? It is absurd that I am blind in one eye?

(You do not know what goes on in my daily life. You do not know that I tried to eat my favorite Louisiana dish red beans and rice the prior day and it caused me to have a severe flare-up of what appears to be something like Crohn’s disease so that means essentially wallowing in bed unable to think and running to the toilet frequently. You seem to not also understand that the power and Internet frequently shut off in Mindanao. When it rains, they can not keep the power and Internet on.)

I am sorry but I am very sensitive to those who have not walked in my shoes of a decade of illness. And who do not realize how much effort I am expending to try to do something to help the plight that we are collectively in. I don’t want to be whor(e)shipped. But to tell me that it is absurd that I do not want my effort to be trampled by careless actions, is going to make me livid.

It is absurd for me to expect that you as an engineer who apparently wrote specifications for a large hardware company can’t realize to grab the latest email before posting.

So who is being calm with their words?

As I told you in private email today, I do not think you fully appreciate how much effort I have put in to try to help you not lose your wealth. But alas, I should not throw my pearls at swine, because swine do not even realize when someone is trying to help them, and they trample their savior in the mud. So be it. Everyone go back to their town.

If you are not swine, then please demonstrate so.


For someone so hasty to dish out negative classifications, you sure do have a thin skin. There was no character assassination in my post. This is not the first time you've run off the handle after some merely-imagined slight. I apologize for any offense. None was meant.

Thank you. But should I respond, “Absurd. Maybe you should proof-read first”?

But wait a minute, you have done it again:

For someone so hasty to dish out negative classifications […]

Am I hasty? Perhaps try reading my early posts in this thread and extasie’s “nutjob” venom response? Or perhaps go read my first post in W.O. about this and JJG venom response. No I am not hasty. I even tried to be friendly and calm with my reply to your confusion in your prior reply, but here you write more discombobulated bullshit, instead of realizing the obvious and paying meritorious respect to the person who is trying to teach what he knows. Just as I would if you taught me something valuable. I will explain below.

Note your reply is not venom. But it is somewhat (not entirely) disingenuous (or perhaps you just have somewhat discombobulated logic combined with some modicum of Freudian slips you can’t control), as I will explain below. Perhaps I also have Freudian slips with my use of terms such a ‘swine’? Well I merely put that out there to warn trolls that I do not have time for those who aren’t genuinely seeking to cooperate to figure out the truth.

You to some extent bear false witness against me. Yet in other instances you have defended me slightly (e.g. your recent admonishment to JJG to at least read my stuff before passing judgement). With the above reference to haste, you enjoin the others who such as Gregory Maxwell who create this illusion that I am hasty when in fact I am always being castigated by trolls while I’m initially trying to be polite, factual and impersonal.

Let’s take a little walk down memory lane w.r.t. Maxwell and Craig Wright’s claim to be Satoshi (following were all my posts):

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1282144.msg13239629#msg13239629

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279249.msg3041642#msg3041642

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1378533.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4675898.msg42755278#msg42755278

The reason I am a stickler about not allowing such careless words to perpetuate is because they end up taking on a life of their own. People quote them and invent a reality that did not exist.

Tangentially, are you a non-fake Christian? Are you willing to give your life to defend the Constitution that our forefathers gave their life for? Are you unwilling to bend to unconstitutional edicts? Will you stand by your fellow man in doing so? Are you one with us? Or are you one with the Great Harlot? Because I am commanded to come out of the Great Harlot. I am to not bear false witness nor write what can not be corroborated to be truth. You are under no obligation to answer those. Yet they are there to let you know what is on my mind.


Quote from: Shelby
How many parties make up 51% of BTC hashpower? Four. Already.

In my haste, I failed to respond to this specific claim of yours. You’re ostensibly referring to pools. There are available protocols for pools that can even enable individual miners in the pool to dictate what goes in the block which they find the winning solution for. Miners can switch from pools at any time.

If you’re instead referring to ASIC vendors, contrary to my expectations more and more fabs are available for ASIC vendors, such as Samsung and Fujitsu recently. And the number of ASIC vendors are also increasing with greater competition. And recently solar power has been as cheap as 1.5 cents per kwh. China has banned Bitcoin mining and an industry insider claims 90% of it has left China. It actually seems that Bitcoin mining is becoming more decentralized, which was surprising.

My _explicit_ point was that BCH, BTC, 0.5.3, and all other public PoW blockchains suffer this same tendency for mining centralization. I made no claim that BSV was somehow immune from this force. How about you actually address this point, instead of some straw man invention of your own?

How can I say it nicely? Are you incapable of holistically understanding what you read? You accuse me of not being germane (and thus implicitly accuse me of not doing holistic assimilation) but I find it is you who are not assimilating everything and this leads you to falsely accuse me.

You were ostensibly essentially trying to make the claim that any additional alleged tendency for centralization in BSV (i.e. I allege the variable block size is centralizing) is irrelevant, because you argue that the “real Bitcoin” is also trending to centralization. I argued against your argument that the “real Bitcoin” is trending to centralization.

The point is that if the main distinction between BSV and the “real Bitcoin” is the non-immutable block size, then if I am correct that non-immutable blocksize is overt centralization, then that is a significant distinction that should be noted. Especially given that BSV intends to be a widely used medium-of-exchange coin, not like Bitcoin which intends to only be a store-of-value for the uber wealthy.

Additionally I have explained the economic model which I think explains why no hard fork of Bitcoin will ever have the valuation of Bitcoin, because the Bitcoin wealth will not abandon the unforgeable costliness history of the immutable protocol and historic chain of proof-of-work. That is a very simple concept. You implicitly ignore the specific point by continuing to make any arguments in favor of BSV. The entire project is worthless, because it pretends to be the real Bitcoin (aka “Satoshi’s Vision”) which it never can be. Impossible + maybe possible = impossible.

How about you actually address this point, instead of some straw man invention of your own?

I was entirely on point. Please stop the lying which becomes an implicit character assassination.

There is no “strawman invention” on my part. Geez. Am I not being calm by pointing out that you’re ostensibly making a false accusation? Are you rushed and not taking the time to think clearly? If so, who is being calm and methodical here.


Quote
No, you still have not addressed how the network was not so damaged through the eras of the 250K and 500K soft caps.

Work that puzzle out, then tell me how those episodes were somehow exempt from your so-called fatal flaw.

I will explain below AFAICS there’s no puzzle.

Yes, there is the puzzle of how -- as you claim -- any blockchain without an immutable block size cap is doomed to certain failure (that is your claim, right?), that Bitcoin survived through the era of the successively abandoned lesser soft block size caps. And I would not have worded the preceding so forcefully, had you not previously indicated to me that you would study these events -- of which you admitted your ignorance -- and provide a suitable explanation of how your theory is congruent with these facts.

Not being aware of certain machinations in the history of Bitcoin is not equivalent to blanket ignorance (and your careless use of that word is dangerously close to implying such). In fact, I already quoted for you the relevant Mike Hearn thread about the issue and already explained to you why there is no puzzle. For you to inject the word ‘ignorance’ into your reply is very disrespectful given the fact that you are ostensibly the one who is apparently not assimilating all the issues (or at least unable to articulate yourself clearly in a cooperative tone without injecting Freudian slips of ad hominem). I already explained why there was no puzzle. What part of my explanation do you not understand or disagree with and why?

Yes I claim/assert/think any blockchain without an immutable block size cap is doomed to certain failure eventually, because centralization and politics are failure directed. As I think you will discover if you think there is a better government in this world which you can go rely on as a safe haven. All of the governments are headed into the toilet:


Continuing…

Quote
How about you tell us what puzzle you think you have worked out?

I'm not claiming to have worked out any puzzle. I am just saying that the previously-existing soft block caps are puzzling, as they seem to provide direct counter evidence of your theory.

Quote
Explain it to us or link us to some document which explains it.

Here's a place to start: http://hashingit.com/analysis/39-the-myth-of-the-megabyte-bitcoin-block , complete with handy pointers to further evidence. Let me know if you need more.

AFAICS, you have not presented any puzzle:

There is also an interesting implication for Gavin Andresen's proposed protocol fork that would allow larger blocks. If the majority of mining pools (by total capacity) choose to ignore some new upper limit then the effect will be to retain a much smaller overall cap. Miners may, indeed, want to do exactly this as block scarcity is the only thing that has any reasonable prospect of helping them achieve higher transaction fees.

So the author can’t grok what Schelling point means and why it is important.

Maybe I can help everyone to understand.

There was a lot of politics and arm wrestling going on at the time, e.g. much peer pressure against Luke Jr. who did not want to raise the block size.

The fact that at tha early juncture in Bitcoin’s history, the pools were (such as via peer pressure on these forums and chats) able to coordinate some tenuous consensus to raise the block size (and before that the default in the client software was the consensus) is not indicative of any puzzle. There was significant centralization in Bitcoin at the inception (e.g. a single reference client software). Bitcoin becomes more decentralized over time (distinguish that from distibuted), not less. At least up to some singularity event. Indeed politics seems to pseudo-function at the town hall level (actually ends up as grid lock which is why tribalism is regressive) because everyone knows everyone (i.e. the Dunbar limit). Humans are well adapted through evolution to tribal scale politics. But politics at scales greater than our Dunbar limit are long-term dysfunctional, rent-seeking, centralized, kleptocracies where politicians (and nameless behind the curtain) sell infinite debt to infinite wants. I will link you again for the umpteenth time in this thread to the Iron Law of (Wide-Scale) Political Economics. I am not implying that you ignored that link, perhaps though you are not assimilating everything?

The point is that at-scale the lack of a 1 MB limit means some nameless mining oligarchy with significant hashrate will spoil the party. And nobody will be able to point a finger at him/her/it. At-scale there is no identifiable “Luke Jr.” There is only some nameless phenomenon behind the curtain which reflects the facts of the game theory and power vacuum that the lack of a block size cap provides. Can we point the finger at who is corrupting the U.S.A.? We have no Schelling point around which to rally to destroy the Beast.

In short, at-scale miners can’t coordinate and achieve the necessary grid lock of tribalism if there’s no Schelling point. Remember Vitalik explained that altruism can not be a (i.e. is an undersupplied) public good.

Perhaps you remain unconvinced and you need someone to build a model and run it to convince you. It is not my job to try to convince people of what should be obvious if they have some developed understanding of human history, economics, game theory, etc.. I will leave that to academics such as Rothbard who have the incentive to do so.

I told you about the Schelling point explanation to that link above weeks ago. As did someone else in this thread. So for you to repeat the same thing and inject the word ‘ignorance’ is really disingenuous.


Quote
AFAICS, the key point is a hard fork would only have occurred if miners had chosen sizes greater than the 1 MB hard limit that Satoshi had put in immutable “v0.1”.

So AFAICS there’s no “puzzle”. The miners could make any size block they wanted to up to 1 MB and the Satoshi protocol would accept it with no hard fork. Any consensus around which “soft limit” to use was always overhead limited by the 1 MB hard cap limit dictated by Satoshi’s immutable protocol. Immutable because there was no Schelling point to hard fork the protocol. Hard forks are always worthless compared to (worth less than) the original, immutable Satoshi protocol, because otherwise it would require a Schelling point wherein the majority of wealth decides to sell the original and buy the new. But the problem is what new block size value do we agree on? We will never agree on one value. Thus the choice is between selling the original and buying innumerable competing forks, and thus the “unforgeable costliness” can never be transferred to hard forks. That is the game theory of proof-of-work. Learn it. Drill it into your mind. It will never change.

See, here's the kicker, Shelby. Let's set aside the issue that -- given enough time and incentive -- the difference between hard and soft forks are merely academic. Set aside the issue that further increases to the max block size are impossible due to immutability. The fact is that the original protocol (i.e., satoshi's 0.1 protocol) -- which you refer to as immutable -- had no 1 MB max block size cap.

At 0.1 there was no block size limit in the protocol. The code (not the protocol) was limited in that no provision had yet been coded to allow a block to span multiple TCP segments. But even that limitation was well in excess of 1MB.

Satoshi was very, very, very clever. Which is to be expected because he is/was (a think tank of) the global elite.

He made it appear that he added the 1 MB later as an after thought, but of course he planned it from the beginning. He knew that Bitcoin would start out centralized and grow more decentralized. He knew that eventually the centralized block size limits as a default in the reference client would eventually be insufficient to contain the forces of profit motive.

I believe he absolutely never intended to raise the 1 MB. And that he absolutely intended for there to be a 1 MB limit from the inception when he launched Bitcoin. You are free to believe whatever you want.

Nevertheless the fact is that there was a de facto centralized limit on the block size even before he added the 1 MB hard cap to the code. It was the default in the client.

So what you claim to be an "immutable" protocol has already undergone a change in the exact dimension you claim it cannot.

Nope. When Satoshi wrote “v0.1” he was implicitly referring to what he was in centralized control over. The 1 MB cap was there from the start, in his head. He had the default which was lower than 1 MB and he was watching and waiting until he had to make his move. He made it. Then he disappeared. Simple as that.

Now I am not arguing against your claim of centralization pressure. But as pointed out above, the exact same pressures are being felt on all public PoW blockchains. Not only BSV, but BCH, BTC, 0.5.3, whatever.

Nope. Not on real, immutable Bitcoin.

You seem to believe this is fatal. I do not. All experience hath shewn that, absent outside regulatory force, detrimental natural monopolies are unstable.

So you go on whor(e)shipping statism and you will learn. Mark my word.

I am separating myself from those who do. As I am commanded to do.


Quote
OK, I'll now respond to point 1. Your characterization of BSV as having no options for privacy is just false. While it is true that all data on the blockchain is publicly visible is true, this is also true of all other public blockchains. So no, you cannot so castigate BSV for this 'sin' without so castigating BTC, BCH, 0.5.3, etc.

Please provide a link to those privacy options on BSV which are not a hard fork of Bitcoin’s protocol (aka “Satoshi’s Vision”)?

Again with the straw man.

Stop that lying, incorrect slander.

In direct conflict with what I posted so clearly only one paragraph previously. I am not claiming any hard fork which absolves BSV of the privacy sins of BTC, et al. I am explicitly claiming that they all sit in the same bucket in this regard.

You talk out of both sides of your mouth as if your left brain does not know what your right brain is doing. Perhaps you can not even connect the dots of your own illogic?

Your claim was that Craig’s rhetoric about total government accountability and transparency of all transactions is not the protocol of BSV. So therefore by implication you mean that BSV is capable of anonymity. You can not have it both ways and still be coherent.

Quote
But more germane, a characteristic shared by public blockchains is that the data wrapped in a tx (negligible in possible size on some blockchains, capacious in others) can be wrapped in encryption before being wrapped in a tx. Such encryption being in complete control of whichever party creates the tx.

What part of—‘encryption’ has as much to do with anonymity

What's with the 'anonymity'? Did you see me employ that term in my arguments above? No. The discussion is not anonymity. It is privacy. Different animals.

You implied anonymity because that is the only way for Craig’s rhetoric to be irrelevant.

And besides, even if you are trying to make some distinction between anonymity and privacy, it would be entirely vacuous in this context. What the fuck will encryption alone (without anonymity mix sets) do for privacy that can alleviate Craig’s rhetoric? Nothing!

You seem to be delusion about the complexities of even privacy much less against the totalitarianism of national security agencies:

https://medium.com/s/story/a-modest-privacy-protection-proposal-5b47631d7f4c
^
|---- this should open your eyes a bit

If you want to discuss anonymity, that's fine, but that's a separate issue. But frankly, my discussion here is merely to compare and contrast BSV with the other Bitcoin forks (to include 0.5.3, which one could argue is either a fork or not a fork).

Anonymity is not a separate issue. It is entirely germane to your claim that Craig’s rhetoric is inconsistent with the protocol of BSV.

Hey in case you did not realize it. I am not arguing that Bitcoin has better anonymity. But Bitcoin is not for us to use. It will be for the uber wealthy only. We will all be kicked off of it by high transaction fees and government capital controls. Whereas, Craig claims BSV will be for all of us as a medium-of-exchange coin. Therefore all of my points are germane and not strawmen.


Quote
Quote
I guess the only thing I want to reply to is point 2 about centralization. Yes, megagigaterapetablocks will likely result in fewer fully-validating, non-mining entities. It will also likely result in fewer full-stack mining entities. So what?

Because I already provided a link upthread several times which explains in detail why automatically (e.g. via miner consensus) adaptive block size does not function correct decentralized.

No. As stated earlier (maybe our async communication is just crossing?), you cannot make this claim until you explain how the system persevered through the eras of the soft block size caps.

Done. In this post above.

Not done. You have provided no explanation which I can discern which explains away the events of the block size soft caps not resulting in the armageddon you foretell for lack of immutable block size caps. Perhaps with the info leading to comprehensive links I provided above, you will be able to work these into your theory.

I thought you were highly intelligent.

Okay maybe you have a high IQ but are just really naive about economics, human history, political theory, etc.. So I have made some additional explanations above. But sorry I do not have time to teach everything that you should have been learning as you were maturing as a man. It is your duty to yourself, to study the world around you.

Normally I am patient to those who are careful with their words and who demonstrate appreciation for my effort, Christian restraint, and other virtues. But those who are arrogant and fling words such as ‘absurd’, ‘ignorance’, ‘strawmen’, etc.. earn less mutual appreciation from me.

The issue is that subconsciously you view me as somewhat smart guy who is deeply flawed. You view me as someone who has accomplished nothing for our cause. You view me as a person who can’t back up my theories with quantifiable, unequivocal data and models. In short I believe you are naive nerd. Perhaps I am misjudging you and I was going to call you to get to know you better, but I have become discouraged now.

Quote
Quote
People keep talking about decentralization as if it is an end in itself. Why? AFAIC, as long as there are no structural barriers to entry by new participants, the network is as decentralized as it need be. If there is no discernible marginal benefit from adding one more participant to the network, then by definition further decentralization is of no benefit.

You ostensibly just do not see holes in his inept designs which will cause them to crash and burn eventually. Centralization is an entire waste of time. Not trustless, not permissionless. Just use Facebook coin then.

Do I understand you to be claiming some difference in centralization force between BSV and BTC or even 0.5.3? If so, you need to explain to me how it is any different. In lieu such explanation, I will simply respond 'bullshit'.

Real, immutable, one-and-only Satoshi v0.5.3 (aka “v0.1”) Bitcoin has an immutable block size. Thus no centralization possible around block size changes. BSV and BCH are and will always be centralized (by politics and eventually even mining if not already) because of not keeping the immutable block size.

For someone so forceful in application of the power law, your willingness to ignore it completely as a force for mining centralization is aggravating.

Power-law does not necessarily equate with centralization, although I have made the argument below many times in the past. Even amongst the uber wealthy there is competition.

The main concern is whether the hashrate would be concentrated amongst such a few number of people, that they could coordinate the enslavement of world. Indeed I still think this is possibly the long-term end game of Bitcoin, which is why I wish there was some way to make proof-of-work function with commodity hardware. But Satoshi appears to have designed Bitcoin to be completely centralized no later than 2141. I will be writing a blog about this in the future. Yet in the meantime, Bitcoin seems to be adequate decentralized as of now (Core’s temporary deception notwithstanding). I remain open to discussions about the centralization of Bitcoin. This is open topic which I want to blog more about, think more about, etc.. But again my point is that centralizing a medium-of-exchange is much worse for totalitarianism than centralizing a store-of-value-only reserve asset for the wealthy. Also Craig is correct that the governments are going to absolutely see any global medium-of-exchange (especially if with anonymity) as a threat to their power (over fiat).

If you can quantify the centralization forces due to your so-called (ad argumento) 'lack of block size cap Schelling point' and due to the power law distribution of resources and capabilities, and then show how the latter is insignificant as compared to the former, then you will have made a point. Otherwise, no.

What part of BSV wants to be a medium-of-exchange and Bitcoin does not, did you fail to incorporate into your analysis.

And again, the original v0.1 protocol did not and does not have a 1MB block size cap.

Refuted already.

Code was not the law at the inception. Satoshi was. My proof is he unilaterally inserted the 1 MB limit when he damn well pleased and ignored all requests to make it larger. He disappeared when people started calling him out about the issue. And the 1 MB limit is immutable as Coretards will eventually find out.

Quote
Quote
BSV advocates idolizing governance and law in general, as if some competition amongst nations will rectify human nature in political collectives.

I refer you to my point above. Rhetoric is merely rhetoric. The protocol is what it is. I'm surprised I need to point out the difference to you.

I am not surprised that I have to point out to people that if their premises are flawed, then their dependent character assassination drivel is flawed. Touché.

There was no character assassination expressed or implied.

There is no way that the above can be interpreted other than (jus slightly) condescending hubris. And again you were incorrect on every point. And you reaffirmed your tendency to ad hominem (e.g. ‘ignorance’ and ‘strawmen’) in this follow-up reply. I mean it is very clear what your subconscious opinion of me is. The Freudian slips are numerous. I realize that alleging a straw man is not in itself a character assasination. What is clear to me is your subconscious opinion of me. You will learn in time though that I was correct and that my effort was more important than your lacsdasical attitude towards it deserved.

So in summary, I do not think you entirely off-the-rails with character assassination nor hubris. But your discernment is slightly lacking and this leads to a conflict between us. I mean if you were talking right now with Bill Gates for example, you would be more circumspect because you know his time is very expensive.

You seem to have been so aggravated by the imagined slight such that you walked right over my point.

I am aggravated that you seem to not be a good judge of expertise. And do not give appreciation and assistance where it is due. Being able to correctly appraise value is an important trait.

Likewise I have to appraise the value of those whom I choose to associate more closely with.

To wit: It matters not what the rhetoric surrounding a coin is, as long as is does not affect the protocol. And the reality is that the loudest voices in 'state loving' within BSV are the very same voices advocating protocol stability.

Bullshit + bullshit = more bullshit.

I have no interest in Craig’s scam.


Until such time as you see significant credible call for modifying BSV's protocol to further serve the state, appeals to base emotion based upon suspicion of the state are invalid in technical argument.

No modification is necessary. It already is directed to serving the totalitarian state. But it will fail anyway (as will the totalitarian states and the people who cooperate with them), so I am not worried.

Touche' indeed.

Indeed.

Apologies this message could have better articulated if I had more time to devote to it. I simply can not continue to expend more time on this issue.

I hope we can lay this discussion to rest?

Are there any new points? Or will we just be beating a dead horse with more words?
hv_
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Activity: 1512
Merit: 572

Clean Code and Scale


View Profile WWW
June 12, 2019, 01:56:57 PM
 #129

Omg, wall of text and things got mixed.

More wall

https://craigwright.net/blog/law-regulation/feign-madness-but-keep-your-balance/


Carpe diem  -  understand the White Paper and mine honest.
Memo: 1AHUYNJKPfY7PjVK1hNQFo5LrdGixuiybw  -  https://metanet.icu/
The simple way is the genius way - in Moore's Law and Satoshi's WP we trust.
THX 1138
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 206
Merit: 103



View Profile
June 13, 2019, 06:44:00 PM
Last edit: June 14, 2019, 05:53:17 PM by THX 1138
 #130

I'm acting once again as impartial messenger with this latest (now edited) response from Shelby:

Quote from: Shelby


Before anything, someone needs to send Andreas M. Antonopoulos a link to this thread, because he obviously doesn’t understand that Core will be the hard fork, not vice versa:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBnC9AhKjws



Firstly, I want to offer an olive branch to @jbreher by recognizing:

1. I appreciate his effort and participation. It’s frustrating to both appreciate someone and simultaneously deal with the propensity of certain snarky words to be later cited by others as evidence of something I am not. This has happened to me many times, even it is not @jbreher’s intention. IOW, I did not impress upon him how his use of certain words and phrases can by no fault of his, end up taking a life of their own because this forum has often become a “he said, she said” clusterfuck in my past experience. IOW, some people will later claim that @jbreher does not respect me and spanked me. Which is why I am not eager to post on this forum. But again I appreciate his effort and participation.

2. Misunderstandings and learning are part of any human process even between intelligent forms of life. I have a thick skin but it did not help me from being banned. So now I am more of stickler about letting people get away with snarky statements about me, because as I said they take on a life of their own. @jbreher may feel his statements were no big deal, factual, appropriate, and constructive dialogue. But that does not guarantee that others will interpret the way he does. I guess it is very difficult for us to write on forums and not have unintentional misunderstandings. We must be very, very meticulous with our wording if we want to avoid misunderstandings. I can understand any person for not being so meticulous and anal about it. Yet the word “absurd” is reasonably overt admonishment. So I don’t know for sure if my reaction was over the top. In any case, I am expressing a conciliatory tone now. That is not to claim that I never had a snarky Freudian slip. I hope most of my sharp-tongued bullets have been reserved for those who lashed out first with such kind words as “nutjob” (@jbreher did not use that word to describe me, which was instead flung by @exatsie and hopefully he will not again … I’m usually willing to forgive, forget, and be friends, unless there’s a pattern of abuse that never improves).

3. To clarify what I tried to convey, but poorly stated in my prior post, I think @jbreher has been trying to assist in promulgating awareness and meritorious analysis of my views and I do not think he was overtly attempting character assassination. I was slightly put off by him making statements which could be (mis?)interpreted as judgmental, callous, and not giving more understanding to my human suffering and commensurate with fully appreciating the effort I am trying to apply to help us search for the truth. IOW, I thought that he appreciated the effort I am putting in to try to help him understand why I think he is being fooled by Craig and to help him not lose moAr BTC value. I felt this is very noble of me and in the spirit of being a true brother and friend, so I was more shocked to read “absurd”. I thought I was sacrificing myself for the benefit of a group of men who are friends. Perhaps I need to recalibrate my expectations and motivations. Essentially I think both of us got sloppy/careless and should try to appear to be more cooperative and less snarky. Also he and I may at times have a different perspective about philosophical priorities. My philosophical stance is not cast in stone yet. I am still trying to figure it out.

4. After re-reading my prior post, I again did not explain my perspective optimally. So readers are to be forgiven for arguing with me and missing some of my points, when my exposition is somewhat discombobulated.

5. My illness has flared up again the past days (after a few good weeks) and it literally discombobulates my mental state to something that is sort of analogous to being very drunk and inability to connect thoughts clearly, and inability to proof-read text. The energy for the brain becomes severely lacking. It is a struggle I can not describe because it does not have an exact analog in the experience of those who haven’t endured this sort of illness. As I said, I should not even try to write here. I am asking for trouble. But I did it because this issue is so critically important for all of us.

6. I have become very exhausted from this discussion, so I find it very arduous to unravel misunderstandings. But I think this discussion is so important. Which is why I making one more post. I am gravely concerned about where the world might be heading. However I want to also keep an open mind and hope that there is a near-term positive outcome for humanity. (See the bottom of this post for some positive thoughts about our plight against statism) Please do not perceive my comments as entirely rigid and closed minded. I remain open to new data and new mental approaches. Sometimes I am so overloaded just to react to what others have written, that I do not make it clear that I am not so rigid in my beliefs as might be perceived.

7. I do not presume I am absolutely correct. As my illness and energy allow, I revisit my perspective again and again, searching for flaws in my prior statements. Sometimes I want to correct some past statements but it is too late. Inertia builds. I have other work to do. Etc..

Here is a clarification of my main points from my prior post:

1. Unforgeable costliness is all the (proof-of-)work that was burned to mine an asset and it is stored as the confidence—amongst the wealth of the hodlers of that the asset— that the asset is a reliable and good store-of-value. The unforgeable costliness is transferred from a physics phenomenon (i.e. cost of work) to a public confidence. Money exists only due to a Schelling point of public confidence (amongst the extant hodlers of the wealth in the said asset, e.g. Bitcoin’s power-law distributed wealth) which can’t be overridden by the nonexistent Schelling points for forgeries (amongst that power-law distributed wealth, disregarding worthless minions who incorrectly think voting is free but who actually do not matter in the economic equation), i.e. confidence that the store-of-value is unforgeable, reliable, fungible, widely accepted, liquid, etc.. Note recently several of my tweets further clarifying my conceptualization of the valuation of PlanB’s stock-to-flow’s model where deleted by PlanB and I was banned from ever commenting on his tweets again:

https://twitter.com/iamnotback/with_replies (archive of the specific posts)

Is PlanB part of some conspiracy to drive more fools into Core before Craig starts the hard fork? Or is just offended by my tweets? Or does he disagree with my logic? Strange.

2. Block size changes, or any protocol changes other than benevolent bug fixes, break unforgeability. Because there is no single, one-and-only choice for the new protocol. And thus all the various protocol choices for forks are “forgeries” and lack the necessary confidence amongst the hodlers the wealth of that asset. All of us admit that all hard forks of Bitcoin have been sold off to buy more moar real Bitcoin. Core delayed the decision of the Bitcoin wealth, with a deception named “soft fork” which eventually becomes a hard fork, free airdrop for the real (aka legacy) Bitcoin wealth hodlers so that the said wealth can vote with its decision about which fork represents the unforgeable costliness. The only Schelling point of confidence which is definitively never a forgery is the immutable, one-and-only original. Thus it is impossible to transfer to a protocol change, the unforgeable costliness that gives an asset its monetary value (by way of the stocks-to-flows model I have cited numerous times in this thread).

3. @jbreher ponders whether Bitcoin never had a 1 MB limit. He and all big blockers must maintain that Satoshi had an adaptive limit and then put the 1 MB hard cap limit there as an afterthought and not as intentionally immutable. But I have explained and argued that any form of adaptive or mutable block size limit is incompatible with both decentralization and unforgeability. So thus there is no question (at least in my mind) that Satoshi had to make the block size immutable. If he didn’t then Bitcoin would have no Schelling point to provide and sustain unforgeability. This game theory seems to be very solid and comprehensible. I have never read a cogent rebuttal to it.

4. Craig correctly argues that governments will apply their power to attempt to force identity onto cryptocurrency transactions. Bitcoin has very weak to non-existent mechanisms for protections of our identities and correlatable activities which are recorded on-chain. Thus Bitcoin as a system is less of a threat to that aspect of government power than a more anonymous altcoin (although it has been shown that Monero is not very anonymous, may be a honey pot, and there really are not any truly effective anonymity altcoins yet, so Craig’s distinction on that point may not be that germane yet).

5. The lack of strong on-chain privacy and anonymity for Bitcoin is less of an issue for most people, because they were going to be kicked off of Bitcoin anyway by higher and higher transaction fees. And the Bitcoin $millionaires who can afford the txn fees, are going to be targeted by capital controls, taxation, etc... So the problem here is that since unforgeable (i.e. the real, immutable, one-and-only) Bitcoin is not going to be a widely used medium-of-exchange (can not scale transaction volume), the $millionaires are not going to have the political support of the masses. Bitcoin will likely become known/viewed by the public via propaganda of statism as a haven for “crime”, “terrorists”, “political manipulators”, “other religions than your own”, and general as something bad that governments must apply the full force of law to attempt to control:

Bitcoin Will Be Politically Vilified And Confiscated

So many high pride fools who think that the rise of hard money is something that will enrich them at the expense of the rest of society. They want to prioritize living somewhere with a Disneyland or other trappings of normal society, and they fail to realize that the rise of hard money only coincidences with the loss of public confidence in society and government. So many fools wasting time on crypto scams that have no chance at all of being relevant to what is coming nor helping to avert it.

And reflect on how gold will also be vilified as a conduit for money laundering of illicit Bitcoins:

Governments tried to stay relevant in my society by buying Bitcoin, which just made the problem worse, by increasing the value of Bitcoin. Governments did so in secret of course, but my generation's "Snowdens" are in fact greedy government employees who transferred Bitcoin to their own private account, and escaped to anarchic places where no questions are asked as long as you can cough up some money.

All of us will be destroyed as I warned in 2010:

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article20327.html

For anyone who hasn't yet figured out what's so backwards about the "inflation is good" argument, here's what's so blatantly wrong with this reasoning:

Whether or not someone saves money instead of spending it is in part due to the expectation of future purchasing power, which, roughly speaking, is positively correlated with economic activity, and negatively correlated with money supply. According to the OP's hypothetical, economic activity is slowing faster than the […] money supply is growing, so one would expect their purchasing power to be constantly decreasing. Decreasing purchasing power provides an incentive to purchase consumables, purchase durable goods for future consumption, or purchase durable goods for future trade. Performing any of those actions increases economic activity, and thus will start reversing the trend of decreasing purchasing power. This is a self-stabilizing system, and there's no reason to think that a constant money supply will lead to runaway collapse of an economy.

What you fail to incorporate in your reasoning is the perpetual halvings and doublings of the S/Fs ratio until 2141. Thus as I explained in detail in another blog, the economic activity of the world will not recover until the opportunity cost of mining is lower than those other productive human activities. Economic devastation due to technological unemployment comes first. Most humans have worthless skills in the new technological knowledge age economy with robotics for example replacing human labor.

6. So governments potentially destroying Bitcoin $millionaires is how the global elite possibly prevent competition for wealth as we go through this crazy period of transition from the Industrial Age to the Knowledge Age. Bitcoin will be a de facto global reserve asset. The uber wealthy who can “lawyer-up” and are essentially above-the-law will use Bitcoin as a way to transport and hodl their UNTAXABLE  wealth independent of nations. The rest of us will be subject to UNCONSTITUTIONAL taxes and be dumped back into the crab bucket mentality of collective, political society. Those who are willing to sell their soul to the devil may be able to be accepted into their private club (<--- please click this link).

7. So with BSV Craig offers us the proposition of a forgeable medium-of-exchange which the governments can use to track everyone with, i.e. the 666 system. Nice! Thanks Craig. Fortunately there’s no means of onboarding and adoption for Craig’s shitcoin (because it was not mined from inception and instead is just a forgery, free airdrop of tokens which everyone will sell) and the Bitcoin wealthy are surely not going to sell the unforgeable and buy the forgeable. Actually if you read carefully Craig’s writings, it is clear that he is going to be buying the real Bitcoin and selling the BSV shitcoin to all those fools who do not read carefully what he is writing and have not read my explanations so they can better understand the double-speak he is intentionally using. Craig is giving the fools a choice. It is a test. To determine whether they can think and analyse clearly. Of course he persumably knows he is selling a shitcoin to fools. My understanding of markets (that the majority must always lose the most so the power-law distribution is not violated) that is what he is supposed to do. He is a market marker for the greater fools. My theory is that he is fulfilling the role he was assigned by the global elite.

And no Bitcoin can not be the same 666 because once again I will repeat that with the 1 MB immutable block size, then it can not become a widespread medium-of-exchange. See all the factors of the analysis must be holistically assimilated. @hv_ if you are mixed up, maybe you are not assimilating?

8. Adding anonymity features to a cryptocurrency might increase the likelihood that miners are eventually targeted by governments, but it might actually decrease it (c.f. below). However, China (and soon India) has banned Bitcoin mining. Many governments may end up trying to ban Bitcoin mining as well. But mining will always continue regardless even if as necessary surreptitiously because it is profitable, e.g. there is no way to detect someone mining in their home. I do not agree with his claim that exchanges (between cryptocurrencies) can not be fully decentralized. We just need cryptocurrencies to implement cross-chain atomic transactions protocols which I helped to perfect. So I am not entirely convinced of Craig’s argument about law. We are headed into a transition of the global economy away from Industrialization towards knowledge work over the Internet and nation-states will lose some of their relevance. Thus a global, private, anonymous medium-of-exchange might just disintermediate the governments. We’ll see. As I wrote before, research continues…

Quote from: Craig
Once you allow terrorist funding, you can start targeting miners. Once you allow for a system that is designed to become more anonymous and bypass the controls that were developed when I built Bitcoin, you create a system that is open to jurisdictional capture. A court can order a miner to freeze a transaction. If the miner does not listen to the court, its assets can be seized. The seizure of criminal assets is possible across jurisdictions in the case of money laundering.

One could argue that making transactions non-anonymous increases the likelihood that governments will have an incentive to require miners to censor certain UTXO and transactions. Craig’s logic here is not a slam dunk.

Quote from: Craig
Proceeds of crime rules allow miners who knowingly act to validate a transaction from an unknown illicit address to become targets themselves.

He is arguing against himself. Lol. Because a miner of a cryptocurrency that has anonymity will never “knowingly…” because they are prevented from knowing by the anonymity.

Quote from: Craig
I would like to add a big thank you to Mr Antonopoulos who is helping ensure that all of the illegitimate and useless cryptocurrencies such as Monero and Core coin (BTC) are made illegal. With their blatantly erroneous statements about decentralised exchanges, Lightning, and other systems designed to breach anti-money laundering laws and facilitate crime, such individuals are helping ensure that you will wake up one day and find BTC, Monero, and Zcash to be illegal criminal assets and the mere possession to be a crime.

Craig welcome to reality. Cryptocurrency is going to be vilified regardless of whether there is anonymity. Cryptocurrency is a technological, economic evolution phenomenon that no one can stop. It is going to happen regardless of anything Craig and/or governments do.

Quote from: Craig
If it wasn’t for people like him, my job and getting law enforcement to understand such kinds of the blockchain would be much harder. I guess it is necessary for those seeking justice, law, and order to have criminals on the other side to make the case. It’s very helpful that they’re so incredibly incompetent when promoting crime.

And the thing is that the criminals will be able to figure out how to use Bitcoin (including any of its forks) entirely untraceable by chain analysis, whilst the rest of us will not. So all that effort of governments to stop “crime” is bullshit when in fact the government and those who buy off the government are the criminals.

So Craig’s feigned altruism is bullshit and vacuous.

Cryptocurrency has arrived as a phenomenon which will shake-up the foundations of human civilization to the core. This is an earthquake that never stops and only grows more violent and disruptive (and in creative destruction and constructive disintermediation) over time.



Italy's Deputy Prime Minister has proposed a plan to "tax" money and valuables held by citizens in their private safety deposit boxes.

Don't be surprised if more people around the world start looking for a non-censorable, non-seizable asset to store their wealth in. 🔥

https://twitter.com/apompliano/status/1138803120119648258?s=21

Lol

As a fellow Italian I suggest you an alternative way of looking at that.
They are desperate.
Nobody in her right mind would voluntarily open her own security safe box just to be taxed.
So? How does it works?
If I work on the illegal economy, or simply I never paid my taxes I have a LOT of cash I store there.
If I want to “clean it” I can take it off, being taxed on it (15%-20%) and deposit in the bank.
State money laundering, at a very competitive rate I also would add.

gawds i love good spin

+1 WOsMerit

Thanks for some education about Europe.

Jurisdictional arbitrage of this form (between just hodling whilst their socialist, clusterfucked kleptocracies collapse or declaring assets if they offer a good enough deal) is a plausible reason to be more optimistic.

This can be another interpretation of what is meant by positing that Bitcoin is here to enable the wealthy to perserve their wealth through the chaos coming to the world, not as a (especially if forgeable) medium-of-exchange.

And there are apparently a lot of Italian descendants in Argentina. And I might even become one of them.



You definitely cannot create the accumulated Proof Of Work of Bitcoin within your basement, nobody can, which is why Bitcoin has value.

Fine example of the dipshit scammer slogans you see plastered over Reddit all day.  The kind of bumper sticker slogan lies Andreas Antonopolous pushes.  Proof of work DOES NOT CREATE value.  It's sunk cost fallacy.  Jesus Christ, reading this continuous stream of mindless shit from you is too much.  This accumulated sunk cost fallacy also has ZERO bearing on future security.
It preserves value.

You are getting annoying. It's not like you don't know how it works.

Sunk cost fallacy does not "preserve" value.  Sunk cost fallacy by definition has NO BEARING on future value.  For example, if the Chicom miners band together and collude with their 70% hash power or whatever they have (I know it's at least 60% but probably higher), if you're on the minority fork with 30% or less, how has the current or past hash power "preserved" your value?  It hasn't.  You're now on a minority fork that might wither away and die off.  

Yea, you still have your Jihan Wu tokens on the majority fork, but maybe the tokens on that fork don't even have anything to do with the Bitcoin of yesterday at all and are instead Chinese social credit score tokens with built-in chain anchor.  Where is this so called "immutable" bullshit ledger again?  It doesn't exist.  Your chain can just be nullified by becoming an unsupported minority fork that dies. There is no Nash equilibrium in bitcoin. Arguably, no change would ever take place in the software if there was since there's no such thing as inherently 'good' code that can't have some hidden repurposed motives to it.

Read my prior post in this thread. Bitcoin mining is ostensibly becoming more decentralized, not more centralized, at least until some singularity is reached wherein the minted coinbase reward (aka the flow of new stock) becomes too small. I will be blogging about my thoughts about that eventual singularity, but it is a decade or decades from now, but not later then 2141.

Sunk costs are not what provides value to Bitcoin in the stocks-to-flows valuation model. The mining cost of the new annual flow provides the baseline for valuation of all the above ground stock. (<--- click that link for more detailed explanation). I explained in this post that the sunk costs is transferred to the Schelling point of public confidence. Read this post and my prior one carefully.

There’s no Schelling point for the Bitcoin wealth to sell the immutable protocol and buy any fork. So the only Schelling point is to sell all the forks and buy the one-and-only, real, immutable Bitcoin with the proceeds.

So you are entirely incorrect about Schelling points and numerous forks. The forks have no (lasting) value thus they are irrelevant.

And you are also incorrect if you think Bitcoin is not physical. The physical mass of Bitcoin is all the mining equipment out there. It just so happens that unlike gold, the mass is detached and only tethered virtually, which gives Bitcoin utility that gold does not have.

You sold Bitcoin at $600. Lol. Announce it to the world. Refuse to buy back into Bitcoin at every chance you have been given to rectify your mistake. Ditto some guys in this thread who perhaps will not be wise enough to sell BSV when the greater fools rush in. Because they refuse to acknowledge reality.

I have explained this all very clearly now. There is no excuse.

.

.

I debunk the incorrect belief that gold is physical (aka tangible) and Bitcoin is not. They are both physical. Bitcoin’s physical mass is not tethered to the ability to transport the value. So Bitcoin has all of gold’s properties, plus we do not need to use fractional reserve receipts, because the physical mass (the mining hardware) stays in the “vault” whilst the value can be transferred cryptographically. Amazing!

Indeed no one can predict all the potential outcomes w.r.t. Bitcoin. But the problem with gold is that government has an asymmetrical advantage because gold has to be physically transported. Thus the government and thieves can physically take it from me if I need to move between countries. Look for example at Armstrong’s current reopened (“new”) court case. Apparently someone stole his rare coins while he was unjustly imprisoned. Gold is an albatross around my neck (which I painstakingly learned by getting burned after shipping my precious metals to the Philippines). It limits my freedom to react to different situations that might arise. So it is actually the antithesis of diversification. A little bit of gold yeah maybe, especially given that as of Basel-III European banks will have an incentive to increase their gold reserves. But exceedingly large hodlings of gold diverge from diversification. We’re a sitting duck in that case with the gold albatross around our neck.

Again I also refer readers to @fillippone’s point and my reaction to it in this post. That to perserve our wealth through what is coming we may need to just hodl BTC for decade(s) until the governments become so bankrupted and desperate that they agree to legitimize our wealth. We have to squeeze those criminals until they acquiesce.

If you have a way to transport gold without actually transporting it which does not involve a trusted party, I would appreciate if you would share with me how to accomplish it. Bitcoin is trustless. I do not need to trust anyone in order to store my Bitcoin and transport it.

Yes I know you are very conservative and unwilling to accept that (the real not the fake) Bitcoin is a ~2000 – 3000 year monetary cycle event that radically changes the old order of money. That is what I believe based on the facts that I am aware of. Even the Bible says we will throw our gold into the streets. Gold was not even money at the inception of human civilization. Gold is not some permanent form of money.

Humility is a multifarious phenomena. Is it humble for you to assume that gold is forever money and nothing could possible replace it overnight? I look at the model that explains why Bitcoin can rise in value so quickly and I understand. I have not yet seen you correctly refute that model.

The only significant uncertainty facet I am willing to grant (in comparison to gold) is that is is unclear what happens to Bitcoin when the aforementioned model’s S/Fs ratio and market cap far exceeds that of gold. But that will not be the case until Bitcoin is over $1 million. So why would I trade a currently $10k asset that is going to $1 million in the next ~8 years or less, for a currently $1300 asset that is going to maybe ~$5000 in that time frame.

Diversification must factor in adjusted for risk versus reward, and risk of loss as well as gain. With gold I have a huge risk of it entirely being stolen, stuck in some legal jurisdiction where I can not liquidate it, and other risks because it is not digital. So huge risk of loss and not very much upside. Whereas with Bitcoin, there is a very high probability of huge upside and very low risk of loss if I am careful about my opsec (which is entirely in my control, and trustless). Bitcoin is about self-responsibility. Gold is more of fiat instrument because it depends on trust for storage and/or for liquidity. Bitcoin is sovereign, gold is not so anymore. For example, gold forces me to come face-to-face with a buyer or seller, unless I rely on trusted 3rd parties. In the scenarios where I need gold to perform, it could be very dangerous to even transact in gold. Whereas with Bitcoin I can transact digitally and no need to come face-to-face not rely on trusted parties.

Yeah I might have some dozens of gold coins just in case. But I am not going to put $millions into gold (presuming I own at least 1 BTC now and the expected future price). Sorry that would be a huge albatross around my neck.

For astute diversification, I would probably choose to have enough gold coins to support my simple life and daily expenses. Gold that I can reliably carry with me where I need to go (or copies of that small hoard in each country where I might reside). Any Bitcoin we hodl is God’s money, not for me personally but for me to use for God’s objectives. Gold will be less effective for that and thus I think by the Parable of the Talents I am to put more in Bitcoin otherwise the talents will be taken from me and given to someone who will.

What good is it for me 20 years ago to have buried gold at different places in the world? It is entirely useless if I can not get my hands on it when I need to direct it to accomplishing good. We are still digging up buried hoards from the Dark Ages.

The Core address 3s are not Bitcoin. That is just fundamental. Bitcoin has no value whatsoever if any development group can “soft fork” it.

The ability to discern good ideas from bad ones is essential to wealth generation. The fallacy of diversification is that any person could generate wealth without any expertise or maximum division-of-labor, which would be equivalent to the fallacy of egalitarianism and Marxism.





If the chinese colluded to do such a change, they would end up with an useless token and those smart would see the opportunity to mine Bitcoin at a discount while the scammers burn money on their pretend Bitcoin, before the difficulty picks up traction again.

No, that is not how the world works such as how people like Bitcoin core erroneously state that only "nodes" or "users" matter and not miners.  Miners determine the fate of Bitcoin because without miners you have no chain security. Yes, you can choose to boycott the majority fork...and then be attacked by them.  Then you get to open the can of worms of being forced to change algo.  Regardless, since Bitcoin has no Nash equilibrium, no Schelling point, and mining and transaction validators are all designed to centralize, it's nothing more than a corrupt political power vacuum like you would see in a senate.

Miners need transactions to happen in order to stay solvent, and nobody would use inflationcoin. Also, literally all whales (except miners that are part of the attack, assuming they don't back-peddle) would dump their share on the attackers chain, collapsing the price, thus collapsing the hashrate, and forcing miners to come back to the original chain or go out of business.

Nobody said anything about inflation.  You erroneously claimed "21 million coins" constitutes a Schelling point for Bitcoin.  You're making shit up on the fly.  You can have infinite different forks all with a 21 million coin count.  There is no Schelling point in shitcoins.  Stop constantly lying.  It's also 100% guaranteed for Bitcoin to be co-opted by the state since transaction validators are designed to centralize, not that the state wasn't involved in it's creation in the first place.

There is no Schelling point to sell the one-and-only, immutable Bitcoin. Forks are worthless if everybody sells their free airdrop tokens on the forks and buys moar of the one-and-only, immutable Bitcoin with the proceeds.

Miners have no power to change the protocol. Period.

I explained that already upthread. Even the miners who will force Core to stop its “soft fork” deception and hard fork off, will not have any power to change the immutable protocol. They will be merely restoring the Nash Equilibrium by taking as donations the massive, generous SegWit (aka Core) UTXO addresses booty. Then the Nash Equilibrium will be restored and Core will fuck off and die. And the real, immutable Bitcoin will chug along to $1 million per BTC before 2028. Whilst your gold will go to at most $5000ish.

pereira4
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610
Merit: 1171


View Profile
June 15, 2019, 02:54:30 PM
 #131

I guess the only thing I want to reply to is point 2 about centralization. Yes, megagigaterapetablocks will likely result in fewer fully-validating, non-mining entities. It will also likely result in fewer full-stack mining entities. So what?

People keep talking about decentralization as if it is an end in itself. Why? AFAIC, as long as there are no structural barriers to entry by new participants, the network is as decentralized as it need be. If there is no discernible marginal benefit from adding one more participant to the network, then by definition further decentralization is of no benefit.

And quite frankly, all public blockchains -- to the extent that said blockchain is economically significant -- will centralize thusly - at least with respect to mining. How many parties make up 51% of BTC hashpower? Four. Already.

Not to mention the fact that non-mining nodes provide zero benefit to the network anyhow. If you have sufficient economic interest to be a first-class tx creator, then fine. Pony up for a validating client. But don't delude yourself that your participation brings any benefit to anyone but yourself.

By having megagigaterapetablocks you are giving full control of blockchain audit to the "operators". I guess the only way some people would understand why centralization is bad is when forces collude to censor certain transactions, such as donating to Wikileaks or anything else that wouldn't comply with what they consider a morally correct transaction.

All public blockchains -- to the extent that said blockchain is economically significant -- will centralize thusly - at least with respect to mining. How many parties make up 51% of BTC hashpower? Four. Already.

A blockchain is not public if it cannot be audited, and that is the dead end of BSV if it ever go to be used at scale. Just because you can see the transactions on some website, it doesn't mean anything in terms of how valid the data being shown is and thus it's private.

There's no incentive for miners to screw up Bitcoin as they have the most skin in the game along with the mega-whales.
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2702
Merit: 1426


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
June 15, 2019, 07:07:47 PM
 #132

I guess the only thing I want to reply to is point 2 about centralization. Yes, megagigaterapetablocks will likely result in fewer fully-validating, non-mining entities. It will also likely result in fewer full-stack mining entities. So what?

People keep talking about decentralization as if it is an end in itself. Why? AFAIC, as long as there are no structural barriers to entry by new participants, the network is as decentralized as it need be. If there is no discernible marginal benefit from adding one more participant to the network, then by definition further decentralization is of no benefit.

And quite frankly, all public blockchains -- to the extent that said blockchain is economically significant -- will centralize thusly - at least with respect to mining. How many parties make up 51% of BTC hashpower? Four. Already.

Not to mention the fact that non-mining nodes provide zero benefit to the network anyhow. If you have sufficient economic interest to be a first-class tx creator, then fine. Pony up for a validating client. But don't delude yourself that your participation brings any benefit to anyone but yourself.

By having megagigaterapetablocks you are giving full control of blockchain audit to the "operators". I guess the only way some people would understand why centralization is bad is when forces collude to censor certain transactions, such as donating to Wikileaks or anything else that wouldn't comply with what they consider a morally correct transaction.

All public blockchains -- to the extent that said blockchain is economically significant -- will centralize thusly - at least with respect to mining. How many parties make up 51% of BTC hashpower? Four. Already.

A blockchain is not public if it cannot be audited, and that is the dead end of BSV if it ever go to be used at scale. Just because you can see the transactions on some website, it doesn't mean anything in terms of how valid the data being shown is and thus it's private.

Anyone who cares to invest the requisite time, talent, and treasure is free to audit the blockchain. In SV as it is in BTC.

Anyone with a campaign ad in their signature -- for an organization with which they are not otherwise affiliated -- is automatically deducted credibility points.

I've been convicted of heresy. Convicted by a mere known extortionist. Read my Trust for details.
hv_
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Activity: 1512
Merit: 572

Clean Code and Scale


View Profile WWW
June 15, 2019, 08:09:43 PM
 #133

https://news.bitcoin.com/theymos-bitcoins-satoshi-destroyed/

He is sure and full of fear it will happen.

Bye btc

Carpe diem  -  understand the White Paper and mine honest.
Memo: 1AHUYNJKPfY7PjVK1hNQFo5LrdGixuiybw  -  https://metanet.icu/
The simple way is the genius way - in Moore's Law and Satoshi's WP we trust.
fabiorem
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 331



View Profile
June 15, 2019, 09:21:50 PM
 #134

Here is a good article about the immutable protocol, Satoshi's coins, CSW and Paul Le Roux:

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/i-m-a-former-green-beret-here-s-how-i-would-bring-down-bitcoin-1456165726
pereira4
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610
Merit: 1171


View Profile
June 16, 2019, 02:15:58 AM
 #135

I guess the only thing I want to reply to is point 2 about centralization. Yes, megagigaterapetablocks will likely result in fewer fully-validating, non-mining entities. It will also likely result in fewer full-stack mining entities. So what?

People keep talking about decentralization as if it is an end in itself. Why? AFAIC, as long as there are no structural barriers to entry by new participants, the network is as decentralized as it need be. If there is no discernible marginal benefit from adding one more participant to the network, then by definition further decentralization is of no benefit.

And quite frankly, all public blockchains -- to the extent that said blockchain is economically significant -- will centralize thusly - at least with respect to mining. How many parties make up 51% of BTC hashpower? Four. Already.

Not to mention the fact that non-mining nodes provide zero benefit to the network anyhow. If you have sufficient economic interest to be a first-class tx creator, then fine. Pony up for a validating client. But don't delude yourself that your participation brings any benefit to anyone but yourself.

By having megagigaterapetablocks you are giving full control of blockchain audit to the "operators". I guess the only way some people would understand why centralization is bad is when forces collude to censor certain transactions, such as donating to Wikileaks or anything else that wouldn't comply with what they consider a morally correct transaction.

All public blockchains -- to the extent that said blockchain is economically significant -- will centralize thusly - at least with respect to mining. How many parties make up 51% of BTC hashpower? Four. Already.

A blockchain is not public if it cannot be audited, and that is the dead end of BSV if it ever go to be used at scale. Just because you can see the transactions on some website, it doesn't mean anything in terms of how valid the data being shown is and thus it's private.

Anyone who cares to invest the requisite time, talent, and treasure is free to audit the blockchain. In SV as it is in BTC.


Auditing means running a full node, validating the entire blockchain and confirming that everything checks in within the rest of the network, something you can't do on centralized, running-at-scale-on-chain approaches like SV or any other altcoin for that matter, since the entry point to do so is basically be an NSA datacenter.
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2702
Merit: 1426


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
June 16, 2019, 03:43:33 AM
 #136

I guess the only thing I want to reply to is point 2 about centralization. Yes, megagigaterapetablocks will likely result in fewer fully-validating, non-mining entities. It will also likely result in fewer full-stack mining entities. So what?

People keep talking about decentralization as if it is an end in itself. Why? AFAIC, as long as there are no structural barriers to entry by new participants, the network is as decentralized as it need be. If there is no discernible marginal benefit from adding one more participant to the network, then by definition further decentralization is of no benefit.

And quite frankly, all public blockchains -- to the extent that said blockchain is economically significant -- will centralize thusly - at least with respect to mining. How many parties make up 51% of BTC hashpower? Four. Already.

Not to mention the fact that non-mining nodes provide zero benefit to the network anyhow. If you have sufficient economic interest to be a first-class tx creator, then fine. Pony up for a validating client. But don't delude yourself that your participation brings any benefit to anyone but yourself.

By having megagigaterapetablocks you are giving full control of blockchain audit to the "operators". I guess the only way some people would understand why centralization is bad is when forces collude to censor certain transactions, such as donating to Wikileaks or anything else that wouldn't comply with what they consider a morally correct transaction.

All public blockchains -- to the extent that said blockchain is economically significant -- will centralize thusly - at least with respect to mining. How many parties make up 51% of BTC hashpower? Four. Already.

A blockchain is not public if it cannot be audited, and that is the dead end of BSV if it ever go to be used at scale. Just because you can see the transactions on some website, it doesn't mean anything in terms of how valid the data being shown is and thus it's private.

Anyone who cares to invest the requisite time, talent, and treasure is free to audit the blockchain. In SV as it is in BTC.


Auditing means running a full node,

Okaaayy....

Quote
validating the entire blockchain and confirming that everything checks in within the rest of the network, something you can't do on centralized, running-at-scale-on-chain approaches

Ok, so what's your point?

Quote
like SV

Oh I see - you're deluded. Carry on.

Anyone with a campaign ad in their signature -- for an organization with which they are not otherwise affiliated -- is automatically deducted credibility points.

I've been convicted of heresy. Convicted by a mere known extortionist. Read my Trust for details.
pereira4
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610
Merit: 1171


View Profile
June 16, 2019, 02:07:59 PM
 #137

I guess the only thing I want to reply to is point 2 about centralization. Yes, megagigaterapetablocks will likely result in fewer fully-validating, non-mining entities. It will also likely result in fewer full-stack mining entities. So what?

People keep talking about decentralization as if it is an end in itself. Why? AFAIC, as long as there are no structural barriers to entry by new participants, the network is as decentralized as it need be. If there is no discernible marginal benefit from adding one more participant to the network, then by definition further decentralization is of no benefit.

And quite frankly, all public blockchains -- to the extent that said blockchain is economically significant -- will centralize thusly - at least with respect to mining. How many parties make up 51% of BTC hashpower? Four. Already.

Not to mention the fact that non-mining nodes provide zero benefit to the network anyhow. If you have sufficient economic interest to be a first-class tx creator, then fine. Pony up for a validating client. But don't delude yourself that your participation brings any benefit to anyone but yourself.

By having megagigaterapetablocks you are giving full control of blockchain audit to the "operators". I guess the only way some people would understand why centralization is bad is when forces collude to censor certain transactions, such as donating to Wikileaks or anything else that wouldn't comply with what they consider a morally correct transaction.

All public blockchains -- to the extent that said blockchain is economically significant -- will centralize thusly - at least with respect to mining. How many parties make up 51% of BTC hashpower? Four. Already.

A blockchain is not public if it cannot be audited, and that is the dead end of BSV if it ever go to be used at scale. Just because you can see the transactions on some website, it doesn't mean anything in terms of how valid the data being shown is and thus it's private.

Anyone who cares to invest the requisite time, talent, and treasure is free to audit the blockchain. In SV as it is in BTC.


Auditing means running a full node,

Okaaayy....

Quote
validating the entire blockchain and confirming that everything checks in within the rest of the network, something you can't do on centralized, running-at-scale-on-chain approaches

Ok, so what's your point?

Quote
like SV

Oh I see - you're deluded. Carry on.

My point is that you are bagholding an altcoin (BSV) from the look of your posts, and you are not understand the game theory at play when it comes to what makes Bitcoin valuable on the first place.

A Bitcoin which is ran on datacenters on both the auditing and mining part is basically fiat. At that point if there were no alternatives, you could just keep using fiat (which is already digital) and use gold as store of value.
hv_
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Activity: 1512
Merit: 572

Clean Code and Scale


View Profile WWW
June 16, 2019, 02:53:08 PM
 #138

I guess the only thing I want to reply to is point 2 about centralization. Yes, megagigaterapetablocks will likely result in fewer fully-validating, non-mining entities. It will also likely result in fewer full-stack mining entities. So what?

People keep talking about decentralization as if it is an end in itself. Why? AFAIC, as long as there are no structural barriers to entry by new participants, the network is as decentralized as it need be. If there is no discernible marginal benefit from adding one more participant to the network, then by definition further decentralization is of no benefit.

And quite frankly, all public blockchains -- to the extent that said blockchain is economically significant -- will centralize thusly - at least with respect to mining. How many parties make up 51% of BTC hashpower? Four. Already.

Not to mention the fact that non-mining nodes provide zero benefit to the network anyhow. If you have sufficient economic interest to be a first-class tx creator, then fine. Pony up for a validating client. But don't delude yourself that your participation brings any benefit to anyone but yourself.

By having megagigaterapetablocks you are giving full control of blockchain audit to the "operators". I guess the only way some people would understand why centralization is bad is when forces collude to censor certain transactions, such as donating to Wikileaks or anything else that wouldn't comply with what they consider a morally correct transaction.

All public blockchains -- to the extent that said blockchain is economically significant -- will centralize thusly - at least with respect to mining. How many parties make up 51% of BTC hashpower? Four. Already.

A blockchain is not public if it cannot be audited, and that is the dead end of BSV if it ever go to be used at scale. Just because you can see the transactions on some website, it doesn't mean anything in terms of how valid the data being shown is and thus it's private.

Anyone who cares to invest the requisite time, talent, and treasure is free to audit the blockchain. In SV as it is in BTC.


Auditing means running a full node,

Okaaayy....

Quote
validating the entire blockchain and confirming that everything checks in within the rest of the network, something you can't do on centralized, running-at-scale-on-chain approaches

Ok, so what's your point?

Quote
like SV

Oh I see - you're deluded. Carry on.

My point is that you are bagholding an altcoin (BSV) from the look of your posts, and you are not understand the game theory at play when it comes to what makes Bitcoin valuable on the first place.

A Bitcoin which is ran on datacenters on both the auditing and mining part is basically fiat. At that point if there were no alternatives, you could just keep using fiat (which is already digital) and use gold as store of value.


A bitcoin where core devs and PoSM tells u what to change in the protocol and MUST sell u new 'features' not needed for Bitcoin is fiat . More than a stable protocol where all new features are on the app layer.

Sigh

Carpe diem  -  understand the White Paper and mine honest.
Memo: 1AHUYNJKPfY7PjVK1hNQFo5LrdGixuiybw  -  https://metanet.icu/
The simple way is the genius way - in Moore's Law and Satoshi's WP we trust.
pereira4
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610
Merit: 1171


View Profile
June 16, 2019, 03:06:28 PM
Merited by vapourminer (1)
 #139

In a market perspective, the consequences of such stealing of Segwit outputs would be like what happened to the ethereum blockchain. Ethereum forked after the DAO hack, rolling back and thus, having the shortest blockchain at that point. The original one (that is, the one retaining the original chain after the DAO hack) was hence called "ethereum classic". However, both investors and miners flocked to the forked chain, and it gained more hashrate, surpassing the classic chain both in value and power. It also retained its original name.

So, what would happen, in a market perspective, is that both chains would start with the same value, but the one forked by Core (technically, Core would have to rollback, to reverse the stealing of Segwit outputs, thus forking like ethereum did) would receive more value, even if dont go straight to a PoS model at first.

We need to weigh down human behaviour on this event. Investors dont have a clue about immutability in the protocol, they dont even know how the protocol works, so they would mistrust the miners, and in such a way that it would put the PoW model into question. It could even affect the altcoin market, with several coins switching to a PoS model. Notice that, right now, ethereum is going to a hybrid between PoS and PoW, and this give a clue of what would happen to bitcoin in case of this attack.

The PoS model would also attract institutional money. Banks gained power through stacking in the debt-based fiat system. They dont like bitcoin because they dont have more power than the miners over it. The miners would lose their power if they steal the Segwit outputs, and ultimately, the theft would be reversed, like it happened with ethereum. So, I believe this wont happen at all, unless the miners want to consciously end their business. If the electrical companies benefit from mining, I dont see why this should happen.

But in case it happens, it would be better to have most of your output in legacy addresses, as this would maximize the airdrop. People who only hold in Segwit adresses would not receive coins from the miners chain, as their coins would be the ones stolen on that chain.

You just have described the Schelling point case for legacy addresses as the be-all-end-all place to be when it comes to perma-hodling relevant amounts of money. Why would one not be exposed to giveaway forkcoins when you can be sitting on legacy addresses and receive them at no cost? (well, cost being, moving the coins properly to get the forkcoins which is a massive pain in the ass in itself but you would get nothing sitting on non-legacy addresses.
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2702
Merit: 1426


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
June 16, 2019, 03:31:47 PM
 #140

I guess the only thing I want to reply to is point 2 about centralization. Yes, megagigaterapetablocks will likely result in fewer fully-validating, non-mining entities. It will also likely result in fewer full-stack mining entities. So what?

People keep talking about decentralization as if it is an end in itself. Why? AFAIC, as long as there are no structural barriers to entry by new participants, the network is as decentralized as it need be. If there is no discernible marginal benefit from adding one more participant to the network, then by definition further decentralization is of no benefit.

And quite frankly, all public blockchains -- to the extent that said blockchain is economically significant -- will centralize thusly - at least with respect to mining. How many parties make up 51% of BTC hashpower? Four. Already.

Not to mention the fact that non-mining nodes provide zero benefit to the network anyhow. If you have sufficient economic interest to be a first-class tx creator, then fine. Pony up for a validating client. But don't delude yourself that your participation brings any benefit to anyone but yourself.

By having megagigaterapetablocks you are giving full control of blockchain audit to the "operators". I guess the only way some people would understand why centralization is bad is when forces collude to censor certain transactions, such as donating to Wikileaks or anything else that wouldn't comply with what they consider a morally correct transaction.

All public blockchains -- to the extent that said blockchain is economically significant -- will centralize thusly - at least with respect to mining. How many parties make up 51% of BTC hashpower? Four. Already.

A blockchain is not public if it cannot be audited, and that is the dead end of BSV if it ever go to be used at scale. Just because you can see the transactions on some website, it doesn't mean anything in terms of how valid the data being shown is and thus it's private.

Anyone who cares to invest the requisite time, talent, and treasure is free to audit the blockchain. In SV as it is in BTC.


Auditing means running a full node,

Okaaayy....

Quote
validating the entire blockchain and confirming that everything checks in within the rest of the network, something you can't do on centralized, running-at-scale-on-chain approaches

Ok, so what's your point?

Quote
like SV

Oh I see - you're deluded. Carry on.

My point is that you are bagholding an altcoin (BSV) from the look of your posts, and you are not understand the game theory at play when it comes to what makes Bitcoin valuable on the first place.

A Bitcoin which is ran on datacenters on both the auditing and mining part is basically fiat.

Not if there are multiple competing entities at each of these roles.

Let me tell you a parable:

Once in the early days of cryptocurrency, there was a person. This person was a principal in a mining collective. A mining collective that at one point was one of the largest holders of hashpower on the planet. This mining collective went through several technologies leading the pack in H/W efficiency. This effort was very profitable. Yet this effort was a huge PITA.  Hence, every block win, all the principals whined all the way to the bank. Eventually, some of the principals decided the PITA factor was not worth the effort. So they decided to get out of mining. They offered to sell the entire system to the other principals. Those other principals debated ROI, colocation services, expected technology node upgrades, power distribution, geographical location, possible competition, etc. And decided that they had had enough as well.

The mining entity shut down.

Some time later, a cabal of economic ignoramuses (albeit quite talented as coders) somehow wrested control of the hearts and minds of the Bitcoin faithful. These economic ignoramuses foisted a negative and potentially fatal change upon the Bitcoin protocol. There was a short battle held over the adoption of this flaw.

Our protagonist, who had been a principal in the mining collective, was aware of the negative aspects of this protocol change. He wished to fight against this abomination. Having divested himself of mining power, however, he was absolutely powerless to do anything about the situation.

Anyone with a campaign ad in their signature -- for an organization with which they are not otherwise affiliated -- is automatically deducted credibility points.

I've been convicted of heresy. Convicted by a mere known extortionist. Read my Trust for details.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 »  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!