Bitcoin Forum
August 18, 2019, 08:34:53 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: theymos activity on Reddit - A collection of posts  (Read 401 times)
bitmover
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 957



View Profile
June 13, 2019, 05:17:09 PM
Last edit: June 14, 2019, 01:44:09 PM by bitmover
Merited by dbshck (6), chimk (5), suchmoon (4), LoyceV (4), OgNasty (1), Lucius (1), Steamtyme (1), DdmrDdmr (1), Husna QA (1)
 #1

Inspired in the recently thread created by @Steamtyme, theymosisms - A collection of posts for reference , I decided to create this one.

About a year ago I discovered theymos' reddit account, where he engage in some discussions mostly r/Bitcoin.

I think this collection is complementary of Steamtyme topic, as his collection of theymos' posts is basically about the forum, such as ban, rules, ip ban . This collection is about Bitcoin discussions. As bitcoin discussion board is a sea of spam, I decided to put this in Beginners & Help board (as some of his posts are not fully technical for Technical Discussion board). Moved to Reputation, as Lucius suggestion.

I will quote some of the best posts I could find (he writes a lot lol)



Quote from: deleted account
What is the one Bitcoin service you would like to see developed?
A decentralized Bitcoin exchange. This is a lot more difficult than some might think, but I think that it's possible.



Quote from: sebicas
How did you discover Bitcoin and why did you decided to get involved as you did?
I saw a post about Bitcoin on 4chan. The poster was complaining about how long it was taking to download the blockchain. Wink

I just started participating on the forum and never lost my interest.



Mining is too centralized, and many of the major miners are clearly bad actors. But a PoW change looks like a net negative currently. Calling for a PoW change now is kind of like calling for a block-size increase: you see a problem, and you see a big red button labeled "solve problem", but you fail to look at what the button actually does.

First of all, it's important to recognize that Bitcoin is not ruled by miners. If it was, then Bitcoin would already be lost, since the majority of miners have long been incompetent and/or totally opposed to the ideals of Bitcoin. If miners try any attack, a response can be custom-tailored to it by the economy in order to stop the attack and undo any damage. In case of attack, it would absolutely not be necessary to accept whatever the miners are doing.

Secondly, the major miners (especially Bitmain and associates) are major miners because they have access to high-quality chip fabrication technology/infrastructure. If you changed the PoW to eg. SHA-3, this would be a massive boon to Bitmain, since they would be in a better position than anyone on Earth to create new hardware.

Thirdly, pure PoS has been totally discredited. A combination PoW+PoS might not be a terrible idea IMO, but the idea is fairly unpopular among experts for technical and philosophical reasons.

Finally, it's easy to say that you want to create an "ASIC-proof" PoW function, but doing so is much more difficult. Recall that "democratizing mining" was one of the goals of Litecoin's usage of scrypt, but Bitmain is now producing Litecoin ASICs. X11 was another attempt at an ASIC-proof PoW, and ASICs were produced for that one as soon as the altcoins which used it became valuable enough to make doing so profitable. You can think up whatever ultra-complex, apparently-CPU-unique thing you want, but:

Probably you will fail to create something that actually requires a true CPU rather than some more-efficient-than-CPUs ASIC, as doing so is very difficult. (To do so would require attacking the problem rigorously & mathematically, not just willy-nilly doing things that look hard for ASICs.)

If you somehow do create one, congrats: you've now given a monopoly on Bitcoin mining hardware to Intel and (to a much lesser extent) AMD, the only two companies with the technology for creating efficient x86 CPUs.

There's been some research on creating a memory-hard PoW function rather than a CPU-hard function, but this is an experimental area. The best candidate function we have, cuckoo, is not proven to be memory-hard (ie. maybe more analysis could someday allow for eliminating the memory-hardness). Furthermore, even if we had a well-tested and proven memory-hard PoW, it is not clear that this would result in less mining centralization. Maybe the economies of scale would end up even more pronounced here, or maybe mining would be taken over by a couple of giant botnets. (I actually think that this is the most promising direction for solving mining centralization long-term, but there are serious questions and challenges which probably won't be well-addressed anytime soon.)

So my position has been and continues to be that:

The PoW should absolutely be changed if miners do any sort of attack (the most likely of which is censoring "dubious" transactions rather than anything more obviously evil). In that scenario, the miners must be fired or Bitcoin is dead, so a high-cost, risky PoW change is worthwhile. And if the first PoW change fails to keep those miners away, you keep changing the PoW until they've created so many ASIC paperweights that they've run out of money.

While I would like to replace the current miners, in the absence of any attack, a PoW change is a high-cost, high-risk move which is unlikely to actually improve things in the long-run anyway. It's not worth it.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/7zvit8/cobra_miners_are_evil_we_need_to_get_rid_of_them/dus9tuq/



Bitcoin is not governed. If there is disagreement in the hard rules of the system, then you by definition end up with two separate & incompatible currencies. In just a few minutes you could modify the code so that it produces unlimited coins, and nobody could stop you. But since your rules are different from everyone else's rules, you've actually created a separate currency. At that point you have to convince everyone else to switch to your currency and call it Bitcoin. There is no majority rule, central authority, or other form of governance: you have to convince everyone to switch if you don't want some people to continue using old-Bitcoin. Realistically, it's never going to happen for something like changing the money supply. For actually-reasonable changes which are not fundamentally opposed to Bitcoin, it could be done in a slow process over the course of a couple years.

Only Bitcoin's hard rules (aka consensus rules) get the above treatment. There are less important rules called policy which can be changed more easily. For example, adding support for compact blocks was a policy change.

There are also softforks, which is a way of more quickly making changes to the hard rules when the rules are being tightened. You can't do softforks when the rules are being loosened. For example, reducing the BTC that will be created in the future could be done as a softfork, while increasing the BTC that will be created in the future could not be.



Quote from: bengowon23
What will quantum resistant private key and seeds look like in the near future? Is it just a larger amount of seed words and/or a longer private key?
The user experience would be roughly the same. I suppose that individual private keys which expert users might handle would probably be about 33 bytes (a 32-byte hash-tree root and 1 byte for the tree height). Addresses would be basically the same as now. You might be able to use your existing seed words, and there'd just be a slightly different way of deriving keys in the backend. The biggest end-user differences would be:

Transaction signatures would be much larger (about 11kB per input), so on-chain transactions would be much more expensive.

You wouldn't be able to infinitely reuse addresses. (You're already discouraged from doing so now, but post-QC it'd become particularly insecure.)

All of your existing addresses would be more-or-less insecure, so you'd have to move all of your BTC off of those addresses into new addresses.

Despite how it's often portrayed, quantum computers powerful enough to endanger real-world crypto does not seem right around the corner. I wouldn't be surprised if it's still not a threat in even 50 years. So while it could happen sooner if there's a sudden breakthrough, and it's worth thinking about and preparing for to some extent, I wouldn't worry about it too much.



Quote from: darikbtc
Is it really realistic to think that BTC could reach $1 million someday? (as Mr Mcafee says)
It's possible, but it's ridiculous to just draw a line on a chart and conclude that it's going to happen anytime soon. If Bitcoin reached such high prices, that'd either cause or be caused by world-shaking events: BTC would have a market cap greater than the USD M3 money supply, and quite a few BTC early adopters would have wealth comparable to countries.

The easiest way to reach $1 million will be USD hyperinflation. I think that this will happen sometime in the next 50 years, since it seems to me to be the only plausible outcome for the US's addiction to debt. But this says more about the value of USD than BTC.

To reach $1 million in today's value:

There could be truly extraordinary growth in demand, probably caused by a worldwide lack of faith in fiat or some other major event.

Even in the absence of much growth, if Bitcoin remains the premier cryptocurrency, then I'd expect the value to continuously (but not necessarily quickly) rise in real terms because BTC is highly deflationary.

I think that there's substantial room for growth in demand -- I wouldn't be surprised to see $10k again within a year or two, for example --, but I'm not sure about growth to $1 million in the next couple of decades at least. The fact is that most people are fine with using things like credit cards, bank autopayments, bank-linked payment apps, etc. They're easy enough, and since the payments are reversible, they're highly forgiving of the average person's absolutely abominable security practices. (There are of course many major problems with traditional payments, but the average person doesn't care enough.)

In order to reach $1 million levels anytime soon, we'd need at least:

Hardware infrastructure. Point-of-sale would need the equivalent of credit card terminals, and every person would need secure hardware wallets either on a dedicated device or on their phones. You need to somehow prevent almost all cases of: phishing, malware, wallet bugs, forgotten passwords, mugging someone out of their life savings, etc.

Some off-chain solution would have to be working perfectly. It's unacceptable for the average person to worry about fees or confirmations.

There'd have to be significant pull to BTC (merchants passing on lower costs, maybe) and/or significant push from fiat (eg. hyperinflation, widespread privacy concerns, confiscation, etc.).

Governments can't become too authoritarian. Bitcoin can be made to function even if every country makes it illegal, but that'd make it too difficult for ordinary people to use it. It'd be similar to how most Chinese people don't know how to bypass the Great Firewall, even though it's technically possible.

There are plausible technical solutions for at least the first two points, but we're nowhere near achieving them all.

As for value increases due to deflation: I consider it pretty likely that BTC will still be the premier cryptocurrency in 50 years; maybe an 85% probability. If so, that implies in my mind an on-average-increasing value. But even if the price goes up to $100k in 10 years through growth, I'm not sure that deflation alone will be enough to carry us to $1 million in an additional 40 years



Quote from: healingpainter
Andreas Antonopolous: ETF's are NOT good for bitcoin as the centralized custodian can decide what to do with the bitcoin they're holding.
Agreed, an ETF will almost certainly turn into a disaster at some point. The coins will be stolen, forks will be handled controversially, there will be issues with fungibility (eg. someone will "trace stolen coins" to the ETF's stash), the world will freak out when a bunch of retirees lose their life savings after doing the equivalent of buying BTC at $20k, etc. etc. It'll also get the sort of people who love regulation more into BTC, which is never good.

But investors want it, so it'll probably happen eventually. In particular, I totally condemn trying to get regulators to interfere in the free market more than they already do by blocking any ETF. (When the SEC was last looking into this, I had actually written a long document that I was going to send to them in order to comment on many technical issues with their proposed Bitcoin ETF regulation, but I decided not to send it because I don't want to have even the slightest hand in regulations.)

An ETF probably will increase the price a lot (until the ETF suffers its near-inevitable catastrophe), which has some pros and cons.

Note that an ETF can't affect Bitcoin itself, just the ETF investors and the market. There is no voting of any sort in Bitcoin, so it's not as if holding a lot of BTC gives you any power over Bitcoin, for example. I do agree with Andreas that the creation of a "corpo-Bitcoin" seems probable, perhaps after the ETF loses a ton of BTC and wants to undo it.

1566117293
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1566117293

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1566117293
Reply with quote  #2

1566117293
Report to moderator
1566117293
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1566117293

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1566117293
Reply with quote  #2

1566117293
Report to moderator
1566117293
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1566117293

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1566117293
Reply with quote  #2

1566117293
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Lucius
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512
Merit: 1283


Fortis Fortuna Adiuvat


View Profile WWW
June 14, 2019, 12:59:30 PM
 #2

I have to admit that in these posts we can read about some of the most interesting questions concerning bitcoin today. Particularly interesting posts are about $1 million per BTC, quantum computers and ETF. Since this was written by someone who is from the beginning in cryptocurrency world, and also is admin on this forum, it is good to take some time and read these posts.

I can agree that this is very likely too complicated content for beginners, so there is no comments so far. Perhaps more appropriate place for this thread would be in Reputation or maybe Meta.

bitmover
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 957



View Profile
June 14, 2019, 01:32:58 PM
Last edit: June 14, 2019, 01:57:17 PM by bitmover
 #3

I can agree that this is very likely too complicated content for beginners, so there is no comments so far. Perhaps more appropriate place for this thread would be in Reputation or maybe Meta.

I agree with you. I think this is a nice post and few people read or commented it.. Just moved to Reputation, where more veteran users visit more often.

I don't think meta board is appropriated, as there is no content forum related here.

Oyarebu
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 130
Merit: 22

BitTrade Trade Commodities and Sports Futures usin


View Profile
June 14, 2019, 01:51:52 PM
 #4

Whenever a thread is created on this forum, i never care to have checked how many commenters actively engaged  on my thread becasue; the numbers of visitors tell much of the importance of it, than just to make post count commenters we have seen recently.

Most of these populated threads are mainly dominated by post count commenters, and not readers like us, i prefer to read through a hundred pages than to just write for writing sake.

This thread contained more information than one could have imagined of Theymos ...

Tajuluc
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 17
Merit: 0


View Profile
June 16, 2019, 02:32:31 PM
 #5

interesting thread,bitcoin forum being a legendary forum in the world of crypto it is quite interesting to know how one of its founder thinks as most of his thought will have being influenced by satoshi himself..


Quote from: darikbtc
Is it really realistic to think that BTC could reach $1 million someday? (as Mr Mcafee says)
It's possible, but it's ridiculous to just draw a line on a chart and conclude that it's going to happen anytime soon. If Bitcoin reached such high prices, that'd either cause or be caused by world-shaking events: BTC would have a market cap greater than the USD M3 money supply, and quite a few BTC early adopters would have wealth comparable to countries.

The easiest way to reach $1 million will be USD hyperinflation. I think that this will happen sometime in the next 50 years, since it seems to me to be the only plausible outcome for the US's addiction to debt. But this says more about the value of USD than BTC.


we can see that he is quite optimistic on the future of bitcoin but is not moving ahead of himself,which is reasuring as i have always wonder if the header of such a forum is  worth his title.This is just a few portion of his mind not enought to conclude but it is a start.thanks oyarebu,if i had merit you will have being given one.
squatter
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 872


STOP SNITCHIN'


View Profile
July 20, 2019, 06:28:55 AM
 #6

Here's an interesting read from Theymos in response to Rep. Patrick McHenry's recent comments on CNBC. An excerpt:

Quote
Good points by the Representative and the first two hosts, but overconfidence is the biggest mistake you can make on anything. We're not living in a storybook, and we are not destined to win.

In the US I think it's very likely that someday soon a little provision will be tucked into a must-pass bill at the last minute requiring reporting all BTC holdings via FBAR. After that, while there's currently no momentum whatsoever for it, it'd be a fairly simple matter to someday say "turn over your bitcoins, which we know you have, or go to jail" (or "we can prove you have bitcoins, but you didn't report it, so you go to jail").

The push for regulation increases constantly, worldwide. Each regulation is a reduction in freedom and a weight around the BTC economy's neck. In the end, it's not unimaginable that someday BTC will technically not be restricted for end-users, but all legally-operating on-ramps and off-ramps will be forbidden from transferring BTC to/from non-KYC wallets, not even trustless wallets. People who stay within this legally-acceptable area would be using something no better than (and with no competitive advantage over) fiat in bank accounts.

It's not unimaginable that LN nodes, even though trustless and not holding any user BTC, will be harmfully regulated. And the same could be true of other methods of scaling, most of which have centralization trade-offs. (Including on-chain scaling, where the centralization trade-off is the reduction in the distribution and economic power of full nodes.)

He goes on to describe how the US government might go about attacking Bitcoin, if they were so inclined. Scary stuff!

bitmover
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 957



View Profile
July 20, 2019, 12:30:28 PM
 #7

Here's an interesting read from Theymos in response to Rep. Patrick McHenry's recent comments on CNBC. An excerpt:

Quote
In the US I think it's very likely that someday soon a little provision will be tucked into a must-pass bill at the last minute requiring reporting all BTC holdings via FBAR. After that, while there's currently no momentum whatsoever for it, it'd be a fairly simple matter to someday say "turn over your bitcoins, which we know you have, or go to jail" (or "we can prove you have bitcoins, but you didn't report it, so you go to jail").

Interesting discussion. But I don't with theymos in this one.

I think US government has more elegant ways to attack bitcoin.

For example, just put some heavy regulation on all crypto exchanges, including coinbase, in a way that their business model will become not profitable or unsustainable in long term. Brazil government is very good in this field (LOL).

They could also prohibit merchants of accepting any kind of cryptocurrency. Facebook Libra opened this discussion on regulations, speeding up discussions that would take years otherwise. Let's see where will it go

But I believe US government will not be so harsh on bitcoin for now, as US is still a country where some libertarian ideas are respected. More authoritarian and economic repressive countries are probably going to act first against bitcoin IMO (China, Russia, Brazil, India, as those governments/politicians really want to have full control over economy.).

squatter
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 872


STOP SNITCHIN'


View Profile
July 20, 2019, 09:38:02 PM
 #8

Here's an interesting read from Theymos in response to Rep. Patrick McHenry's recent comments on CNBC. An excerpt:

Quote
In the US I think it's very likely that someday soon a little provision will be tucked into a must-pass bill at the last minute requiring reporting all BTC holdings via FBAR. After that, while there's currently no momentum whatsoever for it, it'd be a fairly simple matter to someday say "turn over your bitcoins, which we know you have, or go to jail" (or "we can prove you have bitcoins, but you didn't report it, so you go to jail").
Interesting discussion. But I don't with theymos in this one.

I think US government has more elegant ways to attack bitcoin.

For example, just put some heavy regulation on all crypto exchanges, including coinbase, in a way that their business model will become not profitable or unsustainable in long term. Brazil government is very good in this field (LOL).

I guess that's what they're doing with these new FATF rules. The exchanges are complaining loudly about the cost and difficulty of data sharing among themselves so they can identify customers and aggregate their transactions for reporting. It seems like a massive endeavor for VASPs.

I'm curious how many will ignore the laws when they come into effect. Given that the US government is the only one enforcing anything, some may opt to simply IP-block Americans. Maybe between that and limiting unverified withdrawals to $1,000/€1,000 a day, they can hope to squeak by without future enforcement actions.

I'm also curious to see if anything comes of this CFTC probe into BitMEX. We all know that VPN usage is a common way around geo-blocking. It'll be interesting to see if the CFTC interprets BitMEX's lack of verification as violating its registration requirements, because ostensibly it allows US residents to trade there.

They could also prohibit merchants of accepting any kind of cryptocurrency. Facebook Libra opened this discussion on regulations, speeding up discussions that would take years otherwise. Let's see where will it go

Indeed. Thanks a bundle, Facebook! Roll Eyes

hugeblack
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 613


Bitcoin is my stable coin. Eid Mubarak


View Profile
August 05, 2019, 08:59:34 AM
Merited by DdmrDdmr (1)
 #9

Michael Marquardt  Cheesy
You can add this article[1], it's one of the best articles written by theymos from my point of view.

Here is some personal information:

I am a 21-year-old computer science student in the US and an avid bitcoiner since early 2010. I am the head admin of the Bitcoin Forum and the top mod here, though I didn't create either community. I wrote Bitcoin Block Explorer and ran it for a long time, but it is now run by Liraz Siri. I am one of very few people with a copy of the Bitcoin Alert Key.

You can read more here ----> I am theymos. AMA

you can also add
<theymos> Probably I will leave someday, but not now.

<theymos> If these websites or my reputation end up being damaged/destroyed, then that's acceptable. At least I tried to do what was most correct. What wouldn't be acceptable to me would be to give into demands that I know to be incorrect.

And some other information.
I also wish to modify the formatting for easier tracking topics.

[1] Don't invest recklessly

Pages: [1]
  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!