Bitcoin Forum
December 06, 2016, 02:12:20 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: On the Solidcoin Economic Changes  (Read 6887 times)
Syke
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086


View Profile
January 31, 2012, 03:45:45 AM
 #41

It's our luxury with 51% protection...
That's like saying PayPal has 51% protection. You might as well run a single enforcer node that processes all transactions. Or is that the plan for SC3 next month?

Buy & Hold
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481033540
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481033540

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481033540
Reply with quote  #2

1481033540
Report to moderator
1481033540
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481033540

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481033540
Reply with quote  #2

1481033540
Report to moderator
CoinHunter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252



View Profile
January 31, 2012, 04:10:29 AM
 #42

That's like saying PayPal has 51% protection. You might as well run a single enforcer node that processes all transactions. Or is that the plan for SC3 next month?

Paypal doesn't have a decentralized P2P network, it also doesn't let everyone with a PC create "paypal dollars". As much as you may hate some things in SolidCoin compared to government/central bank controlled money it's leaps and bounds better, and that's good enough for most people. I think you'll find your values are extremely niche, but I can understand that people like yourself will never accept SC due to them and you can continue to use whatever it is you want. We aren't going to force you.

Try SolidCoin or talk with other SolidCoin supporters here SolidCoin Forums
cunicula
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756


Stack-overflow Guru


View Profile WWW
January 31, 2012, 05:11:31 AM
 #43

Fascinating

So the cost of production is going to equal it's price.  Then, the consumer surplus will tend to (price - cost) => zero.  

From an economics point of view, I thought the previous change from 32 to 5 with bonuses was "interesting" and it had all died down a bit.  This one is micro-cosmic monetary policy experiment worth watching.

Wonder if I can sell my 70 virgin SC1.0 coins as collectibles yet?

Idiot.
Your grade = F.
You know nothing.
You are mis-educating the other idiots.
This only intensifies the already intolerable level of idiocy here.

yes, what a great response

looking at your post history you are not adding anything of value - why did you bother trolling here?
I'm avenging your econ 1 teacher.

producer surplus = ∫0_q (equilibrium price - marginal cost(q)) dq
consumer surplus = ∫0_q (demand(q) - equilibrium price) dq

▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁
        AltCoinInternalExperts                Get Your Altcoin Promoted On Social Media       
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
PatrickHarnett
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518



View Profile
January 31, 2012, 05:51:40 AM
 #44

Fascinating

So the cost of production is going to equal it's price.  Then, the consumer surplus will tend to (price - cost) => zero.  

From an economics point of view, I thought the previous change from 32 to 5 with bonuses was "interesting" and it had all died down a bit.  This one is micro-cosmic monetary policy experiment worth watching.

Wonder if I can sell my 70 virgin SC1.0 coins as collectibles yet?

Idiot.
Your grade = F.
You know nothing.
You are mis-educating the other idiots.
This only intensifies the already intolerable level of idiocy here.

yes, what a great response

looking at your post history you are not adding anything of value - why did you bother trolling here?
I'm avenging your econ 1 teacher.

producer surplus = ∫0_q (equilibrium price - marginal cost(q)) dq
consumer surplus = ∫0_q (demand(q) - equilibrium price) dq

Much better - thanks.  Smiley
CoinHunter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252



View Profile
January 31, 2012, 07:33:45 AM
 #45

And neither does ScamCoin.  There is nothing decentralized about ScamCoin.  The miners are token and provide nothing of value to the network. 

You're wrong. The sad thing is you know it but just like to spread FUD. Smiley

Try SolidCoin or talk with other SolidCoin supporters here SolidCoin Forums
cunicula
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756


Stack-overflow Guru


View Profile WWW
January 31, 2012, 09:18:59 AM
 #46

That's like saying PayPal has 51% protection. You might as well run a single enforcer node that processes all transactions. Or is that the plan for SC3 next month?

Paypal doesn't have a decentralized P2P network

And neither does ScamCoin.  There is nothing decentralized about ScamCoin.  The miners are token and provide nothing of value to the network. 

Is this different from bitcoin, where the blockchain checkpoints are hardcoded into the client at regular intervals by the developers?

▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁
        AltCoinInternalExperts                Get Your Altcoin Promoted On Social Media       
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Syke
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086


View Profile
January 31, 2012, 03:47:55 PM
 #47

Is this different from bitcoin, where the blockchain checkpoints are hardcoded into the client at regular intervals by the developers?

Yes, because those checkpoints are entirely optional, as witnessed by the fact that there are alternate clients that don't include those checkpoints. Or you could download the source and remove every checkpoint. Bitcoin will still work perfectly.

Buy & Hold
k9quaint
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190



View Profile
January 31, 2012, 04:10:22 PM
 #48

Okay then, so is it any different from the inevitable release of BIP16 without testing just because one developer thinks that way? And the fact that miners refusing to accept the change themselves get rejected from the network? I had faith in Bitcoin's decentralization before. But unfortunately for me not to accept P2SH is for me to fight a losing battle.

Misinformation. Please get a new source.

Also, please explain the technical issues you have with BIP16.

Bitcoin is backed by the full faith and credit of YouTube comments.
Syke
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086


View Profile
January 31, 2012, 05:06:16 PM
 #49

Okay then, so is it any different from the inevitable release of BIP16 without testing just because one developer thinks that way?
BIP16 isn't inevitable. Gavin implemented BIP16, checked it in, and nothing happened, because Gavin cannot force any change on anybody. Bitcoin is decentralized.

CoinHunter implemented block reward change, pushed it to his enforcer-nodes, and every single SolidCoin user is required to instantly upgrade or their client is completely broken. Yesterday's change broke one of the largest SolidCoin exchanges. Today, btc-e.com still can't process SolidCoin blocks. SolidCoin is centralized.

Buy & Hold
makomk
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686


View Profile
January 31, 2012, 06:43:53 PM
 #50

Okay then, so is it any different from the inevitable release of BIP16 without testing just because one developer thinks that way? And the fact that miners refusing to accept the change themselves get rejected from the network? I had faith in Bitcoin's decentralization before. But unfortunately for me not to accept P2SH is for me to fight a losing battle.

Misinformation. Please get a new source.

In the case of P2SH, the development team could easily deploy this functionality against the will of the miners: they'd simply issue a new client that enforces the BIP16 rule and send an alert which would pop up a message for every bitcoin user telling them to update.  Miners that failed to update would eventually extend a chain containing a contradictory transaction and from that moment they would no longer be miners from the perspective of the majority of Bitcoin users,  no matter how many yottahashes they had.  Done.

(If users reject the change too—well, they can get themselves some new developers, but the miners never come into that picture except as users)
Now, a fun puzzle for you - how can users find out enough information to know whether to reject the changes, given that the Bitcoin developers in general and particularly gmaxwell are opposed to anyone saying anything on here beyond the fact that the developers think this is a good idea?

BIP16 isn't inevitable. Gavin implemented BIP16, checked it in, and nothing happened, because Gavin cannot force any change on anybody. Bitcoin is decentralized.
He probably could, and in fact one of the proposed solutions to BIP 16 missing the deadline involves him doing exactly that, it's just that he's chosen not to approach the problem in that way. So far anyway.

Quad XC6SLX150 Board: 860 MHash/s or so.
SIGS ABOUT BUTTERFLY LABS ARE PAID ADS
Syke
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086


View Profile
January 31, 2012, 07:01:39 PM
 #51

BIP16 isn't inevitable. Gavin implemented BIP16, checked it in, and nothing happened, because Gavin cannot force any change on anybody. Bitcoin is decentralized.
He probably could, and in fact one of the proposed solutions to BIP 16 missing the deadline involves him doing exactly that, it's just that he's chosen not to approach the problem in that way. So far anyway.
No, he cannot make anyone upgrade. Every single miner chooses for himself which version to run. No matter what Gavin does, miners always have the choice whether to download and run the new changes. If 51% of the miners don't do that, then nothing will change.

Buy & Hold
makomk
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686


View Profile
January 31, 2012, 07:12:40 PM
 #52

No, he cannot make anyone upgrade. Every single miner chooses for himself which version to run. No matter what Gavin does, miners always have the choice whether to download and run the new changes. If 51% of the miners don't do that, then nothing will change.
If 51% of the miners don't upgrade, then their blocks will be treated as invalid to those that do upgrade. All the developers need to do is to convince enough of the users that if they don't upgrade they'll be screwed, and they have the advantage of being able to broadcast alerts to them through the client itself.

Quad XC6SLX150 Board: 860 MHash/s or so.
SIGS ABOUT BUTTERFLY LABS ARE PAID ADS
eleuthria
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750


BTC Guild Owner


View Profile WWW
January 31, 2012, 07:14:38 PM
 #53

(channelling my inner CoinHunter):

It is SIMPLE ECONOMICS, people!

price = function(supply,demand)

So to create more demand, just fix the price and the supply!  Easy-peasy!

(ok, done, back to reality)


*GASP* Gavin is becoming a troll!  Luke's BIP 16 attacks must be corrupting him.

R.I.P. BTC Guild, 2011 - 2015.
BTC Guild Forum Thread
Syke
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086


View Profile
January 31, 2012, 08:35:21 PM
 #54

No, he cannot make anyone upgrade. Every single miner chooses for himself which version to run. No matter what Gavin does, miners always have the choice whether to download and run the new changes. If 51% of the miners don't do that, then nothing will change.
If 51% of the miners don't upgrade, then their blocks will be treated as invalid to those that do upgrade. All the developers need to do is to convince enough of the users that if they don't upgrade they'll be screwed, and they have the advantage of being able to broadcast alerts to them through the client itself.
And that's what we mean by Bitcoin is decentralized. The developers have to convince miners, but the developers cannot compel anyone to do so. The miners chose.

Buy & Hold
gmaxwell
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2016



View Profile
January 31, 2012, 08:57:29 PM
 #55

And that's what we mean by Bitcoin is decentralized. The developers have to convince miners, but the developers cannot compel anyone to do so. The miners chose.

The users choose, not the miners.
CoinHunter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252



View Profile
January 31, 2012, 11:08:36 PM
 #56

Yeah it's the old tasty argument of "SolidCoin is centralized Bitcoin isn't" . Like the trust nodes in SolidCoin somehow make it sooooo much different than deepbit and btcguild controlling Bitcoin. Might as well call deepbit trust node 1 and btcguild trust node 2. Because you are trusting them to not attack Bitcoin.. Smiley

Not that I'm saying deepbit or btcguild will do an attack but if you can't see Bitcoin users are TRUSTING these two pools not to then you can't argue any centralization aspect against SolidCoin with a clear conscience.

There are plenty of things in Bitcoin that are centralized that are essential to its future success. A main website, a main source, main developers, a main forum. Oh and the alert key in Bitcoin too is rather centralized is it not? Who has control of that? One person? Smiley Oh nooo King Gavin may shut down Bitcoin ... argggg Bitcoin trolls will have a field day! Oh they won't because when it comes to Bitcoin they are like blind mice following the pied piper or something.

Try SolidCoin or talk with other SolidCoin supporters here SolidCoin Forums
coblee
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


firstbits.com/1ce5j


View Profile WWW
February 01, 2012, 12:27:25 AM
 #57

Yeah it's the old tasty argument of "SolidCoin is centralized Bitcoin isn't" . Like the trust nodes in SolidCoin somehow make it sooooo much different than deepbit and btcguild controlling Bitcoin. Might as well call deepbit trust node 1 and btcguild trust node 2. Because you are trusting them to not attack Bitcoin.. Smiley

Not that I'm saying deepbit or btcguild will do an attack but if you can't see Bitcoin users are TRUSTING these two pools not to then you can't argue any centralization aspect against SolidCoin with a clear conscience.

LOL

Miners actually give the pools their trust when they mine on that pool. If the pool misplaces that trust, miners will leave the pool. This is similar to voting a politician into office to represent the people in a democracy. Just look at the miners that left Eligius when Luke-Jr used it to attack CoiledCoin. Granted since this wasn't an attack on Bitcoin, most of the miners didn't care and stayed with Eligius. If deepbit, or any other pool tries to attack Bitcoin, you can bet that they will lose their hashrate immediately. This is different than solidcoin, where your enforcer nodes have total control to force every miner to use your code or be left out. Pretty similar to a dictatorship if you ask me. You may have some loyal servants willing to be ruled by you, (like Kim Jong-Il: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSWN6Qj98Iw) but most people on this forum don't like enforcer nodes.

gmaxwell
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2016



View Profile
February 01, 2012, 01:26:35 AM
 #58

Hypothetical situation: Gavin releases BIP 16 anyways, and the merchants download the new client. Some miners also download it, so the old clients become isolated from the new network. How do you cope?

BIP16 transactions are simply accepted as valid by old clients. They can't become isolated due to this.
dree12
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232



View Profile
February 01, 2012, 01:40:06 AM
 #59

Hypothetical situation: Gavin releases BIP 16 anyways, and the merchants download the new client. Some miners also download it, so the old clients become isolated from the new network. How do you cope?

BIP16 transactions are simply accepted as valid by old clients. They can't become isolated due to this.
If that's the case, what's stopping anyone from employing P2SH right now by mining their own blocks?
k9quaint
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190



View Profile
February 01, 2012, 01:47:03 AM
 #60

Yeah it's the old tasty argument of "SolidCoin is centralized Bitcoin isn't" . Like the trust nodes in SolidCoin somehow make it sooooo much different than deepbit and btcguild controlling Bitcoin. Might as well call deepbit trust node 1 and btcguild trust node 2. Because you are trusting them to not attack Bitcoin.. Smiley

Lets look at the two scenarios shall we?
Pool bad, people are free to leave the pool. Plus P2Pool is gaining ground so this issue is diminishing not growing.
Enforcer node bad, people are free to make forum posts about how they are trapped in a cryptocurrency controlled by one guy.

Not that I'm saying deepbit or btcguild will do an attack but if you can't see Bitcoin users are TRUSTING these two pools not to then you can't argue any centralization aspect against SolidCoin with a clear conscience.

There are plenty of things in Bitcoin that are centralized that are essential to its future success. A main website, a main source, main developers, a main forum. Oh and the alert key in Bitcoin too is rather centralized is it not? Who has control of that? One person? Smiley Oh nooo King Gavin may shut down Bitcoin ... argggg Bitcoin trolls will have a field day! Oh they won't because when it comes to Bitcoin they are like blind mice following the pied piper or something.

Bitcoin has a main website? Which one is it?
Several splinter groups have split off the forums and made their own place to discuss cryptocurrencies (yourself included).
Gavin can't shut down bitcoin with the alert key. He can only suggest that the network be shutdown by using the alert key. Furthermore I have just modded a bitcoin clone that completely ignores alerts. Gavin is now powerless to stop me with alerts. Welcome to free software.

So, that was pretty much a standard Coinhunter post, one composed entirely of failed assertions.

Bitcoin is backed by the full faith and credit of YouTube comments.
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »  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!