Bitcoin Forum
December 07, 2016, 10:40:12 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  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 [537] 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1805748 times)
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
August 17, 2014, 10:45:01 PM
 #10721

The fact is nxt worked as advertised.  The developers released a patch to roll back the transaction but it was unsuccessful, proving that they did not have complete control over the network and the integrity of the currency remained intact. 

I don't disagree.  A PoS network comes to some sort of a consensus.  

In PoW, that consensus is tethered to physical reality because resources are consumed when voting for a chain; in PoS, that consensus is tethered only to popular opinion.  In my mind, PoW cryptos are like gold coins--they take energy and effort to create, and only physical methods can be used to steal them.  PoS cryptos are like share certificates--they can be created for zero cost only based on the desires of stake holders, and they can be voided just as easily (voided by social methods as opposed to stolen by physical methods).  

Quote
POS is subject to similar game theory type stuff as POW.  Why would someone who has a large stake in the system attempt to compromise it?

They can attack with "nothing at stake" by using coins they once held but have since sold.  To attack a PoW system, one must expend resources in this reality.  The game theory is completely different.  

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481150412
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481150412

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481150412
Reply with quote  #2

1481150412
Report to moderator
_mr_e
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 815



View Profile
August 17, 2014, 10:46:32 PM
 #10722

Found the original post. Perhaps I shouldn't have said quoted, I apologize for that. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=740684.0
marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2100



View Profile
August 17, 2014, 10:46:49 PM
 #10723

proof of self-importance seems to be gaining evidence in this thread ...

Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
August 17, 2014, 10:55:49 PM
 #10724

What exactly does this "objective truth" mean?

This reminds me of conversations with my mother.  She believes that her belief system creates reality.  I believe that reality exists independently of myself (although I concede that my belief system influences my perception of reality).  

Here's an example of the objective truth:

Alice and Bob each throw a rock into the lake.  Alice throws hers in first, it makes a splash, and then Bob throws his in.  If this event occurred, then it is objectively true that Alice threw her rock into the lake first.  Even if Bob convinces the world that the opposite happened (because Bob is popular and wealthy), and even if everyone calls Alice a liar, it doesn't change what was objectively true:  Alice threw the rock into the lake first.  

PoW is a system that achieves distributed consensus on what is objectively true.  PoS is a system that allows history to be rewritten based on popular opinion.  

In both systems consensus is the objective truth... I don't see the difference.

read the paper PeterR and Justus referenced.

the "truth" in a POW system is determined by the objective laws of thermodynamics which are fundamental laws that exist outside the POW system.  it cannot be gamed by the stakeholders.

the "truth" in a POS system is not determined by any such laws outside its own system.  it is self referencing, aka an echo chamber, of whatever the stakeholders "want" to be the truth, whether objective or not.  it can be gamed by the stakeholders, if they all agree.

But why would they all agree when doing so would destroy the integrity of their stake? As we saw recently  getting them to agree on such a change is near impossible and will only get more difficult as the system gets bigger any many forgers are companies that have their businesses built on top of the system. History can be rewritten with pow too, it happened before.

Are you saying that AI will never be possible? Because that is a self referencing system.

You will understand when they all agree at confiscation of your wealth. ... just because of PoS
kodtycoon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770


View Profile
August 17, 2014, 10:56:22 PM
 #10725

proof of self-importance seems to be gaining evidence in this thread ...

and how is mentioning proof of importance being self important? if you think i was trying to make some kind of joke your mistaken... if you havnt heard of it, perhaps you should get out more instead of making stupid insults???

"Pioneering a revolutionary novel consensus mechanism called proof of importance."
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 17, 2014, 11:18:43 PM
 #10726


The Nxt community was debating "rewriting history" to rollback the theft from Bter!  The users become the attackers, and in their echo chamber they decide to make up whatever truth appears convenient at the time.  If you don't see this, then you don't want to see it.  

On the topic of a single malicious cabal attacking the network, the cabal needs only 51% of what is currently staked, which may be significantly less than 51% of the money supply.  Furthermore, the cabal can attack with coins they once had but have since sold.  This is the nothing-at-stake problem (aka the history-rewrite problem).  This can be prevented with checkpoints or if the developers sign blocks as valid, but then your decentralized currency is no longer decentralized!  We saw this with the viacoin roll back or fork it and get rid of it.

Lastly, the idea that some special sauce known as "transparent forging" will require 90% of the critical resource to attack is a highly dubious claim.  I strongly suspect that the following PoX Theorem holds:

A malicious user controlling 51% of the critical resource X in a PoX distributed consensus system can attack the network.
  

Bitcoin was "rolled back" at one point in the early days.  Whether objective or subjective, no one wanted 92 billion bitcoins to remain in the blockchain and controlled by a single entity.  If that were to happen today I almost guarantee the miners would find a way to roll it back.  

The fact is nxt worked as advertised.  The developers released a patch to roll back the transaction but it was unsuccessful, proving that they did not have complete control over the network and the integrity of the currency remained intact.  POS is subject to similar game theory type stuff as POW.  Why would someone who has a large stake in the system attempt to compromise it?

We can debate whether POW or POS can be compromised, but the fact is cryptocurrency is proven to be sound money once relatively mature.  If 5% (or 7% in bitcoin's case - mtgox) of US dollars had somehow been stolen, you can be guaranteed that the federal reserve would have arbitrarily started a counterfeit program (2008 bailouts and QE).  Our systems are better and the beauty is users have a choice of POW or POS.

i see plenty of differences:

Bitcoin's "rollbacks" in the past were from code bugs, one of which was exploited to generate a massive output of invalid BTC's and the other which caused a fork.  an immediate consensus was gained from the community to patch the technical bugs with new code prior to it being released; otherwise repeated occurrences of the problems could reasonably be expected which threatened the long term viability of the system itself.

in NXT's case, the NXT stolen was due to a weakness in Bter's security, not a bug in the NXT code, let alone one that threatened the viability of NXT.  for crony economic reasons only, a rollback was offered in the form of a patch from the devs despite what looked like a consensus not to offer it.  this makes it much different from what happened in Bitcoin and was an expression of the biased motives of the stakeholders in charge of the code and that of the influence of Bter.  the next time something like this happens, no one can predict how they will act, whereas with Bitcoin, you can be sure no one will rollback code just to save someone some money but only to save the system.
_mr_e
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 815



View Profile
August 17, 2014, 11:22:29 PM
 #10727


The Nxt community was debating "rewriting history" to rollback the theft from Bter!  The users become the attackers, and in their echo chamber they decide to make up whatever truth appears convenient at the time.  If you don't see this, then you don't want to see it.  

On the topic of a single malicious cabal attacking the network, the cabal needs only 51% of what is currently staked, which may be significantly less than 51% of the money supply.  Furthermore, the cabal can attack with coins they once had but have since sold.  This is the nothing-at-stake problem (aka the history-rewrite problem).  This can be prevented with checkpoints or if the developers sign blocks as valid, but then your decentralized currency is no longer decentralized!  We saw this with the viacoin roll back or fork it and get rid of it.

Lastly, the idea that some special sauce known as "transparent forging" will require 90% of the critical resource to attack is a highly dubious claim.  I strongly suspect that the following PoX Theorem holds:

A malicious user controlling 51% of the critical resource X in a PoX distributed consensus system can attack the network.
  

Bitcoin was "rolled back" at one point in the early days.  Whether objective or subjective, no one wanted 92 billion bitcoins to remain in the blockchain and controlled by a single entity.  If that were to happen today I almost guarantee the miners would find a way to roll it back.  

The fact is nxt worked as advertised.  The developers released a patch to roll back the transaction but it was unsuccessful, proving that they did not have complete control over the network and the integrity of the currency remained intact.  POS is subject to similar game theory type stuff as POW.  Why would someone who has a large stake in the system attempt to compromise it?

We can debate whether POW or POS can be compromised, but the fact is cryptocurrency is proven to be sound money once relatively mature.  If 5% (or 7% in bitcoin's case - mtgox) of US dollars had somehow been stolen, you can be guaranteed that the federal reserve would have arbitrarily started a counterfeit program (2008 bailouts and QE).  Our systems are better and the beauty is users have a choice of POW or POS.

i see plenty of differences:

Bitcoin's "rollbacks" in the past were from code bugs, one of which was exploited to generate a massive output of invalid BTC's and the other which caused a fork.  an immediate consensus was gained from the community to patch the technical bugs with new code prior to it being released; otherwise repeated occurrences of the problems could reasonably be expected which threatened the long term viability of the system itself.

in NXT's case, the NXT stolen was due to a weakness in Bter's security, not a bug in the NXT code, let alone one that threatened the viability of NXT.  for crony economic reasons only, a rollback was offered in the form of a patch from the devs despite what looked like a consensus not to offer it.  this makes it much different from what happened in Bitcoin and was an expression of the biased motives of the stakeholders in charge of the code and that of the influence of Bter.  the next time something like this happens, no one can predict how they will act, whereas with Bitcoin, you can be sure no one will rollback code just to save someone some money.  

Except the fork never happened, for all the reasons you just specified, so none of that really matters. Thats really the biggest difference. It's open source software,  anyone can put up a version for people to use but clearly people didn't want to run it. It didn't happen this time and it's unlikely to happen next time.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
August 17, 2014, 11:25:24 PM
 #10728

HAHAHA im sorry but i find that absolutely hilarious lol not because i disagree, i do agree it is/will be, but because of all the pow buffs fighting the pow corner so hard and then someone, that so many pow buffs have put on a crypto pedestal and someone so high profile, turns around and says pow is dead... after all these PoW buffs have given him millions.. that is priceless!!!!!! Cheesy OMG LOLZ... hahaha

If Ethereum merged with BitShares and used DPoS it would be hilarious indeed.  I think my fellow "PoW buffs" would agree.  Personally, I don't believe this rumour, however. 
Funny thing about those projects:

BitShares (Invictus) was the sinking ship that Charles Hoskinson bailed from after he bailed from Mastercoin (and bailed from the Bitcoin Education Project before that), prior to bailing from the Ethereum project.

I wonder if there's some common thread between all those projects besides the fact that Hoskinson got involved with them, pumped them up, and bailed...
marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2100



View Profile
August 17, 2014, 11:26:41 PM
 #10729

proof of self-importance seems to be gaining evidence in this thread ...

and how is mentioning proof of importance being self important? if you think i was trying to make some kind of joke your mistaken... if you havnt heard of it, perhaps you should get out more instead of making stupid insults???

... and if the cap fits wear it?

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 17, 2014, 11:29:47 PM
 #10730

the way consensus works in an open source community is that an overwhelming majority (not just a majority) of the community members involved get to voice their opinions and come to an agreement that a change is necessary.  the few who may not fully agree with the changes usually still can live with the changes enacted.

in NXT's case, the devs never had a consensus; they just unilaterally thru a rollback patch out to the community to placate Bter and to see what would happen.  what happened may be a majority mechanism but it is not a consensus mechanism.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 17, 2014, 11:32:11 PM
 #10731

HAHAHA im sorry but i find that absolutely hilarious lol not because i disagree, i do agree it is/will be, but because of all the pow buffs fighting the pow corner so hard and then someone, that so many pow buffs have put on a crypto pedestal and someone so high profile, turns around and says pow is dead... after all these PoW buffs have given him millions.. that is priceless!!!!!! Cheesy OMG LOLZ... hahaha

If Ethereum merged with BitShares and used DPoS it would be hilarious indeed.  I think my fellow "PoW buffs" would agree.  Personally, I don't believe this rumour, however. 
Funny thing about those projects:

BitShares (Invictus) was the sinking ship that Charles Hoskinson bailed from after he bailed from Mastercoin (and bailed from the Bitcoin Education Project before that), prior to bailing from the Ethereum project.

I wonder if there's some common thread between all those projects besides the fact that Hoskinson got involved with them, pumped them up, and bailed...

funny, i was thinking of Hoskinson's role in all these as well.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 17, 2014, 11:33:52 PM
 #10732


The Nxt community was debating "rewriting history" to rollback the theft from Bter!  The users become the attackers, and in their echo chamber they decide to make up whatever truth appears convenient at the time.  If you don't see this, then you don't want to see it.  

On the topic of a single malicious cabal attacking the network, the cabal needs only 51% of what is currently staked, which may be significantly less than 51% of the money supply.  Furthermore, the cabal can attack with coins they once had but have since sold.  This is the nothing-at-stake problem (aka the history-rewrite problem).  This can be prevented with checkpoints or if the developers sign blocks as valid, but then your decentralized currency is no longer decentralized!  We saw this with the viacoin roll back or fork it and get rid of it.

Lastly, the idea that some special sauce known as "transparent forging" will require 90% of the critical resource to attack is a highly dubious claim.  I strongly suspect that the following PoX Theorem holds:

A malicious user controlling 51% of the critical resource X in a PoX distributed consensus system can attack the network.
  

Bitcoin was "rolled back" at one point in the early days.  Whether objective or subjective, no one wanted 92 billion bitcoins to remain in the blockchain and controlled by a single entity.  If that were to happen today I almost guarantee the miners would find a way to roll it back.  

The fact is nxt worked as advertised.  The developers released a patch to roll back the transaction but it was unsuccessful, proving that they did not have complete control over the network and the integrity of the currency remained intact.  POS is subject to similar game theory type stuff as POW.  Why would someone who has a large stake in the system attempt to compromise it?

We can debate whether POW or POS can be compromised, but the fact is cryptocurrency is proven to be sound money once relatively mature.  If 5% (or 7% in bitcoin's case - mtgox) of US dollars had somehow been stolen, you can be guaranteed that the federal reserve would have arbitrarily started a counterfeit program (2008 bailouts and QE).  Our systems are better and the beauty is users have a choice of POW or POS.

i see plenty of differences:

Bitcoin's "rollbacks" in the past were from code bugs, one of which was exploited to generate a massive output of invalid BTC's and the other which caused a fork.  an immediate consensus was gained from the community to patch the technical bugs with new code prior to it being released; otherwise repeated occurrences of the problems could reasonably be expected which threatened the long term viability of the system itself.

in NXT's case, the NXT stolen was due to a weakness in Bter's security, not a bug in the NXT code, let alone one that threatened the viability of NXT.  for crony economic reasons only, a rollback was offered in the form of a patch from the devs despite what looked like a consensus not to offer it.  this makes it much different from what happened in Bitcoin and was an expression of the biased motives of the stakeholders in charge of the code and that of the influence of Bter.  the next time something like this happens, no one can predict how they will act, whereas with Bitcoin, you can be sure no one will rollback code just to save someone some money.  

Except the fork never happened, for all the reasons you just specified, so none of that really matters. Thats really the biggest difference. It's open source software,  anyone can put up a version for people to use but clearly people didn't want to run it. It didn't happen this time and it's unlikely to happen next time.

it does matter b/c the NXT devs (not just anyone) were the ones to introduce the patch and thus have been shown to be susceptible to political and economic machinations/manipulations w/o even bothering to gain a community consensus.

edit:  and the NXT devs have the greatest at stake and thus the most to lose thus making their actions entirely self serving.
kodtycoon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770


View Profile
August 17, 2014, 11:48:30 PM
 #10733


The Nxt community was debating "rewriting history" to rollback the theft from Bter!  The users become the attackers, and in their echo chamber they decide to make up whatever truth appears convenient at the time.  If you don't see this, then you don't want to see it.  

On the topic of a single malicious cabal attacking the network, the cabal needs only 51% of what is currently staked, which may be significantly less than 51% of the money supply.  Furthermore, the cabal can attack with coins they once had but have since sold.  This is the nothing-at-stake problem (aka the history-rewrite problem).  This can be prevented with checkpoints or if the developers sign blocks as valid, but then your decentralized currency is no longer decentralized!  We saw this with the viacoin roll back or fork it and get rid of it.

Lastly, the idea that some special sauce known as "transparent forging" will require 90% of the critical resource to attack is a highly dubious claim.  I strongly suspect that the following PoX Theorem holds:

A malicious user controlling 51% of the critical resource X in a PoX distributed consensus system can attack the network.
  

Bitcoin was "rolled back" at one point in the early days.  Whether objective or subjective, no one wanted 92 billion bitcoins to remain in the blockchain and controlled by a single entity.  If that were to happen today I almost guarantee the miners would find a way to roll it back.  

The fact is nxt worked as advertised.  The developers released a patch to roll back the transaction but it was unsuccessful, proving that they did not have complete control over the network and the integrity of the currency remained intact.  POS is subject to similar game theory type stuff as POW.  Why would someone who has a large stake in the system attempt to compromise it?

We can debate whether POW or POS can be compromised, but the fact is cryptocurrency is proven to be sound money once relatively mature.  If 5% (or 7% in bitcoin's case - mtgox) of US dollars had somehow been stolen, you can be guaranteed that the federal reserve would have arbitrarily started a counterfeit program (2008 bailouts and QE).  Our systems are better and the beauty is users have a choice of POW or POS.

i see plenty of differences:

Bitcoin's "rollbacks" in the past were from code bugs, one of which was exploited to generate a massive output of invalid BTC's and the other which caused a fork.  an immediate consensus was gained from the community to patch the technical bugs with new code prior to it being released; otherwise repeated occurrences of the problems could reasonably be expected which threatened the long term viability of the system itself.

in NXT's case, the NXT stolen was due to a weakness in Bter's security, not a bug in the NXT code, let alone one that threatened the viability of NXT.  for crony economic reasons only, a rollback was offered in the form of a patch from the devs despite what looked like a consensus not to offer it.  this makes it much different from what happened in Bitcoin and was an expression of the biased motives of the stakeholders in charge of the code and that of the influence of Bter.  the next time something like this happens, no one can predict how they will act, whereas with Bitcoin, you can be sure no one will rollback code just to save someone some money.  

Except the fork never happened, for all the reasons you just specified, so none of that really matters. Thats really the biggest difference. It's open source software,  anyone can put up a version for people to use but clearly people didn't want to run it. It didn't happen this time and it's unlikely to happen next time.

it does matter b/c the NXT devs (not just anyone) were the ones to introduce the patch and thus have been shown to be susceptible to political and economic machinations/manipulations w/o even bothering to gain a community consensus.

edit:  and the NXT devs have the greatest at stake and thus the most to lose thus making their actions entirely self serving.

they gave the option.. anyone could have edited the software not just the devs.. and it was rejected.. the consensus of the network was to not adopt the patch.. this, above anything, shows the integrity of the network, that even when the option is available, it gets rejected. this actually proves that the nxt network is safe, because even in the worse case scenario of a malicious entity controlling 5% of the currency and being able to severely fuck up the network, the consensus was to not go ahead with the patch... so in what scenario could you possibly imagine that the consensus would be to go ahead with a reorg or rollback?

it matter not whether the devs provide a roll back or not.. it is the fact that a patch was provided during a worst case scenario of the nxt network potentially being completely and utter destroyed and brought to its needs and subsequent death, the consensus was to not do it.. if that does not say nxt is a secure network and confirms that, at no point in time present or future will such a roll back occur, i dont know what would...

"Pioneering a revolutionary novel consensus mechanism called proof of importance."
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 18, 2014, 12:14:09 AM
 #10734

lemme know when NXT gets outta this funk:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 18, 2014, 12:17:01 AM
 #10735

gold down already $5.50.  struggling to hold 1300:

_mr_e
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 815



View Profile
August 18, 2014, 12:17:52 AM
 #10736

lemme know when NXT gets outta this funk:



Will do. It will be likely sooner then you think. Some killer features are right around the corner... the amazing multigateway being the first piece of that puzzle.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 18, 2014, 12:21:29 AM
 #10737

lemme know when NXT gets outta this funk:



Will do. It will be likely sooner then you think. Some killer features are right around the corner... the amazing multigateway being the first piece of that puzzle.

i'm sure it will be amazing!

right after they change the code again!
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 18, 2014, 12:39:28 AM
 #10738

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-O--m7Uz80&sns=em
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 18, 2014, 12:42:08 AM
 #10739

Keep buying dips.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 18, 2014, 01:11:29 AM
 #10740

back under 1300:

Pages: « 1 ... 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 [537] 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 ... 1560 »
  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!