Bitcoin Forum
December 15, 2017, 06:46:32 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   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 ... 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 [782] 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2022643 times)
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2352


View Profile
November 04, 2014, 05:34:27 PM
 #15621


it would've been alot easier to trust if Blockstream the for profit wasn't involved in MC core dev.

Everything about Cyph's panties being all bunched up on this sidechains thing screams exercise of fud-douche-iary duty.  He's on the n-th pass of his tedious circle of fud, though occasionally I throw him a new line to play with (ironically since I'm a strong supporter of sidechains.)  The OpenTransaction guys are outed, but not cypherdoc as far as I know.


There are several different types of Bitcoin clients. The most secure are full nodes like Bitcoin-Qt, but full nodes are more resource-heavy, and they must do a lengthy initial syncing process. As a result, lightweight clients with somewhat less security are commonly used.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513320392
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513320392

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513320392
Reply with quote  #2

1513320392
Report to moderator
1513320392
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513320392

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513320392
Reply with quote  #2

1513320392
Report to moderator
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 04, 2014, 05:37:15 PM
 #15622

I'm not concerned about small scale miners. This seems to be a bias based on business concerns rather than the technology. The incentive is available for those with that can aggregate the resources. Welcome to the big league. There are no rules of fair play, only math.

I'm not worried about them per se, and we don't really need them to have every chain...
The concern for small miners is a different one, and is based in a component of security, resilience.
Mining is the incentive to run a full node (which is otherwise uncompensated).  So centralization by smaller miners disappearing reduces resilience.
So to the extent that the hobbyist level miners disappear entirely and are not replaced 1:1 with larger miners' nodes, we lose some security.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 04, 2014, 05:42:35 PM
 #15623


it would've been alot easier to trust if Blockstream the for profit wasn't involved in MC core dev.

Everything about Cyph's panties being all bunched up on this sidechains thing screams exercise of fud-douche-iary duty.  He's on the n-th pass of his tedious circle of fud, though occasionally I throw him a new line to play with (ironically since I'm a strong supporter of sidechains.)  The OpenTransaction guys are outed, but not cypherdoc as far as I know.

I disagree here.
Pretty much all of the concerns he cites are real risks, and not uncertainty or doubt.

Whether they rise to the level of risk/reward is another calculation entirely.  Some of us are comfortable with different levels of risk.  That is what makes a market work.  These may be acceptable risks for some, and not acceptable for others.

Only a fool ignores real risks, the wise person mitigates them (or avoids them) to the extent that it is profitable to do so.
To say that they simply don't exist, will make folks lose trust in the solution.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
November 04, 2014, 05:43:44 PM
 #15624

I'm not concerned about small scale miners. This seems to be a bias based on business concerns rather than the technology. The incentive is available for those with that can aggregate the resources. Welcome to the big league. There are no rules of fair play, only math.

I'm not worried about them per se, and we don't really need them to have every chain...
The concern for small miners is a different one, and is based in a component of security, resilience.
Mining is the incentive to run a full node (which is otherwise uncompensated).  So centralization by smaller miners disappearing reduces resilience.
So to the extent that the hobbyist level miners disappear entirely and are not replaced 1:1 with larger miners' nodes, we lose some security.
Bitcoin isn't even close to having enough hashrate by several orders of magnitude. We need many billions invested in development of mining hardware and applications.  When it gets to that level, then it will begin to pique the interest of real investment. In other words if one big company decides to invest, then others will follow.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2352


View Profile
November 04, 2014, 05:44:45 PM
 #15625

Pffft!  WTF do you think Bitcoin is supposed to run on when the inflation (block reward) is used up?

There is nothing 'radical' and 'experimantal' about transaction fees.  They were part of the design.  You, my friend, are engaging in the FUD here.

The FUD is that artificial production quotas are necessary to keep transaction fees "high enough".

It's the same economic fallacy every single cartel argues for - you can literally fill textbooks with the number of examples of people who run to the government to implement various methods for restricting supply because without a production quota some disaster or another will happen.
...
Nobody tries to argue that we need a artificial limit on the number of loaves of bread that can be baked each day to stop bakers from producing an infinite number that nobody wants, but somehow when transistors are involved all well-known principles of supply and demand reverse themselves.

It really isn't the case that anything "technology" (as cbeast puts it) operates in some alternate bizarro world of reversed economics.

I hear ya bro.  I hope that 'artificial production quota' limiting BTC availability to 21 million doesn't drive you to crazy.


NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 04, 2014, 05:53:56 PM
 #15626

I'm not concerned about small scale miners. This seems to be a bias based on business concerns rather than the technology. The incentive is available for those with that can aggregate the resources. Welcome to the big league. There are no rules of fair play, only math.

I'm not worried about them per se, and we don't really need them to have every chain...
The concern for small miners is a different one, and is based in a component of security, resilience.
Mining is the incentive to run a full node (which is otherwise uncompensated).  So centralization by smaller miners disappearing reduces resilience.
So to the extent that the hobbyist level miners disappear entirely and are not replaced 1:1 with larger miners' nodes, we lose some security.
Bitcoin isn't even close to having enough hashrate by several orders of magnitude. We need many billions invested in development of mining hardware and applications.  When it gets to that level, then it will begin to pique the interest of real investment. In other words if one big company decides to invest, then others will follow.

Nonsense!
Enough hashrate for what?
http://www.coinometrics.com/bitcoin/brix
Current cost of 51% attack = $557,818,552
That is about the total value of ALL COINS TRANSACTED IN A DAY.
https://blockchain.info/charts/estimated-transaction-volume?timespan=30days&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=
By what metric is this "not enough"?  It could be just easily argued that it is "too much".

Just how many double spends do you think could be pulled off before the hostile miners get isolated?

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 04, 2014, 05:55:34 PM
 #15627

I'm not concerned about small scale miners. This seems to be a bias based on business concerns rather than the technology. The incentive is available for those with that can aggregate the resources. Welcome to the big league. There are no rules of fair play, only math.

I'm not worried about them per se, and we don't really need them to have every chain...
The concern for small miners is a different one, and is based in a component of security, resilience.
Mining is the incentive to run a full node (which is otherwise uncompensated).  So centralization by smaller miners disappearing reduces resilience.
So to the extent that the hobbyist level miners disappear entirely and are not replaced 1:1 with larger miners' nodes, we lose some security.
Bitcoin isn't even close to having enough hashrate by several orders of magnitude. We need many billions invested in development of mining hardware and applications.  When it gets to that level, then it will begin to pique the interest of real investment. In other words if one big company decides to invest, then others will follow.

until that point in time, we need every miner on board the MC pushing the hashrate.  i view the mining community as a speeding train trying to stay just ahead of a 51% attack that's on its heels.  there's an equilibrium there that will be disturbed by SC's, imo.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 04, 2014, 05:57:49 PM
 #15628


it would've been alot easier to trust if Blockstream the for profit wasn't involved in MC core dev.

Everything about Cyph's panties being all bunched up on this sidechains thing screams exercise of fud-douche-iary duty.  He's on the n-th pass of his tedious circle of fud, though occasionally I throw him a new line to play with (ironically since I'm a strong supporter of sidechains.)  The OpenTransaction guys are outed, but not cypherdoc as far as I know.



i just have serious concerns about my perceived breakage of the BTC currency to its blockchain link which i've always considered to be sacred.

maybe my conception of Bitcoin is wrong.  i'm looking for answers to those concerns.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
November 04, 2014, 05:58:54 PM
 #15629

I think somehow you believe that side chains are making actual bitcoin transactions, when they are actually just artificially Bitcoin flavored altcoins with a magical bridge to Bitcoin.
If side chains are proposed as a solution for Bitcoin scalability, then they must be actual Bitcoin transactions.

If side chains aren't actual Bitcoin transactions, then they are not a solution to the problem of enabling the network to perform more Bitcoin transactions.

In this case, they are solving some other problem entirely.

justusranvier just identified the why we think SC innovation brings enhancements to Bitcoin.  
it looks like SC propose to lock your Bitcoin away in exchange for using another system with a different incentive structure.



Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 04, 2014, 06:11:45 PM
 #15630

Side Chains present new existential risks to Bitcoin that may result in the end of Bitcoin.
Side Chains present new opportunities that may lead to vastly more adoption, reducing risks to Bitcoin, improving its value, and making it more secure.
Both of the above statements are true.
If you think only one of them is true, you don't understand Side Chains.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 04, 2014, 06:15:12 PM
 #15631

Side Chains present new existential risks to Bitcoin that may result in the end of Bitcoin.
Side Chains present new opportunities that may lead to vastly more adoption, reducing risks to Bitcoin, improving its value, and making it more secure.
Both of the above statements are true.
If you think only one of them is true, you don't understand Side Chains.

now that's one helluva way to put it.

and i agree.
BldSwtTrs
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 901


View Profile
November 04, 2014, 06:18:51 PM
 #15632

So what altcoins are waiting to test the sidechain concept?

Let's them try first and see what happens.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2352


View Profile
November 04, 2014, 06:34:36 PM
 #15633


Bitcoin isn't even close to having enough hashrate by several orders of magnitude. We need many billions invested in development of mining hardware and applications.  When it gets to that level, then it will begin to pique the interest of real investment. In other words if one big company decides to invest, then others will follow.

until that point in time, we need every miner on board the MC pushing the hashrate.  i view the mining community as a speeding train trying to stay just ahead of a 51% attack that's on its heels.  there's an equilibrium there that will be disturbed by SC's, imo.

Ach!  You guys are like hamsters on a wheel.  Both ah yuz!

It was clear to me when I thought about mining (2011-ish) that mining will always reach unprofitabilty (so it's just better to buy BTC if one wants to make a dime considering the risks and hassle.)  I bought one 'rig'.  It was the first batch of USB ASICS available in the U.S. as a collector's item. I had no intention of powering it up and never did.

The point is that if one is basing their conception of economics in Bitcoinland on hashing, one is falling into the same trap as debt-based monetary solutions do with interest.  The monster chasing you is empowered by the very energy you spend trying to escape him.  This could spell doom for Bitcoin which has provoked an amazing amount of sha256 power already (which could turn against it), is wildly volatile, and is a significant threat to powerful interests.

I see sidechains as the most likely solution to this problem.  Just as a heard of ungulates can break up when attacked by a cheetah, run in multiple directions, then re-group when the danger is passed, sidechains can do the same.  Just as the herd survives (absent a weakling) so can distributed crypto-currencies.  If Bitcoin can remain the foundation (the grasslands) which form the playing field, fantastic.  If not, something else probably will.

Again, blindly trying to grow hashing power in order to preserve the grasslands is doomed to failure as a strategy in my opinion.  Some alternate method of preserving them is really the only hope.


cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
November 04, 2014, 06:40:06 PM
 #15634


Bitcoin isn't even close to having enough hashrate by several orders of magnitude. We need many billions invested in development of mining hardware and applications.  When it gets to that level, then it will begin to pique the interest of real investment. In other words if one big company decides to invest, then others will follow.

until that point in time, we need every miner on board the MC pushing the hashrate.  i view the mining community as a speeding train trying to stay just ahead of a 51% attack that's on its heels.  there's an equilibrium there that will be disturbed by SC's, imo.

Ach!  You guys are like hamsters on a wheel.  Both ah yuz!

It was clear to me when I thought about mining (2011-ish) that mining will always reach unprofitabilty (so it's just better to buy BTC if one wants to make a dime considering the risks and hassle.)  I bought one 'rig'.  It was the first batch of USB ASICS available in the U.S. as a collector's item. I had no intention of powering it up and never did.

The point is that if one is basing their conception of economics in Bitcoinland on hashing, one is falling into the same trap as debt-based monetary solutions do with interest.  The monster chasing you is empowered by the very energy you spend trying to escape him.  This could spell doom for Bitcoin which has provoked an amazing amount of sha256 power already (which could turn against it), is wildly volatile, and is a significant threat to powerful interests.

I see sidechains as the most likely solution to this problem.  Just as a heard of ungulates can break up when attacked by a cheetah, run in multiple directions, then re-group when the danger is passed, sidechains can do the same.  Just as the herd survives (absent a weakling) so can distributed crypto-currencies.  If Bitcoin can remain the foundation (the grasslands) which form the playing field, fantastic.  If not, something else probably will.

Again, blindly trying to grow hashing power in order to preserve the grasslands is doomed to failure as a strategy in my opinion.  Some alternate method of preserving them is really the only hope.


Are ASICs considered cutting edge technology? When someone designs a breakthrough miner that makes ASIC look like an abacus, then a 99% attack will be cheap.

Side Chains present new existential risks to Bitcoin that may result in the end of Bitcoin.
Side Chains present new opportunities that may lead to vastly more adoption, reducing risks to Bitcoin, improving its value, and making it more secure.
Both of the above statements are true.
If you think only one of them is true, you don't understand Side Chains.

If it's 1:1 then the end of Bitcoin is fine. More adoption is good. No problems here.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 04, 2014, 06:45:17 PM
 #15635

If it's 1:1 then the end of Bitcoin is fine. More adoption is good. No problems here.

cracking open cold wallets to move to a SC would open up all sorts of risks.
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
November 04, 2014, 06:50:39 PM
 #15636

If it's 1:1 then the end of Bitcoin is fine. More adoption is good. No problems here.

cracking open cold wallets to move to a SC would open up all sorts of risks.
While I recognise the possibility of a SC taking away all the miners, the miners would no longer be able to verify their chains based on Bitcoin. They could attack each other. Catch-22.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 04, 2014, 06:51:19 PM
 #15637

If it's 1:1 then the end of Bitcoin is fine. More adoption is good. No problems here.

cracking open cold wallets to move to a SC would open up all sorts of risks.

And we'd leave behind those that can't or won't.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 04, 2014, 07:01:54 PM
 #15638

If it's 1:1 then the end of Bitcoin is fine. More adoption is good. No problems here.

cracking open cold wallets to move to a SC would open up all sorts of risks.
While I recognise the possibility of a SC taking away all the miners, the miners would no longer be able to verify their chains based on Bitcoin. They could attack each other. Catch-22.

this is yet another possible problem i mentioned pages back; the fragmentation of mining that could lead to widespread vulnerabilities.  brg444 will say this won't happen but who knows?
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2352


View Profile
November 04, 2014, 07:02:45 PM
 #15639

If it's 1:1 then the end of Bitcoin is fine. More adoption is good. No problems here.

cracking open cold wallets to move to a SC would open up all sorts of risks.

So Bitcoin system stability is predicated on cold wallets which are not touched???

(Actually, I would not rule it out.  In some ways they are indeed acting as a deflationary force in what is currently a massively inflationary system.  That's a little pathetic.)

edit: security --> system stability

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 04, 2014, 07:06:03 PM
 #15640

If it's 1:1 then the end of Bitcoin is fine. More adoption is good. No problems here.

cracking open cold wallets to move to a SC would open up all sorts of risks.

So Bitcoin system stability is predicated on cold wallets which are not touched???

(Actually, I would not rule it out.  In some ways they are indeed acting as a deflationary force in what is currently a massively inflationary system.  That's a little pathetic.)

pathetic being your opinion.  Daniel K wouldn't agree with you and neither do i.
Quote

edit: security --> system stability


agreed.  and we have that right now given all mining is concentrated on MC currently.
Pages: « 1 ... 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 [782] 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 ... 1558 »
  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!