Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[sickpig]

I presume be adjusted as it is just an preset value.

Yes.... and no.

Increasing this limit requires the entire network to upgrade.

if memory serves I read somewhere that the cap on the block size was introduced due to DDoS attacks against the network using very large blocks, is it correct?  

[1714260303]

1714260303

[1714260303]

1714260303

[1714260303]

1714260303

[justusranvier]

if memory serves I read somewhere that the cap on the block size was introduced due to DDoS attacks against the network using very large blocks, is it correct?

Due to the potential for such attacks.

[sickpig]

For every cent miners earn mining Bitcoin on a SideChain they insulate themselves from the disruption in the inevitable 50% revenue drop, and for cent of insulation we move closer to Kevin Dowd's inevitable prediction.

Miners don't need to mine sidechains in order to gain more revenue - it's just as viable to mine more transactions on the main chain.

If there's a demand for 1000 tps, the main chain should be allowed to satisfy that demand.

This gives the miners the revenue they need to wean themselves away from dependence on the block subsidy.

speaking of development https://bitcoinfoundation.org/2014/11/everybody-pivots/

We’ve found our true calling. Our members are signaling that its time to return to our roots and that is to focus on funding the ongoing core development to build out the critical infrastructure that serves as the foundation of this brand new digital ecosystem.

[sickpig]

if memory serves I read somewhere that the cap on the block size was introduced due to DDoS attacks against the network using very large blocks, is it correct?

Due to the potential for such attacks.

thanks for the info, my memory didn't serve me properly this time.

[solex]

we are on our way boys to consuming the Forex fiat currency market:

“By making bitcoins a recognized payment instrument, Finland has pushed it towards being regarded as a formal currency," said Asquith.

http://www.coindesk.com/finland-classifies-bitcoin-vat-exempt-financial-service/

let's not fuck it up, please.

Step 1: solidarity with Gavin once he formally presents a solution to the block size limit.

Solidarity with Bitcoin excellence >> solidarity with any individual or proposal.

It is our job to get the proposal up to acceptability rather than to support a substandard proposal.

In a perfect world you are absolutely right, but in our imperfect world a substandard proposal is often the only alternative to nothing being done at all. That latter alternative is still a risk. Your blockchain feedback-determined limit and Gavin's pretty good, still unofficial, 20-40-20 proposal have only a cigarette paper between them compared to this:

03:57   wangchun   gmaxwell: do you have plan to increase 1 MB block size limit in near future?
03:58   phantomcircuit   wangchun, that is not going to happen
04:03   netg   /
04:13   justanotheruser   wangchun: it isn't his decision

http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/2014/11/05

There are very entrenched different views, even in core dev. So, yes, solidarity with Gavin on the matter has got to be helpful.

[Odalv]

You argument is very different from cypher's. You argue that the mining incentive is changed and could be problematic to the safety of the network.

Cypher's fallacious and perpetually proven wrong argument is that somehow SC's break the Sound Money property by separating BTC from the blockchain. A laughable proposition considering the dozens of ways this is already done.

if it's already being done, then we don't need the spvp.

But absolutely, it is already being done but off-chain which creates all kind of trust issues. These schemes represent the very danger to Bitcoin Sound Money you so very much fear.

There is no easier way to corrupt the Bitcoin ledger than to assign value outside of its trust environment.

SPVP proposes to narrow that trust gap significantly

but you can't stop all stupid ppl like Odalv from doing stupid things.  better to let them lose money on those federated servers.

don't want to pollute the protocol with spvp and institutionalize stupidity.

I know greedy individual always knows what is the best for his sheeps.

Edit:
holds sheeps in the corral (at least federated peg .. to keep sheeps under control)

[sickpig]

However, the mining industry is characterized by large economies of scale. In fact, these economies of scale are so large that the industry is a natural monopoly.

Why, let say, discus fish rather than ghash.io should became a monopoly if being such a thing will mean getting a
btc/fiat ratio equal to 0?

There's no such thing as natural monopoly. It's always been a fallacy:

http://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly

thanks. I'll go through the post in more detail as soon as time constraints permit me.

ps mises.org seems to be a real gold mine

[brg444]

we are on our way boys to consuming the Forex fiat currency market:

“By making bitcoins a recognized payment instrument, Finland has pushed it towards being regarded as a formal currency," said Asquith.

http://www.coindesk.com/finland-classifies-bitcoin-vat-exempt-financial-service/

let's not fuck it up, please.

Step 1: solidarity with Gavin once he formally presents a solution to the block size limit.

Solidarity with Bitcoin excellence >> solidarity with any individual or proposal.

It is our job to get the proposal up to acceptability rather than to support a substandard proposal.

In a perfect world you are absolutely right, but in our imperfect world a substandard proposal is often the only alternative to nothing being done at all. That latter alternative is still a risk. Your blockchain feedback-determined limit and Gavin's pretty good, still unofficial, 20-40-20 proposal have only a cigarette paper between them compared to this:

03:57   wangchun   gmaxwell: do you have plan to increase 1 MB block size limit in near future?
03:58   phantomcircuit   wangchun, that is not going to happen
04:03   netg   /
04:13   justanotheruser   wangchun: it isn't his decision

http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/2014/11/05

There are very entrenched different views, even in core dev. So, yes, solidarity with Gavin on the matter has got to be helpful.

who is phantomcircuit?

[Adrian-x]

[
As ZB has pointed out, the exchanges do happen on the same, single Bitcoin ledger. That ledger is merely fragmented into different chains. The value is distributed on different chains but is all, in theory, compounded into the same network/ledger.

The problem I'd like for you to address re: federated SC's is they have the same consequences of changing the economic incentives for miners. Yes that change does not happen on the protocol level but it is IMO at least equally concerning. In that scenario, the incentives are not adopting a different model but are effectively "hijacked" by the federation/oracles/OT. This has the potential to considerably decrease the miners incentive to protect the network, especially compounded with the block subsidy drop.

If we expect miners to depend on transactions fees in the future then should we not make sure these transactions are not driven away to schemes that are out of their reach?

This is where economics in the economy come in to play risks and reward, at the moment federation/oracles/OT all are owned by the entities that want you to trust them with your Bitcoin, what happens there after is business. (And federation/oracles/OT are magnitudes more trusted than anything before) What entities do to build trust or create value, if it has any impact on miners it is catered for in the existing incentive structure.

But a decentralized SPV proofs managed or secured by the same scheme as Bitcoin, entrusts the securing of the money in a service or a business to the network. That sounds good but it introduces an additional risk, you now have to trust the entity to deliver on its business and you have to trust no conflict of interest arises in the network, you have acknowledged that miners would have new incentives and it would be possible to abuse those privileges, however unlikely that would be additional risk in the quality of the money.

[Adrian-x]

I presume be adjusted as it is just an preset value.

Yes.... and no.

Increasing this limit requires the entire network to upgrade.

Yes that's fucked when you think of the situation with severity of a soft fork.

[Odalv]

I can remember when cypherdoc was trying to convince ppl to send $ into crashing mtGox, only to keep his stomach full. (he was using words "many of us are buying $600 cheap btc @ fucked mtGox") ... but cypherdoc  was buying at $1,60

[justusranvier]

This is where economics in the economy come in to play risks and reward, at the moment federation/oracles/OT all are owned by the entities that want you to trust them with your Bitcoin, what happens there after is business. (And federation/oracles/OT are magnitudes more trusted than anything before) What entities do to build trust or create value, if it has any impact on miners it is catered for in the existing incentive structure.

There's something important to be said here about OT (and other off-chain systems).

OT is a contract processing system that operates on liabilities.

You'll never be able to transact with Bitcoins anywhere except on the Bitcoin blockchain, in OT or in any other system.

If we want Bitcoin to succeed as money, then we need as many Bitcoin transactions to happen as possible.

[brg444]

[
As ZB has pointed out, the exchanges do happen on the same, single Bitcoin ledger. That ledger is merely fragmented into different chains. The value is distributed on different chains but is all, in theory, compounded into the same network/ledger.

The problem I'd like for you to address re: federated SC's is they have the same consequences of changing the economic incentives for miners. Yes that change does not happen on the protocol level but it is IMO at least equally concerning. In that scenario, the incentives are not adopting a different model but are effectively "hijacked" by the federation/oracles/OT. This has the potential to considerably decrease the miners incentive to protect the network, especially compounded with the block subsidy drop.

If we expect miners to depend on transactions fees in the future then should we not make sure these transactions are not driven away to schemes that are out of their reach?

This is where economics in the economy come in to play risks and reward, at the moment federation/oracles/OT all are owned by the entities that want you to trust them with your Bitcoin, what happens there after is business. (And federation/oracles/OT are magnitudes more trusted than anything before) What entities do to build trust or create value, if it has any impact on miners it is catered for in the existing incentive structure.

But a decentralized SPV proofs managed or secured by the same scheme as Bitcoin, entrusts the securing of the money in a service or a business to the network. That sounds good but it introduces an additional risk, you now have to trust the entity to deliver on its business and you have to trust no conflict of interest arises in the network, you have acknowledged that miners would have new incentives and it would be possible to abuse those privileges, however unlikely that would be additional risk in the quality of the money.

I don't think Satoshi designed the existing incentive structure in expectation that transactions would emigrate "off-chain". Of course this is bound to happen but it is a dangerous proposition considering the overwhelming demand that can not currently be accomodated on the mainchain and would become out of reach of the miners.

The chains secured by decentralized SPV proofs should not be ones that are "provided" by a service/business.  IMO the likely outcome is that these will be utility chains that are open-source and certainly not proprietary to any entity that I need to trust for anything.

Any business willing to offer a service on a sidechain would be wise to consider the federated model for obvious security reasons and the need for oversight that you have pointed out.

Moreover, the new incentive model does not necessarily translate in new incentive to abuse their privilege.

[brg444]

This is where economics in the economy come in to play risks and reward, at the moment federation/oracles/OT all are owned by the entities that want you to trust them with your Bitcoin, what happens there after is business. (And federation/oracles/OT are magnitudes more trusted than anything before) What entities do to build trust or create value, if it has any impact on miners it is catered for in the existing incentive structure.

There's something important to be said here about OT (and other off-chain systems).

OT is a contract processing system that operates on liabilities.

You'll never be able to transact with Bitcoins anywhere except on the Bitcoin blockchain, in OT or in any other system.

If we want Bitcoin to succeed as money, then we need as many Bitcoin transactions to happen as possible.

I believe sidechains transactions are the closest things to Bitcoin transactions in that they create value for the whole ecosystem and preserve the network effect.

[solex]

who is phantomcircuit?

Patrick Strateman (no.7 on this list, maybe even promoted up, as 3 and 4 have bitten the dust :-)

http://www.benzinga.com/tech/13/05/3563567/meet-the-22-most-important-people-behind-bitcoin

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

OP the title of this thread is sort of the opposite of timely

[Erdogan]

I can remember when cypherdoc was trying to convince ppl to send $ into crashing mtGox, only to keep his stomach full. (he was using words "many of us are buying $600 cheap btc @ fucked mtGox") ... but cypherdoc  was buying at $1,60

What is this shit.

[Erdogan]

[
As ZB has pointed out, the exchanges do happen on the same, single Bitcoin ledger. That ledger is merely fragmented into different chains. The value is distributed on different chains but is all, in theory, compounded into the same network/ledger.

The problem I'd like for you to address re: federated SC's is they have the same consequences of changing the economic incentives for miners. Yes that change does not happen on the protocol level but it is IMO at least equally concerning. In that scenario, the incentives are not adopting a different model but are effectively "hijacked" by the federation/oracles/OT. This has the potential to considerably decrease the miners incentive to protect the network, especially compounded with the block subsidy drop.

If we expect miners to depend on transactions fees in the future then should we not make sure these transactions are not driven away to schemes that are out of their reach?

This is where economics in the economy come in to play risks and reward, at the moment federation/oracles/OT all are owned by the entities that want you to trust them with your Bitcoin, what happens there after is business. (And federation/oracles/OT are magnitudes more trusted than anything before) What entities do to build trust or create value, if it has any impact on miners it is catered for in the existing incentive structure.

But a decentralized SPV proofs managed or secured by the same scheme as Bitcoin, entrusts the securing of the money in a service or a business to the network. That sounds good but it introduces an additional risk, you now have to trust the entity to deliver on its business and you have to trust no conflict of interest arises in the network, you have acknowledged that miners would have new incentives and it would be possible to abuse those privileges, however unlikely that would be additional risk in the quality of the money.

I don't think Satoshi designed the existing incentive structure in expectation that transactions would emigrate "off-chain". Of course this is bound to happen but it is a dangerous proposition considering the overwhelming demand that can not currently be accomodated on the mainchain and would become out of reach of the miners.

The chains secured by decentralized SPV proofs should not be ones that are "provided" by a service/business.  IMO the likely outcome is that these will be utility chains that are open-source and certainly not proprietary to any entity that I need to trust for anything.

Any business willing to offer a service on a sidechain would be wise to consider the federated model for obvious security reasons and the need for oversight that you have pointed out.

Moreover, the new incentive model does not necessarily translate in new incentive to abuse their privilege.

Hello, this is ground control...

Man you are dreaming. All this has to be invented and implemented, and then it has to work in the market. So far, I am not even convinced that the sidechain peg can work in theory. Economically, I am quite sure it does not work.

Microtransactions on a sidechain say you? Don't you have to solve the fundamental problem of room in the blockchain? Higher block frequency is not enough, larger blocks is not enough. Somebody has to invent something new, that has the capacity needed and at the same time the security needed.

It seems to me, you think that absolutely everything in the world can be solved at the drop of a hat, you need only two things: Getting out of the blockchain, and at the same time relying on the success of the blockchain.
 

[cypherdoc]

I can remember when cypherdoc was trying to convince ppl to send $ into crashing mtGox, only to keep his stomach full. (he was using words "many of us are buying $600 cheap btc @ fucked mtGox") ... but cypherdoc  was buying at $1,60

you call me clown, i respond with idiot, and you get mad. sad.

let's make one thing clear, you, brg444, and Blockstream are the ones who want to change everything by changing the protocol ruleset causing the rest of us to scramble trying to figure out the economic consequences of the spvp while you sit back and take advantage of the massive volatility.  you admitted it. 

and yes, i'm disappointed in you molecular and sickpig being unable to chastise others besides just me.

[brg444]

colored coins

Coloring Bitcoins. The systems I’ve looked at don’t route bids/offers over the Bitcoin system so any matching will be done external to the platform. So it seems to me that “decentralized exchanges” on this model will have to require those posting bids or offers to demonstrate that they have placed the corresponding colored coins/Bitcoins in escrow with one or more acceptable third parties.

http://gendal.wordpress.com/2014/06/10/a-decentralized-securities-trading-and-settlement-system-is-being-built-hidden-in-plain-sight/

How true is this?