Bitcoin Forum
December 17, 2017, 10:28:03 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 ... 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 [881] 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2022643 times)
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
November 20, 2014, 12:01:46 AM
 #17601

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.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
1513506483
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513506483

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513506483
Reply with quote  #2

1513506483
Report to moderator
1513506483
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513506483

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513506483
Reply with quote  #2

1513506483
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
November 20, 2014, 12:03:47 AM
 #17602

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
November 20, 2014, 12:06:32 AM
 #17603

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 20, 2014, 12:13:50 AM
 #17604

[
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.



"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 20, 2014, 12:17:14 AM
 #17605

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.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
November 20, 2014, 12:37:24 AM
 #17606

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078



View Profile
November 20, 2014, 12:41:21 AM
 #17607

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

Forgive my petulance and oft-times, I fear, ill-founded criticisms, and forgive me that I have, by this time, made your eyes and head ache with my long letter. But I cannot forgo hastily the pleasure and pride of thus conversing with you.
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840


View Profile
November 20, 2014, 01:14:11 AM
 #17608

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840


View Profile
November 20, 2014, 01:24:50 AM
 #17609

[
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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 20, 2014, 01:28:09 AM
 #17610

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. Roll Eyes

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 20, 2014, 01:31:03 AM
 #17611

colored coins

Quote
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?

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
November 20, 2014, 01:33:43 AM
 #17612

Scalability as in block size limit.  
Transaction fees.
The other issues are non issues in relation to the above. (I'd feel progress is happening if we just altered 2 lines of code over the next 3 years while we debated the issue)

http://www.freebanking.org/2014/11/18/bitcoin-will-bite-the-dust/ read this.

Where Kevin Dowd's analysis falls short is he doesn't account for the economics in the block halving. The block halving wrestles power away from miners.

I've outlined how miners in cooperation with the proposed change to the protocol can avoid the declining revenue in the halving.

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

let me see if I understand you correctly: you're saying that introducing spvp at the protocol level will block the inevitable erosion of miners power, am I correct?

In any case I've to thank you b/c I've never thought of block halving as a way to reduce miners influence on the btc env.
It makes sense and if we take into consideration that after a certain threshold concentration of mining power is pernicious
to the system we should appreciate the satoshi's genius even more.

The usual way of "reading" block halving is a method to control inflation in the system, the one you just make me
discovered  is less evident but not less important.

One last thing about the link you share above. I've just gave it a quick glance but I'm not sure that this part 100% true:

Quote from: Kevin Dowd bitcoin-will-bite-the-dust
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?

re 1, it would be possible where that wasn't possible before, depending on the incentives and the economic energy invested it could happen fast or take a 100 years.

re Block halving, and inflation the step function feeds into other loops too it perseveres value, it ramps up early investment and stimulates innovation in efficiency.  (every time i learn something new i wonder if Satoshi actually knew it or it happened to be like that.)


re 2,  Kevin Dowd is a Bitcoin pessimist, but what he is saying is mining will tend to centralize and then a carrells will form and ultimately it will become a monopoly.

This is a view many Bitcoiners hold so it has merit.

Where he is wrong is in understanding mining, but what we see happening and what is expected to happen dont support his prediction.
we have price epochs, (some great Bitcoine mind here on bitcointalk came up with a energy theory that governs the price between each halving I can't find the reference and I'm not even sure if he called it an epochs I just built on it)

the situation is dynamic and mining centralization is expected we've seen this with pool mining and the resulting power shifts as different pool dominate. but block halving will discourages cooperation as miners scramble to squeeze out any profit they can, some may go bankrupt and some will survive, there are many feedback loops, this also makes the network more efficient and encourages value growth. there is also wild price volatility which is key to regulating miners investments in hardware, some will get lucky some won't, it also creates opportunity for new competition. ultimately this is all regulated by the available energy as the system grows, the extent of the analysis stops at energy infrastructure as is often planed 10 years in advance and the volatility and reward dropping prevents miners form influencing those decisions.  

funny story on infrastructure limitations, a friend unrelated to Bitcoin earlier this year was having problems with a production line, in the city where they were located in China, he told me there were no PCB assembly plants willing to do there job, as they were all busy doing Bitcoin ASICs, so even production capacity is a limitation in a boom.  

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2352


View Profile
November 20, 2014, 01:39:18 AM
 #17613

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.

That's a hypothesis, and one which is especially promoted by the 'wide open blocksize' crowd.

Satoshi didn't say why he did it in the commit comments as I recall, and I've not heard any credible person say that he explained it to them as it being due to DDoS concerns or anything else.

A perfectly viable hypothesis is that he knew that some other mechanism besides gross opening the blocksize would eventually be required due to scaling issues, and he thought that this setting would give enough headroom for Bitcoin to grow to a decent size before running into problems.

I like to think that, like myself, sidechains at least occurred to Satoshi early on in his ruminations about scaling modes.  Likely we'll never know though.  For my part I imagined the name 'child chains', but whatever.  Same diff.  They are just a logical sub-set of the Bitcoin solution one way or another.


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 20, 2014, 01:39:25 AM
 #17614

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.

yes, and they should happen on MC to maximize miner tx revenue.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2352


View Profile
November 20, 2014, 01:45:52 AM
 #17615

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

yes, and they should happen on MC to maximize miner tx revenue.

Yup, the hamster is back to the wheel.  You people are as pathetic as a sheep stuck under an electric fence and bleating every time it gets zapped because you cannot figure out the nature of your problem or how to deal with it.


brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 20, 2014, 01:49:21 AM
 #17616

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.

yes, and they should happen on MC to maximize miner tx revenue.

but they cant  Undecided

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 20, 2014, 01:53:56 AM
 #17617

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.

I like to think that, like myself, sidechains at least occurred to Satoshi early on in his ruminations about scaling modes.  Likely we'll never know though.  For my part I imagined the name 'child chains', but whatever.  Same diff.  They are just a logical sub-set of the Bitcoin solution one way or another.

I actually had a similar thought experiment the other day.

Imagine that Satoshi had built sidechains out the box with Bitcoin.

Would we be worse off

or significantly ahead?

I think sidechains are the most natural extension possible to Bitcoin if they can execute what is in the white paper. Of course that remains to be seen but considering just about all of silicon valley invested in their 20 million seed round. My bet is they will.


"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 20, 2014, 01:55:02 AM
 #17618

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.

yes, and they should happen on MC to maximize miner tx revenue.

but they cant  Undecided

Gavin will get his proposals thru.

https://bitcoinfoundation.org/2014/11/everybody-pivots/
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 20, 2014, 02:05:52 AM
 #17619

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.

I like to think that, like myself, sidechains at least occurred to Satoshi early on in his ruminations about scaling modes.  Likely we'll never know though.  For my part I imagined the name 'child chains', but whatever.  Same diff.  They are just a logical sub-set of the Bitcoin solution one way or another.

I actually had a similar thought experiment the other day.

Imagine that Satoshi had built sidechains out the box with Bitcoin.

Would we be worse off

or significantly ahead?

I think sidechains are the most natural extension possible to Bitcoin if they can execute what is in the white paper. Of course that remains to be seen but considering just about all of silicon valley invested in their 20 million seed round. My bet is they will.



one of my other memes is that "most investors in cryptocurrency will lose money".  and that includes Silicon Valley investors.

that's b/c most investors/geeks, imo, don't understand what Bitcoin is and what its ultimate destiny will be.  and that is the fulfillment of Sound Money as envisioned by the goldbugs and cypherpunks.  there are too many common ppl in the world who are depending on us to provide a way to "exit" the fiat system.  what resonates with most non US ppl round the world is the fixed supply nature of Bitcoin.  they don't care about stocks, bonds, insurance, smart contracts, etc which SC's wants to provide.  all they care about is Sound Money that is liquid and acts like a SOV.  even Americans hold few stocks and bonds these days as none of them are compelling at these inflated prices and dangerous levels.  everyone knows it's a Ponzi Scheme enable by the #1 problem of the day:  fiat money printing ala central banks.  Bitcoin is a poison dart aimed directly at the heart of this problem and i don't think humanity is going to let this chance go by.  this is why the Bitcoin community needs to maintain a focus on what got us to where we are:  the SOV sound money function.

we want to force the outsiders to "buy in" to BTC on MC.  this is what will take us to The Moon.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
November 20, 2014, 02:07:01 AM
 #17620

Quote
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?
It's possible to build decentralized order books.

Order matching does not require escrow with a third party.

Orders can be executed with atomic swaps on the blockchain.

At the same time, it's possible to use semi- or fully trusted third parties for any or all of those functions.

I expect both models to see real world usage.

But this doesn't really address the original statement you made. Originally you did not specify that you were talking about certain ways markets could be built that utilized colored coins.

Without that clarification, your statement about sidechains being "more decentralized" is false.

Colored coin tokens are stored on the main chain and enjoy the full security model of Bitcoin. The same can not be said for tokens created on a sidechain.
Pages: « 1 ... 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 [881] 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 ... 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!