Bitcoin Forum
December 06, 2016, 10:09:32 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [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 ... 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] 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1805266 times)
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106


View Profile
November 19, 2014, 11:15:54 PM
 #17621

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?  

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
1481062172
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481062172

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481062172
Reply with quote  #2

1481062172
Report to moderator
1481062172
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481062172

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481062172
Reply with quote  #2

1481062172
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
November 19, 2014, 11:23:05 PM
 #17622

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106


View Profile
November 19, 2014, 11:24:50 PM
 #17623

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/

Quote from: JINYOUNG LEE ENGLUND - bitcoin Foundation
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.

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106


View Profile
November 19, 2014, 11:25:34 PM
 #17624

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.

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
November 19, 2014, 11:31:25 PM
 #17625

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:

Quote
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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
November 19, 2014, 11:32:05 PM
 #17626

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106


View Profile
November 19, 2014, 11:34:48 PM
 #17627

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?
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

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 19, 2014, 11:39:56 PM
 #17628

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:

Quote
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?

"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: 1330



View Profile
November 19, 2014, 11:52:52 PM
 #17629

[
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.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
November 20, 2014, 12:01:46 AM
 #17630

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
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
November 20, 2014, 12:03:47 AM
 #17631

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
 #17632

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: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 20, 2014, 12:13:50 AM
 #17633

[
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: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 20, 2014, 12:17:14 AM
 #17634

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
 #17635

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


Blockchain Theorist


View Profile
November 20, 2014, 12:41:21 AM
 #17636

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: 714



View Profile
November 20, 2014, 01:14:11 AM
 #17637

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: 714



View Profile
November 20, 2014, 01:24:50 AM
 #17638

[
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
 #17639

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: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 20, 2014, 01:31:03 AM
 #17640

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
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 ... 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!