Bitcoin Forum
July 12, 2020, 03:41:13 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.20.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
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 ... 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] 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2030619 times)
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3248
Merit: 1130


View Profile
November 20, 2014, 04:17:31 AM
 #17641


Nice try there Slick.  The link says nothing about Gavin's proposal (exponential growth or otherwise.)

The Bitcoin Foundation is a now irrelevant scam initially designed to separate fools and second-level scammers from their money.  They got an amusing number of dopes to the tune of $100k per head.  Of course some of those folks (esp, Kraples) nailed the rest of the community for many times that, but what can you do?

Most people recognize the BF for the gaggle of scammers, govt infiltrators, has-been devs, and pervs that it is.

Actually Murk always seemed like possibly an OK guy to me.  Maybe he could turn the thing around to some degree, but I rather doubt it at this point.


sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
1594568473
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1594568473

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1594568473
Reply with quote  #2

1594568473
Report to moderator
1594568473
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1594568473

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1594568473
Reply with quote  #2

1594568473
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1594568473
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1594568473

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1594568473
Reply with quote  #2

1594568473
Report to moderator
1594568473
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1594568473

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1594568473
Reply with quote  #2

1594568473
Report to moderator
1594568473
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1594568473

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1594568473
Reply with quote  #2

1594568473
Report to moderator
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3248
Merit: 1130


View Profile
November 20, 2014, 04:23:51 AM
 #17642

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.



Surprised you're evidently not familiar with this quote:

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.


Looks to me like he was just smoothing over some ruffled feathers since someone happened to notice his 1MB protocol setting.  Clever guy was the ol' Satosh.


sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1694
Merit: 1003



View Profile
November 20, 2014, 04:29:13 AM
 #17643

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.



Surprised you're evidently not familiar with this quote:

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.


Looks to me like he was just smoothing over some ruffled feathers since someone happened to notice his 1MB protocol setting.  Clever guy was the ol' Satosh.




Looked like a straight-forward, casual discussion to me. And Satoshi was always pretty direct about technical matters.

Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1000


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
November 20, 2014, 04:31:49 AM
 #17644

Looks to me like he was just smoothing over some ruffled feathers since someone happened to notice his 1MB protocol setting.  Clever guy was the ol' Satosh.

Thought you might discount such clear evidence.

Theymos had this interpretation:

The main reason for the block size limit is disk space. At 1MB, an attacker can force every generator to permanently store 53GB per year. At 10MB, an attacker can force every generator to permanently store 526GB per year....

Caveden said this:

Only recently I learned about this block size limit.

I understand not putting any limit might allow flooding. On the other hand, the smaller your block, the faster it will propagate to network (I suppose.. or is there "I've got a block!" sort of message sent before the entire content of the block?), so miners do have an interest on not producing large blocks.

I'm very uncomfortable with this block size limit rule. This is a "protocol-rule" (not a "client-rule"), what makes it almost impossible to change once you have enough different softwares running the protocol. Take SMTP as an example... it's unchangeable.

I think we should schedule a large increase in the block size limit right now while the protocol rules are easier to change. Maybe even schedule an infinite series of increases, as we can't really predict how many transactions there will be 50 years from now.

Honestly, I'd like to get rid of such rule. I find it dangerous. But I can't think of an easy way to stop flooding without it, though.

(my bold emphasis in both quotes)

It's a sure bet that these guys are smart enough to know what Satoshi was thinking.

Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1694
Merit: 1003



View Profile
November 20, 2014, 04:40:22 AM
 #17645

Also, can someone who knows CryptoNote tell me if Satoshi basically had the seeds of it here?


I'm not grasping your idea yet.  Does it hide any information from the public network?  What is the advantage?

If at least 50% of nodes validated transactions enough that old transactions can be discarded, then everyone saw everything and could keep a record of it.

Can public nodes see the values of transactions?  Can they see which previous transaction the value came from?  If they can, then they know everything.  If they can't, then they couldn't verify that the value came from a valid source, so you couldn't take their generated chain as verification of it.

Does it hide the bitcoin addresses?  Is that it?  OK, maybe now I see, if that's it.

Crypto may offer a way to do "key blinding".  I did some research and it was obscure, but there may be something there.  "group signatures" may be related.

There's something here in the general area:
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hopwood/crypto/rh/

What we need is a way to generate additional blinded variations of a public key.  The blinded variations would have the same properties as the root public key, such that the private key could generate a signature for any one of them.  Others could not tell if a blinded key is related to the root key, or other blinded keys from the same root key.  These are the properties of blinding.  Blinding, in a nutshell, is x = (x * large_random_int) mod m.

When paying to a bitcoin address, you would generate a new blinded key for each use.

Then you need to be able to sign a signature such that you can't tell that two signatures came from the same private key.  I'm not sure if always signing a different blinded public key would already give you this property.  If not, I think that's where group signatures comes in.  With group signatures, it is possible for something to be signed but not know who signed it.

As an example, say some unpopular military attack has to be ordered, but nobody wants to go down in history as the one who ordered it.  If 10 leaders have private keys, one of them could sign the order and you wouldn't know who did it.


Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3248
Merit: 1130


View Profile
November 20, 2014, 04:50:12 AM
 #17646

Looks to me like he was just smoothing over some ruffled feathers since someone happened to notice his 1MB protocol setting.  Clever guy was the ol' Satosh.

Thought you might discount such clear evidence.

Theymos had this interpretation:

- something

Caveden said this:

- something -

Ya, well, MysteryMiner said he's Iranian and hates colored people (except he was more explicit.)  Right here on TrollTalk!

It's a sure bet that these guys are smart enough to know what Satoshi was thinking.

It sure doesn't take much to make you certain of something.

You don't seem to give Satoshi himself much credit.  He surely would have recognized the significance of slipping in the 1MB block size and commented on the commit if he felt like discussing it.  I'd say he likely had something deeper in mind.  But unlike our friends above, I don't pretend that my mind reading abilities are strong enough to overcome the space-time continuum.


sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1694
Merit: 1003



View Profile
November 20, 2014, 04:55:36 AM
 #17647

...

You don't seem to give Satoshi himself much credit.  He surely would have recognized the significance of slipping in the 1MB block size and commented on the commit if he felt like discussing it.  I'd say he likely had something deeper in mind.  But unlike our friends above, I don't pretend that my mind reading abilities are strong enough to overcome the space-time continuum.





Satoshi didn't seem to consider it a problem for bitcoin to centralize significantly:


Forgot to add the good part about micropayments.  While I don't think Bitcoin is practical for smaller micropayments right now, it will eventually be as storage and bandwidth costs continue to fall.  If Bitcoin catches on on a big scale, it may already be the case by that time.  Another way they can become more practical is if I implement client-only mode and the number of network nodes consolidates into a smaller number of professional server farms.  Whatever size micropayments you need will eventually be practical.  I think in 5 or 10 years, the bandwidth and storage will seem trivial.
...


There's also the metzdowd quote along those lines from Nov 2008.

Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1000


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
November 20, 2014, 05:07:27 AM
 #17648

You don't seem to give Satoshi himself much credit.  He surely would have recognized the significance of slipping in the 1MB block size and commented on the commit if he felt like discussing it. 

Nope. He made lots of changes and didn't comment on them.

I actually don't think I was around when Satoshi put the 1mb limit in place. I played with Bitcoin back in early 2009 but nobody used it so I lost interest and came back later. Back then he routinely made big or hard forking changes to the protocol in giant commits that mixed many changes together and had no useful descriptions. It was still his personal toy/prototype thing, so he got away with things we wouldn't be able to do today.

I'd say he likely had something deeper in mind.  But unlike our friends above, I don't pretend that my mind reading abilities are strong enough to overcome the space-time continuum.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman

tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3248
Merit: 1130


View Profile
November 20, 2014, 05:11:40 AM
 #17649

...

You don't seem to give Satoshi himself much credit.  He surely would have recognized the significance of slipping in the 1MB block size and commented on the commit if he felt like discussing it.  I'd say he likely had something deeper in mind.  But unlike our friends above, I don't pretend that my mind reading abilities are strong enough to overcome the space-time continuum.

Satoshi didn't seem to consider it a problem for bitcoin to centralize significantly:

Forgot to add the good part about micropayments.  While I don't think Bitcoin is practical for smaller micropayments right now, it will eventually be as storage and bandwidth costs continue to fall.  If Bitcoin catches on on a big scale, it may already be the case by that time.  Another way they can become more practical is if I implement client-only mode and the number of network nodes consolidates into a smaller number of professional server farms.  Whatever size micropayments you need will eventually be practical.  I think in 5 or 10 years, the bandwidth and storage will seem trivial.
...

There's also the metzdowd quote along those lines from Nov 2008.


Hearn pointed that out too.  For a while I was pretty demoralized by this, but now I think that perhaps he was actually playing the burgeoning community along realizing that very few of them really had the vision and technical prowess to see beyond very far into the future.  We may never know.

For my part I find it hard to believe that Satoshi could have (and would have) achieved what he did just to make a PayPal-II, and I am certain that he would have seen that this is exactly what it would become under a scenario as he described.  I also very much doubt that he blew it on his infrastructure capacity estimates as badly as he did (though in fairness, if he really did welcome the centralization of which he speaks it is true now 5 years later that corporate entities have plenty of capacity to run very high transaction rates...as it was when he (supposedly) wrote that.)


sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1694
Merit: 1003



View Profile
November 20, 2014, 05:19:25 AM
 #17650

...

You don't seem to give Satoshi himself much credit.  He surely would have recognized the significance of slipping in the 1MB block size and commented on the commit if he felt like discussing it.  I'd say he likely had something deeper in mind.  But unlike our friends above, I don't pretend that my mind reading abilities are strong enough to overcome the space-time continuum.

Satoshi didn't seem to consider it a problem for bitcoin to centralize significantly:

Forgot to add the good part about micropayments.  While I don't think Bitcoin is practical for smaller micropayments right now, it will eventually be as storage and bandwidth costs continue to fall.  If Bitcoin catches on on a big scale, it may already be the case by that time.  Another way they can become more practical is if I implement client-only mode and the number of network nodes consolidates into a smaller number of professional server farms.  Whatever size micropayments you need will eventually be practical.  I think in 5 or 10 years, the bandwidth and storage will seem trivial.
...

There's also the metzdowd quote along those lines from Nov 2008.


Hearn pointed that out too.  For a while I was pretty demoralized by this, but now I think that perhaps he was actually playing the burgeoning community along realizing that very few of them really had the vision and technical prowess to see beyond very far into the future.  We may never know.

For my part I find it hard to believe that Satoshi could have (and would have) achieved what he did just to make a PayPal-II, and I am certain that he would have seen that this is exactly what it would become under a scenario as he described.  I also very much doubt that he blew it on his infrastructure capacity estimates as badly as he did (though in fairness, if he really did welcome the centralization of which he speaks it is true now 5 years later that corporate entities have plenty of capacity to run very high transaction rates...as it was when he (supposedly) wrote that.)




Go read through his posts. He was a pragmatist. I really don't think he considered a significant degree of consolidation to be a systemic problem. He may not of considered it ideal, but he probably (correctly, in my opinion) considered it both inevitable and non-fatal.

Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1160



View Profile
November 20, 2014, 05:26:31 AM
 #17651

Also, can someone who knows CryptoNote tell me if Satoshi basically had the seeds of it here?

Somewhat. What he calls group signatures are what Cryptonote calls ring signatures. But to make it work for a cryptocurrency requires the significant additional step of making them double spending proof (to extend his analogy, we can't general, even acting anonymously, giving such an order more than once).
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
November 20, 2014, 05:31:05 AM
 #17652

...

You don't seem to give Satoshi himself much credit.  He surely would have recognized the significance of slipping in the 1MB block size and commented on the commit if he felt like discussing it.  I'd say he likely had something deeper in mind.  But unlike our friends above, I don't pretend that my mind reading abilities are strong enough to overcome the space-time continuum.

Satoshi didn't seem to consider it a problem for bitcoin to centralize significantly:

Forgot to add the good part about micropayments.  While I don't think Bitcoin is practical for smaller micropayments right now, it will eventually be as storage and bandwidth costs continue to fall.  If Bitcoin catches on on a big scale, it may already be the case by that time.  Another way they can become more practical is if I implement client-only mode and the number of network nodes consolidates into a smaller number of professional server farms.  Whatever size micropayments you need will eventually be practical.  I think in 5 or 10 years, the bandwidth and storage will seem trivial.
...

There's also the metzdowd quote along those lines from Nov 2008.


Hearn pointed that out too.  For a while I was pretty demoralized by this, but now I think that perhaps he was actually playing the burgeoning community along realizing that very few of them really had the vision and technical prowess to see beyond very far into the future.  We may never know.

For my part I find it hard to believe that Satoshi could have (and would have) achieved what he did just to make a PayPal-II, and I am certain that he would have seen that this is exactly what it would become under a scenario as he described.  I also very much doubt that he blew it on his infrastructure capacity estimates as badly as he did (though in fairness, if he really did welcome the centralization of which he speaks it is true now 5 years later that corporate entities have plenty of capacity to run very high transaction rates...as it was when he (supposedly) wrote that.)




Go read through his posts. He was a pragmatist. I really don't think he considered a significant degree of consolidation to be a systemic problem. He may not of considered it ideal, but he probably (correctly, in my opinion) considered it both inevitable and non-fatal.


Part of my research btwn Jan 2011 and April 2011 before I made my first investment was talking to key people one of which was theymos. He's been around at least as long as anyone else and one of the things I clearly remember him saying was that he could see significant consolidation to large server farms  as tx volumes rose. And that he didn't think it was a problem either.
smoothie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2128
Merit: 1018


LEALANA Monero Physical Silver Coins


View Profile
November 20, 2014, 05:34:08 AM
 #17653

hey, looky here.  thanks to brg444, i've catapulted past D&T to #2 poster here on the forum.  thanks brg444!  take me to #1!



Don't worry I will catch up Cypher.  Grin Grin Grin

not while i have my shadow assassin.

That other guy posting in this thread?

███████████████████████████████████████

            ,╓p@@███████@╗╖,           
        ,p████████████████████N,       
      d█████████████████████████b     
    d██████████████████████████████æ   
  ,████²█████████████████████████████, 
 ,█████  ╙████████████████████╨  █████y
 ██████    `████████████████`    ██████
║██████       Ñ███████████`      ███████
███████         ╩██████Ñ         ███████
███████    ▐▄     ²██╩     a▌    ███████
╢██████    ▐▓█▄          ▄█▓▌    ███████
 ██████    ▐▓▓▓▓▌,     ▄█▓▓▓▌    ██████─
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓█,,▄▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
    ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓─  
     ²▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓╩    
        ▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀       
           ²▀▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀▀`          
                   ²²²                 
███████████████████████████████████████

. ★☆ WWW.LEALANA.COM        My PGP fingerprint is A764D833.                  History of Monero development Visualization ★☆ .
LEALANA  PHYSICAL MONERO COINS 999 FINE SILVER.
 
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3248
Merit: 1130


View Profile
November 20, 2014, 05:46:26 AM
 #17654


Part of my research btwn Jan 2011 and April 2011 before I made my first investment was talking to key people one of which was theymos. He's been around at least as long as anyone else and one of the things I clearly remember him saying was that he could see significant consolidation to large server farms  as tx volumes rose. And that he didn't think it was a problem either.

Be that as it may, it is diametrically opposite of what was pumped out for newbie consumption when they were trying to rope people in.

I myself always knew that it was a distinct possibility given the technical issues but figured I had a notable possibility of making a dime even if Bitcoin did go down the shit-hole.

I also figured that Bitcoin had the potential to become something worthwhile if clever people could rescue it in time.  Again, that is why I'm so excited about sidechains.

In 2011 I would not have guessed that in 2015 the future of Bitcoin would still hang in the balance described above.  I would have expected it to have gone one way or the other by this time.  I did not anticipate that off-chain transaction systems (sucky non-sound-money ones such as the exchanges and coinbases though they may be) would give Bitcoin a chance to make it this far and still have hope.  I guess I don't predict everything correctly.


sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1694
Merit: 1003



View Profile
November 20, 2014, 05:58:14 AM
 #17655


Part of my research btwn Jan 2011 and April 2011 before I made my first investment was talking to key people one of which was theymos. He's been around at least as long as anyone else and one of the things I clearly remember him saying was that he could see significant consolidation to large server farms  as tx volumes rose. And that he didn't think it was a problem either.

Be that as it may, it is diametrically opposite of what was pumped out for newbie consumption when they were trying to rope people in.


That's not true. Bitcoin is correctly marketed as "decentralized". It's not marketed as "every single human in the world gets an equal say forever no matter what". Various aspects of bitcoin can (and probably will) consolidate significantly and yet remain far more decentralized and far better than alternatives. And that's what matters; remaining on a different level than the legacy financial system.



In 2011 I would not have guessed that in 2015 the future of Bitcoin would still hang in the balance described above. 


I somehow think you're always going to feel that way. In 2019, when things have consolidated further (yet still kept the essence of the system), and usage is an order of magnitude or two higher, you're still going to be feeling that tension because the industrialization/commercialization will be driving your idealism mad.


Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3248
Merit: 1130


View Profile
November 20, 2014, 06:08:36 AM
 #17656


Part of my research btwn Jan 2011 and April 2011 before I made my first investment was talking to key people one of which was theymos. He's been around at least as long as anyone else and one of the things I clearly remember him saying was that he could see significant consolidation to large server farms  as tx volumes rose. And that he didn't think it was a problem either.

Be that as it may, it is diametrically opposite of what was pumped out for newbie consumption when they were trying to rope people in.


That's not true. Bitcoin is correctly marketed as "decentralized". It's not marketed as "every single human in the world gets an equal say forever no matter what". Various aspects of bitcoin can (and probably will) consolidate significantly and yet remain far more decentralized and far better than alternatives. And that's what matters; remaining on a different level than the legacy financial system.

Maybe you remember the dusty old term 'peer-2-peer'?

I got my share of abuse for proposing that it should be deprecated as a sales pitch before it became a total joke since that is the way things are heading.


In 2011 I would not have guessed that in 2015 the future of Bitcoin would still hang in the balance described above. 


I somehow think you're always going to feel that way. In 2019, when things have consolidated further (yet still kept the essence of the system), and usage is an order of magnitude or two higher, you're still going to be feeling that tension because the industrialization/commercialization will be driving your idealism mad.

Whatever.  I'll be more wealthy more quickly at least, and that will make the disappointment more palatable.


sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
79b79aa8d5047da6d3XX
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 663
Merit: 101


Colletrix - Bridging the Physical and Virtual Worl


View Profile
November 20, 2014, 06:14:07 AM
Last edit: May 20, 2015, 05:09:08 AM by 79b79aa8d5047da6d3XX
 #17657

hey, looky here.  thanks to brg444, i've catapulted past D&T to #2 poster here on the forum.  thanks brg444!  take me to #1!



Don't worry I will catch up Cypher.  Grin Grin Grin


chartbuddy will outpost you all.


Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1694
Merit: 1003



View Profile
November 20, 2014, 06:15:39 AM
 #17658


Part of my research btwn Jan 2011 and April 2011 before I made my first investment was talking to key people one of which was theymos. He's been around at least as long as anyone else and one of the things I clearly remember him saying was that he could see significant consolidation to large server farms  as tx volumes rose. And that he didn't think it was a problem either.

Be that as it may, it is diametrically opposite of what was pumped out for newbie consumption when they were trying to rope people in.


That's not true. Bitcoin is correctly marketed as "decentralized". It's not marketed as "every single human in the world gets an equal say forever no matter what". Various aspects of bitcoin can (and probably will) consolidate significantly and yet remain far more decentralized and far better than alternatives. And that's what matters; remaining on a different level than the legacy financial system.

Maybe you remember the dusty old term 'peer-2-peer'?

I got my share of abuse for proposing that it should be deprecated as a sales pitch before it became a total joke since that is the way things are heading.


Well, then we have to get pedantic. Bitcoin was *never* peer-to-peer. A miner technically always sits in the middle, even if the hashing/nodes were perfectly uniformly distributed.




In 2011 I would not have guessed that in 2015 the future of Bitcoin would still hang in the balance described above.



I somehow think you're always going to feel that way. In 2019, when things have consolidated further (yet still kept the essence of the system), and usage is an order of magnitude or two higher, you're still going to be feeling that tension because the industrialization/commercialization will be driving your idealism mad.

Whatever.  I'll be more wealthy more quickly at least, and that will make the disappointment more palatable.



Heh. I almost ended my post with: "But you'll not want for capital."

Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3248
Merit: 1130


View Profile
November 20, 2014, 06:32:22 AM
 #17659


Maybe you remember the dusty old term 'peer-2-peer'?

I got my share of abuse for proposing that it should be deprecated as a sales pitch before it became a total joke since that is the way things are heading.


Well, then we have to get pedantic. Bitcoin was *never* peer-to-peer. A miner technically always sits in the middle, even if the hashing/nodes were perfectly uniformly distributed.

Fair point.  Even though when I first compiled the code it had mining software, I'll not argue from that perspective.  Probably at a bare minimum everyone would have anticipated some specialization on the mining end of things.

I'll also argue against my thesis in that it would have been a no-brainer to reward the transfer network and verifies (full nodes) if it were considered a desirable thing to have well represented in the network.

Maybe you are right and the whole thing was a pump-n-dump.  If so, I'm glad I dumped some already because there is every possibility that many people will be enthusiastic enough about a 'real' Bitcoin to get one going once the original has proven to be a hoax from the get-go.


sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153
Merit: 1000


View Profile
November 20, 2014, 06:50:59 AM
 #17660

Be that as it may, it is diametrically opposite of what was pumped out for newbie consumption when they were trying to rope people in.

That's not true. Bitcoin is correctly marketed as "decentralized". It's not marketed as "every single human in the world gets an equal say forever no matter what". Various aspects of bitcoin can (and probably will) consolidate significantly and yet remain far more decentralized and far better than alternatives. And that's what matters; remaining on a different level than the legacy financial system.

Maybe you remember the dusty old term 'peer-2-peer'?

I got my share of abuse for proposing that it should be deprecated as a sales pitch before it became a total joke since that is the way things are heading.

I think people forget that the P2P network is just as much a part of Bitcoin's protection mechanism as block mining is, if not the most important part. And the P2P network remains quite decentralized (I currently have 2 nodes running, one at home and one in AWS and neither mine for blocks)

The blockchain created by miners functions as the network wide official historical record. It enables newly joined nodes to compute the current ledger state to join the network, and prevents a poorly connected network from having separate node groups diverge.

But it is nodes on the P2P network who: Validate transactions, Transmit transactions across the network (and to miners), Block double spend attempts (the network quickly agrees on the "first" spend), Validate mined blocks and Monitor/track re-orgs.

We could have a single miner left, but the P2P network would still function as a mechanism to keep that miner honest. As long as that miner included all valid transactions from the network's memory pool and did not issue block re-orgs then Bitcoin is OK. If that miner tried to a) reject certain transactions (never include certain trans in blocks), b) issue double spends (insert trans into a block that conflicted with the P2P's selection), or c) re-write history (by re-organizing farther than 1 block back), then any of this would be very visible to the P2P network and the network could collectively decide on a more honest blockchain mechanism.

Mining can become more centralized because their actions are very visible and more importantly validated by decentralized peers, which any of us can participate in. That is the meaning when we say Bitcoin is decentralized, it is that we all can participate in the network's validation, mining is one aspect of that validation but not the only aspect.

As a thought experiment try comparing Bitcoin with only a few miners plus the P2P network, to either the FED or the London bullion depository. Even in that scenario Bitcoin is infinitely more visable and verifiable than either FED dollars or gold bar existence/ownership.
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 ... 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!