Bitcoin Forum
November 20, 2017, 02:30:17 PM *
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 ... 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 [962] 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2010075 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
December 31, 2014, 08:40:06 PM
 #19221



The point about the investment is both parties (Blockstream & investors) have made it quite clear that the reason for the existence of Blockstream first and foremost is to promote & improve the Bitcoin ecosystem as a public good.




Oh come on man. Even you're smart enough to know we,  as a  community,  should not buy into that sort of promise. History is littered with failed projects that were based on such naivete.  
1511188217
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511188217

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511188217
Reply with quote  #2

1511188217
Report to moderator
1511188217
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511188217

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511188217
Reply with quote  #2

1511188217
Report to moderator
1511188217
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511188217

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511188217
Reply with quote  #2

1511188217
Report to moderator
Join ICO Now A blockchain platform for effective freelancing
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511188217
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511188217

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511188217
Reply with quote  #2

1511188217
Report to moderator
1511188217
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511188217

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511188217
Reply with quote  #2

1511188217
Report to moderator
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
December 31, 2014, 08:42:58 PM
 #19222

You really should stop. Adam and the rest of us were having a decent conversation and now you're going to scare him away.

Strange, it seems to me Adam has made quite a case that characters the likes of yours are the reason he stays away from here.

"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
December 31, 2014, 08:57:08 PM
 #19223



The point about the investment is both parties (Blockstream & investors) have made it quite clear that the reason for the existence of Blockstream first and foremost is to promote & improve the Bitcoin ecosystem as a public good.




Oh come on man. Even you're smart enough to know we,  as a  community,  should not buy into that sort of promise. History is littered with failed projects that were based on such naivete.  

That's the problem. Whatever they will say you will attach ill intentions to them.

Excercising common sense & being cautious is one thing. Clouding your judgement with personal grudges and ill-informed opinions is another.

The model they are working from (Mozilla Foundation) is an excellent example of such projects that has succeeded. Given the backing they've received, the mindshare & the resources available to them my bet is the Blockstream venture will be a success as well.

"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
December 31, 2014, 09:01:17 PM
 #19224

You really should stop. Adam and the rest of us were having a decent conversation and now you're going to scare him away.

Strange, it seems to me Adam has made quite a case that characters the likes of yours are the reason he stays away from here.

Note to brg444:

He's here and been here for several days with over a dozen or so posts despite, and maybe because of me. Who knows. All I care about is that I'm learning his perspective and if more people convert to being SC proponents as a result, great. Who knows, I might be converted. There's a lot at stake here and you're not helping with your spamming.

Let's see how much he posts now that you're here. He's quite capable of schooling me on his own if what he says has merit. He doesn't need your help.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
December 31, 2014, 09:10:14 PM
 #19225

You really should stop. Adam and the rest of us were having a decent conversation and now you're going to scare him away.

Strange, it seems to me Adam has made quite a case that characters the likes of yours are the reason he stays away from here.

Note to brg444:

He's here and been here for several days with over a dozen or so posts despite, and maybe because of me. Who knows. All I care about is that I'm learning his perspective and if more people convert to being SC proponents as a result, great. Who knows, I might be converted. There's a lot at stake here and you're not helping with your spamming.

Let's see how much he posts now that you're here. He's quite capable of schooling me on his own if what he says has merit. He doesn't need your help.

Spamming?

I am merely attempting to correct some misconceived opinions. If you've read Adam's post it is apparent he doesn't quite hold you in high-esteem. I'm certain you could careless because you're cypherdoc and you're so awesome, found Bitcoin and understood it as sound money in 2011, etc, etc. but that's beside the point.

Quote
and maybe because of me.

there's that ego again  Cheesy

"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
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596



View Profile
December 31, 2014, 09:15:53 PM
 #19226

Spamming?

I agree with CD, although the term spamming isn't really the right one.

Your volume of posts on the thread is too high and content per post is too low.

Nobody appointed you truth police to refute each individual cyperdoc post you disagree with, even when you have nothing new to add.

It isn't about you being a side chain supporter either. There are other side chain supporters here who express the same views as you but do so while contributing a lot more value per post (Adam for example).

The thread was more compelling in your absence or relative absence. Please cool it.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
December 31, 2014, 09:18:07 PM
 #19227

You really should stop. Adam and the rest of us were having a decent conversation and now you're going to scare him away.

Strange, it seems to me Adam has made quite a case that characters the likes of yours are the reason he stays away from here.

Note to brg444:

He's here and been here for several days with over a dozen or so posts despite, and maybe because of me. Who knows. All I care about is that I'm learning his perspective and if more people convert to being SC proponents as a result, great. Who knows, I might be converted. There's a lot at stake here and you're not helping with your spamming.

Let's see how much he posts now that you're here. He's quite capable of schooling me on his own if what he says has merit. He doesn't need your help.

Spamming?

I am merely attempting to correct some misconceived opinions. If you've read Adam's post it is apparent he doesn't quite hold you in high-esteem. I'm certain you could careless because you're cypherdoc and you're so awesome, found Bitcoin and understood it as sound money in 2011, etc, etc. but that's beside the point.

Quote
and maybe because of me.

there's that ego again  Cheesy

No, it's just that I recognize that he wouldn't be here were  it not for the fact that I have been one of the more vocal opponents of SC's as well as being an early adopter with a popular thread. 
jertsy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336


View Profile
December 31, 2014, 09:24:03 PM
 #19228

How come the thread was locked a while ago?
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
December 31, 2014, 09:27:50 PM
 #19229

Spamming?

I agree with CD, although the term spamming isn't really the right one.

Your volume of posts on the thread is too high and content per post is too low.

Nobody appointed you truth police to refute each individual cyperdoc post you disagree with, even when you have nothing new to add.

It isn't about you being a side chain supporter either. There are other side chain supporters here who express the same views as you but do so while contributing a lot more value per post (Adam for example).

The thread was more compelling in your absence or relative absence. Please cool it.

I'm sorry but there is a particular disingenuity in cypherdoc discourse that irritates & annoys me to the highest point.

Even though it is his own thread I don't believe it justifies or provide him with the right to promote slander, FUD or half-truths.

You accuse me of repeating the same content when cypherdoc has been parroting the same non-sense about sidechains & "sound money" anytime he gets the chance.

"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
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596



View Profile
December 31, 2014, 09:31:25 PM
 #19230

You accuse me of repeating the same content when cypherdoc has been parroting the same non-sense about sidechains & "sound money" anytime he gets the chance.

Except that he also posts on a variety of other topics that add value. You don't.

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596



View Profile
December 31, 2014, 09:34:53 PM
 #19231

I have some first hand knowledge that some companies are patenting things related to bitcoin, and probably much more I dont know about.

Thats another reason to want to be cautious about side chains and all this blossoming innovation. Every new improvement creates new openings for patents. If it is broken, then by all means fix it. But if it isn't broken, it might be best to leave well enough alone and let the patent clock on the existing methods run out.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
December 31, 2014, 10:17:00 PM
 #19232

short term Dow Theory non-confirmation right on time corresponding to a complex double bottom in Bitcoin after an overextended year long downturn.  i really like this setup:



cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
December 31, 2014, 10:32:19 PM
 #19233

if natural gas was supposed to be the new bull market in energy to replace that of oil, why is it plunging along with it?

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
December 31, 2014, 10:34:35 PM
 #19234

with energy stocks hot on their heels to the downside:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
December 31, 2014, 10:38:58 PM
 #19235

creeping fear.  trendline holding:

adam3us
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 400


in bitcoin we trust


View Profile WWW
December 31, 2014, 10:47:41 PM
 #19236

[A majority cartel] can only force soft-forks, hard-forks are ignored by full-nodes and clients.  An attempted forced-hard fork results in hostile miners forming an alt-coin with no users.  The limiting factor is soft-forks are quite flexible and can do a lot, some of which could be undesirable.

Perhaps I did not explain myself clearly.  Here is a more detailed scenario:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2qdfat/without_downvoting_me_to_hell_can_someone_explain/cn5s41z

Is there anything wrong with that, technically or economically?

(Summary being from the reddit attack described at the above link that a miner with > 50% DoS's transactions on bitcoin chain (ie does not accept any transactions just mines empty blocks on the main chain people are trying to use) until people either abandon bitcoin or capitulate and adopt the rules the DoS miner is threatening.) 

Yeah that is kind of logical, there are some caveats.  The miner has a lot of capital invested maybe > $300m to do that now.  (You can be sure most pool miners would abandon a pool that did that.)  This is going to be disruptive to bitcoin confidence and price and that affects the value of bitcoins they are mining, or the equipment itself which is worthless if bitcoin fails or crashes badly as a result.  Dangerous game to play with a $300m good behaviour bond.  Secondly while they are DoSing bitcoin, they are not mining coins nor on their proposed alternative chain at any kind of usable speed as they have almost no hashpower left (if they have 55% and they're using 53% to DoS bitcoin that gives them 500min blocks if the new chain has the same difficulty.  If the new chain has reset difficulty the honest miners might DoS it in retaliation (block transactions there).  Now if the attacker had maybe 70% they could dominate both chains reliably.

This is beyond mining a new hard-fork protocol version (which honest users and full nodes would ignore) and more DoS warfare to kill the main chain to give users a choice of no transactions or to fold and use the new chain.  I would imagine users would be annoyed enough about that so as to be a scenario where the bit red button might get pushed - destroying the $300m capital of the attacker (and the $245m of the rest of the miners who probably are going to sue the attacker, and its not easy to hide the delivery and location of $300m worth of mining equipment drawing perhaps a GW of power.)

Quote
Quote from: adam3us
the nuclear big-red-button [...] MAD argument that keeps miners somewhat sensible as if that button is pushed they are sitting on $500m of scrap electronics

[...] Putting it more simply: an entity that can jam some process for sufficiently long time can force the people who depend on that process to accept changes to it, as long as the changes are not as bad as the jamming itself.

Yep its a unfortunate.  This is why decentralisation of mining is important.

Quote
Quote from: adam3us
Outside of spam limits which could be protocol enforced, its caveat emptor, you shouldnt put money into a chain unless there is some assurance that security & bitcoin protocol knowledgeable people have audited it.  

That is my understanding, and that is I why I cannot see any technical content in the sidechains proposal.  Unless it specifies some things that every sidechain must do (or must not do), with a mechanism to enforce those constraints, it will not bring any new tools or ideas to cryptocurrency technology.  So far it is only a nomenclature proposal: "let's use the word 'sidechain' for any project or entity that could 'own' some bitcoins for some time".

I dont think you cant really technically enforce freedom from security issues or freedom from bad economic parameter choices kind of stuff, thats probably AI / halting-problem type difficulty which we dont know how to do.  You could certainly make some best practices statement about how security should be achieved, and acceptable parameters and configurations for user safety, and have someone competent audit that and certify their audit.

Quote
Why wouldn't Bitstamp be already a sidechain, for example?

Well bitstamp isnt trying to algorithmically peg - they're saying trust our host security, cold wallet physical security, audit, governance / separation of duty etc.  Ie you are trusting humans to manage an IOU.  (Not saying bitstamp is a bad exchange).

Adam

hashcash, committed transactions, homomorphic values, blind kdf; researching decentralization, scalability and fungibility/anonymity
adam3us
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 400


in bitcoin we trust


View Profile WWW
December 31, 2014, 10:51:31 PM
 #19237

I have some first hand knowledge that some companies are patenting things related to bitcoin, and probably much more I dont know about.

Thats another reason to want to be cautious about side chains and all this blossoming innovation. Every new improvement creates new openings for patents. If it is broken, then by all means fix it. But if it isn't broken, it might be best to leave well enough alone and let the patent clock on the existing methods run out.


Patent trolls dont feel the need to be concrete - there are patents on how to run a CPU on top of homomorphic encryption before there is usable performance FHE.

The world badly needs patent reform.  Ban patents, copyright cant be too soon IMO.

Adam

hashcash, committed transactions, homomorphic values, blind kdf; researching decentralization, scalability and fungibility/anonymity
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
December 31, 2014, 10:59:03 PM
 #19238

[A majority cartel] can only force soft-forks, hard-forks are ignored by full-nodes and clients.  An attempted forced-hard fork results in hostile miners forming an alt-coin with no users.  The limiting factor is soft-forks are quite flexible and can do a lot, some of which could be undesirable.

Perhaps I did not explain myself clearly.  Here is a more detailed scenario:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2qdfat/without_downvoting_me_to_hell_can_someone_explain/cn5s41z

Is there anything wrong with that, technically or economically?

(Summary being from the reddit attack described at the above link that a miner with > 50% DoS's transactions on bitcoin chain (ie does not accept any transactions just mines empty blocks on the main chain people are trying to use) until people either abandon bitcoin or capitulate and adopt the rules the DoS miner is threatening.)  

Yeah that is kind of logical, there are some caveats.  The miner has a lot of capital invested maybe > $300m to do that now.  (You can be sure most pool miners would abandon a pool that did that.)  This is going to be disruptive to bitcoin confidence and price and that affects the value of bitcoins they are mining, or the equipment itself which is worthless if bitcoin fails or crashes badly as a result.  Dangerous game to play with a $300m good behaviour bond.  Secondly while they are DoSing bitcoin, they are not mining coins nor on their proposed alternative chain at any kind of usable speed as they have almost no hashpower left (if they have 55% and they're using 53% to DoS bitcoin that gives them 500min blocks if the new chain has the same difficulty.  If the new chain has reset difficulty the honest miners might DoS it in retaliation (block transactions there).  Now if the attacker had maybe 70% they could dominate both chains reliably.

This is beyond mining a new hard-fork protocol version (which honest users and full nodes would ignore) and more DoS warfare to kill the main chain to give users a choice of no transactions or to fold and use the new chain.  I would imagine users would be annoyed enough about that so as to be a scenario where the bit red button might get pushed - destroying the $300m capital of the attacker (and the $245m of the rest of the miners who probably are going to sue the attacker, and its not easy to hide the delivery and location of $300m worth of mining equipment drawing perhaps a GW of power.)

Quote
Quote from: adam3us
the nuclear big-red-button [...] MAD argument that keeps miners somewhat sensible as if that button is pushed they are sitting on $500m of scrap electronics

[...] Putting it more simply: an entity that can jam some process for sufficiently long time can force the people who depend on that process to accept changes to it, as long as the changes are not as bad as the jamming itself.

Yep its a unfortunate.  This is why decentralisation of mining is important.

Quote
Quote from: adam3us
Outside of spam limits which could be protocol enforced, its caveat emptor, you shouldnt put money into a chain unless there is some assurance that security & bitcoin protocol knowledgeable people have audited it.  

That is my understanding, and that is I why I cannot see any technical content in the sidechains proposal.  Unless it specifies some things that every sidechain must do (or must not do), with a mechanism to enforce those constraints, it will not bring any new tools or ideas to cryptocurrency technology.  So far it is only a nomenclature proposal: "let's use the word 'sidechain' for any project or entity that could 'own' some bitcoins for some time".

I dont think you cant really technically enforce freedom from security issues or freedom from bad economic parameter choices kind of stuff, thats probably AI / halting-problem type difficulty which we dont know how to do.  You could certainly make some best practices statement about how security should be achieved, and acceptable parameters and configurations for user safety, and have someone competent audit that and certify their audit.

Quote
Why wouldn't Bitstamp be already a sidechain, for example?

Well bitstamp isnt trying to algorithmically peg - they're saying trust our host security, cold wallet physical security, audit, governance / separation of duty etc.  Ie you are trusting humans to manage an IOU.  (Not saying bitstamp is a bad exchange).

Adam


Jorge, your answer is here.  notice how much of what you fear as Unknown is actually known. mining is naturally evening out as i predicted long ago according to Nash Equilibrium.  pro-tip:  don't use blockchain.info for pool stats:

http://mempool.info/pools

adam3us
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 400


in bitcoin we trust


View Profile WWW
December 31, 2014, 11:31:16 PM
 #19239

Adam, how can you possibly say you're not "for-profit" when in fact that is precisely what Blockstream is?  do you seriously expect us to believe that Reid Hoffman, et al invested $21M while not expecting at least a 10x return on their investment?

I read somewhere that they invested personally instead of via organized venture funds specifically because they are bitcoin supporters and the investment didn't really meet the usual criteria for the funds (roughly described by you as a 10x return). I can't vouch for any of this being actually true or relevant, but I did read it.

That doesn't jive with this from their blog:

The round was led by Reid Hoffman, Khosla Ventures and Real Ventures, with investments from Nicolas Berggruen, Crypto Currency Partners, Future\Perfect Ventures, Danny Hillis, Eric Schmidt’s Innovation Endeavors, Max Levchin, Mosaic Ventures, Ray Ozzie, Ribbit Capital, Jerry Yang’s AME Cloud Ventures and several others.

http://www.blockstream.com/2014/11/17/blockstream-closes-21m-seed-round/

Well maybe it isn't true then.

I agree with you that a for profit entity should be assumed to be in business to generate profits, and unless they can convincingly tell us how they plan to do that, ulterior (though not necessarily nefarious) motives should be assumed. That is just common sense.

The quote didnt say not to make a profit it said to have a dual objective and compared the approach to Mozilla.  Mozilla made plenty of profit (and is a hybrid incorporating both a for profit and a not-for-profit) and also did a good job of making the firefox browser a leading source of user ethos focussed innovation and features.

Greg Maxwell (nullc on reddit) wrote some about how blockstream plans to make profit.  

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2k3u97/we_are_bitcoin_sidechain_paper_authors_adam_back/clhoo7d

I dont think making a profit is a bad thing - to hire developers & QA and UX designers and maintain software and design protocols and figure out how to use smart-contracts and find business partnerships to make those available to users all takes money.  As those are good outcomes, and require more money, you have to have a profit to fuel it, you cant rely on investors to keep putting in more rounds!

Its quite feasible to make money without being controlling, proprietary, centralising or evil.  We certainly aim to try.

Adam

hashcash, committed transactions, homomorphic values, blind kdf; researching decentralization, scalability and fungibility/anonymity
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
December 31, 2014, 11:35:46 PM
 #19240

How come the thread was locked a while ago?

that's what happens when you hit the wrong button on your Android while biking  Wink
Pages: « 1 ... 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 [962] 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 ... 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!