Bitcoin Forum
December 02, 2016, 08:20:48 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   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 ... 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 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1803336 times)
_mr_e
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 814


View Profile
January 02, 2015, 03:48:33 PM
 #19381

http://cointelegraph.com/news/113223/the-nxt-client-just-gave-me-a-braingasm

More importantly... Nxt is a platform, not an altcoin. A massive amount of innovative projects are being built on top, SuperNet being the biggest one that you should not be ignoring: http://cointelegraph.com/news/113229/supernet-super-competition-for-fiat

There's also FreeMarket, Lyth, InstantDex, TradeBots, financial privacy and anon tech that destroys coinjoin/mix, FinHive's blockchain AI tech(http://finhive.com/roadmap.html), distributed plugin system(verifiable untamporable web app plugins stored on the blockchain), the multigateway, decentralized poker, p2p sprtsbetting/dice/casino, etc... I could go on and on.

Sounds like a lot of people wasting time and BTC to me.

Appears Fred Wilson agrees

http://avc.com/2015/01/what-is-going-to-happen/

8/ The horrible year that bitcoin had in 2014 will be a wakeup call for all stakeholders. Developers will turn their energy from creating the next bitcoin (all the alt stuff) to creating the stack on top of the bitcoin blockchain. Real decentralized applications will start to emerge as the platform matures and entrepreneurial energy is channeled in the right direction.

Appears Andreas agrees:

http://youtu.be/jw28y81s7Wo?t=16m30s

Looks like Jeff Berwick is interested as well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JT7P9P7kig

Adam B Lavine and Stephanie Murphy are also very interested. Along with Kristov Atlas, Jason King, Roger Ver, Anthony DiLoria, Elizabeth Ploshay, Shawn @ team storj... and MANY others. 319 contributers and counting.

The SuperNet project is not some dinky toy. It will be a serious force in 2015, I've been saying this for months and people are beginning to wake up. Nxt up 20% over the past 2 days. SuperNet has held very strong over this bear market, that says something. When all the supernet start paying out dividends for it's massively growing list of included projects/services, watch out!
1480710048
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480710048

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480710048
Reply with quote  #2

1480710048
Report to moderator
1480710048
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480710048

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480710048
Reply with quote  #2

1480710048
Report to moderator
1480710048
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480710048

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480710048
Reply with quote  #2

1480710048
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470



View Profile
January 02, 2015, 04:03:28 PM
 #19382

http://cointelegraph.com/news/113223/the-nxt-client-just-gave-me-a-braingasm

More importantly... Nxt is a platform, not an altcoin. A massive amount of innovative projects are being built on top, SuperNet being the biggest one that you should not be ignoring: http://cointelegraph.com/news/113229/supernet-super-competition-for-fiat

The article describes something more like SuperNet running as a layer under Nxt ... which is bizarre when you consider that a big selling point of Nxt is a decentralised exchange platform. How long before an internet of internets containing internets of blockchains (with sidechains?  Cheesy)

Vires in numeris
_mr_e
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 814


View Profile
January 02, 2015, 04:05:13 PM
 #19383

http://cointelegraph.com/news/113223/the-nxt-client-just-gave-me-a-braingasm

More importantly... Nxt is a platform, not an altcoin. A massive amount of innovative projects are being built on top, SuperNet being the biggest one that you should not be ignoring: http://cointelegraph.com/news/113229/supernet-super-competition-for-fiat

The article describes something more like SuperNet running as a layer under Nxt ... which is bizarre when you consider that a big selling point of Nxt is a decentralised exchange platform. How long before an internet of internets containing internets of blockchains (with sidechains?  Cheesy)

SuperNet is a layer on TOP of nxt. It uses many of Nxt's features such as secure messaging, asset settlement and many other pieces. It also uses features from every other coin and can apply these features to every coin, including bitcoin. InstantDex will support dynamic coin2coin/coin2asset orderbooks which means nxt assets can actually be priced and purchased directly with bitcoin instead of going through the Nxt token. This can also apply to FreeMarket so that goods in the store can be purchased directly with Bitcoin.
jmw74
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 236


View Profile
January 02, 2015, 04:06:36 PM
 #19384

Looks like Jeff Berwick is interested as well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JT7P9P7kig
Jeff Berwick, really?

All you need to know about that guy, you can find here:

https://www.dollarvigilante.com/blog/2014/8/27/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-on-galts-gulch-chile.html

He reminds me of Zuckerberg, the way he shovels obvious bullshit, thinking he's so smart and his audience is so stupid, that they won't spot the glaring inconsistencies.
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470



View Profile
January 02, 2015, 04:20:59 PM
 #19385

http://cointelegraph.com/news/113223/the-nxt-client-just-gave-me-a-braingasm

More importantly... Nxt is a platform, not an altcoin. A massive amount of innovative projects are being built on top, SuperNet being the biggest one that you should not be ignoring: http://cointelegraph.com/news/113229/supernet-super-competition-for-fiat

The article describes something more like SuperNet running as a layer under Nxt ... which is bizarre when you consider that a big selling point of Nxt is a decentralised exchange platform. How long before an internet of internets containing internets of blockchains (with sidechains?  Cheesy)

SuperNet is a layer on TOP of nxt. It uses many of Nxt's features such as secure messaging, asset settlement and many other pieces. It also uses features from every other coin and can apply these features to every coin, including bitcoin. InstantDex will support dynamic coin2coin/coin2asset orderbooks which means nxt assets can actually be priced and purchased directly with bitcoin instead of going through the Nxt token. This can also apply to FreeMarket so that goods in the store can be purchased directly with Bitcoin.

You're right, having a decentralised exchange within a decentralised exchange is a structurally suspect concept.

Vires in numeris
_mr_e
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 814


View Profile
January 02, 2015, 04:25:03 PM
 #19386

http://cointelegraph.com/news/113223/the-nxt-client-just-gave-me-a-braingasm

More importantly... Nxt is a platform, not an altcoin. A massive amount of innovative projects are being built on top, SuperNet being the biggest one that you should not be ignoring: http://cointelegraph.com/news/113229/supernet-super-competition-for-fiat

The article describes something more like SuperNet running as a layer under Nxt ... which is bizarre when you consider that a big selling point of Nxt is a decentralised exchange platform. How long before an internet of internets containing internets of blockchains (with sidechains?  Cheesy)

SuperNet is a layer on TOP of nxt. It uses many of Nxt's features such as secure messaging, asset settlement and many other pieces. It also uses features from every other coin and can apply these features to every coin, including bitcoin. InstantDex will support dynamic coin2coin/coin2asset orderbooks which means nxt assets can actually be priced and purchased directly with bitcoin instead of going through the Nxt token. This can also apply to FreeMarket so that goods in the store can be purchased directly with Bitcoin.

You're right, having a decentralised exchange within a decentralised exchange is a structurally suspect concept.

There are very important differances. Within Nxt everything happens on the blockchain. It costs 1 nxt to place order, cancel order etc, and you have to wait for a block to confirm. It also only support Nxt/asset pairs. With InstantDex/SuperNet, orders can be placed or cancelled for free - instantly via direct p2p comms. It also supports dynamic order books of any trading pair. Trade settlement then occurs ON blockchain. Atomic cross chain trades will also be supported.
This will destroy centralized exchanges and the need to entrust them with your money. I believe it will one day form a massive pool of liquidity and knock down the current barriers we have with each exchange being it's own separate walled garden.

Again, Nxt is a platform meant to be built on and extended, it is not a "coin". People have begun to realize what kind of innovative power that gives them. SuperNet is only the first "killer app" to come.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 02, 2015, 05:17:40 PM
 #19387

someone's liquidating assets.  this is gonna cause real problems for debt based speculators.:



nice intraday reversal with continuation of the short term Dow Theory non-confirmation:



growth? what growth?



continuing flight to black hole shit.  that's not good:



fear is still upon us:

Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
January 02, 2015, 05:38:14 PM
 #19388

I think it was Gavin's argument that as long as the typical home internet connection in the developed world was sufficient for running a full node at the blocksize limit, then this was sufficient protection against centralization risk.  I think it was this type of logic that he used to come up with the 20 MB limit + 50% / year growth proposal (which my gut tells me is too aggressive).  
This is not a definition of "centralization risk"
...

Haha, I thought you'd call me on my non-answer to your question.

Quote
What is centralization risk? How do we know it exists? How to we measure it so that we can compared two proposed courses of action to predict how they will affect it? How will we know if our estimates were accurate or not after the fact?

Instead of trying to guess unknowable magic numbers, identify the problems which prevent price discovery from functioning and fix those.

The blocksize debate gets muddled if we don't clearly differentiate between the blocksize limit and the actual average blocksize. When you mentioned "identify(ing) the problems which prevent price discovery from functioning and fix(ing) those," I assume you're talking about the price of actual P2P bandwidth/Blockchain space…in other words, things that affect the average blocksize rather than the limits on the blocksize that I was discussing.  When it comes to the blocksize limits, it sounds like you're advocating for nothing at all:

That price can not be discovered as long as there's a production quota tilting the scale.

Gavin's proposal basically removes the production quota you don't like, just not all at once, and in a way that we hope will allow an user with a typical home internet connection to continue to operate a full node.  I don't see how implementing Gavin's scalability proposal hinders price discovery for blockchain space / P2P bandwidth to any significant degree (and you must agree that it would be an improvement when compared to the current 1 MB cap).

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 02, 2015, 05:38:45 PM
 #19389

Just like with bitcoin we should evaluate these new opcodes on their technical merit not on who submitted them.

Hey Zerg - no fair - too much signal density (signal/byte!)  

This is bitcointalk - where's the trolling, name-calling, ad-hominem or claim of bad faith bias?

cypherdoc - can you do us a favour and redress the karmic balance before the signal gets too high in here?  Gotta rev up the flame war, it was fun!

Adam


Adam,

i've been nice to you ever since you entered this thread in a big way.  yet this is about the 4th time you've called me a troll despite the fact i even complimented you on your POW work. don't expect that to continue forever.  instead, perhaps you might want to answer some of the real questions i've posed to you but you have failed to answer:

Adam,

1. in the WP, you mentioned that it is possible that if a SC became popular enough, then Bitcoiners might have to move all their BTC to the SC.  what about those who don't get the memo?  this question is similar to the big debate we had a couple years ago about harvesting apparent "un-used" addresses.  that was obviously shot down real quick in that there is no way to ever be sure exactly that the true owner was dead or had lost the privkey.

2. philosopically, do you see Bitcoin as Money or as an economic "system" for trading assets of all types?

3. what real difference is there in forcing more transparency (as we are now doing with Merkle root audits, regulation, better VC funded exchanges) on 3rd party merchants vs. using SC's where supposedly we will be able to view the source code to ensure no backdoors (only a select few can do that)?  i would argue that the former is no different than the real mechanisms we have today and therefore not experimental or as risky to the degree you're wanting to construct via an unprecedented and untested 2wp.  i say risky b/c i am still not convinced that separating the BTC unit from its native blockchain (MC) is a safe economic thing to do.  its not safe b/c it requires all sorts of new assumptions/requirements such as no bugs in the spvp itself, 100% MM of the SC to be simply "as safe", no bugs or backdoors in the SC code written by all the unscrupulous altcoin devs that you despise of which only a few in the Bitcoin community will be able to vet via inspection of their code.  i expect hundreds of SC's to pop up as a result of your proposal and you yourself said that there are really only a few in the community who could or would take the time to vet potentially malicious code.  given this proliferation, if i'm right, how can honest devs ever keep up with this?

4. given that most of the real world already views a fixed supply of any currency as a liability, what feedback effects do you think a continuous destruction of scBTC from failed SC's will have on Bitcoin itself?  please just don't say "it will only make our BTC go up!"  i think the answer needs to acknowledge that it might be that the market views that negatively as a hopeless downward spiraling deflationary currency that continuously damages the merchant economy by encouraging hoarding.  in this sense, i am drawing parallels to gold being a fairly fixed supply that for the most part nevers decreases.

will you sell SC's to govt's if asked?

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?

you still didn't answer me as to why we should "trust" you and Blockstream when it goes against the very ethos of what Bitcoin is all about.

i posted above that there are several venture funds that have invested.  how can they not want the std 10x return of their investment? those fund constituents do not just represent the viewpoint of their founder.



btw, you show your bias when you nitpick my trivial comment to tvbcof here w/o even acknowledging the disgusting, immature video he put up.  i suggest it's b/c he supports your view:

you're still that little dog who nips at my trouser bottoms.

I thought you said you didnt do ad-hominems to troll and fan reaction?  Just a few posts back too.  

Decorum!

Stuff like that is why bitcointroll.org is redirecting here.  Also it pushes out more tech focussed people who want some civility and dont have the USENET flame war developed rhinoceros hide and egos to say "fuck you too" and keep talking.

What the tvbcof said seemed pretty reasoned to me, and if you read it neutrally, not to be calling Gavin names, just talking about hypothetical conflicts of interest, independence etc.  

I share his view about balance of power helping also, eg you can see that Microsoft & Apple are both pretty world domination evil corporations.  And yet the growth of apple's market penetration of OSX has weakened eithers ability to execute on their rent-seeking actions.  Thats a pretty conventional understanding of the real-world.

Adam

Cypherdoc encounters Coinlock on Reddit:





now that's trolling!
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974


View Profile
January 02, 2015, 05:58:21 PM
 #19390


Jeff Berwick, really?

All you need to know about that guy, you can find here:

https://www.dollarvigilante.com/blog/2014/8/27/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-on-galts-gulch-chile.html

He reminds me of Zuckerberg, the way he shovels obvious bullshit, thinking he's so smart and his audience is so stupid, that they won't spot the glaring inconsistencies.


LOL!  An entirely predictable tragicomedy.

Someone should collect articles such as this to help anyone contemplating joining a bunch of Libertarians on some desert wasteland, foreign shore, island, set of welded together scrap barges or ship, etc.  I would suggest as a title for the collection: 'Atlas Bugged.'


_mr_e
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 814


View Profile
January 02, 2015, 06:05:49 PM
 #19391


Jeff Berwick, really?

All you need to know about that guy, you can find here:

https://www.dollarvigilante.com/blog/2014/8/27/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-on-galts-gulch-chile.html

He reminds me of Zuckerberg, the way he shovels obvious bullshit, thinking he's so smart and his audience is so stupid, that they won't spot the glaring inconsistencies.


LOL!  An entirely predictable tragicomedy.

Someone should collect articles such as this to help anyone contemplating joining a bunch of Libertarians on some desert wasteland, foreign shore, island, set of welded together scrap barges or ship, etc.  I would suggest as a title for the collection: 'Atlas Bugged.'



let's just ignore all the other names I mentioned and pick on the most convenient.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
January 02, 2015, 06:08:56 PM
 #19392

The blocksize debate gets muddled if we don't clearly differentiate between the blocksize limit and the actual average blocksize. When you mentioned "identify(ing) the problems which prevent price discovery from functioning and fix(ing) those," I assume you're talking about the price of actual P2P bandwidth/Blockchain space…in other words, things that affect the average blocksize rather than the limits on the blocksize that I was discussing.  When it comes to the blocksize limits, it sounds like you're advocating for nothing at all:
I do not think there should be protocol limit on the size of a block.

I think that miners should pay the relay network to propagate their blocks and users should pay to receive them.

If the cost of relaying a block was discovered in a competitive open market for relaying, then miners wouldn't be able to spam the system with huge blocks without incurring out-of-pocket costs. It would also mean that as the transaction volume goes up, so does revenue for relay nodes which they can use to pay their increased costs.

Once the relay network was operating as a market instead of price-fixed-at-zero clusterfuck we wouldn't have to these continual pointless debates. Resource allocation would just work without needing to be constantly adjusted by central planners.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974


View Profile
January 02, 2015, 06:20:12 PM
 #19393

...

Cypherdoc encounters Coinlock on Reddit:

 - snip - animated gif - small dog humps someone's leg


now that's trolling!

That reminds me to clarify.  I consider Cypherdoc to be the proverbial and archetypal 'frenemy'.  We've got a long history and the last thing I remember agreeing on was that BTC was worth taking a chance on @$2-ish.  Probably why we are both still around.

The thing that is so endearing about Cypherdoc is that he is near completely a troll and and ass-clown, but he seems to totally miss it and seems to earnestly believe the opposite.

Anyway, this thread was made for trolling.  Look at the title and most of Cypherdoc's input for Christsake!  I personally don't consider trolling to be a bad thing in many circumstances.  I developed my theories of trolling back in the Usenet days after noticing that in order to be effective a troll had to have a subtle element of underlying truth.  To that extent a troll post has value.  Generally they also must be amusing...at least to the group of readers who share one's sense of humor.  Here again is a source of value.


adam3us
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 400


in bitcoin we trust


View Profile WWW
January 02, 2015, 06:22:01 PM
 #19394

 Since the BTC rewards and fees are now worthless, most miners stop mining BTC and keep mining GNC only.  Only a few persist, for sentimental reasons. The BTC block rate drops to near zero for months, until the difficulty gets readjusted.

  Then someone, not connected to Blockstream, GNC, or any other bitcoin entity, creates a new altcoin SuperShibaCoin (SSC)....

(Summary of what JorgeSolfi is saying: if one alt-coin overtakes bitcoin, people will lose confidence in cryptocurrency because it will probably happen again, and a series of popping bubbles is not a good store of value).

Yeah thats one of the reasons I am not keen on alt-coins.  If an alt-coin took over bitcoin it might be the end of artificial scarcity (aka cryptocurrencies) in general, is my assertion too.  You might enjoy this post:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=911339.msg10012730

or the short tldr; twitter version:

https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/550841397927235584

Quote from: JorgeStolfi
Summary: doesn't merged mining provide a path for an altcoin to steal bitcoin's network power and market cap, with little investment,  even without any change to the BTC protocol and without any special mechanism to "transfer" BTC to it?

Could some sidechains innovation provide suitable incentives to miners that would prevent this risk?

I think its quite hard to prevent merge mining automatically because people can steganographically watermark bitcoin tx.  eg they could make a multisig where the second sig is not a pub key but a hash of their chain.

However miners could try to find them and block them via whack-a-mole as all users on that network need to know the decoding trick for the stego.  As chains dont tend to be secret society things, that could actually work somewhat.  You saw some miners and pools blocking unnecessarily bloated clumsy MasterCoin & CounterParty transaction encodings using that kind of approach.  (I guess it worked as I think I saw someone say MC & CP now use less clumsy encodings).

Its a little risky to play steganography arms race though because they could bypass that (at the limit steganography wins)  by replacing broadcast by sending one hash encoded for each coin public key in the network and bloat the chain even more, and that couldnt be blocked.  (Because it would take the respective private key to decode and distinguish from real transaction and thats known only to the affected user).

There is a cleverer to get public steganography through the miner-filter, I wont elaborate as I dont want to give the "meta-coin" and "censor resistant IM" spammers ideas.  If you see how too ssshh! (Censor resistant IM like http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2q1gnn/tweetbitorg_censorship_free_content/).  

Adam

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

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 02, 2015, 06:38:30 PM
 #19395

...

Cypherdoc encounters Coinlock on Reddit:

 - snip - animated gif - small dog humps someone's leg


now that's trolling!

That reminds me to clarify.  I consider Cypherdoc to be the proverbial and archetypal 'frenemy'.  We've got a long history and the last thing I remember agreeing on was that BTC was worth taking a chance on @$2-ish.  Probably why we are both still around.

The thing that is so endearing about Cypherdoc is that he is near completely a troll and and ass-clown, but he seems to totally miss it and seems to earnestly believe the opposite.

Anyway, this thread was made for trolling.  Look at the title and most of Cypherdoc's input for Christsake!  I personally don't consider trolling to be a bad thing in many circumstances.  I developed my theories of trolling back in the Usenet days after noticing that in order to be effective a troll had to have a subtle element of underlying truth.  To that extent a troll post has value.  Generally they also must be amusing...at least to the group of readers who share one's sense of humor.  Here again is a source of value.



i know it's been hard for you watching me call gold's top on 8/2011 and watching it fall from 1923 to where it is today, while at the same time Bitcoin going from 1.98 to 315.  it's even way worse for the gold stocks. this must've cost you plenty.  

but you're right.  i do love trolling you and the other goldbugs b/c of this.  perhaps it even helps push it down even further.  i know you hate the title of this thread.  and it is gratifying that i may have helped you change your socialist views to a small degree.  but there's no denying your push back trolling as well.  

you know you love me & this thread and can't stay away.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 02, 2015, 06:43:11 PM
 #19396

nice intraday reversal of about 210 pts on the $DJI.  nice way to start off the year.  like i said, i really like this setup:

tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974


View Profile
January 02, 2015, 06:52:40 PM
 #19397

...
but you're right.  i do love trolling you and the others b/c of this.  perhaps it even helps push it down even further.  i know you hate the title of this thread.  and it is gratifying that i may have helped you change your socialist views to a small degree.  but there's no denying your push back trolling as well.  

Just to be clear, Socialism changed my Socialist views.  The only thing Bitcoin did to make me into a belated Libertarian was allowed me the financial nudge to get into a situation where I understood Socialism better as a practice.

I've the same complaints against Libertarians that I had in my battles against them on the Usenet 20 years ago as I do now, and Bitcoinland has only amplified these.

At the system analysis level, I've the same philosophical fondness for some of the Socialist aspirations that I always did...in my interpenetration of Socialism.  Socialism in practice has quashed these as a tenable end-point.  Life is full of pleasant surprises and sour disappointments I suppose.  Gotta roll with the punches and stay adaptable.

you know you love me & this thread and can't stay away.

Sad but true.


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 02, 2015, 07:12:20 PM
 #19398

you know what's so disappointing?  i was hoping gold would at least have the strength to get back up to the yellow X so i could reload on ZSL and DZZ.  oh well:

Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
January 02, 2015, 07:20:52 PM
 #19399

 Since the BTC rewards and fees are now worthless, most miners stop mining BTC and keep mining GNC only.  Only a few persist, for sentimental reasons. The BTC block rate drops to near zero for months, until the difficulty gets readjusted.

  Then someone, not connected to Blockstream, GNC, or any other bitcoin entity, creates a new altcoin SuperShibaCoin (SSC)....

(Summary of what JorgeSolfi is saying: if one alt-coin overtakes bitcoin, people will lose confidence in cryptocurrency because it will probably happen again, and a series of popping bubbles is not a good store of value).


FYI Jorge has no interest is seeing Bitcoin succeed, his goal is to prevent people investing in it.
He has never used it and refuses to install a wallet so people can give him Bitcoin to play with.

There are a lot of other quotes to draw from. I don't think there is a single scenario where he thinks Bitcoin succeeds, but for hindsight.

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

Activity: 868



View Profile
January 02, 2015, 07:40:55 PM
 #19400

I think its quite hard to prevent merge mining automatically because people can steganographically watermark bitcoin tx.  eg they could make a multisig where the second sig is not a pub key but a hash of their chain.

However miners could try to find them and block them via whack-a-mole as all users on that network need to know the decoding trick for the stego.  As chains dont tend to be secret society things, that could actually work somewhat.

One objection is that (as in the "benevolent 51% attack that I outlined before) the miners would have an immediate incentive to merge-mine the altcoin, namely collect its block rewards and fees. 

As you say, the use of the BTC chain to secure the GNC chain has to be public, but it may not be possible to detect it in time.  For example, suppose that, in order to sanctify a block B of the GNC chain, some GNC node must insert in the BTC blockchain the string y = (SHA(B) XOR x), where x is a random 256-bit string; and then publish the string x, only after that transaction has been confirmed.    Then the BTC miners would have no way to detect that the string y is a GNC hook before confirming it.

Other variants are possible.  For example, y can be SHAn(B), where n is (say) 2 trillion.  Then anyone with a 1 GH/s machine could recognize y as the hash of B in ~30 minutes; but no one could do it in much less than that time.  Even if the BTC miners were to run the check in parallel with block mining, it would delay the first confirmation of a trasaction by 20 minutes, and would force them to waste a significant amount of mining work.

Academic interest in bitcoin only. Not owner, not trader, very skeptical of its longterm success.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 ... 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!