Bitcoin Forum
December 17, 2017, 10:30:09 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 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 1021 1022 1023 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2022643 times)
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
January 03, 2015, 11:49:35 AM
 #19441

I suspect most people who have been trolling Adam and the sidechain developers have ulterior motives. They probably either hold large Alt coin hoards, are part of alt coin development teams or have other vested interests that the sidechain project would directly compete with/make redundant.


Quite the opposite most are heavily invested in Bitcoin and more over the idea of hard money.
SC are a threat to fundamental hard money function in Bitcoin.

I would agree that it isn't just the alt coin camp talking down SCs.

SCs have the potential of giving people a false hope of it being equivalent to Bitcoin but in fact not having all of the elements of MC Bitcoin.
Homeopathic remedies are still acceptable forms of snake oil. Magical thinking is everywhere. Bitcoin has properties that can't be duplicated. There can't be generic forms of Bitcoin, but there are placebo trials called altcoins.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
1513506609
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513506609

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513506609
Reply with quote  #2

1513506609
Report to moderator
1513506609
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513506609

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513506609
Reply with quote  #2

1513506609
Report to moderator
1513506609
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513506609

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513506609
Reply with quote  #2

1513506609
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513506609
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513506609

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513506609
Reply with quote  #2

1513506609
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 03, 2015, 01:42:31 PM
 #19442

Wow, great article on Internet freedom.  If you can't see where Bitcoin stands in this battle,  you're an idiot.  Bitcoin SC's as stocks, bonds, or insurance contacts won't help in this regard:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/01/02/business/international/web-freedom-is-seen-to-be-growing-as-a-global-issue-in-2015.html?ref=technology&_r=0&referrer=
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 03, 2015, 01:51:52 PM
 #19443

I suspect most people who have been trolling Adam and the sidechain developers have ulterior motives. They probably either hold large Alt coin hoards, are part of alt coin development teams or have other vested interests that the sidechain project would directly compete with/make redundant.





You can't lump me into this generalization. Anyone who had followed this thread for the mere 3.5 years of its existence knows I'm an altcoin and Bitcoin 2.0 hater as I believe they're sucking badly needed capital away from Bitcoin temporally. Doesn't mean  I don't think they have a right to compete fairly by not bring able to change Bitcoins source code. 
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 03, 2015, 02:04:35 PM
 #19444

... we can let those guys insert an op_code ...

Do you know how many op_codes bitcoin already supports and what they do ?

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script

nope.  i'm just going along with BS's new way of presenting this argument.  if we shouldn't prevent the spvp op_code, why should we prevent op_codes submitted by OT or any other alt or Bitcoin 2.0?

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

Ok, then tell them to STFU about me and  all the other SC opponents  "preventing" them from doing a damn thing. Code it up, stop the marketing and complaining, and we'll evaluate away.

Perhaps a  promise from BS core devs  to treat similar ops from altcoins would be appropriate as well although I suspect that would break their  backs.
NotLambchop
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


View Profile
January 03, 2015, 02:17:29 PM
 #19445

If it wasn't for them dirty SC pimps, we wouldn't be below $300 right now Angry
Nekrobios
Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1694


Bitcoin Maximalist


View Profile
January 03, 2015, 02:20:20 PM
 #19446

If it wasn't for them dirty SC pimps, we wouldn't be below $300 right now Angry
Bring out the pitchforks. 😠
The Chainmaker
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


View Profile
January 03, 2015, 03:02:56 PM
 #19447


What is QuixCoin?

Google has never heard of it, and that's saying something.

EDIT: maybe this:

http://www.slideshare.net/QixCoin/quix-coin-1
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=300160.0

Seems to be some question about the spelling and I'm not sure anything was actually implemented. Pretty obscure reference by Nick.




I'd also like to know about this mysterious QuixCoin.  The only search I found led me to here. hahaha

If it can be digitized, it should be decentralized
BlindMayorBitcorn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078



View Profile
January 03, 2015, 03:05:34 PM
 #19448

It seems our divinely inspired inflation machine is still doing what it does best. Brilliant investment!

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

Activity: 2352


View Profile
January 03, 2015, 04:39:25 PM
 #19449


I suspect most people who have been trolling Adam and the sidechain developers have ulterior motives. They probably either hold large Alt coin hoards, are part of alt coin development teams or have other vested interests that the sidechain project would directly compete with/make redundant.

You can't lump me into this generalization. Anyone who had followed this thread for the mere 3.5 years of its existence knows I'm an altcoin and Bitcoin 2.0 hater as I believe they're sucking badly needed capital away from Bitcoin temporally. Doesn't mean  I don't think they have a right to compete fairly by not bring able to change Bitcoins source code. 

The spv verify opcode looks to me like to me to be in the class of a generically useful inclusions which anyone is free to use for a variety of developments or optimizations of existing developments.

Do you suppose that anyone involved with Bitcoin dev had any ideas or involvement in efforts which could have made use pay-to-script-hash when it was integrated?  I don't remember you pitching a bitch about that.

I'm sure we are going to hear howls of rage from you if/when there is call for a hard-fork to raise the transaction rate cap because someone involved in Bitcoin dev might also have involvement in a tangential effort which might benefit by increased transaction rates.  Right?

A reasonable hypothesis explaining the resistance to sidechains is that the failure of crufty old Satoshi-esque code and ad-hoc unencapsulated network transport is actually a very desirable thing to some and the trajectory of their strategy depends on it.  Sidechains could extend the life expectancy of ad-hoc collection of unencumbered organic solutions.


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 03, 2015, 05:19:34 PM
 #19450


I suspect most people who have been trolling Adam and the sidechain developers have ulterior motives. They probably either hold large Alt coin hoards, are part of alt coin development teams or have other vested interests that the sidechain project would directly compete with/make redundant.

You can't lump me into this generalization. Anyone who had followed this thread for the mere 3.5 years of its existence knows I'm an altcoin and Bitcoin 2.0 hater as I believe they're sucking badly needed capital away from Bitcoin temporally. Doesn't mean  I don't think they have a right to compete fairly by not bring able to change Bitcoins source code. 

The spv verify opcode looks to me like to me to be in the class of a generically useful inclusions which anyone is free to use for a variety of developments or optimizations of existing developments.

Do you suppose that anyone involved with Bitcoin dev had any ideas or involvement in efforts which could have made use pay-to-script-hash when it was integrated?  I don't remember you pitching a bitch about that.

I'm sure we are going to hear howls of rage from you if/when there is call for a hard-fork to raise the transaction rate cap because someone involved in Bitcoin dev might also have involvement in a tangential effort which might benefit by increased transaction rates.  Right?

A reasonable hypothesis explaining the resistance to sidechains is that the failure of crufty old Satoshi-esque code and ad-hoc unencapsulated network transport is actually a very desirable thing to some and the trajectory of their strategy depends on it.  Sidechains could extend the life expectancy of ad-hoc collection of unencumbered organic solutions.



fundamentally, none of the technical enhancements to Bitcoins money function couldn't be done on the MC.  not easy to gain consensus but it CAN be done.  i'm all for that.  this is what we have testnet and federated server SC's for.  experimentation.  esp when we're only at the $4B market cap.

it also looks like CP and colored coins will bring us other assets to MC.  that's good too.

about 90%+ of satoshi's code has been rewritten.  we ARE seeing steady improvements to the code like the recent 0.1 with 3h MC download times now.  that's an extraordinary improvement of about 10x.  i put up that link of that Seagate 8TB SSD the other day.  storage is outpacing MC growth and now costs $0.03/GB.  i'm actually quite satisfied with where we are even now.  with a few, or even one, tx hop one can have provable deniability for anonymity reasons if they want.  10 min block times isn't conceptually ideal but works perfectly well for me.  i'm not sure what all the complaining is about.

who knows how much further MC achievements might have been accomplished if BS core devs were spending all that time working on Bitcoin Core that they undoubtedly have been dedicating to the spvp for the last year and a half.  forget that shit and get behind Gavin and increase blocksize.  now is the time to do this.

fundamentally, i think allowing an offramp for BTC units over to insecure SC's is economically and technically flawed for all the Sound Money reasons i've already articulated.

improve the MC; it's not that hard.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 03, 2015, 05:23:28 PM
 #19451

Do you suppose that anyone involved with Bitcoin dev had any ideas or involvement in efforts which could have made use pay-to-script-hash when it was integrated?  I don't remember you pitching a bitch about that.

yes, b/c p2sh is how multi-sig tx's get constructed.  that is a fundamental MC security improvement that all of us benefit from.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2352


View Profile
January 03, 2015, 05:49:20 PM
 #19452

...
about 90%+ of satoshi's code has been rewritten.  we ARE seeing steady improvements to the code like the recent 0.1 with 3h MC download times now.  that's an extraordinary improvement of about 10x.  i put up that link of that Seagate 8TB SSD the other day.  storage is outpacing MC growth and now costs $0.03/GB.  i'm actually quite satisfied with where we are even now.  with a few, or even one, tx hop one can have provable deniability for anonymity reasons if they want.  10 min block times isn't conceptually ideal but works perfectly well for me.  i'm not sure what all the complaining is about.

No you didn't.  Words (e.g., 'SSD') mean things.  We've been around and around on this storage thing over the years.  Everyone agrees that bulk storage is not and has never been an issue (until Gavin slips in his exponential growth scheme at least...).  Total blocksize is a useful tool to fool fools in trying to make a point.  Most people cannot conceptualize that just sitting on data is quite a different thing than actually accessing it so discussions here are aggravating, pointless, and futile.


who knows how much further MC achievements might have been accomplished if BS core devs were spending all that time working on Bitcoin Core that they undoubtedly have been dedicating to the spvp for the last year and a half.  forget that shit and get behind Gavin and increase blocksize.  now is the time to do this.

When one has worked on code and complex systems it becomes very apparent that the gains and optimizations one can achieve are highly exponential
in nature.  It is common to be able to obtain a 10x improvement with minimal effort at first.  Very quickly it becomes physically impossible to achieve even a 1x improvement.  This is what people are talking about when they mention 'low hanging fruit.'


fundamentally, i think allowing an offramp for BTC units over to insecure SC's is economically and technically flawed for all the Sound Money reasons i've already articulated.

Not to be offensive, but most of what you say about most things (economic, engineering, technology, investment, etc) is very primitive and often enough laughable incorrect.  Another short-hand term I've used in the recent past to describe this is 'ass-clown'.


NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
January 03, 2015, 06:25:03 PM
 #19453

who knows how much further MC achievements might have been accomplished if BS core devs were spending all that time working on Bitcoin Core that they undoubtedly have been dedicating to the spvp for the last year and a half.  forget that shit and get behind Gavin and increase blocksize.  now is the time to do this.
A hard fork to increase blocksize may be needed, but the proposed exponential blocksize growth is both unnecessary and harmful to propagation of the sufficient bitcoin nodes desired for resilience.   

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 03, 2015, 06:32:32 PM
 #19454

...
about 90%+ of satoshi's code has been rewritten.  we ARE seeing steady improvements to the code like the recent 0.1 with 3h MC download times now.  that's an extraordinary improvement of about 10x.  i put up that link of that Seagate 8TB SSD the other day.  storage is outpacing MC growth and now costs $0.03/GB.  i'm actually quite satisfied with where we are even now.  with a few, or even one, tx hop one can have provable deniability for anonymity reasons if they want.  10 min block times isn't conceptually ideal but works perfectly well for me.  i'm not sure what all the complaining is about.

No you didn't.  Words (e.g., 'SSD') mean things.  We've been around and around on this storage thing over the years.  Everyone agrees that bulk storage is not and has never been an issue (until Gavin slips in his exponential growth scheme at least...).  Total blocksize is a useful tool to fool fools in trying to make a point.  Most people cannot conceptualize that just sitting on data is quite a different thing than actually accessing it so discussions here are aggravating, pointless, and futile.


who knows how much further MC achievements might have been accomplished if BS core devs were spending all that time working on Bitcoin Core that they undoubtedly have been dedicating to the spvp for the last year and a half.  forget that shit and get behind Gavin and increase blocksize.  now is the time to do this.

When one has worked on code and complex systems it becomes very apparent that the gains and optimizations one can achieve are highly exponential
in nature.  It is common to be able to obtain a 10x improvement with minimal effort at first.  Very quickly it becomes physically impossible to achieve even a 1x improvement.  This is what people are talking about when they mention 'low hanging fruit.'

this headers only first download capability just got implemented with the last update.  i thought you said we were already at the stodgy stage?
Quote

fundamentally, i think allowing an offramp for BTC units over to insecure SC's is economically and technically flawed for all the Sound Money reasons i've already articulated.

Not to be offensive, but most of what you say about most things (economic, engineering, technology, investment, etc) is very primitive and often enough laughable incorrect.  Another short-hand term I've used in the recent past to describe this is 'ass-clown'.



there's only one way for me to address these types of insults unfortunately but you force me to.  and i'm not bragging:

so how do you explain me being the first to publicly state that M-Pesa could be a great target case for Bitcoin, how do explain me posting to sell/short gold and silver at their peaks in May and August 2011 despite your objections and trolling which turned out to be wrong?  how do you explain me (& you) buying at $1.98?  how do you explain me stating that mining centralization will even out & not become a problem (we see striking evidence of this in the pool chart i always put up)?  how is it that i got into Bitcoin 2.5 yrs before Adam as close as i can pinpoint it?  is it all luck?  if so, i'll take it. no ones perfect, esp me over the last 6 mo of price drop, but at least i get more concepts right than wrong in this Bitcoin space and that has not been easy to do.  and the fact is, many ppl understand and agree precisely with the line of reasoning i've provided regarding this SC issue.  sure, we could be wrong, so i'm still listening.  but when i read about Adam ruminating (not recommending) changing the issuance curve or allowing gvts to construct a SC depending on his definition of what they're doing as not being evil, i get concerned.  as NewLiberty said a while back, why would you want a competing altcoin (Truthcoin) or a gvt coming in and setting up business next to your core engine business (on a SC which can siphon BTC from MC)?

no one remembers you for predicting anything except when i acknowledge you being with me @1.98.  most of what you say is just socialistic babble.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 03, 2015, 06:39:29 PM
 #19455

much of what drives Bitcoin is logic and the prediction of human behavior.

geeks don't have a monopoly on that.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 03, 2015, 06:58:07 PM
 #19456

i have a question for the computer scientists in the crowd. 

i've noticed some things about the WP's over the last coupla years, including Satoshi's, that i wasn't aware of. first, there doesn't seem to be any peer review.  not only that but what strikes me is that it seems that authors come up with a particular logic pattern that makes sense to them and then construct maths to support that logic.  i often don't even see large data sets, testing, or simulations performed.  that supposedly is a standard for proof of a theory.  is this correct?  this is not a criticism of the CS field but just an inquiry to help me understand your field.

in many fields, a hypothesis is asked, then an experiment with blinded investigators along with large #'s of subjects and controls is carried out over a statistically significant time period to rule out investigator bias (can never do that completely) and prove that the hypothesis is correct within a std dev often of p<0.05 or 5%.  i realize these are different methods in different fields so it's hard to determine which is more rigorous.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
January 03, 2015, 07:00:24 PM
 #19457

who knows how much further MC achievements might have been accomplished if BS core devs were spending all that time working on Bitcoin Core that they undoubtedly have been dedicating to the spvp for the last year and a half.  forget that shit and get behind Gavin and increase blocksize.  now is the time to do this.
A hard fork to increase blocksize may be needed, but the proposed exponential blocksize growth is both unnecessary and harmful to propagation of the sufficient bitcoin nodes desired for resilience.  

I'm curious to know what you (and others btw) make of Mircea Popescu and his crew's position that blocksize should not (arguably never) be increased

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

Activity: 1372



View Profile
January 03, 2015, 07:20:29 PM
 #19458

much of what drives Bitcoin is logic and the prediction of human behavior.

geeks don't have a monopoly on that.
+1

In fact one's knowledge and understanding grows where one put there focus. Many have been enabled by Bitcoin's rapid price assent and have contemplated daily how this technology will propagate and succeed, this economic thought experiment has been undertaken by a fiew who spend there days assimilating the communities synaptic sparks.  Many developers spend more time developing than they spend conceiving the concepts they develop they don't have the luxury of spending 4 years in thought about how human behaviour will react to the logic before they start developing.

Some even get hung up on there lack of understanding and have sleepless nights and urgently set out to change things they feel they know well.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2352


View Profile
January 03, 2015, 07:28:53 PM
 #19459

i have a question for the computer scientists in the crowd. 

i've noticed some things about the WP's over the last coupla years, including Satoshi's, that i wasn't aware of. first, there doesn't seem to be any peer review.  not only that but what strikes me is that it seems that authors come up with a particular logic pattern that makes sense to them and then construct maths to support that logic.  i often don't even see large data sets, testing, or simulations performed.  that supposedly is a standard for proof of a theory.  is this correct?  this is not a criticism of the CS field but just an inquiry to help me understand your field.

in many fields, a hypothesis is asked, then an experiment with blinded investigators along with large #'s of subjects and controls is carried out over a statistically significant time period to rule out investigator bias (can never do that completely) and prove that the hypothesis is correct within a std dev often of p<0.05 or 5%.  i realize these are different methods in different fields so it's hard to determine which is more rigorous.

My opinion is that in terms of both science and engineering, the software industry is kind of a joke, but I've never had any involvement in the academic side of things.  That lack of rigor may explain why shit actually gets done...

In a practical sense, it's damn near impossible for something like these non-academic crypto whitepapers or ideas to obtain anything remotely resembling quality 'peer review'.  It's to much work for to little gain, and the signal to noise ratio in crypto-land (aka, 'spam') is a giant factor.  There are relatively few people who are even qualified to do the kinds of review necessary and they have more interesting things to do.  Poul-Henning Kamp's struggles to get someone to review his full disk encryption work is an interesting read which might help understand the problem(s).  I don't have a link handy.

Bitcoin seems to owe most of it's success to Hal taking a modest interest at the right time.  A splash of diesel at the right time can mean the difference between a fully engulfed fire pile or one with not a wisp of smoke a few hours later.  (I happen to have been working on some brush clearing over the last week and stop by to check my favorite thread when I need a break.)

The stuff from that Israeli dude (presented at the SJ 2013 con) which seems to be becoming the snark ideas is one exception to this lack of rigor (in my read of things.)  It's just so damn interesting and universally important that it can get the kind of attention needed.

My other current favorite thread here is the one about global warming.  I finally took the dive into researching that aspect of 'our common future' recently after blowing it off for years.  My respect for the process of academic and scientific rigor has been quashed as effectively as my aspirations for 'Socialism' as a result of this research.  Crypto-currency may be better off without 'peer review' in the end.


Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
January 03, 2015, 07:33:12 PM
 #19460

who knows how much further MC achievements might have been accomplished if BS core devs were spending all that time working on Bitcoin Core that they undoubtedly have been dedicating to the spvp for the last year and a half.  forget that shit and get behind Gavin and increase blocksize.  now is the time to do this.
A hard fork to increase blocksize may be needed, but the proposed exponential blocksize growth is both unnecessary and harmful to propagation of the sufficient bitcoin nodes desired for resilience.  

I'm curious to know what you (and others btw) make of Mircea Popescu and his crew's position that blocksize should not (arguably never) be increased

Early on I saw lots of opportunity for business services for expand transactions, many business ideas will be enhanced by a limited block size.

I think the idea enables an alternate outcome I now feel the primary experiment is unlimited block size and a secondary more radical experiment is limiting the number of transactions.

The reason being storing the blockchain is priced in to the incentive structure for those who have an invested interest in its integrity, it is a service the wealthy provide to the network for using the network.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1021 1022 1023 ... 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!