Bitcoin Forum
December 03, 2016, 04:52:52 AM *
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 ... 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 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1803451 times)
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
January 05, 2015, 11:47:00 AM
 #19681

I'm still numb from reading the Side Chain white paper and trying to figure how they plan to wrangle their mining pools into a reliable source of metadata. I'll await details on that.
If you think Side Chains are sketchy, check out the Internet of Coins white paper.
I only glanced at it so far. First of all, why does everyone seem to think PoS is so great an incentive? Answer: Because human labor can be farmed cheaper and easier than technology. Then there's Proof of Allocation. The thing is, you have to trade something for something else.  I came up with a rudimentary (and completely ignored) idea for a multicoin system in 2012 based on Rock Paper Scissors as the analog called Proof of Merit.

I don't understand these kitchen sink mentalities. I'm starting to like Bitcoin as money more and more, because humans will always find greater levels of abstraction.

What mining pools  Huh

"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
1480740772
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480740772

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480740772
Reply with quote  #2

1480740772
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480740772
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480740772

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480740772
Reply with quote  #2

1480740772
Report to moderator
1480740772
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480740772

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480740772
Reply with quote  #2

1480740772
Report to moderator
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
January 05, 2015, 12:01:06 PM
 #19682

I'm still numb from reading the Side Chain white paper and trying to figure how they plan to wrangle their mining pools into a reliable source of metadata. I'll await details on that.
If you think Side Chains are sketchy, check out the Internet of Coins white paper.
I only glanced at it so far. First of all, why does everyone seem to think PoS is so great an incentive? Answer: Because human labor can be farmed cheaper and easier than technology. Then there's Proof of Allocation. The thing is, you have to trade something for something else.  I came up with a rudimentary (and completely ignored) idea for a multicoin system in 2012 based on Rock Paper Scissors as the analog called Proof of Merit.

I don't understand these kitchen sink mentalities. I'm starting to like Bitcoin as money more and more, because humans will always find greater levels of abstraction.

What mining pools  Huh
I presumed miners are the functionaries for the federated peg as it's not specified. After all, they have exclusive access to the block header they mine.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
January 05, 2015, 12:07:21 PM
 #19683

I'm still numb from reading the Side Chain white paper and trying to figure how they plan to wrangle their mining pools into a reliable source of metadata. I'll await details on that.
If you think Side Chains are sketchy, check out the Internet of Coins white paper.
I only glanced at it so far. First of all, why does everyone seem to think PoS is so great an incentive? Answer: Because human labor can be farmed cheaper and easier than technology. Then there's Proof of Allocation. The thing is, you have to trade something for something else.  I came up with a rudimentary (and completely ignored) idea for a multicoin system in 2012 based on Rock Paper Scissors as the analog called Proof of Merit.

I don't understand these kitchen sink mentalities. I'm starting to like Bitcoin as money more and more, because humans will always find greater levels of abstraction.

What mining pools  Huh
I presumed miners are the functionaries for the federated peg as it's not specified. After all, they have exclusive access to the block header they mine.

Page 17.

Federated peg can use oracles, voting pools, servers. Think of it as multisig

"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
samuel999
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 170


View Profile
January 05, 2015, 12:18:15 PM
 #19684

Interesting to see where gold has gone since BTC has declined from around 1200.  Looks like mostly sideways, and down some.

Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
January 05, 2015, 02:26:16 PM
 #19685

if I controlled enough hashing power I'd be manipulating the flow of BTC in and out trying to disturb a fixed market equilibrium buying low and converting back,

Please explain how you would do that.
Presumably he refers to sidechains.pdf section 6.1 which describes the forgeability during the contest period by sufficient proof of work via mining.

Quote from: sidechains.pdf
6.1 Hashpower attack resistance
The main thrust of this paper surrounds two-way peg using SPV proofs, which are forgeable by a 51%-majority and blockable by however much hashpower is needed to build a sufficiently-long proof during the transfer’s contest period. (There is a tradeoff on this latter point — if 33% hashpower can block a proof, then 67% is needed to successfully use a false one, and so on.)
Attacking the network in this way is no longer discouraged by having to forgo the income in the coin you are mining.

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

Activity: 622



View Profile
January 05, 2015, 02:32:29 PM
 #19686

He thinks he can get to 100k TPS.
What's the problem with doing 100k TPS on the main chain?

(other than non-answers like "it's hard to do")

I said what on the thread that you trimmed Smiley  security...

Quote from: adam3us
I really dont think you want that on the main chain because its weaker, and he cut down a lot of bitcoin features to get it.  But its useful.

I am talking about the specific sharding approach.  Its not easy sharding a block chain, and he made security tradeoffs to do it.

Nothing against someone doing it if they can do it securely (ie without impacting the security of the rest of the coins on the chain) or without making the centralisation very bad.

Adam


Seems he does not understand what is "100k TPS".

100,000 transactions * 260 bytes * 60 seconds * 60 minutes * 24 hours = 2 246 400 000 000 bytes per day  =  2.25 TB / day

Guys, 100k TPS would equate to 8.64 billion transactions per day.  There are only 7 billion people on earth.  That is theoretical upper upper upper limit... probably never be reached.

Counterfeit:  made in imitation of something else with intent to deceive:  merriam-webster
NotLambchop
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


View Profile
January 05, 2015, 02:52:41 PM
 #19687

...
Guys, 100k TPS would equate to 8.64 billion transactions per day.  There are only 7 billion people on earth.  That is theoretical upper upper upper limit... probably never be reached.

Because no one ever makes more than one financial transaction per day.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
January 05, 2015, 03:17:15 PM
 #19688

nice quote Marc Andreessen

 Paraphrasing (Bitcoin's value is it's blockchain not the BTC)

My fundamental issue with SC is they don't secure the value just the BTC. SC offer economic hackers a way to steal that value.

It's economic ignorance to believe the value in the blockchain is inherent.

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

Activity: 714



View Profile
January 05, 2015, 03:19:42 PM
 #19689

nice quote Marc Andreessen

Paraphrasing (Bitcoin's value is it's blockchain not the BTC)

My fundamental issue with SC is they don't secure the value just the BTC. SC offer economic hackers a way to steal that value.

It's economic ignorance to believe the value in the blockchain is inherent.
I've been saying this for a long time now. The Blockchain will be the only aspect of Bitcoin that survives.

tabnloz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 793


View Profile
January 05, 2015, 04:02:57 PM
 #19690

nice quote Marc Andreessen

 Paraphrasing (Bitcoin's value is it's blockchain not the BTC)

My fundamental issue with SC is they don't secure the value just the BTC. SC offer economic hackers a way to steal that value.

It's economic ignorance to believe the value in the blockchain is inherent.

I thought the blockchain and the currency couldn't be separated. Can a blockchain exist without having a token to secure it? (or have I misinterpreted the entire thing - long day)
HeliKopterBen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622



View Profile
January 05, 2015, 04:05:34 PM
 #19691

The Bitstamp hacking highlights the need for sidechains IMHO.  Central bank's solution is to print money and bail out.  Our solution should be sidechains.  Bitshares could be forked onto a sidechain, potentially allowing all trade and storage to be done on protocol with bitcoin as the backing collateral... or perhaps the truthcoin model would work.  Its time for this to happen.

Counterfeit:  made in imitation of something else with intent to deceive:  merriam-webster
HeliKopterBen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622



View Profile
January 05, 2015, 04:07:13 PM
 #19692

nice quote Marc Andreessen

 Paraphrasing (Bitcoin's value is it's blockchain not the BTC)

My fundamental issue with SC is they don't secure the value just the BTC. SC offer economic hackers a way to steal that value.

It's economic ignorance to believe the value in the blockchain is inherent.

I thought the blockchain and the currency couldn't be separated. Can a blockchain exist without having a token to secure it? (or have I misinterpreted the entire thing - long day)

No.  The currency and the blockchain cannot be separated.  A blockchain without a currency has no security.

Counterfeit:  made in imitation of something else with intent to deceive:  merriam-webster
STT
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190



View Profile WWW
January 05, 2015, 04:13:27 PM
 #19693

...
Guys, 100k TPS would equate to 8.64 billion transactions per day.  There are only 7 billion people on earth.  That is theoretical upper upper upper limit... probably never be reached.

Because no one ever makes more than one financial transaction per day.

Quite a few transactions are internal.    We do have places like Casinos producing alot of transactions but do they post every one to the blockchain separately ?
I think much less then 1 per person is reasonable as small commerce should not be broadcast with the same security as larger more important transactions that do need a full record

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 05, 2015, 04:45:35 PM
 #19694

The Bitstamp hacking highlights the need for sidechains IMHO.  Central bank's solution is to print money and bail out.  Our solution should be sidechains.  Bitshares could be forked onto a sidechain, potentially allowing all trade and storage to be done on protocol with bitcoin as the backing collateral... or perhaps the truthcoin model would work.  Its time for this to happen.

no, not necessarily.  your assumption is that SC's are more secure than current exchange models.  the only way to achieve this is to obtain 100% MM cooperation from miners.  there is no model for this and the best we have is about 55% for NMC.  just given the fact that some miners won't be aware of SC existence if and when they do come to fruition means they won't be mining SC's which means there will be <100% for sure.  theoretically, anything <100% MM'ing is vulnerable and i'm sure this can be mathematically modelled.

plus, i'm not sure where all this desire comes from to "bailout" speculators on current exchanges.  b/c that is what they are, imo.  the reason i have never lost a coin is b/c i realize that Bitcoin is about increasing personal responsibility by becoming your own bank.  i have never used an exchange as a trading mechanism and have just used them to buy and move coin to my privkeys.  SC's are an attempt to bailout the individual speculator who wishes to leave their coin on some speculative trading platform.  but even that doesn't work b/c of the MM'ing fallacies i've outlined above.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 05, 2015, 04:51:56 PM
 #19695

I'm still numb from reading the Side Chain white paper and trying to figure how they plan to wrangle their mining pools into a reliable source of metadata. I'll await details on that.
If you think Side Chains are sketchy, check out the Internet of Coins white paper.
I only glanced at it so far. First of all, why does everyone seem to think PoS is so great an incentive? Answer: Because human labor can be farmed cheaper and easier than technology. Then there's Proof of Allocation. The thing is, you have to trade something for something else.  I came up with a rudimentary (and completely ignored) idea for a multicoin system in 2012 based on Rock Paper Scissors as the analog called Proof of Merit.

I don't understand these kitchen sink mentalities. I'm starting to like Bitcoin as money more and more, because humans will always find greater levels of abstraction.

What mining pools  Huh

talk about confused; even after Adam pointed out to you that federated servers are intermediaries that stand btwn the MC and SC.  son, mining pools are who are needed to MM the SC for security and transactional integrity, remember?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 05, 2015, 04:52:58 PM
 #19696

nice quote Marc Andreessen

 Paraphrasing (Bitcoin's value is it's blockchain not the BTC)

My fundamental issue with SC is they don't secure the value just the BTC. SC offer economic hackers a way to steal that value.

It's economic ignorance to believe the value in the blockchain is inherent.

I thought the blockchain and the currency couldn't be separated. Can a blockchain exist without having a token to secure it? (or have I misinterpreted the entire thing - long day)

No.  The currency and the blockchain cannot be separated.  A blockchain without a currency has no security.

yep, this is the correct view.

just goes to show you how early we all are.  even our greatest public proponent seems not to get it.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 05, 2015, 05:11:09 PM
 #19697

how does the IBLT scale with the size of the block UTXO set?  linearly or by some other ratio?

edit:  actually iirc, it scales with the size of the difference btwn UTXO set estimates across the network.  iow, a UTXO set estimated to be 99% similar across the network will allow a miner to send a smaller IBLT when solving a block than a UTXO set estimated to be only 89% similar across the network.  is that right?

Yes. The size of an IBLT does depend upon the average expected number of differences between the unconfirmed tx mempools of the majority of the nodes. Because each node has independent choice on which tx to accept or reject then it is impossible to be precise, in advance, about how efficient IBLT will be. Miners will always want to propagate small blocks, so there will be an incentive for mining nodes to find consensus on their tx mempools. Gavin describes it:

RE: O(1) versus O(some-function-of-total-number-of-transactions):

Yes, it will depend on whether or not the number of differences goes up as the number of transactions goes up.

The incentives align so it is in everybody's best interest to make the differences as small as possible. I wouldn't be surprised if that causes innovations to drive the actual size to O(1) minus an increasing constant, as code gets better at predicting which transactions our peers do or don't have.

It is also worth noting that IBLT can be implemented on top of other block propagation models, such as Matt Corallo's block relay system, which already saves on bandwidth.

with anything new like this, i'm interested in knowing the upper and lower bounds of the IBLT data size.

lower bound:  theoretically, as the UTXO set difference shrinks to zero with 0 network latency, the IBLT will shrink similarly but can never reach zero since it has to at minimum relay enough data to convey the exact subset of tx's included in the miner's block.  how small can this data get esp in relation to the avg block size now?

upper bound:  if the UTXO set difference is 100%, how big does the IBLT data size get?  or does the entire IBLT concept fall apart at some intermediate set difference?
Patel
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176



View Profile WWW
January 05, 2015, 05:11:11 PM
 #19698

Actually, a blockchain can have security without a currency.

It would be less decentralized though.

For example, you have GovBlockchain. Secured by proof of work. The blockchain could be so important, that government would secure it without any financial incentives, and mandate all record keeping to be done on this blockchain, secured by hundreds of 3 letter agencies.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
January 05, 2015, 05:12:03 PM
 #19699

The Bitstamp hacking highlights the need for sidechains IMHO.  Central bank's solution is to print money and bail out.  Our solution should be sidechains.  Bitshares could be forked onto a sidechain, potentially allowing all trade and storage to be done on protocol with bitcoin as the backing collateral... or perhaps the truthcoin model would work.  Its time for this to happen.

no, not necessarily.  your assumption is that SC's are more secure than current exchange models.  the only way to achieve this is to obtain 100% MM cooperation from miners.  there is no model for this and the best we have is about 55% for NMC.  just given the fact that some miners won't be aware of SC existence if and when they do come to fruition means they won't be mining SC's which means there will be <100% for sure.  theoretically, anything <100% MM'ing is vulnerable and i'm sure this can be mathematically modelled.

plus, i'm not sure where all this desire comes from to "bailout" speculators on current exchanges.  b/c that is what they are, imo.  the reason i have never lost a coin is b/c i realize that Bitcoin is about increasing personal responsibility by becoming your own bank.  i have never used an exchange as a trading mechanism and have just used them to buy and move coin to my privkeys.  SC's are an attempt to bailout the individual speculator who wishes to leave their on some speculative trading platform.  but even that doesn't work b/c of the MM'ing fallacies i've outlined above.

If
 a) you build exchange as SC using SNARK
and
 b) bitcoin protocol will be able to verify this SC (sequence of bid/ask/deposit/withdrawal signed by owners) using OP_SIDECHAIN_VERIFY
then
  NO MM is required. It will impossible to stole bitcoins from exchange.  

-> this is how I see SC.

justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
January 05, 2015, 05:13:07 PM
 #19700

It is the particular approach to sharding that makes it less secure, to reduce bandwidth.

I agree that sharding reduces security. I wouldn't propose sharding the blockchain as a scapability solution.[/quote]

That if your home computer had to do 2.25TB/day down to be a full node you might not be able to do it, which is a centralising factor.

You're saying that retaining the possibility for home computers to be full nodes is both necessary and desirable.

I understand that many people have made this claim over the years, but I am not aware of any attempts to actually prove either of those.

One of the problematic implicit assumptions I can identify in that claim is that if home users can't run nodes, the number of total nodes in the network would decrease.

Why would anyone assume that in a future Bitcoin economy that generated 100k tps of demand would not fewer business users running full nodes then than home users running full nodes today?
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 ... 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!