Bitcoin Forum
December 05, 2016, 10:48:23 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 ... 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 1036 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1804542 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 05, 2015, 05:14:32 PM
 #19701

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.


but that is not practical nor realistic.

at that level of abstraction, gvt's should not bother with a blockchain as no one would trust the data integrity of GovBlockchain.
1480934903
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480934903

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480934903
Reply with quote  #2

1480934903
Report to moderator
1480934903
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480934903

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480934903
Reply with quote  #2

1480934903
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480934903
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480934903

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480934903
Reply with quote  #2

1480934903
Report to moderator
1480934903
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480934903

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480934903
Reply with quote  #2

1480934903
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 05, 2015, 05:22:45 PM
 #19702

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.



that's interesting.  i tried listening to that video of SNARK and boy was that complex.  certainly not yet developed.

but let's say SNARKS do come to fruition.  wouldn't it be better to integrate it into Bitcoin if possible?  this would prevent existing cold wallets from having to migrate to the SNARK SC which would save alot of ppl time and headache, not to mention all the ppl who WON'T have heard of this new SC and the need to move their BTC. 

if it turns out SNARKS are not implementable into Bitcoin and are somehow able to prove that it's functionality is SO MUCH better than Bitcoin, then maybe.  we'll have to see about that.

but that's not really what we're talking about here.  we're discussing spvp, a 2 way peg.  if what you're talking about comes to fruition, we'd be only needing a 1 way peg, which technically is simpler and probably safer for Bitcoin MC.
HeliKopterBen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622



View Profile
January 05, 2015, 05:37:33 PM
 #19703

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.

Its not just speculators that use the exchanges.  The sidechain model is not a bailout, it is a potentially more secure financial system where users have much less exposure to theft.  While bitcoin is still in beta, I don't see any reason to not implement it.

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

Activity: 1974


View Profile
January 05, 2015, 05:46:12 PM
 #19704


Doesn't matter if the transaction fees are high or low.  Doesn't matter if ....

To be honest, I have not previously considered the points you make above. I have always taken Satoshi's block rewards->fees evolution at face value, and am not convinced that the majority of miners will work for zero income. Obviously this does happen to some of them, occasionally.

I'm pleasantly surprised to see you say this.  Still, it's a hypothesis on my part, and the appropriate thing to do with a hypothesis is to file it away and match it against future observations.

Another somewhat weaker hypothesis is that some of the value streams that I alluded to are quite valuable indeed if enough data can be collected.  We could see mining completely subsidized in order to capture these value streams (and other's I've not thought of.)

With respect to the 'who spends what where' data, the 'who' part is still the most challenging.  Eventually Big Bro will probably solve that with a 'internet drivers license' type thing, but if/when that happens it's still not clear how available the data will be to private industry.  It will probably be a 'public/private partnership' arrangement with horse-trading that favors the big guys would be my guess.  In the here-and-now, when you see someone wanting you to use a particular authenticator, it's a pretty sure bet that that is what they are after.  Outfits with a large network footprint have other ways of course, but authentication optimizes things significantly.

A very common way to make money in tech is to achieve something that a big player will want then either sell it to them or sell the ability to obtain it (e.g., your company.)  One of my (very initial) hypothesis about OpenTransaction is that this might be their game because a successful transport layer would be a high-value item in a bunch of ways.

A real-world analogy must be the oil market. With the oil price down 45% a lot of producers are unprofitable, pumping for zero, and considering closing down. But there are profitable producers and the oil industry will continue, even if the price stays low and half of the producers go out of business.

The energy markets are probably about the worst example of a 'free market' that one could find.  For one, there are huge national security issues which touch almost every aspect of it.  For two, it's probably not a complete junk theory that our monetary system itself(!) is heavily tied in through what is monikered the 'petro-dollar' (and the 'world reserve currency' status of the USD.)  None-the-less, the old supply/demand laws are so powerful that they cannot be buried forever and they can be expected to rear their 'ugly heads' even in a heavily manipulated market like energy...with time...


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 05, 2015, 05:59:44 PM
 #19705

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.

Its not just speculators that use the exchanges.  The sidechain model is not a bailout, it is a potentially more secure financial system where users have much less exposure to theft.  While bitcoin is still in beta, I don't see any reason to not implement it.

yes, there are users like me who simply use the exchanges to get in and out of BTC but over long time periods.  anyone who does leave their BTC/fiat on the exchange for prolonged periods are the speculators i'm talking about.  who of us here leave their fiat on Forex exchanges for prolonged periods.  not many i'd suspect as we generally are more about sound money and not speculation.  SC's are tempting us by claiming to be more secure; i question that b/c of the necessity for 100% MM.  the 2wp is also suspect as it implies a way to get out w/o losses esp if you're using the SC for speculation.  bailout is probably too strong a term so maybe my original "put" term applies.

the spvp does sound generic based on what Adam has told us but it's the unexpected feedback effects on MC that i question.
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
January 05, 2015, 06:01:31 PM
 #19706

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.

The theory of right angles also survived the builders of house in which it was first used.  In a long enough time frame, the implementation must fall ahead of the knowledge.  This is a less profound observation than you might imagine.

That "survives" may be centuries away, or weeks, depending on how things get hacked up.

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 05, 2015, 06:04:17 PM
 #19707


Doesn't matter if the transaction fees are high or low.  Doesn't matter if ....

To be honest, I have not previously considered the points you make above. I have always taken Satoshi's block rewards->fees evolution at face value, and am not convinced that the majority of miners will work for zero income. Obviously this does happen to some of them, occasionally.

I'm pleasantly surprised to see you say this.  Still, it's a hypothesis on my part, and the appropriate thing to do with a hypothesis is to file it away and match it against future observations.

Another somewhat weaker hypothesis is that some of the value streams that I alluded to are quite valuable indeed if enough data can be collected.  We could see mining completely subsidized in order to capture these value streams (and other's I've not thought of.)

With respect to the 'who spends what where' data, the 'who' part is still the most challenging.  Eventually Big Bro will probably solve that with a 'internet drivers license' type thing, but if/when that happens it's still not clear how available the data will be to private industry.  It will probably be a 'public/private partnership' arrangement with horse-trading that favors the big guys would be my guess.  In the here-and-now, when you see someone wanting you to use a particular authenticator, it's a pretty sure bet that that is what they are after.  Outfits with a large network footprint have other ways of course, but authentication optimizes things significantly.

A very common way to make money in tech is to achieve something that a big player will want then either sell it to them or sell the ability to obtain it (e.g., your company.)  One of my (very initial) hypothesis about OpenTransaction is that this might be their game because a successful transport layer would be a high-value item in a bunch of ways.

A real-world analogy must be the oil market. With the oil price down 45% a lot of producers are unprofitable, pumping for zero, and considering closing down. But there are profitable producers and the oil industry will continue, even if the price stays low and half of the producers go out of business.

The energy markets are probably about the worst example of a 'free market' that one could find.  For one, there are huge national security issues which touch almost every aspect of it.  For two, it's probably not a complete junk theory that our monetary system itself(!) is heavily tied in through what is monikered the 'petro-dollar' (and the 'world reserve currency' status of the USD.)  None-the-less, the old supply/demand laws are so powerful that they cannot be buried forever and they can be expected to rear their 'ugly heads' even in a heavily manipulated market like energy...with time...



actually, the hypothesis is a decent one (ouch, that's painful to say) and i have myself thought about this.  but i don't think it's a potential problem until 2140 when Bitcoin inflation goes to zero.  certainly, it could manifest itself earlier if the market perceives it as a bonafide problem and attempts to front run it.

however, i agree with solex that it can probably be better modelled by what we have in the energy mkts.  and oil companies don't seem to be having a problem; nor even smaller players who nip at their heels thru private oil wells or shale opportunities.

also, Adrian pointed out that your claim of "unlimited HW" is really Econ 101.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 05, 2015, 06:32:03 PM
 #19708

Bitstamp says.  meanwhile, in stockland.  $DJI -321:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 05, 2015, 06:34:19 PM
 #19709

speaking of oil and natgas overlayed; who the hell needs either of those?:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 05, 2015, 06:36:37 PM
 #19710

copper and FCX copper mining?  who the hell needs those too?:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 05, 2015, 06:40:24 PM
 #19711

apparently all we need is moar black hole shit and the dollar.  somehow though, this one should work out differently than 2008:

Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
January 05, 2015, 07:16:18 PM
 #19712

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.


He's saying that increasing the full-node bandwidth requirements is a centralizing factor.  It is.  If it requires more resources to run a full-node, less full-nodes will be run (all other variables held constant).  What is "necessary and desirable" is a different question: we want the Blockchain to scale but we require Bitcoin to remain decentralized.  Like you've pointed out several times, the proponents of keeping the blocksize limit small can't prove their claims; however, those who wish to increase or remove the cap can't prove their claims either.  

Bitcoin has value because it is decentralized.  It has value because the Blockchain is an unforgeable global ledger accessible to anyone according to the protocol rules, and secured by the largest single-purpose computing network ever constructed.  It has value because another individual, company or (possibly) government cannot prevent you from doing what you wish with your coins.  It has value because the majority cannot vote to redistribute your funds or attempt to paper-over economic problems by printing additional bitcoins.  In summary, it has value because it behaves less like a human invention/institution and more like a phenomenon of nature itself.  Just like there's nothing in the world we can do to stop gravity, we must also be unable to stop the ceaseless chaining of new blocks upon the Blockchain.  

Full-node count is currently estimated at 6495 nodes, and is steadily dwindling despite the fact that the blocksize-limit has remained static at 1 MB.  How would full-node count change if the average blocksize were 10x larger?  100x larger?  How many nodes do we even need?  I think these are difficult questions to answer.  

The current price reflects the belief that Bitcoin has the potential to one day become a significant world currency/SoV.  Like Smooth pointed out earlier, that pie-in-the-sky $10,000+ price multiplied by the market's estimate of its probability of success sets today's price.  If Bitcoin can't scale to the extent necessary to fulfil this potential, then the price of bitcoin today will become adjusted to this new reality (lower).  How much scaling is necessary?  I don't know, but I'm pretty sure the 1 MB limit put in place by Satoshi many years ago as a stop-gap measure is not it.
  

BTW, I don't think the "free-market-solves-all-problems-so-remove-the-cap-completely" approach can fly.  The Satoshi Social Contract requires that certain system-level constraints exist (for example, the inflation schedule….we can't have the free-market solve that problem).  Another requirement is that Bitcoin remain decentralized.  Without a constraint on blockchain growth, it seems less likely that this would always be the case.  

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

Activity: 1246



View Profile
January 05, 2015, 07:28:25 PM
 #19713

He's saying that increasing the full-node bandwidth requirements is a centralizing factor.  It is.  If it requires more resources to run a full-node, less full-nodes will be run (all other variables held constant).

Fewer nodes is not itself the entire problem, it is also where the nodes are. If most of the nodes end up at a few big VPS companies that is not a good outcome, even if the node count increases.

Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
January 05, 2015, 07:29:44 PM
 #19714

He's saying that increasing the full-node bandwidth requirements is a centralizing factor.  It is.  If it requires more resources to run a full-node, less full-nodes will be run (all other variables held constant).

Fewer nodes is not itself the entire problem, it is also where the nodes are. If most of the nodes end up at a few big VPS companies that is not a good outcome, even if the node count increases.

Agreed.  Good point. 

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

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 05, 2015, 07:44:40 PM
 #19715

Dow -331 345 and falling.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974


View Profile
January 05, 2015, 07:51:57 PM
 #19716

He's saying that increasing the full-node bandwidth requirements is a centralizing factor.  It is.  If it requires more resources to run a full-node, less full-nodes will be run (all other variables held constant).

Fewer nodes is not itself the entire problem, it is also where the nodes are. If most of the nodes end up at a few big VPS companies that is not a good outcome, even if the node count increases.

Agreed.  Good point. 

A new transport layer which slices, dices, etc, could mitigate certain of the concerns here.  Something like Oh, I dunno, 'SuperNET'?  I'll expect this to be one of the main sales pitches.


justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
January 05, 2015, 07:54:47 PM
 #19717

If it requires more resources to run a full-node, less full-nodes will be run (all other variables held constant).
This is an effect of shitty network design.

Satoshi was right to realize that a currency should have a limited supply, but that doesn't mean he was right about (or even though about) the economic features of the rest of the software stack.

With a tiny handful of exceptions, all P2P networks are economically broken.

Consider a McDonalds restaurant. The more customers they need to serve, the more resources they require to do so.

Yet in spite of that fact, as the customer demand for McDonald's product increases, so does the number of stores!

Why is that the opposite of what happens with P2P networks? Because in the case of Big Macs, people pay for what they use. This customer action of paying for what they concume means that McDonalds doesn't really need to worry about how it will gather the resources it needs to scale.

The Satoshi Social Contract requires that certain system-level constraints exist (for example, the inflation schedule….we can't have the free-market solve that problem).
That's an objection only brought up by people who don't understand money.

The reason the inflation schedule shouldn't change is the same reason you shouldn't put an anchor on an airplane.

In a way, the free market *does* solve that question though - because people are free to choose whether or not they want to travel in a boat or in an airplane.

Another requirement is that Bitcoin remain decentralized.  Without a constraint on blockchain growth, it seems less likely that this would always be the case.
Let's talk more about this requirement after you produce a workable definition of what "decentralized" means, and the arguments you use to justify your conclusion about how different situations will affect it.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 05, 2015, 07:55:28 PM
 #19718

we got a really nice Dow Theory non-confirmation going right now which should widen with time:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 05, 2015, 08:24:52 PM
 #19719

oil @ 49.90.  the only thing sweet about sweet crude oil is the sweet smell of Deflation.
sidhujag
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288


View Profile
January 05, 2015, 08:48:57 PM
 #19720

we got a really nice Dow Theory non-confirmation going right now which should widen with time:


nice buy
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1036 ... 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!