Bitcoin Forum
September 21, 2017, 07:41:57 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   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 ... 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 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1978042 times)
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
January 07, 2015, 08:23:06 AM
 #19841

Please stop feeding the troll. All as in 100% of his arguments have been debunked or already have solutions planned. He is very good at using fallacious arguments. Don't play into them. They are easy to spot because they have few details. If you challenge them, he doesn't answer you directly, instead he plays another trick.

Without taking sides: A Q&A or matrix or whatever for each argument (and counter-argument) would help the undecided.
Any source available?
I'll let you pick one and I'll point out the fallacy and google the discussion if necessary.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1506022917
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506022917

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506022917
Reply with quote  #2

1506022917
Report to moderator
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1540



View Profile
January 07, 2015, 08:26:57 AM
 #19842

You see, if power was distributed over many thousands of independent miners, all such lists would have thousads names
This statement is logically false.

I forgot the word 'evenly' before 'distributed'.   (I used it elsewhere when saying that same condition.)
Is that why you did not understand the logic?

I did understand the so called logic, but it was false.

It is false because it assumes all such lists are showing power, but in fact they all show something else, generally pools. I've never seen a "mining power list," have you?

Even with a relatively small number of pools you can still have power distributed over many thousands (or even more) independent miners, because those miners are able to move their hash rate. No pool can be confident of maintaining a given share because hash power can shift and new pools can be created.

In fact this was not the case with ghash since much of their mining was their own equipment.
bassclef
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 910



View Profile
January 07, 2015, 08:31:46 AM
 #19843

I'm still waiting for an answer on my bet.

I don't bet money if I can avoid it.  (That is one of the reasons why I do not own bitcoins.)

Talk is cheap.

Keep on trollin.


I for one would like to see Jorge put some money where his (big) mouth is.
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
January 07, 2015, 08:33:38 AM
 #19844

You see, if power was distributed over many thousands of independent miners, all such lists would have thousads names
This statement is logically false.

I forgot the word 'evenly' before 'distributed'.   (I used it elsewhere when saying that same condition.)
Is that why you did not understand the logic?

I did understand the so called logic, but it was false.

It is false because it assumes all such lists are showing power, but in fact they all show something else, generally pools. I've never seen a "mining power list," have you?

Even with a relatively small number of pools you can still have power distributed over many thousands (or even more) independent miners, because those miners are able to move their hash rate. No pool can be confident of maintaining a given share because hash power can shift and new pools can be created.

In fact this was not the case with ghash since much of their mining was their own equipment.

You presume ghash miners are used on it's own pool. It's a fair assumption, but it might behoove ghash to make a deal with other pools for no fee mining in the interest of decentralization.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
LiQio
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1149



View Profile
January 07, 2015, 08:47:54 AM
 #19845

Please stop feeding the troll. All as in 100% of his arguments have been debunked or already have solutions planned. He is very good at using fallacious arguments. Don't play into them. They are easy to spot because they have few details. If you challenge them, he doesn't answer you directly, instead he plays another trick.

Without taking sides: A Q&A or matrix or whatever for each argument (and counter-argument) would help the undecided.
Any source available?
I'll let you pick one and I'll point out the fallacy and google the discussion if necessary.

Appreciated, outahere - but IMO that would not really solve the problem, that ATM every post seems like "cherry-picking" to (back)troll.
But since a lot of posters in this discussion seem to have an "academic background" a more reasonable "container" would make a lot of sense (again IMO)...
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
January 07, 2015, 08:48:57 AM
 #19846

You see, if power was distributed over many thousands of independent miners, all such lists would have thousads names
This statement is logically false.

I forgot the word 'evenly' before 'distributed'.   (I used it elsewhere when saying that same condition.)
Is that why you did not understand the logic?

I did understand the so called logic, but it was false.

It is false because it assumes all such lists are showing power, but in fact they all show something else, generally pools. I've never seen a "mining power list," have you?

Even with a relatively small number of pools you can still have power distributed over many thousands (or even more) independent miners, because those miners are able to move their hash rate. No pool can be confident of maintaining a given share because hash power can shift and new pools can be created.

In fact this was not the case with ghash since much of their mining was their own equipment.

You presume ghash miners are used on it's own pool. It's a fair assumption, but it might behoove ghash to make a deal with other pools for no fee mining in the interest of decentralization.

True its a poor assumption because ghash.io miners are in fact split between several pools.  
This is a different layer of centralization (they can suddenly move them to their own pool, for example).

I mentioned a few of the layers of centralization in my previous post.
-ASIC makers
-Miners
-Pools
-Devs
Each of these are too centralized by some measures.  (the world of bitcoin is still kinda small).

The silly thing that Jorge does is assume that not only will these all perpetually get worse (instead by most evidence they are trending toward better), but that it will be fatal and are fated to be so.  There is not any evidence for his assumption, it appears to simply be prejudicial.  He started here with it and it may be his job to perpetuate it since he does work for the State.

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
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1540



View Profile
January 07, 2015, 08:54:41 AM
 #19847

The rebel users would then find themselves in a new altcoin, with a fourth blockchain (4)  that wuld not use the bitcoin protocol, supported by a minuscule CPU/GPU mining network.  Their rebelBTCs would not be accepted by users or services who converted, and they would not be able to receive cartelBTCs from them.   

Your rhetoric is still ridiculous. Users upgrading to the next version of software from where they got it in the first place does not make them "rebels."

This is the part you don't seem to understand. "Bitcoin" is not a static protocol that Satoshi wrote down in a paper six years ago. "Bitcoin" is what the community decides it is. For example, Satoshi's paper does not include a 1 MB block limit, yet that is very much a part of "Bitcoin" today. There are countless other elements of the system that exist in the form they exist today because of specific software that its users choose. Bitcoin tomorrow will likewise in all probability be something different (if there is ever another hard fork; opinions differ but my guess is there will be).

As for the "minuscule CPU/GPU mining network," you are horribly confused about how mining works. A gazillion hashes/second doesn't make the network secure and in fact the number of hashes is completely irrelevant. What matters for the most part is the amount of electricity used and secondarily the cost of the mining equipment. For example 100 watts buys you something on the order of 200 GH/sec of SHA256D. The same 100 watts would buy you perhaps 300 hashes/sec of (to pick one with which I happen to be familiar) CryptoNight. These are approximately equal in value for mining; 200 GH/sec of one algorithm is not 2/3 of a billion times "more secure" than 300 H/s of another. These units are incomparable.

The current bitcoin network is about 150 megawatts. That's something on the order of a 1-2 million PCs using a CPU algorithm. At least until specialized hardware and mining farms developed, a bitcoin forked to a CPU/GPU algorithm would look a lot like a million bitcoin users all mining on their computers. Sounds pretty darn secure to me.

Quote
The rebels could try to take revenge from the cartel by stealing their rewards, but they could do that only in the rebel altcoin.

Again, the rhetoric is absurd. An upgraded version of bitcoin with a hard fork (it wouldn't be the first), used by the majority of bitcoin users, is not an altcoin, it is bitcoin. The users adopting it are not rebels, they are bitcoin users.

Quote
Rebel users will be unable to use the network for days until they upgrade to the red button version; while users who give in to the cartel will not suffer any inconvenience.

In your scenario, the cartel has announced its plan in advance and distributed its hard fork version to all the users. The rest of the community can do likewise. There need be no interruption.

Furthermore, under this wartime scenario transactions would likely voluntarily halt anyway, because no one could be sure that the original chain being jammed wouldn't turn out to be the surviving chain, so no one would accept payments that weren't mined on it. That would certainly be an inconvenience and damaging to bitcoin generally, but the cartel would have no advantage absent some ability to guarantee that their fork would succeed, which they can't do.



cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
January 07, 2015, 09:02:24 AM
 #19848

Please stop feeding the troll. All as in 100% of his arguments have been debunked or already have solutions planned. He is very good at using fallacious arguments. Don't play into them. They are easy to spot because they have few details. If you challenge them, he doesn't answer you directly, instead he plays another trick.

Without taking sides: A Q&A or matrix or whatever for each argument (and counter-argument) would help the undecided.
Any source available?
I'll let you pick one and I'll point out the fallacy and google the discussion if necessary.

Appreciated, outahere - but IMO that would not really solve the problem, that ATM every post seems like "cherry-picking" to (back)troll.
But since a lot of posters in this discussion seem to have an "academic background" a more reasonable "container" would make a lot of sense (again IMO)...
I call that container Google. There is a Google search bar on this forum.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
LiQio
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1149



View Profile
January 07, 2015, 09:09:31 AM
 #19849

Please stop feeding the troll. All as in 100% of his arguments have been debunked or already have solutions planned. He is very good at using fallacious arguments. Don't play into them. They are easy to spot because they have few details. If you challenge them, he doesn't answer you directly, instead he plays another trick.

Without taking sides: A Q&A or matrix or whatever for each argument (and counter-argument) would help the undecided.
Any source available?
I'll let you pick one and I'll point out the fallacy and google the discussion if necessary.

Appreciated, outahere - but IMO that would not really solve the problem, that ATM every post seems like "cherry-picking" to (back)troll.
But since a lot of posters in this discussion seem to have an "academic background" a more reasonable "container" would make a lot of sense (again IMO)...
I call that container Google. There is a Google search bar on this forum.

 Undecided Nevermind.
Back to popcorn and watching trolls.
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
January 07, 2015, 09:19:57 AM
 #19850

Please stop feeding the troll. All as in 100% of his arguments have been debunked or already have solutions planned. He is very good at using fallacious arguments. Don't play into them. They are easy to spot because they have few details. If you challenge them, he doesn't answer you directly, instead he plays another trick.

Without taking sides: A Q&A or matrix or whatever for each argument (and counter-argument) would help the undecided.
Any source available?
I'll let you pick one and I'll point out the fallacy and google the discussion if necessary.

Appreciated, outahere - but IMO that would not really solve the problem, that ATM every post seems like "cherry-picking" to (back)troll.
But since a lot of posters in this discussion seem to have an "academic background" a more reasonable "container" would make a lot of sense (again IMO)...
I call that container Google. There is a Google search bar on this forum.

 Undecided Nevermind.
Back to popcorn and watching trolls.
That's why I'm saying you need TrollDAR™ to spot the fallacies before the contagion spreads. Enjoy your popcorn.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204


View Profile
January 07, 2015, 03:22:18 PM
 #19851

Please stop feeding the troll. All as in 100% of his arguments have been debunked or already have solutions planned. He is very good at using fallacious arguments. Don't play into them. They are easy to spot because they have few details. If you challenge them, he doesn't answer you directly, instead he plays another trick.

+1

Please note how he started to post on this thread a few days ago (asking questions about sidechains)
and then he slowly started to broaden the scope of his questions to bitcoin fundamentals and increase posts frequency.

Each of is post contains valid reasoning and seems legit, you have to take a step back to see what I think is his real agenda.

Looking at JorgeStolfi account activity by time I wonder even if it is used by more then one person:



Having said that I think the best course of action is leaving him (them?) alone, IMHO.  



Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
JorgeStolfi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
January 07, 2015, 03:44:38 PM
 #19852

Please stop feeding the troll. All as in 100% of his arguments have been debunked or already have solutions planned. He is very good at using fallacious arguments. Don't play into them. They are easy to spot because they have few details. If you challenge them, he doesn't answer you directly, instead he plays another trick.
Please note how he started to post on this thread a few days ago (asking questions about sidechains)
and then he slowly started to broaden the scope of his questions to bitcoin fundamentals and increase posts frequency.

Yes, I was trying to understand what the SC proposal was all about.  Seems it is the fable of the elephant and the blind men, so I gave up on that for now.  But the motivation, at least for some people, seems to be a way to save bitcoin from some risk.  The discussion went into 51% attack, so I posted my understanding about that.  I did not see any technical objections to what I wrote, only different beliefs about how the community would react.  Well, each one is entitled to their opinion on that.

Quote
Each of is post contains valid reasoning and seems legit

Oh, thank you.

Quote
Looking at JorgeStolfi account activity by time I wonder even if it is used by more then one person:


Well, I am 64, I am not a Beatles' song, I do not have regular hours, it is school vacations, and I have a big pile of exams to grade.  And I noticed that someone was wrong on the internet.

Quote
Having said that I think the best course of action is leaving them alone, IMHO.  

I would appreciate that, thank you.   Wink

Academic interest in bitcoin only. Not owner, not trader, very skeptical of its longterm success.
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708

Newbie


View Profile
January 07, 2015, 04:11:20 PM
 #19853

Having said that I think the best course of action is leaving him (them?) alone, IMHO.  

You are a typical bitcoiner, sir. You guys always go to personality level when run out of counterarguments.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 07, 2015, 05:22:11 PM
 #19854

Bitfinex continuing to drag everyone up.  Don't hesitate.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 07, 2015, 05:42:05 PM
 #19855

read this to understand how the federated server SC model won't work:

http://monetas.net/why-central-banks-will-race-to-adopt-the-blockchain/
600watt
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1554


View Profile
January 07, 2015, 06:05:17 PM
 #19856

Having said that I think the best course of action is leaving him (them?) alone, IMHO.  

You are a typical bitcoiner, sir. You guys always go to personality level when run out of counterarguments.

good that you don't run in the same direction. and even better that you don't generalize.  Smiley
msin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134


View Profile
January 07, 2015, 06:15:31 PM
 #19857

Having said that I think the best course of action is leaving him (them?) alone, IMHO.  

You are a typical bitcoiner, sir. You guys always go to personality level when run out of counterarguments.

good that you don't run in the same direction. and even better that you don't generalize.  Smiley

CFB is anything but typical  Smiley  That's why I like him.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 07, 2015, 06:34:11 PM
 #19858

this is a very useful article to help understand how and what OT is and will become.  i think they have great promise and preserves the inseparability of the BTC unit with its blockchain:

http://monetas.net/monetas-brings-colored-coins-to-btcd/
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
January 07, 2015, 06:36:35 PM
 #19859

Provided SideChain are not introduced the cost to mine empty blocks becomes prohibitive, and can approach infinity, the incentive system as is rewards corporation.

I think this recent engagement with Jorge provides a window into just how hard the next stage of bitcoin adoption will be.

Many of us leap into Bitcoin once we understood it, because we were already politically aligned to it's ideology and saw a chance for Bitcoin to realize what we had already been looking for.

However this is a very small pool of people compared to the population at large. The next pools of people are those who are indifferent and those who are outright hostile/opposed to what Bitcoin represents, with the majority most likely being hostile.

Jorge is good example, he is a CS professor being paid by the state to spread misinformation. If you were already politically aligned to believe in government control of money (so they can "adjust" the supply "grow with the economy"), you are already motivated to be against Bitcoin and would accept Jorge's line of reasoning without question because it agrees with your world view. Expect more and more of his type of "analysis" to appear in credible sources.

To overcome this very real adoption hurdle I think Bitcoin can only win by becoming more and more functional and needs the ability for market participants to create and explore new functionality.

This is why I believe the sidechains are interesting and should be pursued (the concept not necessarily the current implementation).

I went quiet during the last round of sidechain discussions since it's hard to properly discuss it in thread format, but I've come to believe that economic interests by participants is what will enforce proper behavior and make the concept work. A lot of the concern seems to be poking holes in what is possible technically with sidechains, but I think economic interests would win. BTW, I believe the same is true for Bitcoin, it is economic interests that make Bitcoin work, not technical. I'll try to expand on that later.

That said I've come to completely agree with Adrian and cypherdoc that sidechains will ruin the incentivization system of Bitcoin, which is mandatory for it to function as an independent and decentralized system. If sidechains are implemented as is, I would seriously question the viability of Bitcoin to survive after block rewards become dependent on fees.

However I think there are straightforward solutions to this, largely by structuring them as childchains and not sidechains. Children chains should be forced to merge mine with their parent chain, in effect contributing all of their hash power to the parent and making the parent have the sum hash power of all children, whereas the a parent chain can mine on it's own and does not have to merge mine with anyone else. I'll try to describe this in more detail later when I have time, and then you guys can tell me where it's all wrong Wink

TL;DR I think the concept of sidechains is needed for the next stages of adoption, but is unworkable in it's current form. So we need to find and propose the right form of a sidechain concept.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1540



View Profile
January 07, 2015, 06:58:13 PM
 #19860

I did not see any technical objections to what I wrote, only different beliefs about how the community would react.  Well, each one is entitled to their opinion on that.

Those are technical objections to what you wrote because what you wrote and the conclusion you reach depend entirely on statements about how the community would react. Do I need to quote them for you? If I'm not mistaken NewLiberty already did so.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 ... 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!