Bitcoin Forum
May 27, 2017, 08:15:57 AM *
News: If the forum does not load normally for you, please send me a traceroute.
 
   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 ... 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 1044 1045 1046 1047 ... 1559 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1904828 times)
msin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134


View Profile
January 08, 2015, 05:09:57 PM
 #19921


Are you on Holiday break right now, you seem to have endless amounts of time to write here.  Not trying to discredit you, just jealous of your free time Smiley
1495872957
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1495872957

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1495872957
Reply with quote  #2

1495872957
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1495872957
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1495872957

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1495872957
Reply with quote  #2

1495872957
Report to moderator
JorgeStolfi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
January 08, 2015, 05:12:19 PM
 #19922


Are you on Holiday break right now, you seem to have endless amounts of time to write here.  Not trying to discredit you, just jealous of your free time Smiley

Yes, it is school vacations here.

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

Activity: 1134


View Profile
January 08, 2015, 05:30:04 PM
 #19923


Are you on Holiday break right now, you seem to have endless amounts of time to write here.  Not trying to discredit you, just jealous of your free time Smiley

Yes, it is school vacations here.

Well, nice to be on the school schedule.  Just curious if you've checked out other protocols, POS, POI, Ripple?  Thoughts?
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2156


View Profile
January 08, 2015, 05:47:13 PM
 #19924


... {recently done work on nuclear option}


One of the reasons I'm adamant about native Bitcoin being used and seen as a 'reserve currency' rather than and 'exchange currency' is that it would not as terminal event for the system to go through a longish period of turmoil.

If sidechains were in the picture it would complicate things hugely for 'the cartel' for a bunch of reasons.  Chief among them:

 - Sidechains would have a variety of methods of functioning making it a real challenge for a 'cartel' to target the soft-points of each one.

 - Many of the sidechain implementations probably would have gone back toward an architecture which values and derives support from individual users.  Native Bitcoin has gone a long way in the opposite direction in my observations over the last 4 years.  Anyway, this individual contribution factor of sidechains could provide some support to the native Bitcoin backing and give the userbase (your 'rebels') at least a little bit of firepower against 'the cartel.'

 - Sidechains would be operated and valuable as independent solutions to individual coalitions.  The main interest in native Bitcoin to each of these would be that it remains universally credible in order to provide the backing they need.  This would probably translate to native Bitcoin ending up in a form which does not align with the end-goals of 'the cartel'.

 - Sidechains would have individual participants and operators who were highly technically competent and motivated.  These people would naturally be operating at the 'nexus point' between the sidechain and the native Bitcoin backing store.  What this means is that correct technical decisions would be made quickly, and interference at the 'nexus' level would be countered by people who know what they are doing.  Also, of course, a population's worth of transactions from a sidechain would be aggregated into a handful on the native Blockchain level transactions.  This would offer both the efficiency which might be needed under some attacks, and also a 'big stick' which has use politically.

Lamentably, I have to agree with Jorge that on the current trajectory with a zillion tiny and dis-interested users following whatever their Multibit UI is showing them, there is a strong possibility for a successful subversion by a 'cartel'.  Or not even that so much as simply a natural progression to a solution which doesn't have much good to offer.  It's why I'm so negative about Bitcoin being cast as a stand-alone exchange currency.


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 08, 2015, 07:02:40 PM
 #19925

oil?  who the hell needs oil, let alone natgas?:

tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2156


View Profile
January 08, 2015, 07:09:42 PM
 #19926


oil?  who the hell needs oil, ...

I do.  I bought another couple hundred gallons yesterday.  That should last me a year or two depending on how much I use my excavator (the one that Bitcoin bought Smiley )


JorgeStolfi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
January 08, 2015, 07:11:08 PM
 #19927

Just curious if you've checked out other protocols, POS, POI, Ripple?  Thoughts?

Know nothing about PoS or PoI (or PoB), sorry.

My understanding of Ripple is that it is two things:

* The Ripple Network is a system for interbank settlements that uses some cryptocoin technology, but is centrally managed by RippleLabs and/or a bank consortium;

* The Ripple Coin (XRP) is a cryptocurrency, also managed by RippleLabs.  The coin could be used by the Ripple Network as an intermediate step when converting between two minor currencies, but the same role could be performed by a major currency such as UDS or EUR.  Success of the Network does not imply success of the coin, and vice-versa.

Is this understanding correct?
 

Academic interest in bitcoin only. Not owner, not trader, very skeptical of its longterm success.
xcrabber
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 32


View Profile
January 08, 2015, 07:52:04 PM
 #19928


oil?  who the hell needs oil, ...

I do.  I bought another couple hundred gallons yesterday.  That should last me a year or two depending on how much I use my excavator (the one that Bitcoin bought Smiley )



I will sell a l48 kubota hoe that was bought with Bitcoin for Bitcoin.   Grin
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428



View Profile
January 08, 2015, 07:53:20 PM
 #19929

so you prefer to believe the fantasy

If it is a fantasy, then the bet is free money to you.

Put up or shut up.

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428



View Profile
January 08, 2015, 08:05:50 PM
 #19930

You meant 12.5 rebelBTC per block.  (It is the ex-bitcoin miners who will earn 25 cartelBTC per block.)  But it doesn't matter.

To be clear I was simplifying the model by ignoring the block having, since that really isn't important. A cartel that can hard fork to double its rewards after a block having can hard fork to double its rewards any other time. This just makes the discussion a bit simpler.

Quote
Well, the cartel will want to be the first in that line [to mine a modified protocol].

There is no cartel on the Red Button hard forked protocol. Anyone has equal access to the ability to mine. The fact that someone was a cartel previously does not grant any vested status in the future. Deepbit, for example, has no greater ability to show up today and be a mining cartel than you or I do.

I understand you meant cloud computing. So did I. Go back and reread what I wrote.

Cloud computing would be used to mine honestly, at first, and then would be both uncompetitive and not large enough to matter. There is not 75-150 MW of available cloud computing capacity, particularly if an algorithm is readily minable on GPUs, as most would be. GPU cloud mining capacity is extremely limited, CPU capacity is somewhat limited. But are extremely expensive, especially when in high demand.

bitcon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050


www.bit-exo.com


View Profile WWW
January 08, 2015, 08:07:08 PM
 #19931

oil?  who the hell needs oil, let alone natgas?:



does this mean oil has failed?

Stargazer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


Neeed moooore cooooins!


View Profile
January 08, 2015, 08:14:19 PM
 #19932

does this mean oil has failed?

The difference is that you need oil and probably 9/10 families have at least 1 thing that runs on oil (or gas made from it), be it a car, a motorcycle, a pump, lawn mower or a generator.
Is there anything physical that would cease to work if bitcoin disappeared? The only thing I can think of is mining hardware.

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428



View Profile
January 08, 2015, 08:19:52 PM
 #19933

does this mean oil has failed?

The difference is that you need oil and probably 9/10 families have at least 1 thing that runs on oil (or gas made from it), be it a car, a motorcycle, a pump, lawn mower or a generator.

Perhaps this is part of the problem with oil (though in the very short term only a small part). Battery powered substitutes for many of those devices are becoming more readily available, practical, and cost effective all the time.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 08, 2015, 08:33:59 PM
 #19934

i have a thought experiment on SC's.  Adam, if you're still out there, i would appreciate your thoughts:

the goal is to theoretically construct a SC that is equal in as many respects to the MC as possible and then predict the vulnerabilities of each.  for this, i am going to invoke 2 of the marketing tactics that the SC proponents have claimed to be advantages and givens, are in fact true.

1.  that of a firewall btwn the SC and MC that "protects" the MC from any failures or fraud on the SC.
2.  that the destruction of scBTC can only result in an increase in the price of BTC on MC.

we will use the op_spv as the model along with its 2 day 2wp clearing mechanism.  50% of all BTC will be on the MC and the other 50% BTC (scBTC) will be on the SC.  there is perfect 100% MM'ing of the SC.  the fiat exchange prices are equal.  the only apparent difference is that the SC has an innovation beyond the capability of Bitcoin which attracted usage in the first place.  

is this an equilibrium situation that is stable?  imo, no.

what has become clear over the last 6 yrs of Bitcoin mining is that even when an individual mining pool has gained close to or even exceeded the 51% hashing market share required to elicit a 51% attack, they have refused to do so. we have seen 3 examples of this:  Deepbit, BTCGuild, and Ghash.io.  i have explained this somewhat unexpected behavior (to some) in terms of the Nash Equilibrium which states that it would be in the attackers unfavorable self interest to attack the MC in that the immediate result would be to kill confidence in Bitcoin along with the price.  such a strategy would even likely be unprofitable as any short position or sale of stolen Bitcoin would be unavailable as exchanges would halt the attackers ability to cash out in any meaningful size on such a scheme.  also, the attackers would sacrifice the millions or so in hardware they were forced to expend initially, not to mention the time and labor required to set up such an operation.  so, in this sense, there is a severe if not catastrophic negative economic consequence to attacking the MC. this is nothing new to those of us who've been around for a while.

thus, i submit over the long run that in the theoretical construct made above with a SC involved, the MC would still not be attacked given the above game theory as it would amount to self destruction.  what about the SC?  the attacking miner, or coalition of miners, know that there is a firewall that will prevent any negative feedback effects back to the MC, at least, in terms of the protocol functioning.  and they will believe any attack that results in destruction of scBTC will only drive up the price of BTC on the MC.  there will be no negative economic consequences for the attack on the SC that feedback to the MC.  thus, i submit an attack is an inevitable consequence.  and this would be the lower bound expectation of benefit for the attackers.  the upper bound would include other economic inducements which aren't necessary to make my argument.  those being:  

1.  attackers could place a large fiat short position in place on a derivatives exchange to benefit from a scBTC price crash from an all out SC failure.
2.  they could try to immediately sell stolen scBTC.  
3.  they could be attackers who were not allowed to mine the SC because of illegality enforced by its gvt and thus benefit by destruction of this competing SC.

but my point is not to compare the upper bound economic benefits of financial gain of such an attack.  it is simply to illustrate that the lower bound minimal benefit or expectation, is that there are no negative economic consequences for the attackers and is enough, by itself, to expect an eventual attack.  one could try to argue that a coalition of miners would not want to destroy 50% of their tx fee volume on the SC.  but to this, i would say that, at the very least, the 3 above economic inducements would be enough to neutralize this argument.  

i believe this concept of economic self preservation allows us to compare the economic viability of SC's of tomorrow to the overwhelming evidence that makes a 51% attack on the MC an extremely low risk event today: a reluctance to destroy one's own business or seed corn.

have at it.
JorgeStolfi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
January 08, 2015, 08:39:02 PM
 #19935

Well, the cartel will want to be the first in that line [to mine a modified protocol].

There is no cartel on the Red Button hard forked protocol. Anyone has equal access to the ability to mine. The fact that someone was a cartel previously does not grant any vested status in the future. Deepbit, for example, has no greater ability to show up today and be a mining cartel than you or I do.

Come on, you know that "the cartel" there means "the cartel of old-chain miners who want to force a change in the block schedule".  It is not "a cartel of rebel-chain miners".  

Assuming that "the cartel" wants to kill the value of the rebel chain, it will try to put enough CPU power working on the rebel chain to jam it.  That should not be hard at first, because the rebels and opportunistic miners will not all start mining all at once.  If the cartel acts quickly, then the rebels who try to use or mine the rebel chain will be frustrated, and (so the cartel hopes) they will give up before others join the rebellion.

Note that, while this struggle is going on in the rebel chain, the cartel's chain (with old protocol except for halving) will operate normally all the time for everybody who upgrades to it, except perhaps for some temporary variation in the block rate.

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

Activity: 1428



View Profile
January 08, 2015, 08:40:18 PM
 #19936

Well, the cartel will want to be the first in that line [to mine a modified protocol].

There is no cartel on the Red Button hard forked protocol. Anyone has equal access to the ability to mine. The fact that someone was a cartel previously does not grant any vested status in the future. Deepbit, for example, has no greater ability to show up today and be a mining cartel than you or I do.

Come on, you know that "the cartel" there means "the cartel of old-chain miners who want to force a change in the block schedule".  It is not "a cartel of rebel-chain miners". 

Yes, and what I'm saying is there is no cartel. A cartel implies there is some barrier to entry (for example by limited capacity of equipment). There is none here; everyone can mine, and in a protocol that hasn't reached the stage of specialized hardware, the startup costs are low and entry is very rapid. A huge amount of mining would come online within a day or two, and remember your proposal is for all this to be announced a month ahead, so plenty of time to get ready.
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
January 08, 2015, 08:57:56 PM
 #19937

high octane anti-trollery
http://btctheory.com/2015/01/08/bitcoins-people-problem/
Quote
Stupidity is a poor excuse for failing to understand how technology and money works, but alas, we are in a world ran by a union of morons, commanded by sociopathic capitalists and politicians. Those who believe in bitcoin’s demise are the same sniveling cowards who cannot see past their own avarice and callowness to ever accomplish something great–they simply want to punch the clown each day, satisfied at the safety of being commanded by another. They are cowards happy to obey governments and laws that can only be defined as illegal and tyrannical.

These are the fools who would plead that the bitcoin’s cause can never succeed; not understanding the purpose is the struggle against the system as it is. The fools bitch of being ripped off by banks, and then offer hollow stares when told of what bitcoin can do. They demand to be told how bitcoin works, without a damn clue how fiat works. The only problem that bitcoin has is that stupid people do not want to be free and independent–they demand to be ruled and governed, and to have you dragged down with their sad little boat of life.

These clowns tell me of how pleasurable life is on their knees, and how they are allowed so many of the scraps from the table of Empire! That a life of looking towards the ground is not only a great pleasure, but one of deep honor. These people love their duty to their God of the state. They will offer any excuse to justify the needs of their master, any reason to qualify the barbarism they execute daily. There is nothing that the state can do that the slaves cannot create a justification for. If these are the very idiots that we must rely upon to help us create our change, I must animate the seriousness of the dilemma in which we have been caught. We shall never succeed if we believe these people will welcome the liberation from Plato’s Cave.

Quote
I insist that it is not the handful of parasites [of capitalism and the state], but the mass itself is responsible for this horrible state of affairs. It clings to its masters, loves the whip, and is the first to cry Crucify! the moment a protesting voice is raised against the sacredness of capitalistic authority or any other decayed institution.

Love the passion there, will have to follow his blog. Overall his thesis is accurate IMHO, the majority prefers the safety of a stable and top down static system, even if that system robs them blind of their labor and liberty. This has been true across cultures and time. Exceptional societies were the few that rejected this and relied on self reliance and responsibility of the individual. I've read about them, but have never seen one in my lifetime. This is the real hurdle to bitcoin's adoption, luckily we have human greed of a handful working in our favor...
JorgeStolfi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
January 08, 2015, 09:02:19 PM
 #19938

There is no cartel on the Red Button hard forked protocol. Anyone has equal access to the ability to mine. The fact that someone was a cartel previously does not grant any vested status in the future. Deepbit, for example, has no greater ability to show up today and be a mining cartel than you or I do.
Come on, you know that "the cartel" there means "the cartel of old-chain miners who want to force a change in the block schedule".  It is not "a cartel of rebel-chain miners". 
Yes, and what I'm saying is there is no cartel. A cartel implies there is some barrier to entry (for example by limited capacity of equipment). There is none here; everyone can mine.

And, again, I never said that they would be a cartel of rebel-chain miners.  They would still be a cartel of miners of the old chain and the cartel chain.  In fact they would have 100% of the active ASIC miners on their side, because the old chain miners would have no other viable option except join them.

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

Activity: 1153


View Profile
January 08, 2015, 09:06:10 PM
 #19939

Yes, and what I'm saying is there is no cartel. A cartel implies there is some barrier to entry (for example by limited capacity of equipment). There is none here; everyone can mine, and in a protocol that hasn't reached the stage of specialized hardware, the startup costs are low and entry is very rapid. A huge amount of mining would come online within a day or two, and remember your proposal is for all this to be announced a month ahead, so plenty of time to get ready.

You are making a valiant effort smooth, but it is not one you are going to win with this one. He make the same argument with me, in that a mining cartel could "block" all transactions they want. He refused to acknowledge that a non-conforming cartel would simply be removed from the pool, and the network would continue with the remain honest miners. He refuses to understand that the network will continue as long as there are some remaining honest miners to generate blocks.

I refuse to believe that he can not understand this, and instead believe he is simply trying out and testing new FUD against bitcoin here. Some FUD is easily refuted, other FUD requires more discussion and understanding. He has already said that he is working with his government on educating the public on the scam that is bitcoin.
JorgeStolfi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
January 08, 2015, 09:13:21 PM
 #19940

Exceptional societies were the few that rejected this and relied on self reliance and responsibility of the individual. I've read about them, but have never seen one in my lifetime.

Could you name them please? I am not aware of any minimally developed society that would not have some sort of government backed by some sort of police.

I have seen people cite ancient Ireland (which seems to be false, false, the tribes had chiefs and there was even a "High King" at some point) and Iceland (where the population was all isolated farmers and the first village formed in the 18th century).  Do you mean some other?

Academic interest in bitcoin only. Not owner, not trader, very skeptical of its longterm success.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1044 1045 1046 1047 ... 1559 »
  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!