Bitcoin Forum
December 06, 2016, 02:02:53 PM *
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 ... 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 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1805058 times)
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
January 08, 2015, 02:41:23 PM
 #19921

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.

(Is this your "technical objection"?)

You are assuming that 2 million bitcoin users would all rather upgrade to the "rebel" chain and start mining on their own CPUs rather than accept the cartel's proposed change to the protocol.

No I'm assuming that given the choice between software upgrade A, from some foreign source, that modifies the protocol in favor of some other interest group, or software upgrade B, from the same place they got their software in the first place, that protects their own interests, they would choose B.

As for who would mine on their PC, that is simply incentive based. The same 25 BTC are being produced every 10 minutes. If running a little program on your PC allows you to "generate free money from the interwebs" then, sure, many people would do it. Not only many of the existing million or so BTC users but many other as well (historically BTC mining booms have attracted new users -- as expected via greed -- especially during the CPU and GPU eras).

Given 25 BTC being mined every 10 minutes, profit motive will attract people to mine on their computers, mine on the old computer in their attic, mine on their friends' computers, buy new computers, etc. until approximately the same 150 MW is mining as before. As for cloud mining, I suggest you do some industry research to find out how much cloud computing capacity is available and how much it costs. You will find that your assumptions about what is available to be grossly inaccurate, if you think cloud mining is a serious threat (in fact, it would initially be more of a source of honest profit-motivated mining, before becoming uncompetitive).

Please redo your calculation after recognizing that even if only 10% of users get involved, at all, with mining, many of those will get involved on a significantly larger scale. At the low end that means 2-10 computers, or building GPU rigs with a half dozen GPUs (each roughly equivalent to a desktop in capacity), etc. At the high end it means semi-pro to pro-farms with dozens of rigs, initially, even larger over time. Oh, and let's not forget botnets. They'd also join the party, bringing many more computers to grab their share of the "Free Internet Money!"

This is not theoretical; every aspect of what I wrote in the previous two paragraphs has happened during every BTC mining boom and every altcoin mining boom. Your claim that it wouldn't is backed by no historical or other evidence whatsoever.

Let me be clear about this -- I don't expect any of this to happen. I won't happen because everyone -- including the miners -- knows that it could and would happen if a mining cartel tried to exercise the power you claim they have (but actually don't) to fork the protocol in its favor. Therefore it won't happen.

If a mining cartel does indeed fork the protocol in its favor as your model predicts, then I will come back here and eat crow. If it doesn't happen (over some reasonable period of time -- say by the next block having or the one thereafter), will you do the same? As you know I would prefer a substantial bet, but you apparently are either not confident in or insincere about your statements or don't like the idea of receiving free money from a stranger on the internet.

Lets give him odds.  2 for 1.  I'll join in this bet, but lets make it more interesting...  Whichever fails first.  Brazil's Real, or Bitcoin.  First one to zero loses.

Jorge is living in fantasy land with his imagined world where people act against their own interests to support a cartel.
It is feasible to him, because he is doing it himself and has for his whole career as a state worker, believing that Brazil will remain solvent, or not caring that it won't and just enjoying that largess at the expense of those who can't.

Brazil "manages" their economy jerking it back and forth.  Then when it fails, workers will blame the company that leaves due to the state's mismanagement, rather than think about Alexandre Tombini's nonsense.  Sure, bring in Levy from the IMF for just a little more groupthink.

When they are done and have had their way with the poor people of Brazil, Bitcoin will remain here for them.  The Shame on Jorge for trying to convince them otherwise.

Quote from: cooks.com
CROW CASSEROLE   
1/2 dozen crow breasts
1 qt. sauerkraut
1/2 dozen strips bacon
1/3 c. chopped onion
In skillet brown the crow breasts, then place them on a 1 1/2" layer of sauerkraut in bottom of a casserole. Cover each piece of meat with a strip of bacon and sprinkle the onion over them. Cover the breast with another layer of sauerkraut and pour sauerkraut juice over it. Bake two hours in oven heated to 350 degrees.

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
1481032973
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481032973

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481032973
Reply with quote  #2

1481032973
Report to moderator
1481032973
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481032973

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481032973
Reply with quote  #2

1481032973
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481032973
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481032973

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481032973
Reply with quote  #2

1481032973
Report to moderator
1481032973
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481032973

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481032973
Reply with quote  #2

1481032973
Report to moderator
1481032973
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481032973

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481032973
Reply with quote  #2

1481032973
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 08, 2015, 04:23:06 PM
 #19922

once again, i seriously doubt the $DJT will get back up over the top of its previous high before the $DJI fails its advance thus confirming the Dow Theory non-confirmation.  we'll see:

JorgeStolfi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868



View Profile
January 08, 2015, 04:58:20 PM
 #19923

I'm assuming that given the choice between software upgrade A, from some foreign source, that modifies the protocol in favor of some other interest group, or software upgrade B, from the same place they got their software in the first place, that protects their own interests, they would choose B.

Wait, are you saying that there is an Authority that the bitcoiners must trust?  Wink

You must be referring to the The Shrem Karpelès & Friends Foundation, and/or Gavin Andersen who works for it, as the source of the Red Button upgrade B. But why do you presume that an entity that has Sergei "Ponzi King" Mavrodi and Brock "RealCoin" Pierce on board, as well as many of the big miners, would not side with the big miners' cartel?  How can you be sure that Gavin will not be employed by the cartel at the time?

The Red Button threat may serve to protect the user's interests against miner abuse, if it is credible.  However, actually carrying out that threat would be extremely damaging to the users, because it would inevitably split the coin and cause the total price to drop.  Whoever calls for rebellion and releases that code will not be "protecting the users interests", but telling them to sacrifice their money for the sake of the PoIotPUGTiiaGI (Principle of Inviolability of the Protocol Unless Gavin Thinks it is a Good Idea).

Perhaps the Red Button solution should be renamed "the Jim Jones solution"?

Quote
As for who would mine on their PC, that is simply incentive based. The same 25 BTC are being produced every 10 minutes.
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.

Quote
Given 25 BTC being mined every 10 minutes, profit motive will attract people to mine on their computers, mine on the old computer in their attack, mine on their friends' computers, buy new computers, etc. until approximately the same 150 MW is mining as before.
Correction: until the electricity and equipment costs are Pr*1800 $/day, where Pr is the market value of the rebelBTC coin; that is, at most (Pr/Po)*75 MW, where Po is the BTC price before the cartel's announcement.  Even if the rebel's bitcoin were to retain the full value of the old bitcoin, that would be only 75 MW.  But it doesn't matter, either.

Quote
Please redo your calculation after recognizing that even if only 10% of users get involved, at all, with mining, many of those will get involved on a significantly larger scale. [ Many players will ] join the party, bringing many more computers to grab their share of the "Free Internet Money!"

Well, the cartel will want to be the first in that line.  As soon as John Connor releases the rebel mining code, the SkyNet cartel will download it and set some rented CPUs to the task of jamming the rebel blockchain (and warn users that it will be doing that).  The cartel will keep increasing their CPU power as needed, so as to retain a majority of hashpower in that chain too.  So, the users who upgrade their wallet software to the rebel protocol will not be able to use their coins; and any opportunistic miners who try mining the rebel chain will get nothing.  This attack may cost the cartel a lot of money, but the stake for them is half a million dollars a day for 2 years, so they will try all they can to preserve the value of their coin. How long will it be, before the rebel users and miners give up?

(By the way, I meant that the cartel can rent cloud computing, not cloud mining as it its usually understood.)

Note also that, since the goal of pressing the Red Button is to destroy the value of bitcoin, the cartel could also justify the jamming of the rebel chain as an action to save bitcoin by preventing the disastrous split; and call for all good bitcoiners to come to the help of their cause, by cooperating in the jamming.

But it doesn't matter either.

I hope you kept reading my post beyond the first half, specifically beyond this sentence: "But let's say that a substantial number of users do join the rebel ranks, and the cartel leaves the Red Button chain alone, or fails to jam it."

Note that the effect of the Red Button would be to create a new crypto, the rebelBTC, that is a cloned copy of the original Bitcoin (oldBTC), including its state.  Namely, every owner of N oldBTC receives a gift of N rebelBTC, sitting in the same address of the rebel blockchain, which is accessed with the same private key.  Meanwhile, the cartel will give N cartelBTC to the same user, in the cartel's blockchain, while blocking further use of the oldBTC.  From that point on, each copy of each original satoshi can be hoarded, sold, spent, or burned independently of the other copy.

(For example, the USMS will suddenly find themselves owning 94'000 rebelBTC and 94'000 cartelBTC, as well as 94'000 oldBTC that they cannot move because of the cartel's jamming.  They could auction each separately or (more likely) bundle them together in lots of (say) 2000 rebelBTC plus 2000 cartelBTC.  In this second case, they would need to duplicate each transaction request for both chains as they deliver the coins to the winning bidders.)

The point is that the Red Button does not "steal" the users from the cartel's chain.  It does not even give the unhappy users the option of taking their BTC out of the cartel chain and into the rebel chain.  All bitcoin users would become users of both coins.

So the cartel chain will continue to have all the bitcoin users, as well bitcoin's 500 PH/s network; whereas the rebel chain will have all the users but only a nascent CPU network.  

This would be a very interesting experiment.  Has this ever happened before -- somebody creating an altcoin that duplicates bitcoin's protocol and its state, namely a persistent fork of the bitcoin blockchain?

The first question is what will happen to the prices Pc and Pr of the two coins, cartelBTC and rebelBTC, and how would they compare to the price Po of bitcoin before the split.  It seems unlikely that Pc + Pr will be more than Po. (If that were the case, people would rush to press the Red Button now, without waiting for any attack!)  Most likely, some of the old value would be lost, and the rest would be split between the two chains; so that Pr + Pc << Po.  

The next question is how the remaining value will be split between the two chains.  That depends on the credibility of the two coins in the eyes of prospective buyers (bitcoiners and non-bitcoiners).  If the cartel sets out to jam the rebel chain, and manages to keep it jammed for sufficiently long time, then Pr will soon be zero.  Since normal users will see no diffrence between oldBTC and cartelBTC, Pc will probably retain a significant fraction of Po. (I would guess Pc will be almost equal to Po, actually; but I know that I live in a fantasy world where bitcoiners care more about their money than about the ancap ideals.).

Quote
If a mining cartel does indeed fork the protocol in its favor as your model predicts, then I will come back here and eat crow. If it doesn't happen (over some reasonable period of time -- say by the next block having or the one thereafter), will you do the same? As you know I would prefer a substantial bet, but you apparently are either not confident in or insincere about your statements or don't like the idea of receiving free money from a stranger on the internet.

As I said before, I am not predicting anything.  You and other people claimed that a miner cartel cannot force a change in the protocol.  I tried to show that it can, by providing a step-by-step plan that they could follow.  That plan would obviously work, just as it always works for any cartel that can deny an essential service to its customers.  But that would be an unpleasant fact, so you prefer to believe the fantasy that the 300 Spartan bitcoiners would rally at Gavin's call in a suicidal stand against the army of Persian money-chasers…

If Gavin could really do that, then who would put money into bitcoin?

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

Activity: 1064


View Profile
January 08, 2015, 05:09:57 PM
 #19924


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
JorgeStolfi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868



View Profile
January 08, 2015, 05:12:19 PM
 #19925


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: 1064


View Profile
January 08, 2015, 05:30:04 PM
 #19926


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: 1974


View Profile
January 08, 2015, 05:47:13 PM
 #19927


... {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
 #19928

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

tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974


View Profile
January 08, 2015, 07:09:42 PM
 #19929


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: 868



View Profile
January 08, 2015, 07:11:08 PM
 #19930

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
 #19931


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: 1246



View Profile
January 08, 2015, 07:53:20 PM
 #19932

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: 1246



View Profile
January 08, 2015, 08:05:50 PM
 #19933

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
 #19934

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
 #19935

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: 1246



View Profile
January 08, 2015, 08:19:52 PM
 #19936

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
 #19937

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: 868



View Profile
January 08, 2015, 08:39:02 PM
 #19938

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: 1246



View Profile
January 08, 2015, 08:40:18 PM
 #19939

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
 #19940

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...
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 ... 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!