Bitcoin Forum
November 19, 2017, 10:24:49 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   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 ... 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 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2009533 times)
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
January 16, 2015, 02:31:20 AM
 #20201


you're simply an imbecile and an idiot. ...

'and', eh?  Words mean things:

Quote
Specifically, those who have an IQ between 0 and 25 are idiots; IQs between 26 and 50 are considered imbeciles; and those who have an IQ between 51 and 70 are considered morons.


1511130289
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511130289

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511130289
Reply with quote  #2

1511130289
Report to moderator
Join ICO Now A blockchain platform for effective freelancing
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511130289
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511130289

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511130289
Reply with quote  #2

1511130289
Report to moderator
1511130289
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511130289

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511130289
Reply with quote  #2

1511130289
Report to moderator
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
January 16, 2015, 02:36:46 AM
 #20202

Cypher (or someone who feels like they can properly explain it): can you please ELI5 why sidechains will break the incentive mechanism? I haven't been able to follow this thread as well as I used to.

I think (cypher can correct me) its because taking transactions off (main)chain reduces fee-based income for miners. When the block reward dwindles after several halving that is their only incentive to mine. If they have no incentive, then they will not mine, the network will become more vulnerable.

eh ok, there must be some way to count off chain transactions and then credit the miners appropriately. I'm not saying this would be a trivial change, but this scenario is probably 10 years away minimum and I find it fairly difficult to believe that there is no way to get around this between now and then.

How does it work with merge-mining? If a main-chain has 90 petahash, then 2 sidechains are started, both merge-mined with the MC, do they all get 90PH security or 30PH each?

If sidechains were forced by design to merge mine with the mainchain then: 1) each sidechain is protected by their own hashing independently and 2) the mainchain would be protected by it's own hashing plus the sum of hashing on every sidechain. I don't know how you implement that, but it seems reasonable.

merge mining a BTC clone would be so inflated, the miners would be accused of premining

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
ABISprotocol
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 277

ABISprotocol on Gist


View Profile WWW
January 16, 2015, 02:37:55 AM
 #20203

Satoshi said himself 1mb blocksize can be raised later on.

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.


Satoshi was either utterly clueless about the system level difficulties of which would be encountered, or he strongly suspected what would happen at hard-fork time and was trying to smooth things over when someone noticed his handiwork on limiting transaction rates to this level.  I like to think it was the latter but we may never know.

No matter how sharp/devious he was, I doubt that he could have accurately predicted certain things about ecosystem evolution and when what would be required to induce transaction fees.  He himself may have never envisioned transaction fees (other than to make a believable marketing story) and thus really did believe in increasing the transaction rate to make sure they never became a factor.  Or he may have wished them to occur and knew what a bitch it would be in reality to unroll his 1MB setting.  Life is full of mysteries.



I am curious what are your thoughts as to Kimoto Gravity Well currently being talked up a bit by Pavel Chorbadzhiyski:

https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/1207-more-adaptive-way-of-adjusting-the-difficulty-is-needed/

Seen in Donationcoin, Darkcoin, and Blackcoin earlier in 2013 and 2014 (not sure which implemented it first) in 2013 and 2014, there are some discussions that it could be used adaptively for bitcoin.

Anyway, let me know, there has also of course been _something related to it_ on the bitcoin-development discussion also, but maybe not exactly this, but I do not know to what extent, curious as to how you might consider that kimoto gravity well bit could be evaluated, or if it should be, in bitcoin context.

ABISprotocol (Github/Gist)
http://abis.io
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
January 16, 2015, 03:23:25 AM
 #20204


Wrong person/thread/board?


I am curious what are your thoughts as to Kimoto Gravity Well currently being talked up a bit by Pavel Chorbadzhiyski:

https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/1207-more-adaptive-way-of-adjusting-the-difficulty-is-needed/

Seen in Donationcoin, Darkcoin, and Blackcoin earlier in 2013 and 2014 (not sure which implemented it first) in 2013 and 2014, there are some discussions that it could be used adaptively for bitcoin.

Anyway, let me know, there has also of course been _something related to it_ on the bitcoin-development discussion also, but maybe not exactly this, but I do not know to what extent, curious as to how you might consider that kimoto gravity well bit could be evaluated, or if it should be, in bitcoin context.

I was more interested before your edit when the question was about Kimono Gravity Wells.  I've always been interested in what's under a kimono, and I could imagine gravity and a well being useful in revealing answers.

I've never been aware of any particular problems in bitcoin-land with difficulty adjustment.  Alts have been attacked and have had problems, and I suppose that Bitcoin could as well under some scenarios (such as state sponsored molestation of centralized minning effort.)  I've never even heard of the other coins you mention.  My interest in alts is nearly nill.

In retrospect I think Bitcoin would have been much better off with quasi-random and periodically switching proof of work algorithms themselves.  More significantly, I believe that the various kinds of rewards granted for supporting the system should be apportioned based on value added by diversity which would make the solution that much harder to attack.  I started describing it on the paracoin deal, but haven't touched it or even looked at it for years.

Fact is though that my thoughts on the matter which I believe would have made a better currency would never have been practical in the beginning, and would never be practical to adopt in Bitcoin.  So they are a pipe-dream.

I did envision sidechains shortly after I read the whitepaper as a means of scaling, but never did and do not now have the technical understanding or ability to know how to implement the two-way-peg and I'm not really sure that this rather obvious interface ever occurred to me though it should have.  I gave up on Bitcoin as a viable base for a while during the satoshi-dice spam thinking that it was already mortally damaged with cruft.  I've changed my mind on that and believe that if the Blockstream guys can get sidechains implemented, and if there is no more unnecessary bloat, Bitcoin is still workable and the best bet as top-dog, but a reserve-currency/exchange-currency differentiation needs to be recognized and embraced.  Also, the code needs to just cease and lock with very little more work in order to preserve the confidence that it has.  Vastly more development is needed, but it should occur at a different level.

Sorry to not really answer your question which was, I guess, sort of directed my way.


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 16, 2015, 03:28:49 AM
 #20205


Wrong person/thread/board?


I am curious what are your thoughts as to Kimoto Gravity Well currently being talked up a bit by Pavel Chorbadzhiyski:

https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/1207-more-adaptive-way-of-adjusting-the-difficulty-is-needed/

Seen in Donationcoin, Darkcoin, and Blackcoin earlier in 2013 and 2014 (not sure which implemented it first) in 2013 and 2014, there are some discussions that it could be used adaptively for bitcoin.

Anyway, let me know, there has also of course been _something related to it_ on the bitcoin-development discussion also, but maybe not exactly this, but I do not know to what extent, curious as to how you might consider that kimoto gravity well bit could be evaluated, or if it should be, in bitcoin context.

I was more interested before your edit when the question was about Kimono Gravity Wells.  I've always been interested in what's under a kimono, and I could imagine gravity and a well being useful in revealing answers.

I've never been aware of any particular problems in bitcoin-land with difficulty adjustment.  Alts have been attacked and have had problems, and I suppose that Bitcoin could as well under some scenarios (such as state sponsored molestation of centralized minning effort.)  I've never even heard of the other coins you mention.  My interest in alts is nearly nill.

In retrospect I think Bitcoin would have been much better off with quasi-random and periodically switching proof of work algorithms themselves.  More significantly, I believe that the various kinds of rewards granted for supporting the system should be apportioned based on value added by diversity which would make the solution that much harder to attack.  I started describing it on the paracoin deal, but haven't touched it or even looked at it for years.

Fact is though that my thoughts on the matter which I believe would have made a better currency would never have been practical in the beginning, and would never be practical to adopt in Bitcoin.  So they are a pipe-dream.

I did envision sidechains shortly after I read the whitepaper as a means of scaling, but never did and do not now have the technical understanding or ability to know how to implement the two-way-peg and I'm not really sure that this rather obvious interface ever occurred to me though it should have.  I gave up on Bitcoin as a viable base for a while during the satoshi-dice spam thinking that it was already mortally damaged with cruft.  I've changed my mind on that and believe that if the Blockstream guys can get sidechains implemented, and if there is no more unnecessary bloat, Bitcoin is still workable and the best bet as top-dog, but a reserve-currency/exchange-currency differentiation needs to be recognized and embraced.  Also, the code needs to just cease and lock with very little more work in order to preserve the confidence that it has.  Vastly more development is needed, but it should occur at a different level.

Sorry to not really answer your question which was, I guess, sort of directed my way.



no one babbles more and yet says so little than you.
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
January 16, 2015, 03:37:02 AM
 #20206

I am curious what are your thoughts as to Kimoto Gravity Well currently being talked up a bit by Pavel Chorbadzhiyski:

https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/1207-more-adaptive-way-of-adjusting-the-difficulty-is-needed/

Seen in Donationcoin, Darkcoin, and Blackcoin earlier in 2013 and 2014 (not sure which implemented it first) in 2013 and 2014, there are some discussions that it could be used adaptively for bitcoin.

Anyway, let me know, there has also of course been _something related to it_ on the bitcoin-development discussion also, but maybe not exactly this, but I do not know to what extent, curious as to how you might consider that kimoto gravity well bit could be evaluated, or if it should be, in bitcoin context.
Thanks for posting. I don't frequent TBF boards, but from what I just read about this it is intended to address a problem with mining pools. That's all well and good, but it seems to me that it will be just another way to game the system. Personally, I think the problem with mining pools is only temporary because competition will even out the playing field. They are a social problem, not an engineering problem. The 2016 block window allows time for real world installations to have time to adjust. That is an engineering solution.

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

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 16, 2015, 05:51:41 AM
 #20207

the great thing about 24/7 Bitcoin is that we never have to deal with "gap downs".  this is the 5d 5min chart.  you don't have a chance in hell to get out:

solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
January 16, 2015, 05:56:24 AM
 #20208

I'm actually surprised that Credit Suisse and UBS weren't tipped off (unless it was them at the start of the gap down). Maybe they were and hedged in the fx options market.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 16, 2015, 06:15:05 AM
 #20209

Oh my:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 16, 2015, 06:21:04 AM
 #20210

i should've put up the 1 min chart:

solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
January 16, 2015, 06:26:24 AM
 #20211

Indeed, the EUR/CHF longs were totally screwed. Sitting ducks.

Much dirtier market than BTC.


Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638



View Profile
January 16, 2015, 06:32:56 AM
 #20212

i should've put up the 1 min chart:




That's a fantastic chart.

Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.
Cryptoasset rankings and metrics for investors: http://onchainfx.com
gkv9
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


!!! RiSe aBovE ThE StoRm !!!


View Profile
January 16, 2015, 09:29:56 AM
 #20213

i should've put up the 1 min chart:

...


That's a fantastic chart.

What made SNB take back their decision on continuing 1.20 Cap on EUR/CHF?

solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
January 16, 2015, 09:36:17 AM
 #20214

i should've put up the 1 min chart:

...


That's a fantastic chart.

What made SNB take back their decision on continuing 1.20 Cap on EUR/CHF?

The noises that the ECB was making about copying the other major CBs (Fed, BoJ and BoE) and entering a full-blown QE program. The legal basis for this is dubious and so far Draghi has relied on jawboning. If the ECB started QE then the SNB would have had to add significantly to the $500 billion it has already printed in francs to buy euros to support their peg. They blinked.

marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2436



View Profile
January 16, 2015, 10:09:14 AM
 #20215

Cypher (or someone who feels like they can properly explain it): can you please ELI5 why sidechains will break the incentive mechanism? I haven't been able to follow this thread as well as I used to.

I think (cypher can correct me) its because taking transactions off (main)chain reduces fee-based income for miners. When the block reward dwindles after several halving that is their only incentive to mine. If they have no incentive, then they will not mine, the network will become more vulnerable.

eh ok, there must be some way to count off chain transactions and then credit the miners appropriately. I'm not saying this would be a trivial change, but this scenario is probably 10 years away minimum and I find it fairly difficult to believe that there is no way to get around this between now and then.

it has already been coded.

secure, cheap, off-chain tx is a solved problem. SC or max block size increases are not needed for increasing max TX throughput.

PM me if you are genuinely interested and not just shooting the breeze on a forum.

lebing
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288

Enabling the maximal migration


View Profile
January 16, 2015, 10:16:58 AM
 #20216

Cypher (or someone who feels like they can properly explain it): can you please ELI5 why sidechains will break the incentive mechanism? I haven't been able to follow this thread as well as I used to.

I think (cypher can correct me) its because taking transactions off (main)chain reduces fee-based income for miners. When the block reward dwindles after several halving that is their only incentive to mine. If they have no incentive, then they will not mine, the network will become more vulnerable.

eh ok, there must be some way to count off chain transactions and then credit the miners appropriately. I'm not saying this would be a trivial change, but this scenario is probably 10 years away minimum and I find it fairly difficult to believe that there is no way to get around this between now and then.

it has already been coded.

secure, cheap, off-chain tx is a solved problem. SC or max block size increases are not needed for increasing max TX throughput.

PM me if you are genuinely interested and not just shooting the breeze on a forum.

What say you now Cypher?

Bro, do you even blockchain?
-E Voorhees
ABISprotocol
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 277

ABISprotocol on Gist


View Profile WWW
January 16, 2015, 10:36:47 AM
 #20217


Wrong person/thread/board?


I am curious what are your thoughts as to Kimoto Gravity Well currently being talked up a bit by Pavel Chorbadzhiyski:

https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/1207-more-adaptive-way-of-adjusting-the-difficulty-is-needed/

Seen in Donationcoin, Darkcoin, and Blackcoin earlier in 2013 and 2014 (not sure which implemented it first) in 2013 and 2014, there are some discussions that it could be used adaptively for bitcoin.

Anyway, let me know, there has also of course been _something related to it_ on the bitcoin-development discussion also, but maybe not exactly this, but I do not know to what extent, curious as to how you might consider that kimoto gravity well bit could be evaluated, or if it should be, in bitcoin context.

I was more interested before your edit when the question was about Kimono Gravity Wells.  I've always been interested in what's under a kimono, and I could imagine gravity and a well being useful in revealing answers.

I've never been aware of any particular problems in bitcoin-land with difficulty adjustment.  Alts have been attacked and have had problems, and I suppose that Bitcoin could as well under some scenarios (such as state sponsored molestation of centralized minning effort.)  I've never even heard of the other coins you mention.  My interest in alts is nearly nill.

In retrospect I think Bitcoin would have been much better off with quasi-random and periodically switching proof of work algorithms themselves.  More significantly, I believe that the various kinds of rewards granted for supporting the system should be apportioned based on value added by diversity which would make the solution that much harder to attack.  I started describing it on the paracoin deal, but haven't touched it or even looked at it for years.

Fact is though that my thoughts on the matter which I believe would have made a better currency would never have been practical in the beginning, and would never be practical to adopt in Bitcoin.  So they are a pipe-dream.

I did envision sidechains shortly after I read the whitepaper as a means of scaling, but never did and do not now have the technical understanding or ability to know how to implement the two-way-peg and I'm not really sure that this rather obvious interface ever occurred to me though it should have.  I gave up on Bitcoin as a viable base for a while during the satoshi-dice spam thinking that it was already mortally damaged with cruft.  I've changed my mind on that and believe that if the Blockstream guys can get sidechains implemented, and if there is no more unnecessary bloat, Bitcoin is still workable and the best bet as top-dog, but a reserve-currency/exchange-currency differentiation needs to be recognized and embraced.  Also, the code needs to just cease and lock with very little more work in order to preserve the confidence that it has.  Vastly more development is needed, but it should occur at a different level.

Sorry to not really answer your question which was, I guess, sort of directed my way.



No, I was interested in what you had to say about it.  I do have a couple kimono things around, so I might have been thinking about that, but made a mistake and put them in the text instead of kimoto, which is indeed the proper spelling for this 'kimoto gravity well' item.

I wonder if this would be adjustable enough to allow ordinary users to "dial it down" so that, in accordance with the capacity of their machines, nearly anyone could mine on some similar system such as this kimoto gravity well?  When you are using BCN, the amount of resource it needs is so low you can mine it using a laptop, but there is essentially no variation (nor user direction that would indicate some adjustment needed) for adaptive-ness in such a system.  It just does it as far as I can tell.  But in bitcoin (BTC) it is another matter entirely, and would be very interesting to see if users with limited equipment (say, those who only have laptops or towers) could make certain adjustments and run it as we used to some years back (2010 - 2011).  That would spawn a whole lot of new interest to be sure, although I have about zero idea as to how technically it might work, I certainly found the visualization (graph) here interesting: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/21730/how-does-the-kimoto-gravity-well-regulate-difficulty

Then imagine at the same time all this is happening, which introduces a lot of new diversity to the system, which I suspect is good, in come various approaches to sidechains.  Regardless what anyone thinks of them, in they come, and one can imagine that there will be a system in which there will eventually be zerocash, or something like it, with its own consensus system being managed potentially on a sidechain independently from bitcoin, but still being able to be exchanged for bitcoin if someone were to sit at a table and say, "hey, let's exchange this zerocash token for some bitcoin" or something to that effect.  Zerocash would have its own way of ensuring no double spends.  Not to say sidechains are necessary for this to work, just turning over ideas in my brain randomly, and considering some questions to e-mail the zerocash developers, who have not (yet) released the zerocash code. 


ABISprotocol (Github/Gist)
http://abis.io
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


View Profile
January 16, 2015, 10:42:48 AM
 #20218

Cypher (or someone who feels like they can properly explain it): can you please ELI5 why sidechains will break the incentive mechanism? I haven't been able to follow this thread as well as I used to.

I think (cypher can correct me) its because taking transactions off (main)chain reduces fee-based income for miners. When the block reward dwindles after several halving that is their only incentive to mine. If they have no incentive, then they will not mine, the network will become more vulnerable.

eh ok, there must be some way to count off chain transactions and then credit the miners appropriately. I'm not saying this would be a trivial change, but this scenario is probably 10 years away minimum and I find it fairly difficult to believe that there is no way to get around this between now and then.

it has already been coded.

secure, cheap, off-chain tx is a solved problem. SC or max block size increases are not needed for increasing max TX throughput.

PM me if you are genuinely interested and not just shooting the breeze on a forum.

Do you have some kind of white paper?
Is it an open source project?

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

Activity: 962


View Profile
January 16, 2015, 01:51:30 PM
 #20219

Alpari, who have gone into insolvency today, released this statement from their CEO


"I'm sure this isn't the last we'll hear on the subject and the SNB are going to be heavily scrutinised in the coming weeks for what appears to be a horribly irresponsible move on their part. For years central banks have tried to avoid days like today by being transparent and making moves like this over time while drip feeding their intentions to the markets. The SNB have shown themselves to be amateurs today and there is many people that will suffer considerably as a result."

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 16, 2015, 02:25:57 PM
 #20220

Refreshingly simple and to the point:

http://www.sovereignman.com/finance/this-may-be-the-most-important-transaction-in-the-history-of-finance-15921/
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 ... 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!