Bitcoin Forum
December 06, 2016, 02:05:23 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 ... 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 1062 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1805063 times)
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
January 15, 2015, 11:20:37 PM
 #20221

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?

1481033123
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481033123

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481033123
Reply with quote  #2

1481033123
Report to moderator
1481033123
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481033123

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481033123
Reply with quote  #2

1481033123
Report to moderator
1481033123
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481033123

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481033123
Reply with quote  #2

1481033123
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481033123
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481033123

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481033123
Reply with quote  #2

1481033123
Report to moderator
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974


View Profile
January 15, 2015, 11:26:41 PM
 #20222

to the SC proponents who insist that the 2wp will equalize fiat exchange prices across SC's thru arbitrage.

just look at the $16ish spread btwn Bitfinex and the Chinese exchanges.  and this is with open, relatively equally liquid exchanges that DON'T have a 2 day lock up.  just imagine how volatile and disparate an illiquid, insecure SC can get with manipulation.

Sidechains are pegged you fucking imbecile.  Ignoring minor and optional implementation details, there is and can be no 'spread'.

You simply have no coherent structural overview of...well...anything that I can see and very little ability to formulate or even learn one.  You managed to at least imagine that grok a couple of things and try to map them on to every new thing you see.  No wonder you lost 75% of your money last year...unless you are telling people to do one thing (dump everything and run to Bitcoin) and doing another which is possible.

Sidechains are not some 10,000th get-rich-quick platform for you to try to trade straight across for USD.  Use native Bitcoin for that.


You missing the point the Bitcoin on those two exchanges are all backed by the one blockchain. The asset is Bitcoin and the spread is significant. Bitcoin is liquid in that you don't have to wait days before you can arb. Just wait untill the market gets panicky and that 2 day confirm is elongated by hostile miners.

Umm...I guess you have not used exchanges very much.  The difficulty with liquidity is nearly 100% on the fiat side and nearly 0% on the bitcoin side.  Until the fuckers steal one or both, that is.

Saying exchanges are 'backed' by anything is kind of a weird and meaningless thing to assert.  In fact the blockchain is out of the picture completely within a trading engine and back office.  Fiat the same.  Only on the interfaces do either one come into play.

There would be very little reason to try to use a sidecoin as some sort of a traded commodity because of the peg-and-backing nature of the solution.  If a guy wants to try to play off some peg exercise latency or whatever, it's a free world, but it would be tiny corner case for trogs to toss dimes on the street corner, and it would only be mildly interesting if Bitcoin experiences wild volatility.  One of the things that sidechains are likely to do would be to induce some buffering and stability into the ecosystem and dampen that out.  God knows that would be helpful.


Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
January 16, 2015, 01:16:06 AM
 #20223

to the SC proponents who insist that the 2wp will equalize fiat exchange prices across SC's thru arbitrage.

just look at the $16ish spread btwn Bitfinex and the Chinese exchanges.  and this is with open, relatively equally liquid exchanges that DON'T have a 2 day lock up.  just imagine how volatile and disparate an illiquid, insecure SC can get with manipulation.

Sidechains are pegged you fucking imbecile.  Ignoring minor and optional implementation details, there is and can be no 'spread'.

You simply have no coherent structural overview of...well...anything that I can see and very little ability to formulate or even learn one.  You managed to at least imagine that grok a couple of things and try to map them on to every new thing you see.  No wonder you lost 75% of your money last year...unless you are telling people to do one thing (dump everything and run to Bitcoin) and doing another which is possible.

Sidechains are not some 10,000th get-rich-quick platform for you to try to trade straight across for USD.  Use native Bitcoin for that.


You missing the point the Bitcoin on those two exchanges are all backed by the one blockchain. The asset is Bitcoin and the spread is significant. Bitcoin is liquid in that you don't have to wait days before you can arb. Just wait untill the market gets panicky and that 2 day confirm is elongated by hostile miners.

Umm...I guess you have not used exchanges very much.  The difficulty with liquidity is nearly 100% on the fiat side and nearly 0% on the bitcoin side.  Until the fuckers steal one or both, that is.

Saying exchanges are 'backed' by anything is kind of a weird and meaningless thing to assert.  In fact the blockchain is out of the picture completely within a trading engine and back office.  Fiat the same.  Only on the interfaces do either one come into play.

There would be very little reason to try to use a sidecoin as some sort of a traded commodity because of the peg-and-backing nature of the solution.  If a guy wants to try to play off some peg exercise latency or whatever, it's a free world, but it would be tiny corner case for trogs to toss dimes on the street corner, and it would only be mildly interesting if Bitcoin experiences wild volatility.  One of the things that sidechains are likely to do would be to induce some buffering and stability into the ecosystem and dampen that out.  God knows that would be helpful.

to the contrariety, I'm no day trader, but I use exchanges on many continents, I'll agree there are lots of risk and i also agree it's almost all fiat side given i maintain control of my keys up until the last minute, the point is sidechanes do nothing to improve that fiat in the banking system or held in reserve by an exchange. so if as you put it nearly 100% of the liquidity problem is fiat, (I'll add that's where most of the risk is too) sidechains do little to improve the fiat problem, and can actually cause lag on the liquidity of bitcoin, and with wild arbitrage one could get trapped during an attack, say something like the Silk Road sidechain coin receives intermittent attacks from miners controlled by bankers in the US, same shenanigans will happen between states with legalized sanctions.

i don't buy that bold above, there will be all types of sidechanes, they will have value and they will be traded, the idea is they are backed by Bitcoin with added value. 

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
January 16, 2015, 01:25:25 AM
 #20224

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?

same as with NMC, If a main-chain has 90 petahash, then 2 sidechains could have 90 petahash each, (or 3 or all 5000 could have 90Ph each) in reality not all miners are going to Merge Mine everything. the problem is you can earn Bitcoin by merge-mining a sidechain (ie mining a different blockchain) this changes the incentives allowing shades of gray in the incentive system. you could attach the Bitcoin network with your mining power while actually mining bitcoin* (*or something that is equivalent to bitcoin on the protocol level) this is new, the ignorant love the idea.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 16, 2015, 01:29:29 AM
 #20225

to the SC proponents who insist that the 2wp will equalize fiat exchange prices across SC's thru arbitrage.

just look at the $16ish spread btwn Bitfinex and the Chinese exchanges.  and this is with open, relatively equally liquid exchanges that DON'T have a 2 day lock up.  just imagine how volatile and disparate an illiquid, insecure SC can get with manipulation.

Sidechains are pegged you fucking imbecile.  Ignoring minor and optional implementation details, there is and can be no 'spread'.

You simply have no coherent structural overview of...well...anything that I can see and very little ability to formulate or even learn one.  You managed to at least imagine that grok a couple of things and try to map them on to every new thing you see.  No wonder you lost 75% of your money last year...unless you are telling people to do one thing (dump everything and run to Bitcoin) and doing another which is possible.

Sidechains are not some 10,000th get-rich-quick platform for you to try to trade straight across for USD.  Use native Bitcoin for that.



you're simply an imbecile and an idiot.  scBTC will be traded on exchanges in fiat terms, you can bet your ass on that.  they're virtual and all it will take for an exchange to do so would be to list them.  as such, with the minimum 2day 2wp delay and illiquidity they will suffer while being on the SC, you will see spreads that can't be immediately arbed away.  just like we see btwn our current exchanges that don't even have these restrictions.  to that extent, you think we see manipulation now?  just wait til we see SC's:

http://konradsgraf.com/storage/Monetary%20analsyis%20of%20sidecoins%20KG%2024Oct2014.pdf
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 16, 2015, 01:41:10 AM
 #20226

Dow futures down -115
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974


View Profile
January 16, 2015, 02:21:57 AM
 #20227

...
There would be very little reason to try to use a sidecoin as some sort of a traded commodity because of the peg-and-backing nature of the solution.  If a guy wants to try to play off some peg exercise latency or whatever, it's a free world, but it would be tiny corner case for trogs to toss dimes on the street corner, and it would only be mildly interesting if Bitcoin experiences wild volatility. ...
...
i don't buy that bold above, there will be all types of sidechanes, they will have value and they will be traded, the idea is they are backed by Bitcoin with added value.  

The two way peg makes a sidecoin the same thing as a bitcoin.

I've got some green papers with portraits of various dead president imprinted on them in my wallet.  Some are labeled 1, some 5, some 10, some 20, etc.  Is there a thriving market for ones that say 5 and a giant spread?  No.  The reason is because they all have the same two-way peg.  This even though there is a latency if I, for some reason, wish I had 5s instead of 10s.  I am confident that I can exchange one for the other.

Note that one dollar bills my have the unique ability to be useful in a particular vending machine while it does not accept $10 bills (your 'value add'.)  This still does NOT create some sort of a thriving market.  Occasionally a bum may situate himself next to such a machine in hopes that someone will come alone with only a 10-spot and will accept 9 ones because he is so thirsty.  It's such a rarity that I'm not sure I've ever seen it.

A two-way peg creates an equivalence and kills 99.9% (give or take) of a 'market'.


cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
January 16, 2015, 02:22:57 AM
 #20228

to the SC proponents who insist that the 2wp will equalize fiat exchange prices across SC's thru arbitrage.

just look at the $16ish spread btwn Bitfinex and the Chinese exchanges.  and this is with open, relatively equally liquid exchanges that DON'T have a 2 day lock up.  just imagine how volatile and disparate an illiquid, insecure SC can get with manipulation.

Sidechains are pegged you fucking imbecile.  Ignoring minor and optional implementation details, there is and can be no 'spread'.

You simply have no coherent structural overview of...well...anything that I can see and very little ability to formulate or even learn one.  You managed to at least imagine that grok a couple of things and try to map them on to every new thing you see.  No wonder you lost 75% of your money last year...unless you are telling people to do one thing (dump everything and run to Bitcoin) and doing another which is possible.

Sidechains are not some 10,000th get-rich-quick platform for you to try to trade straight across for USD.  Use native Bitcoin for that.



you're simply an imbecile and an idiot.  scBTC will be traded on exchanges in fiat terms, you can bet your ass on that.  they're virtual and all it will take for an exchange to do so would be to list them.  as such, with the minimum 2day 2wp delay and illiquidity they will suffer while being on the SC, you will see spreads that can't be immediately arbed away.  just like we see btwn our current exchanges that don't even have these restrictions.  to that extent, you think we see manipulation now?  just wait til we see SC's:

http://konradsgraf.com/storage/Monetary%20analsyis%20of%20sidecoins%20KG%2024Oct2014.pdf
Nevertheless, if the technology to automatically create a twp that is decentralized is possible, then this fact is an incentive to do so. The threat of manipulation will heavier against the scBTC because they will not have the PoW costs factored in (and merge mining a BTC clone would be so inflated, the miners would be accused of premining). So what you would be left with is nested scBTC1, scBTC2, scBTC3 that would make them all merely altcoins.

However, I think the side chain technology is a great idea IF it can be done, but not for it's intended purpose. It would decentralize EXCHANGES so we would never again see another gox/stamp catastrophe. Instead of centralized markets manipulating prices, we would see big players manipulating OTC trades on Open Bazaar leaving centralized exchanges no volume. Finally, we would see slow incremental price discoveries between competing free market cryptocurrencies where we can prove once and for all that PoW is the strongest valuation method.

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

Activity: 1153


View Profile
January 16, 2015, 02:28:40 AM
 #20229

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.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974


View Profile
January 16, 2015, 02:31:20 AM
 #20230


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.


cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
January 16, 2015, 02:36:46 AM
 #20231

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: 251

ABISprotocol on Gist


View Profile WWW
January 16, 2015, 02:37:55 AM
 #20232

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: 1974


View Profile
January 16, 2015, 03:23:25 AM
 #20233


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
 #20234


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: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
January 16, 2015, 03:37:02 AM
 #20235

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
 #20236

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
 #20237

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
 #20238

Oh my:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 16, 2015, 06:21:04 AM
 #20239

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
 #20240

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

Much dirtier market than BTC.


Pages: « 1 ... 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 1062 ... 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!