Bitcoin Forum
December 05, 2016, 06:54:40 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [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 ... 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 1063 1064 1065 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1804717 times)
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
January 16, 2015, 07:33:47 PM
 #20281

...
The tin foil hat reason is central banks like crushing market participants from time to time, it demonstrates their power and keeps everyone in check. Case in point Bear Sterns. In 2008 all the top 5 investment banks required implicit FED backing. The FED selected BS to make an example and told the market that they were no longer going to backstop BS, within minutes the run on the bank caused a default. This could have happened to any of the other IBs, GS was not selected because they have a standing revolving door with the FED. The FED wiped out BS to demonstrate their power. Why do you think everyone now just follows the FED blindly.

I heard that Bear Sterns was selected because they didn't cough up some bucks years earlier during the LTCM derivatives implosion where the others did.  Payback is a bitch.


For a very brief period early in my career I worked in IT for a major bank and met a lot of bankers at that time. The bankers I met at Bear Sterns always seemed to speak as if they were outsiders to the rest of the financial industry, as if they were the scrappy upstarts to the established elite, while those at Goldman always seemed to speak as if they were part of the inside club. It was subtle but noticeable.

Our ruling nobility obviously had to crush them.
1480964080
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480964080

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480964080
Reply with quote  #2

1480964080
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 16, 2015, 07:35:01 PM
 #20282

I'd love to see alot of finex shorts get wiped out. This is what happens when you mess  with a  cyber currency!

http://siliconangle.com/blog/2015/01/16/bitcoin-payment-processor-egopay-ceases-trading-founders-may-have-stolen-millions/
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
January 16, 2015, 07:39:42 PM
 #20283

So what makes you so confident in Bitcoin. There are new risks, that could change what I have believed to be the inevitable success of Bitcoin over the last 4 years. That is mainly SideChains could destroy Bitcoin as we know it, and then there is a deluge of coins that could hit the market if a particular ETF is outright rejected.

The serious question being how can you know how the Bitcoin protocol doesn't fall victim to political manipulation?
I am not certain Bitcoin will be successful.

But if it does ultimately succeed, then I want to own as many of them as possible.

Therefore, I like low prices.
Smiley ok

I consider my self an outsider to Bitcoin, and what I see happening isn't all that pity. I hope these cheep coins attract the new investors and coins are distributing, my feeling is most of them are not investing in Bitcoins (as in BTC) but rather technologies to change or manipulate it, in the case of BlockStream, it's more about politics and public relations, even the core developers there are looking to earn a salary without exposure to risk, I doubt they are buying these lows, and suspect they're counting on salaries paid by those who will profits by changing the protocol. Rather than risking it all -burning the ships so to speak and going all in on Bitcoin and building on the existing foundation, they are actively finding ways to exploits it, and calling it a contribution.  

I still think SCs could have value if done correctly, but agree now that there are issues with the current approach.

As a thought experiment, what happens if BlockStream releases and promotes a hard fork to the main bitcoind core? But not everyone agrees with that hard fork? Maybe 50% just go blindly with updates, but a vocal 25% fundamentally disagree.
Do we end up with a true fork and two separate bitcoins?
Does one side give in and be forced to go with the majority?
Does BS decided to hold back until there is super majority support?
Does the bitcoin project descend into chaos and for the rest of our lives we have to live with people telling us that bitcoin "didn't work because money can only be defined by the government"?

Satoshi's P2P mechanism was designed to require strong majority support for changes, i.e. a true incarnation of the people's money. Can the people truly decide and select their path, or does a small group of insiders continue to make decisions for the majority.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
January 16, 2015, 08:08:50 PM
 #20284

in the case of BlockStream, it's more about politics and public relations, even the core developers there are looking to earn a salary without exposure to risk, I doubt they are buying these lows, and suspect they're counting on salaries paid by those who will profits by changing the protocol. Rather than risking it all -burning the ships so to speak and going all in on Bitcoin and building on the existing foundation, they are actively finding ways to exploits it, and calling it a contribution.
Among the group of people you mention, there exist a few who have a highly over-inflated sense of their own capabilities and the degree to which Bitcoin needs them.

Fortunately the fate of Bitcoin is not dependent on a half-dozen or so programmers - there are plenty of software engineers in the world capable of continuing Bitcoin development, with more arriving on the scene every day.

Some of them might even be better at it.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1974


View Profile
January 16, 2015, 08:10:31 PM
 #20285


I still think SCs could have value if done correctly, but agree now that there are issues with the current approach.

As a thought experiment, what happens if BlockStream releases and promotes a hard fork to the main bitcoind core? But not everyone agrees with that hard fork? Maybe 50% just go blindly with updates, but a vocal 25% fundamentally disagree.
Do we end up with a true fork and two separate bitcoins?
Does one side give in and be forced to go with the majority?
Does BS decided to hold back until there is super majority support?
Does the bitcoin project descend into chaos and for the rest of our lives we have to live with people telling us that bitcoin "didn't work because money can only be defined by the government"?

Satoshi's P2P mechanism was designed to require strong majority support for changes, i.e. a true incarnation of the people's money. Can the people truly decide and select their path, or does a small group of insiders continue to make decisions for the majority.

One of the reasons I'm favorable to Blockstream is that it seems that the individuals involved are among the least likely to do this.

Everyone knows that Bitcoin has a lot of warts and defects and could be much better given the 20/20 hindsight.  But it does work.  Given the danger of changing things, a pragmatic approach is to basically freeze native Bitcoin in a known state and rely on it's proven function as a foundation upon which to move forward.

The alternative is to do a bunch of hail-Mary changes on the basis of some silicon valley 'innovate or die' marketing nonsense and to expect that it cannot fail "because free-market" or "because sound-money" chant.

I listened through about an hour of amazingly content-less Justusravnier soundcloud last week where he said that 'innovation' is easy and the only reason it does not happen is that the core devs are fat, rich, and lazy.  Anyone who believes this clearly has no experience with complex software systems generally, and certainly not ones upon which a lot of financial value is riding.  The ONLY reason to wish 'innovation' on Bitcoin is to hope it dies so something else can take over.


ABISprotocol
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 251

ABISprotocol on Gist


View Profile WWW
January 17, 2015, 01:30:21 AM
 #20286


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.  


I like your thought patterns here.

It occurs to me that the amount of money individuals spend buying computer and network resources is huge (in total), the idle potential is huge, and the 'distribution' is huge.  For a LOT of reasons tapping into this support base as much as possible seems like a good idea.  To my dismay it seems that Bitcoin is pressured in the opposite directions (which is part of the reason I'm so down on the Bitcoin Foundation.)

One idea that I re-remembered is to have multiple proof-of-work algorithms simultaneously.  One block may be solved by sha256, the next by scrypt, the next by some variation of scrypt, etc.  If there is a dearth of blocks solved by one type of algo, a the reward for that type increases.  The goal, of course, would be retard the propensity for specialized ASIC farms to develop, though it doesn't necessarily mean that mega-farms won't or that mining would not switch over to more general corporate cloud infrastructure.

When I first read the whitepaper I came away with the misunderstanding that simply playing a role in the transmission of transactions was rewarded (being a full node who doesn't necessarily mine.)  Had I not, I probably would have been much less interested in the solution...so I'm glad I misunderstood!  Anyway, I consider it critical to the long term success.  Here is where I see a great value in rewarding diversity.  So, say, you are operating in Iran, or are on a radio link, relaying transactions nets a much bigger reward than if you are one of 100,000 people running a node in Amazon's AWS.

Since I am mostly interested in 'reserve currency' duty, the exact block frequency doesn't matter so much.  High and variable latency systems are vastly more difficult to attack partly because the systems they support are built anticipating this.  Bitcoin excels here already.

I'd like to see rewards modulated with a varying coinbase as a factor.  So, to play on a previous example, if you are a mining node behind a radio link, you might get a much bigger coinbase reward than a block mined in mega-mining datacenter.  For the benefit of the economy the inflation rate needs to be roughly anticipatable, but it does not need to be precise.  This could be achieved through an interplay between coinbase rewards and block frequency.

A massive problem to be solved is that if one has a supercomputer it is relatively easy to pretend you have a laptop.  The reverse is not true.  It is also fairly straightforward to emulate a variety of network connection types or to pretend to be located in a jurisdiction you are not.  To solve that problem (partially) I would imagine a web of interconnected nodes which cross-check and verify one another.  A system must anticipate that everyone will always cheat if they can.

Getting back to the Kimoto thing, the glancing I've done at it seems to indicate that it is nothing more than a sort of a dampening and weighting algorithm.  And a fairly simple one (simple is good!)  Such constructs would be abundantly necessary in the solution to some of the problems I mention above, and it is not surprising that it popped out as a solution to the problem you seem to have recognized.  Again though, you gotta consider the problem I mention in the paragraph above.

My 'paracoin' idea was almost exclusively for the purposes of having some way to safely play around with some of these ideas.  Sidechains are a vastly better way to solve the same problem.  I implemented (or more accurately, hypothesized) the 'two way peg' in a much more clumsy way.  (edit:  And in a way which does nothing to help and/or support Bitcoin where the exact opposite is true of sidechains.)

 edit: minor/syntax

Thanks.  That's interesting, I need to think about this more obviously. 

Cheers.

ABISprotocol (Github/Gist)
http://abis.io
flipstyle
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


View Profile
January 17, 2015, 01:49:16 AM
 #20287

Ironically, gold up ~3% on the year, while bitcoin is down about %600.

Interesting.

No denying that bitcoin is the clear winner on the 5 year charts, but it's no secret the earliest adopters are always the ones who make a killing.
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
January 17, 2015, 01:50:58 AM
 #20288


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.  


I like your thought patterns here.

It occurs to me that the amount of money individuals spend buying computer and network resources is huge (in total), the idle potential is huge, and the 'distribution' is huge.  For a LOT of reasons tapping into this support base as much as possible seems like a good idea.  To my dismay it seems that Bitcoin is pressured in the opposite directions (which is part of the reason I'm so down on the Bitcoin Foundation.)

One idea that I re-remembered is to have multiple proof-of-work algorithms simultaneously.  One block may be solved by sha256, the next by scrypt, the next by some variation of scrypt, etc.  If there is a dearth of blocks solved by one type of algo, a the reward for that type increases.  The goal, of course, would be retard the propensity for specialized ASIC farms to develop, though it doesn't necessarily mean that mega-farms won't or that mining would not switch over to more general corporate cloud infrastructure.

When I first read the whitepaper I came away with the misunderstanding that simply playing a role in the transmission of transactions was rewarded (being a full node who doesn't necessarily mine.)  Had I not, I probably would have been much less interested in the solution...so I'm glad I misunderstood!  Anyway, I consider it critical to the long term success.  Here is where I see a great value in rewarding diversity.  So, say, you are operating in Iran, or are on a radio link, relaying transactions nets a much bigger reward than if you are one of 100,000 people running a node in Amazon's AWS.

Since I am mostly interested in 'reserve currency' duty, the exact block frequency doesn't matter so much.  High and variable latency systems are vastly more difficult to attack partly because the systems they support are built anticipating this.  Bitcoin excels here already.

I'd like to see rewards modulated with a varying coinbase as a factor.  So, to play on a previous example, if you are a mining node behind a radio link, you might get a much bigger coinbase reward than a block mined in mega-mining datacenter.  For the benefit of the economy the inflation rate needs to be roughly anticipatable, but it does not need to be precise.  This could be achieved through an interplay between coinbase rewards and block frequency.

A massive problem to be solved is that if one has a supercomputer it is relatively easy to pretend you have a laptop.  The reverse is not true.  It is also fairly straightforward to emulate a variety of network connection types or to pretend to be located in a jurisdiction you are not.  To solve that problem (partially) I would imagine a web of interconnected nodes which cross-check and verify one another.  A system must anticipate that everyone will always cheat if they can.

Getting back to the Kimoto thing, the glancing I've done at it seems to indicate that it is nothing more than a sort of a dampening and weighting algorithm.  And a fairly simple one (simple is good!)  Such constructs would be abundantly necessary in the solution to some of the problems I mention above, and it is not surprising that it popped out as a solution to the problem you seem to have recognized.  Again though, you gotta consider the problem I mention in the paragraph above.

My 'paracoin' idea was almost exclusively for the purposes of having some way to safely play around with some of these ideas.  Sidechains are a vastly better way to solve the same problem.  I implemented (or more accurately, hypothesized) the 'two way peg' in a much more clumsy way.  (edit:  And in a way which does nothing to help and/or support Bitcoin where the exact opposite is true of sidechains.)

 edit: minor/syntax

Thanks.  That's interesting, I need to think about this more obviously. 

Cheers.
What problem does this solve?

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

Activity: 1554



View Profile
January 17, 2015, 02:23:19 AM
 #20289

Ironically, gold up ~3% on the year, while bitcoin is down about %600.

Interesting.

No denying that bitcoin is the clear winner on the 5 year charts, but it's no secret the earliest adopters are always the ones who make a killing.


In the case where bitcoin works longterm, anyone entering now is still an early-adopter. In the case where bitcoin doesn't work longterm, it doesn't matter.

Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.
But Bitcointalk & /r/bitcoin are heavily censored. bitco.in/forum, forum.bitcoin.com, and /r/btc are open.
Best info on Casascius coins: http://spotcoins.com/casascius
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1974


View Profile
January 17, 2015, 02:28:26 AM
 #20290


What problem does this solve?

Infrastructure consolidation mainly.  Also, reliance on single points of failure (such as state mandated interference with network traffic applied to network providers.)

If these things don't bother you, you are probably in the majority.  Some of us are not as comfortable with the potential problems we see here and it decreases the value of Bitcoin as a robust monetary alternative to today's collection of options.

You may think that network interference using deep packet methods is some sort of a loony conspiracy theory that could never happen.  I don't wish to bet my nest-egg on this especially since CALEA is a fixture in the U.S.  Filtering is a relatively small step beyond that, and is fairly common in other countries.  Much R&D is focused on how to do it.  If Bitcoin is pro-active and if it remains compact and tight, it could probably overcome the potential roadblocks here and they would not be fatal.  If it is bloated and consolidated to specialist operators it very probably could not.


zanzibar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 326


View Profile
January 17, 2015, 04:21:12 AM
 #20291

Not sure if Adam is still following here but wondering why he backed out of the debate with Peter Todd over sidechains at TNABC?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 17, 2015, 04:23:35 AM
 #20292

Not sure if Adam is still following here but wondering why he backed out of the debate with Peter Todd over sidechains at TNABC?

Tell us about it and what is TNABC? 
JorgeStolfi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868



View Profile
January 17, 2015, 04:42:08 AM
 #20293

Not sure if Adam is still following here but wondering why he backed out of the debate with Peter Todd over sidechains at TNABC?
Tell us about it and what is TNABC? 
The North American Bitcoin Conference

Academic interest in bitcoin only. Not owner, not trader, very skeptical of its longterm success.
600watt
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302


View Profile
January 17, 2015, 04:43:21 AM
 #20294

Ironically, gold up ~3% on the year, while bitcoin is down about %600.

Interesting.

No denying that bitcoin is the clear winner on the 5 year charts, but it's no secret the earliest adopters are always the ones who make a killing.



bitcoin went down more than 100% ??!1


man, this virtual crypto stuff is just magical ..

 Cheesy
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1974


View Profile
January 17, 2015, 04:52:11 AM
 #20295

Not sure if Adam is still following here but wondering why he backed out of the debate with Peter Todd over sidechains at TNABC?

Tell us about it and what is TNABC? 

Lazy fool.  Thankfully the good professor is around to throw you a life ring.


NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
January 17, 2015, 06:17:35 AM
 #20296


What problem does this solve?

Infrastructure consolidation mainly.  Also, reliance on single points of failure (such as state mandated interference with network traffic applied to network providers.)

If these things don't bother you, you are probably in the majority.  Some of us are not as comfortable with the potential problems we see here and it decreases the value of Bitcoin as a robust monetary alternative to today's collection of options.

You may think that network interference using deep packet methods is some sort of a loony conspiracy theory that could never happen.  I don't wish to bet my nest-egg on this especially since CALEA is a fixture in the U.S.  Filtering is a relatively small step beyond that, and is fairly common in other countries.  Much R&D is focused on how to do it.  If Bitcoin is pro-active and if it remains compact and tight, it could probably overcome the potential roadblocks here and they would not be fatal.  If it is bloated and consolidated to specialist operators it very probably could not.

I don't think those solve infrastructure consolidation particularly well. Nor does it fix many single points of failure.
Conversely, apriori doesn't multiple algos introduce additional single points of failure with each algorithm added?

Multiple algos also doesn't prevent the ASIC issues.  It is just either multiple ASICs or more complicated ones.  It will start on FPGAs and iteratively optimize until it is worthy of an ASIC and then the future is back to the present.

Location and identity detection is yet another issue entirely, and also it is as problematic as pure privacy.  Adding either of these to a protocol trades sets of issues.  Bitcoin is agnostic to both sides of this spectrum and relegates addressing them to outside the core protocol and codebase.  It instead puts these in the hands of individual implementations.  Both extremes have their places and valid use cases.

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
semaforo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
January 17, 2015, 06:28:42 AM
 #20297

Ironically, gold up ~3% on the year, while bitcoin is down about %600.

Interesting.

No denying that bitcoin is the clear winner on the 5 year charts, but it's no secret the earliest adopters are always the ones who make a killing.

   Bitcoin up 5 million % in 5 years, gold up 10%... care to state your agenda? Somehow your sneering attitude rules out altruism.
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
January 17, 2015, 06:37:49 AM
 #20298


What problem does this solve?

Infrastructure consolidation mainly.  Also, reliance on single points of failure (such as state mandated interference with network traffic applied to network providers.)

If these things don't bother you, you are probably in the majority.  Some of us are not as comfortable with the potential problems we see here and it decreases the value of Bitcoin as a robust monetary alternative to today's collection of options.

You may think that network interference using deep packet methods is some sort of a loony conspiracy theory that could never happen.  I don't wish to bet my nest-egg on this especially since CALEA is a fixture in the U.S.  Filtering is a relatively small step beyond that, and is fairly common in other countries.  Much R&D is focused on how to do it.  If Bitcoin is pro-active and if it remains compact and tight, it could probably overcome the potential roadblocks here and they would not be fatal.  If it is bloated and consolidated to specialist operators it very probably could not.


Essentially you are creating a game with rules. Your rules may be sightly more complex but nevertheless quite solvable. The beauty of Bitcoin is its simplicity. You can use all the buzzwords you want, but in the grown up world we have to deal with the inequities in life head on. Bitcoin is not a magic solution. Bitcoin is the AK47 of finance. The power is in our numbers in using it.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1974


View Profile
January 17, 2015, 07:05:43 AM
 #20299


What problem does this solve?

Infrastructure consolidation mainly.  Also, reliance on single points of failure (such as state mandated interference with network traffic applied to network providers.)

If these things don't bother you, you are probably in the majority.  Some of us are not as comfortable with the potential problems we see here and it decreases the value of Bitcoin as a robust monetary alternative to today's collection of options.

You may think that network interference using deep packet methods is some sort of a loony conspiracy theory that could never happen.  I don't wish to bet my nest-egg on this especially since CALEA is a fixture in the U.S.  Filtering is a relatively small step beyond that, and is fairly common in other countries.  Much R&D is focused on how to do it.  If Bitcoin is pro-active and if it remains compact and tight, it could probably overcome the potential roadblocks here and they would not be fatal.  If it is bloated and consolidated to specialist operators it very probably could not.

I don't think those solve infrastructure consolidation particularly well. Nor does it fix many single points of failure.
Conversely, apriori doesn't multiple algos introduce additional single points of failure with each algorithm added?

Multiple algos also doesn't prevent the ASIC issues.  It is just either multiple ASICs or more complicated ones.  It will start on FPGAs and iteratively optimize until it is worthy of an ASIC and then the future is back to the present.

Location and identity detection is yet another issue entirely, and also it is as problematic as pure privacy.  Adding either of these to a protocol trades sets of issues.  Bitcoin is agnostic to both sides of this spectrum and relegates addressing them to outside the core protocol and codebase.  It instead puts these in the hands of individual implementations.  Both extremes have their places and valid use cases.

To be clear, I'm not talking about Bitcoin.  Bitcoin is what we've got and it is what it is.  I think it has the potential be be a solid foundation if the planets align correctly, but it is not on a good trajectory in my opinion.  Hopefully Blockstream will turn things around.

I consider that if 1 of 100 nodes and interconnects were 'unconsolidated' and active and integrated, that is a big step toward providing resiliency.  This because if the 99% were put out of action, the 1% could support the system sort of and provide a tested path forward toward recovery.

One solution I considered would be to have a fairly cheap but specialized device which would be useful as both a transfer and mining node.  It would contain an FPGA and a TPM with Peter Todd's 'break glass' one-time keygen initiation scheme.  The 'testing and validation mesh' that I touched on would blacklist any device which was found to be cheating.  The FPGA could adapt to yet-to-be-described algorithms making it possible to stay ahead of ASIC producers (and run cheap.)  I like some of the concepts Dan Kaminski used for nooter in order to probe for general location and situation, and doing so from multiple points (other nodes in a mesh) might be able to root out cheaters.  Such a device could have multiple functions over and above supporting a P2P currency solution making it a nice thing to own, and probably could be made for not very much money.  Probably also not necessary in order to participate, but a value-add which would be rewarded.


tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1974


View Profile
January 17, 2015, 07:15:44 AM
 #20300


What problem does this solve?

Infrastructure consolidation mainly.  Also, reliance on single points of failure (such as state mandated interference with network traffic applied to network providers.)

If these things don't bother you, you are probably in the majority.  Some of us are not as comfortable with the potential problems we see here and it decreases the value of Bitcoin as a robust monetary alternative to today's collection of options.

You may think that network interference using deep packet methods is some sort of a loony conspiracy theory that could never happen.  I don't wish to bet my nest-egg on this especially since CALEA is a fixture in the U.S.  Filtering is a relatively small step beyond that, and is fairly common in other countries.  Much R&D is focused on how to do it.  If Bitcoin is pro-active and if it remains compact and tight, it could probably overcome the potential roadblocks here and they would not be fatal.  If it is bloated and consolidated to specialist operators it very probably could not.


Essentially you are creating a game with rules. Your rules may be sightly more complex but nevertheless quite solvable. The beauty of Bitcoin is its simplicity. You can use all the buzzwords you want, but in the grown up world we have to deal with the inequities in life head on. Bitcoin is not a magic solution. Bitcoin is the AK47 of finance. The power is in our numbers in using it.

As I said to NewLiberty, I'm not talking about Bitcoin.  My thoughts are flights of fancy with maybe and idea or two worth integrating into some future solution or another depending on how things go.

At this point I favor trying to make Bitcoin be what it needs to be to withstand the types of attacks which are theoretically possible and thus retain a degree of confidence among people like me who's confidence is hard to earn.  Again, Blockstream and sidechains are the most promising thing I've seen in a long time.  I'd rank the development up there in importance with the moment Hal first read Satoshi's mailing list post.

I might add that I see relatively little value in 'the power of our numbers using it.'  Most users are sheep and use Bitcoin as sheep.  They would be more useful in destroying the solution than preserving it.  Development under Gavin's watch could have focused on making the story be different but they didn't.  Closer to just the opposite.


Pages: « 1 ... 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 1063 1064 1065 ... 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!