Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 10:02:27 AM *
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 ... 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 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1807068 times)
bassclef
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 910



View Profile
January 19, 2015, 10:36:25 PM
 #20381

i made a point some time ago that if Bitcoin were to become a global reserve currency, much like gold, due to maintaining the 1MB block size, all Bitcoin 2.0 projects trying to ride the MC would be eliminated due to high tx costs.  in that case, the blockchain would only be applicable to Bitcoin as Money:
Bitcoin can't be money with a capped transaction rate.

Gold only maintains purchasing power due to being subsidized by central banks - there's no such thing as intrinsic value for a currency.

If those transaction rate limits are hit and the situation isn't fixed, then Bitcoin will disappear.

I think Gavin has been working on a solution, where block limit grows over time, using the testnet. Which got me thinking--the fact that we have a testnet is pretty cool in itself--if only central banks had one to test interest rate adjustments!
1481277747
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481277747

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481277747
Reply with quote  #2

1481277747
Report to moderator
1481277747
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481277747

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481277747
Reply with quote  #2

1481277747
Report to moderator
1481277747
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481277747

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481277747
Reply with quote  #2

1481277747
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481277747
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481277747

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481277747
Reply with quote  #2

1481277747
Report to moderator
1481277747
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481277747

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481277747
Reply with quote  #2

1481277747
Report to moderator
1481277747
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481277747

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481277747
Reply with quote  #2

1481277747
Report to moderator
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
January 19, 2015, 10:37:44 PM
 #20382

The real problem is the inevitable centralization of mining.
Year after year, the number of active mining pools go up.

Year after year, concern trolls talk about the "inevitable centralization" of mining.
JorgeStolfi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868



View Profile
January 19, 2015, 10:53:07 PM
 #20383

The real problem is the inevitable centralization of mining.
Year after year, the number of active mining pools go up.

Year after year, concern trolls talk about the "inevitable centralization" of mining.

And year after year the bitcoin faithful bury their head in the sand, "if we don't worry about it, it is not a problem".

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

Activity: 1106


View Profile
January 19, 2015, 11:00:57 PM
 #20384

also doesn't explain the Peter Todd debate reference from someone.

It seems I've missed this one. Care to share a pointer?

Go back over the last few days of posts.

All I remember is some tweet from a guy who is threatened by the existence of Blockstream (and many in the rapidly expanding ecosystem are.)


That was me who posted, here is the article for reference:

http://cointelegraph.com/news/113314/last-minute-tnabc-changes-garza-cancels-robot-roger-ver-and-more

Thanks for the link, appreciated.

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

Activity: 1400



View Profile
January 19, 2015, 11:03:04 PM
 #20385

The real problem is the inevitable centralization of mining.
Year after year, the number of active mining pools go up.

Year after year, concern trolls talk about the "inevitable centralization" of mining.

And year after year the bitcoin faithful bury their head in the sand, "if we don't worry about it, it is not a problem".

I have wondered if several decades from now, governments might not end up securing the blockchain by goverment-funded mining in order to protect the economy, property records etc. from evil 51% attacks by other nations or terrorist groups.  I might be dreaming of unicorns and rainbows though....
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 19, 2015, 11:08:58 PM
 #20386

The real problem is the inevitable centralization of mining.
Year after year, the number of active mining pools go up.

Year after year, concern trolls talk about the "inevitable centralization" of mining.

And year after year the bitcoin faithful bury their head in the sand, "if we don't worry about it, it is not a problem".

I have wondered if several decades from now, governments might not end up securing the blockchain by goverment-funded mining in order to protect the economy, property records etc. from evil 51% attacks by terrorist groups or other nations.  I might be dreaming of unicorns and rainbows though....

i keep thinking of that great article by Stefan Thomas way back in the first issue of Bitcoin Magazine May 2012 where he writes a fictitious article about foreign state sponsored blockchain 51% attack with an alert US gvt defense mechanism in place that springs into action.  it's a great article. 
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 19, 2015, 11:17:02 PM
 #20387

with confidence measures like this, who needs enemies?

Brazil’s government will raise taxes on fuel, imports, credit and cosmetics as part of efforts to restore confidence in its fiscal discipline, Finance Minister Joaquim Levy said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-19/brazil-raises-taxes-by-7-5-billion-to-improve-confidence.html
Trolfi
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 72

Learning from Jorge


View Profile
January 19, 2015, 11:31:31 PM
 #20388

The real problem is the inevitable centralization of mining. Year after year, the number of active mining pools go up.

Today's hashrate distribution:  F2Pool 20% + AntPool 12% + GHash.IO 10% = 42% of the network. Unknown miners: 30%.

It only would take for a fraction of those "unknown" miners to collude with the three leading pools (assuming they are indeed separate entities) in order to attack the blockchain.

Very concerned about the long-term viability of this experiment.

Very concerned.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 19, 2015, 11:32:52 PM
 #20389

nice advertising:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 19, 2015, 11:40:10 PM
 #20390

The real problem is the inevitable centralization of mining. Year after year, the number of active mining pools go up.

Today's hashrate distribution:  F2Pool 20% + AntPool 12% + GHash.IO 10% = 42% of the network. Unknown miners: 30%.

It only would take for a fraction of those "unknown" miners to collude with the three leading pools (assuming they are indeed separate entities) in order to attack the blockchain.

Very concerned about the long-term viability of this experiment.

Very concerned.

oooooooh.  i am SO scared:

JorgeStolfi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868



View Profile
January 19, 2015, 11:57:50 PM
 #20391

oooooooh.  i am SO scared:


Yes, I know that you do not see anything wrong with that picture.  The top 6 companies have 60% of the hashrate.  What could possibly go wrong?  As long as there is sand around...

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

Activity: 335


View Profile
January 20, 2015, 12:04:56 AM
 #20392

Yes, I know that you do not see anything wrong with that picture.  The top 6 companies have 60% of the hashrate.  What could possibly go wrong?  As long as there is sand around...

Yes, but you would be saying the same thing if it were 10 with 60% or 20 with 60%.  These are pools, miners can re-direct their rigs anytime.  They are not going to conspire to destroy BTC, what would be the point.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 20, 2015, 12:11:19 AM
 #20393

Yes, I know that you do not see anything wrong with that picture.  The top 6 companies have 60% of the hashrate.  What could possibly go wrong?  As long as there is sand around...

Yes, but you would be saying the same thing if it were 10 with 60% or 20 with 60%.  These are pools, miners can re-direct their rigs anytime.  They are not going to conspire to destroy BTC, what would be the point.


exactly right.  if Bitcoin becomes a mainstream currency, mining pools have a chance to become the accountants of the entire system which would mean enormous profits.  but if they attack themselves, they get nothing.
Trolfi
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 72

Learning from Jorge


View Profile
January 20, 2015, 12:46:27 AM
 #20394

The incentives section in bitcoin.pdf refers to miners using CPU power. It does not address the inevitable current and future mining centralization. 
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
January 20, 2015, 12:47:11 AM
 #20395

Yes, I know that you do not see anything wrong with that picture.  The top 6 companies have 60% of the hashrate.  What could possibly go wrong?  As long as there is sand around...

Yes, but you would be saying the same thing if it were 10 with 60% or 20 with 60%.  These are pools, miners can re-direct their rigs anytime.  They are not going to conspire to destroy BTC, what would be the point.

To be fair it isn't really known how much of the hash rate is concentrated with a few large farm owners. The pool charts JorgeStolfi (or cypherdoc) likes to show don't indicate that at all. A single farm owner can split his hash across pools and a pool can represent hash from a number of miners. Both are unknown and unknowable. It is fundamentally a more dangerous situation than the first round of 51% pool scares when it was pretty clear that each pool had a huge number of independent miners.

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
January 20, 2015, 12:48:41 AM
 #20396

The incentives section in bitcoin.pdf refers to miners using CPU power. It does not address the inevitable current and future mining centralization. 

Not in the paper, but Satoshi did talk about mining centralization when he was around. It isn't unexpected entirely, though some aspects of it may be.
BlindMayorBitcorn
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


Blockchain Theorist


View Profile
January 20, 2015, 12:57:53 AM
 #20397

The incentives section in bitcoin.pdf refers to miners using CPU power. It does not address the inevitable current and future mining centralization.  

Not in the paper, but Satoshi did talk about mining centralization when he was around. It isn't unexpected entirely, though some aspects of it may be.

I remember some quotes here to the effect that we should try to make a gentlemen's agreement to stall the arms race for as long as possible. He knew what was coming

Forgive my petulance and oft-times, I fear, ill-founded criticisms, and forgive me that I have, by this time, made your eyes and head ache with my long letter. But I cannot forgo hastily the pleasure and pride of thus conversing with you.
JorgeStolfi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868



View Profile
January 20, 2015, 12:57:56 AM
 #20398

Yes, I know that you do not see anything wrong with that picture.  The top 6 companies have 60% of the hashrate.  What could possibly go wrong?  As long as there is sand around...

Yes, but you would be saying the same thing if it were 10 with 60% or 20 with 60%.  These are pools, miners can re-direct their rigs anytime.

There is no magic number.  The fewer companies you have in the right half that chart, the higher is the risk that they will collude to act as one entity, each giving up their immediate gain (reward for getting the next block appended to orthodox chain) for a greater long-term gain (such as a larger reward per block). Why would their affiliated miners defect?  If the change will mean more money even for miners who are not in the cartel, why would they resist the change?

Not long ago there was just one pool, GHash.io, with more than 50% power.  Bitcoiners were scared, but considered the probem solved when it shrank to less than 50%.  No one asked where those miners who left the pool went.  No one asks who are the owners of all those pools.  How many of those big miners are in the Bitcoin Foundation, paying Gavin's salary?

Quote
They are not going to conspire to destroy BTC, what would be the point.

In the real world, cartels and monopolies do not form to destroy their markets, but to extract more money from their customers than they could if the markets were free.  And there are plenty of things that a majority coalition of miners could do in that direction.

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

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
January 20, 2015, 01:01:18 AM
 #20399

Very concerned about the long-term viability of this experiment.

Don't be concerned. Even if the "unknown" increases and reached 100%, it is extremely healthy, and was the normal state of affairs before mining pools were invented! Unknown miners are unknown to each other and can't collude. Yes, you can have a big secretive miner, like 18xf3MQ, but several exist today anyway.

It only would take for a fraction of those "unknown" miners to collude with the three leading pools (assuming they are indeed separate entities) in order to attack the blockchain.

Who is Discus Fish going to call in the "unknown" group to collude with? Are they going to start ringing every single number in the Chinese Phone Directory? You can't criticize the concentration of mining power into a few pools while also lumping in the unknown miners. That is illogical.

The only thing better than unknown miners is the P2Pool. P2Pool has scaling problems, and maybe there needs to be many of them. This is an important development to further improve the mining situation.

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
January 20, 2015, 01:04:41 AM
 #20400

<gold important on the international stage>
<admittedly it seems so>

with Bitcoin, you merely have to check the signature, which takes a millisecond.

Ask, oh, say everyone who's been robbed of their BTC, how great that is.  If I'm remembering correctly there may be a few people in this category.

FWIW, this is another pretty decent reason for considering Bitcoin as an important reserve more than a trivial exchange item.

That was exactly the context you quoted. Germany could move reserve bitcoin around in minutes or hours at virtually no cost instead of the huge effort involved with moving tons of gold.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 ... 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!