Bitcoin Forum
November 24, 2017, 03:46:44 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 ... 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 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2013825 times)
Trolfi
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 72

Learning from Jorge


View Profile
January 20, 2015, 02:42:09 AM
 #20381

The transaction rate limits are fixable.  The real problem is the inevitable centralization of mining.  It seems that no one knows how to fix that.  Bitcoin with centralized mining does not make any sense.
1511538404
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511538404

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511538404
Reply with quote  #2

1511538404
Report to moderator
1511538404
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511538404

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511538404
Reply with quote  #2

1511538404
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.
1511538404
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511538404

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511538404
Reply with quote  #2

1511538404
Report to moderator
Kupsi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1191


9.9.2012: I predict that single digits... <- FAIL


View Profile
January 20, 2015, 03:00:43 AM
 #20382

The transaction rate limits are fixable.  The real problem is the inevitable centralization of mining.  It seems that no one knows how to fix that.  Bitcoin with centralized mining does not make any sense.

Why is it inevitable? A lot of people use electricity for heating. Create a bitcoin mining heater which is easy to use and the problem is solved.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
January 20, 2015, 03:03:31 AM
 #20383

On the topic of blocksize, is anyone else noticing the back up of transactions that is occurring due to the combination of a slowing hash rate (so more frequent long blocks -- right now only 2 blocks one block in the past hour) and these blocks filling up? My fee-paying transaction didn't make it into the last block (which was 976 kB) after waiting 20 minutes, and I'm now waiting an hour or so -- still no confirm.


According to some experts from the mining forum the ETA for the total blockchain collapse is in <14d. Sad

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=681655.204802

When a moderator says something like this and provides a link, it's best to run like hell and don't look back!

---

Someone posted a breakdown of the different type of trolls here a while ago and used as an example of the most primitive type 'fonzie (in his earlier career)' IIRC.  I've not run across you much for whatever reason, but I would agree that if you had been in the primitive group you've upped your game.  Keep up the good work Smiley


tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
January 20, 2015, 03:05:08 AM
 #20384

The transaction rate limits are fixable.  The real problem is the inevitable centralization of mining.  It seems that no one knows how to fix that.  Bitcoin with centralized mining does not make any sense.

Why is it inevitable? A lot of people use electricity for heating. Create a bitcoin mining heater which is easy to use and the problem is solved.

Well...it might get us through the winter I suppose...


Kupsi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1191


9.9.2012: I predict that single digits... <- FAIL


View Profile
January 20, 2015, 03:07:22 AM
 #20385

The transaction rate limits are fixable.  The real problem is the inevitable centralization of mining.  It seems that no one knows how to fix that.  Bitcoin with centralized mining does not make any sense.

Why is it inevitable? A lot of people use electricity for heating. Create a bitcoin mining heater which is easy to use and the problem is solved.

Well...it might get us through the winter I suppose...



When you have summer, it's winter on the other side of the world.
BlindMayorBitcorn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
January 20, 2015, 03:08:10 AM
 #20386

The transaction rate limits are fixable.  The real problem is the inevitable centralization of mining.  It seems that no one knows how to fix that.  Bitcoin with centralized mining does not make any sense.

Why is it inevitable? A lot of people use electricity for heating. Create a bitcoin mining heater which is easy to use and the problem is solved.

Well...it might get us through the winter I suppose...



Can anyone get one of these Bitcoin heaters? Home Hardware?

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.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
January 20, 2015, 03:08:46 AM
 #20387

The transaction rate limits are fixable.  The real problem is the inevitable centralization of mining.  It seems that no one knows how to fix that.  Bitcoin with centralized mining does not make any sense.

Why is it inevitable? A lot of people use electricity for heating. Create a bitcoin mining heater which is easy to use and the problem is solved.

Well...it might get us through the winter I suppose...



When you have summer, it's winter on the other side of the world.

Very true.  All we need is to teach fish to mine Bitcoin and we're all set.


Kupsi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1191


9.9.2012: I predict that single digits... <- FAIL


View Profile
January 20, 2015, 03:12:48 AM
 #20388

The transaction rate limits are fixable.  The real problem is the inevitable centralization of mining.  It seems that no one knows how to fix that.  Bitcoin with centralized mining does not make any sense.

Why is it inevitable? A lot of people use electricity for heating. Create a bitcoin mining heater which is easy to use and the problem is solved.

Well...it might get us through the winter I suppose...



When you have summer, it's winter on the other side of the world.

Very true.  All we need is to teach fish to mine Bitcoin and we're all set.


I also use electricity to heat the water in my shower 12 months a year.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
January 20, 2015, 03:49:52 AM
 #20389


I also use electricity to heat the water in my shower 12 months a year.

Don't get me wrong; I actually like the idea.  It is one way to achieve what I feel is among the most important factors; getting infrastructure support widely distributed among the userbase.

Back around the time when ASIC first appeared I hypothesized about a mining rig in the form-factor of a standard hot water heater heating element.  Not many people would swap out their entire water heater since it's an expensive hassle.  Far more people would screw in a new element to replace the existing one however.

Since then I've changed my mind on the economics.  For 4.5 years since I first read the whitepaper I felt that using Bitcoin as an exchange currency was absurd since it is so inefficient and such overkill.  As far as I'm concerned time has proven me right.  There is simply no realistic 'sweet spot' where transaction fees provide any real support.

Now, it might make sense if you had a handful of sidechains that you liked to support them and merge-mine Bitcoin on the side (since most sidechains would likely require it.)  I'm guessing that some sidechains would do such things as provide better service for those who actively provided infrastructure support.  Mostly I could see sidechains appealing to people because they are sponsored and benefit entities that the user wishes to support anyway.  With extra incentives like this I could imagine there being enough reason to acquire and operate mining rigs on otherwise free electricity.


iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848


[LOL2X]


View Profile WWW
January 20, 2015, 04:04:46 AM
 #20390

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...

OK, we get it.  You are yet another Marxist who resents/hates power laws and Pareto distributions.  You probably also think equality of outcome is the only proof of a system's fairness.  "ZOMG a Fibonacci retracement!  What about the children?  Call the BIS and print more money everywhere, forever!"

It's bad enough we have to put up with your type's wailing about how the few most innovative and productive people control far more assets than the useless eaters.

But now you're updating the SJW rhetoric and bringing it into the world of digital currencies, where we formerly had a moment of peace without you looters.

Such FUD hasn't slowed BTC down one iota, and it never will.  Because cryptography interprets regulation as damage, then routes around it.   Smiley


██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine
whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." 
David Chaum 1996
"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect."  Adam Back 2014
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
January 20, 2015, 04:21:35 AM
 #20391

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.

You don't know and can't know that they are unknown to each other only that they are unknown to the person constructing the chart. For all we know "unknown" might be a single miner, or 90% of it might be a single miner. In fact that isn't extraordinarily unlikely given that most truly independent miners use known pools.

We can't know. We can only think in probabilities.

P(mining pools collude) > P(unknown miners know each other) * P(unknown miners collude)

The odds that DF contacts Ghash (they have public email addresses) and they scheme up some unconfirmed tx censorship or double-spends, is highly unlikely as news of the stunt would crush both their business models, but is still more likely than the risk from unknown miners.

Assuming these total 50% which is not even the case now, hashpower is well spread out lately.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 20, 2015, 04:43:49 AM
 #20392

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.

You don't know and can't know that they are unknown to each other only that they are unknown to the person constructing the chart. For all we know "unknown" might be a single miner, or 90% of it might be a single miner. In fact that isn't extraordinarily unlikely given that most truly independent miners use known pools.

We can't know. We can only think in probabilities.

P(mining pools collude) > P(unknown miners know each other) * P(unknown miners collude)

The odds that DF contacts Ghash (they have public email addresses) and they scheme up some unconfirmed tx censorship or double-spends, is highly unlikely as news of the stunt would crush both their business models, but is still more likely than the risk from unknown miners.

Assuming these total 50% which is not even the case now, hashpower is well spread out lately.

the 2 *olfi's around here seem incapable of noting trend in the mining distribution charts, ie, moving towards decreased centralization as mining becomes commoditized.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 20, 2015, 04:45:00 AM
 #20393


Broken link

BTW, last two blocks are now:

54 minutes   
1 hour 34 minutes


not sure why you should suddenly start getting longer confirmation times:

solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
January 20, 2015, 04:58:36 AM
 #20394

the 2 *olfi's around here seem incapable of noting trend in the mining distribution charts, ie, moving towards decreased centralization as mining becomes commoditized.

I don't think the *olfis have been around long enough. Distribution was far worse previously:

January 2012                                                                                                April 2013






smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610



View Profile
January 20, 2015, 05:06:12 AM
 #20395


Broken link

BTW, last two blocks are now:

54 minutes   
1 hour 34 minutes


not sure why you should suddenly start getting longer confirmation times:

Because a chart showing many months isn't relevant. What matters is the changes that occur within the two week adjustment. It could be random but I'm guessing there is a big drop today because there are a lot of these slow blocks, and it is still happening.

Right now:



Also:

Estimated Next Difficulty:   43,273,619,462 (-1.59%)
JorgeStolfi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
January 20, 2015, 05:40:29 AM
 #20396

The transaction rate limits are fixable.  The real problem is the inevitable centralization of mining.  It seems that no one knows how to fix that.  Bitcoin with centralized mining does not make any sense.

Do you really hope to save bitcoin by playing such stupid games?

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, 05:45:39 AM
 #20397

(The link in my quote above does not point to the right post. Is someone misquoting me, and others are picking up my quotes?)

Humble apologies  Sad. Both quotes were Trolfi. Fixed the post now.

JorgeStolfi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
January 20, 2015, 05:56:06 AM
 #20398

the 2 *olfi's around here seem incapable of noting trend in the mining distribution charts, ie, moving towards decreased centralization as mining becomes commoditized.

I don't think the *olfis have been around long enough. Distribution was far worse previously:

January 2012                                                                                                April 2013



What is your point?  The disaster did not happen until now, so the risk does not exist?

In 2012 and even in 2013 the miners were not as stressed as they are now.  There weren't as many big farms as there are now, were there?

Cartels and monopolies take years to form.  The big miners and pools are still in flux, but may soon stabilize (centralized). 






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, 05:57:50 AM
 #20399

the 2 *olfi's around here seem incapable of noting trend in the mining distribution charts, ie, moving towards decreased centralization as mining becomes commoditized.

I don't think the *olfis have been around long enough. Distribution was far worse previously:

January 2012                                                                                                April 2013



What is your point?  The disaster did not happen until now, so the risk does not exist?

In 2012 and even in 2013 the miners were not as stressed as they are now.  There weren't as many big farms as there are now, were there?

Cartels and monopolies take years to form.  The big miners and pools are still in flux, but may soon stabilize (centralized). 

The point is that mining is becoming more decentralized, and this much reduces the likelihood of "cartels".

NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
January 20, 2015, 06:09:29 AM
 #20400

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".

This is the opposite of what is happening.
It is because we are worried about it that it is not a problem.
Whenever centralization increases, the twitter storms and articles splash everywhere and miners react.

http://insidebitcoins.com/news/a-move-to-curb-bitcoin-mining-centralization/27042

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/9402/mining-pool-centralization-crisis-levels/

http://bitcoinist.net/the-centralization-of-mining-pools/

http://www.bitcoinx.com/bitcoin-developer-gavin-andresen-weighs-in-on-centralized-mining-and-the-ghash-situation/

I've also addressed this issue in public speaking engagements at conferences, as have many others.  Many people are concerned, very few are "burying their heads", and most of those aren't mining.  If you think people aren't taking *you* seriously, it may be the way you write.  It sounds like concern trolling when you write characterisations like: "faithful, head buriers".  It reads like an attempt to gets folks' dander up when you equate them with this guy:

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
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 ... 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!