Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 08:12:13 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 ... 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 1071 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1806410 times)
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
January 20, 2015, 01:08:00 AM
 #20401

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.

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.

centralized mining is a problem when the incentives encourage a single mining monopoly, as long as there is competition its not centralized.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
1481227933
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481227933

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481227933
Reply with quote  #2

1481227933
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
January 20, 2015, 01:10:37 AM
 #20402

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....

sure  Smiley it'll be a little messy if when they are attacking each others sidechains.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
January 20, 2015, 01:19:27 AM
 #20403

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.

marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2100



View Profile
January 20, 2015, 01:24:10 AM
 #20404

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

Decentralised (actually highly distributed) pool mining hasn't eventuated yet because there hasn't been a market need for them ... and that, my friends, is the only hard FACT that you need to know about all the FUD surrounding the "mining centralisation" beat-up by the less-than-knowledgeable.

Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
January 20, 2015, 01:34:05 AM
 #20405

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...

you know that attack vector is real, but it doesn't work like you think it does, (as illustrated by your earlier though experiment) there is a full force assault underway at the moment happening in the open, BlockStream are openly trying to insert the infamous (SPVP) change into the protocol, only the miners need adopt it, and there is a big carrot for them as the new income it would generate is advertised as coming from new services offered by new sidechains, and it is packaged as no downside risk other than a miniscule amount of CPU power and a a few hours of time.

It remains to be seen if it succeeds, both sides seem to be confidant, and it looks like the market has priced in the odds already.  

Time will tell if its a viable attack vector. as far as i can see it's now (over the next 2 years) or never as entropy has a way of closing such windows. it's time to wait and see  Wink

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

Activity: 1330



View Profile
January 20, 2015, 01:35:06 AM
 #20406

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.

they might do it out of ignorance

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
January 20, 2015, 02:10:36 AM
 #20407

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.

fonzie
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504


Moderator


View Profile
January 20, 2015, 02:33:31 AM
 #20408

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

"To know death, Otto, you have to fuck life in the gallbladder"
www.hsbc.com  - The world´s local bank
"These FUDsters are insane egomaniacs that just want cheap BTC" - oblivi
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
January 20, 2015, 02:35:00 AM
 #20409


Broken link

BTW, last two blocks are now:

54 minutes   
1 hour 34 minutes
Trolfi
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 72

Learning from Jorge


View Profile
January 20, 2015, 02:42:09 AM
 #20410

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.
Kupsi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190


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


View Profile
January 20, 2015, 03:00:43 AM
 #20411

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: 1988


View Profile
January 20, 2015, 03:03:31 AM
 #20412

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: 1988


View Profile
January 20, 2015, 03:05:08 AM
 #20413

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: 1190


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


View Profile
January 20, 2015, 03:07:22 AM
 #20414

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


Blockchain Theorist


View Profile
January 20, 2015, 03:08:10 AM
 #20415

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: 1988


View Profile
January 20, 2015, 03:08:46 AM
 #20416

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: 1190


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


View Profile
January 20, 2015, 03:12:48 AM
 #20417

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: 1988


View Profile
January 20, 2015, 03:49:52 AM
 #20418


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: 1512


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
January 20, 2015, 04:04:46 AM
 #20419

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

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
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Wallets - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }


Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


"I believed @Dashpay instamine was a bug & not a feature but then read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg13017231#msg13017231
I'm not against people making money, but can't support questionable origins."
https://twitter.com/Tone_LLT/status/717822927908024320


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004

"Hard forks cannot be co
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
January 20, 2015, 04:21:35 AM
 #20420

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.

Pages: « 1 ... 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 1071 ... 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!