Bitcoin Forum
November 24, 2017, 04:23:04 AM *
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 ... 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 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2013489 times)
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610



View Profile
January 20, 2015, 06:13:16 AM
 #20401

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

His point, and it is a good one, is that the available evidence points to a trend away from increasing centralization.

I have pointed out that the charts don't tell the whole picture, but if you are going to use these charts to make your case, your case entirely fails.

1511497384
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511497384

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511497384
Reply with quote  #2

1511497384
Report to moderator
1511497384
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511497384

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511497384
Reply with quote  #2

1511497384
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.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
January 20, 2015, 06:26:34 AM
 #20402

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

I'm not sure I would take anything as a given just because someone made a colorful pie chart.  Specifically, it is known that an entity with a high percentage of hashing power freaks people out.  Were I running an outfit who had the potential to form such a pattern, I would split things up long before a threatening pattern emerged.  Behind the scenes at a social level reality might be quite different.

Secondly, I don't find it very easy to get much of a sense of how many chips are in a noisy box someone's back room vs. how many are submerged in an oil bath in some datacenter.  Either type could change behavior slightly to influence the pie charts, but there would be a variety of differences in why they would do so and what impacts it would have.

Thirdly, and somewhat related to the above, if a pool for some mysterious reason started to give miners and extra good deal, I would expect that a fair fraction of the home-owner types would not really stare a gift horse in the mouth and jump on over.  Even if they knew in the back of their minds it was a bad idea for the ecosystem it would be sorely tempting to leave it to the other guy to try take the bullet.  This especially if it's the difference between a profit and a loss, and the gear one is running is approaching obsolescence anyway.

I sense sort of a desperate hope on the part of the naturally hopeful in these discussions of mining centralization.  Certainly I'd want fewer unknowns and more knows before I was very comfortable with huge fraction of my net worth riding on Bitcoin.


Trolfi
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 72

Learning from Jorge


View Profile
January 20, 2015, 06:39:47 AM
 #20403

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

Nah, I am not quite as deluded as you seem to be about the impact of posting on a forum. I'm just trolling you.

Now go back and replay some vague scenario purporting to show that centralization is going to kill bitcoin but we are too self-deceived to understand it. After you get a number of thoughtful replies, proceed to ignore them and do it all over again. And then do that again. You seem to think it's a good use of your time.
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
January 20, 2015, 06:41:30 AM
 #20404

Certainly I'd want fewer unknowns and more knows before I was very comfortable with huge fraction of my net worth riding on Bitcoin.

What variables would you like to know to make you cofortable?

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

Activity: 1848


[LOL2X]


View Profile WWW
January 20, 2015, 06:48:22 AM
 #20405

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

Nah, I am not quite as deluded as you seem to be about the impact of posting on a forum. I'm just trolling you.

Now go back and replay some vague scenario purporting to show that centralization is going to kill bitcoin but we are too self-deceived to understand it. After you get a number of thoughtful replies, proceed to ignore them and do it all over again. And then do that again. You seem to think it's a good use of your time.

Ha-ha-ha, this Trolfi fellow is so funny and awesome.   Grin

How come I never got a vanity troll?  It's not fair!

And by "not fair" I actually mean "not a perfectly equal, utility-blind, Pareto-neutral, strictly democratic outcome."  (Just like JorgeStolfi.)


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

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
JorgeStolfi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
January 20, 2015, 06:50:36 AM
 #20406

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.

So bitcoin's future is protected by the power of twitter storms and coindesk articles? Mind if I am not impressed? 

Seriously, I can't believe that a company would voluntarily shrink because some customers (who cannot choose their suppliers) complain about them being too big.  I would expect it to merely disguise its size, by using two or more diferent names.  Is anyone worried bout that?

What is your point?  The disaster did not happen until now, so the risk does not exist?
His point, and it is a good one, is that the available evidence points to a trend away from increasing centralization.

2012:  3 companies had more than 50%
2013:  2 companies has more than 50%
2014:  1 company (GHash.io) had more than 50%
2015:  4(?) companies have more than 50%

Well, sorry, I dont see a trend there. 

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

Activity: 72

Learning from Jorge


View Profile
January 20, 2015, 07:07:54 AM
 #20407

Right on cue!
sidhujag
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652


View Profile
January 20, 2015, 07:12:48 AM
 #20408

Would the real trolfi plz stand up lol

★☆★Syscoin - Decentralized Marketplace and Multisig Platform
Pay with Bitcoin, ZCash and many more
For more visit Syscoin.org  ★☆★
marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2436



View Profile
January 20, 2015, 07:51:56 AM
 #20409

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

Nah, I am not quite as deluded as you seem to be about the impact of posting on a forum. I'm just trolling you.

Now go back and replay some vague scenario purporting to show that centralization is going to kill bitcoin but we are too self-deceived to understand it. After you get a number of thoughtful replies, proceed to ignore them and do it all over again. And then do that again. You seem to think it's a good use of your time.

Ha-ha-ha, this Trolfi fellow is so funny and awesome.   Grin

How come I never got a vanity troll?  It's not fair!

And by "not fair" I actually mean "not a perfectly equal, utility-blind, Pareto-neutral, strictly democratic outcome."  (Just like JorgeStolfi.)

me too!

why can't we all have our own personalised Trolfi ... it's not fair

JorgeStolfi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
January 20, 2015, 07:56:15 AM
 #20410

Now go back and replay some vague scenario purporting to show that centralization is going to kill bitcoin but we are too self-deceived to understand it. After you get a number of thoughtful replies, proceed to ignore them and do it all over again.

Not quite:

* I posted a scenario whereby a cartel would force a protocol change that would NOT kill bitcoin.
* It took three or four posts for (some) people here to even read it; they kept arguing that a cartel would not want to "kill bitcoin".
* It took another three or four posts for (fewer) people to realize that the arguments that they had against that strawman did not work for that scenario.
* It took a couple more post for (even fewer of) them to realize that the scenario would in fact be profitable for the miners, and that the users would have no choice but accept the change.
* Finally, one of them claimed that, if the cartel decided to do that, the, rather than accept a small compatible change to the protocol, surely all users would make a big incompatible change to the protocol, alienate all the miners, and go back to the network of 2010. And closed the discussion with "QED".

But you are right, trying to argue a technical discussion here is a terrible waste of time.

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

Activity: 2324


View Profile
January 20, 2015, 08:03:12 AM
 #20411

Certainly I'd want fewer unknowns and more knows before I was very comfortable with huge fraction of my net worth riding on Bitcoin.

What variables would you like to know to make you cofortable?

I'm chronically worried about people's behavior being influenced by legal and regulatory issues.  In spite of the tough talk, it's hard not to notice that when the rubber meets the road most people in the community (and out) capitulate immediately and do what the fuck they are told.  I almost certainly would.  The propensity is directly proportional to what one has to lose.

Also, as I've mentioned a bunch lately, I see the solution on a collision course with the big data companies if it is to survive at all.

Thus, I would like to have a much better idea qualitatively about the nature of those running mining gear, transfer nodes, etc.  This will allow me to better predict what might happen when and take appropriate actions.


tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
January 20, 2015, 08:08:58 AM
 #20412


Me too!

why can't we all have our own personalised Trolfi ... it's not fair

It's pretty easy to set up a sock puppet.  I have several that I remember but almost never use them.  Theymos doesn't even annoy you making you do 5 posts on the newbie board and all that shit any more.  Just remember to use an incognito window so cookies don't get fucked up.  I assume most browsers have such a thing now-adays. (?)


cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
January 20, 2015, 08:09:48 AM
 #20413

Certainly I'd want fewer unknowns and more knows before I was very comfortable with huge fraction of my net worth riding on Bitcoin.

What variables would you like to know to make you cofortable?

I'm chronically worried about people's behavior being influenced by legal and regulatory issues.  In spite of the tough talk, it's hard not to notice that when the rubber meets the road most people in the community (and out) capitulate immediately and do what the fuck they are told.  I almost certainly would.  The propensity is directly proportional to what one has to lose.

Also, as I've mentioned a bunch lately, I see the solution on a collision course with the big data companies if it is to survive at all.

Thus, I would like to have a much better idea qualitatively about the nature of those running mining gear, transfer nodes, etc.  This will allow me to better predict what might happen when and take appropriate actions.
What does "idea qualitatively about the nature of those [entities]" even mean?
There is a difference between knowing what and who. Knowing what can be done pseudonymously. Knowing who requires guns. Which is it, what or who?

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

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 20, 2015, 08:13:40 AM
 #20414

Certainly I'd want fewer unknowns and more knows before I was very comfortable with huge fraction of my net worth riding fry  on Bitcoin.

What variables would you like to know to make you cofortable?

I'm chronically worried about people's behavior being influenced by legal and regulatory issues.  In spite of the tough talk, it's hard not to notice that when the rubber meets the road most people in the community (and out) capitulate immediately and do what the fuck they are told.  I almost certainly would.  The propensity is directly proportional to what one has to lose.

Also, as I've mentioned a bunch lately, I see the solution on a collision course with the big data companies if it is to survive at all.

Thus, I would like to have a much better idea qualitatively about the nature of those running mining gear, transfer nodes, etc.  This will allow me to better predict what might happen when and take appropriate actions.
What does "idea qualitatively about the nature of those [entities]" even mean?
There is a difference between knowing what and who. Knowing what can be done pseudonymously. Knowing who requires guns. Which is it, what or who?

Don't ever expect much of his vomit ever to make much sense.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610



View Profile
January 20, 2015, 08:16:45 AM
 #20415

* Finally, one of them claimed that, if the cartel decided to do that, the, rather than accept a small compatible change to the protocol, surely all users would make a big incompatible change to the protocol, alienate all the miners, and go back to the network of 2010. And closed the discussion with "QED".

That was not the argument that proved your scenario unworkable. Maybe we need three of four posts before you read it, rather than throwing up a straw man and ignoring that your scenario fails. Or maybe you are just trollin'

Also the change you claim (incorrectly) users would accept is not a "small compatible change," it requires users to accept a hard fork. That's not compatible and its not small. Its perhaps the only thing that would indeed make another hard fork clearly (as) viable -- since users would simply be choosing between one hard fork or another.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
January 20, 2015, 08:20:05 AM
 #20416


What does "idea qualitatively about the nature of those [entities]" even mean?
There is a difference between knowing what and who. Knowing what can be done pseudonymously. Knowing who requires guns. Which is it, what or who?

One example would be as I mentioned earlier:  How much mining gear is sitting in someone's home-office relative to how much in liquid cooled racks in a datacenter.

I'd also really like to know about jurisdictional distribution of both mining and transfer nodes.  I think there are some maps, but such things are fairly easy to fake (and usually fairly dubious even when they are not faked.)

A more ideal system would make some of this stuff more known with higher reliability for operational reasons while preserving as much anonymity as possible.  But as I've said before, Bitcoin is what we've got and it's not likely or even possible that it will change in such ways.


cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
January 20, 2015, 08:34:15 AM
 #20417


What does "idea qualitatively about the nature of those [entities]" even mean?
There is a difference between knowing what and who. Knowing what can be done pseudonymously. Knowing who requires guns. Which is it, what or who?

One example would be as I mentioned earlier:  How much mining gear is sitting in someone's home-office relative to how much in liquid cooled racks in a datacenter.

I'd also really like to know about jurisdictional distribution of both mining and transfer nodes.  I think there are some maps, but such things are fairly easy to fake (and usually fairly dubious even when they are not faked.)

A more ideal system would make some of this stuff more known with higher reliability for operational reasons while preserving as much anonymity as possible.  But as I've said before, Bitcoin is what we've got and it's not likely or even possible that it will change in such ways.
I agree with you, but that is the future, not today's reality. Mining will one day be done almost entirely by datacenters. You may not know exactly where they are, but they will be well protected by very large guns. Bitcoin doesn't need jurisdictions because you know you can't trust anyone, you can only trust the protocol and how it is engineered to balance mathematical security and networking limitations. If a major mining firm is going to overtly attack the network, it will destroy their investment. If they attack an individual, then it is best that you remain as anonymous as possible.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
JorgeStolfi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
January 20, 2015, 08:42:02 AM
 #20418

* Finally, one of them claimed that, if the cartel decided to do that, the, rather than accept a small compatible change to the protocol, surely all users would make a big incompatible change to the protocol, alienate all the miners, and go back to the network of 2010. And closed the discussion with "QED".

That was not the argument that proved your scenario unworkable. Maybe we need three of four posts before you read it, rather than throwing up a straw man and ignoring that your scenario fails.

We were down to discussing the "Red Button" solution.  Wasn't that your argument?

Quote
Also the change you claim (incorrectly) users would accept is not a "small compatible change," it requires users to accept a hard fork. That's not compatible and its not small. Its perhaps the only thing that would indeed make another hard fork clearly (as) viable -- since users would simply be choosing between one hard fork or another.

Whether the users would accept it or not is a matter of belief, and clearly we have vastly different views about the mindset of the bitcoin community.  What we can discuss objectively is what are their choices and the respective gains/losses. 

Yes, either change in the protocol would require everybody to upgrade their client software, and recompile private software with upgraded libraries and/or parameters.  Like other hard forks in the past, and hard forks that will surely be necessary in the future, cartel or no cartel.   But the Red Button fork is way more radical than the cartel's.

Moreover, after the cartel's fork, only one branch will be viable, so most users will upgrade to it, and the price may not suffer; whereas the Red Button fork will result in two functioning "bitcoins", so the price will be split among them.

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

Activity: 1610



View Profile
January 20, 2015, 08:54:22 AM
 #20419

* Finally, one of them claimed that, if the cartel decided to do that, the, rather than accept a small compatible change to the protocol, surely all users would make a big incompatible change to the protocol, alienate all the miners, and go back to the network of 2010. And closed the discussion with "QED".

That was not the argument that proved your scenario unworkable. Maybe we need three of four posts before you read it, rather than throwing up a straw man and ignoring that your scenario fails.

We were down to discussing the "Red Button" solution.  Wasn't that your argument?

No, it was not.

Two or three more posts to go?
Bagatell
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 722



View Profile
January 20, 2015, 09:02:02 AM
 #20420


If only.
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 ... 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!