Bitcoin Forum
December 06, 2016, 10:08:12 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 ... 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 1072 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1805251 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 20, 2015, 04:43:49 AM
 #20421

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.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481062092
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481062092

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481062092
Reply with quote  #2

1481062092
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 20, 2015, 04:45:00 AM
 #20422


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
 #20423

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: 1246



View Profile
January 20, 2015, 05:06:12 AM
 #20424


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: 868



View Profile
January 20, 2015, 05:40:29 AM
 #20425

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
 #20426

(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: 868



View Profile
January 20, 2015, 05:56:06 AM
 #20427

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
 #20428

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: 1064


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
January 20, 2015, 06:09:29 AM
 #20429

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
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
January 20, 2015, 06:13:16 AM
 #20430

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.

tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988


View Profile
January 20, 2015, 06:26:34 AM
 #20431

...
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
 #20432

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: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
January 20, 2015, 06:41:30 AM
 #20433

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: 1498


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
January 20, 2015, 06:48:22 AM
 #20434

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.)

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
JorgeStolfi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868



View Profile
January 20, 2015, 06:50:36 AM
 #20435

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
 #20436

Right on cue!
sidhujag
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288


View Profile
January 20, 2015, 07:12:48 AM
 #20437

Would the real trolfi plz stand up lol
marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086



View Profile
January 20, 2015, 07:51:56 AM
 #20438

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: 868



View Profile
January 20, 2015, 07:56:15 AM
 #20439

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: 1988


View Profile
January 20, 2015, 08:03:12 AM
 #20440

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.


Pages: « 1 ... 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 1072 ... 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!