Bitcoin Forum
July 26, 2017, 08:42:36 PM *
News: BIP91 seems stable: there's probably only slightly increased risk of confirmations disappearing. You should still prepare for Aug 1.
 
   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 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1938883 times)
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1484



View Profile
January 20, 2015, 08:16:45 AM
 #20421

* 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.
Decentralized search
Search for products or services and get paid for it
pre-sale Token CAT
25 July 50% discount
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1501101756
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1501101756

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1501101756
Reply with quote  #2

1501101756
Report to moderator
1501101756
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1501101756

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1501101756
Reply with quote  #2

1501101756
Report to moderator
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2212


View Profile
January 20, 2015, 08:20:05 AM
 #20422


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
 #20423


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
 #20424

* 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: 1484



View Profile
January 20, 2015, 08:54:22 AM
 #20425

* 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: 721



View Profile
January 20, 2015, 09:02:02 AM
 #20426


If only.
lebing
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288

Enabling the maximal migration


View Profile
January 20, 2015, 09:06:38 AM
 #20427


honestly are they just trying to fuck people over? Or is this guy just a fucking moron?

Bro, do you even blockchain?
-E Voorhees
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2212


View Profile
January 20, 2015, 09:10:09 AM
 #20428


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.

And if they attack you because you are anonymous?  That doesn't actually seem like it should be a hugely challenging technical problem if there was sufficient pressure to do it (such as the forfeiture ones mining gear for example.)

If "forget about anonymity" then can you tell me what it is about Bitcoin that makes it particularly worth supporting or using.

My answer would be 'counter-party risk protection' but to say the truth there would be so little else that I would pretty much be forced to move on to more promising pastures (which also provided counter-party risk protection as a minimum.)


cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
January 20, 2015, 09:30:39 AM
 #20429


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.

And if they attack you because you are anonymous?  That doesn't actually seem like it should be a hugely challenging technical problem if there was sufficient pressure to do it (such as the forfeiture ones mining gear for example.)
If you are anonymous, they wouldn't know about your mining gear now, would they? Cancelling an anonymous payment might be a hospital bill for a child with cancer. That would not bode well for the miner that signed that block.

If "forget about anonymity" then can you tell me what it is about Bitcoin that makes it particularly worth supporting or using.

Who are you quoting? I presume it is Mr. Strawman. Bitcoin is pseudonymous. Anonymity is a social construct. It's not part of the protocol, but how it is used.

My answer would be 'counter-party risk protection' but to say the truth there would be so little else that I would pretty much be forced to move on to more promising pastures (which also provided counter-party risk protection as a minimum.)
Your strawman attempt at leaving wiggle room is in vain. You cannot have counter-party without trust in an authority. You Sir, are a Statist.

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

Activity: 1484



View Profile
January 20, 2015, 09:48:14 AM
 #20430

more promising pastures (which also provided counter-party risk protection as a minimum.)

Which ones are those?

I don't know of any.
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
January 20, 2015, 10:00:31 AM
 #20431

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.
Some Venture Capitalists are funding alternative systems betting on the failure of Bitcoin. I can't really blame those few. The miraculous advent of the first block chain is falling to the betrayal of its own proponents to follow the spirit of creating a global currency. Fortunately, it's only the dumb ones doing that. Drive on, Bitcoin!

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

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
January 20, 2015, 12:27:21 PM
 #20432

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.  


Read up on mining pools please.
Then check your assumptions.
The threat isn't what you think it is, it is addressed in ways you aren't comprehending, and it is only a small part of the centralization problems.

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
_mr_e
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 817



View Profile
January 20, 2015, 03:07:59 PM
 #20433

Ummm, so is this not massive news or what!?

https://twitter.com/nyse/status/557544864821542912
zanzibar
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588


View Profile
January 20, 2015, 03:25:03 PM
 #20434

Ummm, so is this not massive news or what!?

https://twitter.com/nyse/status/557544864821542912

Yes, I would say that's very big news.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
January 20, 2015, 03:28:57 PM
 #20435

Ummm, so is this not massive news or what!?

https://twitter.com/nyse/status/557544864821542912

Yes, I would say that's very big news.
They are going to bring the same transparency to Bitcoin pricing that the bring to gold pricing. Or mortgage-backed security pricing.

Remember that if you don't have exclusive control over the private keys, you don't actually own any bitcoins.
_mr_e
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 817



View Profile
January 20, 2015, 03:32:56 PM
 #20436

Ummm, so is this not massive news or what!?

https://twitter.com/nyse/status/557544864821542912

Yes, I would say that's very big news.
They are going to bring the same transparency to Bitcoin pricing that the bring to gold pricing. Or mortgage-backed security pricing.

Remember that if you don't have exclusive control over the private keys, you don't actually own any bitcoins.

I think the important part here is that the nyse is publicly investing into Bitcoin. They've obviously done their homework and decided to go through with this. BitLicense and all, that says something rather loud in my book.
lebing
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288

Enabling the maximal migration


View Profile
January 20, 2015, 04:22:44 PM
 #20437

Ummm, so is this not massive news or what!?

https://twitter.com/nyse/status/557544864821542912

Yes, I would say that's very big news.
They are going to bring the same transparency to Bitcoin pricing that the bring to gold pricing. Or mortgage-backed security pricing.

Remember that if you don't have exclusive control over the private keys, you don't actually own any bitcoins.

What exactly does "transparency to pricing" mean?

Bro, do you even blockchain?
-E Voorhees
lebing
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288

Enabling the maximal migration


View Profile
January 20, 2015, 04:37:08 PM
 #20438

What exactly does "transparency to pricing" mean?

It means in the future Wall St will be the speculative market setting the price like Gold and GLD ETF with BTC ETFs

Well, yes then I believe this is a big fucking deal.

Bro, do you even blockchain?
-E Voorhees
arloseb
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868


View Profile
January 20, 2015, 04:38:00 PM
 #20439

We will see.....
Torque
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148



View Profile
January 20, 2015, 04:41:13 PM
 #20440

What exactly does "transparency to pricing" mean?

It means in the future Wall St will be the speculative market setting the price like Gold and GLD ETF with BTC ETFs

Well, yes then I believe this is a big fucking deal.

Let's have a bitcoin IPO!  Lol
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 ... 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!