Bitcoin Forum
November 25, 2017, 08:22:09 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 ... 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 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2014094 times)
smooth
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1610



View Profile
February 10, 2015, 12:07:28 AM
 #21141

If there exist entities that both care about Bitcoin and want to end it (and have sufficient motivation and resources)
...then they will succeed, and there's no technological solution we can implement that will stop them.

There is no substitute for growth as a defence against such attackers.

That's an interesting line of reasoning.

It suggests that Bitcoin can only succeed if no such attackers exist.


1511598129
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511598129

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511598129
Reply with quote  #2

1511598129
Report to moderator
Join ICO Now Coinlancer is Disrupting the Freelance marketplace!
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
February 10, 2015, 12:08:23 AM
 #21142

That's an interesting line of reasoning.

It suggests that Bitcoin can only succeed if no such attackers exist.
Bitcoin can only succeed by growing larger than all attackers.
smooth
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1610



View Profile
February 10, 2015, 12:16:16 AM
 #21143

That's an interesting line of reasoning.

It suggests that Bitcoin can only succeed if no such attackers exist.
Bitcoin can only succeed by growing larger than all attackers.

"Growing" implies a stage of being smaller, at which point such attackers can and will destroy it. How can anything grow if it is already destroyed?

Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638



View Profile
February 10, 2015, 12:44:05 AM
 #21144

That's an interesting line of reasoning.

It suggests that Bitcoin can only succeed if no such attackers exist.
Bitcoin can only succeed by growing larger than all attackers.

"Growing" implies a stage of being smaller, at which point such attackers can and will destroy it. How can anything grow if it is already destroyed?




Kinda the unlikely miracle of Bitcoin's current size, perhaps. This is partly why Wences Casares, for example, likes to assert that it's much less likely for Bitcoin to have gotten from 0 to where it is today, than for it to get to 1B users from where we are now.

Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.
Cryptoasset rankings and metrics for investors: http://onchainfx.com
Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638



View Profile
February 10, 2015, 12:51:54 AM
 #21145

That's an interesting line of reasoning.

It suggests that Bitcoin can only succeed if no such attackers exist.
Bitcoin can only succeed by growing larger than all attackers.


Maybe you and Peter Todd need to get in a room:

"Nifty paper proving what we knew already: w/o a blocksize limit there's no PoW security -> death of Bitcoin." http://t.co/VPsgVkdzj9
(https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/564934207487897601?s=03)

Since his tweet misrepresents what the paper says, it seems to me that he's irrationally entrenched in his opinion.

Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.
Cryptoasset rankings and metrics for investors: http://onchainfx.com
smooth
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1610



View Profile
February 10, 2015, 12:53:52 AM
 #21146

That's an interesting line of reasoning.

It suggests that Bitcoin can only succeed if no such attackers exist.
Bitcoin can only succeed by growing larger than all attackers.

"Growing" implies a stage of being smaller, at which point such attackers can and will destroy it. How can anything grow if it is already destroyed?



Kinda the unlikely miracle of Bitcoin's current size, perhaps.

Bitcoin is already too large for "entities that both care about Bitcoin and want to end it (and have sufficient motivation and resources)" to destroy it?
Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638



View Profile
February 10, 2015, 01:00:06 AM
 #21147

That's an interesting line of reasoning.

It suggests that Bitcoin can only succeed if no such attackers exist.
Bitcoin can only succeed by growing larger than all attackers.

"Growing" implies a stage of being smaller, at which point such attackers can and will destroy it. How can anything grow if it is already destroyed?



Kinda the unlikely miracle of Bitcoin's current size, perhaps.

Bitcoin is already too large for "entities that both care about Bitcoin and want to end it (and have sufficient motivation and resources)" to destroy it?


No, but it's not easy anymore. And we're not that far off a technical attack being feasible only for highly motivated nation-states....which, as JR points out, seems like a bad choice of attack vector for a motivated sovereign, given the legal and regulatory tools available to them.

Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.
Cryptoasset rankings and metrics for investors: http://onchainfx.com
smooth
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1610



View Profile
February 10, 2015, 01:09:37 AM
 #21148

That's an interesting line of reasoning.

It suggests that Bitcoin can only succeed if no such attackers exist.
Bitcoin can only succeed by growing larger than all attackers.

"Growing" implies a stage of being smaller, at which point such attackers can and will destroy it. How can anything grow if it is already destroyed?



Kinda the unlikely miracle of Bitcoin's current size, perhaps.

Bitcoin is already too large for "entities that both care about Bitcoin and want to end it (and have sufficient motivation and resources)" to destroy it?


No, but it's not easy anymore. And we're not that far off a technical attack being feasible only for highly motivated nation-states....which, as JR points out, seems like a bad choice of attack vector for a motivated sovereign, given the legal and regulatory tools available to them.

Yes legal and regulatory strangulation seem more obvious methods both in theory and practice, but that still doesn't answer the question of how it can ever grow to be too large to attack if adversaries want to end it while it's small enough to successful attack (by whatever method), and have the ability to do so.

JR's arguments seem to lead to the logical conclusion that Bitcoin can't succeed.

solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
February 10, 2015, 01:33:17 AM
 #21149

That's an interesting line of reasoning.

It suggests that Bitcoin can only succeed if no such attackers exist.
Bitcoin can only succeed by growing larger than all attackers.


Maybe you and Peter Todd need to get in a room:

"Nifty paper proving what we knew already: w/o a blocksize limit there's no PoW security -> death of Bitcoin." http://t.co/VPsgVkdzj9
(https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/564934207487897601?s=03)

Since his tweet misrepresents what the paper says, it seems to me that he's irrationally entrenched in his opinion.

Yep. It is another downside of problems like this remaining unresolved for so long. As the debate continues people do become entrenched when they have have invested so much time and mental energy in their position. They have to admit to themselves that they wasted a lot of effort, if they reverse their view. This is further "cemented" once they go public and stake their reputation on an entrenched position. Peter did this with his video, and Mircea has done it on his blog in front of all his followers.

I have still not seen any reasonable argument why Bitcoin can't be allowed to scale at the rate of the slowest improving computing technology that it uses:  (bandwidth, at present).

rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1149


View Profile
February 10, 2015, 01:48:18 AM
 #21150

That's an interesting line of reasoning.

It suggests that Bitcoin can only succeed if no such attackers exist.
Bitcoin can only succeed by growing larger than all attackers.

"Growing" implies a stage of being smaller, at which point such attackers can and will destroy it. How can anything grow if it is already destroyed?




Kinda the unlikely miracle of Bitcoin's current size, perhaps. This is partly why Wences Casares, for example, likes to assert that it's much less likely for Bitcoin to have gotten from 0 to where it is today, than for it to get to 1B users from where we are now.

Haven't heard that before, but completely agree with the sentiment. It is also explains the 2011 bubble, which represented almost a 1000x increase in valuation. The reason was bitcoin crossed from being a small project among a few people (i.e. 0) to being a stand alone entity, this was a massive transition and validation of the platform.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
February 10, 2015, 01:49:02 AM
 #21151

That's an interesting line of reasoning.

It suggests that Bitcoin can only succeed if no such attackers exist.
Bitcoin can only succeed by growing larger than all attackers.

"Growing" implies a stage of being smaller, at which point such attackers can and will destroy it. How can anything grow if it is already destroyed?


I thought I already answered that.

http://bitcoinism.liberty.me/2015/02/09/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-2-price-discovery/

Quote
The good news is that the largest and most dangerous attackers tend to be slow (compared to the pace of software development) to believe that a threat exists, decide on the correct response to neutralize the threat, and effectively execute the response.

The bad news is that Bitcoin’s inherent speed advantage is diluted by people who oppose growth based on the mistaken belief that smallness is an effective defense.
smooth
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1610



View Profile
February 10, 2015, 02:14:20 AM
 #21152

The good news is that the largest and most dangerous attackers tend to be slow (compared to the pace of software development) to believe that a threat exists, decide on the correct response to neutralize the threat, and effectively execute the response.

So your argument is that Bitcoin can succeed only if its opponents are incompetent or irrational?

Also, what about the attackers who aren't the largest and most dangerous? They're not a threat?

rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1149


View Profile
February 10, 2015, 02:23:19 AM
 #21153

That's an interesting line of reasoning.

It suggests that Bitcoin can only succeed if no such attackers exist.
Bitcoin can only succeed by growing larger than all attackers.


Maybe you and Peter Todd need to get in a room:

"Nifty paper proving what we knew already: w/o a blocksize limit there's no PoW security -> death of Bitcoin." http://t.co/VPsgVkdzj9
(https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/564934207487897601?s=03)

Since his tweet misrepresents what the paper says, it seems to me that he's irrationally entrenched in his opinion.

Yep. It is another downside of problems like this remaining unresolved for so long. As the debate continues people do become entrenched when they have have invested so much time and mental energy in their position. They have to admit to themselves that they wasted a lot of effort, if they reverse their view. This is further "cemented" once they go public and stake their reputation on an entrenched position. Peter did this with his video, and Mircea has done it on his blog in front of all his followers.

I have still not seen any reasonable argument why Bitcoin can't be allowed to scale at the rate of the slowest improving computing technology that it uses:  (bandwidth, at present).

From the abstract
Quote
We show that any situation with a fixed fee is equivalent to another situation with a limited block size.

And this is why bitcoin only allows free transactions for "priority" transactions (that are small), while everything else requires a fee. This by design ensures that there will be enough fees to support the network even if block sizes are limitless.

It is also why "priority" transactions are determined in BTC units. As the value of the network increases, fewer and fewer transaction qualify for free processing. To send a free transaction requires the equivalent of 1 BTC day (for example 2 BTC for 1/2 day or 0.5 BTC for 2 days). When BTC = $0.01 it was easy to qualify for free transactions and most were, but when BTC = $1000 very few transactions start to qualify. So by design more fees are generated as the value of bitcoin increases.

Satoshi thought this one through, and his design is holding up to the various academic attacks we are seeing.
Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638



View Profile
February 10, 2015, 02:32:15 AM
 #21154

That's an interesting line of reasoning.

It suggests that Bitcoin can only succeed if no such attackers exist.
Bitcoin can only succeed by growing larger than all attackers.

"Growing" implies a stage of being smaller, at which point such attackers can and will destroy it. How can anything grow if it is already destroyed?




Kinda the unlikely miracle of Bitcoin's current size, perhaps. This is partly why Wences Casares, for example, likes to assert that it's much less likely for Bitcoin to have gotten from 0 to where it is today, than for it to get to 1B users from where we are now.

Haven't heard that before,...

I think he's said it multiple times, but I first him say it in his Bitcoin 2014 presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NERAN-89j8M


It is also explains the 2011 bubble, which represented almost a 1000x increase in valuation. The reason was bitcoin crossed from being a small project among a few people (i.e. 0) to being a stand alone entity, this was a massive transition and validation of the platform.

Indeed. I think that's a reasonable distinction; the transition from effectively a pet project for a few dozen people, to something that could live on its own...

Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.
Cryptoasset rankings and metrics for investors: http://onchainfx.com
tabnloz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 962


View Profile
February 10, 2015, 03:04:32 AM
 #21155

The HSBC story is fantastic  Cheesy Shows once again double standard toward Bitcoins from regulators not even able to police traditional institutions

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/feb/08/hsbc-files-expose-swiss-bank-clients-dodge-taxes-hide-millions


Here's a link to the ZH article giving a list of some of the clients.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-09/if-your-name-list-prepare-be-audited-or-worse
domob
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 983


View Profile WWW
February 10, 2015, 07:08:17 AM
 #21156

This math assumes the fork starts just after adjustment.
You're right, I forgot about that. So would it be best to schedule the fork for the middle of a period to minimize this impact, if that can be done? I think the Doge merged mining hardfork was scheduled for a specific block count, not time.
Yes, that can be done.  However, you also can't schedule the fork too close to the end of a retargeting period - otherwise the difficulty won't drop much, even when the hashrate drops significantly.  (That's presumably why you said "middle of a period" - this makes sense.  At least it should be some compromise.)

Use your Namecoin identity as OpenID: https://nameid.org/
Donations: 1domobKsPZ5cWk2kXssD8p8ES1qffGUCm | NMC: NCdomobcmcmVdxC5yxMitojQ4tvAtv99pY
BM-GtQnWM3vcdorfqpKXsmfHQ4rVYPG5pKS | GPG 0xA7330737
hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274



View Profile
February 10, 2015, 01:48:49 PM
 #21157

lol: https://xato.net/passwords/ten-million-passwords/#.VNoKgbCG-RT

torrent: http://www.justhack.co.in/10-million-userpass-combolist.html

Are you on the list? ^^
sidhujag
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652


View Profile
February 10, 2015, 08:36:07 PM
 #21158


This is why we need our social identity secured by the blockchain:

http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2014/12/22/BitShares-Login/

proof of concept:

1) http://faucet.bitshares.org/users/sign_in?locale=en

my very own:

2) http://www.bitsharesdemo.com/presta/

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

Activity: 230


View Profile
February 10, 2015, 08:51:54 PM
 #21159



identity, login, and other certificate authority information might as well be backed by the security of the bitcoin network. ie, use namecoin, which is merge mined with bitcoin.

for ex. https://onename.com/

uki
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176


cryptojunk bag holder


View Profile
February 10, 2015, 11:40:03 PM
 #21160

If there exist entities that both care about Bitcoin and want to end it (and have sufficient motivation and resources)
...then they will succeed, and there's no technological solution we can implement that will stop them.

There is no substitute for growth as a defence against such attackers.
I thought I will bring back the discussion to the original topic (gold vs. BTC), using this very interesting post that fully applies to both BTC and gold. Gold has started this year pretty promising, yet the rally got capped pretty quickly as soon as there was the risk of putting the confirmation of the bottom on the charts. And down we go with the gold (see again the underlined sentence).

this space is intentionally left blank
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 ... 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!