Bitcoin Forum
December 10, 2016, 06:41:39 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 ... 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 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1808021 times)
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
February 09, 2015, 02:07:47 PM
 #21141

http://bitcoinism.liberty.me/2015/02/09/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-2-price-discovery/
1481395299
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481395299

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481395299
Reply with quote  #2

1481395299
Report to moderator
1481395299
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481395299

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481395299
Reply with quote  #2

1481395299
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481395299
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481395299

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481395299
Reply with quote  #2

1481395299
Report to moderator
1481395299
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481395299

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481395299
Reply with quote  #2

1481395299
Report to moderator
HeliKopterBen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622



View Profile
February 09, 2015, 03:38:30 PM
 #21142

Im gonna give that to a coworker who is a conspiracy theorist yet pessimistic about bitcoin.. He always asks who controls bitcoin and never satsified as a fork can cause a large loss to his investment.. Thus labels it a ponzi scheme aimed at luring in small fish

He will panic-buy at much higher prices.

Counterfeit:  made in imitation of something else with intent to deceive:  merriam-webster
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
February 09, 2015, 04:41:07 PM
 #21143


Thanks for writing that. It finally clears up what you've been talking about. Just curious, what are your thoughts about how price discovery will deal with Bitcoin price fluctuation?

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

Activity: 1764



View Profile
February 09, 2015, 04:48:32 PM
 #21144

He made a technical error in the article; a low hashrate of a fork wouldn't extend the time between blocks. It only would make them less secure.

really? I would had thought it would be the case at least until the next diff re-target, no?

well, a hard fork new chain gets started with x hashing rate.  blocks are 10 min apart, just like they were with Bitcoin back in 2009.  any increases in hashing rate from miner adoption that decreases the frequency below 10 min is automatically adjusted every 2 wks with difficulty.  we've never had a problem with block intervals going to days or weeks in Bitcoin so why should it happen with a new chain, given it is a hard fork with minimal protocol changes?
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
February 09, 2015, 04:51:39 PM
 #21145

Thanks for writing that. It finally clears up what you've been talking about. Just curious, what are your thoughts about how price discovery will deal with Bitcoin price fluctuation?
Bitcoin exchange rate fluctuation would be no different than any other factor which will affect the price of various services on a day-to-day basis.

Suppliers of services will not do so very long at a loss, so they'll only accept prices that don't work out to be a loss for them.

That basically means that fees would adjust automatically to exchange rate changes.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
February 09, 2015, 04:54:47 PM
 #21146

well, a hard fork new chain gets started with x hashing rate.  blocks are 10 min apart, just like they were with Bitcoin back in 2009.  any increases in hashing rate from miner adoption that decreases the frequency below 10 min is automatically adjusted every 2 wks with difficulty.  we've never had a problem with block intervals going to days or weeks in Bitcoin so why should it happen with a new chain, given it is a hard fork with minimal protocol changes?
At the point of the fork, the difficulty has already been set based on the entire network's hash rate.

Miners have to choose one fork to mine.

If half of them go one way, and the other half goes to the other fork, then both forks are mining at with difficulty at double the value it should be, so both forks will experience 20 minute block times until the next difficulty adjustment.

If the split is 70/25, then the smaller chain will experience 40 minute block times and the larger chain will get 13 minute block times.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
February 09, 2015, 04:57:07 PM
 #21147

Thanks for writing that. It finally clears up what you've been talking about. Just curious, what are your thoughts about how price discovery will deal with Bitcoin price fluctuation?
Bitcoin exchange rate fluctuation would be no different than any other factor which will affect the price of various services on a day-to-day basis.

Suppliers of services will not do so very long at a loss, so they'll only accept prices that don't work out to be a loss for them.

That basically means that fees would adjust automatically to exchange rate changes.

People will want to transact with bitcoin, but they will be forbidden by the Bitcoin protocol from doing so.

that quote from your article should be changed, as i know you didn't mean it the way it reads.  you mean "limited by market prices".
bambou
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 346


View Profile
February 09, 2015, 05:07:29 PM
 #21148

short the shorts: http://www.returnofkings.com/55524/americas-booty-obsession-is-another-symptom-of-social-decline

Non inultus premor
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
February 09, 2015, 05:32:34 PM
 #21149


i like your idea of fees for relay nodes.  i run 5 at my cost for the network.  i'd run more if i were paid.
Hunyadi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1199


☑ ♟ ☐ ♚


View Profile
February 09, 2015, 05:32:37 PM
 #21150


WTF  Roll Eyes broscience FTW!

▂▃▅▇█▓▒░BTC-Cultist░▒▓█▇▅▃▂
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
February 09, 2015, 06:16:54 PM
 #21151

The failure of fiat money will be totally self-imposed. It will be the product of pure hubris. But it will dramatically hasten adoption of Bitcoin. Bitcoin’s killer app isn’t some clever tipping or multisig feature. It’s killer app is merely the stability of the monetary supply. That doesn’t sound very sexy. But in today’s world, in which paper money has failed so badly in the most basic function of currency, that’s saying a lot.

https://medium.com/@abarisser/central-banks-will-hasten-the-rise-of-bitcoin-fb1973c671e9
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
February 09, 2015, 06:38:10 PM
 #21152

And more generally, I think a lot of people make a misjudgment in assuming that actors in the bitcoin ecosystem will behave with only very short-term focus. Tim Swanson (@ofnumbers) is particularly bad about taking these absurdly narrow views and spitting out blog posts full of "analysis". Unfortunately his analysis is often not particularly useful because his assumptions are broken.

Exactly, a particularly absurd attack is that bitcoin will fail due to mining centralization and this centralization will enable miners to act poorly. The reason this is absurd is the more mining becomes centralized the more capital each miner has committed to the project, which means miners will act with more of a long-term mindset as they become larger and commit more capital.

But even if this wasn't the case, the incentive structure of mining means that even IF miners took a short-term only mindset (which is illogical), incentives still encourage them to only mine the longest chain.

To break bitcoin would require a large 51% entity who could operate without economic concerns or constraints, i.e. they have billions in capital to destroy specifically to attack the project, expecting a full loss if successful. Only a government could try to pull this off at this point, the private market will not.
coric
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 94


View Profile
February 09, 2015, 07:40:43 PM
 #21153

At first it looked like funny trolling and an excuse to make pseudo-sociologic graphs of boobs and butts, but continuing it seems like the author is serious and believes his weird ideas...
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
February 09, 2015, 07:42:31 PM
 #21154

And more generally, I think a lot of people make a misjudgment in assuming that actors in the bitcoin ecosystem will behave with only very short-term focus. Tim Swanson (@ofnumbers) is particularly bad about taking these absurdly narrow views and spitting out blog posts full of "analysis". Unfortunately his analysis is often not particularly useful because his assumptions are broken.

Exactly, a particularly absurd attack is that bitcoin will fail due to mining centralization and this centralization will enable miners to act poorly. The reason this is absurd is the more mining becomes centralized the more capital each miner has committed to the project, which means miners will act with more of a long-term mindset as they become larger and commit more capital.

But even if this wasn't the case, the incentive structure of mining means that even IF miners took a short-term only mindset (which is illogical), incentives still encourage them to only mine the longest chain.

To break bitcoin would require a large 51% entity who could operate without economic concerns or constraints, i.e. they have billions in capital to destroy specifically to attack the project, expecting a full loss if successful. Only a government could try to pull this off at this point, the private market will not.

The underlying assumption here is that (Bitcoin) economics is the only motivator.  If there exist entities that both care about Bitcoin and want to end it (and have sufficient motivation and resources), than this argument fails.  There may well be much cheaper ways to end bitcoin than a persistent 51% attack, (and such a persistent 51% would not be guaranteed to succeed anyway), so it is probably in the 'good enough' category.  It is not in the 'safe' category (though Andreas A. disagrees with me on this).

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
coric
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 94


View Profile
February 09, 2015, 07:46:13 PM
 #21155

well, a hard fork new chain gets started with x hashing rate.  blocks are 10 min apart, just like they were with Bitcoin back in 2009.  any increases in hashing rate from miner adoption that decreases the frequency below 10 min is automatically adjusted every 2 wks with difficulty.  we've never had a problem with block intervals going to days or weeks in Bitcoin so why should it happen with a new chain, given it is a hard fork with minimal protocol changes?
At the point of the fork, the difficulty has already been set based on the entire network's hash rate.

Miners have to choose one fork to mine.

If half of them go one way, and the other half goes to the other fork, then both forks are mining at with difficulty at double the value it should be, so both forks will experience 20 minute block times until the next difficulty adjustment.

If the split is 70/25, then the smaller chain will experience 40 minute block times and the larger chain will get 13 minute block times.
And the 20 minutes are for both forkd for a time of 4 weeks, the 40 minutes for a time of 8 weeks for slowfork.
Add the value crashing, there's enough time to do some real damage, in the worst case to both Gavincoin and Mirceacoin.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
February 09, 2015, 07:50:21 PM
 #21156

Dow rolling again.  -100.

desperately trying to stay up.
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
February 09, 2015, 07:51:21 PM
 #21157

well, a hard fork new chain gets started with x hashing rate.  blocks are 10 min apart, just like they were with Bitcoin back in 2009.  any increases in hashing rate from miner adoption that decreases the frequency below 10 min is automatically adjusted every 2 wks with difficulty.  we've never had a problem with block intervals going to days or weeks in Bitcoin so why should it happen with a new chain, given it is a hard fork with minimal protocol changes?
At the point of the fork, the difficulty has already been set based on the entire network's hash rate.

Miners have to choose one fork to mine.

If half of them go one way, and the other half goes to the other fork, then both forks are mining at with difficulty at double the value it should be, so both forks will experience 20 minute block times until the next difficulty adjustment.

If the split is 70/25, then the smaller chain will experience 40 minute block times and the larger chain will get 13 minute block times.
And the 20 minutes are for both forkd for a time of 4 weeks, the 40 minutes for a time of 8 weeks for slowfork.
Add the value crashing, there's enough time to do some real damage, in the worst case to both Gavincoin and Mirceacoin.

This math assumes the fork starts just after adjustment.

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
coric
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 94


View Profile
February 09, 2015, 08:01:22 PM
 #21158

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.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
February 09, 2015, 08:05:13 PM
 #21159

how much deader can Greece get?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-09/greek-bank-bonds-stocks-crumble-record-lows
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
February 09, 2015, 08:08:30 PM
 #21160

this must be bullish, right?

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 ... 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!