Bitcoin Forum
November 20, 2017, 11:41:18 PM *
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 ... 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 [1184] 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2010425 times)
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
May 09, 2015, 03:40:25 AM
 #23661

Cypher, I rarely delete my posts, but I just got rid of the one quoted above, because I just read down further on gmaxwell's post:
Quote
This is frustrating; from a clean slate analysis of network
health I think my conclusion would be to _decrease_ the limit below the
current 300k/txn/day level.

This is obviously not acceptable, so instead many people--myself
included--have been working feverishly hard behind the scenes on Bitcoin
Core to increase the scalability.

I want to wait until I see his final word on the matter because, like Peter Todd saying the limit can be increased "eventually", he may still decide to "ack" Gavin's change.
Yep. The SC situation is a whole other complex matter which needs to be observed closely.

1511221278
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511221278

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511221278
Reply with quote  #2

1511221278
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.
1511221278
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511221278

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511221278
Reply with quote  #2

1511221278
Report to moderator
1511221278
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511221278

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511221278
Reply with quote  #2

1511221278
Report to moderator
1511221278
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511221278

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511221278
Reply with quote  #2

1511221278
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 09, 2015, 03:57:27 AM
 #23662


Cypher, I rarely delete my posts, but I just got rid of the one quoted above, because I just read down further on gmaxwell's post:
Quote
This is frustrating; from a clean slate analysis of network
health I think my conclusion would be to _decrease_ the limit below the
current 300k/txn/day level.

This is obviously not acceptable, so instead many people--myself
included--have been working feverishly hard behind the scenes on Bitcoin
Core to increase the scalability.
ok, me too.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 09, 2015, 04:22:32 AM
 #23663

2.  i think that the majority of ppl in this world want to be honest and wish to live in a society that has order.  no one wants to live in chaos.  everybody loses.  in order for society to continue to progress and evolve, order, dependability, and a semblance of honesty is needed.  thus, in a system with so much potential to do good, like Bitcoin, the overwhelming desire is for participants to want to do what makes the system thrive.  to the extent that cheating, dishonesty, and colluding erodes confidence and threatens that goal, most participants will avoid those activities.

That is the same faith we put into a top-down democracy. Fact is a power vacuum sucks in those who can maximize the exploitation of the power vacuum.

You are violating the fundamental tenet of Satoshi's white paper which is decentralized trust, meaning we don't have to trust that people are honest.

You are blacksliding because there doesn't appear to be any solution the fact that pools become concentrated due to the variance cost to them not. It is pure economics.

Now what are the proposed solutions?

If there are none, we are just lying to ourselves and the decentralization is a mirage. And smooth's valuation statement follows accordingly.

As for the scaling of Bitcoin, they will never get there because there are these fundamental problems, such as the design decision to charge a transaction fee and the need to propagate all the transaction data before a new block can be started.

There are fundamental design errors here. Very very fundamental.

Who is going to fix this? And pronto!

Looks like this is not so simple after all....

http://gavinandresen.ninja/utxo-uhoh

The can-kick might only be to 2 or 3MB while efficiencies in UTXO storage are worked on.

There is a fundamental design error. They are just farting around the edges without going to the heart-of-the-matter, which is that transactions need to be orthogonal to blocks.

Bitcoin is headed towards centralization at a few servers. It was designed that way!

sidhujag
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638


View Profile
May 09, 2015, 04:58:22 AM
 #23664

from gmax:

"So far the mining ecosystem has become incredibly centralized over time."

i totally disagree.  the trend has been back towards decentralization since ghash and ghash has been punished accordingly by the market down to a measly 3.6%.  what i see in this graph is a normal, expected distribution gradient from large to small share.  btw, gmax has been complaining about mining centralization since at least 2012 but yet here we are.  why do we accept his arguments on this when there hasn't been one major incident of a 51% attack?:


What people seem to keep missing in this "mining is centralized" claim, is that pools are not miners. They are services with ZERO barriers to entry and exit from the mining community.

As long as there is ONE honest P2P node who would publicly flag that a pool was behaving badly (an assumption I believe will always be true), then the pools can not abuse their position.

If any corrupt pool, or collection of corrupt pools, tried to falsify the record, it would immediately become public and that pool would lose most of it's miners in a matter of hours. Miners could simply switch to another honest pool, and there will always be an honest pool to switch to.

This would completely destroy the future profit stream for an established pool. Why the heck would anyone try this, especially given that it would be a futile effort?
+100 Mining is decentralized QED.

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

Activity: 1372



View Profile
May 09, 2015, 05:24:09 AM
 #23665

There is a fundamental design error. They are just farting around the edges without going to the heart-of-the-matter, which is that transactions need to be orthogonal to blocks.

Bitcoin is headed towards centralization at a few servers. It was designed that way!
Is that you MofG anyway I'm Breaking the rule to not post under the influence.

So on that point and in the words of the creator

Quote from: Satoshi
The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime

Quote from: Satoshi
Yes, (we will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography), but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2324


View Profile
May 09, 2015, 05:26:01 AM
 #23666


marcus, for Bitcoin to act as digital gold it is not enough to simply have scarcity.  it's too early.  it needs to become known, disseminated to all corners of the Earth, be used on a reliable basis and w/o problems, and over many years.
...

Put another way: “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it,"


justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
May 09, 2015, 05:42:40 AM
 #23667

You are violating the fundamental tenet of Satoshi's white paper which is decentralized trust, meaning we don't have to trust that people are honest.
Have you even read the Bitcoin whitepaper?

Quote
The incentive may help encourage nodes to stay honest. If a greedy attacker is able to assemble more CPU power than all the honest nodes, he would have to choose between using it to defraud people by stealing back his payments, or using it to generate new coins. He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules, such rules that favour him with more new coins than everyone else combined, than to undermine the system and the validity of his own wealth.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 09, 2015, 05:54:58 AM
 #23668

from gmax:

"So far the mining ecosystem has become incredibly centralized over time."

i totally disagree.  the trend has been back towards decentralization since ghash and ghash has been punished accordingly by the market down to a measly 3.6%.  what i see in this graph is a normal, expected distribution gradient from large to small share.  btw, gmax has been complaining about mining centralization since at least 2012 but yet here we are.  why do we accept his arguments on this when there hasn't been one major incident of a 51% attack?:

How do you know the owners of the former double-digit pools don't control several of the single digit percentage pools, i.e. a Sybil attack is present?

How do you know that the owners are not purposefully attempting to distribute their miners across several different pools (all under the same management), i.e. a Sybil attack is present?

The fact that there isn't a visible attack (Sybil attacks are often invisible) doesn't impart any information on whether Bitcoin pools are becoming owned by a few. You can attempt to make the argument (below) that control over the pools isn't a problem, but that is a sometimes orthogonal argument to whether Bitcoin pools are centralized.

What people seem to keep missing in this "mining is centralized" claim, is that pools are not miners. They are services with ZERO barriers to entry and exit from the mining community.

ZERO barriers means a Sybil attack is plausible.

ZERO barriers often implies there is no way to defend market-share and profits. Thus it is a power vacuum to be exploited by those who don't want profits, but rather willing to lose money because they want control (and external profits from that control).

As long as there is ONE honest P2P node who would publicly flag that a pool was behaving badly (an assumption I believe will always be true), then the pools can not abuse their position.

If the pools have 50% of the hashrate, then any flag from a minority is ignored. Do you mean make a political statement to the miners imploring them to stop using the offending pools?

So what if the pool owners distribute their miners across 100s of pools they own (which appears to me to be what they have done). You going to play political Whack-A-Mole? Sybil attacks are very difficult to deal with.



And more so implausible game of Whack-A-Mole when they aren't do any falsification, rather just refusing to include certain ("unapproved") transactions. As their hashrate approaches 100%, the have a Digital Kill Switch on humanity.

And what do you do when the government has dictated that only registered and licensed entities can be pools? Then the ZERO cost shifts to INFINITE cost for those who don't sell out to those in control of the power vacuum of the democracy-lie.

If any corrupt pool, or collection of corrupt pools, tried to falsify the record, it would immediately become public and that pool would lose most of it's miners in a matter of hours. Miners could simply switch to another honest pool, and there will always be an honest pool to switch to.

This would completely destroy the future profit stream for an established pool. Why the heck would anyone try this, especially given that it would be a futile effort?

+100 Mining is decentralized QED.

If they are wise they do the falsifications from 100s of smaller pools with a Sybil attack. This forces you to the bigger pools with reputations, then they can do it from the bigger pools too.

How can you win? If a pool establishes a good reputation and is not part of the cartel, they will use the same methods they used to capture monopolies else where such as murdering the owners if necessary or more simply just offering pools free-of-charge or even pay miners extra to mine at their pools driving the honest pools bankrupt.

Sorry you can not win.

Bitcoin is fatally flawed and will end up a centralized bankster coin. I warned that in 2013. See my linked essay above.

molecular
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2408



View Profile
May 09, 2015, 05:57:18 AM
 #23669

Looks like this is not so simple after all....

http://gavinandresen.ninja/utxo-uhoh

The can-kick might only be to 2 or 3MB while efficiencies in UTXO storage are worked on.

There is a fundamental design error. They are just farting around the edges without going to the heart-of-the-matter, which is that transactions need to be orthogonal to blocks.

Bitcoin is headed towards centralization at a few servers. It was designed that way!

What do you mean by the bolded part?

PGP key molecular F9B70769 fingerprint 9CDD C0D3 20F8 279F 6BE0  3F39 FC49 2362 F9B7 0769
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 09, 2015, 06:18:23 AM
 #23670

There is a fundamental design error. They are just farting around the edges without going to the heart-of-the-matter, which is that transactions need to be orthogonal to blocks.

Bitcoin is headed towards centralization at a few servers. It was designed that way!
Is that you MofG anyway I'm Breaking the rule to not post under the influence.

So on that point and in the words of the creator

Quote from: Satoshi
The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime

Quote from: Satoshi
Yes, (we will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography), but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years

I am the former AnonyMint.

I agree with Satoshi. Even though Bitcoin is destined by design to become the centralized bankster coin that they (the DEEP STATE or NSA) commissioned, it can for the time being be used anonymously if careful and it is the reserve currency of the altcoins and thus is building an altcoin ecosystem wherein the superior design can be realized.

Perhaps "Satoshi" outsmarted his handlers. That would be historically the wise way an engineer would fool those he works for (knowing that they would continue without him anyway).

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 09, 2015, 06:27:28 AM
 #23671

You are violating the fundamental tenet of Satoshi's white paper which is decentralized trust, meaning we don't have to trust that people are honest.
Have you even read the Bitcoin whitepaper?

Quote
The incentive may help encourage nodes to stay honest. If a greedy attacker is able to assemble more CPU power than all the honest nodes, he would have to choose between using it to defraud people by stealing back his payments, or using it to generate new coins. He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules, such rules that favour him with more new coins than everyone else combined, than to undermine the system and the validity of his own wealth.

You've always been the disingenuous debater in every discussion I've ever had with you.

You know damn well that Satoshi's major invention was Proof-of-Work in Section 4 as solution to the Byzantine General's Problem of how to trust an outcome without trusting the participants.

The above Satoshi quote as an aside at the bottom of section 6 (not even the main point of section 6) is stating that the abnormal case of 50% attack where Proof-of-Work fails would disincentivized if the entities doing the attack also is vested in a lot of coins. But that doesn't even cover the case where the entities doing the attack don't have a lot of coins.

Sheesh you and your wise cracks. You know damn well I read the whitepaper.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 09, 2015, 06:39:51 AM
 #23672

Looks like this is not so simple after all....

http://gavinandresen.ninja/utxo-uhoh

The can-kick might only be to 2 or 3MB while efficiencies in UTXO storage are worked on.

There is a fundamental design error. They are just farting around the edges without going to the heart-of-the-matter, which is that transactions need to be orthogonal to blocks.

Bitcoin is headed towards centralization at a few servers. It was designed that way!

What do you mean by the bolded part?

So what do I get for revealing the details now (versus working in private to implement and earn money on an altcoin)?

I have solved the design problem. I now know the Holy Grail design we need for crypto-currency.

I will give you one hint. Adjustments to difficulty are no longer critical.

Edit: I will give you one more hint. Bitcoin's design conflated what is centralized with what can be decentralized, thus causing the entire design to have a centralized final destiny. The solution is to unconflate.

sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


View Profile
May 09, 2015, 09:07:13 AM
 #23673

Since then, Rusty's LN paper has appeared, and there is even less reason for delay in buying time, because there is a very real chance that a high-volume layer can be built over Bitcoin while keeping main-chain usage to a minimum. Why won't the devs buy a few years?


sorry I've 0 time to contribute to discussion to any degree of usefulness, just a minor nitpick Lightning Network isn't a Rusty Russel's creation,  Joseph Poon and Thaddeus Dryja are the main authors. That said Rusty provide a fantastic series of posts explaining the key concepts behind LN: http://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=450.

One last thing Rusty was recently hired by blockstream.

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 09, 2015, 09:25:54 AM
 #23674

Edit: I will give you one more hint. Bitcoin's design conflated what is centralized with what can be decentralized, thus causing the entire design to have a centralized final destiny. The solution is to unconflate.

It is sort of like how we felt when we read Satoshi's whitepaper, "why didn't I think of that!". Adam Back's hashcash concept was already known. The Satoshi Proof-of-Work was a fairly obvious step, but yet no one saw it until he published.

When this hit me in the forehead, my reaction was "this is sort of obvious, it must have a flaw because surely someone else thought of this before". So I as I dug into potential pitfalls it became more clear to me why others may not have entertained this idea before. The key is that true decentralization arises from careful use of centralization and that is what I believe makes the concept non-obvious, even though once it is revealed it seems quite simple and obvious.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 09, 2015, 09:43:02 AM
 #23675

Since then, Rusty's LN paper has appeared, and there is even less reason for delay in buying time, because there is a very real chance that a high-volume layer can be built over Bitcoin while keeping main-chain usage to a minimum. Why won't the devs buy a few years?


sorry I've 0 time to contribute to discussion to any degree of usefulness, just a minor nitpick Lightning Network isn't a Rusty Russel's creation,  Joseph Poon and Thaddeus Dryja are the main authors. That said Rusty provide a fantastic series of posts explaining the key concepts behind LN: http://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=450.

One last thing Rusty was recently hired by blockstream.

A payment stream was also the way I had devised to handle real-time micropayments, so I guess that is obvious enough since now others have published the idea I had in private.

solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
May 09, 2015, 10:23:59 AM
 #23676

Since then, Rusty's LN paper has appeared, and there is even less reason for delay in buying time, because there is a very real chance that a high-volume layer can be built over Bitcoin while keeping main-chain usage to a minimum. Why won't the devs buy a few years?


sorry I've 0 time to contribute to discussion to any degree of usefulness, just a minor nitpick Lightning Network isn't a Rusty Russel's creation,  Joseph Poon and Thaddeus Dryja are the main authors. That said Rusty provide a fantastic series of posts explaining the key concepts behind LN: http://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=450.

One last thing Rusty was recently hired by blockstream.

Thanks for the correction!
And the last point answers something that was puzzling me.

sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


View Profile
May 09, 2015, 12:05:02 PM
 #23677

Since then, Rusty's LN paper has appeared, and there is even less reason for delay in buying time, because there is a very real chance that a high-volume layer can be built over Bitcoin while keeping main-chain usage to a minimum. Why won't the devs buy a few years?


sorry I've 0 time to contribute to discussion to any degree of usefulness, just a minor nitpick Lightning Network isn't a Rusty Russel's creation,  Joseph Poon and Thaddeus Dryja are the main authors. That said Rusty provide a fantastic series of posts explaining the key concepts behind LN: http://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=450.

One last thing Rusty was recently hired by blockstream.

Thanks for the correction!
And the last point answers something that was puzzling me.

this is the public post where he announced the move form IBM to blockstream:

https://plus.google.com/103188246877163594460/posts/eEeJxNaajWg

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
May 09, 2015, 12:25:16 PM
 #23678

You've always been the disingenuous debater in every discussion I've ever had with you.
Cypherdoc expresses the security model (economic incentives to ensure miner honesty) nearly word-for-word out of the Bitcoin whitepaper, you accuse him of violating the (incorrectly) cite the whitepaper to say that he's wrong, I quote the section in question, and then you accuse me of being disingenuous?

Just keep on doing what you're doing - your own dishonesty is making my case better than anything I could say.
Bagatell
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 722



View Profile
May 09, 2015, 01:04:24 PM
 #23679

You've always been the disingenuous debater in every discussion I've ever had with you.
Cypherdoc expresses the security model (economic incentives to ensure miner honesty) nearly word-for-word out of the Bitcoin whitepaper, you accuse him of violating the (incorrectly) cite the whitepaper to say that he's wrong, I quote the section in question, and then you accuse me of being disingenuous?

Just keep on doing what you're doing - your own dishonesty is making my case better than anything I could say.

It's particularly rich coming from someone that changes their ID every 10 minutes.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
May 09, 2015, 01:46:13 PM
 #23680

It's particularly rich coming from someone that changes their ID every 10 minutes.
Citation needed
Pages: « 1 ... 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 [1184] 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 ... 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!