Bitcoin Forum
December 04, 2016, 02:30:55 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 ... 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 1235 1236 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1804220 times)
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 09, 2015, 06:39:51 AM
 #23701

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.

1480861855
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480861855

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480861855
Reply with quote  #2

1480861855
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480861855
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480861855

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480861855
Reply with quote  #2

1480861855
Report to moderator
1480861855
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480861855

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480861855
Reply with quote  #2

1480861855
Report to moderator
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106


View Profile
May 09, 2015, 09:07:13 AM
 #23702

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
 #23703

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
 #23704

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
 #23705

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: 1106


View Profile
May 09, 2015, 12:05:02 PM
 #23706

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
 #23707

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: 719



View Profile
May 09, 2015, 01:04:24 PM
 #23708

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
 #23709

It's particularly rich coming from someone that changes their ID every 10 minutes.
Citation needed
Bagatell
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 719



View Profile
May 09, 2015, 02:06:26 PM
 #23710

It's particularly rich coming from someone that changes their ID every 10 minutes.
Citation needed

https://bullbearanalytics.com/2014/09/23/whats-going-monero/
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
May 09, 2015, 02:16:24 PM
 #23711

What does that have to do with me?
dEBRUYNE
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 868


View Profile
May 09, 2015, 02:20:29 PM
 #23712

since noone mentioned it yet: https://twitter.com/MagicalTux/status/596622731711352832?s=09

Yes, an actually decent suggestion from Mark Frappacino.

This is already implemented in certain altcoins, for instance the CryptoNote family whereby Monero currently is the biggest (ignore Bytecoin, it had a 80% premine which actually is a danger to anonymity). I personally don't know the details of it, but this is what I could find:

Quote from: pinhead26 (reddit)
I think Cryptonote (Monero) actually adjusts the miner's reward depending on the size of his block, and updates the block size limit like this:

(median of past n blocks, with constant lower-limit) * 2

if I'm reading this correctly:

https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero/blob/c41d14b2aa3fc883d45299add1cbb8ebbe6c9ed8/src/cryptonote_core/blockchain.cpp#L2230-L2244

Quote from: tacotime (reddit)
Thats correct, our block size is dynamically scaled by the size of the previous blocks with no hard limit for the block size. Its been this way since the launch in early 2014. There is also a dynamic coinbase penalty above a size threshold to prevent people from making too large of blocks, too quickly. Gmaxwell and some of the other bitcore developers argued against such a design, saying that it gave too much power to miners to decide the size of the blocks.


source: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/35azxk/screw_the_hard_limit_lets_change_the_block_size/cr2phqd
note: Tacotime is one of the 7 core team members of Monero


Privacy matters, use Monero - A true untraceable cryptocurrency
Why Monero matters? http://weuse.cash/2016/03/05/bitcoiners-hedge-your-position/
Bagatell
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 719



View Profile
May 09, 2015, 02:27:50 PM
 #23713


It's about TPTB_need_war, AKA AnonyMint, AKA TheFascistMind.

justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
May 09, 2015, 02:29:20 PM
 #23714


It's about TPTB_need_war, AKA AnonyMint, AKA TheFascistMind.
Ah. That makes a lot more sense.

I completely understand Gavin's tweet the other day about losing sleep.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 09, 2015, 03:26:36 PM
 #23715

since noone mentioned it yet: https://twitter.com/MagicalTux/status/596622731711352832?s=09

Yes, an actually decent suggestion from Mark Frappacino.

This is already implemented in certain altcoins, for instance the CryptoNote family whereby Monero currently is the biggest (ignore Bytecoin, it had a 80% premine which actually is a danger to anonymity). I personally don't know the details of it, but this is what I could find:

Quote from: pinhead26 (reddit)
I think Cryptonote (Monero) actually adjusts the miner's reward depending on the size of his block, and updates the block size limit like this:

(median of past n blocks, with constant lower-limit) * 2

if I'm reading this correctly:

https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero/blob/c41d14b2aa3fc883d45299add1cbb8ebbe6c9ed8/src/cryptonote_core/blockchain.cpp#L2230-L2244

Quote from: tacotime (reddit)
Thats correct, our block size is dynamically scaled by the size of the previous blocks with no hard limit for the block size. Its been this way since the launch in early 2014. There is also a dynamic coinbase penalty above a size threshold to prevent people from making too large of blocks, too quickly. Gmaxwell and some of the other bitcore developers argued against such a design, saying that it gave too much power to miners to decide the size of the blocks.


source: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/35azxk/screw_the_hard_limit_lets_change_the_block_size/cr2phqd
note: Tacotime is one of the 7 core team members of Monero



smooth, i didn't realize you were a Monero dev.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 09, 2015, 03:27:31 PM
 #23716


It's about TPTB_need_war, AKA AnonyMint, AKA TheFascistMind.



that was an interesting read.  BCX has a known rep for attacking altcoins over the years.

so he never successfully attacked Monero then?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 09, 2015, 03:29:14 PM
 #23717

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

sure you do.
dEBRUYNE
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 868


View Profile
May 09, 2015, 03:39:33 PM
 #23718


It's about TPTB_need_war, AKA AnonyMint, AKA TheFascistMind.



that was an interesting read.  BCX has a known rep for attacking altcoins over the years.

so he never successfully attacked Monero then?

Nope, he didn't. He disappeared right after his own set deadline expired, so basically it was pure FUD. The reason(s) behind it is/are still not clear till this day.  

Privacy matters, use Monero - A true untraceable cryptocurrency
Why Monero matters? http://weuse.cash/2016/03/05/bitcoiners-hedge-your-position/
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 09, 2015, 03:44:18 PM
 #23719


It's about TPTB_need_war, AKA AnonyMint, AKA TheFascistMind.



that was an interesting read.  BCX has a known rep for attacking altcoins over the years.

so he never successfully attacked Monero then?

Nope, he didn't. He disappeared right after his own set deadline expired, so basically it was pure FUD. The reason(s) behind it is/are still not clear till this day.  

for the most part, i've always thought of BCX as an asset to Bitcoin mainly as an enforcer to altcoins.  not that i condone him causing financial pain for altcoin participants but in the sense that he is enforcing Satoshi's principles on a raw economic level, ie, "expect to be attacked if you stray away from first principles".

you have to give him credit for at least warning the Monero community that he intended to attack.  it sounds like it gave them an opportunity to mitigate and/or tune their code to prevent such a thing.  maybe that's why it never transpired?
dEBRUYNE
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 868


View Profile
May 09, 2015, 03:48:49 PM
 #23720


It's about TPTB_need_war, AKA AnonyMint, AKA TheFascistMind.



that was an interesting read.  BCX has a known rep for attacking altcoins over the years.

so he never successfully attacked Monero then?

Nope, he didn't. He disappeared right after his own set deadline expired, so basically it was pure FUD. The reason(s) behind it is/are still not clear till this day.  

for the most part, i've always thought of BCX as an asset to Bitcoin mainly as an enforcer to altcoins.  not that i condone him causing financial pain for altcoin participants but in the sense that he is enforcing Satoshi's principles on a raw economic level, ie, "expect to be attacked if you stray away from first principles".

you have to give him credit for at least warning the Monero community that he intended to attack.  it sounds like it gave them an opportunity to mitigate and/or tune their code to prevent such a thing.  maybe that's why it never transpired?

Could also be it, I don't know the details of it though. Also, there were doubts about the authenticity of the account, some people suspected the account was sold before the "threat".

Privacy matters, use Monero - A true untraceable cryptocurrency
Why Monero matters? http://weuse.cash/2016/03/05/bitcoiners-hedge-your-position/
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1235 1236 ... 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!