Bitcoin Forum
November 23, 2017, 03:20:23 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 ... 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 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2011838 times)
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 09, 2015, 05:10:51 PM
 #23701

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.

Note I didn't write what you bolded, i.e. I didn't write that he violated any random statement in the whitepaper. I wrote specifically he is violating the fundamental tenet which I asserted is, "decentralized trust, meaning we don't have to trust that people are honest".

Fundamental tenet is not the same as some aside for the abnormal case of 50% attack.

Since you seem to lack logic skills, you are a waste of my time.

Fuck off.

1511450423
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511450423

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511450423
Reply with quote  #2

1511450423
Report to moderator
Join ICO Now A blockchain platform for effective freelancing
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
inca
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


View Profile
May 09, 2015, 05:12:09 PM
 #23702


It's about TPTB_need_war, AKA AnonyMint, AKA TheFascistMind.
What the hell is wrong with not needing to rely on the crutch of my extensive reputation because I can intentionally close my Hero account (before the BCX incident!) and as a newbie be immediately respected as credible, accurate, logical, etc?

Lol.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 09, 2015, 05:12:29 PM
 #23703

well this has sadly always been the problem of anonymint.

I speak frankly and accurately. With precise logic, because I am a programmer.

I don't deal with people who have fuzzy logic, low reading comprehension such as I just explained above for the case of justusranvier.

There is nothing sad about not wasting time on B-listers and altcoins going nowhere no matter how many B-listers you have working on it.

Bagatell
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 722



View Profile
May 09, 2015, 05:13:10 PM
 #23704


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

Character assassination attempt detected.



It was you who called Justus disingenuous.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 09, 2015, 05:14:18 PM
 #23705

It was you who called Justus disingenuous.

And I am factually correct.

He is attempting to protect his buddy and failed the logic miserably.

ssmc2
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106


View Profile
May 09, 2015, 05:14:51 PM
 #23706

^Yeeeahhhh ignored ^ Roll Eyes
inca
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


View Profile
May 09, 2015, 05:15:53 PM
 #23707

^Yeeeahhhh ignored ^ Roll Eyes

I just succumbed..we are weak! Smiley
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 09, 2015, 05:16:38 PM
 #23708

I feel like I am back in kindergarten again. A bunch of jealous B-listers playing "nananana" my ears are covered games.

ErisDiscordia
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1015


Imposition of ORder = Escalation of Chaos


View Profile
May 09, 2015, 05:21:03 PM
 #23709

well this has sadly always been the problem of anonymint.

I speak frankly and accurately. With precise logic, because I am a programmer.

I don't deal with people who have fuzzy logic, low reading comprehension such as I just explained above for the case of justusranvier.

well the trouble with this seems to be that it is you who gets to define by your own standards what exactly constitutes "precise logic" and "fuzzy logic". When following your debates I couldn't shake the feeling that participants were being downgraded to "low-intelligence beta-males" based on whether or not they agreed with your premises and the conclusions you drew from them and not based on any sort of "objective" evaluation of their intelligence/debating skills. So yeah after I saw that obviously I can't change the way you're posting I gave up on a meaningful discussion and just started trolling you Smiley I suspect you put me on ignore after that. Ah well, as long as you present some worthwhile interesting material you might be forgiven even for your nasty attitude Wink

It's all bullshit. But bullshit makes the flowers grow and that's beautiful.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 09, 2015, 05:23:19 PM
 #23710

well the trouble with this seems to be that it is you who gets to define by your own standards what exactly constitutes "precise logic" and "fuzzy logic".

What aspect of the following is not a clear failure of logic on the part of justusranvier?

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.

Note I didn't write what you bolded, i.e. I didn't write that he violated any random statement in the whitepaper. I wrote specifically he is violating the fundamental tenet which I asserted is, "decentralized trust, meaning we don't have to trust that people are honest".

Fundamental tenet is not the same as some aside for the abnormal case of 50% attack.

Since you seem to lack logic skills, you are a waste of my time.

justusranvier, gets so excited to defend his buddy that he failed to read the entire sentence and just focused on finding any random statement in the whitepaper that might be somewhat close to what his buddy was saying. But that is not a refutation of what I wrote, because I didn't allow for any random statement from the whitepaper.

He would need to question my assertion of what is the fundamental tenet of the Satoshi's invention. I claim it is the Byzantine General's solution and not the abnormal case of a 50% attack.

ErisDiscordia
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1015


Imposition of ORder = Escalation of Chaos


View Profile
May 09, 2015, 05:26:48 PM
 #23711

I am sorry but I don't see any quote by justus in there...

Please let us not clog up this thread with personal attacks and prick-waving  Angry

my last post concerning this matter.

It's all bullshit. But bullshit makes the flowers grow and that's beautiful.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
May 09, 2015, 05:27:36 PM
 #23712

Something that's more interesting than the anonymint noise is the under-appreciated fact that Satoshi believed Bitcoin's profit incentives were so strong that even if an individual accumulated a majority of the hashing power their desire to be profitable in bitcoin terms would be so strong that they wouldn't use that power to attack the network.

Maybe he was right and maybe he was wrong, but the people who are insisting that Bitcoin mining is too centralized should at least start out making their arguments by acknowledging that position and explaining why they believe it is incorrect.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 09, 2015, 05:28:59 PM
 #23713

I am sorry but I don't see any quote by justus in there...

Please let us not clog up this thread with personal attacks and prick-waving  Angry

my last post concerning this matter.

So you can't tie in the several posts and figure out the failure in logic, yet you then claim that I don't win the logic arguments.

Your laziness is not an excuse for slandering my reputation.

I do win nearly all of the logic battles (and I always mea culpa the rare ones I don't).

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 09, 2015, 05:40:05 PM
 #23714

Something that's more interesting than the anonymint noise

There you go again slandering while losing the upthread logic debate. Sheesh you have no shame and no "mea culpa" honor.

is the under-appreciated fact that Satoshi believed Bitcoin's profit incentives were so strong that even if an individual accumulated a majority of the hashing power their desire to be profitable in bitcoin terms would be so strong that they wouldn't use that power to attack the network.

Maybe he was right and maybe he was wrong, but the people who are insisting that Bitcoin mining is too centralized should at least start out making their arguments by acknowledging that position and explaining why they believe it is incorrect.

In section 4, he says "one CPU, one vote". He is laying out the idealistic case for the Holy Grail of decentralized trust.

You are referring to the exceptional case where he elaborates on the abnormal case where an entity (not necessary one "individual") acquires 50+% of the hashrate. I am not unwilling to discuss his stance on this, but we must start by admitting he didn't think this was the likely case. He believed the "one CPU, one vote" was the likely case, or at least for several years. He was aware that over time it could have to become centralized.

But we were pitched the idealistic case to get us to clamor for and support Bitcoin. And it is that Holy Grail of decentralized trust that is really driving us ideologically to crypto.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 09, 2015, 05:52:45 PM
 #23715

Satoshi believed Bitcoin's profit incentives were so strong that even if an individual accumulated a majority of the hashing power their desire to be profitable in bitcoin terms would be so strong that they wouldn't use that power to attack the network.

Maybe he was right and maybe he was wrong, but the people who are insisting that Bitcoin mining is too centralized should at least start out making their arguments by acknowledging that position and explaining why they believe it is incorrect.

Again I don't think he was pitching that as the likely scenario. He was arguing that in the exceptional case, the profit motive would guard us. I do remember seeing a quote where he argued that eventually the mining might be done by large corporations, so he was aware eventually the exceptional case might become the normal one. But during this rampup phase we are being sold the "one CPU, one vote" lie to get us to wet our ideological underwear.

Any way, I think the profit motive crap is total nonsense and I expect he knew that. The pools don't have any large investment in hardware. Thus they are free to maximize revenue by any paradigm which does so, including collusion and selling out to the banksters who captured the State and the fiat levers. Economics rules, not morals.

Upthread I broke down the argument that the miners who own the hardware are in control. Sorry (in theory and maybe in practice already) the Sybil attack which are the pools is in control.

If you want to convince me that crypto isn't just another paradigm that falls right into the control of the problem we are trying to fix with crypto, then we need that fundamental tenet of decentralized trust.

inca
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


View Profile
May 09, 2015, 06:44:38 PM
 #23716

Something that's more interesting than the anonymint noise is the under-appreciated fact that Satoshi believed Bitcoin's profit incentives were so strong that even if an individual accumulated a majority of the hashing power their desire to be profitable in bitcoin terms would be so strong that they wouldn't use that power to attack the network.

Maybe he was right and maybe he was wrong, but the people who are insisting that Bitcoin mining is too centralized should at least start out making their arguments by acknowledging that position and explaining why they believe it is incorrect.

Yes, but profit based incentives only work if you assume the adversary is motivated by greed. Excepting a major technical failure or something better appearing, the only foes I worry about with respect to bitcoin already own printers - and they aren't afraid to use them!
medusa13
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 709

hello world


View Profile
May 09, 2015, 07:07:38 PM
 #23717

You are missing the end, I rather prefer this chart:

--snipped--

Btw, most altcoin charts look like this, when btc declines, most alts decline even worse. Also, the first top of 0.01 was during the crazy pre-mintpal pump. I wasn't around back then so I hope smooth can elaborate more on this matter, but for some reason it was insanely pumped by whales back then.

Furthermore, unlike most other altcoins, Monero was fairly launched (http://devtome.com./doku.php?id=a_massive_investigation_of_instamines_and_fastmines_for_the_top_alt_coins#monero). It has a relatively high inflation though, which could also be a reason for the "bearish/declining" chart.

PS: Remember that Monero was launched during a BTC bearmarket, chart would probably looked a whole lot different when launched during a bullmarket.

i want to highlight here that monero marketcap(in btc) is now higher than it was during the minpal launch bubble. back then in mid june 2014, only 1.5 million monero existed. with 0.01 per this makes a 15k btc marketcap.

right now we are also floating again around a 15k btc marketcap with 7.5 milllion coins. in april this year we reached nearly a 30k btc marketcap with 7 million coins back then.
very brutal infaltion, but this should be considered when looking at this chart



btw coinmarketcap charts seem to be fucked up anyway, at least the time scale Roll Eyes

XMR Monero
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610



View Profile
May 09, 2015, 07:58:07 PM
 #23718

that Monero chart looks brutal:

There was some early silliness with a huge and unsustainable pump shortly after launch ("the Mintpal pump") but if you look at the 365 day charts it's pretty much in line with what Bitcoin has been doing over the same period.

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610



View Profile
May 09, 2015, 08:09:25 PM
 #23719

Something that's more interesting than the anonymint noise is the under-appreciated fact that Satoshi believed Bitcoin's profit incentives were so strong that even if an individual accumulated a majority of the hashing power their desire to be profitable in bitcoin terms would be so strong that they wouldn't use that power to attack the network.

Maybe he was right and maybe he was wrong, but the people who are insisting that Bitcoin mining is too centralized should at least start out making their arguments by acknowledging that position and explaining why they believe it is incorrect.

I would say his comment was optimistic, a bit noncommittal, and backed by no analysis or argument, unless you know of something beyond the white paper.

His entire argument about the security of multiple confirmations fails in the presence of concentration, since it relies on the premise of an attacker being a price-taker with respect to hash power. If he felt the profit motive of a majority miner were enough to render the system secure, he wouldn't bother with the probabilistic game theory. It is quite clear to me that the later is much stronger than the former.

BTW, it is also a myth that >50% is needed to successfully double-spend with a "51%-attack". It is needed to guarantee success, but with a substantial share <50% you still have a significant probability of success for whatever finite number of confirmations is considered "enough" by the recipient. If the payoff is high enough this can easily be worth it.

justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
May 09, 2015, 08:17:19 PM
 #23720

Yes, but profit based incentives only work if you assume the adversary is motivated by greed. Excepting a major technical failure or something better appearing, the only foes I worry about with respect to bitcoin already own printers - and they aren't afraid to use them!
The question then becomes whether or not any technical solution is possible against attackers who have printers and aren't afraid to use them.

Wouldn't it suck to implement countermeasures against such attackers that not only won't work and also hinder legitimate use or, even worse, make attacks more likely instead of less likely?
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 ... 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!