Bitcoin Forum
November 21, 2017, 04:24:58 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 ... 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 1237 1238 1239 1240 [1241] 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2010824 times)
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


View Profile
May 26, 2015, 06:22:42 PM
 #24801

eh, disagree. summers' involvement is tptb driven. nothing more. nothing less.

tptb driven...asunder Wink
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.
1511281498
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511281498

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511281498
Reply with quote  #2

1511281498
Report to moderator
1511281498
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511281498

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511281498
Reply with quote  #2

1511281498
Report to moderator
1511281498
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511281498

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511281498
Reply with quote  #2

1511281498
Report to moderator
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


View Profile
May 26, 2015, 06:25:37 PM
 #24802


Nice. A sections for endorsers would be cool, too.
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1820



View Profile
May 26, 2015, 08:33:44 PM
 #24803

Quote from: Lawrence Summers
Until now whenever we’ve needed to transfer money we’ve had to rely on a third party, whether it be a bank, a clearing house or a payment network. Bitcoin offers, for the first time, a method for transferring value and making payments from anywhere to anywhere, in real-time, without any intermediary.

^ Bitcoin is powerful because it is borderless and permissionless.  

This is not true, and people keep repeating it at a concerning rate. The reality isn't quite so snappily summed up, but it's wildly different from this presentation, and that makes it very dangerous misinformation.

There is counter party risk

There is permission

There is trust

And all three are vested in the mining network, and everyone happily sweeps this under the rug at every opportunity. Until someone comes up with a way to decentralise mining (or remove the miners ability to choose which transactions to include), I will not allow people to repeat this misinformation unchallenged.

Vires in numeris
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
May 26, 2015, 09:41:08 PM
 #24804

Sorry for the OT, but anyone want to do (what I believe is) a simple JavaScript task for some coin?  Place a bid here.

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
HeliKopterBen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622



View Profile
May 26, 2015, 09:43:10 PM
 #24805

Quote from: Lawrence Summers
Until now whenever we’ve needed to transfer money we’ve had to rely on a third party, whether it be a bank, a clearing house or a payment network. Bitcoin offers, for the first time, a method for transferring value and making payments from anywhere to anywhere, in real-time, without any intermediary.

^ Bitcoin is powerful because it is borderless and permissionless.  

This is not true, and people keep repeating it at a concerning rate. The reality isn't quite so snappily summed up, but it's wildly different from this presentation, and that makes it very dangerous misinformation.
I agree but not in the senstionalist sense that you like to put it.

Quote
There is counter party risk
What counter party risk?

Quote
There is permission

There is trust
I agree.  However, I would use the terms 'trust-minimized' and 'permission-minimized' instead of trustless and permissionless.  

Nothing is completely trustless.  If we used a scale of 0 to 100, with 0 being completely trustless and 100 needing full trust, then bitcoin is much closer to 0 and fiat currencies are much closer to 100.  

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

Activity: 1246


View Profile
May 26, 2015, 09:44:29 PM
 #24806

First off, miners can't spend your coins, they can only deny that you spend them.  So counterparty risk is so significantly diminished as to warrant a different term.  And so is trust.

Second, if you don't like what miners are doing (presumably denying your transactions), you (or more likely a group of similarly minded people) can pool your money and buy your own miners.  (This presupposes that the miners can even identify your transactions which is a necessary step before one can even think about granting permission) Your miners can join the network (without permission) and so some % of blocks mined will be what you want them to be, unless the majority of other miners collectively choose to ignore your blocks at a potential economic disadvantage to themselves.  In which case you can continue on your own fork if you really want.  So again so much less permission is required as compared to traditional payment networks that is does not make sense to claim that bitcoin requires "permission".

Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 826


View Profile
May 26, 2015, 09:51:38 PM
 #24807

When considering the general deflation, don't underestimate the different ages of the capital. Low interest skews projects towards long time projects, which happen to be oil, iron and other metals. Oil is 30 years from start of investment (surveying) to finished consumer goods. That is now why the products from oil and other long time, capital intensive industries are too plentiful compared to actual demand. When capitcal cost is zero, any project is profitable, as long as sales pay for daily expenses.

Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
May 26, 2015, 09:52:29 PM
 #24808

Summers is a trojan horse

i used to enjoy the tinfoil hat aspect to so many bitcoiners, but these days it is just sad & annoying.

Given Mr Summers past achievements and business associates, I too, have to ask where his allegiances lie.

In my mind Summers, knows who the insiders and outsiders are, he is both strong and smart enough to have the foresight to passed up the blue pill, yet being an adviser to Bitcoin start ups is still enough of a buffer to avoid swallowing the red pill.

In my view he is a Professor Bitcoin with lots of wisdom, he seems well positions to ride the Bitcoin wave, or just sit on his surfboard and enjoy the sun.

all the TPTB conspiracy is a bit much at the moment, Bitcoin is not a sure thing by any means, if it were this bear market would turnaround.
If Bitcoin is a highly engendered event, what we could be seeing at this point in time is a  practical review of how big can this scale, even an economic fitness test for both Bitcoin insiders and outsiders.
Bitcoin is still the best shot civilization has at functioning practically. Bitcoin shouldn't escape this downtrend until it is understood it can scale, and while Gavin tackles that, I agree with him that Bitcoin is still a very risky put.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
Fakhoury
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


Permabull Bitcoin Investor


View Profile
May 26, 2015, 09:58:28 PM
 #24809

Summers is a trojan horse

i used to enjoy the tinfoil hat aspect to so many bitcoiners, but these days it is just sad & annoying.

Given Mr Summers past achievements and business associates, I too, have to ask where his allegiances lie.

In my mind Summers, knows who the insiders and outsiders are, he is both strong and smart enough to have the foresight to passed up the blue pill, yet being an adviser to Bitcoin start ups is still enough of a buffer to avoid swallowing the red pill.

In my view he is a Professor Bitcoin with lots of wisdom, he seems well positions to ride the Bitcoin wave, or just sit on his surfboard and enjoy the sun.

all the TPTB conspiracy is a bit much at the moment, Bitcoin is not a sure thing by any means, if it were this bear market would turnaround.
If Bitcoin is a highly engendered event, what we could be seeing at this point in time is a  practical review of how big can this scale, even an economic fitness test for both Bitcoin insiders and outsiders.
Bitcoin is still the best shot civilization has at functioning practically. Bitcoin shouldn't escape this downtrend until it is understood it can scale, and while Gavin tackles that, I agree with him that Bitcoin is still a very risky put.

Still I don't get it, why bitcoin is risky put with all movements and effort that are put into ?

Quote from:  Satoshi Nakamoto
Feb. 14, 2010: I’m sure that in 20 years there will either be very large transaction volume or no volume.
hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274



View Profile
May 26, 2015, 10:05:17 PM
 #24810

Summers is a trojan horse

i used to enjoy the tinfoil hat aspect to so many bitcoiners, but these days it is just sad & annoying.

Given Mr Summers past achievements and business associates, I too, have to ask where his allegiances lie.

In my mind Summers, knows who the insiders and outsiders are, he is both strong and smart enough to have the foresight to passed up the blue pill, yet being an adviser to Bitcoin start ups is still enough of a buffer to avoid swallowing the red pill.

In my view he is a Professor Bitcoin with lots of wisdom, he seems well positions to ride the Bitcoin wave, or just sit on his surfboard and enjoy the sun.

all the TPTB conspiracy is a bit much at the moment, Bitcoin is not a sure thing by any means, if it were this bear market would turnaround.
If Bitcoin is a highly engendered event, what we could be seeing at this point in time is a  practical review of how big can this scale, even an economic fitness test for both Bitcoin insiders and outsiders.
Bitcoin is still the best shot civilization has at functioning practically. Bitcoin shouldn't escape this downtrend until it is understood it can scale, and while Gavin tackles that, I agree with him that Bitcoin is still a very risky put.

Still I don't get it, why bitcoin is risky put with all movements and effort that are put into ?

<blockchain summit>

because it's about the blockchain technology

</blockchain summit>


isnt there a Blockchain Foundation somewhere by now? Grin
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1820



View Profile
May 26, 2015, 10:17:19 PM
 #24811

Quote from: Lawrence Summers
Until now whenever we’ve needed to transfer money we’ve had to rely on a third party, whether it be a bank, a clearing house or a payment network. Bitcoin offers, for the first time, a method for transferring value and making payments from anywhere to anywhere, in real-time, without any intermediary.

^ Bitcoin is powerful because it is borderless and permissionless.  

This is not true, and people keep repeating it at a concerning rate. The reality isn't quite so snappily summed up, but it's wildly different from this presentation, and that makes it very dangerous misinformation.
I agree but not in the senstionalist sense that you like to put it.

So, bitcoin is permissionless? I don't see how it's possible to sensationalise such a basic fact. Bitcoin holders can be prevented from spending their bitcoin by a majority of miners: that's just plain statement of facts. Another would be that, currently, no organised scheme exists to politicise the validity of bitcoins. And a further dispassionate fact would be that there always remains a risk that miners will end up in such a scheme while the system still permits it.

There is counter party risk
What counter party risk?

The risk that a counter party represents to your assets (not the same way the expression is applied with physical commodities, but I don't see that as a technical let-off). Bitcoin holders can be prevented from spending their bitcoin by a majority of miners.


Second, if you don't like what miners are doing (presumably denying your transactions), you (or more likely a group of similarly minded people) can pool your money and buy your own miners.  (This presupposes that the miners can even identify your transactions which is a necessary step before one can even think about granting permission) Your miners can join the network (without permission) and so some % of blocks mined will be what you want them to be, unless the majority of other miners collectively choose to ignore your blocks at a potential economic disadvantage to themselves.  In which case you can continue on your own fork if you really want.  So again so much less permission is required as compared to traditional payment networks that is does not make sense to claim that bitcoin requires "permission".


None of that is a practical way around transaction censorship, and certainly not as a solution for all users of bitcoin. The block solution difficulty is just too high for that, and will remain out of reach to all but professional miners until that dynamic can be changed. Someone in the development forum just today came up with "Helical blockchains" as a solution to mining centralisation, more thought needs to go towards that side of things IMO.

Vires in numeris
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
May 26, 2015, 10:35:15 PM
 #24812

Still I don't get it, why bitcoin is risky put with all movements and effort that are put into ?

if it wasn't it would be worth a lot more,

I'm long on Bitcoin, but there is a lot going on and lots of politics. in practice what I'm seeing is political pressure is rivaling the mechanics that makes up the protocol.
This is a huge risk to the future of Bitcoin imo many don't see it as they are practical motivated and circumvent social engineering and political situations. If you can tweak the mechanics of the protocol by leveraging political pressure then Bitcoin will be leveraged by political pressure. Bitcoin does what the economic majority want, the only question in my mind is does the economic majority want to adopt the immutable rules of Bitcoin, or does the economic majority want to tweak the rules by manipulating politics.


Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
Fakhoury
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


Permabull Bitcoin Investor


View Profile
May 26, 2015, 10:39:31 PM
 #24813

Still I don't get it, why bitcoin is risky put with all movements and effort that are put into ?

if it wasn't it would be worth a lot more,

I'm long on Bitcoin, but there is a lot going on and lots of politics. in practice what I'm seeing is political pressure is rivaling the mechanics that makes up the protocol.
This is a huge risk to the future of Bitcoin imo many don't see it as they are practical motivated and circumvent social engineering and political situations. If you can tweak the mechanics of the protocol by leveraging political pressure then Bitcoin will be leveraged by political pressure. Bitcoin does what the economic majority want, the only question in my mind is does the economic majority want to adopt the immutable rules of Bitcoin, or does the economic majority want to tweak the rules by manipulating politics.



This is a good point really, this question raised a flay in my mind, what option would you go with ?

Me, myself, will go with the adaption of the bitcoin rules.

Quote from:  Satoshi Nakamoto
Feb. 14, 2010: I’m sure that in 20 years there will either be very large transaction volume or no volume.
HeliKopterBen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622



View Profile
May 26, 2015, 11:18:18 PM
 #24814

Quote from: Lawrence Summers
Until now whenever we’ve needed to transfer money we’ve had to rely on a third party, whether it be a bank, a clearing house or a payment network. Bitcoin offers, for the first time, a method for transferring value and making payments from anywhere to anywhere, in real-time, without any intermediary.

^ Bitcoin is powerful because it is borderless and permissionless.  

This is not true, and people keep repeating it at a concerning rate. The reality isn't quite so snappily summed up, but it's wildly different from this presentation, and that makes it very dangerous misinformation.
I agree but not in the senstionalist sense that you like to put it.

So, bitcoin is permissionless? I don't see how it's possible to sensationalise such a basic fact. Bitcoin holders can be prevented from spending their bitcoin by a majority of miners: that's just plain statement of facts.


I used the term 'permission-minimized.'  How many times has someone been prevented from spending their coins?  None that I am aware of.  It's just another theoretical attack that doesn't work in practice.

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

Activity: 1820



View Profile
May 26, 2015, 11:30:31 PM
 #24815

Quote from: Lawrence Summers
Until now whenever we’ve needed to transfer money we’ve had to rely on a third party, whether it be a bank, a clearing house or a payment network. Bitcoin offers, for the first time, a method for transferring value and making payments from anywhere to anywhere, in real-time, without any intermediary.

^ Bitcoin is powerful because it is borderless and permissionless.  

This is not true, and people keep repeating it at a concerning rate. The reality isn't quite so snappily summed up, but it's wildly different from this presentation, and that makes it very dangerous misinformation.
I agree but not in the senstionalist sense that you like to put it.

So, bitcoin is permissionless? I don't see how it's possible to sensationalise such a basic fact. Bitcoin holders can be prevented from spending their bitcoin by a majority of miners: that's just plain statement of facts.


I used the term 'permission-minimized.'  How many times has someone been prevented from spending their coins?  None that I am aware of.  It's just another theoretical attack that doesn't work in practice.

Either it is or it isn't. This is the exact issue I'm trying to draw attention to. It is a big assumption to make that the pressure for miners to conform to government edicts will not increase in step with bitcoin's influence on world finance. By the time that happens, and without an alteration in the barriers to entry for mining or the miners ability to control transactions, then mining centralisation will become even more entrenched.

How are you going to feel if a future mining majority decides that Austrianism is no longer fashionable any more, and Keynesianism is back? 500 BTC superwhales could end up with something closer to 500 dollars.

Vires in numeris
HeliKopterBen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622



View Profile
May 26, 2015, 11:53:46 PM
 #24816

I used the term 'permission-minimized.'  How many times has someone been prevented from spending their coins?  None that I am aware of.  It's just another theoretical attack that doesn't work in practice.

Either it is or it isn't. This is the exact issue I'm trying to draw attention to. It is a big assumption to make that the pressure for miners to conform to government edicts will not increase in step with bitcoin's influence on world finance. By the time that happens, and without an alteration in the barriers to entry for mining or the miners ability to control transactions, then mining centralisation will become even more entrenched.

How are you going to feel if a future mining majority decides that Austrianism is no longer fashionable any more, and Keynesianism is back? 500 BTC superwhales could end up with something closer to 500 dollars.

It is highly unlikely to happen as radically as you describe.  If this were to happen, then most likely we would end up with an Austrian fork and a Keynesian fork dueling it out, which I could see possibly happening.  Users would have to make a choice between one or the other, or a combination of the two.  This is the likely outcome in your scenario because bitcoin is global and can be forked easily.  The dollar or Euro cannot be forked with a new set of rules applied, so this scenario is impossible with legacy currencies.

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

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 27, 2015, 12:08:38 AM
 #24817

need some opinions on this, from Reddit:

"Second, if push comes to shove and we end up with a fork battle then whoever holds the most will have the most power in choosing which wins out anyway. They can simply sell on one fork and buy on the other to shift the relative values. Whichever fork ends up most valuable will attract the most miners. Stronger value and security will attract more users to that fork."

is this viable?  this could be interesting...
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1820



View Profile
May 27, 2015, 12:16:51 AM
 #24818

I used the term 'permission-minimized.'  How many times has someone been prevented from spending their coins?  None that I am aware of.  It's just another theoretical attack that doesn't work in practice.

Either it is or it isn't. This is the exact issue I'm trying to draw attention to. It is a big assumption to make that the pressure for miners to conform to government edicts will not increase in step with bitcoin's influence on world finance. By the time that happens, and without an alteration in the barriers to entry for mining or the miners ability to control transactions, then mining centralisation will become even more entrenched.

How are you going to feel if a future mining majority decides that Austrianism is no longer fashionable any more, and Keynesianism is back? 500 BTC superwhales could end up with something closer to 500 dollars.

It is highly unlikely to happen as radically as you describe.  If this were to happen, then most likely we would end up with an Austrian fork and a Keynesian fork dueling it out, which I could see possibly happening.  Users would have to make a choice between one or the other, or a combination of the two.  This is the likely outcome in your scenario because bitcoin is global and can be forked easily.  The dollar or Euro cannot be forked with a new set of rules applied, so this scenario is impossible with legacy currencies.

And given that most likely of outcomes in my apparently extreme scenario, bitcoin ceases to be. You state this in a way that implies an unavoidable consequence: that no-one would risk such an outcome, as the stakes are too high for something as trivial as having a "sound" (i.e. Keynesian) money system, right? I don't believe you're imagining this from the perspective of a) the tiny minority of influential figures in government and corporations, or b) the majority of people who are ignorant not just to cryptocurrency, but even their regular currency.

Vires in numeris
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
May 27, 2015, 12:18:05 AM
 #24819

I used the term 'permission-minimized.'  How many times has someone been prevented from spending their coins?  None that I am aware of.  It's just another theoretical attack that doesn't work in practice.

Either it is or it isn't [permissionless]…


I dunno; that doesn't seem like a useful way to look at it.  By similar logic, could one not state:

   Either Blockchain signatures are forgeable or unforgeable

and then, since there's a 1 in 1461501637330902918203684832716283019655932542975 odds of picking a private key that will allow you to forge a signature, conclude that:

    Blockchain signatures are forgeable  

It's technically true, but practically useless.  

Anyways, is this not just semantics? According to my definition, Bitcoin is permissionless.  If it ever becomes non-permissionless, then it would cease being Bitcoin.  Maybe that's a more useful way to look at it.  The question then becomes, will it ever stop being bitcoin?

I thought Adrian-X made a great comment about this (riffing on the point ZB often makes, and related to the question Cypherdoc asks above):

Bitcoin does what the economic majority want, the only question in my mind is does the economic majority want to adopt the immutable rules of Bitcoin, or does the economic majority want to tweak the rules by manipulating politics.

Does the ecomonic majority want permissionless, borderless bitcoin or something else?

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1820



View Profile
May 27, 2015, 12:35:33 AM
 #24820

I used the term 'permission-minimized.'  How many times has someone been prevented from spending their coins?  None that I am aware of.  It's just another theoretical attack that doesn't work in practice.

Either it is or it isn't [permissionless]…


I dunno; that doesn't seem like a useful way to look at it.  By similar logic, could one not state:

   Either Blockchain signatures are forgeable or unforgeable

and then, since there's a 1 in 1461501637330902918203684832716283019655932542975 odds of picking a private key that will allow you to forge a signature, conclude that:

    Blockchain signatures are forgeable  

It's technically true, but practically useless.  

Anyways, is this not just semantics? According to my definition, Bitcoin is permissionless.  If it ever becomes non-permissionless, then it would cease being Bitcoin.  Maybe that's a more useful way to look at it.  The question then becomes, will it ever stop being bitcoin?

I thought Adrian-X made a great comment about this (riffing on the point ZB often makes, and the point Cypherdoc makes above):

Bitcoin does what the economic majority want, the only question in my mind is does the economic majority want to adopt the immutable rules of Bitcoin, or does the economic majority want to tweak the rules by manipulating politics.

Does the ecomonic majority want permissionless, borderless bitcoin or something else?


There is no "practical uselessness" to this property of the bitcoin system in anything like the way you present with your comparison; there is no similarity in the logic at all. One is a question of statistical probability of guessing a number from an impracticably sized domain. And the resolution depends only on the math. The other has nothing to do with any branch of mathematics at all, it's about decisions made by humans, dependent only on social or moral values. I do not take your comparison seriously, Peter.

And you're saying the same thing that anyone else seems to: that because miners do not and have not censored transactions, they never will. This is clearly not the case, and I would argue it's an unwise assumption.

Vires in numeris
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1237 1238 1239 1240 [1241] 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 ... 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!