Bitcoin Forum
December 06, 2016, 10:30:47 AM *
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 ... 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 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1804972 times)
HeliKopterBen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622



View Profile
May 29, 2015, 12:10:57 AM
 #24981

Pretty bold claims from Middleton, but I have tried it and it works, at least in a beta phase, not vapor phase or proof of concept phase, but beta phase.  You can trade all tickers that Cypherdoc mentions on here.  

I still don't understand how the tickers are fed into veritaseum to settle the bets. Can you explain that?

Saying "it works" without understanding how it works is short-sighted.

Twice or thrice I tried to find technical documentation (wading through all the promotional crap) and was stifled, so I assumed it is centralized bullshit.

That's my assumption, too... until it's explained how it works and it works in a way I can trust (which I doubt, but I've been wrong before).

If it's Reggie typing in 50000 tickers every hour then there might be no "counterparty risk", but there's plenty of other risk.

EDIT: I PMed him, maybe he'll show up here and explain. If not, it hardens my assumption.

It works from an end-user standpoint, which is more than I've seen from any other project.  Tickers prices are fed through an oracle, which is centralized.  Also, the code is not open source... yet, which i cant blame them for not wanting all their work to just be copied into another system.  In a nutshell, it appears to be blockchain.info 2.0.  The blockchain.info model has proven to work thus far with zero trust issues, but we will just have to wait for more info to become available. 

Thanks for the info regarding the centralized oracle.

I don't understand your comparison to blockchain.info.

I compare it to blockchain.info in that users retain control of their keys while using the service but without running a full node themselves - it is much more convenient and less resource-intensive.  Of course it's not a Web client but they may have plans for that.

@Reggie Middleton
Do you have plans to develop a hosted Web interface for your product?

Counterfeit:  made in imitation of something else with intent to deceive:  merriam-webster
1481020247
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481020247

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481020247
Reply with quote  #2

1481020247
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481020247
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481020247

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481020247
Reply with quote  #2

1481020247
Report to moderator
1481020247
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481020247

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481020247
Reply with quote  #2

1481020247
Report to moderator
1481020247
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481020247

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481020247
Reply with quote  #2

1481020247
Report to moderator
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 29, 2015, 12:28:11 AM
 #24982

Bitcoin is not just for the rich, even when transaction capacity is severely limited. We will have off chain service companies to handle that. Here is how it could work:  A base equity capital. Let's say around 100 bitcoin to cover assets under management 1000 bitcoin. The board and the CEO is made responsible with all their assets (that has been the case in earlier times). Time deposits, let's say in general 3 years. You can pay immediately by transferring your deposits, but you can not immediately withdraw your bitcoins. Loans made to others also timed, say the same, 3 years. The institution keeps a sizeable reserve, let's say 30 %. This will probably be prudent, the market will decide. Due to fractional reserve banking, the money volume should therefore increase by about 3333 (the current system with zero reserve sometimes, would not be possible). There will be no deposit insurance and no bailouts. Sometimes such a bank will fail to pay back, with customers loosing money, and the market will have to keep the industry in check.

I believe the death of the Industrial Age and the birth of the Knowledge Age will kill usury without causing a Middle Ages (Dark Age). I have covered the reasoning extensively in the One-world reserve currency and the Economic Devastation threads (as AnonyMint and various other pseudonyms).

IMO, you are describing a high fixed capital investment Industrial Age economy that is dying into a NWO outcome.

Many of us are tired of that shit of trusting people. We want a meritocracy where to earn one must “Show me the code, talk is cheap” (Linus Torvalds).

In other words, we want 100% transparency on the merits of value and exchange (this is orthogonal to anonymity, which is more about escaping politics, slavery, and the refusal to forgive and forget irrelevant factors[1]). We are tired of that Old World morass, power vacuum, slavery bullshit. Tired of that shit. Tired of that shit. Tired. Of. That. Shit.

Such businesses can produce added value: Interest, loyalty function, price, speed, guarantees, insurance, cool factor, advertisements and so on. They are necessary as long as the blockchain can not serve all transactions. There is no point in working against the appearance of these services, they will exist if they are profitable, and they will expand the bitcoin volume in existence with debt.

The crucial difference is no government sponsored deposit insurance and bailouts. Therefore, it is not the same as the banking fraud going on now.

It corrupts people because it is a power vacuum (no matter how localized at the genesis) and even in cases of upstanding intentions[2] because people get themselves into promises they can't keep, then are forced to corrupt themselves (e.g. making deals with politicians and cartels, etc).

[1]
CoinCube I pretty well fucked myself in that errant discretion area long ago, e.g. picture my resume "1994 - 2015 resided most of the time in Mindanao". So I had no choice but to exit the system and work for a system where the pedantic, irrelevant past can't matter.

I assert that having a good record in the dying NWO system is of diminishing utility. Hope you cash in your NWO chips with good timing.

A system which can't forgive the irrelevant is obviously bankrupted.
[2]Randy Travis - Good Intentions

If it's Reggie typing in 50000 tickers every hour ... there's plenty of other risk.

<joke>Even if discounting the Jack Daniels attack.</joke>

solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
May 29, 2015, 12:45:46 AM
 #24983

But now (or Soon) is not the right time.  We need studies, simulations, and (most importantly) actual empirical feedback from persistent full blocks to best determine how and when to proceed with altering the 1mb parameter.
Wrong. We already know it will be a clusterfuck.

I venture my opinion from 30 years experience in IT, when it appears that you have zilch and should just speak to what you know about (Monero? Hashfast?)


good re-read.  and i'm pretty sure he changed that write-up.  initially, he claimed the entire UTXO was held in RAM but down in the Reddit comments for the thread several ppl pointed out that it was held on disk with a 100MB high speed cache.  so, bottom line, it doesn't necessarily appear that this is a problem except for maybe miners.  given that tx growth won't immediately go to 20MB/block, i think it's safe to say this space problem should be worked out in time.

I really think there is a fast and simple constraint on UTXO bloat which can be done:
Allowing the existing free transaction space to be used for tx which reduce UTXOs (i.e. negative delta) instead of being based upon the number of days destroyed, which was to encourage old coins being spent, something less important.

Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
May 29, 2015, 12:45:55 AM
 #24984

...
The UXTO constraint may never be solved in an acceptable (sub)linear way, or the solution(s) could for political reasons never be implemented in BTC.
...
Almost certainly 'never' by any realistic definition of various things.
...
Solving 'the UTXO problem' would require what is by most definitions 'magic'.  Perhaps some future quantum-effect storage, communications, and processing schemes could 'solve' the problem but I'm not expecting to pick up such technology at Fry's by the next holiday season (Moore's law notwithstanding.)

A comment from chriswilmer got me thinking…

The UTXO set is actually bounded. The total amount of satoshis that will ever exists is

   (21x10^6) x (10^8) = 2.1 x 10^15 = 2.1 "peta-sats"

The UTXO set is maximized if every output is exactly 1 satoshi; in this case, the UTXO set consists of 2.1x10^15 outputs.  

For each output, let's assume we store the transaction hash (32 bytes), the value (8 bytes max), and the scriptpubkey (25 bytes for P2PkH), which is a total of 65 bytes.  So, a reasonable "worst case" upper bound on the size of the UTXO set is:

   (2.1x10^15) x (65 bytes) = 137 petabytes.  

How much memory is this?  A quick google search turned up 128 gigabyte microSD cards:



To store the worst-case UTXO set on an array of these cards would require about one million of them:

    (137 x 10^15) / (128 x 10^9) = 1.07 x 10^6.

This calculation shows that storing the worst case UTXO set is currently beyond the limits of a home user, but it's actually within the limits of large data centers such as the Prineville campus for Facebook that stores 1,000 petabytes of data...


...OK, now let's be reasonable!  Let's assume that 10 billion people on earth each control about 4 unspent outputs on average.  That's a total of 40 billion outputs, or

    (40 x 10^9) x (65 bytes) = 2.6 terabytes

With these assumptions, it now only takes about 20 of those SD cards to store the UTXO set:

    (2.6 x 10^12) / (128 x 10^9) = 20.3,

or, three 1-terrabyte SSDs, for a total cost of about $1,500.  

Of course, by the time there's a need to store this much data, we will likely have special-purpose hardware to do so quite efficiently.  

TLDR:
1. Large data centers could already store the UTXO set even if every satoshi was a unique unspent output.
2. Under more reasonable assumptions, power users and small businesses should be able to store the UTXO set even if 10 billion people each had 4 unspent outputs.


Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 29, 2015, 01:01:05 AM
 #24985

Download the client and give it a try. It's a fully functional system and you can see that it runs cleanly.

It is probably impossible (short of reverse engineering or building an extensive test kit) to determine that it runs cleanly without seeing the source code, because for example how do we evaluate how it might work in extreme or panic market conditions, under DDoS or high-frequency trading attacks, etc..

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 29, 2015, 01:04:44 AM
 #24986

TLDR:
2. Under more reasonable assumptions, power users and small businesses should be able to store the UTXO set even if 10 billion people each had 4 unspent outputs.


The more limiting factor is probably the transaction rate and the bandwidth of the connection.

An 8 Mbps connection only gets you to perhaps Visa-scale (at best[1]) and no where near the micropayments scale. Do you really think Visa-scale comprises all the transactions occurring daily in the world today (not even within an order-of-magnitude I bet!), not to mention the 100X growth that will occur with internet transactions in real-time (which will open huge new markets).

Even a 1 Gbps connection won't be enough in the current crypto-currency designs.

All current crypto-currency is fundamentally flawed. Can't scale. Checkmate.

If mining isn't decentralized, then you've lost control over Bitcoin to the financial elite.

...

Blockchain size is not the main issue with micropayments (no amount of pruning is scalable if the unpruned chain isn't scalable, i.e. scalability is a different complexity class from bounded compression). Rather as I discussed with thezerg upthread, at some scale micropayments force centralization of full nodes due to processing and bandwidth requirements. I argued that renting a hosting server is not decentralization, because the authorities can regulate the ISPs. Anonymity derives from mixing targeted activity (monopolization of mining by the cartel that runs our world) with untargeted activity (users surfing the net from a home ISP connection).

...

[1] That assumes the overhead for P2P and anonymity networks is 0, which won't be the case.

Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
May 29, 2015, 01:11:57 AM
 #24987

I really think there is a fast and simple constraint on UTXO bloat which can be done:
Allowing the existing free transaction space to be used for tx which reduce UTXOs (i.e. negative delta) instead of being based upon the number of days destroyed, which was to encourage old coins being spent, something less important.

I agree.  Incentivizing transactions that reduce the total number of outputs would be helpful.  Gmaxwell has mentioned similar ideas in the past as well.

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 29, 2015, 01:35:19 AM
 #24988

Pretty bold claims from Middleton, but I have tried it and it works, at least in a beta phase, not vapor phase or proof of concept phase, but beta phase.  You can trade all tickers that Cypherdoc mentions on here.  

I still don't understand how the tickers are fed into veritaseum to settle the bets. Can you explain that?

Saying "it works" without understanding how it works is short-sighted.

Twice or thrice I tried to find technical documentation (wading through all the promotional crap) and was stifled, so I assumed it is centralized bullshit.

That's not a fair presumption. Most tech dudes (and most people in general) use the financial system and have absolutely no idea how it works. Does that mean that your money doesn't spend? Veritaseum, from a capital perspective, is fully decentralized. It is the only automated system that I know of that is fully autonomous in that you keep your private keys private and on your client under your control. All transactions are peer to peer through the blockchain, and our server doesn't touch, house, hold, custody or control a single satoshi of your coin. Read http://veritaseum.com/index.php/homes/1-blog/128-will-new-vc-investment-trump-the-returns-of-the-early-movers-in-the-digital-currency-space-quite-possibly-let-me-show-you-how and http://veritaseum.com/index.php/homes/1-blog/94-bitcoin-1-0-vs-2-0-or-a-comparison-of-legacy-exchanges-veritaseum-s-ultracoin for the difference between centralized and decentralized systems.
As an aside, the vast majority of bitcoin traders don't seem to have a problem with centralized systems as they freely send their decentralized assets to fully centralized entities to house, trade and exchange. Just a little food for thought.

If it is really just a protocol, then by definition there is nothing to stop someone from bypassing your client and writing directly to the protocol, cutting out the Middleton-man.

I am assuming there is some proprietary lockin somewhere in there, but without code and technical documentation, why should I (or other hackers/geeks/tech dudes) consume my (our) time trying to understand the system using inefficient means of trying to deobfuscate what you ostensibly (at least last time I looked) want to obfuscate. I will take a quick glance at the links above, but if they don't get direct to the technical points (as what I saw on your website before) then I will not expend more time.

P.S. some of us do understand both economics and programming. That is not to say I have any insider or real-world WallStreet experience (thank the almighty for that blessing).

Edit: I glanced at the links. Reggie we know already all about the virtues and design of decentralized exchanges. We understand the use of a mutually trusted "Facilitator" (Escrow agent). We understand the need for decentralized, consensus data feeds (which you apparently don't yet have in your system). We do not need to read all that shit over and over again. When we ask for technical documentation, we mean precisely that and none of this marketing overhead. Some of us are much more aware than you may think. We are also thinking about these sorts of designs and markets too (believe me you were not any where close to being the first).

I do not understand how to expect to gain traction. You can leverage your reputation and connections in the financial sphere, but afaics you do not know how to interface with the tech dudes who are the core of the Bitcoin sphere. IMO, if you want us on board, this has to be a collaborative effort and open source system. And so then how do you make your ROI on this? Does this project have its own coin (I think not). The world is not going to adopt Reggie-wallet. Sorry. You will need an open protocol and another way to make your ROI.

Perhaps there is some way to leverage your strengths and the open source community, but afaics you haven't partnered with the right CTO to get it done. I see more of a closed-source, proprietary, marketing spin philosophy thus far.

Also you appear to be building a specific protocol for trading options. Ethereum (and CounterParty?) is in the space of creating a programmable block chain wherein there can be a free market competition amongst protocols. I suggested last year that Ethereum can never scale and the only solution is merge-minded chains for programmable chains.

Some of us are thinking much bigger and more open than you. You should not assume you are the next Google. I highly doubt it.

P.S. your calls on Apple and Google were obvious to me also (before I found out about you on Zerohedge). I had written similar predictions on http://esr.ibiblio.org perhaps before you did. My point is your very boastful marketing spins are out of proportion to the technical acumen display openly thus far. Perhaps your team are technical wizards, but I don't know.

iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
May 29, 2015, 02:10:07 AM
 #24989

But now (or Soon) is not the right time.  We need studies, simulations, and (most importantly) actual empirical feedback from persistent full blocks to best determine how and when to proceed with altering the 1mb parameter.
Wrong. We already know it will be a clusterfuck.

I venture my opinion from 30 years experience in IT, when it appears that you have zilch and should just speak to what you know about (Monero? Hashfast?)

I really think there is a fast and simple constraint on UTXO bloat which can be done


You fixed the UXTO bloat?  That great!  Now show us the code so Wlad can test/pull it.

Oh wait, does your constraint require a hard fork?  If it does, good luck getting it past the neo-royalist reactionaries of #bitcoin-assets (aka MP personality cult).

So you are an old fart like cypher.  Big effing deal.  In 10 years, I'll have 30 years of experience in IT.  Drink an Ensure and change your Depends grandpa, because I'm not going to turn down my dubstep nor get off your lawn.   Tongue

Nobody cares how many floppies you formatted or copies of Windows you installed in the 80s.  You are new here, Mr. 2013 Registration Date.

You're not just calling me wrong, you're also second-guessing gmax, pwuille, petertodd, and jgarzik (among others):

Quote
Gavin is the only committer to Bitcoin core who supports this particular proposal at this time. The rest of us have significant concerns about the impact on the security and the decentralization of the network; and potentially some process concerns.

You may not have heard these concerns because as you may note that this isn't a proposal tendered to bitcoin-development; it's being taken directly to the general public; which isn't necessarily inappropriate as it has significant consequences for everyone who uses and holds Bitcoin and what form the future of Bitcoin will take. Unfortunately, these tradeoffs haven't yet been well communicated.

-nullc [gmaxwell]

I would ask how your "30 years in IT" stack (sorry for IT pun) up against their pedigrees/resumes, but I don't want to embarrass you any more than necessary.   Grin

Waiting for >1 block to get a confirmation is not a "clusterfuck" unless you are (mis/mal)construing and (mis/mal)applying Bitcoin to be some kind of real-time POS system.

Bigger systems run slower; slow water runs deep.  That's why ACH and other "wire" transfers take days or weeks to settle.

We Knights of Satoshi will not comply with your histrionic 'faster please' demands to fix Bitcoin until it breaks.

This "clusterfuck" is entirely self-imposed by Gavin.  It is a manufactured crisis.  We will resist all efforts, whether internal or external, destroy Bitcoin in order to save it from some imaginary doom, no matter the source or how loud the deafening clamor of the peanut gallery.

We will not give in to your politics of fear and parade of hobgoblins.

We will not be stampeded into premature hard forks because the pointy-haired boss and his mob of Redditard sycophants demands Action Now.

Gavin's absurd call for <10 minute blocks indicates he has been (internally and/or externally) compromised.  You would do well to abandon that ship (and its fanboys) before it sinks...

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Wallets - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }


Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


"I believed @Dashpay instamine was a bug & not a feature but then read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg13017231#msg13017231
I'm not against people making money, but can't support questionable origins."
https://twitter.com/Tone_LLT/status/717822927908024320


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004

"Hard forks cannot be co
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 29, 2015, 02:12:49 AM
 #24990


As I said, patent trolls (on slide 3).

To be destroyed by every means at our disposal. (Reggie it isn't personal and not even ideological. Rather it is about avoiding the economic abyss ahead)

shmadz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428


@theshmadz


View Profile
May 29, 2015, 02:16:07 AM
 #24991

Please be aware of this guy TPTB_need_war  - he's a real piece of work.

when talking about his own super-secret new-and-improved bitcoin-killer it's all about monetization, can't release the code for free, can't tell you about how his idea somehow "fixes" everything that's wrong with bitcoin...

When talking about anyone else's project, it's gotta be open-source or else.


I think he's very duplicitous and in general I'm very suspicious of his motives.

But that's just like, my opinion, man.

"You have no moral right to rule us, nor do you possess any methods of enforcement that we have reason to fear." - John Perry Barlow, 1996
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 29, 2015, 02:22:05 AM
 #24992


Do you want Bitcoin to fail, because you want more attention to flow to Monero?

Referring to our upthread debate, I am trying to determine if you truly have an interest in Bitcoin being only a store-of-value (with more third party risk than gold and roughly the same limited avenues for exchange), instead of shooting for widespread unit-of-exchange (albeit losing the decentralized attribute in the process)?

Again I want all-of-the-above and decentralized in the same crypto-currency. And I think I know how to do it. No trade-offs.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 29, 2015, 02:25:31 AM
 #24993

When talking about anyone else's project, it's gotta be open-source or else.

Did I ever say I wouldn't release open source?

There is a logic difference between not giving away ideas before giving away the source code (a.k.a. promoting vaporware, which btw I detest) then giving away the ideas with the source code, versus "giving" away (arguably other people's) ideas without the source code (and arguably lying to yourself and the public that you were the first to think of such concepts...okay Veritaseum admits they have competitors but no problem because they have patents...thank the almighty for the IP moat protection of the centralized State that oppresses us).

Many people fail to reason through all the cases of logic on each issue they ponder.

Veritaseum name = obvious ripoff of Ethereum

I have no problem with that (and it is a better name IMO) if their tech is good, and they aren't just trying to marketing spin that they are were the innovators in this space. Talk is cheap, show me the code, if you want to claim in public marketing to be the technical innovators.

I am confident I speak for the open source community in terms of those points (not claiming their support of me in general or my work).

P.S. Hang onto to that name and reputation. You may be able to reuse after this proprietary effort fails. Assuming you learn.

kazuki49
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350



View Profile
May 29, 2015, 02:33:34 AM
 #24994



kazuki49
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350



View Profile
May 29, 2015, 02:36:20 AM
 #24995


Do you want Bitcoin to fail, because you want more attention to flow to Monero?


Saying this in bitcointalk is like walking to a group of gay people with your friend and say to him "Do you really dislike gay people?"

Its like, the stupidest and most transparent maneuver ever to move hate. The worst thing is, it almost always works.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 29, 2015, 02:52:52 AM
 #24996

Its like, the stupidest and most transparent maneuver ever to move hate. The worst thing is, it almost always works.

I laughed on the first sentence, then you added this so I will respond.

I really didn't intend it to embarrass or cause hate because I assume it is obvious to everyone here that he is an XMR supporter. Does he really believe that constraining Bitcoin's onchain transaction growth is the best move for Bitcoin? Or how is it the best move for him other than creative destruction for XMR?

Trying to understand his (perhaps even subconscious) reasoning. I might learn something useful about the market.

Also this is somewhat different than bringing a friend into a gay group and then popping that question, because the person being asked was already asserting many bold claims and causing a ruckus (as am I also).

kazuki49
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350



View Profile
May 29, 2015, 02:55:01 AM
 #24997

Its like, the stupidest and most transparent maneuver ever to move hate. The worst thing is, it almost always works.

I laughed on the first sentence, then you added this so I will respond.

I really didn't intend it to embarrass or cause hate because I assume it is obvious to everyone here that he is an XMR supporter. Does he really believe that constraining Bitcoin's onchain transaction growth is the best move for Bitcoin? Or how is it the best move for him other than creative destruction for XMR?

Trying to understand his (perhaps even subconscious) reasoning. I might learn something useful about the market.

Thats the point, you can't know peoples intentions over the Internet, I don't even get Gavin's.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 29, 2015, 03:01:40 AM
 #24998

Thats the point, you can't know peoples intentions over the Internet, I don't even get Gavin's.

We don't even need to consider whether Gavin has been compromised. He knows there is $billions of VC money depending on Bitcoin growth and he has an implicit fiduciary obligation to make sure Bitcoin scales. Decentralization was already a lost cause any way (gmaxell's delusions about CoinJoin being viable and other tech notwithstanding), so any realistic would realize that you might as well maximize the financial impact of Bitcoin in the mainstream.

The ideological aspects were lost the day v0.1 was released. We don't need to blame Gavin for what even Satoshi admitted he set in stone back on v0.1.

Disclosure: I don't think even if Bitcoin withered on the vine due to defeat of block size increase, that would stop the NWO outcome. Thus that path doesn't aid me at all, because such a non-anonymous store-of-value with such limited security (imagine the hashrate if you pull the plug on VC future) would not be a place I would store my wealth (not that I have any at the moment). I'd much rather see Bitcoin grow so we can use it as a reserve currency of altcoins. I'd much rather see the promotion and hype of crypto-currency grow because it brings more capital to the altcoins too. I'd much rather see all my predictions about Bitcoin-the-NWO-coin be demonstrated, because as I said we won't stop the NWO outcome in any case.

kazuki49
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350



View Profile
May 29, 2015, 03:07:49 AM
 #24999

Thats the point, you can't know peoples intentions over the Internet, I don't even get Gavin's.

We don't even need to consider whether Gavin has been compromised. He knows there is $billions of VC money depending on Bitcoin growth and he has an implicit fiduciary obligation to make sure Bitcoin scales. Decentralization was already a lost cause any way (gmaxell's delusions about CoinJoin being viable and other tech notwithstanding), so any realistic would realize that you might as well maximize the financial impact of Bitcoin in the mainstream.

The ideological aspects were lost the day v0.1 was released. We don't need to blame Gavin for what even Satoshi admitted he set in stone back on v0.1.

Disclosure: I don't think even if Bitcoin withered on the vine due to defeat of block size increase, that would stop the NWO outcome. Thus that path doesn't aid me at all, because such a non-anonymous store-of-value with such limited security (image the hashrate if you pull the plug on VC future) would not be a place I would store my wealth (not that I have any at the moment). I'd much rather see Bitcoin grow so we can use it as a reserve currency of altcoins.

Yeah I agree, thats pretty much why I dont care anymore, just fork it already.
necrita
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 49


View Profile
May 29, 2015, 03:08:20 AM
 #25000

Thats the point, you can't know peoples intentions over the Internet, I don't even get Gavin's.

We don't even need to consider whether Gavin has been compromised. He knows there is $billions of VC money depending on Bitcoin growth and he has an implicit fiduciary obligation to make sure Bitcoin scales. Decentralization was already a lost cause any way (gmaxell's delusions about CoinJoin being viable and other tech notwithstanding), so any realistic would realize that you might as well maximize the financial impact of Bitcoin in the mainstream.

The ideological aspects were lost the day v0.1 was released. We don't need to blame Gavin for what even Satoshi admitted he set in stone back on v0.1.

Disclosure: I don't think even if Bitcoin withered on the vine due to defeat of block size increase, that would stop the NWO outcome. Thus that path doesn't aid me at all, because such a non-anonymous store-of-value with such limited security (imagine the hashrate if you pull the plug on VC future) would not be a place I would store my wealth (not that I have any at the moment). I'd much rather see Bitcoin grow so we can use it as a reserve currency of altcoins. I'd much rather see the promotion and hype of crypto-currency grow because it brings more capital to the altcoins too. I'd much rather see all my predictions about Bitcoin-the-NWO-coin be demonstrated.

TPTBCoin depends on BTC
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 ... 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!