Bitcoin Forum
December 07, 2016, 10:40:00 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 ... 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 1301 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1805743 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 29, 2015, 03:22:04 AM
 #25001

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 think that's a really good idea.

from reading about how different wallets choose from different UTXO strategies to include in tx's (i think they all do it differently), this could be a no brainer which could help immensely.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 29, 2015, 03:27:19 AM
 #25002

The problem with Bitcoin is that so many people didn't get on the train.  So now they hope it will fail so they can board a new train -- Monero, Etherium, whatever.  And they go onto these forums concern trolling as if they are actually Bitcoin proponents.  But suck it up. There is no other train available to you -- the next train will have exclusive membership and will actually be a rocketship (think Apple ipay) deployed simultaneously onto millions of POS, default installation in your phone, automatically connected with checking accounts for several major banks etc.

It is the analogous  non-choice that we will be offered with the one-world reserve currency:

1. US dollar reserve currency hegemony over the world
2. One-world reserve currency with every nation sending a representative

These two choices are framed as being different, but in reality they are the same outcome. In both cases, the global bankster cartel is in control.

Ditto Bitcoin.

Any way, I support moving forward using Bitcoin to destroy existing banking systems and government issued currencies, and moving the world to a global digital currency (albeit I assert ultimately controlled by the banksters). Because the alternative is no better (as you point out) and at least by moving forward we bring more capital into crypto-currency (including altcoin experiments).

I agree with you there will not be another train in terms of scaling a crypto-currency to the masses before 2033. Bitcoin has this locked up already.

I do believe it may be possible to identify a market that is large but not the (lower 50% of the power-law distributed wealth curve) masses which Bitcoin can not reach and which an altcoin can. I am 80% sure about this. I don't care if the other attempts have fallen short. That doesn't rule out someone with appropriate insight creating one that hits the sweet spot. And the goal is not to topple Bitcoin (let the lower 50% have their pacifier to suck on). My thesis has been the upper 0.1% are going down with the lower 50% into the NWO. The Knowledge Age will rise up and take over by 2033. Let them have their Bitcoin in the interim. Smaller things grow faster. There is exponential growth available to the right altcoin.



Australia is a member of the Five Eyes nations.

Indeed this shows how desperate they are. As with Napster, they will just drive the movement to anonymity.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 29, 2015, 03:42:21 AM
 #25003


The problem with Bitcoin is that so many people didn't get on the train.  So now they hope it will fail so they can board a new train -- Monero, Etherium, whatever.  And they go onto these forums concern trolling as if they are actually Bitcoin proponents.  But suck it up. There is no other train available to you -- the next train Bitcoin ramp will have exclusive membership and will actually be a rocketship (think Apple ipay) deployed simultaneously onto millions of POS, default installation in your phone, automatically connected with checking accounts for several major banks etc.






ftfy
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 29, 2015, 03:47:51 AM
 #25004

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

Blockchain.info centralizes your wallet, but you control your private keys (server can't decrypt them) and all the encryption is done client side. Reggie is pointing out that the user of his wallet controls his private keys and signs transactions client-side and I suppose he is asserting that any the centralized functions (e.g. the data feed or the Facilitator) of his system do not impinge on the user's autonomous control.

Thanks for chipping in! Your other post ("centralized oracle") confirmed my suspicion. I don't share TPTB_need_war's view that that fact makes veritaseum centralized bullshit, though. I suspect it might be a great system.

In my posts prior this one from you, I did not state the oracle as my reason for suspecting centralized bullshit. I specifically mentioned for example patent trolling, apparently attempts at proprietary lockin (not just a protocol), and lack of open source. You appear to be entirely dismissing the social engineering aspects.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 29, 2015, 03:51:44 AM
 #25005

most of the comments in this UTXO thread don't seem to see it as too much of a problem.  the predictable concern trolls, like gmax, are in there as expected but the vast majority seem positive on dealing with UTXO growth:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/35asg6/gavin_andresen_utxo_uhoh/
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 29, 2015, 03:59:02 AM
 #25006

The reason we have to worry about miners producing "too large" blocks is because they don't pay for all the P2P network resources they use (neither do end users).

All the arguments we have about resource consumption are derived from that primary design flaw.

If we fix it, then we won't have to argue any more.

Any mechanism you envision must also incorporate the fact that if collusion and monopolistic strategies are viable, they will be deployed.

Miners and pools have an incentive to include as many txns as they can get paid for and scale up the resource requirements to drive small miners to pools. So the community got up in arms about GHash.io, so no problem just hide your ownership behind a Sybil attack on the pools (that is surely the case today) so the community is either ignorantly pacified or can play Whack-A-Mole.

Even if you made txns free or negative cost (miners pay spenders), the incentive of the prior paragraph remains.

There is fundamental design flaw here that can't be fixed without radical overhaul of the design of PoW.

iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
May 29, 2015, 04:22:47 AM
 #25007


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.

Of course I don't want Bitcoin to fail.  Could you possibly more dishonest and uncharitable?

If trade-offs did not exit, there would be no tension between Bitcoin (The Currency) functioning as both a store-of-value and widespread unit-of-exchange.

But here in the real world, bound by the pesky laws of thermodynamics, trade-offs do and will always exit.

The UXTO set is only the current bottleneck for scaling BTC to Visa++ levels of retail usage.  There are many others waiting in the wings (*cough, 10 min. block time, cough*).

Bitcoin's Mother-of-All-Blockchains is simply not the right tool for real-time retail POS interfaces.  Bitcoin's Mother-of-All-Blockchains is a back-office tool.

As for your VaporCoin, please either show us the whitepaper or stop hyping/teasing/marketing/pimping it.

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, 04:25:22 AM
 #25008

I've been solving blocks on the BTC train longer than you, and (like gmaxwell, tacotime, etc) am perfectly capable of simultaneously riding the XMR train as well.

Should have read this post before asking my question about his motives.

BTC's "intrinsic value" is the fact is fulfills Aristotle's criteria for good money better than anything else (except Monero).

The BTC price is rising in terms of the last 5/4/3 years.  Zero to $250, by way of $1200.  Excellent performance by any definition.

The price rises when more people act on the optimistic zoomed out view than a cherry-picked local retrace.

You apparently have fooled yourself into believing the market performance of Bitcoin had nothing to do with the promotion of Bitcoin by the mainstream media (and thus implicitly by the banksters who own the mainstream media) or that you believe the MSM can be induced to cover a grassroots, virally growing phenomenon w/o the blessing of the banksters. I assert that if you were to go against their aims and goals (which you won't be able to do any way, Gavincoin has already won), then they would pull the plug on your fork and you would learn about the reverse wealth effect (the fact that the market cap != the amount of capital invested in the coin and this levered effect is a snowball uphill and downhill).

The synergy of believing Bitcoin is an improved money along with the prospect of future scaling of Bitcoin to the world's txns, is what drives wealth effect you love. Take away one, you lose the other. I do hope you try to fork Gavincoin.

The smart money already knows all about the hard UXTO limit, and is therefor investing in systems built on the core blockchain which offload tx pressure to sidechains and other off-main-chain whatnot.

If one had unlimited number of side-chains, this would fundamentally scale even without changing the fundamental design of the ledger for those side-chains. Those side-chains might even be non-public and/or non-decentralized ledgers (and perhaps even fractional reserves, etc).

I don't consider that option as viable is because currency requires a fungible unit-of-exchange (although there is an argument against this with real-time exchange between side-chains, which is an argument I presented ... but not sure if this is realistic or not). So side-chains won't help scale to the transaction volume of the world. We must fix the fundamental decentralized crypto design, or accept centralized morass (which btw won't scale either so that is yet another reason the NWO coin is going to be a dying paradigm...to be toppled by 2033).

An unlimited number of non-fungible side-chains might be useful for smart contracts but not for money.

As for the Gresham's Law.

Yes, I do want people to HLOD their BTC.  Hoarding helps the price in terms of fiat trash rise, and invigorates the beneficial feedback loops driving adoption which ultimately result in a race condition that breaks petrodollar hegemony.  It's the Cartmanland principle: if people can't have Bitcoin they will want it more than ever.

As much as the people jealously crave platinum, plutonium, and Astatine.  Roll Eyes

I specifically didn't mention gold because it is shiny and dense and thus has other appealing attributes for people besides its rare monetary value.

Quote
This ship is going to hit an iceberg, stop dead in its tracks and start leaking water as soon as the 1MB limit is hit consistently.

Bro, do you even Nassim Taleb?  

If you did, you'd already know antifragile systems require adversity to grow stronger (BTW, BTC is not analogous to The Titanic).

Conceptually I agree. But realize that creative destruction of species is often a result of competition in evolution.


The UXTO set is only the current bottleneck for scaling BTC to Visa++ levels of retail usage.  There are many others waiting in the wings (*cough, 10 min. block time, cough*).

Bitcoin's Mother-of-All-Blockchains is simply not the right tool for real-time retail POS interfaces.  Bitcoin's Mother-of-All-Blockchains is a back-office tool.

Okay so considering the trade-offs we have today to choose between (even VaporCoin was available, it would still be irrelevant to the choice made for Bitcoin), I have refuted side-chains. What is this back-office Bitcoin going to be used for then?

molecular
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142



View Profile
May 29, 2015, 05:35:51 AM
 #25009

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.

See slide 14 here https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1UxB33wp1rCncBtPbuzQbkS1SZg_fjCTNMqu-wZGii-o/pub?start=true&loop=false&delayms=10000&slide=id.g7b8415063_38

Thanks for chipping in! Your other post ("centralized oracle") confirmed my suspicion. I don't share TPTB_need_war's view that that fact makes veritaseum centralized bullshit, though. I suspect it might be a great system. I love the fact that it lives on the bitcoin blockchain and has no other token. I also love that there's no counterparty risk and in addition I'm guessing it ties up some bitcoins in contracts and I do like that, too.

About the "other risk": where is the oracle on your server getting the tickers from? I guess that process should be made transparent at some point so we can at least know how it could be manipulated.

Certainly the incentive is high for some rogue employee somewhere to falsify some ticker feed you're pulling for just long enough for a large bet to be settled in his favor, no? Clearly there's noone capable/willing to fix something like that after the fact.


Only the data feed is centralized, everything else is fully distributed, which is better than centralized (reference the first link that I put up which explains this). A decentralized data feed just wouldn't work and it would be taking a step backwards from the current legacy system unless and until we have more activity than the centralized exchanges. Securities data fees are commodity items, and very easy to corroborate, very difficult to get away with in terms of fraud and/or manipulation.
As for someone in my camp manipulating a data feed, he/she would have a hard time doing so (we get them from 3rd parties) and even a harder time concealing it, and even a harder time than that getting away with it (each client plus the server has the ability to audit, although that is not implemented yet). You'd have to somehow change a data feed, hack into 3 disparate systems to inject that false data feed (whose real feed is freely availalble to all) and then hope nobody notices.
As it stands now, I believe our system is safer than the status quo by a long shot.

I understand. Thanks again for clearing some things up.

For the second time I will try to get my hands dirty with this. I have the client installed and the wallet backed up. Now I need some newbie type of help. I checked veritaseum.com for documentation and found the quick start video. It's hard to dig through the promotional talk and I stopped midway for now.

Is there some kind of written documentation somewhere on how to use the client and formulate orders? Is there a support chat on irc or a bitcointalk thread? I don't want to spam this beauty here.

PGP key molecular F9B70769 fingerprint 9CDD C0D3 20F8 279F 6BE0  3F39 FC49 2362 F9B7 0769
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106


View Profile
May 29, 2015, 06:06:44 AM
 #25010

The reason we have to worry about miners producing "too large" blocks is because they don't pay for all the P2P network resources they use (neither do end users).

All the arguments we have about resource consumption are derived from that primary design flaw.

If we fix it, then we won't have to argue any more.

Well put.

Till we have had a 1:1 ratio between full node and miner, the block reward
did pay for all the resoures involed in the process. Once such ratio started
to decrease, due to the introduction of mining pools, mining and full node
role became more and more decoupled.

The block reward remains on the miner side, though.

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

Activity: 1106


View Profile
May 29, 2015, 06:21:04 AM
 #25011

- other things we don't know yet caused by rising block max size. (Mircea will deploy his 'GavinCoin Short' financial weapon of mass destruction, with utterly unpredictable consequences)


Expanded that for you.


Thanks for your time.

In the last point I was referring to problems related to unexpected technical issues and/or unforseen demages to the economic incentives structure, rather than political maneuvers.

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

Activity: 1512


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
May 29, 2015, 06:52:29 AM
 #25012

- other things we don't know yet caused by rising block max size. (Mircea will deploy his 'GavinCoin Short' financial weapon of mass destruction, with utterly unpredictable consequences)


Expanded that for you.


Thanks for your time.

In the last point I was referring to problems related to unexpected technical issues and/or unforseen demages to the economic incentives structure, rather than political maneuvers.

Ah yes, the unknown unknowns.  It will be interesting to see if Gavin's TitaniCoin 20mb fork inherits enough antifragility from BTC to survive them, or if it actually generates anti-antifragility sufficient to destroy both chains.

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
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1988


View Profile
May 29, 2015, 06:55:19 AM
 #25013

...
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"
...
...
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.  
...

I have thought about this bounding (mostly in the context of the current rather awkward/deceptive 'unspendable dust' settings.)  I think that there is currently, and probably for quite some time, some big problems with this rosy picture:

 - UTXO is changing in real time through it's entire population.  This necessitates currently (as I understand things) a rather more sophisticated data-structure than something mineable like the blockchain.  UTXO is in ram and under the thing that replaced BDB (forgot the name of that database at the moment) because seeks, inserts, and deletes are bus intensive and, again, in constant flux.  Trying to do this on even high-ish end secondary storage architecture is a fail.  Large players use what amounts to clustered ramdisk to achieve scale.  Yes, it is within the realistic grasp of at least mid-sized companies to build such clusters, but it may never be so for lesser players at commodity scale due to market dynamics (no real demand.)

 - The picture painted (each individual controlling four unspent outputs) is pretty optimistic.  In order to achieve it there would need to be constant optimizations on the individual level which further adds to the messaging load and that's what pretty much everyone sees as the bottleneck.

 - The picture painted (each individual controlling four unspent outputs) is kind of a snapshot.  Even if each person makes only one spend per day, it means effectively a high percentage of the UTXO data in the database would be recycled daily.  Anyone who has tried to do even a relatively simple operation on a relatively modest size file (say a simple md5 or even a wc on a gigabyte sized file) will recognize that passing info from storage into a processor can be a real drag.  Some datastructures are conducive to multi-processing and whatever nosql databases which might hold the UTXO are probably in that category, but again one needs a cluster to do such things.

The risk of centralization to players who are prone to come under pressure is significant.  I may be willing to retract my assertion that,  within the current 'bounds', 'magic' would be required, but I stand fast to my contention that it is far from practical for Bitcoin's support framework to remain distributed at these kinds of scales.   Edit: ...but would be interested to see a proof-of-concept, simulator, prototype, etc.


TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 29, 2015, 07:28:41 AM
 #25014

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.

See slide 14 here https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1UxB33wp1rCncBtPbuzQbkS1SZg_fjCTNMqu-wZGii-o/pub?start=true&loop=false&delayms=10000&slide=id.g7b8415063_38

Thanks for chipping in! Your other post ("centralized oracle") confirmed my suspicion. I don't share TPTB_need_war's view that that fact makes veritaseum centralized bullshit, though. I suspect it might be a great system. I love the fact that it lives on the bitcoin blockchain and has no other token. I also love that there's no counterparty risk and in addition I'm guessing it ties up some bitcoins in contracts and I do like that, too.

About the "other risk": where is the oracle on your server getting the tickers from? I guess that process should be made transparent at some point so we can at least know how it could be manipulated.

Certainly the incentive is high for some rogue employee somewhere to falsify some ticker feed you're pulling for just long enough for a large bet to be settled in his favor, no? Clearly there's noone capable/willing to fix something like that after the fact.


Only the data feed is centralized, everything else is fully distributed, which is better than centralized (reference the first link that I put up which explains this). A decentralized data feed just wouldn't work and it would be taking a step backwards from the current legacy system unless and until we have more activity than the centralized exchanges. Securities data fees are commodity items, and very easy to corroborate, very difficult to get away with in terms of fraud and/or manipulation.
As for someone in my camp manipulating a data feed, he/she would have a hard time doing so (we get them from 3rd parties) and even a harder time concealing it, and even a harder time than that getting away with it (each client plus the server has the ability to audit, although that is not implemented yet). You'd have to somehow change a data feed, hack into 3 disparate systems to inject that false data feed (whose real feed is freely availalble to all) and then hope nobody notices.
As it stands now, I believe our system is safer than the status quo by a long shot.

I understand.

Are you sure you (and he) understand?

Reggie sidesteps the issue of transient (perhaps un-auditable) manipulation of data feeds in conjunction with high frequency trading manipulation.

One thing programmers know that n00bs don't, "the devil is in the details" and "you don't know the whole story until you dig into the coding (the top-down perspective may be altered in the process)".

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..

Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
May 29, 2015, 07:46:42 AM
 #25015


The problem with Bitcoin is that so many people didn't get on the train.  So now they hope it will fail so they can board a new train -- Monero, Etherium, whatever.  And they go onto these forums concern trolling as if they are actually Bitcoin proponents.  But suck it up. There is no other train available to you -- the next train Bitcoin ramp will have exclusive membership and will actually be a rocketship (think Apple ipay) deployed simultaneously onto millions of POS, default installation in your phone, automatically connected with checking accounts for several major banks etc.






ftfy

It's on the station now - get on board!
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 29, 2015, 08:08:17 AM
 #25016


The problem with Bitcoin is that so many people didn't get on the train.  So now they hope it will fail so they can board a new train -- Monero, Etherium, whatever.  And they go onto these forums concern trolling as if they are actually Bitcoin proponents.  But suck it up. There is no other train available to you -- the next train Bitcoin ramp

ftfy

It's onsome months from the station now - get on boardsell the rallies and await a sub-$100 price as it approaches the station!

ftfy


- other things we don't know yet caused by rising block max size. (Mircea will deploy his 'GavinCoin Short' financial weapon of mass destruction, with utterly unpredictable consequences)


Expanded that for you.


Thanks for your time.

In the last point I was referring to problems related to unexpected technical issues and/or unforseen demages to the economic incentives structure, rather than political maneuvers.

Ah yes, the unknown unknowns.  It will be interesting to see if Gavin's TitaniCoin 20mb fork inherits enough antifragility from BTC to survive them, or if it actually generates anti-antifragility sufficient fragility to destroy both chains.

Alas now I see the sub-$100 price coming into view. After the dust settles, we can begin the next ramp.

Bitcoin can't be destroyed until the NWO dies, because the banksters are pushing out it to their sheeople masses.

Or maybe Mircea is shorting BTC.

inca
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
May 29, 2015, 08:19:03 AM
 #25017

<snip>

It's cute you think you know where the price is going..
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 29, 2015, 08:26:33 AM
 #25018

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"  
...

I have thought about this bounding (mostly in the context of the current rather awkward/deceptive 'unspendable dust' settings.)  I think that there is currently, and probably for quite some time, some big problems with this rosy picture:

 - UTXO is changing in real time through it's entire population.  This necessitates currently (as I understand things) a rather more sophisticated data-structure than something mineable like the blockchain...

If the block chain were bounded in the sense of what most users could process, you could potentially have serious problems because it would also perhaps open the possibility that users can also exceed that bound in their demand for coin divisibility. One of the reasons I am so big on micropayments is I believe that divisibility is scaling with computation scale. I also believe this is related (in a round-about manner) to the inexorable trend to maximum division-of-labor. I'll expound on this in the future, perhaps in the Economics Devastation thread.

I do believe the fundamental design error is requiring the blockchain to include transactions. (I am of course cognizant that many would dismiss that prior sentence as bizarre, n00b, insane, or what ever adjective you prefer)

John999
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896


View Profile
May 29, 2015, 08:39:08 AM
 #25019

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.

See slide 14 here https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1UxB33wp1rCncBtPbuzQbkS1SZg_fjCTNMqu-wZGii-o/pub?start=true&loop=false&delayms=10000&slide=id.g7b8415063_38

Thanks for chipping in! Your other post ("centralized oracle") confirmed my suspicion. I don't share TPTB_need_war's view that that fact makes veritaseum centralized bullshit, though. I suspect it might be a great system. I love the fact that it lives on the bitcoin blockchain and has no other token. I also love that there's no counterparty risk and in addition I'm guessing it ties up some bitcoins in contracts and I do like that, too.

About the "other risk": where is the oracle on your server getting the tickers from? I guess that process should be made transparent at some point so we can at least know how it could be manipulated.

Certainly the incentive is high for some rogue employee somewhere to falsify some ticker feed you're pulling for just long enough for a large bet to be settled in his favor, no? Clearly there's noone capable/willing to fix something like that after the fact.


Only the data feed is centralized, everything else is fully distributed, which is better than centralized (reference the first link that I put up which explains this). A decentralized data feed just wouldn't work and it would be taking a step backwards from the current legacy system unless and until we have more activity than the centralized exchanges. Securities data fees are commodity items, and very easy to corroborate, very difficult to get away with in terms of fraud and/or manipulation.
As for someone in my camp manipulating a data feed, he/she would have a hard time doing so (we get them from 3rd parties) and even a harder time concealing it, and even a harder time than that getting away with it (each client plus the server has the ability to audit, although that is not implemented yet). You'd have to somehow change a data feed, hack into 3 disparate systems to inject that false data feed (whose real feed is freely availalble to all) and then hope nobody notices.
As it stands now, I believe our system is safer than the status quo by a long shot.

I understand. Thanks again for clearing some things up.

For the second time I will try to get my hands dirty with this. I have the client installed and the wallet backed up. Now I need some newbie type of help. I checked veritaseum.com for documentation and found the quick start video. It's hard to dig through the promotional talk and I stopped midway for now.

Is there some kind of written documentation somewhere on how to use the client and formulate orders? Is there a support chat on irc or a bitcointalk thread? I don't want to spam this beauty here.


You can download the pdf tutorial there:

http://veritaseum.com/index.php/download/veritaseum-wallet/viewdownload/2-veritaseum-clients-wallets-utilities/5-veritaseum-s-prototype-wallet-quick-tutorial

Reggie Middleton
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 41

UltraCoin "Smart" Derivatives: The Future of Money


View Profile WWW
May 29, 2015, 09:32:49 AM
 #25020

I believe the block size limit issue is getting critical.  You guys should check out Reggie Middleton's Veritaseum.  Quoting:

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


Our server acts as an Oracle feeding commodity ticker data (think Reuters, Google, Bloomberg) into the wallets to adjudicate P&L.

There is research available on how to create a more decentralized, consensus driven oracle. Apologies I will not google now for a citation.

Edit: perhaps it was on Ethereum's blog that I saw some mention of research.
Veritaseum is not a research project, it's a for profit business. We have developed ways to decentralize, or even fully distribute the oracle but that did not improve the product. We (and presumably you as well) don't want to decentralize things for the sake of just decentralizing it. Decentralization is done to improve the outcomes. If the outcome is not improved, then the decision to decentralize is simply not made (at least in our camp). Once it comes to custody of the assets, we went way beyond decentralization and fully distributed the network. Why? Because it makes for a better outcome. The same can't be said for everything, though.

*Link Removed* : The Future of Money! A "Smart", Zero Trust, Peer to Peer, Decentralized derivative layer on top of Bitcoin!!!
 *Image Removed*
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1301 ... 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!