Bitcoin Forum
June 28, 2017, 02:07:01 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.14.2  [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 ... 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 1302 1303 1304 ... 1559 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1922910 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 29, 2015, 05:07:55 PM
 #25061

Gold preparing to take the next dive.

mayeb the last one

but probably not.

i firmly believe we will see <900$ gold and eventually <500$ gold


yes, gold is useless in the new digital age.
1498615621
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1498615621

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1498615621
Reply with quote  #2

1498615621
Report to moderator
Once a transaction has 6 confirmations, it is extremely unlikely that an attacker without at least 50% of the network's computation power would be able to reverse it.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1498615621
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1498615621

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1498615621
Reply with quote  #2

1498615621
Report to moderator
Fakhoury
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008


Permabull Bitcoin Investor


View Profile
May 29, 2015, 05:12:15 PM
 #25062

Gold preparing to take the next dive.

mayeb the last one

but probably not.

i firmly believe we will see <900$ gold and eventually <500$ gold


yes, gold is useless in the new digital age.

Kindly tell me, when gold goes down in terms of price, how bitcoin makes use of this ?

Thank you.

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.
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036



View Profile
May 29, 2015, 05:21:28 PM
 #25063

...
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.

Agreed.  The UTXO can be thought of as "hot" storage that's continually being updated, while the blockchain can be thought of as "cold" storage that does not have the same requirements for random memory reads and writes.  However, the UTXO doesn't need to sit entirely in RAM (e.g., the uncompressed UTXO set is, AFAIK, around 2 GB, but bitcoind runs without problem on machines with less RAM).  

Quote
...but would be interested to see a proof-of-concept, simulator, prototype, etc.

Agreed.  What I'm curious about is the extent to which the UTXO database could be optimized algorithmically and with custom hardware.  

Consider the above scenario where 10 billion people control on average 4 unspent outputs (40 billion coins), giving us a UTXO set approximately 2.6 TB in size.  Now, let's assume that we sort these coins perfectly and write them to a database.  Since they're sorted, we can find any coin using binary search in no more than 36 read operations (about 65 bytes each):

   log2(40x10^9) = 36  

Rough numbers: A typical NAND FLASH chip permits random access reads within about 30 us, a typical NOR FLASH chip within about 200 ns, and perhaps less than 20 ns for SDRAM, so it takes about

   36 x 30 us = 900 us (NAND FLASH)
   36 x 200 ns = 7.2 us (NOR FLASH)
   36 x 20 ns = 0.72 us (SDRAM)

to find a particular coin if there's 40 billion of them.  If we commit 10% or our time to looking up coins, to match Visa's average rate of 2,000 TPS means we need to be able to find a particular coin in

   (1 sec x 10%) / (2000 /sec) = 50 us.  

My gut tells me that looking up coins isn't too daunting a problem, even if 10 billion people each control 4 coins, and, in aggregate, make 2,000 transactions per seconds.  

...Of course, the UTXO is constantly evolving.  As coins get spent, we have to mark them as spent and then eventually erase them from the database, and add the new coins to that database that were created.  If we assume the typical TX creates 2 new coins, then this means we need to write about

    (65 bytes per coin) x (2 coins per TX) x (2000 TXs per sec) = 0.26 MB/sec

Again, this isn't fast.  Even an SD card like the SanDisk Extreme Pro has a write speed up to 95 MB/s.

Of course, this is the speed for sequential writes, and we'll need to do plenty of (slower) random writes and erase operations, but note that 0.26 MB means that only  

    0.26 MB / 2.6 TB = 0.00001 %

of our database is modified each second, or about 1% per day.  


My questions, then, are:

  - To what extent can we develop algorithms to optimize the UTXO database problem?  
  - What is the best hardware design for such a database?

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

Activity: 1904


Trusted Bitcoiner


View Profile WWW
May 29, 2015, 05:24:27 PM
 #25064

Gold preparing to take the next dive.

mayeb the last one

but probably not.

i firmly believe we will see <900$ gold and eventually <500$ gold


yes, gold is useless in the new digital age.

Kindly tell me, when gold goes down in terms of price, how bitcoin makes use of this ?

Thank you.

poeple try to figure out why gold is collapsing, then they learn about bitcoin and how its like gold but better...

Bitcoin: Divisible  Gold: ever try to take 42.00$ worth of gold off of a 1oz gold coin? fuck no! that's just crazy!?

Bitcoin: Impossible to counterfeit       Gold: fake gold plated coins and bars are known to be on the market, nearly impossible to know without drilling a hole in your bar / coin.

Bitcoin: Scarce    Gold: who the fuck knows how many Mega Tones of Gold are hidden in the next Asteroid

Bitcoin: Portable  Gold: Ever try to cross a border with 10,000$ of gold in your ass??

Bitcoin : Fungible  1BTC = 1BTC always  Gold: 1 gold coin don't necessary have the same value as another gold coin, in fact they all have slightly different values.

Bitcoin: Shiny As fuck   Gold: only Shiny because it's been processed and polished , a long and expensive process  


side note gold has a $6,946,890,374,198 market cap

gold isn't threatening to displace WU
gold can't be used online
gold can't be used for micro payment
gold can't survive bitcoin period the end

kaykawa
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 575


View Profile
May 29, 2015, 06:05:41 PM
 #25065

Bitgold looks good,

I'm saving my $$ in gold,

The only "issue" is the time of "transactions", are a bit slow, imho.

(24 - 48 hrs)

edited
Wekkel
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1526



View Profile
May 29, 2015, 06:08:10 PM
 #25066

Gold preparing to take the next dive.

mayeb the last one

but probably not.

i firmly believe we will see <900$ gold and eventually <500$ gold


yes, gold is useless in the new digital age.

The same goes for paper. Gold has its use and it have its day, eventually....

Like this post? you can tip me (BTC) 18j7UBNfhWWfvwGwrtzWfUrp1v6RDerFkY or (XEM) NBXGH5-MXQPNL-T5TA3R-QCQYUX-3FIEXC-LGIKGT-H7XJ
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile
May 29, 2015, 06:24:24 PM
 #25067

some call it altruistic but I prefer to think they will use greed for the grater good.

 

Nash was a great man.  watch the video:

https://twitter.com/cypherdoc2/status/602533856290349056
thanks,
I had seen that but thatch itagain, we are interdependent, its great, I also revised my post as it didn't express my thought as intended. (i love my predictive text ;-)

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
kaykawa
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 575


View Profile
May 29, 2015, 06:35:08 PM
 #25068

With the upcoming collapse of mainstream Western fiat currencies, including the U.S. dollar, cryptocurrencies could very well save us.

edited
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176


View Profile
May 29, 2015, 06:35:50 PM
 #25069

http://blockstream.com/2015/05/27/welcoming-new-members-of-team-blockstream/

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: 1176


View Profile
May 29, 2015, 07:58:33 PM
 #25070

Blockstream hired Rusty Russell to work on a lightning network implementation. This is going to be big.

Now it appears that the development efforts for sidechains and lightning networks are coming together. Russel, who joined Blockstream a few weeks ago, is working on lightning networks, and one of his first actions was to set up a Blockstream-hosted mailing list for “Discussion of the development of the Lightning Network, a caching layer for bitcoin.” The new mailing list archives are freely accessible.

“They hired me,” Russel said on Reddit. “We agreed I’d be working on developing lightning. I set up a mailing list and am developing a toy prototype to explore the ideas. Will put on github once that’s ready (two weeks?) but it’s a long long way from anything someone could use. I’m excited about lightning, but it’s a marathon, not a sprint.”

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

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 29, 2015, 08:05:28 PM
 #25071

Dow down - 115.24.

All hands on deck.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 29, 2015, 08:09:44 PM
 #25072

Blockstream hired Rusty Russell to work on a lightning network implementation. This is going to be big.

Now it appears that the development efforts for sidechains and lightning networks are coming together. Russel, who joined Blockstream a few weeks ago, is working on lightning networks, and one of his first actions was to set up a Blockstream-hosted mailing list for “Discussion of the development of the Lightning Network, a caching layer for bitcoin.” The new mailing list archives are freely accessible.

“They hired me,” Russel said on Reddit. “We agreed I’d be working on developing lightning. I set up a mailing list and am developing a toy prototype to explore the ideas. Will put on github once that’s ready (two weeks?) but it’s a long long way from anything someone could use. I’m excited about lightning, but it’s a marathon, not a sprint.”

Explain to me why requiring centralized lightning nodes to be up 24/7 is a good thing?
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176


View Profile
May 29, 2015, 08:35:19 PM
 #25073

Blockstream hired Rusty Russell to work on a lightning network implementation. This is going to be big.

Now it appears that the development efforts for sidechains and lightning networks are coming together. Russel, who joined Blockstream a few weeks ago, is working on lightning networks, and one of his first actions was to set up a Blockstream-hosted mailing list for “Discussion of the development of the Lightning Network, a caching layer for bitcoin.” The new mailing list archives are freely accessible.

“They hired me,” Russel said on Reddit. “We agreed I’d be working on developing lightning. I set up a mailing list and am developing a toy prototype to explore the ideas. Will put on github once that’s ready (two weeks?) but it’s a long long way from anything someone could use. I’m excited about lightning, but it’s a marathon, not a sprint.”

Explain to me why requiring centralized lightning nodes to be up 24/7 is a good thing?

To buy your coffee? /sarcasm

I though that increasing on-chain bitcoin network capacity is necessary (even for a lightning network
implementation 3tps avg isn't enough(*)), that said I believe that a mainly-offline-sync-once-in-while
solution to increase system capacity even more is desirable.

This solution would be the result of a trade-off between different aspects: centralization, capacity, privacy, etc. etc.

As I already said I won't use LN to buy a house, but I will definitely use it for my daily expenses.

Sure If we were able to find some kind of mechanism that would not require a softfork, it would be amazing.
Unfortunately, as sidechains also LN need a new opcode (and a solution to tx malleability) to be properly implemented.

(*) on this podcast:

https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/epicenter-bitcoin-joseph-poon-and-tadge-dryja-scalability-and-the-lightning-network

Joseph Poon & Tadge Dryja, authors of the LN white paper, explicitly state that a max block size
has to be increased to implement what they envision.


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

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 29, 2015, 08:42:09 PM
 #25074

...
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.

Agreed.  The UTXO can be thought of as "hot" storage that's continually being updated, while the blockchain can be thought of as "cold" storage that does not have the same requirements for random memory reads and writes.  However, the UTXO doesn't need to sit entirely in RAM (e.g., the uncompressed UTXO set is, AFAIK, around 2 GB, but bitcoind runs without problem on machines with less RAM).  

Quote
...but would be interested to see a proof-of-concept, simulator, prototype, etc.

Agreed.  What I'm curious about is the extent to which the UTXO database could be optimized algorithmically and with custom hardware.  

Consider the above scenario where 10 billion people control on average 4 unspent outputs (40 billion coins), giving us a UTXO set approximately 2.6 TB in size.  Now, let's assume that we sort these coins perfectly and write them to a database.  Since they're sorted, we can find any coin using binary search in no more than 36 read operations (about 65 bytes each):

   log2(40x10^9) = 36  

Rough numbers: A typical NAND FLASH chip permits random access reads within about 30 us, a typical NOR FLASH chip within about 200 ns, and perhaps less than 20 ns for SDRAM, so it takes about

   36 x 30 us = 900 us (NAND FLASH)
   36 x 200 ns = 7.2 us (NOR FLASH)
   36 x 20 ns = 0.72 us (SDRAM)

to find a particular coin if there's 40 billion of them.  If we commit 10% or our time to looking up coins, to match Visa's average rate of 2,000 TPS means we need to be able to find a particular coin in

   (1 sec x 10%) / (2000 /sec) = 50 us.  

My gut tells me that looking up coins isn't too daunting a problem, even if 10 billion people each control 4 coins, and, in aggregate, make 2,000 transactions per seconds.  

...Of course, the UTXO is constantly evolving.  As coins get spent, we have to mark them as spent and then eventually erase them from the database, and add the new coins to that database that were created.  If we assume the typical TX creates 2 new coins, then this means we need to write about

    (65 bytes per coin) x (2 coins per TX) x (2000 TXs per sec) = 0.26 MB/sec

Again, this isn't fast.  Even an SD card like the SanDisk Extreme Pro has a write speed up to 95 MB/s.

Of course, this is the speed for sequential writes, and we'll need to do plenty of (slower) random writes and erase operations, but note that 0.26 MB means that only  

    0.26 MB / 2.6 TB = 0.00001 %

of our database is modified each second, or about 1% per day.  


My questions, then, are:

  - To what extent can we develop algorithms to optimize the UTXO database problem?  
  - What is the best hardware design for such a database?

Mike Hearns on reddit:

If the block creates the outputs that it does itself spend all those outputs will be in RAM cache. So they will be effectively free to check.

LevelDB is very fast, even on a spinning hard disk. You can't assume 1 UTXO = 1 seek.

https://github.com/google/leveldb

readrandom   :      16.677 micros/op;  (approximately 60,000 reads per second)

60,000 reads per second, for random access.

This isn't a problem. Gavin is being highly conservative and I think panicked a little - LevelDB effectively sorts keys by hotness (due to the leveled SSTable structure). So old/dormant coins will eventually fall to the bottom of the pile and be a bit slower to access, with the benefit that recent coins are near the top and are cheaper to access. People who try and create then spend coins over and over again to waste IOPs are going to be very frustrated by their lack of success.

And now I'm off to the airport for a two week holiday. Have fun guys! Smiley
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 29, 2015, 10:14:12 PM
 #25075

there's a real danger here that if the other 1MB core devs don't get off their asses and help out Gavin & Mike, their roles as core devs could be relegated to the dustbin of history.  this is a great chance for those talented devs who have felt rejected or humiliated from the likes of current core devs to get their foot in the door.  we clearly know they exist and in great #'s.  core dev is a highly coveted position leading to all sorts of great opportunities as the Blockstream core dev's refusal to step down in the name of conflict of interest very well demonstrates.

from Mike Hearns on Reddit:

[–]mike_hearn 70 points 7 hours ago

Short of some last minute change of heart by Wladimir and the other committers, it looks like Bitcoin XT may soon become more important.
I am looking for someone to help develop a website and logo for it. If you're interested please hop onto the mailing list and let me know:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/bitcoin-xt
Or you can just email me: hearn@vinumeris.com
If things go ahead and running XT becomes the way to express an opt-in to larger blocks, I will also be looking for volunteers to help co-build the binaries with gitian.
Finally I am looking for anyone who has experience with managing patchsets in git. My current workflow of one-branch-per-feature plus one-branch-per-release is fiddly and fragile. I plan to reorganise things at some point. Suggestions for better approaches are welcome.

permalinksavecontextfull comments (499)reportgive gold
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
May 29, 2015, 10:59:09 PM
 #25076

there's a real danger here that if the other 1MB core devs don't get off their asses and help out Gavin & Mike, their roles as core devs could be relegated to the dustbin of history.  this is a great chance for those talented devs who have felt rejected or humiliated from the likes of current core devs to get their foot in the door.  we clearly know they exist and in great #'s.  core dev is a highly coveted position leading to all sorts of great opportunities as the Blockstream core dev's refusal to step down in the name of conflict of interest very well demonstrates.

from Mike Hearns on Reddit:

[–]mike_hearn 70 points 7 hours ago

Short of some last minute change of heart by Wladimir and the other committers, it looks like Bitcoin XT may soon become more important.
I am looking for someone to help develop a website and logo for it. If you're interested please hop onto the mailing list and let me know:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/bitcoin-xt
Or you can just email me: hearn@vinumeris.com
If things go ahead and running XT becomes the way to express an opt-in to larger blocks, I will also be looking for volunteers to help co-build the binaries with gitian.
Finally I am looking for anyone who has experience with managing patchsets in git. My current workflow of one-branch-per-feature plus one-branch-per-release is fiddly and fragile. I plan to reorganise things at some point. Suggestions for better approaches are welcome.

permalinksavecontextfull comments (499)reportgive gold
If they are going to take this step anyway, they should dump all Bitcoin Core's technical debt by switching to btcsuite as their reference implementation.
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
May 29, 2015, 11:33:10 PM
 #25077

there's a real danger here that if the other 1MB core devs don't get off their asses and help out Gavin & Mike, their roles as core devs could be relegated to the dustbin of history.  this is a great chance for those talented devs who have felt rejected or humiliated from the likes of current core devs to get their foot in the door.  we clearly know they exist and in great #'s.  core dev is a highly coveted position leading to all sorts of great opportunities as the Blockstream core dev's refusal to step down in the name of conflict of interest very well demonstrates.

from Mike Hearns on Reddit:

[–]mike_hearn 70 points 7 hours ago

Short of some last minute change of heart by Wladimir and the other committers, it looks like Bitcoin XT may soon become more important.
I am looking for someone to help develop a website and logo for it. If you're interested please hop onto the mailing list and let me know:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/bitcoin-xt
Or you can just email me: hearn@vinumeris.com
If things go ahead and running XT becomes the way to express an opt-in to larger blocks, I will also be looking for volunteers to help co-build the binaries with gitian.
Finally I am looking for anyone who has experience with managing patchsets in git. My current workflow of one-branch-per-feature plus one-branch-per-release is fiddly and fragile. I plan to reorganise things at some point. Suggestions for better approaches are welcome.

If they are going to take this step anyway, they should dump all Bitcoin Core's technical debt by switching to btcsuite as their reference implementation.
I like the freedom and choice, and the commitment to their best work such that they will endeavor to express it independently.
If only all of this were better communicated.  Without snarkiness, without ultimatums.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708


Support SEGWIT on 8/1/17 https://github.com/UASF


View Profile WWW
May 30, 2015, 12:09:53 AM
 #25078

Gavin moving forward. Will you be left behind? :

http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34155307/

There you go again.  Using fear (this time, of being "left behind" from the glorious rapture of GavinCoin) to sell a hard fork.

The rough consensus of all non-Gavin core devs is against 20mb blocks in the near future.

But for some reason, Gavin will only accept a consensus which aligns with his position.  Who does he think he is, Linux Torvalds or Evan Duffield?

So how does Gavin the pointy-headed boss react to being unable to convince his coders and engineers?

By lobbying (*cough, panicking, cough*) the drooling masses in an attempt to overrule the experts with a stampeding mob.

That's not the path of "calm down already" suggested by Nick Szabo.

The Gavin tail is trying to wag the core dev dog, which guarantees the predictable "rancor" he's whining about.

Ironically, when the wheels fall off of GavinCoin because of UXTO assplosions or whatever, these spurned core devs will be the ones Gavin and everyone else will turn to for solutions.  Typical "Oops I broke it, now you fix it" pointy-headed boss behavior!   Cheesy

If persistent full 1mb blocks turn out to be an insurmountable problem, consensus to modify that limit would not need to be manufactured with lobbying and tales of impending dooom.

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Core GUI - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }
MoneroForCash.com  |  Buy and sell XMR near you  |  Easymonero.com  |  Bitsquare.io - Decentralized XMR Exchange  |  Buy XMR with fiat
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014

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


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
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708


Support SEGWIT on 8/1/17 https://github.com/UASF


View Profile WWW
May 30, 2015, 12:13:17 AM
 #25079

There's a peculiar kind of incoherence about people who can argue both for decentralization and also argue that users of the system can not be relied up to decide their own best interest

IOW, the tragedy of the commons is a concept unknown to you:

Quote
A 20x resource and cost increase will have impact.

The cost to throw 19MB of spam into the blockchain is suddenly the same as the cost of 500KB today. These costs are magically externalized onto the volunteer network.

It is very easy to vote for a plan when others are bearing the cost.

-jgarzik @ http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/356twp/nick_szabo_zooko_pwuille_gavinandresen_infinity/

Please go back to designing JustusCoin; we don't need your economic illiteracy creating incoherency and confusion here.


The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Core GUI - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }
MoneroForCash.com  |  Buy and sell XMR near you  |  Easymonero.com  |  Bitsquare.io - Decentralized XMR Exchange  |  Buy XMR with fiat
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014

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


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
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 30, 2015, 01:33:14 AM
 #25080

Gavin moving forward. Will you be left behind? :

http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34155307/

There you go again.  Using fear (this time, of being "left behind" from the glorious rapture of GavinCoin) to sell a hard fork.

The rough consensus of all non-Gavin core devs is against 20mb blocks in the near future.

But for some reason, Gavin will only accept a consensus which aligns with his position.  Who does he think he is, Linux Torvalds or Evan Duffield?

So how does Gavin the pointy-headed boss react to being unable to convince his coders and engineers?

By lobbying (*cough, panicking, cough*) the drooling masses in an attempt to overrule the experts with a stampeding mob.

That's not the path of "calm down already" suggested by Nick Szabo.

The Gavin tail is trying to wag the core dev dog, which guarantees the predictable "rancor" he's whining about.

Ironically, when the wheels fall off of GavinCoin because of UXTO assplosions or whatever, these spurned core devs will be the ones Gavin and everyone else will turn to for solutions.  Typical "Oops I broke it, now you fix it" pointy-headed boss behavior!   Cheesy

If persistent full 1mb blocks turn out to be an insurmountable problem, consensus to modify that limit would not need to be manufactured with lobbying and tales of impending dooom.

take a look at how a rag tag army of volunteers can clog up the network.  we're still stuck at over 23000 unconf tx's, with a peak around 25000, now about 2 hrs later:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37rwph/stress_test_for_the_next_few_hours_ill_be/
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1302 1303 1304 ... 1559 »
  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!