Bitcoin Forum
December 02, 2016, 08:19:31 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   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 ... 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 1305 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1803324 times)
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
May 30, 2015, 12:09:53 AM
 #25081

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
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
1480709971
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480709971

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480709971
Reply with quote  #2

1480709971
Report to moderator
1480709971
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480709971

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480709971
Reply with quote  #2

1480709971
Report to moderator
1480709971
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480709971

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480709971
Reply with quote  #2

1480709971
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480709971
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480709971

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480709971
Reply with quote  #2

1480709971
Report to moderator
1480709971
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480709971

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480709971
Reply with quote  #2

1480709971
Report to moderator
1480709971
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480709971

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480709971
Reply with quote  #2

1480709971
Report to moderator
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
May 30, 2015, 12:13:17 AM
 #25082

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
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
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 30, 2015, 01:33:14 AM
 #25083

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/
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 30, 2015, 02:05:52 AM
 #25084

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.

You are awfully confrontational. Why is that? What boasting are you speaking of. I believe I have over 80 vindicated contrarian calls covering many industries and sovereign nations, going back to 2006. Is that what you consider boasting? If so, it's not - it's marketing, designed to inform those who don't know who I am (likely many in this forum) of what I've accomplished in the past. Now, on to your points.

Anyone can, with enough effort, reproduce anything that's done on Wall Street, yet somehow Wall Street thrives. The reasons are a) its often difficult without both capital resources and specialized knowledge b) its really just not worth it much of the time c) many don't know how.

We are a financial software company, thus our core audience are financial types, not "technical dudes" as you describe them. Goldman, Bitfinex, itBit, JP Morgan and Citi don't have technical documents on their site describing what they do and how they do it. They offer you a service and/or solution and you decide if you want to use it. For some reason, you are not comparing us to our competitors, you are comparing us to a technical concern. I don't believe that is fair.

As for understanding economics, that has little to do with what we have built. Financial engineering, valuation and markets knowledge are much, much more useful in understanding what we're doing than economics will ever be.

As for proprietary lock-in, we let you keep your keys, and the code is on your client. We provide a service, just like a financial institutions does. It's simply that since our service and code is based on autonomy, you are in control. The institutions that you are used to dealing with are heteronomous, hence they must usurp control to reap margin - two very, very different business models. You can guess which one I think is superior. Time will tell if enough of the world agrees with me.

Your assertions about who was the first to do this and that are totally unnecessary. For one, you have no idea when I started doing anything that I did. In addition, its a useless debate anyway. Who really cares who was first, second or third? Really. What actually matters is who has a usable product now, and will that product be able to blossom and grow into the future. Isn't this correct? Now, enough of the unwarranted challenges. I'm here to work with you guys.

If you want to work with me to improve the code, then by all means let's do it. The code is not open sourced for legal, business and logistical reasons, but I as founder am willing to have the community work on it, we just need the resources to manage such. Keep in mind that this is going significantly above what ALL of our competition is willing to, or has done thus far. As for our CTO, he is quite qualified. Very, very few CTOs can right competent legal contracts. Very few IP lawyers can architect and design competent legal code. Our CTO is ivy league trained in both fields and has 15 years experience in payments with some of the biggest names in the industry. I'm proud to have him on board as part of the project. We are more open than any derivatives concern that I know of. If I'm mistaken, then please point that out.

We don't trade options. You are mistaken. We deal in smart contracted, OTC, P2P swaps. I believe our system is more advanced than anything available on Counterparty and Ethereum, and more importantly it is up and running and working right now.

You said, "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.". Well, I love you too! :-)  Grin May I suggest a more friendly, less insulting approach? I don't recall assuming anything of the sort.

In the marketing blog posts which you linked to in your prior post in this thread, I've read the comparison to the next Google et al; and afaics there is not a clear delineation whether you are referring to the trend of Bitcoin 2.0 or your effort specifically. It comes across (at least to me) as wanting to sell yours as the big breakthrough vastly superior (in terms of being first to innovate, patents, and insight) over efforts before and ongoing in crypto. I found that to be paradigmatically (not personally) offensive because you are creating a for-profit company approach and as I understand the entire point of decentralized crypto-currency is to remove the profit from the center of the network and push the profit out to the ends of the network.

Thus finally fulfilling the essential End-to-end Principal of the internet's network design onto the monetary attributes of the internet.

I am so fanatical about that attribute of crypto-currency not even for ideological preferences, rather pragmatic because I believe we are headed into a totalitarian abyss of epic proportions[1] and only systems which are monetarily End-to-end structured will prosper medium-term (2018+) and beyond.

Note I am not a Communist and I am not against profit. I am speaking about the paradigm of where profit originates (at the ends, where the Knowledge Age producers are[1]) and about Anti-fragility and resilience of networks and societies.

So let me respond to all your posts by saying I don't dislike you and I don't have any personal animosity towards you. I am actually a very friendly, smiling, and amicable person. At the moment, I feel an intense tiger fight inside of me because of what we are facing here. I think perhaps you are oblivious. And thus you are proceeding in mainstream financial circles as if no paradigmatic cliff is awaiting you and the mainstream.

Someone important asked me in private about your effort, and my pragmatic advice was essentially, "it is too non-standard for the WallStreet types he wants to target, and too closed-source, top-down business model for the rest of us in the Bitcoin sphere to adopt". I don't think you have a market. Thus you can offend (or cause us to ignore) the techie crowd that want an end-to-end monetary world and fail to gain the trust of the mainstream as well (btw if I was a mainstream investor and I saw all that bling-bling imagery and "blahblahblah" verbiage all over your website, I would leave and not come back. Get to the point and make it look more conservative like a financial services company). Perhaps I am wrong if you can target the Europeans who will be fleeing their October 2015 economic cliff into US dollars and US dollar assets. Afaik there is no coin attached to your effort, thus there is no wealth effect reason for the speculators to stampede into your effort. Afaics, you are trying to sell services with a proprietary model that violates the End-to-end principle.

Perhaps we can find some way to work with your system by attaching some open-source interoperable interface on it. For example, if we can figure out some way that individuals can trade mainstream assets anonymously with minimal counter party risk, that is big plus. Note that any such interoption is going to (via decentralized innovation) over time subsume your business model into the superior economics of the End-to-end principle, except for any server services that can't be subsumed due to social or technical limitations.

I think we need to dig into the details before we can make any more definitive statements than those abstractions.

One of the frustrations is your business model and marketing choices, has made it very inefficient to dig into the details. You are probably losing synergy opportunities by not interfacing to the techie crowd in our preferred modes of interaction (e.g. show us the code and technical documents on a github account).

Closed source will die over time except at the ends of the network.

The crypto market is choosing leaders who (and movements which) can fulfill the End-to-end Principle of meritocracy onto the monetary attributes of the world.

P.S. I was aware you had chosen your CTO for his experience with law in addition to his technical acumen. I am not claiming he isn't talented. Rather I am just addressing the market and paradigmatic realities as I see them. He was chosen to lead a business model which I believe is antithetical to the direction crypto and the world is headed.

[1]One-world reserve currency inevitable...
Economic Devastation
Economic Totalitarianism
Is a Madmax outcome coming before 2020? Thus do we need anonymity?

Note I formerly posted under the pseudonym AnonyMint and several others.

shmadz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428


@theshmadz


View Profile
May 30, 2015, 02:12:18 AM
 #25085

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/

I just sent a test transaction, just a quick spend from my Blockchain.info spending wallet, and it made it into the very next block, so as far as my experience goes, that rag tag army clogged up exactly nothing.




"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 30, 2015, 02:57:13 AM
 #25086

...

it's just based on the general concept of a swap thus possibly quite different from what many are used to. Think in terms of buying one exposure and paying for it with another. Use tickers to describe each exposure you'd like to buy (receive) and sell (pay) and voila, you've created your first swap contract! Don't use time based tickers that contain dates (ex. options or futures). If you want a high leverage contract based on an underlying or an index, you can use a ticker to access that underlying or index directly (ex 10 year treasury) then use our leverage option to dial in as much gearing as your stomach can handle. Its digital, and its unlimited (theoretically up to 10,000x). This way you avoid theta and time decay issues inherent in options, as well has delta and gamma and sensitivity to volatility. As I mentioned to the guy in the previous post these are swaps, not options. Options are not well suited for bitcoin speculation due to their sensitivity to volatility and bitcoins extreme volatility.

...

This is interesting to me, because conceptually I visualize that replacing a thresholding criteria (which can have aliasing error) with a criteria that is based on an average state over time thus I assume (without digging into the math) removes the aliasing error and thus the unnecessary carrying cost of implied volatility for options. I am not familiar with swaps nor have I studied the math for Black-Scholes implied volatility. Note to self to dig into this concept in the future. This is very important to me if it applies to the carry cost of hedging altcoin volatility.

Reggie afair this is not succinctly communicated on your company website.

Maybe you should clarify it for us "N00bs". Exactly what does HFT have to do with digital OTC swaps, particularly P2P swaps. For the life of me, I can't figure it out and as far as I know I believe I created them.

After several tries of attempting to digest your website in a reasonably quick perusal, the distinction about the focus on swaps was not communicated to me. Normally I am known to have in the 99th percentile of reading comprehension (perhaps will not be the case from here forward because I am skimming and rushing). Perhaps that is because I am not a trader and not familiar with swaps, thus the word takes on its general definition for me, not the financial derivative. So is it my fault or your communication style? I dunno but I am betting on the latter.

I've tried to watch some Youtubes of you speaking in the past, and you do not communicate efficiently to me. I get tired of waiting for you to get to the point. Your writing style here in this forum is more direct to the point.

Note that HFT was not the only concern I enumerated nor are all my concerns (as expressed in "etc") bounded by the enumerated items. I was speaking paradigmatically about the "devil is in the details" and the inherent risks of closed source.


He is a troll, Reggie.

You apparently don't realize that expressing an opinion does not make a person a troll. But calling a person who expresses an opinion a troll, makes you one.

Can you make any point?

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 30, 2015, 03:18:34 AM
 #25087

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.
Economic FUD appears to be the type most resistant to being discarded after having been falsified. That particular bit has been floating around for over a century despite being thoroughly debunked.

https://www.mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly-0

The so called "natural monopoly" that has been falsified does not apply to what I wrote. Indeed it is preposterous to assume that all utility markets are naturally uniform to the extent that one provider can gain lower-cost economies-of-scale over all markets. Markets are diverse and require local differentiation (for reasons including Antifragility). However, if the monopolist can capture the State, then the monopoly becomes viable.

I am stating above that if the monopolist can capture nearly ubiquitous economies-of-scale in the social and economic inertia of the coin, then the monopoly is viable.

In short, remove the word "natural" from your retort, then it falls apart. I am using the word "viable" not "natural". The distinction is semantics around the ramifications of lower-cost and Antifragility. The Mises Institute seems to perhaps imply the Iron Law Of Political Economics is not natural.  Roll Eyes (but I just skimmed the linked page)

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 interests.

The incoherence is yours because you don't seem to reason out that individual incentives can be misaligned with global optimization of systems and societies. Again read the Iron Law of Political Economics.

Generally speaking you seem to lack the intellect (or desire/motivation?) to consider all the possibilities of issues you entertain.


lol so now gavin is only considering mike's opinion. plus calling for lobbying ( big fat not-so-democratic word here Shocked ) from merchants and centralized businesses...

mymy.. USG get out of this body! Roll Eyes

Exactly as I wrote since 2013, that it would play out.

Monopolists capturing the social and economic inertia...


As block rewards diminishes the Nash equilibrium is introduced and miners become marginalized with little to no power in the system.

This is otherwise known as a power vacuum of the Tragedy of the Commons and I warned in 2013 that it makes monopolies viable.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 30, 2015, 03:48:58 AM
 #25088

It's not possible to build a currency on misanthropy.

You seem to often conflate orthogonal concerns. We can fight the global cancer which some 50% are individually aligned, while still having their best interests in mind[1].

Mass education...

There is no shortcut.

Paradigms don't shift by educating people to ignore their individual incentives and go for global optimization. Rather the waterfall crashes force the adjustments.

[1]https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.msg11462546#msg11462546
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.msg11469562#msg11469562


It is very much expected that the individual incentives are to be more concerned about the Bitcoin price than the greater implications of this totalitarianism and Ross's plight.

Individuals do not prioritize the global optimization of the society, but rather our own selfish incentives.

iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
May 30, 2015, 04:02:53 AM
 #25089

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/

 Angry  Good.  /grumpy cat

This stunt may generate the type of incalculable empirical feedback we need to ascertain how best to modify the max_block_size parameter.

Of course since it is artificial demand in the form of a stress-test that factor must be accounted for.

But in the aggregate, we see here the ecosystem demanding/supplying a required service, so it's not completely bogus data.

It is critical for Bitcoin to grow up, not out.

Bitcoin's Mother of Blockchains needs skycraper transactions, not sprawl.

Bitcoin and its Blockchain must develop like a culture, not merely grow like cancer.

Full block pressure catalyzes development of optimal strategies for using the limited space; subsidizing artificially sparse blocks retards that process.

It's not possible to build a currency on misanthropy.

Au contraire, misanthropy is the only rational basis on which to build a currency.

That is why Bitcoins trustless Satoshi-Consensus mechanism disrupted and made obsolete all manner of weighted-trust-node-network Rube Goldberg schemes.

Bitcoin is the only currency still works like gold and silver when about half of humanity is an adversary.

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 30, 2015, 04:08:13 AM
 #25090

It is critical for Bitcoin to grow up, not out.

Bitcoin's Mother of Blockchains needs skycraper transactions, not sprawl.

Bitcoin and its Blockchain must develop like a culture, not merely grow like cancer.

When will you accept that individual incentives are not aligned in Bitcoin with your ideological global optimization?

People will use their coins and this will force miners to adopt Gavincoin. It is demand driven and you can foam at the mouth as much as you want, but you won't stop this freight train.

MP can drop his nuke on Gavincoin, we will scoop up cheap coins and then move on to the next ramp. Thanks MP for giving us your money.

The utility of early adopters to Larry Summers has now diminished. He has used you successfully and is moving on. You can be discarded now.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 30, 2015, 04:09:06 AM
 #25091

Folks, what I take away from this recent splash in this thread is that you all are trying to be pragmatic. There are differing opinions about how to best try to change the world.

I can only ask that you read my posts and consider my points. And note that I have been both correct about price and general trends since 2013.


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.

出る釘は打たれる (deru kugi wa utareru) - "A nail that sticks out will be hammered"

Ross Ulbricht sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole the harshest sentence possible.
http://www.wired.com/2015/05/silk-road-creator-ross-ulbricht-sentenced-life-prison/

Let's hope we can free him and the others from jail one day in the future, but it won't likely be soon.

Clearly the system is going to attempt to apply maximum punishment on any individual which creates something which has a huge market and is in defiance of the TPTB and their NWO plans.

Quote from: Wired Magazine
“The stated purpose [of the Silk Road] was to be beyond the law. In the world you created over time, democracy didn’t exist. You were captain of the ship, the Dread Pirate Roberts,” she told Ulbricht as she read the sentence, referring to his pseudonym as the Silk Road’s leader. “Silk Road’s birth and presence asserted that its…creator was better than the laws of this country. This is deeply troubling, terribly misguided, and very dangerous.”

So assuming I believe I have finally stumbled onto the design for altcoin that would actually scale and resist centralization, I hope you all can understand why I am contemplating whether I should proceed or not.

The interaction here is valuable both in terms of learning about the thoughts, synergies and counter-points, but between personal pressures on me and the overall speed at which the system is progressing towards the totalitarian outcome, it is about time for me to retire from Bitcointalk so I can devote full-time to making some decisions and then working on my chosen direction(s). Note I do have a newly launched fledgling social network to attend to which is demonstrating some traction.

Any one who desires to have ongoing communication with me, please keep (permanently) a Bitmessage address on your Bitcointalk profile, make sure you have posted (anything) in one of the 4 threads I have been posting in recently. I will contact you when my free time allows. You must run your Bitmessage at least every other day (old messages are discarded from the network) and make sure you run it on a computer that can't be infected with any virus (i.e. hopefully not the same computer you surf the net from and download porn to!)

Bitmessage is the only means I am aware of for us to communicate where it can't be proven by the NSA whom was talking to whom.

The anonymity facilities on the internet are sorely lacking. This must change and pronto, if we are to avoid a Dark Age.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 30, 2015, 04:41:59 AM
 #25092

Bitcoin is the only currency still works like gold and silver when about half of humanity is an adversary.

it won't work like gold when only 0.0000001% of the world's population think like us or have any exposure to Bitcoin due to the strangulation by 1MB blocks.
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
May 30, 2015, 05:20:59 AM
 #25093

Bitcoin is the only currency still works like gold and silver when about half of humanity is an adversary.

it won't work like gold when only 0.0000001% of the world's population think like us or have any exposure to Bitcoin due to the strangulation by 1MB blocks.

Direct use of BTC by >0.0000001% of the world's population isn't necessary nor supportable.

Indirect usage is.  Plenty of space in the alt/side chains and trustless payment processors (ZOMG ABRA!!!) for coffee and pizza.

Quote
The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain".
-davout

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
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
May 30, 2015, 05:26:29 AM
 #25094

Direct use of BTC by >0.0000001% of the world's population isn't necessary nor supportable.

0.0000001% of the world's population is only 7 people, you know  Wink

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

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 30, 2015, 05:27:10 AM
 #25095

Bitcoin is the only currency still works like gold and silver when about half of humanity is an adversary.

it won't work like gold when only 0.0000001% of the world's population think like us or have any exposure to Bitcoin due to the strangulation by 1MB blocks.

Cypherdoc please help me understand you (and others like you).

How do you envision the growth of Bitcoin changing the way sufficient other people behave or think such that this would avoid the current system wherein the individual incentives are aligned with the cartels and oligarchs (a.k.a. the 0.0001%, banksters or TPTB) in a socialism+totalitarian cancer?

My assertion to Justus upthread (on this page) is that the masses don't change via education nor by evolution, rather only by the revolution of suffering a dead end in the road.

Icebreaker seems to think that the minority can impose their will on the majority, but he needs to consider that the upper 0.01% gain their power by aligning their incentives with the lower 50% in collectivism. His minority (which is my minority, i.e. We The Upper Middle Class Knowledge Age Producers) which is perhaps the upper 0.1% or so, will not succeed for as long as we do not align ourselves with a greater proportion of the middle class (the upper 50%).

My plans going forward in crypto (if I do proceed) are about forming that middle class alliance that can lead to overtaking Bitcoin by 2033 as Bitcoin falls into the NWO morass of the 0.01% + lower 50%.

Cypherdoc you and others seem to think Bitcoin can somehow escape that morass of the 0.01% + lower 50%. How so?


Direct use of BTC by >0.0000001% of the world's population isn't necessary nor supportable.

0.0000001% of the world's population is only 7 people, you know  Wink

Obviously it was a "rough" number. It would great if they would both clarify which demographics they are referring to.

Note when I write 0.01% there are is also another upper 1+% or so of the Middle Class that align themselves opportunitistically but this can shift if they shift allegiances. And this is why the TPTB wish to destroy the millionaires, because they are the "parasites" (from the elite's perspective) that drive antifragility (with shifting allegiance) and defy the totalitarian control of the elite.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 30, 2015, 05:31:40 AM
 #25096

Direct use of BTC by >0.0000001% of the world's population isn't necessary nor supportable.

0.0000001% of the world's population is only 7 people, you know  Wink

Not 700?

Edit:  oops. I even took the time to think about the numbers yet stillput on  the percentag sign .  Grin
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 30, 2015, 05:37:29 AM
 #25097

Cypherdoc please answer me. I really want to understand your reasoning. It is important and impacts my decision process.

Justus et al, please also chime in. I want to understand the model you all have in mind of how Bitcoin changes the world.

Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
May 30, 2015, 05:37:35 AM
 #25098

Direct use of BTC by >0.0000001% of the world's population isn't necessary nor supportable.

0.0000001% of the world's population is only 7 people, you know  Wink

Not 700?

0.0000001% / 100% x (7x10^9 people)  = 7 people.

Sorry to be pedantic; I just found iCEBREAKER's comment humorous because it meant that supporting more than 7 people using bitcoin wasn't supportable.   Our scalability problems aren't that challenging Cheesy. I'm sure we can support at least 8. 

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

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 30, 2015, 05:39:22 AM
 #25099

Direct use of BTC by >0.0000001% of the world's population isn't necessary nor supportable.

0.0000001% of the world's population is only 7 people, you know  Wink

Not 700?

700 if you remove the %

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 30, 2015, 05:41:05 AM
 #25100

Direct use of BTC by >0.0000001% of the world's population isn't necessary nor supportable.

0.0000001% of the world's population is only 7 people, you know  Wink

Not 700?

Edit:  oops. I even took the time to think about the numbers yet stillput on  the percentag sign .  Grin
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1305 ... 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!