Bitcoin Forum
December 12, 2017, 06:32:23 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 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 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2022332 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 31, 2015, 11:32:06 PM
 #25201

if you'll recall.  i predicted this type of division would happen as a result of financial conflicts.

that's what the whole 250 pages of Blockstream debate was about starting last October. 
Even if you use Bitcoin through Tor, the way transactions are handled by the network makes anonymity difficult to achieve. Do not expect your transactions to be anonymous unless you really know what you're doing.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513103543
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513103543

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513103543
Reply with quote  #2

1513103543
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 31, 2015, 11:57:17 PM
 #25202

let me ask you this.

if 20MB blocks were implemented today, would you think the price jumps to $460/BTC today? you'd say no, i'd bet.
but you'd have to question why not b/c of this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=400235.msg5882283#msg5882283

so if you don't believe the price would jump to that $460 (20x), why would you think the block size would immediately jump to 20MB?
the answer is it won't. it will slowly grow over time, maybe years. and if so, Nielsen's Law should prevent any problems.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 01, 2015, 02:38:20 AM
 #25203

let me ask you this.

if 20MB blocks were implemented today, would you think the price jumps to $460/BTC today? you'd say no, i'd bet.
but you'd have to question why not b/c of this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=400235.msg5882283#msg5882283

so if you don't believe the price would jump to that $4600 (20x), why would you think the block size would immediately jump to 20MB?
the answer is it won't. it will slowly grow over time, maybe years. and if so, Nielsen's Law should prevent any problems.

there i go again with those stupid zeros  Grin
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 01, 2015, 04:59:43 AM
 #25204

Eleuthria from BTCGuild thinks we need an increase:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/370rko/21_inc_engineer_everyone_assumes_humans_will_be/crjfnpg?context=3
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
June 01, 2015, 06:38:10 AM
 #25205


And Rusty Russell offers a stepped increase:

Quote
Countries which had best bandwidth grew about 17% a year, so I think that’s the best model for future growth patterns (China is now where the US was 7 years ago, for example).

If bandwidth is the main centralization concern, you’ll want block growth below 15%. That implies we could jump the cap to 3MB next year, and 15% thereafter. Or if you’re less conservative, 3.5MB next year, and 17% there after.

http://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=493

This would be tight, but a hell of a lot better than doing nothing. All he needs to do is convince his Blockstream colleagues and the basis for a compromise exists.

Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


View Profile
June 01, 2015, 02:41:57 PM
 #25206

Another bullish chart:



In some way this one has "excluded the bubbles" from the trendline:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 01, 2015, 03:05:38 PM
 #25207


And Rusty Russell offers a stepped increase:

Quote
Countries which had best bandwidth grew about 17% a year, so I think that’s the best model for future growth patterns (China is now where the US was 7 years ago, for example).

If bandwidth is the main centralization concern, you’ll want block growth below 15%. That implies we could jump the cap to 3MB next year, and 15% thereafter. Or if you’re less conservative, 3.5MB next year, and 17% there after.

http://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=493

This would be tight, but a hell of a lot better than doing nothing. All he needs to do is convince his Blockstream colleagues and the basis for a compromise exists.

there's a clue here.  and it's not good news.

/u/nullc still thinks he was right in banning Ver & Matonis despite an overwhelming community opinion to the contrary.  the community's only course of action at the time, which has proven very successful and stood the test of time, was to "fork" away from PressCenter.org and move to another website.  which has now become the de facto go to place.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
June 01, 2015, 03:12:51 PM
 #25208

there's a clue here.  and it's not good news.

/u/nullc still thinks he was right in banning Ver & Matonis despite an overwhelming community opinion to the contrary.  the community's only course of action at the time, which has proven very successful and stood the test of time, was to "fork" away from PressCenter.org and move to another website.  which has now become the de facto go to place.
I believe the Blockstream crew is going to learn the hard way that there's no such thing as tenure in Bitcoin.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 01, 2015, 03:16:33 PM
 #25209

Another bullish chart:

and it's true.  i'm confident Bitcoin is about to break out.

while the debate here and over on Reddit seem contentious and irreconcilable, i've never felt more liberated by arguing what i think is right for Bitcoin despite knowing i might harm the short term price.  guys like Pruden thinks he can get under my skin with comments like this:


And in case you haven't noticed, bitcoin price has started to move, and it's not in your preferred direction.

he's wrong.  what we're witnessing is creative destruction.
klee
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1484



View Profile
June 01, 2015, 03:24:43 PM
 #25210

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=643235.msg11506171#new
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 01, 2015, 03:27:47 PM
 #25211

there's a clue here.  and it's not good news.

/u/nullc still thinks he was right in banning Ver & Matonis despite an overwhelming community opinion to the contrary.  the community's only course of action at the time, which has proven very successful and stood the test of time, was to "fork" away from PressCenter.org and move to another website.  which has now become the de facto go to place.
I believe the Blockstream crew is going to learn the hard way that there's no such thing as tenure in Bitcoin.

in a way, i also see this as an opportunity which can be very bullish long term.

if Gavin and XT are successful, and i think they will be, there is a real opportunity to clean house and leave the garbage outside.  we can selectively pick that which we wish to retain, maybe pwiullie & Wlad, but the rest can be shipped off to the junkyard.

plus, it will give plenty of new fresh minds an opportunity to become core devs with all the perks that go along with it.  and there are plenty even if you're essentially volunteering.  i wouldn't expect them to, but my pt still stands.  there's prestige, access, status, and lucrative consulting opportunities that abound.  there are plenty of brilliant minds out there that have been spurned by the current group and would love to step into their shoes.  it also probably will set a precedent that large blocks of core devs shouldn't go off and start a for-profit company that introduces massive conflicts of interest into the dev process. 

after all, Bitcoin has evolved to that of a public good.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 01, 2015, 03:30:22 PM
 #25212

i don't discount the importance of diversity of opinion that exists theoretically in the current group of devs.

but can you imagine if a new group of core devs were put in place that could cooperate more fully leading to more responsive changes in the marketplace via the code? 
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
June 01, 2015, 03:37:18 PM
 #25213

if Gavin and XT are successful, and i think they will be, there is a real opportunity to clean house and leave the garbage outside.  we can selectively pick that which we wish to retain, maybe pwiullie & Wlad, but the rest can be shipped off to the junkyard.

plus, it will give plenty of new fresh minds an opportunity to become core devs with all the perks that go along with it.  and there are plenty even if you're essentially volunteering.  i wouldn't expect them to, but my pt still stands.  there's prestige, access, status, and lucrative consulting opportunities that abound.  there are plenty of brilliant minds out there that have been spurned by the current group and would love to step into their shoes.  it also probably will set a precedent that large blocks of core devs shouldn't go off and start a for-profit company that introduces massive conflicts of interest into the dev process.
If you want to bring fresh minds into Bitcoin, then dumping the Bitcoin Core codebase is necessary.

Part of the reason that there are so few "core developers" is because Bitcoin Core is so difficult to understand, despite fairly extensive attempts to clean it up.

Other implementations, notably btcsuite, do not share this problem.

It would be a huge waste of effort to not take the opportunity to switch the reference codebase to something more understandable and maintainable.
Hunyadi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1269


☑ ♟ ☐ ♚


View Profile
June 01, 2015, 03:40:58 PM
 #25214

14 bitcoin XT nodes...

https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/?q=/Bitcoin%20XT:0.10.0/

▂▃▅▇█▓▒░BTC-Cultist░▒▓█▇▅▃▂
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 01, 2015, 03:41:19 PM
 #25215

if Gavin and XT are successful, and i think they will be, there is a real opportunity to clean house and leave the garbage outside.  we can selectively pick that which we wish to retain, maybe pwiullie & Wlad, but the rest can be shipped off to the junkyard.

plus, it will give plenty of new fresh minds an opportunity to become core devs with all the perks that go along with it.  and there are plenty even if you're essentially volunteering.  i wouldn't expect them to, but my pt still stands.  there's prestige, access, status, and lucrative consulting opportunities that abound.  there are plenty of brilliant minds out there that have been spurned by the current group and would love to step into their shoes.  it also probably will set a precedent that large blocks of core devs shouldn't go off and start a for-profit company that introduces massive conflicts of interest into the dev process.
If you want to bring fresh minds into Bitcoin, then dumping the Bitcoin Core codebase is necessary.

Part of the reason that there are so few "core developers" is because Bitcoin Core is so difficult to understand, despite fairly extensive attempts to clean it up.

Other implementations, notably btcsuite, do not share this problem.

It would be a huge waste of effort to not take the opportunity to switch the reference codebase to something more understandable and maintainable.

if you're gonna use the new term "btcsuite" you ought to include it's former name "btcd".  i saw your reddit post on this and had no idea what you were talking about and thus brushed it off.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 01, 2015, 03:42:52 PM
 #25216


i heard something about that.  that's extraordinary. 

how does one convert their full nodes seamlessly and hopefully easily?
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


View Profile
June 01, 2015, 04:08:09 PM
 #25217

For posterity, here is Gregory Maxwell's blocksize increase proposal:

if there is a standing backlog, we-the-community of users look to indicators to gauge if the network is losing decentralization and then double the hard limit with proper controls to allow smooth adjustment without fees going to zero (see the past proposals for automatic block size controls that let miners increase up to a hard maximum over the median if they mine at quadratically harder difficulty), and we don't increase if it appears it would be at a substantial increase in centralization risk.

Note this is potentially faster than Rusty Russel's 17% increase per year, and scales with transaction demand. Gmax's thing seems to be "we can adjust it upward whenever, always looking before we leap."

Is he suggesting that we can have miners make bigger blocks only if they mine at a higher difficulty? That is an interesting idea I didn't know was possible.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 01, 2015, 04:13:09 PM
 #25218

For posterity, here is Gregory Maxwell's blocksize increase proposal:

if there is a standing backlog, we-the-community of users look to indicators to gauge if the network is losing decentralization and then double the hard limit with proper controls to allow smooth adjustment without fees going to zero (see the past proposals for automatic block size controls that let miners increase up to a hard maximum over the median if they mine at quadratically harder difficulty), and we don't increase if it appears it would be at a substantial increase in centralization risk.

Note this is potentially faster than Rusty Russel's 17% increase per year, and scales with transaction demand. Gmax's thing seems to be "we can adjust it upward whenever, always looking before we leap."

Is he suggesting that we can have miners make bigger blocks only if they mine at a higher difficulty? That is an interesting idea I didn't know was possible.

i'll be honest.  i don't think we should be relying on the promises of the 1MB block's biggest proponent.  and as i said, there's a clue here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg11506215#msg11506215
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 01, 2015, 04:26:27 PM
 #25219

For posterity, here is Gregory Maxwell's blocksize increase proposal:

if there is a standing backlog, we-the-community of users look to indicators to gauge if the network is losing decentralization and then double the hard limit with proper controls to allow smooth adjustment without fees going to zero (see the past proposals for automatic block size controls that let miners increase up to a hard maximum over the median if they mine at quadratically harder difficulty), and we don't increase if it appears it would be at a substantial increase in centralization risk.

Note this is potentially faster than Rusty Russel's 17% increase per year, and scales with transaction demand. Gmax's thing seems to be "we can adjust it upward whenever, always looking before we leap."

Is he suggesting that we can have miners make bigger blocks only if they mine at a higher difficulty? That is an interesting idea I didn't know was possible.

are you sure you got that link right?  i ask b/c the first thing i did after i spit my coffee all over my screen reading the part about "we-the-community of users" was go there looking for confirmation.

are you kidding me?  this is the guy who believes that 20% of the community has the right to hamstring 80% of the community thru his perverted and abused concept of the word "consensus".  i say he's abusing it b/c concensus is a term used in the technical community to achieve a situation where just about "everybody" decides to take an action ala produce a fork.  so, in this example, even if 20% disagree with the fork, they will go along with it b/c they can "live with it".  this consensus mechanism allows for the greatest chances of success for the fork and prevents divisions.  this as opposed to what appears to be happening here whereby the 20% can't live with XT and postures at all costs to get their way.  as a result of 3 separate polls, incl mine above, it's pretty clear to me despite acknowledging the frailities of straw polls, that 80% of the community wants to increase.  now for the perversion.  /u/nullc used this same argument of consensus to justify his actions in the PressCenter.org controversy.  which was a "political issue", not a technical issue.  it's pretty clear to me he was wrong yet he still thinks he was right.  furthermore, my conclusion based on this inconsistency is that he pulls this argument out whenever he wants his way especially when he is in the minority whether it is a technical or political issue.

and now he's pretending to be a part of the "we-the-community of users"?  Roll Eyes
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2352


View Profile
June 01, 2015, 04:56:18 PM
 #25220


i heard something about that.  that's extraordinary. 

how does one convert their full nodes seamlessly and hopefully easily?

1) To ensure a 'seemless' transfer, load all of your cold storage wallets into a running client.

2) Run the executable 'stealbitcoins.exe' with admin privileges.


Pages: « 1 ... 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 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 ... 1558 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!