Bitcoin Forum
November 18, 2017, 05:15:45 AM *
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 ... 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 1312 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2008770 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 01, 2015, 05:07:13 PM
 #25221


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.



i guess we'll get a preview of what happens if every cold storage wallet had to migrate to a dominant SC.
A blockchain platform for effective freelancing
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1149


View Profile
June 01, 2015, 05:09:19 PM
 #25222


i heard something about that.  that's extraordinary. 

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

I read over on reddit that XT uses the same blockchain and other files as QT, all that you need to do is install XT and point to your existing blockchain directory and XT will pick up right where you left off.

I'm switching my nodes to XT in the next week or so. Frankly the devs against increasing used such blatantly absurd FUD that I simply want to get off of their train for good. An MIT sponsored core is fine with me for many reasons.
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1149


View Profile
June 01, 2015, 05:17:54 PM
 #25223


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.

https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt
Quote
Bitcoin XT downloads are code signed and are built reproducibly using gitian. If you use it please sign up to the announcement mailing list so you can be reminded of new versions.

Installing Bitcoin XT is more secure than QT, but feel free to stay on your LukeJr stealbitcoins.exe branch. It isn't like he has slipped non-compliant changes into the default bitcoind for Ubuntu or anything.

Exposed: Luke-Jr plans on forcing blacklists on all Gentoo bitcoin users by default, for the second time
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2pfgjg/exposed_lukejr_plans_on_forcing_blacklists_on_all/
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 01, 2015, 05:50:37 PM
 #25224


i heard something about that.  that's extraordinary. 

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

I read over on reddit that XT uses the same blockchain and other files as QT, all that you need to do is install XT and point to your existing blockchain directory and XT will pick up right where you left off.

I'm switching my nodes to XT in the next week or so. Frankly the devs against increasing used such blatantly absurd FUD that I simply want to get off of their train for good. An MIT sponsored core is fine with me for many reasons.

once you figure out how to do it easily, let me know on the exact details so i can convert too.  my original installs were with someone's script so i'd like to make sure i execute properly.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 01, 2015, 05:52:13 PM
 #25225

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.

you might want to read Armory's take on why these things take time:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1074308.msg11507371#msg11507371
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834


[LOL2X]


View Profile WWW
June 01, 2015, 05:54:11 PM
 #25226

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. 

Yes, and even more ink was spilled in the FUD and furor over Gavin's Bitcoin Foundation.

The dangers of Blockstream, like sidechains themselves, are at this point purely theoretical.  GavinFork and its 20mb blocks OTOH, are a clear and present danger.

If Bitcoin's Uncle Adam (and the other, frequently committing core devs) can't be trusted, I think we're done here.


██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"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
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 01, 2015, 05:59:23 PM
 #25227

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. 

Yes, and even more ink was spilled in the FUD and furor over Gavin's Bitcoin Foundation.

The dangers of Blockstream Gavin, like sidechains XT themselves itself, are at this point purely theoretical.  GavinFork and its 20mb blocks OTOH, are a clear and present danger.

If Bitcoin's Uncle Adam (and the other, frequently committing core devs) can't be trusted, I think we're done here.

ZOMG, buy Monero!  what? you already have? Wink

 
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 01, 2015, 06:01:56 PM
 #25228

hey iCE,

did u see ZB's link above; which i can't verify, btw:

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.

/u/nullc is already backpedaling.  and you know what happens next?
_mr_e
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 817



View Profile
June 01, 2015, 07:08:54 PM
 #25229

EPIC! We need more of this! http://www.coindesk.com/taringas-content-creation-surges-following-bitcoin-integration/
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834


[LOL2X]


View Profile WWW
June 01, 2015, 07:35:29 PM
 #25230

hey iCE,

did u see ZB's link above; which i can't verify, btw:

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.

/u/nullc is already backpedaling.  and you know what happens next?

Nobody (except MP) said "never ever increase the blocksize."  The debate is over when/how.

The proposal is in line with what gmax and others have been saying all along, and isn't "backpedaling."

Is there a pill or treatment program available for people who can't calm down and stop exaggerating?   Tongue

Smooth self-adjustment with properly aligned incentives, as opposed to sudden random jumps, is the preference of the non-Gavin core dev consensus.

I don't know what happens next, and neither do you.  Monero aside, a bloody civil war might set us back a bit.


██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"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
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
June 01, 2015, 08:36:56 PM
 #25231

...
Smooth self-adjustment with properly aligned incentives, as opposed to sudden random jumps, is the preference of the non-Gavin core dev consensus.

The 20x jump seems like a lot, but it actually would not completely destroy Bitcoin.  Nor would it do jack-shit toward the starry-eyed dreams of a one-world currency by the mouth breathing newbs (and cypherdoc.)  What the 20mb thing is is mostly a cover for the real meat which is exponential growth.  That locks in the seeds of destruction and the 20mb mostly just acts as a valve to make sure there is no possibility to back out of the trap.

I don't know what happens next, and neither do you.  Monero aside, a bloody civil war might set us back a bit.

Sure it will set us back in some ways, but it could be a golden (and only) opportunity to move forward on some really important fronts as well, and get beyond some obvious flaws in the early implementation of Bitcoin.  I'm not holding my breath for this but it would be nice if it happened.  As a guy who planned on sitting on most of my stash for many years in most circumstances, took one major pay-day already, and didn't put all my eggs in the Bitcoin basket anyway, a setback in price is not really that scary.  Also, of course, with chaos comes opportunity.


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 01, 2015, 08:47:30 PM
 #25232

...
Smooth self-adjustment with properly aligned incentives, as opposed to sudden random jumps, is the preference of the non-Gavin core dev consensus.

The 20x jump seems like a lot, but it actually would not completely destroy Bitcoin.  Nor would it do jack-shit toward the starry-eyed dreams of a one-world currency by the mouth breathing newbs (and cypherdoc.)  What the 20mb thing is is mostly a cover for the real meat which is exponential growth.  That locks in the seeds of destruction and the 20mb mostly just acts as a valve to make sure there is no possibility to back out of the trap.

I don't know what happens next, and neither do you.  Monero aside, a bloody civil war might set us back a bit.

Sure it will set us back in some ways, but it could be a golden (and only) opportunity to move forward on some really important fronts as well, and get beyond some obvious flaws in the early implementation of Bitcoin.  I'm not holding my breath for this but it would be nice if it happened.  As a guy who planned on sitting on most of my stash for many years in most circumstances, took one major pay-day already, and didn't put all my eggs in the Bitcoin basket anyway, a setback in price is not really that scary.  Also, of course, with chaos comes opportunity.



actually, it's great to hear both of you guys backpedaling along with your hero-conflicted /u/nullc.  i actually would look forward to adopting XT and leaving all you behind to wallow in stunt-coin confined here in the states.  it would be a match made in heaven.
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


View Profile
June 01, 2015, 09:39:27 PM
 #25233

hey iCE,

did u see ZB's link above; which i can't verify, btw:

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.

/u/nullc is already backpedaling.  and you know what happens next?

Here's the correct link from a month ago. I think you've read it before, though: http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34090559/
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
June 01, 2015, 10:22:04 PM
 #25234

hey iCE,

did u see ZB's link above; which i can't verify, btw:

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.

/u/nullc is already backpedaling.  and you know what happens next?

Here's the correct link from a month ago. I think you've read it before, though: http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34090559/

ZB, you seem to be a good judge of human psychology.
I invite you to read a postscript to the link above,
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37xxmj/gavin_is_being_too_divisive_core_devs_need_to/crqqmzs
Note, particularly where Gregory claims Gavin won't engage on his proposal, and Gavin's actual response on the mailing list, and how he has been trying to engage since:

Gregory:
Quote

both UTXO in the control loop and the dynamic percentile limit and mining cost to increase were things I previously proposed on Bitcointalk. Gavin is completely and aggressively opposed to these things and has immediately shut down any discussion on them

Gavin:
Quote

Ignored them?
I spent an afternoon working up a spreadsheet to get a feel for how your quadratic adjustment algorithm would actually work.
I asked, specifically, for you to dig down into the idea of a hard cap, and got no response.
My last two or three emails to you have got no response (I understand you're busy, I sympathize, I know startups are hard)

The crux of the whole 1MB debate is that if these two people agreed a solution then it would fly and the 1MB problem would be put to bed.
However, it seems to me that Gregory does not want to work with Gavin on any solution, even if it is his own solution.

And I think this comment further in the thread is most insightful
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37xxmj/gavin_is_being_too_divisive_core_devs_need_to/crqy4vi

Your thoughts?


Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


View Profile
June 01, 2015, 11:08:13 PM
 #25235

Note: While the following is all highly speculative as it must be, and though I'm wont to talk about people rather than actual issues, this case seems to warrant it.

I've been looking into Greg Maxwell quite a bit recently. All the core devs actually (except Wladimir), and the blockstream people. Greg seems a sincere and extremely intelligent fellow with the right kind of bent for the job. The way he knocked the wind out of Stellar's sails on Hacker News was quite something, just as one example.

However, I do sense that he and Gavin have a bit of an oil-and-water dynamic going on. I have never seen them debate directly, though that could be because he was busy recently and "caught a bit flat-footed" on Gavin's proposal, as he said. Seems like classic nerd/jock or cat/dog dynamic (I realize Gavin's also a nerd) with weird passive-aggressive miscommunications aplenty. The thing where Gavin said he spent an afternoon reviewing Greg's idea only to not have it acknowledged reminded me of that especially. Still need both sides of the story, and Gavin has his own subtle ways of being bitchy at times if you read between the lines so I won't draw conclusions.

It's most interesting to me, though, that Gavin and Greg have both proposed a series of 50% increases, yet these two seem as you said the main sticking point for this debate. Pieter seems not very entrenched, and Matt I suspect would go along with Greg and Pieter. Luke I'm not sure but on a hunch I'd say he would go wherever the action is dev-wise, despite his principled stances and eccentricities. He's not Mircea Popescu. Adam overall seems eminently reasonable and would probably not do anything disappointing, but that's just my cursory read.

Perhaps it's time to work some social magic to have Greg relax his position a bit. Since I've been reading almost all his posts, I've noticed he gives little glimmers of sunshine at times. He's not an unreasonable person, and despite his hardline stance I can tell he wants more than anything for Bitcoin to succeed. I could swear he gets less accommodative when Gavin's in the thread, though. The rays of sunshine seem to be buried deep in the comments when he's talking to someone else in a thread where Gavin is absent. Maybe just my imagination.

There are issues among such a group of people that we probably can't hope to understand. The politics, the interpersonal clashes, the miscommunications, the lingering grudges tinting things. Again, I think your implication may be right, this may be more a social issue than a technical one.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
June 01, 2015, 11:23:42 PM
 #25236

I've been looking into Greg Maxwell quite a bit recently. All the core devs actually (except Wladimir), and the blockstream people. Greg seems a sincere and extremely intelligent fellow with the right kind of bent for the job. The way he knocked the wind out of Stellar's sails on Hacker News was quite something, just as one example.
 ...

My sense after observing things for a while here is that Greg is actually a fairly patient person except in instance when the other person really ought to be doing better.  I think that in addition to having significant inherent differences about the role of Bitcoin he has also lost patience with Gavin who is, by his own admission, not the brightest bulb.

On top of that, everyone who is anyone should be mortified at Gavin's slavish devotion to Hearn and the Bitcoin Foundation crowd who can be counted on for atrociously bad ideas by the standards of most early adopters.  I'm sure that this is a contributing factor to Greg's loss of patience.  This unbelievable scenario should make almost everyone 'run, not walk' away from Gavin, and I suspect that it was a major factor for Blockstream getting some wind in it's sails.


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 01, 2015, 11:58:17 PM
 #25237

i think the problem is that they've identified the wrong fundamental unit in the system. as geeks, they identify with the full node as that unit.

otoh, the economic majority identifies the user as that fundamental unit, which i think is correct. Metcalfe's Law will work off the user who needs cheap, reliable tx's to be onboarded.

and the full node and user are not mutually exclusive. increasing users will result in increasing nodes.

edit:  if you listen to Gavin & Peter's debate on LTB yesterday, the node is all that Peter ever talks about.
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


View Profile
June 02, 2015, 12:06:03 AM
 #25238

I think this is pretty decent good-faith attempt at mitigating financial influence, even though it's impossible to do that completely:

We tried to do a number of things to backup the "cant be evil" mantra. That's why /u/pwuille and /u/nullc have contract clauses allowing them to resign if they view blockstream is doing something they disapprove of in connection with bitcoins interests and ethos and have blockstream pay their salary for a year to work on bitcoin (independently or under some foundation as they prefer).

Personally I don't think either Adam or Greg are being influenced by the Blockstream entanglement yet, but in the future it is a danger. I think they simply formed Blockstream because of their scaling concerns, not the other way around - as their prior records show. I have a pretty good shill detector, and it was going crazy when I first heard about Open Coin / Ripple Labs Grin  In this debate all I see are ideas and clashes of personality, never felt an agenda.

i think the problem is that they've identified the wrong fundamental unit in the system. as geeks, they identify with the full node as that unit.

otoh, the economic majority identifies the user as that fundamental unit, which i think is correct. Metcalfe's Law will work off the user who needs cheap, reliable tx's to be onboarded.

and the full node and user are not mutually exclusive. increasing users will result in increasing nodes.

edit:  if you listen to Gavin & Peter's debate on LTB yesterday, the node is all that Peter ever talks about.

Very interesting point. My criticism is that they see humans as robots, not adapting, trying to solve everything through a code lens. Perhaps this is just an extension of that same logic.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 02, 2015, 12:10:09 AM
 #25239

Reddit. i'm not the only one frustrated.  notice how this discussion has been going on since 2010:

from awemany via /r/Bitcoin/ sent 10 minutes ago
show parent

Relevant: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg23049#msg23049
From frigging 2010, nonetheless.

context full comments (443)reportmark unreadreply
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
June 02, 2015, 12:12:53 AM
 #25240

I think this is pretty decent good-faith attempt at mitigating financial influence, even though it's impossible to do that completely:

We tried to do a number of things to backup the "cant be evil" mantra. That's why /u/pwuille and /u/nullc have contract clauses allowing them to resign if they view blockstream is doing something they disapprove of in connection with bitcoins interests and ethos and have blockstream pay their salary for a year to work on bitcoin (independently or under some foundation as they prefer).

Personally I don't think either Adam or Greg are being influenced by the Blockstream entanglement yet, but in the future it is a danger. I think they simply formed Blockstream because of their scaling concerns, not the other way around - as their prior records show. I have a pretty good shill detector, and it was going crazy when I first heard about Open Coin / Ripple Labs Grin

Would you be able to expand on this?
Essentially, what characteristic is it that you are able to identify to determine if some humans are not influenced by money, and where do you see this?

Or are you simply saying that the conflict of interests is not sufficiently large to matter to you, not that it doesn't exist?

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
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1312 ... 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!