Bitcoin Forum
July 10, 2020, 02:18:03 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.20.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
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 ... 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 1313 1314 1315 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2030619 times)
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1160



View Profile
June 02, 2015, 07:57:19 PM
 #25281

The result is if the majority of nodes run a common set of code, that code becomes the specification even if the code deviates from the spec. The majority will follow that deviation, because it is the code they are running. If you think about it, that is exactly what a hard fork is. A hard fork is a majority of nodes agreeing to deviate from the existing specification. This holds true whether the hard fork was intentional or if the hard fork was unintentional (due to a bug).

if the code is the specification then the code can't deviate from the specification. What happens if the code fails to converge to consensus is that the specification/code is proven to be broken, in which case the majority is forced to accept a change to the specification if they want to have a consensus system. In other hard-fork cases the majority may choose to accept a change, but it isn't forced.

Agree with Justus about multiple implementations.



1594390683
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1594390683

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1594390683
Reply with quote  #2

1594390683
Report to moderator
1594390683
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1594390683

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1594390683
Reply with quote  #2

1594390683
Report to moderator
1594390683
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1594390683

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1594390683
Reply with quote  #2

1594390683
Report to moderator
"There should not be any signed int. If you've found a signed int somewhere, please tell me (within the next 25 years please) and I'll change it to unsigned int." -- Satoshi
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1594390683
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1594390683

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1594390683
Reply with quote  #2

1594390683
Report to moderator
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400
Merit: 1006



View Profile
June 02, 2015, 08:24:19 PM
 #25282

One option is to start with a move towards adoption of multiple implementations before making the "spec". If Bitcoin XT and btcd both gained enough adoption vs. the Satoshi client that all three were below 50% of the network, then we would now have a situation where a bug in the Satoshi client was no longer the spec, and the Satoshi client would have to quickly bug fix itself to adhear to the XT and btcd majority (and same for XT and btcd).

This situation would then force the drafting of a real specification. With one dominate implementation the need for a spec is diminished. But with several implementations the need for them to draft what is agreed becomes quite strong.
Imagine if Bitcoin Core/XT, btcd, libbitcoin, BitcoinJ, Toshi, etc. all got together to make sure there was a common test suite that was a strict superset of all the relevant unit tests in each codebase.

The next step would be for each implementation to make sure to add any missing consensus-related tests to their own repositories. Repeat the process as necessary.

After all that was done, you could use the test suites as the basis of a spec.

Organizing that is something useful that Bitcoin Foundation could have done, instead of... whatever it was they did.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288
Merit: 1000



View Profile
June 02, 2015, 08:58:43 PM
 #25283

One option is to start with a move towards adoption of multiple implementations before making the "spec". If Bitcoin XT and btcd both gained enough adoption vs. the Satoshi client that all three were below 50% of the network, then we would now have a situation where a bug in the Satoshi client was no longer the spec, and the Satoshi client would have to quickly bug fix itself to adhear to the XT and btcd majority (and same for XT and btcd).

This situation would then force the drafting of a real specification. With one dominate implementation the need for a spec is diminished. But with several implementations the need for them to draft what is agreed becomes quite strong.
Imagine if Bitcoin Core/XT, btcd, libbitcoin, BitcoinJ, Toshi, etc. all got together to make sure there was a common test suite that was a strict superset of all the relevant unit tests in each codebase.

The next step would be for each implementation to make sure to add any missing consensus-related tests to their own repositories. Repeat the process as necessary.

After all that was done, you could use the test suites as the basis of a spec.

Organizing that is something useful that Bitcoin Foundation could have done, instead of... whatever it was they did.

Huh

Bitcoin is protocol. -> valid chain of blocks filled with transactions
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2786
Merit: 2257



View Profile
June 02, 2015, 08:59:51 PM
 #25284

Agreed on all this formalise the spec talk, but this could only be another big (and possibly another fractious) debate at this stage of bitcoin's development. If you can get every interested party in the bitcoin development arena to agree, at this stage in the project, I'd be impressed. It would be best overall though, genuine marketplace for implementations. And a marketplace for forking too, but that's clearly coming anyway at some point or other, better to embrace it and keep the barriers to entry low.

Vires in numeris
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153
Merit: 1000


View Profile
June 02, 2015, 10:12:10 PM
 #25285

Agreed on all this formalise the spec talk, but this could only be another big (and possibly another fractious) debate at this stage of bitcoin's development. If you can get every interested party in the bitcoin development arena to agree, at this stage in the project, I'd be impressed. It would be best overall though, genuine marketplace for implementations. And a marketplace for forking too, but that's clearly coming anyway at some point or other, better to embrace it and keep the barriers to entry low.

Let's not forget that the fact it is near impossible to get agreement on changes, is a very strong feature of Bitcoin. Wink
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2156
Merit: 1070


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
June 02, 2015, 11:10:41 PM
 #25286

I'm working for Nick Szabo.

Quote
Szatoshi will back Back and Maxwell.

enough with the hints, spill the beans please.

The beans were spilled a long time ago, but most people (including StarbucksDoc apparently) weren't paying attention:

Quote
The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  -David Chaum 1996


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

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
Is Dash a scam?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
June 02, 2015, 11:17:06 PM
 #25287

I'm working for Nick Szabo.

Quote
Szatoshi will back Back and Maxwell.

enough with the hints, spill the beans please.

The beans were spilled a long time ago, but most people (including StarbucksDoc apparently) weren't paying attention:

Quote
The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  -David Chaum 1996

i also like iCELatte.  has a nice ring to it.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
June 02, 2015, 11:32:27 PM
 #25288

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=287.msg8810#msg8810
kazuki49
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350
Merit: 250



View Profile
June 02, 2015, 11:35:13 PM
 #25289

Gavin's strength is his maturity and calm demeanor, imo.  he'll win if it comes down to a battle.

Nope.  Szatoshi will back Back and Maxwell.  The cypherpunks will stick together (or hang separately).

You should change your handle to 'FrappuccinoDoc.'   Grin

Bitcoin XT is a poison pill for all the newbs and unwary, certain bug fix commits that went into Core have already been omitted. Both Hearn and Andresen have been covertly anti-privacy from day zero, paying it only lip service when pressed. Don't trust it or them. Not to mention it is poorly maintained and totally untested. I can't believe I'm reading such a mad approach being championed on these pages ... it's like a twilight zone episode wtf are you people thinking !!! following Pied Pipers now?

Not only that friend, what else are they planing to change down the line? Like I said many moons ago, they will try change the emission and they will start making Bitcoin permanently inflationary, not that I'm against the model, I like Monero exactly because the disinflation but it is a severe rupture of Bitcoin's trust and social contract and all started with the project being hijacked into this obscure XT fork.

Quote
Neither me nor Gavin believe a fee market will work as a substitute for the inflation subsidy. It just doesn’t seem to work, economically.

https://medium.com/@octskyward/crash-landing-f5cc19908e32

Who said that? You guessed right, Gavin's vice-fuhrer.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000



View Profile
June 03, 2015, 12:33:52 AM
 #25290

Gavin's strength is his maturity and calm demeanor, imo.  he'll win if it comes down to a battle.

Nope.  Szatoshi will back Back and Maxwell.  The cypherpunks will stick together (or hang separately).

You should change your handle to 'FrappuccinoDoc.'   Grin

Bitcoin XT is a poison pill for all the newbs and unwary, certain bug fix commits that went into Core have already been omitted. Both Hearn and Andresen have been covertly anti-privacy from day zero, paying it only lip service when pressed. Don't trust it or them. Not to mention it is poorly maintained and totally untested. I can't believe I'm reading such a mad approach being championed on these pages ... it's like a twilight zone episode wtf are you people thinking !!! following Pied Pipers now?

Not only that friend, what else are they planing to change down the line? Like I said many moons ago, they will try change the emission and they will start making Bitcoin permanently inflationary, not that I'm against the model, I like Monero exactly because the disinflation but it is a severe rupture of Bitcoin's trust and social contract and all started with the project being hijacked into this obscure XT fork.

Quote
Neither me nor Gavin believe a fee market will work as a substitute for the inflation subsidy. It just doesn’t seem to work, economically.

https://medium.com/@octskyward/crash-landing-f5cc19908e32

Who said that? You guessed right, Gavin's vice-fuhrer.

if they get there way, they wont have any power to change things it will be a democracy of users who decide, luckily Monero doesn't have a nullc yet. 

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400
Merit: 1006



View Profile
June 03, 2015, 12:44:48 AM
 #25291

Not only that friend, what else are they planing to change down the line? Like I said many moons ago, they will try change the emission and they will start making Bitcoin permanently inflationary, not that I'm against the model, I like Monero exactly because the disinflation but it is a severe rupture of Bitcoin's trust and social contract and all started with the project being hijacked into this obscure XT fork.
If they try to make a change like that, users will migrate away from their fork just as easy as they migrated to it.

In the end, the developers don't actually have any power - they can only product the software which users want or refrain from doing so.
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153
Merit: 1000


View Profile
June 03, 2015, 12:51:25 AM
 #25292

One option is to start with a move towards adoption of multiple implementations before making the "spec". If Bitcoin XT and btcd both gained enough adoption vs. the Satoshi client that all three were below 50% of the network, then we would now have a situation where a bug in the Satoshi client was no longer the spec, and the Satoshi client would have to quickly bug fix itself to adhear to the XT and btcd majority (and same for XT and btcd).

This situation would then force the drafting of a real specification. With one dominate implementation the need for a spec is diminished. But with several implementations the need for them to draft what is agreed becomes quite strong.
Imagine if Bitcoin Core/XT, btcd, libbitcoin, BitcoinJ, Toshi, etc. all got together to make sure there was a common test suite that was a strict superset of all the relevant unit tests in each codebase.

The next step would be for each implementation to make sure to add any missing consensus-related tests to their own repositories. Repeat the process as necessary.

After all that was done, you could use the test suites as the basis of a spec.

Organizing that is something useful that Bitcoin Foundation could have done, instead of... whatever it was they did.

Start spec sheet drafting through the process of developing a common testing framework for multiple separate implementations. That's interesting and could practically work.
kazuki49
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350
Merit: 250



View Profile
June 03, 2015, 12:52:40 AM
 #25293

Not only that friend, what else are they planing to change down the line? Like I said many moons ago, they will try change the emission and they will start making Bitcoin permanently inflationary, not that I'm against the model, I like Monero exactly because the disinflation but it is a severe rupture of Bitcoin's trust and social contract and all started with the project being hijacked into this obscure XT fork.
If they try to make a change like that, users will migrate away from their fork just as easy as they migrated to it.

In the end, the developers don't actually have any power - they can only product the software which users want or refrain from doing so.

I would have thought the same until his last statement, you are clearly ignoring the power he is displaying to hold as he forces his plan with help of the billionaire backed VC companies so if you want to buy Bitcoin on exchange X, you'll need to install his fork.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000



View Profile
June 03, 2015, 12:53:10 AM
 #25294

Not only that friend, what else are they planing to change down the line? Like I said many moons ago, they will try change the emission and they will start making Bitcoin permanently inflationary, not that I'm against the model, I like Monero exactly because the disinflation but it is a severe rupture of Bitcoin's trust and social contract and all started with the project being hijacked into this obscure XT fork.
If they try to make a change like that, users will migrate away from their fork just as easy as they migrated to it.

In the end, the developers don't actually have any power - they can only product the software which users want or refrain from doing so.

I agree, it will be easier for users to switch next time, this time is the hard one, power hungry developers are going to defend their castle.  

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000



View Profile
June 03, 2015, 12:59:51 AM
 #25295

Not only that friend, what else are they planing to change down the line? Like I said many moons ago, they will try change the emission and they will start making Bitcoin permanently inflationary, not that I'm against the model, I like Monero exactly because the disinflation but it is a severe rupture of Bitcoin's trust and social contract and all started with the project being hijacked into this obscure XT fork.
If they try to make a change like that, users will migrate away from their fork just as easy as they migrated to it.

In the end, the developers don't actually have any power - they can only product the software which users want or refrain from doing so.

I would have thought the same until his last statement, you are clearly ignoring the power he is displaying to hold as he forces his plan with help of the billionaire backed VC companies so if you want to buy Bitcoin on exchange X, you'll need to install his fork.

I think you need to consider who the billionaire backed VC companies are backing. we don't know how this turns out, but your concerns are valid, i just don't know if you are directing them towards the correct developers.

if this is a 1 way path why do you think so, I agree with justusranvier, you just switch back if they move in the wrong direction how do you see it?

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
kazuki49
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350
Merit: 250



View Profile
June 03, 2015, 01:09:00 AM
 #25296

Not only that friend, what else are they planing to change down the line? Like I said many moons ago, they will try change the emission and they will start making Bitcoin permanently inflationary, not that I'm against the model, I like Monero exactly because the disinflation but it is a severe rupture of Bitcoin's trust and social contract and all started with the project being hijacked into this obscure XT fork.
If they try to make a change like that, users will migrate away from their fork just as easy as they migrated to it.

In the end, the developers don't actually have any power - they can only product the software which users want or refrain from doing so.

I would have thought the same until his last statement, you are clearly ignoring the power he is displaying to hold as he forces his plan with help of the billionaire backed VC companies so if you want to buy Bitcoin on exchange X, you'll need to install his fork.

I think you need to consider who the billionaire backed VC companies are backing. we don't know how this turns out, but your concerns are valid, i just don't know if you are directing them towards the correct developers.

if this is a 1 way path why do you think so, I agree with justusranvier, you just switch back if they move in the wrong direction how do you see it?

Masses are easily influenced, you would think most people think like you, there is no "going back" from this, the bitcoin eco-system is already centralized in few companies backed by same hands, what I see is a move to put the bitcoin network effect in great peril if this fork happens, because the way bitcoin and decentralized crypto works, only when theres absolute consensus should a move like that happen. What I believe to be the hidden intention behind this fork is to open the bitcoin network to new regulatory frameworks that will be born from the centralized nature of mining and the inherent traceability and likability of the protocol, and establishing a precedent of strong-arming forks.

If you can't see the messages from the same agents pointing towards this scenario, well, you are making a fool of yourself to the future community that will be studying Bitcoin-history http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34161751/
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1160



View Profile
June 03, 2015, 01:09:43 AM
 #25297

Not only that friend, what else are they planing to change down the line? Like I said many moons ago, they will try change the emission and they will start making Bitcoin permanently inflationary, not that I'm against the model, I like Monero exactly because the disinflation but it is a severe rupture of Bitcoin's trust and social contract and all started with the project being hijacked into this obscure XT fork.
If they try to make a change like that, users will migrate away from their fork just as easy as they migrated to it.

In the end, the developers don't actually have any power - they can only product the software which users want or refrain from doing so.

That's an unrealistic view of human nature. Many, possibly most, users are too busy, not knowledgable enough, and/or too apathetic to form and act on their own opinion. They will support whatever the developers propose, as long as it isn't outrageous. That gives the developers an enormous amount of power, because they get to influence the votes of the abstaining users, which in many cases will by itself represent a majority.
kazuki49
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350
Merit: 250



View Profile
June 03, 2015, 01:11:42 AM
 #25298

Not only that friend, what else are they planing to change down the line? Like I said many moons ago, they will try change the emission and they will start making Bitcoin permanently inflationary, not that I'm against the model, I like Monero exactly because the disinflation but it is a severe rupture of Bitcoin's trust and social contract and all started with the project being hijacked into this obscure XT fork.
If they try to make a change like that, users will migrate away from their fork just as easy as they migrated to it.

In the end, the developers don't actually have any power - they can only product the software which users want or refrain from doing so.

That's an unrealistic view of human nature. Many, possibly most, users are too busy, not knowledgable enough, and/or too apathetic to form and act on their own opinion. They will support whatever the developers propose, as long as it isn't outrageous. That gives the developers an enormous amount of power, because they get to influence the votes of the abstaining users, which in many cases will by itself represent a majority.

based smooth! Thats what I mean, I feel good knowing Monero is in good and self-aware leadership hands.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3248
Merit: 1130


View Profile
June 03, 2015, 01:13:08 AM
 #25299

One option is to start with a move towards adoption of multiple implementations before making the "spec". If Bitcoin XT and btcd both gained enough adoption vs. the Satoshi client that all three were below 50% of the network, then we would now have a situation where a bug in the Satoshi client was no longer the spec, and the Satoshi client would have to quickly bug fix itself to adhear to the XT and btcd majority (and same for XT and btcd).

This situation would then force the drafting of a real specification. With one dominate implementation the need for a spec is diminished. But with several implementations the need for them to draft what is agreed becomes quite strong.

Imagine if Bitcoin Core/XT, btcd, libbitcoin, BitcoinJ, Toshi, etc. all got together to make sure there was a common test suite that was a strict superset of all the relevant unit tests in each codebase.

The next step would be for each implementation to make sure to add any missing consensus-related tests to their own repositories. Repeat the process as necessary.

After all that was done, you could use the test suites as the basis of a spec.

Organizing that is something useful that Bitcoin Foundation could have done, instead of... whatever it was they did.

If bctd is the best and most well documented code that mysterious group of highly funded spooky dudes who nobody knows can pump out then it would be interesting to fork it as the basis for a viable project on one of the many forks that the Bitcoin blockchain is going to blossom into.  I'd use it (as long as I can compile it and compile the compilers that compile it.)

At this point I have little interest in a common spec and test cases and such.  We're past the phase where multiple implementations are very valuable, and may be into the phase where the opposite is true and makes no logical sense anyway.


sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
explorer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1568
Merit: 1126



View Profile
June 03, 2015, 01:14:10 AM
 #25300

Not only that friend, what else are they planing to change down the line? Like I said many moons ago, they will try change the emission and they will start making Bitcoin permanently inflationary, not that I'm against the model, I like Monero exactly because the disinflation but it is a severe rupture of Bitcoin's trust and social contract and all started with the project being hijacked into this obscure XT fork.
If they try to make a change like that, users will migrate away from their fork just as easy as they migrated to it.

In the end, the developers don't actually have any power - they can only product the software which users want or refrain from doing so.

People are sheep that will go with the loudest/best advertising, regardless of benefit/detriment.   Just look at every other system in existence. 
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1313 1314 1315 ... 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!