Bitcoin Forum
November 19, 2017, 04:30:44 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 ... 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 1316 1317 1318 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2009355 times)
majamalu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652



View Profile WWW
June 03, 2015, 06:29:35 AM
 #25341

[gossip about personalities]

This seems very plausible.

It's also irrelevant.

20MB blocks aren't a Gavinista vs Greg issue.  The XT controversy has set the Gavinistas against all our other core devs.

It seems that the gavinistas are the true satoshistas: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=287.msg8810#msg8810

http://elbitcoin.org - Bitcoin en español
http://mercadobitcoin.com - MercadoBitcoin
1511109044
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511109044

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511109044
Reply with quote  #2

1511109044
Report to moderator
Join ICO Now Coinlancer is Disrupting the Freelance marketplace!
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 03, 2015, 06:34:48 AM
 #25342

How did this go from a gold collapsing bitcoin up thread to a poll about Gavin?

The ongoing Gavinista coup and looming Great Schism are widely considered the most serious and credible threats yet to cypher's bullish "Bitcoin UP" prediction/outlook.

Is not the Chicago boys any of us have to worry about. It's the Monero boys. 
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 03, 2015, 06:37:19 AM
 #25343

[gossip about personalities]

This seems very plausible.

It's also irrelevant.

20MB blocks aren't a Gavinista vs Greg issue.  The XT controversy has set the Gavinistas against all our other core devs.

All other core  devs are acting as a block called Blockstream. Wladimir is just temporarily confused over full nodes vs users.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 03, 2015, 06:49:42 AM
 #25344

Converted my first node to XT today.
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834


[LOL2X]


View Profile WWW
June 03, 2015, 07:04:09 AM
 #25345

[gossip about personalities]

This seems very plausible.

It's also irrelevant.

20MB blocks aren't a Gavinista vs Greg issue.  The XT controversy has set the Gavinistas against all our other core devs.

All other core  devs are acting as a block called Blockstream. Wladimir is just temporarily confused over full nodes vs users.

Blockstream hasn't hired "all other core devs."  And let's not even start with Gavin and THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION INC.

Converted my first node to XT today.

Frap.doc is empowering kids in Africa to buy their frosty blended coffee beverages with the tool Satoshi intended to destroy TBTF banks.

Heartwarming.  I'm sure there won't be any trade-offs or problems you'll expect gmax to fix.   Roll Eyes


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

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
majamalu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652



View Profile WWW
June 03, 2015, 07:20:25 AM
 #25346

Satoshi's own words: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366

http://elbitcoin.org - Bitcoin en español
http://mercadobitcoin.com - MercadoBitcoin
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596



View Profile
June 03, 2015, 07:26:56 AM
 #25347

I remain largely neutral about whether Bitcoin, Monero, or any future cryptocurrency will actually succeed on a large scale.

Does that include all potential Butterfly effects?

No, I have no idea of the possible range of outcomes.

hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274



View Profile
June 03, 2015, 07:29:27 AM
 #25348



satoshi left us  Cry
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


View Profile
June 03, 2015, 07:48:20 AM
 #25349

Meni Rosenfeld proposes an elastic block cap where miners are penalized progressively for blocks bigger than whatever the limit is.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1078521.msg11517847

The idea is to avoid a "crash landing" at 1MB or even at 8 or 20MB. Bitcoin adoption is known to come in order-of-magnitude spurts, so even 20MB isn't immune to a crash landing scenario; and think how much harder another order-of-magnitude increase will be from 20MB, or from 200MB.

We need a way to turn these brick walls into gentle hills, not just lengthen the road leading to them. (To be clear, I think we should do both. Actually having no limit probably does both.)
dEBRUYNE
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


View Profile
June 03, 2015, 11:52:49 AM
 #25350

Meni Rosenfeld proposes an elastic block cap where miners are penalized progressively for blocks bigger than whatever the limit is.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1078521.msg11517847

The idea is to avoid a "crash landing" at 1MB or even at 8 or 20MB. Bitcoin adoption is known to come in order-of-magnitude spurts, so even 20MB isn't immune to a crash landing scenario; and think how much harder another order-of-magnitude increase will be from 20MB, or from 200MB.

We need a way to turn these brick walls into gentle hills, not just lengthen the road leading to them. (To be clear, I think we should do both. Actually having no limit probably does both.)

Relevant and interesting comment from Reddit on this subject:

Quote from: Tacotime
As I noted in the thread, this is similar to the block sizing algorithm for Monero and other CryptoNote coins. A quadratic penalty is imposed such that block subsidy = base subsidy * ((block size / median size of last 400 blocks) - 1)2, with the penalty being applied after you build a block larger than the median size. The maximum block size is 2*median size. Because subsidy is based around the number of coins in existence, the 'burned' subsidy is deferred to be paid out to future blocks.

Unlike Meni's proposal, burned block subsidy is simply deferred to all future miners. So far, this has worked in CryptoNote coins without issue.

I am unsure of the incentives of the rollover fee pool method -- it seems like a way to smooth out and evenly distribute fees among miners, but I'm not sure if it work exactly the way it is intended to. For instance, it may disincentivize the inclusion of some larger fee transactions because the miner will fail to immediately benefit from them, and indeed, if the miner is small and only occasionally gets blocks, may never benefit from them. In this case, fees will end up being paid to the miner out of band, thus defeating the entire fee pool mechanism.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/389pq6/elastic_block_cap_with_rollover_penalties_my/crts1do

Privacy matters, use Monero - A true untraceable cryptocurrency
Why Monero matters? http://weuse.cash/2016/03/05/bitcoiners-hedge-your-position/
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 03, 2015, 12:55:05 PM
 #25351

Meni Rosenfeld proposes an elastic block cap where miners are penalized progressively for blocks bigger than whatever the limit is.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1078521.msg11517847

The idea is to avoid a "crash landing" at 1MB or even at 8 or 20MB. Bitcoin adoption is known to come in order-of-magnitude spurts, so even 20MB isn't immune to a crash landing scenario; and think how much harder another order-of-magnitude increase will be from 20MB, or from 200MB.

We need a way to turn these brick walls into gentle hills, not just lengthen the road leading to them. (To be clear, I think we should do both. Actually having no limit probably does both.)

Relevant and interesting comment from Reddit on this subject:

Quote from: Tacotime
As I noted in the thread, this is similar to the block sizing algorithm for Monero and other CryptoNote coins. A quadratic penalty is imposed such that block subsidy = base subsidy * ((block size / median size of last 400 blocks) - 1)2, with the penalty being applied after you build a block larger than the median size. The maximum block size is 2*median size. Because subsidy is based around the number of coins in existence, the 'burned' subsidy is deferred to be paid out to future blocks.

Unlike Meni's proposal, burned block subsidy is simply deferred to all future miners. So far, this has worked in CryptoNote coins without issue.

I am unsure of the incentives of the rollover fee pool method -- it seems like a way to smooth out and evenly distribute fees among miners, but I'm not sure if it work exactly the way it is intended to. For instance, it may disincentivize the inclusion of some larger fee transactions because the miner will fail to immediately benefit from them, and indeed, if the miner is small and only occasionally gets blocks, may never benefit from them. In this case, fees will end up being paid to the miner out of band, thus defeating the entire fee pool mechanism.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/389pq6/elastic_block_cap_with_rollover_penalties_my/crts1do

How are they using the term out of band in this context?
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834


[LOL2X]


View Profile WWW
June 03, 2015, 01:38:41 PM
 #25352


Yes, I've seen that quote from 2010 before and am still against 20mb blocks at this time.  My turn:

Satoshi's own words:

Quote
https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4
Jun 1
Bitcoin is a global currency. Good thread on int'l bandwidth & other threats to interconnectivity of Bitcoin miners: https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg08010.html

Nick Szabo retweeted
Peter Todd ‏@petertoddbtc May 30

FYI: @gavinandresen's (optimistic) 20MB block analysis had an arithmetic error, and actually supports 8MB blocks https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37vg8y/is_the_blockstream_company_the_reason_why_4_core/crqgtgs

TL;DR Gavin's own math (when corrected) shows 8MB, not 20, is the right answer, so now he's willing to accept 8.


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

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 03, 2015, 02:06:55 PM
 #25353

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?

I asked you once to support these serious allegations. Because you're calling Mike and Gavin liars otherwise.

You need to prove this now so that we can confirm or more likely dispense with you as a liar.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596



View Profile
June 03, 2015, 05:53:41 PM
 #25354

Meni Rosenfeld proposes an elastic block cap where miners are penalized progressively for blocks bigger than whatever the limit is.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1078521.msg11517847

The idea is to avoid a "crash landing" at 1MB or even at 8 or 20MB. Bitcoin adoption is known to come in order-of-magnitude spurts, so even 20MB isn't immune to a crash landing scenario; and think how much harder another order-of-magnitude increase will be from 20MB, or from 200MB.

We need a way to turn these brick walls into gentle hills, not just lengthen the road leading to them. (To be clear, I think we should do both. Actually having no limit probably does both.)

Relevant and interesting comment from Reddit on this subject:

Quote from: Tacotime
As I noted in the thread, this is similar to the block sizing algorithm for Monero and other CryptoNote coins. A quadratic penalty is imposed such that block subsidy = base subsidy * ((block size / median size of last 400 blocks) - 1)2, with the penalty being applied after you build a block larger than the median size. The maximum block size is 2*median size. Because subsidy is based around the number of coins in existence, the 'burned' subsidy is deferred to be paid out to future blocks.

Unlike Meni's proposal, burned block subsidy is simply deferred to all future miners. So far, this has worked in CryptoNote coins without issue.

I am unsure of the incentives of the rollover fee pool method -- it seems like a way to smooth out and evenly distribute fees among miners, but I'm not sure if it work exactly the way it is intended to. For instance, it may disincentivize the inclusion of some larger fee transactions because the miner will fail to immediately benefit from them, and indeed, if the miner is small and only occasionally gets blocks, may never benefit from them. In this case, fees will end up being paid to the miner out of band, thus defeating the entire fee pool mechanism.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/389pq6/elastic_block_cap_with_rollover_penalties_my/crts1do

How are they using the term out of band in this context?

That was confusion with Meni's earlier proposal. The out of band issue (where miners change fees in some way other than via the normal Bitcoin fee mechanism, though it may still be in the transaction itself) does not apply to his new proposal.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 03, 2015, 05:54:55 PM
 #25355

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?

I asked you once to support these serious allegations. Because you're calling Mike and Gavin liars otherwise.

You need to prove this now so that we can confirm or more likely dispense with you as a liar.

marcus, we're still waiting.
mrhelpful
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile
June 03, 2015, 06:01:10 PM
 #25356


Yes, I've seen that quote from 2010 before and am still against 20mb blocks at this time.  My turn:

Satoshi's own words:

Quote
https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4
Jun 1
Bitcoin is a global currency. Good thread on int'l bandwidth & other threats to interconnectivity of Bitcoin miners: https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg08010.html

Nick Szabo retweeted
Peter Todd ‏@petertoddbtc May 30

FYI: @gavinandresen's (optimistic) 20MB block analysis had an arithmetic error, and actually supports 8MB blocks https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37vg8y/is_the_blockstream_company_the_reason_why_4_core/crqgtgs

TL;DR Gavin's own math (when corrected) shows 8MB, not 20, is the right answer, so now he's willing to accept 8.

Sounds better then just 1 mb lol.

And this is something we would have to do every 5 years then? increase the block size? based on transaction volume etc.
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
June 03, 2015, 06:06:06 PM
 #25357

How did this go from a gold collapsing bitcoin up thread to a poll about Gavin?

The ongoing Gavinista coup and looming Great Schism are widely considered the most serious and credible threats yet to cypher's bullish "Bitcoin UP" prediction/outlook.

Is not the Chicago boys any of us have to worry about. It's the Monero boys.  

True.  Monero solved the block size issue on day one with adaptive block sizes and costing.  I'm not in favor of rushing anything and like sipa's list of todos before any increase of Bitcoin block size, but there is some urgency for that.
http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34090896/

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
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
June 03, 2015, 06:24:55 PM
 #25358


Converted my first node to XT today.

I figured that cypherdoc's stash would vanish eventually, and probably has been draining away through one scam or another over these past years.  He is a classic case of 'falling down in shit and coming up smelling like a rose', but it's inevitable that a guy of his caliber will have their luck run out eventually.  Now we see how the big one is likely hit him...by converting to an alt.  <snicker>


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 03, 2015, 06:30:17 PM
 #25359


Converted my first node to XT today.

I figured that cypherdoc's stash would vanish eventually, and probably has been draining away through one scam or another over these past years.  He is a classic case of 'falling down in shit and coming up smelling like a rose', but it's inevitable that a guy of his caliber will have their luck run out eventually.  Now we see how the big one is likely hit him...by converting to an alt.  <snicker>



lol, what can i say about such idiocy?  it's just a node ffs.  but then, you  wouldn't know the difference anyways, eh?  it always amazes me the vomit that you are so willing to spew forth.
kazuki49
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350



View Profile
June 03, 2015, 06:40:52 PM
 #25360

Do we really have to attack each other that soon? Wait for when theres 2 bitcoins, and I think you'll know who to blame, his name is in the thread's pool.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1316 1317 1318 ... 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!