Bitcoin Forum
December 05, 2016, 08:50:33 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 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 1319 1320 1321 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1804762 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 03, 2015, 08:08:47 PM
 #25401

from Jameson Lopp an hour ago:

http://i.imgur.com/kX1Ed19.png
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480971033
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480971033

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480971033
Reply with quote  #2

1480971033
Report to moderator
1480971033
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480971033

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480971033
Reply with quote  #2

1480971033
Report to moderator
1480971033
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480971033

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480971033
Reply with quote  #2

1480971033
Report to moderator
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
June 03, 2015, 08:19:06 PM
 #25402


interesting note, just looking around the node distribution map the nodes seem to be evenly distributed in the "West" with the density increasing with population density, the notable exceptions are Africa, China and oddly enough Japan and Moscow with almost 50 at the city center monitored by ex. KGB.   

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
June 03, 2015, 08:21:14 PM
 #25403

from Jameson Lopp an hour ago:

http://i.imgur.com/kX1Ed19.png

That is scary. March 2016 is looking more and more that it might be too late.

But I'm sure the blockstream guys only see the emergence of fee pressure that will push people onto sidechains.

The whole blocksize debate has been theoretical so far. But once people's transactions start to backlog the discussion will take a very different turn. People want to be able to transaction directly with Bitcoin in an affordable manner. That is the entire ethos of the project.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 03, 2015, 08:30:44 PM
 #25404

from Jameson Lopp an hour ago:

http://i.imgur.com/kX1Ed19.png

That is scary. March 2016 is looking more and more that it might be too late.

But I'm sure the blockstream guys only see the emergence of fee pressure that will push people onto sidechains.

The whole blocksize debate has been theoretical so far. But once people's transactions start to backlog the discussion will take a very different turn. People want to be able to transaction directly with Bitcoin in an affordable manner. That is the entire ethos of the project.

tvbcof
marcus
iCE
kazuki

bracek
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 530


View Profile
June 03, 2015, 08:33:04 PM
 #25405

from Jameson Lopp an hour ago:

http://i.imgur.com/kX1Ed19.png

now we need hodlers more than ewar

dont sell, and dont send also, just hodl Smiley
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
June 03, 2015, 08:37:22 PM
 #25406

from Jameson Lopp an hour ago:

http://i.imgur.com/kX1Ed19.png

now we need hodlers more than ewar

dont sell, and dont send also, just hodl Smiley

If only people stopped using their BTC and just held it and looked at it, then Bitcion would be as useful as gold is to Goldbugs (who don't seem to understand that gold will never be revalued as money unless the average person uses gold as money)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 03, 2015, 08:37:41 PM
 #25407

from Jameson Lopp an hour ago:

http://i.imgur.com/kX1Ed19.png

now we need hodlers more than ewar

dont sell, and dont send also, just hodl Smiley

Right. And tell me what happens  to all the merchants dependent on TX's? And then when  merchants disappear, what happens  to users?  And once users disappear, what happens to hodlers?
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 03, 2015, 09:05:02 PM
 #25408

This is the first video I've seen of Gregory Maxwell. This adds some confirmation for me of my upthread speculation about Greg seeing himself as critic and the smartest person in the room. He specifically states in this video that his role is more as a reviewer than a doer (even his stated goal is maximum impact with the least coding...which is a desirable goal but only if it is not the only one), right after admitting that he was wrong in 2004 about decentralized consensus being impossible. The audacity. Socrates taught us that recognizing that we are not omniscient is a primary attribute of cognition.

(Edit: in the "Selection Cryptography" portion of the video, he elaborates on why his role is appropriate — "Pragmatic has its place, but beware against biasing against competence")

No doubt this is a very smart guy with powerful crypto+math domain knowledge who can add considerable analysis and even new ideas. You'd definitely want him on your team (I would) if he can contain himself to a non-leadership role. But hand him the keys and you are likely to go too far down dead-end paths—e.g. CoinJoin—because my impression of him so far (limited interaction) is he is more of a narrow space thinker who doesn't pay as much attention to what is going on in the kitchen when he is in the basement (unless if he a lead on a very narrow space, orthogonally contained project domain such as an audio codec). And this is precisely what I told him the very first time he spanked me in public in these forums; I warned him that I am more of a pragmatic generalist and that we tend to paradigm shift around people like him (which is precisely what I am hoping to do accomplish this year). The first exposure I had to Greg was when I was very impressed by his forum post containing analysis of a proposed proof-of-work hash for something bytemaster was proposing (I forget the details).

I am taking a deeper look at Blockstream and side chains today for the first time. I will report back my findings shortly.

P.S. I am only 10 minutes into the linked video and it is particularly poignant so far. I highly recommend it. So far it appears to be making the case for Monero. It admits Tor is weak against the State, which is a concept I was promulgating since 2013 and was initially resisted (afair by Greg and many others). Good to see that my work in the forum in 2013 finally was accepted. I will say as AnonyMint, I was pushing hard for greater in anonymity starting in 2013 with some posts I made in the anoncoin thread.

The anti-"Eclipse" (Sybil attack mitigation) slide at the 11:45 minute mark is a very important point. An inherent weakness in PoW is the simultaneity requirement which makes network topology so critical (think orphan rates, selfish mining attacks, etc) and which is also difficult to anneal because of the self-referential relativity of the paradigm. This is one of the main fundamental flaws I want to address in crypto currency. I had referred to this recently as "anti-aliasing". Ironically where Greg says Satoshi's solution to decentralized consensus achieved something "not quite as strong" as that which he thought he had proved was impossible, the same applies to my solution to centralized consensus which implicitly resists centralization and scales to micropayment volume.

Another interesting point at 21 minutes, that multisig negatively impacts decentralization and scaling. This is another fundamental aspect my solution fixes. Schnorr as a potential solution to this problem for Bitcoin lacks optional accountability (or loses some of the scaling and decentralization advantages with Greg's TREE scheme) and has a simultaneity issue vaguely analogously related to the problem with CoinJoin.

Regarding Greg's redefinition of Cryptography at the 40+ minute mark, he is on the right track but I fundamentally disagree with his definition because it presumes we could both exist and information could be entirely free, i.e. it is vacuous because it presumes mutually incongruent assumptions. The generative essence is that the entropy of the universe is trending to maximum (i.e. not infinity) according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics (refer to the upthread philosophical discussion about existence and theoretic physics). I would instead define, "Cryptography is the art of structuring information such that hidden entropy doesn't collapse to 0 over known domains in time and computability".

Natalia_AnatolioPAMM
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile WWW
June 03, 2015, 09:06:58 PM
 #25409


hopefully nope!

Earn money when BTC crashes - join BTC-E PAMM
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106


View Profile
June 03, 2015, 09:08:26 PM
 #25410


If i remember correctly Hearn said on btc dev mailing list that in curr xt version user agent string is screwed up

edit: add source http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34155603/

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
June 03, 2015, 10:13:20 PM
 #25411

from Jameson Lopp an hour ago:

http://i.imgur.com/kX1Ed19.png

That is scary. March 2016 is looking more and more that it might be too late.

But I'm sure the blockstream guys only see the emergence of fee pressure that will push people onto sidechains.

The whole blocksize debate has been theoretical so far. But once people's transactions start to backlog the discussion will take a very different turn. People want to be able to transaction directly with Bitcoin in an affordable manner. That is the entire ethos of the project.

tvbcof
marcus
iCE
kazuki



I'm afraid it is you who cannot comprehend that there are a big disadvantages with big blocks.

Brute force (increasing block size limit) is not a solution .. we need something smarter than  "The bigger stone the bigger hammer"

edit: 100 kg hammer is not practical :-)
edit2: we need jackhammer
_mr_e
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 814


View Profile
June 03, 2015, 10:17:06 PM
 #25412


If i remember correctly Hearn said on btc dev mailing list that in curr xt version user agent string is screwed up

edit: add source http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34155603/

Surprisingly I was able to pick my node off that list accidentally just by city and isp... Had to check my ip but sure enough it was me - and it's showing me as satoshi client even though I'm running XT.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
June 03, 2015, 10:33:59 PM
 #25413

Converted my first node to XT today.

Let's know how many 20M blocks will you mine. (I'll guess "no single ONE" :-) )

edit: Your are not Herkules and 100 kg hammer is too heavy
marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086



View Profile
June 03, 2015, 10:43:17 PM
 #25414

bad smell all over xt ... note it is not even a faithful branch fork of the main bitcoin repo look https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt at the main link, if it was fork it would have a link beneath it to the git repo it was forked from. So what? you might ask, software forking with git trackinng is subtle ... what this means is there is no way to easily know what has and hasn't been left out of XT that was in Core ... why do that? Git is a system of hashing every commit so you can easily verify every commit back to the original source dump and know it hasn't been messed with, exactly like a block hash chain Wink ... XT has branched in such a way you will never really easily know how it is different from Core, except for, yes you guessed it, "just trust us".

On the front page you can tell things have been changed that have nothing to do with "only 3 major differences" there is a file called "pkg.m4"https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/blob/0.10.2A/pkg.m4 that was removed from Core because of erroneous behaviour that made every system it was built on to default to using it instead of the system pkg.m4 ... why put broken behaviour back in? Maybe some bad coding reasons but way too much fishy shit right on the front page of XT to trust in the slightest. Removed files put back in, and not a correct, verifiable fork of Core, it looks dodgy as all heck. If it was just some anonymous guy on the internet I would expect coins to go missing immediately if you ran this code.


phoenix1
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784



View Profile
June 03, 2015, 10:50:17 PM
 #25415

bad smell all over xt ... note it is not even a faithful branch fork of the main bitcoin repo look https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt at the main link, if it was fork it would have a link beneath it to the git repo it was forked from. So what? you might ask, software forking is subtle ... what this means is there is no way to easily know what has and hasn't been left out out of XT that was in Core ... why do that?

On the front page you can tell things have been changed that have nothing to do with "only 3 major difference" there is a file called "pkg.m4"https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/blob/0.10.2A/pkg.m4 that was removed from Core because of erroneous behaviour that made every system it was built on to default to using it instead of the system pkg.m4 ... why put broken behaviour back in? Maybe some bad coding reasons but way too much fishy shit right on the front page of XT to trust in the slightest. Removed files put back in, and not a correct, verifiable fork of Core, it looks dodgy as all heck. If it was just some anonymous guy on the internet I would expect coins to go missing immediately if you ran this code.



To me this seems like more fear-mongering from you  m_o_a
Just like when you told us that BitStamp would never come back after the hack as they were all crooks (I am not going to waste my time digging out your post, but you know what you said)
I don't know the truth of the matter, but I don't trust your judgement either. I have seen it to be negatively biased on more than one occasion, enough to make me think that you have your own (unspoken) agenda here

"just trust us" (your ninja edit) ... I don't trust you

"Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves"  - Confucius (China 551BC-479 BC)
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
June 03, 2015, 10:58:53 PM
 #25416

Meanwhile...

https://github.com/btcsuite/btcd/pull/430

https://github.com/btcsuite/btcd/commit/58f29ad939c967e03838c1cc7e354ca6e6ed452b
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
June 03, 2015, 11:04:58 PM
 #25417

bad smell all over xt ... note it is not even a faithful branch fork of the main bitcoin repo look https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt at the main link, if it was fork it would have a link beneath it to the git repo it was forked from. So what? you might ask, software forking with git trackinng is subtle ... what this means is there is no way to easily know what has and hasn't been left out of XT that was in Core ... why do that? Git is a system of hashing every commit so you can easily verify every commit back to the original source dump and know it hasn't been messed with, exactly like a block hash chain Wink ... XT has branched in such a way you will never really easily know how it is different from Core, except for, yes you guessed it, "just trust us".

On the front page you can tell things have been changed that have nothing to do with "only 3 major differences" there is a file called "pkg.m4"https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/blob/0.10.2A/pkg.m4 that was removed from Core because of erroneous behaviour that made every system it was built on to default to using it instead of the system pkg.m4 ... why put broken behaviour back in? Maybe some bad coding reasons but way too much fishy shit right on the front page of XT to trust in the slightest. Removed files put back in, and not a correct, verifiable fork of Core, it looks dodgy as all heck. If it was just some anonymous guy on the internet I would expect coins to go missing immediately if you ran this code.

The other reason is to simply get on the path of being a fully independent implementation that breaks ties with the Satoshi client. As per yesterday's discussion multiple independently developed implementations is a good thing. Sure with multiple implementations there is the risk that one or more are controlled by negative actors, but overall the risk of negative actors taking over is much less with several implementations than one dominate implementation.
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
June 03, 2015, 11:10:44 PM
 #25418

from Jameson Lopp an hour ago:

http://i.imgur.com/kX1Ed19.png

That is scary. March 2016 is looking more and more that it might be too late.

But I'm sure the blockstream guys only see the emergence of fee pressure that will push people onto sidechains.

The whole blocksize debate has been theoretical so far. But once people's transactions start to backlog the discussion will take a very different turn. People want to be able to transaction directly with Bitcoin in an affordable manner. That is the entire ethos of the project.

tvbcof
marcus
iCE
kazuki


I'm afraid it is you who cannot comprehend that there are a big disadvantages with big blocks.

Brute force (increasing block size limit) is not a solution .. we need something smarter than  "The bigger stone the bigger hammer"

edit: 100 kg hammer is not practical :-)
edit2: we need jackhammer

No one is suggesting massive jackhammer blocks to put every coffee cup transaction on the planet into the blockchain.

Yes there is a balance between everything on the blockchain and something smarter.

But something smarter still requires much larger than 1MB blocks, and 20MB blocks is in no manner a dumb jackhammer that kicks people off the network. I have a crappy home network and will still be able to function fine with 20MB blocks.

Something smarter is also not available today. Options that do not exist and are ready today are not solutions to be discussed. 20MB blocks provides breathing room to find a smart balance. That balance BTW will very likely settle on even larger blocks.

Not creating that breathing room starves Bitcoin today of usage, usage that it needs to constantly grow.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 03, 2015, 11:25:02 PM
 #25419

from Jameson Lopp an hour ago:

http://i.imgur.com/kX1Ed19.png

That is scary. March 2016 is looking more and more that it might be too late.

But I'm sure the blockstream guys only see the emergence of fee pressure that will push people onto sidechains.

The whole blocksize debate has been theoretical so far. But once people's transactions start to backlog the discussion will take a very different turn. People want to be able to transaction directly with Bitcoin in an affordable manner. That is the entire ethos of the project.

tvbcof
marcus
iCE
kazuki


I'm afraid it is you who cannot comprehend that there are a big disadvantages with big blocks.

Brute force (increasing block size limit) is not a solution .. we need something smarter than  "The bigger stone the bigger hammer"

edit: 100 kg hammer is not practical :-)
edit2: we need jackhammer

No one is suggesting massive jackhammer blocks to put every coffee cup transaction on the planet into the blockchain.

Yes there is a balance between everything on the blockchain and something smarter.

But something smarter still requires much larger than 1MB blocks, and 20MB blocks is in no manner a dumb jackhammer that kicks people off the network. I have a crappy home network and will still be able to function fine with 20MB blocks.

Something smarter is also not available today. Options that do not exist and are ready today are not solutions to be discussed. 20MB blocks provides breathing room to find a smart balance. That balance BTW will very likely settle on even larger blocks.

Not creating that breathing room starves Bitcoin today of usage, usage that it needs to constantly grow.

in the meantime, large and small miners are STILL going to be going after the block reward vs any bloated insignificant tx fees they might want to generate for nefarious purposes.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 03, 2015, 11:25:34 PM
 #25420

bad smell all over xt ... note it is not even a faithful branch fork of the main bitcoin repo look https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt at the main link, if it was fork it would have a link beneath it to the git repo it was forked from. So what? you might ask, software forking is subtle ... what this means is there is no way to easily know what has and hasn't been left out out of XT that was in Core ... why do that?

On the front page you can tell things have been changed that have nothing to do with "only 3 major difference" there is a file called "pkg.m4"https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/blob/0.10.2A/pkg.m4 that was removed from Core because of erroneous behaviour that made every system it was built on to default to using it instead of the system pkg.m4 ... why put broken behaviour back in? Maybe some bad coding reasons but way too much fishy shit right on the front page of XT to trust in the slightest. Removed files put back in, and not a correct, verifiable fork of Core, it looks dodgy as all heck. If it was just some anonymous guy on the internet I would expect coins to go missing immediately if you ran this code.



To me this seems like more fear-mongering from you  m_o_a
Just like when you told us that BitStamp would never come back after the hack as they were all crooks (I am not going to waste my time digging out your post, but you know what you said)
I don't know the truth of the matter, but I don't trust your judgement either. I have seen it to be negatively biased on more than one occasion, enough to make me think that you have your own (unspoken) agenda here

"just trust us" (your ninja edit) ... I don't trust you


i smell Monero all over him.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1319 1320 1321 ... 1560 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

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