Bitcoin Forum
November 25, 2017, 10:06:53 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 ... 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 1322 1323 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2014161 times)
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 04, 2015, 07:35:45 AM
 #25441

The point is that coins aren't really done and on auto-pilot. They require ongoing upkeep from lead devs.

This is a good point, and part of why I consider all current crypto coins to be not ready for prime time. When something is truly on permanent auto-pilot then we can accept it is a working decentralized system.

MP's point about Bitcoin is, I think, that it should simply never be hard forked. If it fails, it fails, and perhaps is replaced by something better. But the idea of any developers having that kind of power is a fundamental failure of the concept. It's worth considering.



I like his views, more and more I see MP for what he truly show he is, a true bitcoiner. I believe the same towards Monero.

Being grounded in solid reasoning is a positive trait, but if it becomes a mono-thought and even worse a reputation debt due to grandiose public displays, then it could be counter to the flexibility required to remain rational.

Some rambling thoughts...

I am usually wary of inflexible, hard-nosed people (because multiple genres of things change, the devil is in the details, and no one is omniscient) and especially if they are playing egotistical mind games and not willing to explain their reasoning amicably and with an open mind. I am flexible enough to be open minded to exceptions.

Perhaps I just haven't understood him. But I think it is likely Uncle Sam will win against MP in the end game (I expect to see him taken down eventually). Perhaps he is making a lot of profit painting the image of himself as a clever in-your-face thorn in the side of the USA regulators, and others flock to his coattails, but I would much prefer a more clever approach of silent action and anonymity. Ideologically I am mostly aligned with his stance, yet I don't see much value in the in-your-face approach (because among other reasons we are not at a juncture in history where there will be mass revolution inspired by a call to Common Sense and this is why the leaders of that in-your-face cohort are less amicable and reasonable than Thomas Paine).

Also I am apparently not that impressed of him as a user interface designer, web page programmer, or I guess programmer in general, based on this way his MPex options market site works (which I haven't viewed within the past year or so). Functionally I understand it may be sufficient for his audience, so I respect his efficiency given the market and game he is playing.

1511604413
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511604413

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511604413
Reply with quote  #2

1511604413
Report to moderator
1511604413
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511604413

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511604413
Reply with quote  #2

1511604413
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.
1511604413
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511604413

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511604413
Reply with quote  #2

1511604413
Report to moderator
1511604413
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511604413

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511604413
Reply with quote  #2

1511604413
Report to moderator
hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 07:41:44 AM
 #25442

That pyramidal network and inertia means we end up entrusting the lead devs based on their past performance, i.e. the source code and market success.

You have implicitly made the case that anonymous lead devs are better than named lead devs.

Then I wasn't clear. The only devs that really work in the case of a decentralized cryptocurrecncy are no devs at all. As long as you have devs you have centralization. As long as we are having the discussion about whether Gavin should do this or Blockstream should do that (and there is a real possibility these things may happen), Bitcoin hasn't accomplished much of anything at all.

When the concept of the lead developer of Bitcoin makes as little sense as the lead developer of sex, then we'll be on to something.

At best, it may be on its way to that, and the same can be said for Monero.

I'm not convinced by the concept of fully anonymous developers in the embryonic stages. We may have gotten lucky with satoshi actually being sincere (though you argue he worked for or was a patsy for the Deep State) but the altcoin experiments have shown us rather conclusively that most anonymous devs are fraudsters and manipulators. That has made the task of any fully anonymous dev getting the trust of an intelligent and mature community, as is certainly needed during those embryonic stages, almost impossible.




Im quite passed the personality cults. Bitcoin's strenght (and value, ie. utility) resides in its decentralization. Why we always have to Line up behind leaders? Bitcoin is not about satoshi, and even less about Gavin or Garzik. Let them collude ideas, the network should do the picking regardless of centralized means such as TBF or MIT sponsored research. Its Just that calling for loobying is far below the belt.
illodin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 966


View Profile
June 04, 2015, 07:47:38 AM
 #25443

We may have gotten lucky with satoshi actually being sincere (though you argue he worked for or was a patsy for the Deep State)

The fact that he hasn't spent his huge stack could imply it/he wasn't an independent individual, but a state agency which isn't allowed to spend or sell those coins. A real person that intelligent would've found many good uses for that amount of wealth. If not for himself or his family, then for a charity or other common good cause.

Or then again maybe he just accidentally the whole hard drive.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 07:59:31 AM
 #25444

That pyramidal network and inertia means we end up entrusting the lead devs based on their past performance, i.e. the source code and market success.

You have implicitly made the case that anonymous lead devs are better than named lead devs.

Then I wasn't clear. The only devs that really work in the case of a decentralized cryptocurrecncy are no devs at all. As long as you have devs you have centralization. As long as we are having the discussion about whether Gavin should do this or Blockstream should do that (and there is a real possibility these things may happen), Bitcoin hasn't accomplished much of anything at all.

When the concept of the lead developer of Bitcoin makes as little sense as the lead developer of sex, then we'll be on to something.

At best, it may be on its way to that, and the same can be said for Monero.

I'm not convinced by the concept of fully anonymous developers in the embryonic stages. We may have gotten lucky with satoshi actually being sincere (though you argue he worked for or was a patsy for the Deep State) but the altcoin experiments have shown us rather conclusively that most anonymous devs are fraudsters and manipulators. That has made the task of any fully anonymous dev getting the trust of an intelligent and mature community, as is certainly needed during those embryonic stages, almost impossible.




Im quite passed the personality cults. Bitcoin's strenght (and value, ie. utility) resides in its decentralization. Why we always have to Line up behind leaders? Bitcoin is not about satoshi, and even less about Gavin or Garzik. Let them collude ideas, the network should do the picking regardless of centralized means such as TBF or MIT sponsored research. Its Just that calling for loobying is far below the belt.

If "the network" is (i.e. people are) doing the picking then it has all certainly become a political process, and lobbying is inevitable.

If a political process is what you want, just stick with fiat. It's far more efficient, more functional (arguable, and probably the only item on this list that is), has far stronger network effects, and represents the most legitimate claim as the true global ledger.

dEBRUYNE
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232


View Profile
June 04, 2015, 08:09:26 AM
 #25445


<snip>

i smell Monero all over him.

Ok, as you mention it, and this is not meant as an attack on Monero, what I really don't understand is how a truly anonymous coin can survive, regardless of the tech, when the lead developers are public figures (eg Smooth, who was extremely helpful when I asked about the 21inc stuff) and they have a very public 'castle' as the home of one of their lead promoters (Risto).
How does that work if/when  the SHTF ??
Honestly, I have nothing against Monero, but I can't wrap my head around how something that TPTB will obviously fight against can flourish with these criteria. $5 wrench anyone ??

Please enlighten me. I say this in a truly non-confrontational manner - I am truly confused

I have to correct you for a bit here, Monero can be transparant on-demand. I also agree that a fully anonymous coin will probably get into some legal trouble.


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

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 04, 2015, 08:10:53 AM
 #25446

That pyramidal network and inertia means we end up entrusting the lead devs based on their past performance, i.e. the source code and market success.

You have implicitly made the case that anonymous lead devs are better than named lead devs.

Then I wasn't clear. The only devs that really work in the case of a decentralized cryptocurrecncy are no devs at all. If you have devs you have centralization. As long as we are having the discussion about whether Gavin should do this or Blockstream should do that (and there is a real possibility these things may happen), Bitcoin hasn't accomplished much of anything at all.

When the concept of the lead developer of Bitcoin makes as little sense as the lead developer of sex, then we'll be on to something.

At best, it may be on its way to that, and the same can be said for Monero.

I'm not convinced by the concept of fully anonymous developers in the embryonic stages. We may have gotten lucky with satoshi actually being sincere (though you argue he worked for or was a patsy for the Deep State) but the altcoin experiments have shown us rather conclusively that most anonymous devs are fraudsters and manipulators. That has made the task of any fully anonymous dev getting the trust of an intelligent and mature community, as is certainly needed during those embryonic stages, almost impossible.

Here we go again on another interesting intellectual discussion with smooth  Cool

Even if we attain fully completed protocols that run entirely decentralized without further oversight from devs, I believe there will be ongoing development of orthogonal wallets and protocols that sit on top of the base protocol which can if widely adopted with the wrong attributes then weaken the decentralization of the base protocol. I realize that if orthogonal designs can weaken the base protocol then the claim of orthogonality is not entirely fulfilled, but a fundamental tenet of computer science is that absolute orthogonality does not exist.

Thus it very unlikely that we will get away from needing to entrust someone with development.

I have a specific development schedule in mind which involves first releasing a base protocol then layering on top of it. Wouldn't it be better to be anonymous so the development goals can be completed rather than being behind bars and unable to contribute?

Even the internet appears to have this issue. The autonomous decentralized base protocols (e.g. TCP/IP, BGP routing, etc) are being subsumed by the public's trust of large corporate portals such as Facebook, Paypal, Google, Yahoo, Coinbase, etc.. However, I do agree with smooth's implied thesis which is that paradigm shifts romp because they are naturally congruent; I think any overthrow of the corporate subsumption of the internet will be such a paradigm shift (and I have one in mind).

The issue of trust of an anonymous lead dev is mostly contingent on the attributes of the effort. Certainly some non-anonymous contributors will arrive on the scene and add veracity to any worthwhile project and they may feel they don't have the liability of being the creator.

Of course I agree with smooth that the best is for the work to be completed and that is the safest for the developer also at this juncture in history where cryptographers are being thrown in jail in the USA and Australia (and probably more countries to enjoin as the global contagion spreads).

It is also probably best to structure protocols and projects such that the most socially contentious portions are orthogonal so that anonymity of the lead dev and the threats are contained to the orthogonal portions.

hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 08:25:36 AM
 #25447

That pyramidal network and inertia means we end up entrusting the lead devs based on their past performance, i.e. the source code and market success.

You have implicitly made the case that anonymous lead devs are better than named lead devs.

Then I wasn't clear. The only devs that really work in the case of a decentralized cryptocurrecncy are no devs at all. As long as you have devs you have centralization. As long as we are having the discussion about whether Gavin should do this or Blockstream should do that (and there is a real possibility these things may happen), Bitcoin hasn't accomplished much of anything at all.

When the concept of the lead developer of Bitcoin makes as little sense as the lead developer of sex, then we'll be on to something.

At best, it may be on its way to that, and the same can be said for Monero.

I'm not convinced by the concept of fully anonymous developers in the embryonic stages. We may have gotten lucky with satoshi actually being sincere (though you argue he worked for or was a patsy for the Deep State) but the altcoin experiments have shown us rather conclusively that most anonymous devs are fraudsters and manipulators. That has made the task of any fully anonymous dev getting the trust of an intelligent and mature community, as is certainly needed during those embryonic stages, almost impossible.




Im quite passed the personality cults. Bitcoin's strenght (and value, ie. utility) resides in its decentralization. Why we always have to Line up behind leaders? Bitcoin is not about satoshi, and even less about Gavin or Garzik. Let them collude ideas, the network should do the picking regardless of centralized means such as TBF or MIT sponsored research. Its Just that calling for loobying is far below the belt.

If "the network" is (i.e. people are) doing the picking then it has all certainly become a political process, and lobbying is inevitable.

If a political process is what you want, just stick with fiat. It's far more efficient, more functional (arguable, and probably the only item on this list that is), has far stronger network effects, and represents the most legitimate claim as the true global ledger.




No thats my point, I dont want it to be political. Bitcoin is apolitical although it certainly threaten lots of policies around the globe.
Lobbying is for people that cant convince by natural essence.
Paying (favoring) some douche to talk about things he does not even grasp (or for the sake of his own business) is hypocrite if not totally undemocratic, so why would you think Bitcoin need such parasites?
Did the TBF lobbyists led bitcoin to +1k$? I dont think so. So lets not loose ourselves in "traditional" means. The problem is people tend to always compare what they where used to and try to apply it to Bitcoin. This is nonsens.

Bitcoin is not about Wall Street, Bitcoin is not about regulation a la Bitlicense, Bitcoin is not about leaders, and Bitcoin is not about lobbying.
Bitcoin is decentralized, Bitcoin is permissionless, Bitcoin is opensource, Bitcoin is antifragile, Bitcoin is Peer-to-Peer, Bitcoin is consensus.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 04, 2015, 08:28:46 AM
 #25448

Also there are so many talented developers in the world who are not even working in the crypto-coin space. I really wish we could broaden the scope of crypto-currency to entice more of them (and again I have something specific in mind).

Pegged side-chains main attribute is to retain BTC value across chains which afaics seems to be a poor value-added proposition. This is a different focus from Ethereum. I had postulated an idea that the way to solve Ethereum's intractable technical issues are to use a merged mined chain for each custom scripting language and let competition decide how to best structure the balance between permissionless and scaling (but such a design may or may not fit their business model).

hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 08:44:47 AM
 #25449

and this is fun: NSA errwhere! Grin

> http://imgur.com/a/9CAfo <

how about that freedomTM act? US people happy?
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 04, 2015, 08:45:34 AM
 #25450

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.

In the video I linked, Gregory Maxwell made the point that decentralized systems need consistency more than correctness, because consensus can be lost by technical inconsistency. He makes a strong argument against introducing multiple code bases for full clients at this time.

If from the start there was parallel development of multiple full node clients successfully interopting, then the issue is implicitly resolved. Even better to have a standardization process and a test suite, but then your protocol needs to be well contained.

Decentralization is hard. This is another strong reason to make the base protocol as simple as possible and layer on top of it.

I am backtracking a bit on my stance of the debate over the change to 20MB. After watching that video of Greg, I see Bitcoin is doomed to bloating complexity. You are soon reaching the limit of any changes you can make without blowing up the system. All that spaghetti Greg apparently added to heuristically deal with Sybil attacks is an example of mucking up. This all perfect for the corporations subsuming Bitcoin because as the decentralized crap craters to complexity, the responsibility for the value exchange will fall into their lap. From this standpoint, MP's stance is very astute.

We need to rethink the entire thing. But one rule of software is you never rewrite from scratch. You paradigm shift instead and deprecate the old.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 04, 2015, 09:05:21 AM
 #25451

Perhaps he is making a lot of profit painting the image of himself as a clever in-your-face thorn in the side of the USA regulators, and others flock to his coattails, but I would much prefer a more clever approach of silent action and anonymity. Ideologically I am mostly aligned with his stance, yet I don't see much value in the in-your-face approach...

World Without Web by Eric S Raymond.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 04, 2015, 09:17:06 AM
 #25452

We're talking about building something that will disrupt a control system that's been dominant for thousands of years. I'd be astonished if it succeeded in only it's first iteration.

Especially since it was designed to disrupt those who are wanting to disrupt that control system.

What do you mean by that?

I am referring to the upthread discussion of 21 Inc, the potential to Sybil attack the pools, etc (which Satoshi was aware of and even advocated that the mining become centralized among corporations). Bitcoin is designed not to scale without being captured by the corporations (and thus the State). Couple that argument with the fact that the whitepaper mentions gold and is oozing with high tech BlingBling, thus it appears cleverly crafted to delude and disrupt us.

Note I had edited that post after you replied:

Edit: the caveat I repeat is that Bitcoin has network effects and the Butterfly effects and serving as a reserve currency of potential altcoins raises the possibility that Bitcoin is a Trojan horse on itself.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 04, 2015, 09:27:24 AM
 #25453

and this is fun: NSA errwhere! Grin

> http://imgur.com/a/9CAfo <

how about that freedomTM act? US people happy?

Sorry for the noise. I can't resist commenting that is simultaneously hilarious and sobering (or exciting depending...).

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 04, 2015, 09:36:00 AM
 #25454

Gavin's allusion to Greg overextending himself is an example of his pragmatism and balance. Gavin made choices based on being able to deliver, not based on what is ideal. My successes have come from being more like Gavin. My failures have come from being more like Greg.


Fundamentally, Gavin has assigned himself this problem.  He is diligently canvassing and curating opinions on the problems and methods of resolving them.
It can be frustrating work, but it is fully necessary.

He is getting a lot of help in this effort so it is not merely a contest of wills and personalities.  Also...Both Greg and Gavin are on the same team and not opposed, though their weighting of the priority of tasks may differ, so it is not really so much a matter of winner/loser.

My big picture is morphing. I now see that Bitcoin is approaching fragility due to reaching complexity and scaling constraints and there are no good solutions. Gavin is pushing for the simplest solution to retain scaling of transactions. Gregory is pushing for more time to develop their "solution" of pegged side chains, hoping that will offload some of the pressure on block size increases. Blockstream proponents have an incentive to keep the block size small enough that there is an incentive to try their pegged side chains. Gavin's proposal is more pragmatic and direct, but not if it requires breaking the consensus with a new full node code base (but I suspect he introduced this as an intentional Red Herring to encourage capitulation and compromise).

I don't see any of it working long-term. Bitcoin is eventually falling into the lap of the corporations in the space who will take over as the decentralized morass implodes. TPTB are subsuming Bitcoin from every facet (regulation, capturing the masses in online wallets, Sybil attacking the pools, 21 Inc strategy to monopolize mining economics, etc).

Perhaps Steve Jobs greatest skill was in identifying scaling constraints. Here is an example of what Steve taught my former boss.

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 09:53:27 AM
 #25455

I have a specific development schedule in mind which involves first releasing a base protocol then layering on top of it. Wouldn't it be better to be anonymous so the development goals can be completed rather than being behind bars and unable to contribute?

Well for a start I don't buy the paranoia about people developing open source software going behind bars. It hasn't happened and it isn't happening on any kind of significant scale (obviously there can always be individual cases). What I see as more likely is it becomes a regulatory hassle, possibly, and people don't think it is worth the trouble so they quit. Maybe at that point a farther underground approach is needed, but that will come at a real cost in credibility and uptake. Everyone doesn't get to be satoshi (even Sunny King has his share of detractors). So far, though, there is no sign of that either. Just engaging in software development and distribution was removed from bitlicense, for example, several months ago.

If you think you can develop something purely anonymously and get anyone to actually care about it (even enough for credible non-anonymous developers to get involved), go right ahead. But realistically you can probably just take the simple approach of not being anonymous (and therefore having some much needed credibility) and just finish what you want to finish and move on before regulations become too onerous. Ideally by then your participation isn't needed any more. As I said earlier, there has to be a time when the baby grows up and leaves the nest, or the effort is pointless.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 04, 2015, 10:03:14 AM
 #25456

Smooth there is also the pragmatic reality that we are probably not anonymous any way to the Five Eyes Wink

I don't agree with your apathy on whether cryptographers who invent anything that truly threatens TPTB will be made into examples. Monero devs don't need to worry because Monero can be easily taken over by TPTB by monopolizing the mining. Or if ever Monero scales up, then it will have the centralization morass Bitcoin has. Whereas if someone makes a breakthrough invention which can truly scale decentralized, they will have challenged the TPTB.

I'd much rather see someone anonymous create something, then I'd rather contribute non-anonymously as the non-creator of that thing.

I've been waiting for something I could contribute to (hopefully where the project retained some coins to pay developers until development is done and the thing runs on auto-pilot). But again I would keep my promise to not loudly announce my contribution nor push one altcoin over another. I agree with you that anything with legs will win on its merits (no need for me to shout). I'd hope to see you there too if the merits justify it.

Edit: Sunny King and proof-of-stake were so close yet so far from attaining the ideal design. When one asks the wrong question, they will get the wrong answer even if the answer answers correctly.

Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


View Profile
June 04, 2015, 10:20:16 AM
 #25457

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).

This all makes sense. Need to keep him on but not give him the keys, exactly.

Quote
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.

Just noticed Greg has an XMR address for donations on his profile. He also just published the Borromean Ring Signatures paper. One other thing he said recently about Monero is that there are limited network resources, and we have to decide how much to allocate to decentralization, anonymity, TPS, etc. He is clearly thinking about Monero, probably wants to make it a sidechain or something.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 04, 2015, 10:31:52 AM
 #25458


<snip>

i smell Monero all over him.

Ok, as you mention it, and this is not meant as an attack on Monero, what I really don't understand is how a truly anonymous coin can survive, regardless of the tech, when the lead developers are public figures (eg Smooth, who was extremely helpful when I asked about the 21inc stuff) and they have a very public 'castle' as the home of one of their lead promoters (Risto).
How does that work if/when  the SHTF ??
Honestly, I have nothing against Monero, but I can't wrap my head around how something that TPTB will obviously fight against can flourish with these criteria. $5 wrench anyone ??

Please enlighten me. I say this in a truly non-confrontational manner - I am truly confused

I have to correct you for a bit here, Monero can be transparant on-demand. I also agree that a fully anonymous coin will probably get into some legal trouble.



But doesn't that optional anonymity property of Monero violate its fungibility argument? (smooth apologies if we'd already had this debate and I forgot)

TPTB will again use regulation and monopolization techniques to subsume Monero and force all users to turn off the anonymity else their coins don't transact.

We are not getting any where.

I am grateful to Monero because for the near-term it offers the only way to get somewhat reliable anonymity. I am not seeing how it survives without radically altering its mining algorithm.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 03:18:31 PM
 #25459

back at it:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 03:19:47 PM
 #25460

Gold!  show us the way, baby!:

Pages: « 1 ... 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 1322 1323 ... 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!