Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 09:59:09 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [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 ... 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 1324 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1806137 times)
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 04, 2015, 03:10:39 AM
 #25461

2)I think you have to trust the source code, not the devs. If you aren't competent to trust the source code, develop a network of people you trust who are.

2) How does crypto go mainstream with this caveat?

Masses trust the herd. Just get the herd moving in one direction and they all follow.

1481191149
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481191149

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481191149
Reply with quote  #2

1481191149
Report to moderator
1481191149
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481191149

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481191149
Reply with quote  #2

1481191149
Report to moderator
1481191149
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481191149

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481191149
Reply with quote  #2

1481191149
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481191149
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481191149

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481191149
Reply with quote  #2

1481191149
Report to moderator
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 04, 2015, 03:13:27 AM
 #25462

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. I am not speculating about intentions; rather I am stating factually what Satoshi's design is and has accomplished.

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.

knight22
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358


--------------->¿?


View Profile
June 04, 2015, 03:16:42 AM
 #25463

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?

NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
June 04, 2015, 03:41:39 AM
 #25464

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.

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
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
June 04, 2015, 03:48:17 AM
 #25465

guys like marcus, tvbcof, and iCE are bombastic, antagonistic, fear mongerers that seldom contribute any meaningful theoretical discussion here.  they usually attack first by suddenly appearing out of nowhere throwing bombs and vicious name calling; usually at me.  i can easily take it but i've seen them do it to other ppl too.  they are extremists and unfortunately want Bitcoin to wallow in it's own small little corner here in the US & Europe.  which is quite ironic given their objectives.  i just don't think they realize what the hell they're doing.

i can kinda be that way too but usually in self defense.  but at least i'm willing to engage in deep thought, talk openly, ask questions, acknowledge not knowing some things, or ask for help.  these guys are like terrorist know-it-alls that have no remorse.

Now we know you've lost it.  Marcus is among the top 10 most intelligent and articulate posters here, just like you used to be.

He's never joined our Monero Fan Club AFAIK.  Perhaps you're confusing him with aminorex (another preeminent mind who has)?

"Vicious name calling?"  Tell your therapist all about how the mean kids refused to let you be the boss of Bitcoin.

You can't handle becoming the butt of harmless jokes and being nicknamed Frap.doc without resorting to playing the "terrorist" card?  Wow...

You are becoming unhinged and need to take a vacation.

Your all-in in support of the Gavinista's 20mb block putsch has been demonstrated to be based on flawed calculations (as tweeted by ptodd and nszabo).

The operator of the largest pool in China is on record schooling Gavin on the stupidity of rushing giant blocks:

https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg08010.html

That's why Gavin is backpedeling to 8MB.  You should join his retreat, instead of picking the wrong hill to die on (along with your credibility).

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
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Wallets - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }


Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


"I believed @Dashpay instamine was a bug & not a feature but then read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg13017231#msg13017231
I'm not against people making money, but can't support questionable origins."
https://twitter.com/Tone_LLT/status/717822927908024320


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004

"Hard forks cannot be co
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
June 04, 2015, 04:25:35 AM
 #25466

It's interesting how people talk about Monero as if we know for sure the privacy achievable in Monero is greater than the privacy achievable in Bitcoin.

Has anyone measured it?
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
June 04, 2015, 04:32:09 AM
 #25467

It's interesting how people talk about Monero as if we know for sure the privacy achievable in Monero is greater than the privacy achievable in Bitcoin.

Has anyone measured it?

Yes, Monero's privacy has been "measured" (if by "measured" you mean 'mathematically proven') and we thus do know for sure it's better than Bitcoin's.

https://downloads.getmonero.org/whitepaper_review.pdf

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
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Wallets - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }


Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


"I believed @Dashpay instamine was a bug & not a feature but then read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg13017231#msg13017231
I'm not against people making money, but can't support questionable origins."
https://twitter.com/Tone_LLT/status/717822927908024320


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004

"Hard forks cannot be co
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
June 04, 2015, 05:20:47 AM
 #25468

It's interesting how people talk about Monero as if we know for sure the privacy achievable in Monero is greater than the privacy achievable in Bitcoin.

Has anyone measured it?

Yes, Monero's privacy has been "measured" (if by "measured" you mean 'mathematically proven') and we thus do know for sure it's better than Bitcoin's.

https://downloads.getmonero.org/whitepaper_review.pdf

Some of the privacy of Monero would be achievable using Bitcoin, but only if everyone changed their operational security methods.
JustusRanvier uses stealth addresses, which privacy would be further improved if he only transacted with others who also do this.  Ring signatures can also theoretically be accomplished albeit with some difficulty by using a client that could support this sort of key signing exchanges.

The problem for privacy remains, however, that since these are not a fundamental part of the protocol and a default for each transaction.  There are limits to the amount of privacy that can be obtained in the face of correlation analysis by a well funded reveal-er of such secrets.

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
smooth
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1246



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 07:25:52 AM
 #25469

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.


TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 04, 2015, 07:35:45 AM
 #25470

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.

hdbuck
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1134



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 07:41:44 AM
 #25471

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
 #25472

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
*
Online Online

Activity: 1246



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 07:59:31 AM
 #25473

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: 882


View Profile
June 04, 2015, 08:09:26 AM
 #25474


<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
 #25475

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
*
Online Online

Activity: 1134



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 08:25:36 AM
 #25476

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
 #25477

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
*
Online Online

Activity: 1134



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 08:44:47 AM
 #25478

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
 #25479

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
 #25480

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.

Pages: « 1 ... 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 1324 ... 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!