Bitcoin Forum
July 21, 2017, 03:07:45 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.14.2  [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 ... 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 1325 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1933091 times)
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 04, 2015, 05:06:40 PM
 #25481

mixing does not have to be specified at the protocol level.

You apparently missed the upthread discussion about the intractable scaling problems in CoinJoin.

The mixing must be supported on chain otherwise it is not viable for a few reasons.

I don't want to repeat again. Search the thread for smooth's and my comments about CoinJoin.

1500649665
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1500649665

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1500649665
Reply with quote  #2

1500649665
Report to moderator
1500649665
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1500649665

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1500649665
Reply with quote  #2

1500649665
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1500649665
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1500649665

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1500649665
Reply with quote  #2

1500649665
Report to moderator
1500649665
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1500649665

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1500649665
Reply with quote  #2

1500649665
Report to moderator
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


View Profile
June 04, 2015, 05:14:30 PM
 #25482

On another subject, the anti-expansionists think that we could hard fork in an emergency in a month.  Maybe we should challenge them to prove it.  Let's hard fork to 2MB (the smallest reasonable increase) or 2MB + 10% a year if they'll agree within a month.  If that works, maybe I'll believe that we can do it quickly when it counts

That would have the advantage of quieting the extremists, like Mircea Popescu and his following, who refuse any change at all. Once we have made an upward change, that horse has left the stable.

Plus, if tx volume doesn't simply increase to fill the space but rather miners self-limit, it will suggest that a 20MB (or 8MB) limit isn't going to mess anything up either. It will also be progressively harder to argue for the "well-connected miners torment poorly connected miners with big blocks" attack. In many ways this will be the camel's nose under the tent, as well as serving the purpose you mentioned, that Greg and Luke claim we can hotfix on the fly (if we can, great, let's do that, but if not...).
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 05:19:44 PM
 #25483

On another subject, the anti-expansionists think that we could hard fork in an emergency in a month.  Maybe we should challenge them to prove it.  Let's hard fork to 2MB (the smallest reasonable increase) or 2MB + 10% a year if they'll agree within a month.  If that works, maybe I'll believe that we can do it quickly when it counts

That would have the advantage of quieting the extremists, like Mircea Popescu and his following, who refuse any change at all. Once we have made an upward change, that horse has left the stable.

Plus, if tx volume doesn't simply increase to fill the space but rather miners self-limit, it will suggest that a 20MB (or 8MB) limit isn't going to mess anything up either. It will also be progressively harder to argue for the "well-connected miners torment poorly connected miners with big blocks" attack. In many ways this will be the camel's nose under the tent, as well as serving the purpose you mentioned, that Greg and Luke claim we can hotfix on the fly (if we can, great, let's do that, but if not...).

it's SO obvious you cannot fork at the last minute.  it's simply b/c a huge portion of the network won't get the memo to upgrade immediately.  merchants will keep processing tx's that get forked off the network.  chaos and confusion will occur.  this is why Satoshi talked about a slow progressive "versioning" update with the final features only being enabled after 8-12 mo or so when it's clear thru monitoring that most everyone has updated.  this is what we're doing right now with XT.

i think it's really disingenuous for Greg to say so.  yet another black mark in my checkbook for him.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 05:19:55 PM
 #25484

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 doubt that any cryptocoin can ever be on auto pilot as the crypto evolves as computerization advances.  what is secure today won't be secure tomorrow thus requiring continual updating.

the term hard fork is a bad one, imo.  even after 6y, definitions amongst early adopters varies.  in my mind, i think of them as necessary upgrades.  they are in fact necessary over time as situations change and crypto cracking techniques mature.  or even as the economic conditions change, like i think we are seeing now with the restrictions 1MB is causing.

the increasing block limit movement is Gavin responding to continued lobbying by the economic majority of Bitcoin users who are acting out of conditions in the real business world.  the crypto-anarchists hate this.  i get their point but as i've already said, if one's fundamental unit is the full node and not the user, i think you're doing it wrong.  network work squaring effects will correlate with the user, not full nodes.  we see this in all comparable models; Uber, AirBnB, Facebook, Twitter, etc.  Full nodes are analogous to ACH or Swift which is simply the plumbing or transmission services for users.

small blocks are the ultimate in centralization.  all you have to do is look at the system as it is today as a result of 1MB blocks; confined mainly to the 2 most regulated geographic regions of the world, the US & Europe.  with usage still primarily by geeks.  that's a recipe for heavy intervention by regualtion.  who honestly thinks that Nasdaq will expand their trading systems while constrained to 3 tps? i think the Visa's and MC's are laughing at us while some of us fight hard to keep us constrained.   

What will happen if companies like 21 inc litter the globe with their tech built into hardware devices? How could a hard fork ever work then?

Miners do what the nodes allow them to do.
Nodes are maintained by network users with an invested interest in preserving the value stored in the network.
The Network of users grows because Bitcoin does what it says on the can.
The many supporting Gavin are not the majority, the majority in Bitcoin is the economic majority and should be typical distributed over a typical bell curve.

The voters are the nodes, some developers want to keep centralized control over the majority of the nodes, some developers realize this is bad, - maintaining control its either explicit, subconscious, or subverted.  

KNC just launched a chip that is 800% more efficient than there previous most efficient chip. Before 21 becomes a problem, KNC are going to become the new BTCGuild or GHash.io. they will also be eclipsed when inlet, AMD or someone Taiwanese breakaway chip manufacturer thinks there is an opportunity in Bitcoin.  

So with the above in mind, i think that's a good idea so long as 21 are not cooperating with the Core developers who what to maintain centralized control, and if they are the problem is not 21, its centralized control of the code that runs the nodes.    

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 05:21:21 PM
 #25485

major dump going on. $DJI down -200
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 05:35:55 PM
 #25486

On another subject, the anti-expansionists think that we could hard fork in an emergency in a month.  Maybe we should challenge them to prove it.  Let's hard fork to 2MB (the smallest reasonable increase) or 2MB + 10% a year if they'll agree within a month.  If that works, maybe I'll believe that we can do it quickly when it counts

That would have the advantage of quieting the extremists, like Mircea Popescu and his following, who refuse any change at all. Once we have made an upward change, that horse has left the stable.

Plus, if tx volume doesn't simply increase to fill the space but rather miners self-limit, it will suggest that a 20MB (or 8MB) limit isn't going to mess anything up either. It will also be progressively harder to argue for the "well-connected miners torment poorly connected miners with big blocks" attack. In many ways this will be the camel's nose under the tent, as well as serving the purpose you mentioned, that Greg and Luke claim we can hotfix on the fly (if we can, great, let's do that, but if not...).

it's SO obvious you cannot fork at the last minute.  it's simply b/c a huge portion of the network won't get the memo to upgrade immediately.  merchants will keep processing tx's that get forked off the network.  chaos and confusion will occur.  this is why Satoshi talked about a slow progressive "versioning" update with the final features only being enabled after 8-12 mo or so when it's clear thru monitoring that most everyone has updated.  this is what we're doing right now with XT.

i think it's really disingenuous for Greg to say so.  yet another black mark in my checkbook for him.

even if the network is lucky enough to get to the "last minute" before losing all it's customers from unconf tx's, tell me how you know you're there?  apparently it will be decided by core devs like Greg.  the obvious question is then, "where is the last minute?"  if anything the last few weeks of contentious debate has demonstrated is that we can't decide on what the last minute will be even if we agree to wait until the last minute.
thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
June 04, 2015, 05:42:42 PM
 #25487

On another subject, the anti-expansionists think that we could hard fork in an emergency in a month.  Maybe we should challenge them to prove it.  Let's hard fork to 2MB (the smallest reasonable increase) or 2MB + 10% a year if they'll agree within a month.  If that works, maybe I'll believe that we can do it quickly when it counts

That would have the advantage of quieting the extremists, like Mircea Popescu and his following, who refuse any change at all. Once we have made an upward change, that horse has left the stable.

Plus, if tx volume doesn't simply increase to fill the space but rather miners self-limit, it will suggest that a 20MB (or 8MB) limit isn't going to mess anything up either. It will also be progressively harder to argue for the "well-connected miners torment poorly connected miners with big blocks" attack. In many ways this will be the camel's nose under the tent, as well as serving the purpose you mentioned, that Greg and Luke claim we can hotfix on the fly (if we can, great, let's do that, but if not...).

it's SO obvious you cannot fork at the last minute.  it's simply b/c a huge portion of the network won't get the memo to upgrade immediately.  merchants will keep processing tx's that get forked off the network.  chaos and confusion will occur.  this is why Satoshi talked about a slow progressive "versioning" update with the final features only being enabled after 8-12 mo or so when it's clear thru monitoring that most everyone has updated.  this is what we're doing right now with XT.

i think it's really disingenuous for Greg to say so.  yet another black mark in my checkbook for him.

even if the network is lucky enough to get to the "last minute" before losing all it's customers from unconf tx's, tell me how you know you're there?  apparently it will be decided by core devs like Greg.  the obvious question is then, "where is the last minute?"  if anything the last few weeks of contentious debate has demonstrated is that we can't decide on what the last minute will be even if we agree to wait until the last minute.

I agree with you, they probably won't be able to do it.  But as ZB said this proposal breaks the "1MB because that's the way its been" mentality even if it happens in 3 months instead of 1, so that is a good thing.  Ironically, if it CAN be done in 1 month, that speaks pretty negatively about decentralization -- in the same sense that all the different central banks don't make the system decentralized.  They are all marchin in step to the same drummer.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 06:05:23 PM
 #25488

latest poll results "should the blocksize be raised?".
http://www.poll-maker.com/results329839xee274Cb0-12#tab-2:

Stephen Gornick
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2212



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 06:05:55 PM
 #25489

Seeing a little about HayekGold from Anthem, ... uses Counterparty.  
http://news.anthemvault.com/hayekcoin-becomes-hayekgold

http://www.businessinsider.com/hayek-cryptocurrency-backed-by-gold-2015-5

Once I have bought through Anthem, does this let me sell or transfer on my own?  (i.e., over-the-counter, using a counterparty wallet)?  Or am I simply only able to sell back to Anthem?

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 04, 2015, 06:07:02 PM
 #25490

if one's fundamental unit is the full node andis not the user, i think you're doing it wrong

I corrected that for you to stop violating the End-to-End Principle of networks.

i doubt that any cryptocoin can ever be on auto pilot as the crypto evolves as computerization advances.  what is secure today won't be secure tomorrow thus requiring continual updating.

The voters are the nodes, some developers want to keep centralized control over the majority of the nodes, some developers realize this is bad, - maintaining control its either explicit, subconscious, or subverted.

this is why Satoshi talked about a slow progressive "versioning" update with the final features only being enabled after 8-12 mo or so when it's clear thru monitoring that most everyone has updated

i think it's really disingenuous for Greg to say so

if it CAN be done in 1 month, that speaks pretty negatively about decentralization...  They are all marchin in step to the same drummer.

An ideal crypto-coin would not violate Tim Berners-Lee's Principle of Least Power as Bitcoin egregiously does.

It would do the minimum necessary and leave as much autonomy as possible to the nodes. Ideally the nodes could even disagree about the issues you all are squabbling about and the minimum requirement would still be met.

It would be decentralized at any scale. It would scale to any level of transaction volume. It would not require any specific choice of crypto algorithm (nodes would be free to choose).

Anyone guessed my paradigm shift yet?

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 06:07:30 PM
 #25491

latest poll results "should the blocksize be raised?".
http://www.poll-maker.com/results329839xee274Cb0-12#tab-2:



looks where all the voters come from.  does THIS look decentralized to you?:

Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 06:17:43 PM
 #25492

i doubt that any cryptocoin can ever be on auto pilot as the crypto evolves as computerization advances.  what is secure today won't be secure tomorrow thus requiring continual updating.

The voters are the nodes, some developers want to keep centralized control over the majority of the nodes, some developers realize this is bad, - maintaining control its either explicit, subconscious, or subverted.

this is why Satoshi talked about a slow progressive "versioning" update with the final features only being enabled after 8-12 mo or so when it's clear thru monitoring that most everyone has updated

i think it's really disingenuous for Greg to say so

if it CAN be done in 1 month, that speaks pretty negatively about decentralization...  They are all marchin in step to the same drummer.

An ideal crypto-coin would not violate Tim Berners-Lee's Principle of Least Power as Bitcoin egregiously does.

It would do the minimum necessary and leave as much autonomy as possible to the nodes. Ideally the nodes could even disagree about the issues you all are squabbling about and the minimum requirement would still be met.

It would be decentralized at any scale. It would scale to any level of transaction volume. It would not require any specific choice of crypto algorithm (nodes would be free to choose).

Anyone guessed my paradigm shift yet?

fiat 2.0, SDR's come on.

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

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 04, 2015, 06:21:25 PM
 #25493

fiat 2.0, SDR's come on.

Hehe. Bitcoin is centralized, you are only obfuscating to yourself if you claim that it isn't.

The centralization was put in the wrong place in Bitcoin's design. Move it then the decentralization can control the centralization.

Natalia_AnatolioPAMM
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
June 04, 2015, 06:39:01 PM
 #25494

latest poll results "should the blocksize be raised?".
http://www.poll-maker.com/results329839xee274Cb0-12#tab-2:



quite obvious
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


View Profile
June 04, 2015, 06:41:01 PM
 #25495

if one's fundamental unit is the full node andis not the user, i think you're doing it wrong

I corrected that for you to stop violating the End-to-End Principle of networks.

...

An ideal crypto-coin would not violate Tim Berners-Lee's Principle of Least Power as Bitcoin egregiously does.

It would do the minimum necessary and leave as much autonomy as possible to the nodes. Ideally the nodes could even disagree about the issues you all are squabbling about and the minimum requirement would still be met.

It would be decentralized at any scale. It would scale to any level of transaction volume. It would not require any specific choice of crypto algorithm (nodes would be free to choose).

Anyone guessed my paradigm shift yet?

How do you create a network topology that is decentralized at any scale?
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
June 04, 2015, 06:43:26 PM
 #25496

Anyone guessed my paradigm shift yet?

The goal is clear enough, and laudable.  It is the path to that goal that remains occluded.

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
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


View Profile
June 04, 2015, 06:43:39 PM
 #25497


Yes because almost everyone agrees it should be raised (Greg and Luke excepted, though they agree it should be raised eventually). The poll didn't ask about raising to 20MB.
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
June 04, 2015, 06:47:33 PM
 #25498

Yes because almost everyone agrees it should be raised (Greg and Luke excepted, though they agree it should be raised eventually). The poll didn't ask about raising to 20MB.

The devil is in the details, with no details, its all angels.

I suppose I would vote "NO" to most any change without knowing the details, but not "NO" to change itself.  I think Gavin is getting closer and closer to something that will make sense.  He is down to 8mb now, changed at a particular future block?

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
pinky
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 415

ChipMixer.com - mixing reinvented for your privacy


View Profile WWW
June 04, 2015, 06:56:26 PM
 #25499

latest poll results "should the blocksize be raised?".
http://www.poll-maker.com/results329839xee274Cb0-12#tab-2:



looks where all the voters come from.  does THIS look decentralized to you?:



And what's the point of voting on highly technical question? Democracy doesn't work with this stuff, because majority have holes in their brains and then they lean on opinions of others and marketing campaigns.

impulse
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 151


View Profile
June 04, 2015, 07:05:31 PM
 #25500

latest poll results "should the blocksize be raised?".
http://www.poll-maker.com/results329839xee274Cb0-12#tab-2:



Interesting result. If that is truly reflective of the community as a whole then the anti-increase crown are quite disproportionately represented in this debate. Greg, Luke and Peter sure do know how to stir up some serious shit.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1325 ... 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!