Bitcoin Forum
December 04, 2016, 04:07:34 AM *
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 ... 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 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1803966 times)
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 04, 2015, 09:17:06 AM
 #25481

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.

1480824454
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480824454

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480824454
Reply with quote  #2

1480824454
Report to moderator
1480824454
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480824454

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480824454
Reply with quote  #2

1480824454
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480824454
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480824454

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480824454
Reply with quote  #2

1480824454
Report to moderator
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 04, 2015, 09:27:24 AM
 #25482

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
 #25483

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: 1246



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 09:53:27 AM
 #25484

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
 #25485

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: 1022


View Profile
June 04, 2015, 10:20:16 AM
 #25486

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
 #25487


<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
 #25488

back at it:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 03:19:47 PM
 #25489

Gold!  show us the way, baby!:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 03:24:17 PM
 #25490

here's a look back at silverbox's all time favorite, GPL.  for those of you who don't remember him, he was yet another one of tvbcof's cypherdoc "smashing buddies" who advocated vehemently for GPL along with gold with tvbcof way up when it was at $5.10.  so sad, just a fleeting shadow of what it once was:

rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
June 04, 2015, 03:39:17 PM
 #25491

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.

The only real argument I've seen for Monero is that privacy was make "at the protocol level".

In Monero's case though, "at the protocol level" simply means that everyone is forced to transact in a certain manner (a manner that mixes) on top of a bitcoin style address protocol.

However, this is not a real innovation. The exact same mixing procedures can be done on top of Bitcoin. No Bitcoin does not force this mixing, but any group of people, entities or wallets can agree to use the same mixing procedures as Monero or better ones as they are developed. This means Bitcoin in the end will have better mixing/privacy features than Monero, since Bitcoin is flexible and any mixing procedure can be run on top of it.

Which brings us back to the Monero innovation, Monero's "innovation" is simply the decision to force all transactions to use a single fixed mixing routine. That is not an innovation though, it is a decision. Any group of entities using Bitcoin can make the same decision.

"At the protocol level" simply means that all transactions are forced into a single static mixing routine. However with Bitcoin, although people are not forced into any mixing routine, they are free to agree to use any mixing routing that may be developed.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 03:40:16 PM
 #25492


<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

What do you think the developers and promoters can actually do to stop it, even when/if the $5 wrench is applied?

It's an open source project, the code is "out there."

Worst case I suppose is some sort of malicious/coerced code changes to introduce a back door, of the sort that some of the most paranoid attribute to Gavin (I don't). But those are going to be public, and the code is sufficiently well organized that nefarious changes to the "juicy" stuff would be pretty darn obvious.

What am I missing here?

That is exactly what I am asking about. IMO that is not unlikely to occur in the event of significant traction and non-co-operation with TPTB. What happens to Monero in that scenario?

Same thing that happens to anything else with back doors in it. It's back doored.

What protection do we have against this for any technology of any type, at any time?

I think open source (including the possibly of forking if the current developers go off the rails, voluntarily or otherwise) is the best chance we've got. If you know of something better, please tell.




smooth, isn't the optional anonymity button a form of backdoor for Monero?
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
June 04, 2015, 03:42:42 PM
 #25493

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

Monero's "innovation" is simply the decision to force all transactions to use a single fixed mixing routine.

Monero gives users a choice, either zero mixing for BTC style transparency or >0 mixing for privacy.

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
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
June 04, 2015, 03:54:36 PM
 #25494

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

Monero's "innovation" is simply the decision to force all transactions to use a single fixed mixing routine.

Monero gives users a choice, either zero mixing for BTC style transparency or >0 mixing for privacy.

You missed the point. Monero's "innovation" was the decision to add a single mixing routing "at the protocol level" which is only one method to create agreement between entities on how to mix coins. Bitcoin users can make the exact same decisions among themselves, mixing does not have to be specified at the protocol level.

The value add here is weak, it will not be enough to make the global bitcoin ecosystem of users switch.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 03:59:07 PM
 #25495

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.   
_mr_e
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 814


View Profile
June 04, 2015, 04:23:55 PM
 #25496

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?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 04:26:27 PM
 #25497

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?

those chips will work off sha256 initially simply as hashing units but then the good news is that everybody update their phones every 2 yr, or in my case every yr, and new chips can be built in as continual upgrades if we need to change to a diff hashing algo.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 04:32:31 PM
 #25498

even larger, greater emerging mkt divergence.  do you really believe the EEM would be going down in the face of inflation?:

thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
June 04, 2015, 04:35:21 PM
 #25499

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?

those chips will work off sha256 initially simply as hashing units but then the good news is that everybody update their phones every 2 yr, or in my case every yr, and new chips can be built in as continual upgrades if we need to change to a diff hashing algo.

Nobody is going to put the protocol in hardware -- its not conducive to such.  

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
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 04:37:40 PM
 #25500

bond carnage.  who can see the pattern, let alone the divergence with the $DJI?:



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 ... 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!