Bitcoin Forum
December 11, 2016, 10:20:45 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 ... 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 1326 1327 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1808587 times)
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
June 04, 2015, 06:47:33 PM
 #25521

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
1481451645
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481451645

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481451645
Reply with quote  #2

1481451645
Report to moderator
If you want to be a moderator, report many posts with accuracy. You will be noticed.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
pinky
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 404


View Profile
June 04, 2015, 06:56:26 PM
 #25522

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
 #25523

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.
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


View Profile
June 04, 2015, 07:05:55 PM
 #25524

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.

I don't see how that's the case. If it's a good idea, and everyone's doing it, then the trade-off becomes attractive for just about everyone, so it can happen pretty fast without any centralization. Marching in lockstep doesn't mean centralized (of course; that's the whole idea of Bitcoin in a way).

Isn't there some kind of alert key that goes to every full node? SPV nodes don't matter since they don't care about blocksize. If the problem is just alerting everyone that a fork is coming and they have to choose sides, then what is the worst that can happen? Can someone even operate a full node without seeing the alert?
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
June 04, 2015, 07:09:08 PM
 #25525

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.

I don't see how that's the case. If it's a good idea, and everyone's doing it, then the trade-off becomes attractive for just about everyone, so it can happen pretty fast without any centralization. Marching in lockstep doesn't mean centralized (of course; that's the whole idea of Bitcoin in a way). Isn't there some kind of alert key that goes to every full node? SPV nodes don't matter. If the problem is just alerting everyone that a fork is coming and they have to choose sides, then what is the worst that can happen? Can someone even operate a full node without seeing the alert?

This begs the question.  It presupposes success.
When a fork occurs, you are on one side or the other at the time of the fork.

"If everyone's doing it" means that they have already done it, so there is no longer anything to be attractive to them.  It is an event, not a migration.  Unless you are imagining many many failed forks until one finally succeeds, which would be exceedingly chaotic.

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
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988


View Profile
June 04, 2015, 07:18:59 PM
 #25526


I would have voted with the minority, but I don't go off-site to use some data harvesting bullshit site just to vote in on a silly poll.  People who are not familiar with sample selection (and certain other network sciences) should be careful about interpretation of jokes like this.

My best guess is that by headcount, the split is about 1/4 on the hard fork.  That is much more promising than I'd expected given the makeup of the community.  25% by headcount is easily enough to keep a defensible system healthy.  By actual skin-in-the-game it would not surprise me in the least if a significant majority by HODL both favored the conservative approach and, more importantly, have the skills to protect their asses/assets.  Edit:...and probably exploit many of the other 75% if they so choose.


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 07:29:43 PM
 #25527


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.

how ridiculously obtuse can they both get?  they've also gone on record saying that they think the block size should be reduced.  and just recently.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 07:35:07 PM
 #25528

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. You move it, then you can control it with decentralization.
do you care to explain how it's centralized again.

if the idea you have is correct then it needs to spread, it wont spread if it cant be understood.

can you ELI5.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 07:36:18 PM
 #25529

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.

I don't see how that's the case. If it's a good idea, and everyone's doing it, then the trade-off becomes attractive for just about everyone, so it can happen pretty fast without any centralization. Marching in lockstep doesn't mean centralized (of course; that's the whole idea of Bitcoin in a way).

Isn't there some kind of alert key that goes to every full node? SPV nodes don't matter since they don't care about blocksize. If the problem is just alerting everyone that a fork is coming and they have to choose sides, then what is the worst that can happen? Can someone even operate a full node without seeing the alert?

easily. if you're just running the full node as a service, like most of us do, then there's never any reason to login.  the way i check it's up and running periodically is by going to https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/ and checking the ip address to make sure there's a connection there.  thus, i would NOT get any alerts which, btw, i've only ever seen in the GUI and not in the command line which i use if and when i do happen to rarely go into the vps.

Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 07:39:42 PM
 #25530


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.

Gavin's proposal was just bad timing for them, they are not ready to deploy and would not have the opportunity to deploy should there be no demand, so they look for reasons to delay.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 07:48:10 PM
 #25531

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.

well that's the question, isn't it?  is it really simply a technical question?  on it's face it may seem to be but i learned a while ago that the computer scientists don't have a lock on how Bitcoin works.  which is why there was only one inventor, Satoshi, who made the breakthrough.  most CS geeks have been shown to be armchair analysts, esp ones like Peter Todd.  i am one too.  point being, it's not simply a technical matter.  there's economics, both macro and micro, going on and a huge chunk of game theory determining what actually motivates the players. 

for instance, i think if we expand the blocks, we'll get more tx's and users resulting in more full nodes as a result of more investment money coming into the system and more vested players trying to help as full nodes.  mining will go back to being more profitable and we'll have better security.  Metcalfe's Law should work off the userbase, not the full nodes.

assuming that the majority have holes in their heads is exactly how authoritarian states get going; when a few minority ppl in the system think they know better than everyone else and should be determining all the decision making.  gmax and luke are the epitome of that.  and no, Gavin is not doing the same thing b/c he is responding to what the community as a whole wants.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 07:55:22 PM
 #25532


I would have voted with the minority, but I don't go off-site to use some data harvesting bullshit site just to vote in on a silly poll.  People who are not familiar with sample selection (and certain other network sciences) should be careful about interpretation of jokes like this.

My best guess is that by headcount, the split is about 1/4 on the hard fork.  That is much more promising than I'd expected given the makeup of the community.  25% by headcount is easily enough to keep a defensible system healthy.  By actual skin-in-the-game it would not surprise me in the least if a significant majority by HODL both favored the conservative approach and, more importantly, have the skills to protect their asses/assets.  Edit:...and probably exploit many of the other 75% if they so choose.



i'm quite sure that gmax and his buddies came here to register their no votes.  i openly told him about it back when the ratio was 4:1 or 80%  for earlier on.  immediately, a bunch of no votes started getting registered bringing it down to just over 3:1 where it is now.

of course consensus would be best which is the same thing as saying 100% for or against but in some forks like this one that doesn't appear possible.  the "vote" at least gives everyone an idea where the majority of ppl stand on this in the community.  it's alot better than no information.  and we have 3 independent polls, including mine, all saying the same thing.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 08:06:01 PM
 #25533

I don't agree with your apathy on whether cryptographers who invent anything that truly threatens TPTB will be made into examples.

Smooth I also don't think it is viable to murder dozens of open source programmers because it would be difficult to obscure on that scale and thus the hacker community would likely rise up and retaliate (and win!). But in terms of stopping an immediate threat or making an example out of a serious threat which can be done in an obfuscated manner so as to not wake up the entire community, I think it is a realistic consideration. Perhaps avoiding outcomes below is contingent on carefully accessing the situation the potential victim has placed himself into. For example, attack the Russian oligarchs and you will be overtly assassinated. Attack the CIA or NSA and they will weigh the cost of murdering versus the risk of waking up the sheeople.

Yeah its posible that one or two people could be taken out in a "suspicious" manner. So as I said earlier, open the project. Get others to participate (even if that includes giving up some measure of your anonymity to do it, and I think it does). Otherwise, as long as you remain critical to the effort, you are betting solely on your ability to actually remain anonymous for your safety. That is difficult and may even be impossible. It certainly didn't work out too well for Ross.

For all we know satoshi's identity is well known to the NSA, etc. (I consider that quite likely). Likewise the developers of cryptonote are probably identifiable by the NSA too. But what difference does either really make at this point? The code is out there. Interest has been established, so the projects will continue.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 08:18:57 PM
 #25534

i thought there was supposed to be a recovery going on?:

Australia, home to commodity mining:


BHP, world's biggest mine:


Exxon Mobil, world's biggest energy conglomerate:


Natgas, the supposed new energy source:
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 08:22:33 PM
 #25535

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.

Rocks, they can't do that because any kind of "mixing routine" that would be adopted by wallets or users on top of Bitcoin would require interaction between them (some sort of coordination or key exchange type process). However, that isn't how Monero works and the relaxation of a simultaneity and coordination requirements is probably the most important part of the protocol.

If you want to comment intelligently on it you really need to understand how the protocol works, and not just understand it in vague terms of "people decided to use mixing." The type of "mixing" that occurs in Monero is not really the same type that Bitcoin mixing uses, even though the word is the same.

It really is different cryptography. You can't just have a group of Bitcoin users decide to use Zerocash, nor can you have group of Bitcoin users decide to do Cryptonote-style mixing either.
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 08:35:38 PM
 #25536

An observation about the blockchain, that I have not seen commented elsewhere.

The blockchain appears to be a ledger, which is a tool to record and thus document transactions. But that is not the purpose of the blockchain, neither do we need it for that. We need it only to ensure the integrity of the system, to avoid double spending and guard against coin fractions coming from nowhere.

You can deduce, with a level of confidence, who owns an output if you know something about the inputs, but that is all. The confidence level will always be less than one, unless you know with full confidence who owned each of the inputs and manage to compel the owner to tell you who he sent them to (if he knows). The same consideration if you know the owner of the output and want to deduce who owned the inputs.

I propose that most people will not tell, and therefore most outputs will have an unknown owner. The anonymity in the basic system is quite good, if not absolute. There is plausible deniability, unconfiscatibility, and the anonymity can be enhanced by simple means.


tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988


View Profile
June 04, 2015, 08:42:27 PM
 #25537


i'm quite sure that gmax and his buddies came here to register their no votes. ...

I'm quite sure that Maxwell is way to busy with real stuff to play your silly little games.


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 08:43:54 PM
 #25538


i'm quite sure that gmax and his buddies came here to register their no votes. ...

I'm quite sure that Maxwell is way to busy with real stuff to play your silly little games.



don't be an idiot.  you remember when he and Adam were posting here a few months ago to play their silly games?
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
June 04, 2015, 08:45:39 PM
 #25539

The blockchain appears to be a ledger, which is a tool to record and thus document transactions. But that is not the purpose of the blockchain, neither do we need it for that. We need it only to ensure the integrity of the system, to avoid double spending and guard against coin fractions coming from nowhere.
That's probably the most overlooked fact about Bitcoin.

Transactions using digital signatures are easy. We've had the technology since the 80s.

Bitcoin is special because it enforces a defined quantity of money without a trusted third party.

All the mining and the verification is done for the purpose of ensuring that that every balance being spent in a transaction legitimately existed prior to the transaction.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
June 04, 2015, 08:47:06 PM
 #25540

don't be an idiot.  you remember when he and Adam were posting here a few months ago to play their silly games?
How long do you really think it's been since either of them posted in this thread?
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1326 1327 ... 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!