Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 04:16:24 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 ... 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 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1805894 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 05, 2015, 06:43:14 PM
 #25621

Looks like Gavin's plan to get the miners to join his coup d'état is not going so great, lol

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114481/chinese-exchanges-reject-gavin-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase
* edit you should say exchanges miners are not as powerful as you fear.  

I think they are overestimating there power. here is a quote from someone who once controlled almost 50% of the Bitcoin hash rate.
As for China I think they are net sellers, and they want to offshore profit, i suspect a lot of volume is also hot air, look at the number of nodes in China and you get a feel for how well Bitcoin has penetrated there.

If the whole of Chinese didn't fork  (all 91 nodes) I think it would have little impact.

A common misunderstanding:  Miners actually have zero influence over hardforking.  If a hard fork is going to happen, it doesn't matter if 99% of miners decide not to follow it.  If all of the major Bitcoin businesses, payment processors, and exchanges move to Bitcoin (New) and the miners all stay on Bitcoin (Old), it doesn't matter, forks do NOT require mining consensus unless the fork requires one, such as the "Block Version 1" -> "Block Version 2" fork, where the network switched to enforcing version 2 blocks after 95% of the last 1000(?) blocks were V2.

Code:
                       Bitcoin Fork A (95% of miners, 5% of businesses)
                      /
Prefork Bitcoin -----
                      \
                       Bitcoin Fork B (5% of miners, 95% of businesses)

Guess which one is going to retain any value?  Especially post-fork when the miners realize they can't exchange their BTC for goods or cash because no exchanges will accept BTC-A coins.

I believe we absolutely need to remove the 1MB block limit.  I'm not opposed to the jump from 1MB to 20MB, as I think it will have very minimal impact what the new limit is for quite some time.  I'm not sure if this jump to 20MB also implements the original proposal for automatically increasing the limit annually.  I do have objections to that one as I think Gavin's original proposed annual increase was FAR too aggressive and optimistic regarding throughput and bandwidth quotas for huge portions of the world.

What I think probably won't matter much though.  With a March 2016 prospective date, I'm not so sure the pool will even still be around by the time it's time to choose a side, given how much noise is being made by regulatory bodies who have absolutely no clue what to do with Bitcoin but sure as hell want to regulate it anyways.

And that's from good guy Eleuthria who  saved the network  twice more  than anyone, including guys like  gmax, with his pocketbook. Notably with the 0.8 fork and when he voluntarily backed his pool away from 51% control of the network. All miners would do well to follow his lead as he had unquestionably demonstrated only good things for Bitcoin.

On the Chinese mine objections. Let them cry. Bitcoin is a force for good so if they want to allow themselves to be forked off the network through their local bandwidth problems, so be it. I say do someing about it. It will give miners round the world a chance to level the passing field. And if Wall street really does  want to get into Bitcoin, this will give them a chance to build their own mines. That would be a good thing too so as to further decentralize the process. Personally I think the Chinese gvt will allow their miners to step it up to stay competitive. Bitcoin is their chance to challenge the dollar which is why they haven't crushed it yet.
1481170584
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481170584

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481170584
Reply with quote  #2

1481170584
Report to moderator
1481170584
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481170584

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481170584
Reply with quote  #2

1481170584
Report to moderator
1481170584
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481170584

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481170584
Reply with quote  #2

1481170584
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481170584
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481170584

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481170584
Reply with quote  #2

1481170584
Report to moderator
1481170584
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481170584

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481170584
Reply with quote  #2

1481170584
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 05, 2015, 06:53:25 PM
 #25622

Looks like Gavin's plan to get the miners to join his coup d'état is not going so great, lol

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114481/chinese-exchanges-reject-gavin-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase

LOL, this quote just cut the legs out from Blockstream's main objection to raising the block limit; that being the large block attack  on small miners supposedly facilitated by "superior"  bandwidth connections. Well, the largest miners in the world are telling us they have "inferior"  connections! Lol! What a bunch of amateurs.

“A very large block size would be problematic for miners because the network bandwidth between China, where the majority of mining is done, and rest of the world is heavily restricted. Important proposals like these need to factor in all of the nuances of the global landscape.”
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
June 05, 2015, 06:58:07 PM
 #25623

As I already said
We'll find out in due course, once it's measured.
thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
June 05, 2015, 07:00:31 PM
 #25624

Also since the Chinese were late entrants they got all excited about litecoin (or so I heard from a Chinese friend).  I'd imagine that there are quite a few litecoin bagholders there who would be happy to see bitcoin hobbled by limited transaction capacity.

In my opinion miners are pretty exchangeable.  It would be nice to have an overwhelming majority on the larger blocks but if not, oh well hash rate drops a bit.  I think it unlikely that there would be enough 1MB aligned hash power to BOTH continue the 1MB fork AND wreak havoc on the 20MB branch by 51%ing it with continuous 20MB spam blocks.  


The exchanges and payment processors are the most important players in this decision.
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
June 05, 2015, 07:00:59 PM
 #25625

What I said is it is possible to layer similar schemes on top of Bitcoin.
I'm not sure if it's true that Bitcoin can be as private as Monero or not, but I hope to find out.

One of the things we want to do with the Open Bitcoin Privacy Project ratings is generalize the measurement criteria until it's possible to make cross-currency privacy comparisons. That's tentatively planned for 2016.

At some point it should be possible to start to meaningfully compare Monero wallets with various Bitcoin wallets.

Note that just proving the cryptographic properties of ring signatures isn't enough, because some other part of the system might leak information or be susceptible to privacy-reducing user error. You have to evaluate the entire stack.

Agree that the options known today may not make Bitcoin as private as Monero, but a) how private is good enough, it is quite possible some of the working proposals today may be good enough and b) there is a very long future for development here and the one thing I think we know for sure is there will be quite a bit of effort towards improving Bitcoin's privacy.

And for Monero, what happens if a flaw is found? Monero's implementation is fixed. That is a problem. If a flaw is found in a privacy scheme layered on top of Bitcoin then you can either fix it or switch to another without touching Bitcoin. I think there is an argument for keeping the base protocol as simple and straight forward as possible and layering other user defined schemes on top.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
June 05, 2015, 07:09:22 PM
 #25626

I'd imagine that there are quite a few litecoin bagholders there who would be happy to see bitcoin hobbled by limited transaction capacity.
This is a really informative thread,  particularly page 17: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=144895.335

Really the entire thread is worth reading, so you don't miss quotes like this:

RE: lots of code to write if you can't keep up with transaction volume:  sure.  So?

Transaction volume itself leads to centralization too, simply by ensuring that only a miner able to keep up with the large volume of low-fee transactions can make a profit.

I really don't understand this logic.

Yes, it is a fact of life that if you have a system where people are competing, the people who are less efficient will be driven out of business. So there will be fewer people in that business.

You seem to be saying that we should subsidize inefficient miners by limiting the block size, therefore driving up fees and making users pay for their inefficiency.

All in the name of vague worries about "too much centralization."

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
June 05, 2015, 08:38:55 PM
 #25627

even smooth, who offers up decent stuff, was confusing me a while back before i found out he was a Monero core dev.  i couldn't figure out why when i got skeptical about altcoins he'd always quickly negate anything i had to say on that.  also when we got to talking about the 49%-51% attacks against Bitcoin he was posting highly frequently against Bitcoin.  that's ok, he's smart and is entitled to his opinion.  but it was never clear until someone mentioned his Monero connection what was happening.

You're confusing cause and effect here. I'm involved with Monero specifically because I don't buy the Bitcoin maximalism argument, and Monero has technology that is actually interesting and actually adds something meaningful (unlikely dumb clones like Litecoin). At least, I don't buy the Bitcoin maximalism argument yet (at some point if Bitcoin continues to grow, perhaps after another 10x-100x, it will likely be correct). I consider Bitcoin to be a tiny pimple on the scale of global currencies and finances, so if anything the network effect is working very much against it, not for it. Cryptocurrencies have to succeed on the basis of compelling advantages that overcome a network effect, and if Bitcoin can do that, others can too. I see Bitcoin's lead now as being about as relevant as Novell's with Netware:

Quote from: wikipedia
By 1990, Novell had an almost monopolistic position in NOS for any business requiring a network.

Or perhaps in line with platforms that once had a hugely dominant market share and weren't even replaced, directly, by anything (example: Palm Pilot).

But even that isn't right, because Bitcoin does't currently have a hugely dominant market share anywhere, outside of a few enthusiasts. (Don't misinterpret this as "Buy Monero instead" -- obviously Monero has even less of any kind of share.)

However, I'm also realistic that Bitcoin is a lot larger that any of others and my assets are allocated accordingly. I'm one of those guys you were just talking about who is (approximately) 90% in Bitcoin, 10% in Monero. And beyond that also 90% in non-crypto assets, which if you do the math makes Monero roughly 1% of my assets. If you want to call me a Monero shill based on that, go right ahead, but you are fooling yourself, and probably using that as an excuse to avoid objectively considering the points I raise.

BTW, I also agree with a lot of your points about sidechains and other bitcoin development issues. I don't fully support the 20 MB idea because I think 20x is just too much too fast, but if it was intended as a negotiating tactic to get something more modest through, then well done Gavin.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 05, 2015, 09:12:17 PM
 #25628

Edit: I wrote the following before reading smooth's latest post above. He and I were apparently writing at the same time. Interesting to see how well I guessed his stance.

this whole debate is consistent with my long held belief that all innovation should occur on the mainchain.  if Bitcoin fails to do that as an open source project similar to linux, which was supposedly the great promise it made imo, then the whole concept of cryptocurrencies has failed and we'll just go back to fiat for the next hundred years.

Such underlined overly generalized grandiose black&white perspectives can usually be assumed to be false by applying Occam's Razor without any further analysis.

You've assumed:

1. Bitcoin won't end up monopolized by the State (which is I assume what you mean by your and most everyone's imprecise use of the term 'fiat').

2. Bitcoin is the only way to scale to masses (i.e. to compete with the fiats).

3. That the "whole purpose" of crypto-currency is to scale to the masses.

I have explained in detail in this thread that Bitcoin can not scale to the masses without violating assumption #1. And I have argued that for those of us who want to protect ourselves from #1, we need to violate assumption #3 and create an anonymous coin that does scale decentralized for the "rest of us" to use. In other to achieve that goal, we need to identity a niche market for crypto-currency that is large enough to achieve monetary scale but doesn't depend on the diligence of the preoccupied masses.

I have also explained in detail in this thread that the #2 assumption only applies if someone doesn't invent a design for crypto-currency that doesn't violate the End-to-end Principle and Principle of Least Power.

i've always said i'd welcome more privacy in Bitcoin and it's possible Monero does that.  i know there was a big technical issue months back but can't remember what it was.  maybe someone could clarify.  but that's beside the point.  it is NOT innovating on top of Bitcoin which i quite frankly see as a problem for it.  it is not leveraging upon the huge network effect already achieved by Bitcoin.  does that necessarily mean it will fail?  no.  but i think we get one chance with this b/c the implications are so huge.  if Bitcoin fails, they all fail.  if it's not improved upon or upgraded, it will fail.  if we all don't stick together as a group, it will fail.  if that means the economic majority has to fork off and shed the likes of the Blockstream cabal, we have a chance.  the more i think about it, the better i like the idea of getting rid of gmax and luke.  i think they're toxic.  yeah, gmax is a brilliant cryptographer but he can't be trusted with the keys or to run a company.  he's a KNOWN Bitcoin bear and posts an XMR donation address.  that's his prerogative but i think a core dev should be all out pushing and working on Bitcoin like Gavin does to advance the project forward.  shedding those guys would be a good thing.

It is implausible to put Monero's autonomous End-to-end Principle respecting anonymity onto the Bitcoin block chain. It would be a hard fork against numerous vested interests.

It is technically impossible to achieve that End-to-end Principle respecting anonymity off-chain.

Your conceptualization of a world of "all or nothing" flies in the face of the reason the internet scales, which is the autonomy and freedom of choice and freedom to have many different choices that is embodied in the End-to-end Principle.

There isn't one flavor of Unix nor Linux. And there isn't one operating system on the internet. The internet doesn't care which operating system the END user chooses.

Cypherdoc your simpleton myopia is going to be paradigm shifted and you'll be standing there dazed and confused and wondering what happened.


this hasn't even been the greatest Bear, imo, which was from 32 to 1.98 in 2011.

$1000 to < $50 will make it so. (I didn't place 100% odds on that potential outcome)

i've always said that the majority of ppl investing in cryptocurrencies will lose money.

SOBO (statement of the blatantly obvious)

Bitcoin is like threading a needle; it needs to stay private enough to prevent all out war with TPTB.  so far so good.

You meant stay non-private enough.

This death by a 1000 papercuts future is acceptable to most people and one of the reasons Bitcoin must be accepted as reality.

even smooth, who offers up decent stuff, was confusing me a while back before i found out he was a Monero core dev.  i couldn't figure out why when i got skeptical about altcoins he'd always quickly negate anything i had to say on that.  also when we got to talking about the 49%-51% attacks against Bitcoin he was posting highly frequently against Bitcoin.  that's ok, he's smart and is entitled to his opinion.  but it was never clear until someone mentioned his Monero connection what was happening.  i like to focus on what ppl's motivations are, that should be clear.  i won't let that cloud my judgment however.

I believe smooth would like to see maximum experimentation because he recognizes the potential for the death by 1000 papercuts future and in general I think he is interested in crypto-currency but isn't convinced we've hit on the best design yet. He may have a profit motive too in Monero, but I am not knowledgeable about to what degree that motivates him.

My motivation is clear. I think Bitcoin is the death by 1000 papercuts NWO future. I accept it as reality and for the network effects it brings to crypto-currency, yet I would rather die trying than accept that 1000 papercuts NWO future. And I am certain Bitcoin does not have the scaling attributes of the internet. It violates the fundamental End-to-end principle for scaling.

This guarantees that it is a dead-end (just as Facebook is a dead-end). But dead-ends can cause a lot of pain for a while.

The salient quote is:

Bitcoin can never scale as the internet did because it violates the two key scaling principles of the internet, End-to-end and Principle of Least Power. They might be able to scale it as they did Facebook to most people on earth, but it will never scale to most economic activity on earth (and note the distinction). The only way they win with Bitcoin (i.e. for it to encompass most economic activity) is by oppressing the economic freedom that will drive most of the future economic activity.

Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
June 05, 2015, 09:20:20 PM
 #25629

...
However, I'm also realistic that Bitcoin is a lot larger that any of others and my assets are allocated accordingly. I'm one of those guys you were just talking about who is (approximately) 90% in Bitcoin, 10% in Monero. And beyond that also 90% in non-crypto assets, which if you do the math makes Monero roughly 1% of my assets. If you want to call me a Monero shill based on that, go right ahead, but you are fooling yourself, and probably using that as an excuse to avoid objectively considering the points I raise.
...

Smart boy snake called RPietila used XMR to take your money (just 1% but it is enough for him)
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
June 05, 2015, 09:25:35 PM
 #25630

...
However, I'm also realistic that Bitcoin is a lot larger that any of others and my assets are allocated accordingly. I'm one of those guys you were just talking about who is (approximately) 90% in Bitcoin, 10% in Monero. And beyond that also 90% in non-crypto assets, which if you do the math makes Monero roughly 1% of my assets. If you want to call me a Monero shill based on that, go right ahead, but you are fooling yourself, and probably using that as an excuse to avoid objectively considering the points I raise.
...

Smart boy snake called RPietila used XMR to take your money (just 1% but it is enough for him)

I mined ~100% of the Monero I have, and then some.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
June 05, 2015, 09:27:54 PM
 #25631

...
However, I'm also realistic that Bitcoin is a lot larger that any of others and my assets are allocated accordingly. I'm one of those guys you were just talking about who is (approximately) 90% in Bitcoin, 10% in Monero. And beyond that also 90% in non-crypto assets, which if you do the math makes Monero roughly 1% of my assets. If you want to call me a Monero shill based on that, go right ahead, but you are fooling yourself, and probably using that as an excuse to avoid objectively considering the points I raise.
...

Smart boy snake called RPietila used XMR to take your money (just 1% but it is enough for him)

I mined ~100% of the Monero I have, and then some.


:-)  ok, then you are serving him for free
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 05, 2015, 09:31:09 PM
 #25632

...
However, I'm also realistic that Bitcoin is a lot larger that any of others and my assets are allocated accordingly. I'm one of those guys you were just talking about who is (approximately) 90% in Bitcoin, 10% in Monero. And beyond that also 90% in non-crypto assets, which if you do the math makes Monero roughly 1% of my assets. If you want to call me a Monero shill based on that, go right ahead, but you are fooling yourself, and probably using that as an excuse to avoid objectively considering the points I raise.
...

Smart boy snake called RPietila used XMR to take your money (just 1% but it is enough for him)

I mined ~100% of the Monero I have, and then some.


btw, when gmax claims he has vested interest in Bitcoin, this is how i believe he would have gotten his BTC.  from free mining equipment donated to him for R&D.  i've seen him lobby for it pretty shamelessly.  i'll bet not a cent out of his pocket.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 05, 2015, 09:33:55 PM
 #25633

even smooth, who offers up decent stuff, was confusing me a while back before i found out he was a Monero core dev.  i couldn't figure out why when i got skeptical about altcoins he'd always quickly negate anything i had to say on that.  also when we got to talking about the 49%-51% attacks against Bitcoin he was posting highly frequently against Bitcoin.  that's ok, he's smart and is entitled to his opinion.  but it was never clear until someone mentioned his Monero connection what was happening.

You're confusing cause and effect here. I'm involved with Monero specifically because I don't buy the Bitcoin maximalism argument, and Monero has technology that is actually interesting and actually adds something meaningful (unlikely dumb clones like Litecoin). At least, I don't buy the Bitcoin maximalism argument yet (at some point if Bitcoin continues to grow, perhaps after another 10x-100x, it will likely be correct). I consider Bitcoin to be a tiny pimple on the scale of global currencies and finances, so if anything the network effect is working very much against it, not for it. Cryptocurrencies have to succeed on the basis of compelling advantages that overcome a network effect, and if Bitcoin can do that, others can too. I see Bitcoin's lead now as being about as relevant as Novell's with Netware:

Quote from: wikipedia
By 1990, Novell had an almost monopolistic position in NOS for any business requiring a network.

Or perhaps in line with platforms that once had a hugely dominant market share and weren't even replaced, directly, by anything (example: Palm Pilot).

But even that isn't right, because Bitcoin does't currently have a hugely dominant market share anywhere, outside of a few enthusiasts. (Don't misinterpret this as "Buy Monero instead" -- obviously Monero has even less of any kind of share.)

Bitcoin can't scale to future economic activity. It is impossible. It doesn't have the correct scaling attributes.

The existing financial systems can't scale either. The dying Industrial Age monetary and financial system is dying and "they" (society as a marriage of interests in collectivism) intend to apply expropriation and capital controls to any growth in the economy activity which can't be contained within this dying system which includes the End-to-end violating design of Bitcoin.



So I interpret your astute comment to mean that the actual network effects are out there in the Ends of the network and Bitcoin (in its current form) doesn't have a chance in hell of capturing them. I doubt you meant it that way though, but I am encouraging you to see my perspective. I suspect you favor complexity class arguments because they are more fundamental and compelling.

Biodom
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1078


View Profile
June 05, 2015, 09:36:55 PM
 #25634

even smooth, who offers up decent stuff, was confusing me a while back before i found out he was a Monero core dev.  i couldn't figure out why when i got skeptical about altcoins he'd always quickly negate anything i had to say on that.  also when we got to talking about the 49%-51% attacks against Bitcoin he was posting highly frequently against Bitcoin.  that's ok, he's smart and is entitled to his opinion.  but it was never clear until someone mentioned his Monero connection what was happening.

You're confusing cause and effect here. I'm involved with Monero specifically because I don't buy the Bitcoin maximalism argument, and Monero has technology that is actually interesting and actually adds something meaningful (unlikely dumb clones like Litecoin). At least, I don't buy the Bitcoin maximalism argument yet (at some point if Bitcoin continues to grow, perhaps after another 10x-100x, it will likely be correct). I consider Bitcoin to be a tiny pimple on the scale of global currencies and finances, so if anything the network effect is working very much against it, not for it. Cryptocurrencies have to succeed on the basis of compelling advantages that overcome a network effect, and if Bitcoin can do that, others can too. I see Bitcoin's lead now as being about as relevant as Novell's with Netware:

Quote from: wikipedia
By 1990, Novell had an almost monopolistic position in NOS for any business requiring a network.

Or perhaps in line with platforms that once had a hugely dominant market share and weren't even replaced, directly, by anything (example: Palm Pilot).

But even that isn't right, because Bitcoin does't currently have a hugely dominant market share anywhere, outside of a few enthusiasts. (Don't misinterpret this as "Buy Monero instead" -- obviously Monero has even less of any kind of share.)

However, I'm also realistic that Bitcoin is a lot larger that any of others and my assets are allocated accordingly. I'm one of those guys you were just talking about who is (approximately) 90% in Bitcoin, 10% in Monero. And beyond that also 90% in non-crypto assets, which if you do the math makes Monero roughly 1% of my assets. If you want to call me a Monero shill based on that, go right ahead, but you are fooling yourself, and probably using that as an excuse to avoid objectively considering the points I raise.

BTW, I also agree with a lot of your points about sidechains and other bitcoin development issues. I don't fully support the 20 MB idea because I think 20x is just too much too fast, but if it was intended as a negotiating tactic to get something more modest through, then well done Gavin.

Very interesting notes.
1. I totally agree that dominant market share by bitcoin is currently misleading and Palm Pilot and Novell are great examples. I had Palm Pilot (and it is still there somewhere). At first it was exciting, but then it turned out not to be that useful (as Newton before it). As time passed, i used it less and less, until i just put it in a drawer. I also remember that it IPOed at hundreds and for a brief moment had market cap at around 100 bil or so.
2. I also have ~10% of my capital in crypto, but i was initially aiming at 20%. The difference is due to stock market outperformance and BTC decline.
I also bought some monero (maybe 1% of btc). Maybe I should increase my monero allocation a bit, but monero so far underperformed bitcoin, although it seems to be in a uptrend. However, with $9 mil theoretical market cap it is just too small right now and probably is just a dev coin for now.
3. My fears re bitcoin could be formulated very simply: it is possible (at this moment) that it will simply wither away not unlike the palm pilot and there is NO way to jump ship from bitcoin into a winning crypto (because it might not even born yet).
4. I have difficulty understanding a decentralization claim for bitcoin since apparently there is one person or a very small group (six people) that are anointed to make the most important changes.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 05, 2015, 09:38:48 PM
 #25635

This morning I conceived how I can pay my gratitude to Monero while providing an anonymity function that I must have. And I mean by driving the price in an upward spiral. If my plans come to fruition.

(yeah I know it sounds like bullshit)

And yes this is a subtle hint to buy some Monero, and I have no vested interest. I own 0 XMR.

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
June 05, 2015, 09:39:04 PM
 #25636

...
However, I'm also realistic that Bitcoin is a lot larger that any of others and my assets are allocated accordingly. I'm one of those guys you were just talking about who is (approximately) 90% in Bitcoin, 10% in Monero. And beyond that also 90% in non-crypto assets, which if you do the math makes Monero roughly 1% of my assets. If you want to call me a Monero shill based on that, go right ahead, but you are fooling yourself, and probably using that as an excuse to avoid objectively considering the points I raise.
...

Smart boy snake called RPietila used XMR to take your money (just 1% but it is enough for him)

I mined ~100% of the Monero I have, and then some.


:-)  ok, then you are serving him for free

I'm pretty sure my return on investment from Monero will always exceed his, but no I'm not particularly profit motivated by it, to answer another question from the thread. It's just interesting technology. If useful ideas from Monero end up being incorporated into Bitcoin (such as the dynamic block sizes), and then Monero withers away financially, i consider that a complete success. If you look at 1000 crypto coins after Bitcoin you will only find a few that actually do anything interesting at all, or even try to. Monero is one of them.

Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
June 05, 2015, 09:41:13 PM
 #25637

...
However, I'm also realistic that Bitcoin is a lot larger that any of others and my assets are allocated accordingly. I'm one of those guys you were just talking about who is (approximately) 90% in Bitcoin, 10% in Monero. And beyond that also 90% in non-crypto assets, which if you do the math makes Monero roughly 1% of my assets. If you want to call me a Monero shill based on that, go right ahead, but you are fooling yourself, and probably using that as an excuse to avoid objectively considering the points I raise.
...

Smart boy snake called RPietila used XMR to take your money (just 1% but it is enough for him)

I mined ~100% of the Monero I have, and then some.


btw, when gmax claims he has vested interest in Bitcoin, this is how i believe he would have gotten his BTC.  from free mining equipment donated to him for R&D.  i've seen him lobby for it pretty shamelessly.  i'll bet not a cent out of his pocket.

gmax is brilliant and educated mind.  ...
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 05, 2015, 10:07:41 PM
 #25638

there's a fundamental disconnect with developing new altcoins that Bitcoiners should be able to migrate to or exchange for.  it's called instability or even inflation.

this ties in with Bitcoin's promise of being open source and being programmable money.  if Monero or any other coin is proven to be successful to the point of forcing all Bitcoiner's to switch, then i think crypto money as a concept fails.  why?  it's b/c that process causes so many ppl to lose money in aggregate from the migration process.

You failed to incorporate the fact that larger markets can be obtained with new capabilities.

WYSIWYG (Windows, MacOS, etc) subsumed MSDOS and I went from selling 30,000 copies of physically distributed software in 1980s to distributing a million copies of CoolPage over the internet at the turn of the century.

Larger markets means a larger size of the global wealth pie for crypto.

Bitcoin can't scale to even a minute fraction of the economic activity coming the Knowledge Age. Thus you are highly limiting your slice of future global wealth with your stance.

Bitcoin has given a promise and it needs to deliver on that.  that is what i will support.  innovation and growth to all corners of the Earth for maximum decentralization.

Impossible with Bitcoin. Impossible. Apparently you don't understand well why I can state "impossible" with certainty?

Did you understand that one of the assumptions in Metcalf or Reed's scaling laws is that the Ends of the network must be able to freely interact with each other.

You are all excited about scaling to Visa scale, and I am all excited about scaling to millions of micropayments per second. It isn't just transaction volume rate limits that are the problem with Bitcoin, but also the fact that the Ends are not autonomous thus morass will constrain.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 05, 2015, 10:26:46 PM
 #25639

How do you create a network topology that is decentralized at any scale?

With a design that enables the ends of the network to be autonomous (e.g. the internet), i.e. the End-to-End principle. Ideally the power (autonomy) of the ends over the center (or the group) should get stronger the more it is Sybil attacked (i.e. the attack doesn't exist).

Abstractly not erroneously redefining decentralization to be centralization-by-free-will-but-no-other-choice (aka "one for all, and all for one" collectivism) as Bitcoin did:

Marching in lockstep doesn't mean centralized (of course; that's the whole idea of Bitcoin in a way).

So no universal agreement on the state of the ledger? There must be some way of settling up over time. But I guess you just mean the protocol doesn't have to be shared, in some sense. This may be outside my technical knowledge. Not being a coder at all, I admit I haven't thought a great deal about how Bitcoin runs under the hood until recently. Your hints are getting somewhat tantalizing, but without seeing the whole thing we of course can't know if there's some obvious error if you're recreating Hashcash or Ripple/Stellar (can you? if it's that important you may as well open it to peer review; with a lot of it precoded you could still easily be first out of the gate).

There must be universal agreement on the state of the ledger and it must insure ordering. But there are aspects of Bitcoin's design which are unnecessary for those narrow requirements and this excess power (violation of Principle of Least Power) at the center constrains the Ends of the network more than necessary (violation of the End-to-end Principle).

When an altcoin is launched that is a form of peer review. It is possible that a qualified developer will join with me and be able to peer review my design. If someone of smooth's caliber wanted to join and take over the public face, I would grateful. That might relieve much of the vexing thought process I am going through about whether and how to proceed.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 05, 2015, 10:29:22 PM
 #25640

walls are finally starting to posture bullish.  it's b/c the Dow is starting to roll:

Pages: « 1 ... 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 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 ... 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!