Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 09:59:31 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 ... 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 1333 1334 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1806140 times)
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 05, 2015, 11:46:15 PM
 #25661

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."


Gavin doesn't think out-of-the-box in this case and builds a strawman.

Are they inefficient because the design forces them to be. Wink

1481191171
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481191171

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481191171
Reply with quote  #2

1481191171
Report to moderator
1481191171
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481191171

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481191171
Reply with quote  #2

1481191171
Report to moderator
1481191171
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481191171

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481191171
Reply with quote  #2

1481191171
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
June 05, 2015, 11:50:34 PM
 #25662

Most chineese outsource their servers for obvious reasons. Its not the service providers location that counts but rather the location of their contractors. Nice try Wink

Quote from: Wang - mining superstar
“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.”

Are most Chinese outsourcing to the 1 of 91 nodes located in China? the concern quoted above would imply that or it would imply they are outsourcing to some on in North America.

eather way they better jack up of piss off, Bitcoin is not a charity, they should outsource to someone with more bandwidth, let me guess Blockstream wants to keep a client happy by limiting the block size?

Nice try Wink


not a client but $21M worth of investors.
Blockstream have many conflicts of interest, as the Duck says, Wang is outsourcing block propagation and optimization to someone for good reason, how are we to know that service is not benign provided by Blockstream, and if it is, that would explain why all Blockstream employees are looking to limit the block size.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
June 05, 2015, 11:51:59 PM
 #25663

i've said this for years.  so all you boomer-fucks (my colleagues like tvbcof) who think you're going to impose your will, retirement benefits, and debts onto the young of this country got a nasty surprise awaiting you:

http://www.coindesk.com/nyse-chairman-millennials-trust-bitcoin-more-than-fiat/

your only salvation will be to buy Bitcoin to, at minimum, act as a hedge against fiat implosion.  but if you actually want to make money thru the transition, you will buy moar.

And you think the millennial generation with all their swiping won't embrace a micropayment per second in their activity.

it all depends on how well they understand Money.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 06, 2015, 12:04:51 AM
 #25664

Most chineese outsource their servers for obvious reasons. Its not the service providers location that counts but rather the location of their contractors. Nice try Wink

Quote from: Wang - mining superstar
“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.”

Are most Chinese outsourcing to the 1 of 91 nodes located in China? the concern quoted above would imply that or it would imply they are outsourcing to some on in North America.

eather way they better jack up of piss off, Bitcoin is not a charity, they should outsource to someone with more bandwidth, let me guess Blockstream wants to keep a client happy by limiting the block size?

Nice try Wink


not a client but $21M worth of investors.
Blockstream have many conflicts of interest, as the Duck says, Wang is outsourcing block propagation and optimization to someone for good reason, how are we to know that service is not benign provided by Blockstream, and if it is, that would explain why all Blockstream employees are looking to limit the block size.

Wang just made it quite crystal clear there is no way for them to outsource to improve propagation or optimization.  he didn't say that specifically but he doesn't have to.  if there was, they would've done it by now to further decrease any orphaning they're already having as their margins are quite thin.  they are in the Nash Equilibrium.  

the smaller Chinese miner on the dev list the other day said they were outsourcing to Alydan and Linode which improved their connection to 100MB/s but still left them at a disadvantage b/c they are in China.  in other words, the limiting factor is not the size of the miner but the fact that they are in China.  which shoots the hell outta the Blockstream FUD.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 06, 2015, 12:07:33 AM
 #25665

i've said this for years.  so all you boomer-fucks (my colleagues like tvbcof) who think you're going to impose your will, retirement benefits, and debts onto the young of this country got a nasty surprise awaiting you:

http://www.coindesk.com/nyse-chairman-millennials-trust-bitcoin-more-than-fiat/

your only salvation will be to buy Bitcoin to, at minimum, act as a hedge against fiat implosion.  but if you actually want to make money thru the transition, you will buy moar.

And you think the millennial generation with all their swiping won't embrace a micropayment per second in their activity.

it all depends on how well they understand Money.

It has nothing to do with their understanding of money.

Micropayments are the only way certain business models could function. There is a huge economy that doesn't happen without micropayments. We will never remove the Sybil attacks on Tor without micropayments.

The generative essence is that the maximization of the division-of-labor trend requires increasing granularity of transactions.

This is an inexorable trend. For example, 1000s of years ago one had to carry around a slap of Iron to make a payment. This required payments to be coalesced supporting the Transaction Cost Theory of the Firm (which is antithetical to the maximum division-of-labor and its End-to-end Principle implication).

The argument against micropayments was the cognitive cost places a lower bound on the transaction size, but this cognitive decision process can be automated for the user. For example, I join a dating site and agree to pay 1 cent per message I send, thus I only make this cognitive decision once for all micropayments I do and this eliminates the need for a CAPTCHA or some other intrusive means of preventing spam (a form of Sybil attack).

It is precisely because of this cognitive load that non-micropayments can't scale to maximum division-of-labor. How many experts can you reason about to pay $100-$1000 each for some service? But let's say you can automate by agreeing to pay 1 cent per research paper accessed then you can preview unlimited experts without cognitive load on each transaction.

Micropayments monetize the Gift Economy of the Knowledge Age. This is what Reddit and Doggie Coin were all about. Without that monetization, the Gift Economy devolves into corporate sponsorship of those with reputation which all that centralized evil of the Transaction Cost Theory of the Corporation.

hdbuck
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1134



View Profile
June 06, 2015, 12:12:36 AM
 #25666

Most chineese outsource their servers for obvious reasons. Its not the service providers location that counts but rather the location of their contractors. Nice try Wink

Quote from: Wang - mining superstar
“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.”

Are most Chinese outsourcing to the 1 of 91 nodes located in China? the concern quoted above would imply that or it would imply they are outsourcing to some on in North America.

eather way they better jack up of piss off, Bitcoin is not a charity, they should outsource to someone with more bandwidth, let me guess Blockstream wants to keep a client happy by limiting the block size?

Nice try Wink


Lel so now bitcoin is no charity. Grin

Nodes arent just miners.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 06, 2015, 12:35:37 AM
 #25667

Quote
so who has more credibility in this matter?  the pools themselves, who have the hard data?  or the armchair apparatchiks being the likes of Greg Maxwell, LukeJr, pwiullie, Corallo, and Peter Todd?  the answer is simple:  the armchair experts are wrong.

These guys are actually writing the code you are running, are you making code commits ... I mean who's really the "armchair expert" here?

Just stop being a dick. You are looking worse and worse every time you open your ignorant mouth to trash the developers.

marcus, you have long been the real dick.

nice of you to ignore the thrust of my argument.  the armchair experts on this matter who haven't done any studies on the matter are blockading the 80-90% of the community's wishes to increase the block size based on just this large block attack hypothetical that just got totally trashed by the large miners they were pontificating about.

how do you explain that?

dammit marcus, you are a simpleton weasel dickhead coming in here and throwing hand grenades yet refusing to answer/defend your allegations.  i have no idea why iCELatte thinks you're some smart poster b/c all i ever see from you are ad hominems and no substance of debate or theory.

since you won't answer, i will.  they are either financially captured by Blockstream or they are just plain reckless or stupid to have come up with this large miner, large block FUD attack.  either way they did so as to unfairly make Gavin look bad.

shame on you for supporting such a wanky theory and for standing behind devs just b/c you are a dev.
hdbuck
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1134



View Profile
June 06, 2015, 12:55:31 AM
 #25668

Better blockstream than mit or Google lab rat Roll Eyes
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 06, 2015, 01:12:09 AM
 #25669

the only centralization problem i see is the centralization of Core developers under the Blockstream banner, and their lack economic understanding

I don't understand how you can write that given all I have written in this thread about the inherent centralization in Bitcoin's design.

This discourages me about the rationality of the readers here.

If you have rebuttal to the points I made about Bitcoin technical design being centralized, I'd like to read it to see if it is rational.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 06, 2015, 01:30:05 AM
 #25670

Better blockstream than mit or Google lab rat Roll Eyes

i just added you to the list of arsonists.
smooth
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1246



View Profile
June 06, 2015, 01:34:07 AM
 #25671

makes Monero roughly 1% of my assets

Some of have publicly commented that you ended up coding less for Monero than they had hoped.

If I said that hypothetically if I was a dev on a coin and my holding in the coin was only 1% of my assets then I wouldn't have much incentive to work on it full-time (forum posting not included as work); would this strike you or anyone else as being unethical or in any other way incorrect or inappropriate?

I am getting at whether a dev having a large stake in a coin is detrimental or positive?

I understand Cypherdoc criticizes Gregory's stake in Bitcoin because Greg is on the other side of the block size increase debate. And he seems to be jealous that Greg was gifted some hardware in exchange for (and/or to aid) his development work.

Seems to me that there will always be jealously, but Satoshi seems to mostly get a free ride. Is it because he is anonymous, gone, or because he caused a star to appear in the eyes of the Bitcoin supporters?

Let's just say I'm not necessarily a good example to use for generalizations, in part because I practice aggressive risk management, and also in part because I'm perfectly comfortable financially (I have no desire for a castle), so I don't see the need to take extreme risks.

I don't necessarily sign up for the moon shots (e.g. SpaceShipTwo -- see below). But on the other hand I incur large losses only rarely and always have a bullet left in the chamber when opportunity presents itself, so I've done okay.

smooth
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1246



View Profile
June 06, 2015, 02:09:43 AM
 #25672

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.  this is why i don't like SC's b/c it can force the same thing if a SC becomes dominant.  ppl can't afford that and it destroys stability and thus confidence.  it would appear as if crypto were a ponzi scheme, luring in ppl to one scam, only to take their money and create another.

I think its more likely that people like you who refused to hedge will get badly burned (conditional on this scenario playing out, and I'm not calling it likely), but many others who did hedge or picked a winner will do extremely well. To observers, the dynamics of greed make the latter narrative far more compelling than the former.

So no I don't really see a few cyperdocs losing money as the death of the concept, it is more like once-dominant Blackberry getting leapfrogged and steamrolled by iPhone and Android. Except of course, as I said earlier, Bitcoin isn't even dominant at all. If Bitcoin gets leapfrogged or fails, the popular perception of that event will be basically non-existent ("What ever happened to that Bitcoin thing we used to hear about?")
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
June 06, 2015, 02:10:43 AM
 #25673

Most chineese outsource their servers for obvious reasons. Its not the service providers location that counts but rather the location of their contractors. Nice try Wink

Quote from: Wang - mining superstar
“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.”

Are most Chinese outsourcing to the 1 of 91 nodes located in China? the concern quoted above would imply that or it would imply they are outsourcing to some on in North America.

eather way they better jack up of piss off, Bitcoin is not a charity, they should outsource to someone with more bandwidth, let me guess Blockstream wants to keep a client happy by limiting the block size?

Nice try Wink


not a client but $21M worth of investors.
Blockstream have many conflicts of interest, as the Duck says, Wang is outsourcing block propagation and optimization to someone for good reason, how are we to know that service is not benign provided by Blockstream, and if it is, that would explain why all Blockstream employees are looking to limit the block size.

Wang just made it quite crystal clear there is no way for them to outsource to improve propagation or optimization.  he didn't say that specifically but he doesn't have to.  if there was, they would've done it by now to further decrease any orphaning they're already having as their margins are quite thin.  they are in the Nash Equilibrium.  

the smaller Chinese miner on the dev list the other day said they were outsourcing to Alydan and Linode which improved their connection to 100MB/s but still left them at a disadvantage b/c they are in China.  in other words, the limiting factor is not the size of the miner but the fact that they are in China.  which shoots the hell outta the Blockstream FUD.

Thanks,

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
June 06, 2015, 02:27:24 AM
 #25674

the only centralization problem i see is the centralization of Core developers under the Blockstream banner, and their lack economic understanding

I don't understand how you can write that given all I have written in this thread about the inherent centralization in Bitcoin's design.

This discourages me about the rationality of the readers here.

If you have rebuttal to the points I made about Bitcoin technical design being centralized, I'd like to read it to see if it is rational.
your Ideas are too convoluted, the total number of miners and nodes expanding and contracting is in response to market conditions and inevitable, I don't buy the idea of a contraction in the number of mining participants or nodes will continue to the point of centralization, able it there is lots that needs optimizing to guarantee it, i think the Nash Equilibrium kicks in at some point and specialization and scales of efficiency balance the network out. 

there are some underlying incentives that maintain the economic conditions necessary to preserve Bitcoin. so long as they are preserved i think we will be fine, the fact that many of the Developers overlook the subtleties and try to control what they see as problematic is a concern and that if anything is the greatest threat i see to Bitcoin.

you have made some good points and i have an idea how you may improve Bitcoin but I cant see it as doomed until i understand the mechanics you seem to find circumvent the existing incentive structure.

so until then, Bitcoin isn't doomed just a risky bet, with odds in favor of my understanding.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
June 06, 2015, 02:35:54 AM
 #25675

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 @ Gavin r3kt like Stannis on the Blackwater.   Cheesy

So much for FrappuccinoDoc's anglocentric assertion that most BTC activity takes place in the EU and US.

This news comes right after f2pool (China's and the world's largest) publicly told Gavin in an exchange (tweeted by Szabo) to calm down, forget about 20mb blocks, and learn to spell their names right.

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Wallets - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }


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


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


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

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

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

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

"Hard forks cannot be co
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
June 06, 2015, 02:52:37 AM
 #25676

Here's a perfect example of the kind of doublethink coming from the decentralization crowd:

https://twitter.com/Daniel_Plante/status/607009316915191808

https://twitter.com/Daniel_Plante/status/607010068857393152

"the point of decentralization is to give TX confirmation power to as many clueless people as possible."
"300 million ordinary people running full nodes is the goal because they don't get it and don't care. Won't collude."

How many assumptions are baked into those statements?

  • The developers/distributors of full nodes are 300 million times more clueful than ordinary humans
  • Ordinary humans can not be trusted to make informed decisions, but they can be trusted to listen to the right group of developers
  • Decentralization means multiplying by 300 million times the capabilities of a self-selected group of developers who can be trusted to do the right thing, unlike regular clueless humans

War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, and techno-fascism is decentralization.
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
June 06, 2015, 02:58:30 AM
 #25677

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.”

Now you are desperately gainsaying and nitpicking the completely legitimate and highly-informed concerns of the world's largest miners, pools, and exchanges in yet another demonstration of the Gavinesque "rudeness" of which Digcoin CEO Evan Mo spoke:

   
Quote
“A decentralized system serves for users all over the world to eliminate racial and cultural discrimination, and needs a democratic mechanism to operate and to avoid that disputes are thrown into the Bitcoin community directly and rudely. We hope it will be possible to figure out a convincing and robust solution, for which is very necessary to listen to a wide range of voices and opinions.”


The big Chinese mine, pool, and exchange operators are pounding nail after nail into GavinCoin's coffin with such domination quotes, and you're just blowing them off.  That's not chutzpah, that just being an obstinately ignorant asshole.

Is there any depth to which you will not sink in your clownish jihad against 1MB blocks and the diffuse/diverse/defensible/resilient system they engender?

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
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
June 06, 2015, 02:59:06 AM
 #25678

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 @ Gavin r3kt like Stannis on the Blackwater.   Cheesy

So much for FrappuccinoDoc's anglocentric assertion that most BTC activity takes place in the EU and US.

This news comes right after f2pool (China's and the world's largest) publicly told Gavin in an exchange (tweeted by Szabo) to calm down, forget about 20mb blocks, and learn to spell their names right.
They need to use strong words, Hong Kong and China combined have less than 100 nodes and miners face an exponential increase of orphans with a disproportionate increase in blockchain size due to there trans Pacific internet connection.

They have little influence other than political.

They need Bitcoin centralization or SC to survive.

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

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 06, 2015, 03:00:10 AM
 #25679

Here's a perfect example of the kind of doublethink coming from the decentralization crowd:

https://twitter.com/Daniel_Plante/status/607009316915191808

https://twitter.com/Daniel_Plante/status/607010068857393152

"the point of decentralization is to give TX confirmation power to as many clueless people as possible."
"300 million ordinary people running full nodes is the goal because they don't get it and don't care. Won't collude."

How many assumptions are baked into those statements?

  • The developers/distributors of full nodes are 300 million times more clueful than ordinary humans
  • Ordinary humans can not be trusted to make informed decisions, but they can be trusted to listen to the right group of developers
  • Decentralization means multiplying by 300 million times the capabilities of a self-selected group of developers who can be trusted to do the right thing, unlike regular clueless humans

War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, and techno-fascism is decentralization.

Let me correct their statements to what they were trying to say...

The point of decentralization is that the nodes don't need to care or know, i.e. that decentralization is guaranteed by the protocol independent of any game theory the nodes play. That is a huge difference from requiring diligence and intelligence in order to remain decentralized, which in Logic of Collective Action will never be the outcome — not even once in 6000 years.

Bitcoin (and every crypto-coin I've studied) places too much power in the hands of the consensus and thus requires human diligence from the full nodes (or their functional analog in PoS) in order to remain decentralized.

iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
June 06, 2015, 03:07:03 AM
 #25680

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.

Bitcoin must remain concerned with "local bandwidth problems" in order to stay diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient.  Not that Gavinstas GAS about that these days; just saying for the record.

And if one cares to RTFA, one notices it contains quotes from major Chinese exchange operators, not "mine objections" (those came a couple of days ago, these are new; please try to keep up with the class).

The exchanges are key to GavinCoin's fate.  The more exchanges stay faithful to vanilla Bitcoin, the more power is given to MP's 'GavinCoin Short.'

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
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1333 1334 ... 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!