Bitcoin Forum
December 06, 2016, 02:31:15 PM *
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 ... 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 1335 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1805078 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 06, 2015, 03:10:06 AM
 #25681

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?

whoosh, that just went right over your pinhead, didn't it?

i'm not arguing against what the Chinese miners are saying.  i'm listening to what they're saying and using that info to blow a huge hole in yours and the Blockstream devs #1 theory against large blocks, that being the large miner, large block attack they've so incessantly been wanking on about.  it's always been a dubious theory to me and now we have confirmation that it is even more ludicrous than i thought.  typical scare tactics from financially conflicted ppl such as yourself.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481034675
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481034675

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481034675
Reply with quote  #2

1481034675
Report to moderator
1481034675
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481034675

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481034675
Reply with quote  #2

1481034675
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 06, 2015, 03:11:26 AM
 #25682

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.'

BTCChina is the #3 pool miner, laggard.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 06, 2015, 03:15:02 AM
 #25683

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

You did not comprehend that I pointed out monopolization mechanisms by which the number of full nodes could even increase yet centralization could still occur.

You also don't seem to comprehend that the number of mining nodes has nothing to do with the fact that the consensus has the power to deny transactions. Bitcoin proponents depend on a diligent human action running full nodes that will fork or blacklist away from any malfeasance. But humans are more self-interested than they are collective goals focused, as the Logic Of Collective Action explains.

Your conceptualization revolving around the # of nodes and economic incentives equilibrium ignores the points I've made about the ability of the cartel to attain the exclusive lowest cost access to electricity and economies-of-scale on hardware optimization.

I've already explained how the incentive structure breaks in numerous scenarios. Do you have your ears covered?

iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
June 06, 2015, 03:15:43 AM
 #25684

Monero's implementation is fixed.

Like Bitcoin, only Monero's emission schedule is fixed (by social contract).  

In all other areas, both remain open to improvement, bound only by the constraint of community consensus.

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
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
June 06, 2015, 03:46:55 AM
 #25685

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.'

BTCChina is the #3 pool miner, laggard.

That's right!  Very good.  Now you know that, at minimum, ~31% of the network (f2pool + BTCChina + Eligius) are against mining GavinCoins.

BTCChina is also one of the largest exchanges.  The first line in the CT article says:

Quote
Two of China's biggest bitcoin exchanges - BTCChina and Huobi - have voiced concerns over Bitcoin Core developer Gavin Andresen's proposal to raise the block size limit to 20 megabytes by next year.

The combined defensive power of these huge pro-vanilla pools/mines/exchanges makes it more likely GavinCoin will get r3kt like Stannis on the Blackwater (perhaps thanks in part to MP's 'GavinCoin Short' wildfire WMD).


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
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 06, 2015, 03:56:10 AM
 #25686

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.'

BTCChina is the #3 pool miner, laggard.

That's right!  Very good.  Now you know that, at minimum, ~31% of the network (f2pool + BTCChina + Eligius) are against mining GavinCoins.

BTCChina is also one of the largest exchanges.  The first line in the CT article says:

Quote
Two of China's biggest bitcoin exchanges - BTCChina and Huobi - have voiced concerns over Bitcoin Core developer Gavin Andresen's proposal to raise the block size limit to 20 megabytes by next year.

The combined defensive power of these huge pro-vanilla pools/mines/exchanges makes it more likely GavinCoin will get r3kt like Stannis on the Blackwater (perhaps thanks in part to MP's 'GavinCoin Short' wildfire WMD).

-

glad to hear you admit i'm right on the pt i was trying to make.  which was that increasing the block size will NOT lead to centralization.  that's yours and their's #1 argument out of the way.

now for your 31% of the network against:  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 something about it. It will give miners round the world a chance to level the playing field. And if Wall street really does want to get into Bitcoin, this will give them a chance to build their own mines which Fred Wilson recommended in the Andrew Ross Sorkin interview with Nathan Popper.  That would be a good thing too so as to further decentralize the process of mining and let the US into that game. Personally I think the Chinese gvt will allow their miners to step it up in terms of bandwidth eventually to stay competitive. Bitcoin is their chance to challenge the dollar which is why they haven't crushed it yet.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 06, 2015, 04:02:44 AM
 #25687

actually, there's no way f2pool, Eligius, and BTCPool add to 31% of the network.  i count 10% max and f2pool isn't even on the chart.
vokain
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610


V.V.V.V.V.


View Profile
June 06, 2015, 04:05:43 AM
 #25688

Monero's implementation is fixed.

Like Bitcoin, only Monero's emission schedule is fixed (by social contract).  

In all other areas, both remain open to improvement, bound only by the constraint of community consensus.

Considering this, it seems to me that another ledger does not have to surpass a dominant ledger in any metric for it to coexist. When the culture of a collective strives for technological advances under the auspices of everlastingly standing against any nefarious PTB, I think this can challenge the thesis that there has to be one dominant ledger, at least immediately. Consider as an imperfect example: Apple vs. and Windows.

...مكتوب
Escape the plutocrats’ zanpakutō, Flower in the Mirror, Moon on the Water: brave “the ascent which is rough and steep” (Plato).
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
June 06, 2015, 04:16:06 AM
 #25689

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.


Asian Bitcoiners not only have influence in the political/social form, but also economic and technological.

They aren't using strong words; their circumspect quotes in the CT article are studiously measured, calm, and polite.

The presence of large mines/pools/exchanges outside the anglosphere is required to keep the system diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient.

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
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
June 06, 2015, 04:16:57 AM
 #25690

actually, there's no way f2pool, Eligius, and BTCPool add to 31% of the network.  i count 10% max and f2pool isn't even on the chart.

Look here you grumpy old fart.  You need to take your gingko and go on vacation, instead of requiring spoon-feeding in the manner of a vegetative nursing home resident.

You are constantly losing your shit and repeatedly requiring correction of your misapprehension of common knowledge and basic facts.

Watching gmax slap you around on reddit is Good Times, but a waste of his invaluable energy.  Likewise for tvbcof's, hdbuck's, and Marcus' disastrous attempts at informing and educating you.

If you stay, I suggest making a standing reservation in the burn ward.  Because GavinCoin is toast.   Wink

Please stop telling us VanillaCoiners what our "#1" anti-GavinCoin argument is, or at least get it approximately correct.

#1 trade-offs with negative impacts on existing levels of diversity/diffusion/defensibility/resiliency
#2 UXTO explosion
#3 blocksize gaming, propagation, bandwidth, etc.

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
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974


View Profile
June 06, 2015, 04:24:16 AM
 #25691

Monero's implementation is fixed.

Like Bitcoin, only Monero's emission schedule is fixed (by social contract).  

In all other areas, both remain open to improvement, bound only by the constraint of community consensus.

Considering this, it seems to me that another ledger does not have to surpass a dominant ledger in any metric for it to coexist. When the culture of a collective strives for technological advances under the auspices to everlastingly stand against any nefarious PTB, I think this can challenge the thesis that there has to be one dominant ledger, at least immediately. Consider as an imperfect example: Apple vs. Windows.

The assumption seems to rest on the notion that if most miners were not interested in a particular fork, some sufficient fraction could and would attack it.  This is dubious for several reasons.  Among them, they would have to give up the value of mining on their favored chain.  Even if they were not able to mine it profitably (as has happened at least once in Bitcoin's history) they would still have to pay the costs out-of-pocket and hope that they could re-coup the money by ?.?.?.

One of the giant (and almost completely ignored) advantages a Bitcoin which is primarily used as a backing store has is that it can simply freeze for relatively long periods of time if a sufficiently troublesome attack is underway.  For the most part, the sidechains that Bitcoin backs can keep right on humming along an fap.doc can enjoy his latte.  A Bitcoin built to support every peon's real-time needs has no such luxury.  If Bitcoin itself is being supported by technically competent people well distributed around the world, and if there is good communications and transparency about the attack and the defenses being mounted to fend it off, end-users at the sidechain level (or Bitcoin level for that matter) can consider it a nuisance rather that a thing to be terribly concerned about.

p.s., I added the second para because in the event that XT was going and had significant firepower to deploy against Core (unlikely to last long even if it did come to pass) then Core still has relatively little to be concerned about.  Better defenses.  Defenses are what Bitcoin is (or should be) all about.  That's where the real enduring value lays...which fap.doc will learn to his dismay.

edit: slight

rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
June 06, 2015, 04:33:11 AM
 #25692

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.

I lived for several years in Seoul and had a 100Mbps down / 10Mbps up connection for ~$15/month residential, commercial lines had more. Friends have told me they are now at 1Gbps connections.

20MB blocks translates to an average of  0.5Mbps. If miners in China have an issue with that then they have other problems.

Oh, and the entire mining farm only needs a small number of kpbs to connect to the pool node which can be anywhere.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
June 06, 2015, 04:36:31 AM
 #25693

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.


Asian Bitcoiners not only have influence in the political/social form, but also economic and technological.

They aren't using strong words; their circumspect quotes in the CT article are studiously measured, calm, and polite.

The presence of large mines/pools/exchanges outside the anglosphere is required to keep the system diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient.

Accommodating a minority of less than 100 nodes with the highest off blockchain transaction volume looks dependant on centralization, concentrated and not very resident. I find it ironic to think by keeping block small you feel they will achieve the goal of decentralization.  Yes they have 1.7% network diversity interest and are 98.3% dependent on political influence.

The problem is this minority have the attention of a centralized control system.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 06, 2015, 04:38:18 AM
 #25694

actually, there's no way f2pool, Eligius, and BTCPool add to 31% of the network.  i count 10% max and f2pool isn't even on the chart.

Look here you grumpy old fart.  You need to take your gingko and go on vacation, instead of requiring spoon-feeding in the manner of a vegetative nursing home resident.

You are constantly losing your shit and repeatedly requiring correction of your misapprehension of common knowledge and basic facts.

Watching gmax slap you around on reddit is Good Times, but a waste of his invaluable energy.  Likewise for tvbcof's, hdbuck's, and Marcus' disastrous attempts at informing and educating you.

If you stay, I suggest making a standing reservation in the burn ward.  Because GavinCoin is toast.   Wink

Please stop telling us VanillaCoiners what our "#1" anti-GavinCoin argument is, or at least get it approximately correct.

#1 trade-offs with negative impacts on existing levels of diversity/diffusion/defensibility/resiliency
#2 UXTO explosion
#3 blocksize gaming, propagation, bandwidth, etc.

Is that how you deal with your flawed addition problem  I just pointed out? With ad hominems? iCE, stop being an idiot and trying to push Monero.

It has been your #1 argument. Sorry for blowing a large smoking hole through it.
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
June 06, 2015, 04:45:07 AM
 #25695

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.


Asian Bitcoiners not only have influence in the political/social form, but also economic and technological.

They aren't using strong words; their circumspect quotes in the CT article are studiously measured, calm, and polite.

The presence of large mines/pools/exchanges outside the anglosphere is required to keep the system diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient.

Accommodating a minority of less than 100 nodes with the highest off blockchain transaction volume looks dependant on centralization, concentrated and not very resident. I find it ironic to think by keeping block small you feel they will achieve the goal of decentralization.  Yes they have 1.7% network diversity interest and are 98.3% dependent on political influence.  

Contrary to popular opinion, the consensus mechanism for Bitcoin does not require a large super majority to set direction, any group of slightly more than 50% of participants can set direction. The reason is simple, in a 60/40 split the 40 can either fork away from the majority losing all ability to transact with the economic majority, or the 40 can follow the 60.

In the March 2013 it did not take a large super majority to switch from the 0.7 branch longest chain, if I remember correctly once roughly 50% of the hash rate switched to the shorter 0.8 branch, that was enough for the rest to see the direction and follow suit.

The polls I've seen show >80% of people are interest in 20MB blocks. If this 80 switches to 20MB blocks, the rest will follow. To not do so means becoming fully disconnected from the economic majority. Even if china represents 40% of the hashrate, they will follow the majority of users in the rest of the world. That is how consensus works. To not do so is economic suicide.
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
June 06, 2015, 04:47:24 AM
 #25696

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.

I lived for several years in Seoul and had a 100Mbps down / 10Mbps up connection for ~$15/month residential, commercial lines had more. Friends have told me they are now at 1Gbps connections.

20MB blocks translates to an average of  0.5Mbps. If miners in China have an issue with that then they have other problems.

Oh, and the entire mining farm only needs a small number of kpbs to connect to the pool node which can be anywhere.

S. Korea is very small, rich, and high-tech; Seoul in particular is extremely densely populated (and utterly unsuited for mining at scale).

You might as well reason about all of Russian bandwidth in terms of Moscow's example, or all of America's in terms of San Francisco.

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
Cconvert2G36
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392


View Profile
June 06, 2015, 04:52:41 AM
 #25697

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.'

BTCChina is the #3 pool miner, laggard.

That's right!  Very good.  Now you know that, at minimum, ~31% of the network (f2pool + BTCChina + Eligius) are against mining GavinCoins.

BTCChina is also one of the largest exchanges.  The first line in the CT article says:

Quote
Two of China's biggest bitcoin exchanges - BTCChina and Huobi - have voiced concerns over Bitcoin Core developer Gavin Andresen's proposal to raise the block size limit to 20 megabytes by next year.

The combined defensive power of these huge pro-vanilla pools/mines/exchanges makes it more likely GavinCoin will get r3kt like Stannis on the Blackwater (perhaps thanks in part to MP's 'GavinCoin Short' wildfire WMD).



So the monero/side chain/MP cultists are the Lannisters? Wonder how that works out...
vokain
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610


V.V.V.V.V.


View Profile
June 06, 2015, 04:57:11 AM
 #25698

I had the impression everyone's kind of joined in on the fight against the Lannisters (ruling party) who are inextricably tied to the bankers.

edit: Then I guess we have the Dragon Empire from across the sea, but they have their own messes to clean up before getting anywhere.

idk I'm only on episode 5

...مكتوب
Escape the plutocrats’ zanpakutō, Flower in the Mirror, Moon on the Water: brave “the ascent which is rough and steep” (Plato).
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
June 06, 2015, 05:38:24 AM
 #25699

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

You did not comprehend that I pointed out monopolization mechanisms by which the number of full nodes could even increase yet centralization could still occur.

You also don't seem to comprehend that the number of mining nodes has nothing to do with the fact that consensus has the power to deny transactions. You depend on a diligent human action running full nodes that will fork or blacklist away from any malfeasance. But humans are more self-interested than they are collective goals focused, as the Logic Of Collective Action explains.

Your conceptualization revolving around the # of nodes and economic incentives equilibrium ignores the points I've made about the ability of the cartel to attain the exclusive lowest cost access to electricity and economies-of-scale on hardware optimization.

I've already explained how the incentive structure breaks in numerous scenarios. Do you have your ears covered?

The bold above is happening in real time we get to see empirical evidence very soon. Still home advantage to the central authority who can push there winning card through with a soft fork by offering miners extra revenue for merge mining SC's

And surprisingly there is an idea that can dethrone the central authority by catering to the majority who use the network and run the protocol and many who have an invested interest are watching, and the central authority says the ignorant majority are just ignorant, listen to us we're experts.

So looking at the pole above, it may be causality but there seems to be wisdom in the consensus of the herd. So I think you may end up being wrong let's see.

I hope you are.


Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
June 06, 2015, 05:49:33 AM
 #25700

Quote
Two of China's biggest bitcoin exchanges - BTCChina and Huobi - have voiced concerns over Bitcoin Core developer Gavin Andresen's proposal to raise the block size limit to 20 megabytes by next year.

The combined defensive power of these huge pro-vanilla pools/mines/exchanges makes it more likely GavinCoin will get r3kt like Stannis on the Blackwater (perhaps thanks in part to MP's 'GavinCoin Short' wildfire WMD).



So the monero/side chain/MP cultists are the Lannisters? Wonder how that works out...

Varus was there too.  Bron, Tyrion, Tomlin, and Jaime are good Lannisters, unlike Sexy Evil Circe and the rest.   Smiley

The point is Bitcoin much harder to attack than even King's Landing's well defended walls.  Satoshi build BTC to last through any external siege or internal coup.

No matter how great his hubris or wicked his witchcraft, Gavin the pretender to Satoshi's throne and his fleet of pirate ships are going to get r3kt in this battle.

Good summary here:  https://www.coingecko.com/buzz/bitcoin-leaders-speak-up-block-size

Includes the first media coverage I've seen of MPEX's economic doomsday weapon, the GavinCoin Short:

Quote
Popescu explained why any hard fork that increases the block size limit is destined for failure:

“The fate of this fork will be exactly the fate of all attempted forks to date : the savvy Bitcoin holders will sell their fake-Bitcoins on the fake network, while double-spending (and thus invalidating) their sale on the actual network, thereby keeping their actual Bitcoin safe (iv). The proceeds of this "victimless" (v) crime will be used to purchase more legitimate Bitcoins on the legitimate network, thus draining away value from the holders of Bitcoin fakes, into the pockets of the legitimate Bitcoin holders.”

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 ... 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 1335 ... 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!