Bitcoin Forum
December 04, 2016, 12:23:44 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 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 1336 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1804147 times)
Cconvert2G36
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392


View Profile
June 06, 2015, 06:01:36 AM
 #25701

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.”

Keep going... at least I am aware my posts are bereft of constructive content.
1480854224
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480854224

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480854224
Reply with quote  #2

1480854224
Report to moderator
1480854224
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480854224

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480854224
Reply with quote  #2

1480854224
Report to moderator
1480854224
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480854224

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480854224
Reply with quote  #2

1480854224
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480854224
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480854224

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480854224
Reply with quote  #2

1480854224
Report to moderator
1480854224
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480854224

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480854224
Reply with quote  #2

1480854224
Report to moderator
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
June 06, 2015, 06:09:18 AM
 #25702

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.”

Keep going... at least I am aware my posts are bereft of constructive content.

Constructive content?

Foolish mortal...T H I S  I S  B I T C O I N T A L K !

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, 06:36:03 AM
 #25703

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.”

Keep going... at least I am aware my posts are bereft of constructive content.

Constructive content?

Foolish mortal...T H I S  I S  B I T C O I N T A L K !

iCELatte - - > CONCERN TROLL!
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
June 06, 2015, 06:44:50 AM
 #25704

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.”

Keep going... at least I am aware my posts are bereft of constructive content.

Constructive content?

Foolish mortal...T H I S  I S  B I T C O I N T A L K !

iCELatte - - > CONCERN TROLL!

I'm not the one CONCERNED about how zero fee transactions taking a little longer will cause yet another Death Of Bitcoin.   Kiss

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
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 06, 2015, 07:42:36 AM
 #25705

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.



Btw, I had deduced this about you.

If we are truly facing a potential global Dark Age, it is possible that all the diversification you can muster won't help you. In that case, being undriven to attempt the moon shot can be the crash and burn scenario.

Odds would normally overwhelmingly favor your cautious stance, but I don't think we are heading into a normal business cycle correction. I believe Martin Armstrong's 309 year cycle model of civilization change. It is also so happens that all of his models are converging towards a major crash at the same time, e.g. the 25 year War Cycle model, the 51.6 year ECM, the pandemic model, etc..

I believe we are headed into a tempest on the order of the fall of Western Rome with the technological differences, i.e. a propaganda war with virtual realities and a technological totalitarianism. TPTB have the technological and political circumstances to drag us into a top-down Technocracy that slow burns into eugenics and death by a 1000 paper cuts.

We hackers have the potential to create efforts which thwart such a dire outcome.

For all you Bible believers, the calculations for the Tribulations and Jesus's return (Google "Abdomination of the Desolation" and "Marshall Swing") point to 2015.75 as the beginning of the Tribulations. I am not basing my decisions on Biblical numerology. Just noting I am aware of this.

However even I am skeptical about the degree to which a waterfall crash can implode all diversification over short time intervals. The collapse of Western Rome into the Middle Ages was not a process that could be observed in a single lifetime. Although apparently the localized collapse from 1.2 million to 30,000 population of Rome was mostly concentrated over decades.

phoenix1
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784



View Profile
June 06, 2015, 07:54:58 AM
 #25706

Good morning!!

Would any of you guys care to comment on these two articles that assert that :

1) We are already hitting the 1MB block limit "an average of more than four times per day so far in 2015"

and

2) The 'real' speed of the Bitcoin network is only 2.8 TPS - "largely a result of increasingly complex transactions, often using multiple inputs and outputs"

https://tradeblock.com/blog/bitcoin-network-capacity-analysis-part-1-macro-block-trends

https://tradeblock.com/blog/bitcoin-network-capacity-analysis-part-2-macro-transaction-trends

Thanks!

"Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves"  - Confucius (China 551BC-479 BC)
Cconvert2G36
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392


View Profile
June 06, 2015, 07:59:10 AM
 #25707

For all you Bible believers, the calculations for the Tribulations and Jesus's return (Google "Abdomination of the Desolation" and "Marshall Swing") point to 2015.75 as the beginning of the Tribulations. I am not basing my decisions on Biblical numerology. Just noting I am aware of this.

Google, done.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 06, 2015, 08:30:12 AM
 #25708

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. Windows.

The argument has been the unit-of-account advantage for a dominant currency. As you (and recently rpietila in the Economics Totalitarianism thread) astutely point out, there are overriding priorities for what we want from money that have less do with unit-of-account.

Bitcoin isn't even a unit-of-account, although it is more widely accepted than any other crypto-currency by far. Yet still I forsee Bitcoin protecting neither my stores-of-wealth nor my ability to do commerce without a 1000 papercuts. Thus I am not contented with Bitcoin as the only dominant money.

I am 90% sure that at least 25% of the readership of this forum shares my articulated perspective. That is a huge market for an altcoin and enough to give it critical mass.

IMO Monero's delimma is they didn't map out a currency usage for it (except for rpietila's game project). But I just had an epiphany on that earlier today (at 2am) and now forsee Monero as an integral part of any project I might do. It turns out Monero can do something that Bitcan't can't (pun intended), which is essential to my current strategy (subject to change).

Appears this forum is under DoS attack again.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 06, 2015, 08:44:26 AM
 #25709

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

My point about the reduced hashrate is if the masses move onto the Fascist side chain (Coinbase, Circle, Paypal, etc) which they will do implicitly without even knowing it, then the cartel has an incentive to use small amount of hashrate to destroy any remaining competition from the original Bitcoin chain.

Ha, any "death by 1000 paper cuts" (sorry closed today try again next week) money is not money in my opinion. That was a very delusional post. Are you guys really thinking like this? There is no value whatsoever and you will be a few fools holding on to a store-of-value that has no bid ever again must be moved into the Fascist coin to get a bid.

Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


View Profile
June 06, 2015, 08:48:44 AM
 #25710

Note: F2Pool (a.k.a. Discus Fish) rejects 20MB but supports 5-10MB. Certainly not an argument against an increase.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 06, 2015, 08:52:46 AM
 #25711

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.

How much was your rent and cost-of-living?

I pay $350 per month for two-storey, modern, fully furnished 4 bedroom house in Davao, Philippines. I pay $40 monthly for 1 - 2.5 Mbps down / 0.25 - 0.7 Mbps up. To get faster I would have to move into an office complex in a few designated areas and forsake many other lifestyle choices.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 06, 2015, 09:02:53 AM
 #25712

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.

The majority of the masses will use the winner-take-all, Fascist side chain. Checkmate.

You don't win against TPTB by playing their game. They are the masters of the Logic of Collective Action.

Edit: the only defense is as I wrote upthread; remove the 50% attack from mining. It is critical that we redesign crypto-currency.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 06, 2015, 09:05:12 AM
 #25713

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.”

This is why the cartel need Blockstream's pegged side chains as a defense against MP when they implement the Fascist side chain. This is why Blockstream has received all the $millions. Ditto 21 Inc. The cartel is funding the WMD.

They are going to burn MP's hands up to his armpits one day.

iCe brigade, why can't you see that TPTB have fooled you into supporting your own demise. Do you enjoy being dogs chasing your tails? Please send this to MP.



P.S. Dirty HLarry and I share the middle name "Henry".

Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


View Profile
June 06, 2015, 09:20:23 AM
 #25714

Quote from: Zangelbert Bingledack
I feel the force of the argument, but I think it only applies to the ledger-updating protocol, not the ledger itself. From an investment perspective, the ledger is what matters. The ledger is where the most economically important network effects are.

Even if TPTB can centralize and control the protocol, they can't stop the users of the ledger (BTC holders) from switching to a different ledger-updating protocol. Thus the store of value is maintained, and the network effect of what is now called "the Bitcoin ledger" is maintained. Now they could cut it off in its infancy, push another ledger to compete with it, etc., and that would be damaging, but you'd still have that core group of people who are aligned with the principles Bitcoin was intended to uphold, ready to carry on with that ledger.

One of the general classes of mistakes I see repeated in economic analysis is the erroneous concept that time is reversible.

Path dependencies proliferate not vice versa.

For example, the wealth effect (i.e. market price determines market cap != wealth invested) destroys wealth on the egress.

Are you saying path dependency applies to the ledger as well?

Your logic of collective action arguments may apply to "the masses," but Bitcoin remains usable by those who understand such things, which is globally a decent-sized (and rapidly growing) economic bloc. There is no collectivism in a system where you can fork off or otherwise "exit in place" at will. The logic of voice vs. exit is the dominant dynamic in the Internet economy, which is unburdened by the usual territorial considerations.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 06, 2015, 09:25:43 AM
 #25715

Bitcoin is a force for good...

You will have the world's eugenics blood on your delusional hands...

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 06, 2015, 09:29:14 AM
 #25716

Quote from: Zangelbert Bingledack
I feel the force of the argument, but I think it only applies to the ledger-updating protocol, not the ledger itself. From an investment perspective, the ledger is what matters. The ledger is where the most economically important network effects are.

Even if TPTB can centralize and control the protocol, they can't stop the users of the ledger (BTC holders) from switching to a different ledger-updating protocol. Thus the store of value is maintained, and the network effect of what is now called "the Bitcoin ledger" is maintained. Now they could cut it off in its infancy, push another ledger to compete with it, etc., and that would be damaging, but you'd still have that core group of people who are aligned with the principles Bitcoin was intended to uphold, ready to carry on with that ledger.

One of the general classes of mistakes I see repeated in economic analysis is the erroneous concept that time is reversible.

Path dependencies proliferate not vice versa.

For example, the wealth effect (i.e. market price determines market cap != wealth invested) destroys wealth on the egress.

Are you saying path dependency applies to the ledger as well?

Your logic of collective action arguments may apply to "the masses," but Bitcoin remains usable by those who understand such things, which is globally a decent-sized (and rapidly growing) economic bloc. There is no collectivism in a system where you can fork off at will. The logic of voice vs. exit is the dominant dynamic in the Internet economy, which is unburdened by the usual territorial considerations.

MP's WMD juxtaposed with pegged side chains WMD means any fork to a coin with a 50% attack vector is impossible. The freedom to fork is threatened with WMD from both sides. See my prior few posts of the logic.

Afaics, the only viable path forward is to invest out of this dilemma into a superior crypto-currency.

tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974


View Profile
June 06, 2015, 10:02:21 AM
 #25717

...
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 ?.?.?.
...

My point about the reduced hashrate is if the masses move onto the Fascist side chain (Coinbase, Circle, Paypal, etc) which they will do implicitly without even knowing it, then the cartel has an incentive to use small amount of hashrate to destroy any remaining competition from the original Bitcoin chain.

Ha, any "death by 1000 paper cuts" (sorry closed today try again next week) money is not money in my opinion. That was a very delusional post. Are you guys really thinking like this? There is no value whatsoever and you will be a few fools holding on to a store-of-value that has no bid ever again.

I value more than anything a robust and flexible defensive capability.  The closer a system gets to 'real time', the less I value it for this exact reason.  From a system analysis point of view, I know how much easier it will be to defend when one has the time and flexibility to take whatever defensive measures are necessary to meet whatever attacks are mounted.

As I've said for years, and I heard Todd promote the concept fairly recently, a system which can probably defend against and attack is much less likely to experience one in the first place.  Core will be quite popular with a lot of us old-timers at the very least.  It will obtain a fair degree of hashing power.  Overcoming this will be costly.  If we can ensure that days-long attacks are ineffective even if they do change the system cycle frequency for the worse, it's going to be expensive to attack on pure sha256 hashing power.  And even if that somehow proves to be sustainable in the long term we are not just going to walk.  Worst case scenario we could change the POW slightly and relegate the current (and likely future) datacenters full of ASIC to the trash heap.

(I actually favor a hard-fork which kicks out the whole current POW algorithm and replaces it with a randomly selected CPU friendly collection of algorithms.  I'd think strongly about favoring such a fork over core (MP) if some trusted group did one in time for the Hearndresen XT attack.  The idea, of course, would be to promote distributed mining like back in the old days.)

Thinking back, I think the Blockstream guys were projecting an expectation of several days to be confident of a peg operation.  I wonder if they are considering some of the possible defensive needs I mention here when they made that projection.  IIRC, the explanation was roughly that they wanted peg operations to be deeply buried in the chain.  Defensive measures  could be one reason for that I suppose.


TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 06, 2015, 11:34:25 AM
 #25718

...
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 ?.?.?.
...

My point about the reduced hashrate is if the masses move onto the Fascist side chain (Coinbase, Circle, Paypal, etc) which they will do implicitly without even knowing it, then the cartel has an incentive to use small amount of hashrate to destroy any remaining competition from the original Bitcoin chain.

Ha, any "death by 1000 paper cuts" (sorry closed today try again next week) money is not money in my opinion. That was a very delusional post. Are you guys really thinking like this? There is no value whatsoever and you will be a few fools holding on to a store-of-value that has no bid ever again.

I value more than anything a robust and flexible defensive capability.  The closer a system gets to 'real time', the less I value it for this exact reason.  From a system analysis point of view, I know how much easier it will be to defend when one has the time and flexibility to take whatever defensive measures are necessary to meet whatever attacks are mounted.

Given my insight into a design you haven't yet seen, I can conclude that you are conflating issues. The changes in design necessary to make a crypto-currency impervious to 50% attack also enable real-time, decentralized transactions. You assume that real-time requirements correlate with less robust defense, but like all things in technology the devil is in the details and generalizations by n00bs are virtually ALWAYS incorrect.

Another example of incorrect generalization upthread was the assumption that off-chain anonymity could match the autonomy and End-to-end Principle of on-chain ring sigs. On detailed study, this assumption is incorrect and leads to entirely incorrect decision process on unwavering, fanatical, unbalanced support for a dominant Bitcoin.

You all are demonstrating the same quality that you lament about the masses, which is they aren't well informed. You see how that shit works? It is a fact of human nature that specialization is not ubiquitous.

Eventually you are going to have to admit that I over the past years have specialized myself on these issues. However it doesn't imply I am omniscient so I am keeping my ears open here and reading everything with keen interest and I will backtrack and mea culpa as necessary. (not wanting to be boastful and I'd much prefer to be a quiet force, but I am forced to pound my chest a bit here because I want to get some traction on working towards the solution we all need)

As I've said for years, and I heard Todd promote the concept fairly recently, a system which can probably defend against and attack is much less likely to experience one in the first place.

Precisely. Yet Bitcoin "Core" and "XT" (forks or proposals or camps) are both being attacked from all potential directions of escape, e.g. Core folks support pegged side chains yet this can result in a Fascist side chain which makes MP's defense impotent (did you miss that implied point in my prior post?).

Core will be quite popular with a lot of us old-timers at the very least.  It will obtain a fair degree of hashing power.  Overcoming this will be costly.

The cartel has always worked in long time frames (decades and even generations) and relatively small investments such as a few $billion here and there (given their $3+ trillion Black Budget fund admitted by former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld and documented in numerous other ways hence) to wipe out a resistance in order to usher in the $300+ trillion wealth grap in the NWO. Come on, you guys are not even bacteria on a flea's ass.

Why do human's have such myopia with conceptualizing relative size?

If we can ensure that days-long attacks are ineffective even if they do change the system cycle frequency for the worse, it's going to be expensive to attack on pure sha256 hashing power.  And even if that somehow proves to be sustainable in the long term we are not just going to walk.  Worst case scenario we could change the POW slightly and relegate the current (and likely future) datacenters full of ASIC to the trash heap.

Instead of playing Whack-A-Mole with hash redesigns, what you could do is adopt my design and use the pegged side chain to spend off of Core and into my design. But then you are supporting the BTC value of the Fascist coin. Much better you will spend your BTC into the Fascist coin and sell, then buy my design.

You will have no other choice than to come into my lap (or the lap of someone who copies my design or creates a derivative).

(I actually favor a hard-fork which kicks out the whole current POW algorithm and replaces it with a randomly selected CPU friendly collection of algorithms.

Smooth, I and others have been down that rabbit hole of technical analysis and that doesn't buy you anything. You will still be in Whack-A-Mole mode.

I'd think strongly about favoring such a fork over core (MP) if some trusted group did one in time for the Hearndresen XT attack.  The idea, of course, would be to promote distributed mining like back in the old days.)

You are describing what I am working on.

Thinking back, I think the Blockstream guys were projecting an expectation of several days to be confident of a peg operation.  I wonder if they are considering some of the possible defensive needs I mention here when they made that projection.  IIRC, the explanation was roughly that they wanted peg operations to be deeply buried in the chain.  Defensive measures  could be one reason for that I suppose.

Pegged side chains should not be ignored. Clearly we are moving to a paradigm where users can choose technology independent of the coin value. This is an important development and I haven't fully analyzed the ramifications yet. I've shared the logic I have thus far on pegged side chains. Feel free to teach me anything I missed in my absence from the prior long thread discussion on them.

sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106


View Profile
June 06, 2015, 01:19:55 PM
 #25719

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.

This beg the question: does the 20MB hardfork require increasing the block version?


Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 06, 2015, 01:25:18 PM
 #25720

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

Read Charles Hoskinson's (one of original founders of Ethereum and someone whom I used to talk to before he discovered Vitalik) astute comment there:

Quote from: Charles Hoskinson
The blocksize debate is deeper than some arbitrary increase from 1 to X MB. It more clearly demonstrates that Bitcoin as an ecosystem is fundamentally immature and requires a great deal of growth to even come close to meeting the needs of traditional financial actors. We don't have a very good consensus mechanism to propose and make changes to the core protocol. This is clearly shown with Gavin having to threaten to work on XT thereby forking development. Second, there is no clear path forward for scalability. Bill White and others are doing amazing research looking at blockchains as functional animals with ledgers being maps from addresses to lists of assets and transactions as functional transformations. This paradigm basically allows for the double spend problem to be defeated without possessing the full blockchain. In other words, network heterogeneity would be permissible.

Other ideas such as IPFS, Lightning and sidechains further add value to the problem of bloat. Why aren't we focusing on these notions first before trying to weight down the main chain with so much new data? Shouldn't an outcome be forced instead of a can kicked down the road? Furthermore, how does a debate like this even play out? Who ultimately gets to decide? It's just all ugly all around.

Which lead me to Bill White's thread where I discovered Maxwell's comment:

the utility of a committed utxo set has been known for years (also, somewhat later https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=88208.0) it's a rather expensive commitment (e.g. a single spend/create update is factor log(utxo) more IO required) and perhaps not as useful as it seems-- if nodes do not construct their own but jump in mid-stream they only have SPV security of the history.  SPV security is a substantial step down from the Bitcoin security model (in particular people expect the full node rules to limit the damage of dishonest miners) but it might still be reasonable-- but if you're willing to accept SPV security why not go all the way and use a SPV node at a massive cost savings?

With respect to proof of stake, I'm disappointed to see it just applied here with no analysis to the actual security model being used. It appears to be impossible to achieve the same security model as Bitcoin with POS; existing systems compromise with centralized block signers or other external sybil-proof beacon assumptions (which seemingly could just replace the blockchain entirely if you really trusted them). For some applications these might be reasonable trade-offs, but if they're ignored or pretended to be the same trafeoffs as Bitcoin, thats just sloppy cryptography. I'd encourage you to not take these things for granted.

Which leads me back to the linked document I had read last year:

Quote
both the single-point-of-failure and double-spending problems cannot be.
They may be alleviated by using multiple signing parties, but the requirement that these parties be
difficult to simultaneously coerce (e.g. by putting them in different legal jurisdictions) conflicts with
the requirement that these parties be trusted by all participants.

Amazing they can get so close to my idea then be blinded by a requirement which isn't required. Elucidates how elusive paradigm shifts can be.


@TPTB_need_war,

You'd make a good Hitler.

Go see a shrink.

Am not joking.

Please unpack. I don't understand. Perhaps you are confusing my detailed explanations on how the participants have walled themselves in and I see only one way out, with the thought that you think I am trying to control the participants. I am trying to drive some rationalization that is time to break out of the corral and I am advocating open source pastures.

Such an egregious unsubstantiated ad hominem accusation demands that you justify it with compelling explanation. I consider that statement to be a hate crime equivalent to pointing a gun at me, because in some countries they commit people who are not insane to mental institutions to take away their life. Note I have flagged your comment as "unsubstantiated hate crime against personal liberty in some jurisdictions" to the moderator which is an action I almost never do because I fundamentally disagree with censorship. I would not flag your comment if you made an argument which I can refute or concede.

Pages: « 1 ... 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 1336 ... 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!