Bitcoin Forum
November 22, 2017, 01:16:54 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [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 ... 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 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2011319 times)
kazuki49
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 08:51:07 PM
 #26221

Quote from: TPTB_need_war link=topic=68655.msg11571098#msg11571098

When the mining refuses transactions without KYC, then you will not be anonymous in Bitcoin. I have already explained how this will come about over time.

You are digging your expropriation grave with Bitcoin.

Anonymous cash has been the preferred form of money for the last centuries. It is only with the advent of Bitcoin in the last ~7 years that has opened the possibility of a traceable digital token for some delusional "one-world-one-block-chain" bitcoiners think its a silver bullet for every problem in the world, mainly against the system and its power-grabbing freaks they say to fight against.

http://www.wired.com/2015/06/tech-behind-bitcoin-stop-next-snowden/

Some of us see the threat. But how many of us are there? Enough to make an altcoin fly?

I think so, especially by drawing in the Silk Road market using an out-of-band application. What say you?

I say you have spoken like a true agent, Silk Road is dark web stuff.
1511356614
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511356614

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511356614
Reply with quote  #2

1511356614
Report to moderator
1511356614
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511356614

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511356614
Reply with quote  #2

1511356614
Report to moderator
1511356614
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511356614

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511356614
Reply with quote  #2

1511356614
Report to moderator
Join ICO Now A blockchain platform for effective freelancing
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511356614
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511356614

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511356614
Reply with quote  #2

1511356614
Report to moderator
1511356614
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511356614

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511356614
Reply with quote  #2

1511356614
Report to moderator
1511356614
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511356614

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511356614
Reply with quote  #2

1511356614
Report to moderator
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
June 09, 2015, 08:53:13 PM
 #26222

In the great Bitcoin experiment of ours...
It is increasingly likely that we will experience a scarcity market for transactions, at least for a time.
It will be some interesting data.
I doubt it will be the 'end of bitcoin', or whatever the rush to increase folks are worrying over.

Full node volume has declined from a high point of about 250K in 2011 to maybe less than 10K nodes?
With the only incentives for running a full node being non-economic, primarily informational or possibly security concerns, it will be interesting to see if that rate of decline stabilizes somewhere.

250K was not due to economic incentives. There was no choice back then.

I know, but it was still worth it.
Its a downward trend for years.  Whether/when it levels or begins increasing, and under what conditions will prove interesting.  Don't you think?

did you listen to the Mike Hearn interview on Epicenter Bitcoin?  he says the measuring methods used back then were poor and primitive and likely overestimated the #full nodes probably well under 100K.  today its better and we're at around 6086.

it's also downtrended mainly b/c of the proliferation of spv clients, imo.

I agree with the reasons, (lack of/creation of other options, and yes cost).  I am running fewer full nodes myself now than even two years ago.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
June 09, 2015, 08:54:28 PM
 #26223

I say you have spoken like a true agent, Silk Road is dark web stuff.

I like the term "cypher-space" over dark web.  Just saying.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
June 09, 2015, 08:57:16 PM
 #26224

...
did you listen to the Mike Hearn interview on Epicenter Bitcoin?  he says the measuring methods used back then were poor and primitive and likely overestimated the #full nodes probably well under 100K.  today its better and we're at around 6086.
...

I listened to it.  It was a near continuous stream of desperate lies and deceit.  It was so pathetic it almost made me sad for him as he has made some significant contributions over the years.  He's lost and he knows it.

What's really funny is that the guy even realizes he might need to kludge around a POW minority problem.  <chuckle>  Maybe he can leverage some of the federated work that Blockstream has graciously open-sourced.  Or talk with justusranvier about getting their oracle thingy put in place for XT.


Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 09:03:39 PM
 #26225

In the great Bitcoin experiment of ours...
It is increasingly likely that we will experience a scarcity market for transactions, at least for a time.
It will be some interesting data.
I doubt it will be the 'end of bitcoin', or whatever the rush to increase folks are worrying over.

Full node volume has declined from a high point of about 250K in 2011 to maybe less than 10K nodes?
With the only incentives for running a full node being non-economic, primarily informational or possibly security concerns, it will be interesting to see if that rate of decline stabilizes somewhere.

I feel incentivized to run a full node for economic reasons, the economic reason is to preserve my savings, while I may be ensuring that part of Bitcoin’s market cap of 3.2 billion dollars is in sync with some 6000 nodes. That’s a half million dollars of responsibility I'm giving the network at my own expense, - that's a win win - i don't see it an a non economic motive. 

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

Activity: 1372



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 09:11:10 PM
 #26226

i would like to propose a compromise.

let the Blockstream folks insert their SPV proof into source while simultaneously eliminating the block size limit. then we can see which Ferrari will go faster.

the network effect of sound money vs that of SC's (speculation). it would be a fantastic test of the market.

No deal.  Sidechains are, as nullc and pwuille already patiently explained to you last night, "completely orthogonal to the blocksize debate."

Did you sleep well after getting spanked and pouting until downvoted?   Grin

One interesting quote there:
"The blocksize debate if anything substantially slowed the release, absorbing mindbogglingly enormous amounts of time, and also having avoid including some scaling tools to avoid people getting confused that sidechains themselves were a scaling answer."

In the process of trying to show how they are not a conflict of interest, he uses a conflict of interest (time devoted).
The thing is, he is right sidechains are only a factor in scaling, but they aren't the answer.  They do provide for some scaling, but not at all a full solution.

They waste a lot of time trying to claim that there isn't a conflict of interest.  The better method is to simply acknowledge it and move on.  People are fairly accepting of the risk for now, but their efforts to fight it and claim it doesn't exist both make them look foolish and waste their time.

I don't think they see it the way you do, pointing it out like you did brought it to my attention, although i read those same words, all i thought of was nullc writing pages and pages trying to prove his motives are consistent with a time when blockstream hadn't registered. he failed to address the fact he conserved of the idea back then too.  

he has in my view admired to tampering with evidence to prove allegations of a conflict of interest wrong.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 09:13:59 PM
 #26227

here is the entire talk.  everyone should read it.  it's good.

http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/gmaxwell-sidechains-elements/

but it's also complex and calls for lots of changes.  mostly on the SC's themselves, so that's good.  of course i don't understand it all, nor claim to.  but how many really do, including gmax himself?  it's time to put the thinking caps on and analyze.

Yes, a little more complex then increase number to 20M :-).
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 09:23:32 PM
 #26228

i would like to propose a compromise.

let the Blockstream folks insert their SPV proof into source while simultaneously eliminating the block size limit. then we can see which Ferrari will go faster.

the network effect of sound money vs that of SC's (speculation). it would be a fantastic test of the market.

No deal.  Sidechains are, as nullc and pwuille already patiently explained to you last night, "completely orthogonal to the blocksize debate."

Did you sleep well after getting spanked and pouting until downvoted?   Grin

One interesting quote there:
"The blocksize debate if anything substantially slowed the release, absorbing mindbogglingly enormous amounts of time, and also having avoid including some scaling tools to avoid people getting confused that sidechains themselves were a scaling answer."

In the process of trying to show how they are not a conflict of interest, he uses a conflict of interest (time devoted).
The thing is, he is right sidechains are only a factor in scaling, but they aren't the answer.  They do provide for some scaling, but not at all a full solution.

They waste a lot of time trying to claim that there isn't a conflict of interest.  The better method is to simply acknowledge it and move on.  People are fairly accepting of the risk for now, but their efforts to fight it and claim it doesn't exist both make them look foolish and waste their time.

i'll be damned.  i was gonna just post exactly this based on that quote that popped into my head.

which goes back to a previous concern of how nullc spends inordinate amounts of time politicking on forums.  amazing actually.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 09:27:16 PM
 #26229

here is the entire talk.  everyone should read it.  it's good.

http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/gmaxwell-sidechains-elements/

but it's also complex and calls for lots of changes.  mostly on the SC's themselves, so that's good.  of course i don't understand it all, nor claim to.  but how many really do, including gmax himself?  it's time to put the thinking caps on and analyze.

Yes, a little more complex then increase number to 20M :-).

but that's a very good thing.  what's Gavin's proposal code change require?  changing a setting?

whereas SC's requires encrypting everything, changing the signature scheme, enabling over a dozen unpredictable OP_CODES, depending on the altruism of merge mining, risking pass thru scBTC on a less secure SC, draining value and fees away from MC, seriously changing the emphasis from sound money to speculation.

did i miss any?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 09:34:49 PM
 #26230

...
did you listen to the Mike Hearn interview on Epicenter Bitcoin?  he says the measuring methods used back then were poor and primitive and likely overestimated the #full nodes probably well under 100K.  today its better and we're at around 6086.
...

I listened to it.  It was a near continuous stream of desperate lies and deceit.  It was so pathetic it almost made me sad for him as he has made some significant contributions over the years.  He's lost and he knows it.

What's really funny is that the guy even realizes he might need to kludge around a POW minority problem.  <chuckle>  Maybe he can leverage some of the federated work that Blockstream has graciously open-sourced.  Or talk with justusranvier about getting their oracle thingy put in place for XT.



wow, the older i get, the more amazed i am at just how different we all are.  i guess that's what makes a community.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 09:38:51 PM
 #26231

here is the entire talk.  everyone should read it.  it's good.

http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/gmaxwell-sidechains-elements/

but it's also complex and calls for lots of changes.  mostly on the SC's themselves, so that's good.  of course i don't understand it all, nor claim to.  but how many really do, including gmax himself?  it's time to put the thinking caps on and analyze.

Yes, a little more complex then increase number to 20M :-).

but that's a very good thing.  what's Gavin's proposal code change require?  changing a setting?

whereas SC's requires encrypting everything, changing the signature scheme, enabling over a dozen unpredictable OP_CODES, depending on the altruism of merge mining, risking pass thru scBTC on a less secure SC, draining value and fees away from MC, seriously changing the emphasis from sound money to speculation.

did i miss any?

Gavin: We can ADD another horse harness to a wagon.
Greg: Let's build a truck.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 09:48:48 PM
 #26232

i would like to propose a compromise.

let the Blockstream folks insert their SPV proof into source while simultaneously eliminating the block size limit. then we can see which Ferrari will go faster.

the network effect of sound money vs that of SC's (speculation). it would be a fantastic test of the market.

No deal.  Sidechains are, as nullc and pwuille already patiently explained to you last night, "completely orthogonal to the blocksize debate."

Did you sleep well after getting spanked and pouting until downvoted?   Grin

One interesting quote there:
"The blocksize debate if anything substantially slowed the release, absorbing mindbogglingly enormous amounts of time, and also having avoid including some scaling tools to avoid people getting confused that sidechains themselves were a scaling answer."

In the process of trying to show how they are not a conflict of interest, he uses a conflict of interest (time devoted).
The thing is, he is right sidechains are only a factor in scaling, but they aren't the answer.  They do provide for some scaling, but not at all a full solution.

They waste a lot of time trying to claim that there isn't a conflict of interest.  The better method is to simply acknowledge it and move on.  People are fairly accepting of the risk for now, but their efforts to fight it and claim it doesn't exist both make them look foolish and waste their time.

I don't think they see it the way you do, pointing it out like you did brought it to my attention, although i read those same words, all i thought of was nullc writing pages and pages trying to prove his motives are consistent with a time when blockstream hadn't registered. he failed to address the fact he conserved of the idea back then too.  

he has in my view admired to tampering with evidence to prove allegations of a conflict of interest wrong.

that's a little strong even for me.  but i get your point and i'll probably be guilty of saying the same thing somewhere along the line here.  there is such a thing as trying too hard though and he seems to not get that.

i actually think the community is made up mostly of sound money advocates like most of us here.  i say this based on all the coins that have been dormant and reflected in the days destroyed stats.  i also think the desperation of the masses is to seek SOV and not speculation.  i've gone thru the stats before on this and we all know that the forex mkts are where the real money is at.  that will be the source of Bitcoin's future value as problems in fiat currency continue to build.  even if SC's get enabled somewhere along the line here as spvp, i doubt they'll be used much.  certainly used by the geeks and other speculators.  but there will be consequences for those ppl which will result in losses from decreased security. like i keep saying, lots of ppl need to keep losing money on our way to the top.

so in the end, i doubt it matters much if they get implemented.  i don't need to fight it.  i'll just keep pointing out my thoughts on the matter.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 09:53:11 PM
 #26233

the other thing here that i think rocks pointed out.

gmax et al are very highly visible and identified.  will TPTB let them implement all this privacy tech?  i don't know. 

we do know satoshi left b/c he didn't want to get carted away.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 09:59:36 PM
 #26234

the other thing here that i think rocks pointed out.

gmax et al are very highly visible and identified.  will TPTB let them implement all this privacy tech?  i don't know. 

we do know satoshi left b/c he didn't want to get carted away.

Blockstream published ideas. It is hard to invent, but once things are invented and described then it is easy to implement.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 10:06:39 PM
 #26235

the other thing here that i think rocks pointed out.

gmax et al are very highly visible and identified.  will TPTB let them implement all this privacy tech?  i don't know.  

we do know satoshi left b/c he didn't want to get carted away.

Now we know
 a) how to build simple elements (lego parts).
 b) what elements do we need.

And we know how to build a wall from a brick (lego parts)


Edit:

Now we can build house, and we know that house will stay here for 100 years, we only need to replace door (federated peg) with "better door" (SPV proof) 
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 10:19:11 PM
 #26236

the other thing here that i think rocks pointed out.

gmax et al are very highly visible and identified.  will TPTB let them implement all this privacy tech?  i don't know.  

we do know satoshi left b/c he didn't want to get carted away.

Now we know
 a) how to build simple elements (lego parts).
 b) what elements do we need.

And we know how to build a wall from a brick (lego parts)


Edit:

Now we can build house, and we know that house will stay here for 100 years, we only need to replace door (federated peg) with "better door" (SPV proof)  

no, i get that.  that's your view as a dev, ie, the one's who are really grabbing on to this idea.

but as even staunch supporters as tvbcof have said, he will only bounce in and out of a SC with small amts to prevent from getting trapped by what is a relatively high friction 2wp that we know takes at least 2d or 144 blocks to clear on the SC.  i need to read more about this "hybrid" traverse back and forth Corrallo was talking about.  what was interesting about the nullc talk is how each "element" had an different author.  it will be interesting to see how all the elements fit together and interact in what is clearly going to be a highly complex system that's completely encrypted, which slows things down even more.  

my schtick is that this is more about a system of users and about money.  satoshi designed the tech to enforce sound money first and foremost.  it's not about the tech altho that's what you'd say it is about.  we'll see if it's really about the economic majority.  

but hey, i get it, devs gotta dev.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 10:35:08 PM
 #26237

... i get it, devs gotta dev.

So do you suggest "Back to a horse back ?" :-)

Without devs there is not Internet ... without devs there is not Bitcoin  ... and without devs there is not SideChains
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
June 09, 2015, 10:40:18 PM
 #26238

edit: or "confidential transaction" (http://elementsproject.org/#confidential-transactions) ?
That.

The ability to blind input and output values while still proving that no inflation has occured is a genuinely valuable feature which should get incorporated into the Bitcoin protocol.

Since federated sidechains on testnet work so well, they don't actually need to merge sidechain-specific opcodes into the Bitcoin protcol - they just need to merge the actual useful features.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 11:01:42 PM
 #26239

... i get it, devs gotta dev.

So do you suggest "Back to a horse back ?" :-)

Without devs there is not Internet ... without devs there is not Bitcoin  ... and without devs there is not SideChains

i understand that we need devs to continually update Bitcoin Core.

i just think the Blockstream devs don't get what is making Bitcoin successful.  i'm tired of saying it and i'm know you're tired of hearing it but that would be sound money.  to me, SC's are not a means to do testing on SC's for new and improved elements that can be back ported to Bitcoin Core.  they are to be used to enable Blockstream's business model.  the even larger clue to that conclusion that i didn't have back in Oct-Dec when we slugged it out right here for 250 pages was their behavior in regards to this proposed Gavin block size increase.  they_have_been_totally_obstructionist on this matter.  as in non-negotiable.  if they are that unwilling to help Bitcoin at this stage of the game, what makes you think they will be willing to help it when SC's are thriving and they are receiving huge consulting fees for making as many of them successful as possible?  and we know that will include SC's for banks, gvts, and their currencies; everything that will compete with Bitcoin.  that is the most concerning thing about this whole debate.  yes, i think Gavin has the moral high ground on this as he has proposed several compromises to get what the 80-90% of the community feels we need right now, an increase.  his overall demeanor and unwillingness to engage in the food fights we all get involved in incl nullc help his position.  he's mature.  and he does get that Bitcoin is about sound money primarily and has the right overall long term strategy, imo. i think the loss of mutual respect btwn the groups is irreparable.  someone is going to lose here in the end and if my reading of the eventuality of this situation is correct, it will be gmax et al simply b/c of their behavior.  i think ppl don't trust him.  

but hey, i'm waxing philosophical here so i can certainly be wrong as many of you will be quick to point out.  this interchange is very interesting.  read it all the way down and elsewhere in the thread.  it's an interesting insightful view on human interaction:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/395r7h/the_real_reason_for_not_reaching_consensus_on/cs0sbnk
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 11:17:40 PM
 #26240

Watch your back cypherdoc!

We are still here, after all these years, to watch every step you make!



now that's an eye i'd like to see close up get my hands on!
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 ... 1558 »
  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!