Bitcoin Forum
December 10, 2016, 05:13:01 AM *
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 ... 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 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1807530 times)
79b79aa8d5047da6d3XX
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 178

◕_◕


View Profile
June 09, 2015, 04:40:57 PM
 #26221

Lightning Network in particular looks like it was tailor made to sell Bitcoin to banks.

It has the features they'd like, such as the moat of requiring large amounts of idle capital to start, and it allows deep-pocketed entities to earn passive income by virtue of having idle capital.

It reduces the number of players who can access the blockchain directly and connects them through a BGP-style routing network that would be amenible to US-style viral regulation enforcement (participants can only route payments through peers who agree to enforce extraterritorial laws, and who require all their peers to do the same). Think of that routing network as bringing Ripple-style centralized UNLs to Bitcoin.

So when I talk about selling Bitcoin to the banks I mean "sell" both in the sense of "convince them to adopt" and also "hand over the keys to".

Part of convincing the banks to adopt LN would be promising them that Bitcoin users won't have a choice in the matter - they'll have to use LN because the block size limit will stay in place (or be lowered!) and so they won't have an escape route.

It does not seem that the people developing LN want to sell anything to banks. They aim to replace the banks. In particular, Mirror, formerly Vaurum, is funded by Draper Associates, who hold 30,000+ BTC and are looking to put them to use.

If you do not think off-chain micro-transaction payment channels are part of what is going to help bitcoin scale, then what is? As you know, a megabloated blockchain poses its own set of difficulties.
1481346781
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481346781

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481346781
Reply with quote  #2

1481346781
Report to moderator
1481346781
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481346781

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481346781
Reply with quote  #2

1481346781
Report to moderator
1481346781
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481346781

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481346781
Reply with quote  #2

1481346781
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481346781
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481346781

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481346781
Reply with quote  #2

1481346781
Report to moderator
1481346781
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481346781

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481346781
Reply with quote  #2

1481346781
Report to moderator
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
June 09, 2015, 04:49:11 PM
 #26222

So Alan Reiner proposes this in April 2013: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181734.0

His proposal gets the pocket veto treatment.

Now that feature is being advertised as a feature of a sidechain, with no reference to the original author.

http://elementsproject.org/

Quote
Signature Covers Value

Principal Investigator: Glenn Willen

The signatures verified by the CHECKSIG operators now cover the output value of spent inputs. This avoids the need for hardware signing devices to know the full previous transactions whose outputs are spent; if they are being lied to, the resulting signature is invalid anyway.

A side effect of this change is that signing now needs to know the values (blinded or not) consumed by the transaction’s inputs.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 05:19:03 PM
 #26223

gmax, the Bitcoin Bear:

The next element I would like to talk about is federated consensus. Bitcoin uses decentralized consensus, which is absolutely essential for holding Bitcoin's values and ethos in the wider world. It's what makes the system resistant to outside influence, political meddling and it's what makes it trustworthy. We're not even sure if it works in bitcoin, though. So it's hard to apply it to another network that is parallel to Bitcoin, but maybe the consnesus system of bitcoin doesn't work. What does decentralized consensus mean for a private network? It's not clear whether it's even possible to use decentralized consensus in a small low-value private network. Even if you were trying to use decentralized consensus in a small network, then how do you bootstrap it? .. because decentralized consensus is only secure if you have economic incentives in place. There are many other mechanisms for consensus that others have proposed. In the sidechains whitepaper, we formalized bitcoin consensus by calling it a dynamic membership multi-party signature (DMMS). The idea here is to say that the blocks are on the network are valid only if a threshold number of parties have signed it, and which group well it's dynamic. So what if you take that idea of DMMS and replace it with a static plain signature, and the result is a centralized system which is better than just trusting a single server. It's a system where you can have real-time auditing by most participants, and where dishonesty is machine detectable. Censorship is not machine-detectable in this system. You can build this with an arbitrary multisig policy, you could have a rule that says if an auditor or 5-of-8 sign on it, or 8-of-8 sign off on it. This approach does not require any human discretion, we could potentially implement it on tamper-resistant hardware to make it more secure, and some applications need trust. Trust is inherently a bit of centralization, but if you are trading around a digital proxy of gold, which requires someone to eventually redeem those tokens for gold, and if you have trust then why not make use of it. This has been mostly the work of Jorge Timon.


hmmm, i hope he doesn't view Bitcoin as simply a digital proxy for physical gold.  i hope that here he is just referring to a specific SC implementation of bitcoins for physical gold. imo, Bitcoin is digital gold at it's most basic level.  i sure hope gmax thinks the same way.  the whole point of Bitcoin is to REPLACE physical gold, not eventually redeem those tokens for gold!

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 05:31:40 PM
 #26224

gmax:

So I invented a generalization for a cryptographic ring signatures and a number of other optimizations in order to make range proofs which are more efficient.

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

ok, just a warning.  it's a general principle in cryptography to use established existing cryptographic systems that have been long tested, analyzed, and peer reviewed.  and DON'T invent your own.  that's the way it is.

sure, gmax is a brilliant cryptographer, we all know that.  but what are the odds he can invent a new bullet proof system as he claims?
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
June 09, 2015, 05:32:21 PM
 #26225

gmax, the Bitcoin Bear:

The next element I would like to talk about is federated consensus. Bitcoin uses decentralized consensus, which is absolutely essential for holding Bitcoin's values and ethos in the wider world. It's what makes the system resistant to outside influence, political meddling and it's what makes it trustworthy. We're not even sure if it works in bitcoin, though. So it's hard to apply it to another network that is parallel to Bitcoin, but maybe the consnesus system of bitcoin doesn't work. What does decentralized consensus mean for a private network? It's not clear whether it's even possible to use decentralized consensus in a small low-value private network. Even if you were trying to use decentralized consensus in a small network, then how do you bootstrap it? .. because decentralized consensus is only secure if you have economic incentives in place. There are many other mechanisms for consensus that others have proposed. In the sidechains whitepaper, we formalized bitcoin consensus by calling it a dynamic membership multi-party signature (DMMS). The idea here is to say that the blocks are on the network are valid only if a threshold number of parties have signed it, and which group well it's dynamic. So what if you take that idea of DMMS and replace it with a static plain signature, and the result is a centralized system which is better than just trusting a single server. It's a system where you can have real-time auditing by most participants, and where dishonesty is machine detectable. Censorship is not machine-detectable in this system. You can build this with an arbitrary multisig policy, you could have a rule that says if an auditor or 5-of-8 sign on it, or 8-of-8 sign off on it. This approach does not require any human discretion, we could potentially implement it on tamper-resistant hardware to make it more secure, and some applications need trust. Trust is inherently a bit of centralization, but if you are trading around a digital proxy of gold, which requires someone to eventually redeem those tokens for gold, and if you have trust then why not make use of it. This has been mostly the work of Jorge Timon.


hmmm, i hope he doesn't view Bitcoin as simply a digital proxy for physical gold.  i hope that here he is just referring to a specific SC implementation of bitcoins for physical gold. imo, Bitcoin is digital gold at it's most basic level.  i sure hope gmax thinks the same way.  the whole point of Bitcoin is to REPLACE physical gold, not eventually redeem those tokens for gold!

We get it.  You don't like Blockstream.  If they're for something, you're against it.

Sidechains are here now.  As for GavinCoin, "not tonight dear."   Cheesy

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 09, 2015, 05:38:29 PM
 #26226

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.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 05:42:14 PM
 #26227

gmax, the Bitcoin Bear:

The next element I would like to talk about is federated consensus. Bitcoin uses decentralized consensus, which is absolutely essential for holding Bitcoin's values and ethos in the wider world. It's what makes the system resistant to outside influence, political meddling and it's what makes it trustworthy. We're not even sure if it works in bitcoin, though. So it's hard to apply it to another network that is parallel to Bitcoin, but maybe the consnesus system of bitcoin doesn't work. What does decentralized consensus mean for a private network? It's not clear whether it's even possible to use decentralized consensus in a small low-value private network. Even if you were trying to use decentralized consensus in a small network, then how do you bootstrap it? .. because decentralized consensus is only secure if you have economic incentives in place. There are many other mechanisms for consensus that others have proposed. In the sidechains whitepaper, we formalized bitcoin consensus by calling it a dynamic membership multi-party signature (DMMS). The idea here is to say that the blocks are on the network are valid only if a threshold number of parties have signed it, and which group well it's dynamic. So what if you take that idea of DMMS and replace it with a static plain signature, and the result is a centralized system which is better than just trusting a single server. It's a system where you can have real-time auditing by most participants, and where dishonesty is machine detectable. Censorship is not machine-detectable in this system. You can build this with an arbitrary multisig policy, you could have a rule that says if an auditor or 5-of-8 sign on it, or 8-of-8 sign off on it. This approach does not require any human discretion, we could potentially implement it on tamper-resistant hardware to make it more secure, and some applications need trust. Trust is inherently a bit of centralization, but if you are trading around a digital proxy of gold, which requires someone to eventually redeem those tokens for gold, and if you have trust then why not make use of it. This has been mostly the work of Jorge Timon.


hmmm, i hope he doesn't view Bitcoin as simply a digital proxy for physical gold.  i hope that here he is just referring to a specific SC implementation of bitcoins for physical gold. imo, Bitcoin is digital gold at it's most basic level.  i sure hope gmax thinks the same way.  the whole point of Bitcoin is to REPLACE physical gold, not eventually redeem those tokens for gold!

We get it.  You don't like Blockstream.  If they're for something, you're against it.

Sidechains are here now.  As for GavinCoin, "not tonight dear."   Cheesy

still not debating the technicals i asked about.  sad.

so iCELatte, what happens when Blockstream wants to add the spvp to the core code and Gavin dissents?  they won't have "concensus".  what happens then?  fork?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 05:48:57 PM
 #26228

gmax, the Bitcoin Bear:

The next element I would like to talk about is federated consensus. Bitcoin uses decentralized consensus, which is absolutely essential for holding Bitcoin's values and ethos in the wider world. It's what makes the system resistant to outside influence, political meddling and it's what makes it trustworthy. We're not even sure if it works in bitcoin, though. So it's hard to apply it to another network that is parallel to Bitcoin, but maybe the consnesus system of bitcoin doesn't work. What does decentralized consensus mean for a private network? It's not clear whether it's even possible to use decentralized consensus in a small low-value private network. Even if you were trying to use decentralized consensus in a small network, then how do you bootstrap it? .. because decentralized consensus is only secure if you have economic incentives in place. There are many other mechanisms for consensus that others have proposed. In the sidechains whitepaper, we formalized bitcoin consensus by calling it a dynamic membership multi-party signature (DMMS). The idea here is to say that the blocks are on the network are valid only if a threshold number of parties have signed it, and which group well it's dynamic. So what if you take that idea of DMMS and replace it with a static plain signature, and the result is a centralized system which is better than just trusting a single server. It's a system where you can have real-time auditing by most participants, and where dishonesty is machine detectable. Censorship is not machine-detectable in this system. You can build this with an arbitrary multisig policy, you could have a rule that says if an auditor or 5-of-8 sign on it, or 8-of-8 sign off on it. This approach does not require any human discretion, we could potentially implement it on tamper-resistant hardware to make it more secure, and some applications need trust. Trust is inherently a bit of centralization, but if you are trading around a digital proxy of gold, which requires someone to eventually redeem those tokens for gold, and if you have trust then why not make use of it. This has been mostly the work of Jorge Timon.


hmmm, i hope he doesn't view Bitcoin as simply a digital proxy for physical gold.  i hope that here he is just referring to a specific SC implementation of bitcoins for physical gold. imo, Bitcoin is digital gold at it's most basic level.  i sure hope gmax thinks the same way.  the whole point of Bitcoin is to REPLACE physical gold, not eventually redeem those tokens for gold!

We get it.  You don't like Blockstream.  If they're for something, you're against it.

Sidechains are here now.  As for GavinCoin, "not tonight dear."   Cheesy

btw, we already have seen the fallout from what happens when the core dev team is aligned under the umbrella of Blockstream --> paralysis of the block size increase proposal.

that's pretty clear from the timeline of things.  it would have better if they'd at least been honest about it, something like, "we object to an increase beyond 1MB b/c we have what we think is a better proposal to scaling coming online in just a few weeks.  when you see it, we think you'll agree that there is no need to adopt Gavin's proposal".

instead, they hid it, and even said conflicting things like "we even think blocks should be smaller than 1MB" and "SC's don't contribute to scaling".  now they they are saying that "SC's can contribute to scaling indirectly by allowing testing".
uvwvj
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 159


View Profile
June 09, 2015, 05:50:39 PM
 #26229

I think Gavin & Devs should meet at 8MB Blocks with at halving block since Blockstream's side chains are here now to assist. 

I also like the idea of looking at 1 minute blocks with 1 MB in the future.
macsga
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386


Strange, yet attractive.


View Profile
June 09, 2015, 06:00:34 PM
 #26230

I think Gavin & Devs should meet at 8MB Blocks with at halving block since Blockstream's side chains are here now to assist. 

I also like the idea of looking at 1 minute blocks with 1 MB in the future.

When there's will, there's a solution. Gavin should stay with what he's doing best; programming. Sometimes your silence says more than your mouth does and it's far more persuasive. There are far better solutions than a "I decide this and it's non negotiable". I truly liked the guy; maybe he had enough and wants out. This is a perfect way to leave IMHO and nobody says a word...

JLynn171
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 06:03:26 PM
 #26231

I saw a thing on t.v. last night talking about how great gold was and trying to sell off what they had at the same time... i felt like it was a load of shit because if something was really as great as they were trying to make it out to be they wouldnt be selling what they had, but buying more and hoarding for themselves
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
June 09, 2015, 06:41:55 PM
 #26232

Some of those new opcodes look great.

When will they make it into Bitcoin?
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 07:27:22 PM
 #26233

Quote
in the end, Bitcoin with larger blocks is what will win.  sidechains will die and take Blockstream with it.
   

bitcoin will get larger blocks, just not now, "not tonight dear" ... sidechains are inevitable because they are a logical evolution of the technology (if you study self-similar network properties arising from the emergent behaviours due to self-interested individual elements you will know this), with or without blockstream (i'm picking with at this point in time).
Sidechains as embodied in Sidechains Elements is an innovative and inevitable use of the technology, I love it well done, it's what's proposed to come next that concerns me, changing the protocol to allow SPV proofs is an abuse of centralized power.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 07:35:14 PM
 #26234

Some of those new opcodes look great.

When will they make it into Bitcoin?

maybe never.  depends on how they perform on the SC.  they already are in Core but have been disabled.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 07:38:02 PM
 #26235

i think we should lift the cap altogether, add the spvp, and let her run.  we'll see which runs faster.

or, if they prefer, lift the cap and compare to the federated server model.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 07:40:13 PM
 #26236

somehow though, i don't think Blockstream wants the competition as iCE's reaction above would indicate. 
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
June 09, 2015, 07:42:21 PM
 #26237

Some of those new opcodes look great.

When will they make it into Bitcoin?

maybe never.  depends on how they perform on the SC.  they already are in Core but have been disabled.
I mean the blinded amounts.

That's exactly the kind of improvement that should be added to the protocol.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 07:50:17 PM
 #26238

So at this time it's Bitcoin hat has the most utility, alts aren't a threat, there will be hacks that can leverage that network, there will be investment opportunities and price growth in alts but for now as I see it

Until there is something that Bitcoin can't do and where BTC is not accepted because Bitcoin is a sly, imminent KYC expropriation paradigm. So now you know how such a coin will be marketed. Prepare your counter-arguments.

I'm advocating the most valuable feature of Bitcoin is the size of the network, that's what makes it better money than alts.

There is no counter argument I agree with your analysis,  the bigger network will be a SC with features that attract ignorant lambs. Hell I'll also invest in it to avoid discrimination and to preserve value, Its proof of principal starts with somthing as a merge mined anonymous SC, and used for elicit internet commerce, then it's pumped and dumped and miners from jurisdictions that benefit from attacking the network lock exiting to BTC through the peg during the process.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 07:56:33 PM
 #26239

i thought this was great:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/395r7h/the_real_reason_for_not_reaching_consensus_on/cs0vgxe

the best part:  "Decentralization is so important that as adoption grows we must force everyone toward centralization." It's ludicrous.
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106


View Profile
June 09, 2015, 08:08:30 PM
 #26240

Some of those new opcodes look great.

When will they make it into Bitcoin?

maybe never.  depends on how they perform on the SC.  they already are in Core but have been disabled.

from a cursory look there are only 2 novel proposed opcodes, namely:

  • A new DETERMINISTICRANDOM operation which produces a random number within a range from a seed.
  • A new CHECKSIGFROMSTACK operation which verifies a signature against a message on the stack, rather than the spending transaction itself.

all the rest are OPCODEs that were disabled in 2010 due to security concerns.
 
I mean the blinded amounts.

That's exactly the kind of improvement that should be added to the protocol.

what you're referring to with blinded amount? signature http://elementsproject.org/#signature-covers-value

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


Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
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 ... 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!