Bitcoin Forum
December 06, 2016, 10:07:55 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 ... 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 1363 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1805247 times)
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
June 09, 2015, 08:12:06 PM
 #26241

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.

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
1481062075
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481062075

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481062075
Reply with quote  #2

1481062075
Report to moderator
1481062075
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481062075

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481062075
Reply with quote  #2

1481062075
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
majamalu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652



View Profile WWW
June 09, 2015, 08:26:51 PM
 #26242

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.

http://elbitcoin.org - Bitcoin en español
http://mercadobitcoin.com - MercadoBitcoin
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 08:29:44 PM
 #26243

This is a key point on my todo research list. Federated servers don't work? Or wouldn't be trusted by the market?

Federated servers are just a hack to be able to test prior to getting the necessary softfork. Without the proper two-way peg where coins are secured by an SPV proof against the Bitcoin blockchain, this is fundamentally no different than any other off-chain solution where coins are being held in some form of custody.

This needs to be proved, It doesn't appear to be true, any business relationship is based on trust. The federated service will be (should become) as trusted as the service or product you purchase 100% dependent on reputation.

e.g. if i buy a particular security (product / service) I trust (1) it is what it is, this is reputation and then I must trust the person proposing the business opportunity, trust (2), this is reputation.
If trust (2) can be violated, guaranteeing trust (1) is irrelevant because it was misrepresented by an abuse of reputation. arguing that we need SideChains to increase trust (1) is not a valid reason to reduce trust, we still are reliant on reputation.

Gmax and Lukejr and other SC proponents see trust (1) as a holy grail, news flash, the mortgage backed securities if constructed in a trust free "blockchain technology" environment would still be dependent on the reputation of subjective evaluations and selling false promises.  

solving the reputation dilemma is more valuable to society, this technology without Federated servers is not innovation in trustlessness, just because it is done in a trust free way using SPV proofs doesn't solve the problem of trust as reputation, if anything it allows reputation to go unscathed as the SPV proof executed a multistig contract that was agreed, it executed flawlessly as both parties agreed, too bad you trusted some subjective AAA reputation system.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988


View Profile
June 09, 2015, 08:38:37 PM
 #26244

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.

Put another way, Bitcoin was a peer-2-peer solution back in the early days before the embrace-extend-extinguish folks produced and popularized their MultiBitch client.  Thanks God they didn't get their bloatchain dream into place, but it was not for lack of trying.


Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 08:41:16 PM
 #26245

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

yes and nullc wont sell out and abandon Bitcoin if the general community was to move in a direction he defined as suicidal.  Great leader wannabe, what's the market cap of Bitcoin, some $3,000,000,000 i don't think he thinks about the capital he is playing with.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
June 09, 2015, 08:42:42 PM
 #26246

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?

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
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 08:46:38 PM
 #26247

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.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 08:50:01 PM
 #26248

why don't you try debating the technical feasibilities instead of slinging arrows?

Because your sidestream FUD has already been repeatedly debunked.

If you didn't understand then, you won't understand now.

No amount of facts and logic are capable of disabusing you of your paranoid fear of and animosity towards Blockstream.

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

Monero is bouncing right back up.  Even if it wasn't, you still be guilty of making the same invalid, cherrypicked "zomg BTC crashed from ATH wat a worthless failure AMIRIT" argument as Buttcoiners.  As others have said, you of all people know better.

i haven't seen is there an FAQ or something that i can read that will convince me I'm wrong, no one has addressed my concerns people like nullc retort and call my concerns personal attacks wrought with deformation, I've asked for a peer reviewed economic study on the impact of the proposed SPV proof protocol change, and been met with "that will never happen".

I think you are living in a circle jerk bubble.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
June 09, 2015, 08:50:50 PM
 #26249

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.

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
kazuki49
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 08:51:07 PM
 #26250

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.
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
June 09, 2015, 08:53:13 PM
 #26251

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: 1064


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
June 09, 2015, 08:54:28 PM
 #26252

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: 1988


View Profile
June 09, 2015, 08:57:16 PM
 #26253

...
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: 1330



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 09:03:39 PM
 #26254

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: 1330



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 09:11:10 PM
 #26255

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: 1064



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 09:13:59 PM
 #26256

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
 #26257

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
 #26258

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
 #26259

...
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: 1064



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 09:38:51 PM
 #26260

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.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1363 ... 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!