Bitcoin Forum
December 04, 2016, 01:59:04 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 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 1364 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1803897 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 09:48:48 PM
 #26261

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.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480816744
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480816744

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480816744
Reply with quote  #2

1480816744
Report to moderator
1480816744
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480816744

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480816744
Reply with quote  #2

1480816744
Report to moderator
1480816744
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480816744

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480816744
Reply with quote  #2

1480816744
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 09:53:11 PM
 #26262

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: 1064



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 09:59:36 PM
 #26263

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: 1064



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 10:06:39 PM
 #26264

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
 #26265

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: 1064



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 10:35:08 PM
 #26266

... 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
 #26267

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
 #26268

... 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
 #26269

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!
smooth
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1246



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 11:40:40 PM
 #26270

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

We do, or you made that up?

As far as I know he simply said he was going to work on something else.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 11:44:14 PM
 #26271

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

We do, or you made that up?

As far as I know he simply said he was going to work on something else.


well, the ppl i define as normally social that leave to go work somewhere else stop in to say hi every once in a while.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 10, 2015, 12:18:46 AM
 #26272

blocks filling up again  Roll Eyes
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1498


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
June 10, 2015, 12:48:38 AM
 #26273

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.

You and Frap.doc are confusing the process with the products.

Of course, in the zero-sum time-limited world of the process, defending BTC against the GavinCoin attack necessarily costs time at the expense of sidechain dev.

What nullc and pwuille were referring to as orthogonal are the functions of the end-result products.

Despite their best efforts, people are still "getting confused that sidechains themselves were a scaling answer."

Nullc's time educating the drooling Reddidurr masses is well spent IMO.  Frap.doc's POV differs, but he's not the boss of nullc.  He doesn't pay nullc's salary nor contribute code to nullc's projects.

At least at this point the Gavinistas' gloves are off and their teeth are bared.  They sense their loss of forward momentum, and are in desperation turning the rage up to 11.  As if the "calm down and stop exaggerating" elders of Bitcoin are impressed with their foot stomping and huffy ultimatums!   Grin Grin Grin Grin


blocks filling up again  Roll Eyes

Good!  We need to chase the spam tx off the Mother Chain and grow the hitherto subsidized and thus underdeveloped fee marketplace into a mature, self-sufficient equilibrium.

I told you social pressure from full blocks would incentivize development of true orthogonal scaling in the form of sidechains, etc.  Et voila!   Cool Cool Cool Cool

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Wallets - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }


Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


"I believed @Dashpay instamine was a bug & not a feature but then read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg13017231#msg13017231
I'm not against people making money, but can't support questionable origins."
https://twitter.com/Tone_LLT/status/717822927908024320


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004

"Hard forks cannot be co
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1498


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
June 10, 2015, 01:02:36 AM
 #26274

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

GavinCoin:




Sidechains:


The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Wallets - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }


Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


"I believed @Dashpay instamine was a bug & not a feature but then read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg13017231#msg13017231
I'm not against people making money, but can't support questionable origins."
https://twitter.com/Tone_LLT/status/717822927908024320


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004

"Hard forks cannot be co
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1498


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
June 10, 2015, 01:05:18 AM
 #26275

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

We do, or you made that up?

As far as I know he simply said he was going to work on something else.


Without Frap.doc making stuff up, this thread would be a ghost town.   Tongue

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
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
June 10, 2015, 01:18:15 AM
 #26276

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.

[static]

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.

No one asked that mindbogglingly enormous amounts of time be wasted. That was their free decision. The simple approach was to let Gavin proceed with handling the block-size issue while they focused on side-chains, instead of being a ball-and-anchor chain hampering dealing with the single most serious threat to Bitcoin's network effect and ecosystem growth.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 10, 2015, 01:28:16 AM
 #26277

Of course, in the zero-sum time-limited world of the process, defending BTC against the GavinCoin attack necessarily costs time at the expense of sidechain dev.

that's precisely right.  i am quite sure sidechain dev is their first priority. Angry
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 10, 2015, 01:40:17 AM
 #26278

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

We do, or you made that up?

As far as I know he simply said he was going to work on something else.


Without Frap.doc making stuff up, this thread would be a ghost town.   Tongue

iceblow seems lost.  i think he is so entrenched he doesn't even know what he's rooting for.  meanwhile:

tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974


View Profile
June 10, 2015, 01:45:48 AM
 #26279

...
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 think you are putting words into my mouth, but not on purpose for a change.

I would bounce in and out of various sidechains based on what they would do for me (and others who's goals I may support) and to balance my risk.  I don't leave myself open to more than I can afford to lose unless it is a last resort.  This includes Bitcoin which is, in my opinion, still in it's infancy and very far from rock solid.  If/when Bitcoin becomes a proven foundation upon which scaling can realistically occur (sidechains ecosystem as one example) then I do hope to feel as confident in it as I do in other property.

The 'high friction' is absolutely not something I fear being trapped by.  It is almost unheard of that I cannot and do not plan a few days ahead for financial activity and usually I plan years in advance.  Indeed, this 'high friction' and my own systems analysis related to it is one of the big reasons I have hope and confidence in the way sidechains are shaping up.  I don't buy things from people who promise me the world.


Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


View Profile
June 10, 2015, 02:24:21 AM
 #26280

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!

At least Nick Szabo agrees: https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/605890791991410690

Quote
Au will eventually be replaced by cryptocurrency as reserve currency, but like beads still used as jewelry.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1364 ... 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!