Bitcoin Forum
November 21, 2017, 08:28:15 AM *
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 ... 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 1365 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2010622 times)
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 10, 2015, 10:19:35 PM
 #26281

Something's brewing...

Yeah a long protracted decline that didn't happen before.

1511252895
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511252895

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511252895
Reply with quote  #2

1511252895
Report to moderator
1511252895
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511252895

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511252895
Reply with quote  #2

1511252895
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.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 10, 2015, 11:08:11 PM
 #26282

The main problem side chains has introduced for me, is they can steal my technology and put it in a side chain. So I will just have to put it in a side chain first and make sure I am siphoning value from BTC in a way that can't technologically be improved upon. I know how to do this because it was already necessary in my design.

So everything is falling right into place for me. Monero has eventually been co-opted by side chains (unfortunately).

The above is incorrect. On further thought, I have solved the economic threat of Blockstream's pegged side chains (it threatened to turn all innovation into Communism!). There is a win-win solution for side chains and altcoins to co-exist.  Cool Grin

Exciting times ahead...

Actually Blockstream's pegged side chains will send more BTC wealth fleeing into altcoin investments. It is counter-intuitive, but Adam and Gregory are achieving the antithesis of their stated effect.

Mixles
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 63


View Profile
June 10, 2015, 11:37:13 PM
 #26283

Cryptonote/Monero vs. Sumcoin/Blockstream's Confidential Transactions
Afaics, the anonymity does degenerate in a way that it doesn't in Cyptonote (Monero), which is conceptually relevant to my initial objection above regarding the fact that the recipients must be able to prove the amount they received (aka the Sumcoin viewkey).

...

The author doesn't state the holistic problem ... , that as values are revealed where the coin histories are not untraceable and unlinkable, then solving for other unknown values in the system

Thank you for your feedback.


I climbed down that theoretical physics rabbit hole and I am convinced there is nothing there. The entropy is limited by the number of opcodes in the hardware or software instruction set. It is not possible to spontaneously generate deterministic order of out disorder; and PoW requires a deterministic winner of each block. Order that arises from chaos was already there but under sampled (i.e. unobserved).

Attempt noted.

The author apparently thinks that users won't reveal their view keys in public.

The author (me) does not think that.

But does, apparently, attempt to publish pragmatic improvements in technology, without raising his expectations of others to the point of being discouraging.

As you do not publish your design, I can only respond with wild imagination. Your bearer coin might do well to hide values in its off-chain components; whether this specific technology may be useful for that, I do not know. I can imagine that the pure hash on-chain re-orgs are going to be possible and fun. Lamport signatures or much longer keylength for quantum computing. Of course, when people are Sybil nodes, and your spend is to an under-cover agent, and the courts shall accept the agent's circumstantial proof as sufficient and ignore the [lack of] math, ... oh what a world.

Donations to 1SumKArxoEJ1HoGibmj8ygw1DZWYBvjmM
kazuki49
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350



View Profile
June 11, 2015, 12:15:36 AM
 #26284

TPTB_need_war, this thread isn't the same without your insight, I dont always agree with you but I know when I see good stuff.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 11, 2015, 03:12:19 AM
 #26285

marcus of augustus stooping to new lows:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/39bwwn/arguments_in_the_bitcoin_block_size_debate_an/cs2f6fm

talking about bitcoin-killing extensions, game overs, and ELE "extinction level events"  Roll Eyes
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 11, 2015, 04:37:49 AM
 #26286

TPTB_need_war, this thread isn't the same without your insight, I dont always agree with you but I know when I see good stuff.

Much of what I write lately is referring to vaporware and isn't fully described thus it is of less value. I apologize for this. Rushing to rectify this transgression.

I am not a great writer, but I do claim to have a skill of being able to focus issues into their essence and clarify them for n00bs. This should help me explain any new technology well, so that it is embraced.

I can also confuse the hell out of readers when I want to or am arguing a multi-faceted issue that has a generative essence that most n00bs can't ever really wrap their mind around no matter how well it is articulated to them (e.g. apparently the power vacuum of the Iron Law of Political Economics aka the Law of Collective Action is actually an unteachable concept).

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 11, 2015, 05:19:14 AM
 #26287

marcus of augustus stooping to new lows:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/39bwwn/arguments_in_the_bitcoin_block_size_debate_an/cs2f6fm

talking about bitcoin-killing extensions, game overs, and ELE "extinction level events"  Roll Eyes

Your inability to remember programming facts and tie them together appears to cause your myopic chatterbox to ululate incessantly but fortunately not inexorably.

Larger blocks are a centralization accelerant for the reasons I explained upthread (which was mirrored in some points to you posted at Reddedit by nullc et al). You or others rebutted that IBLT resolves the centralized threat (that is due to higher orphan rate due to propagation delays for less well endowed full nodes) because all the transactions are in the mempool. I and others have pointed out that IBLT is just sugar coated obfuscation of centralization because all full nodes still have to process all transactions (note the variances in mempools that IBLT can tolerate must be very small) driving full node resource requirements up (forcing them off of home connections and onto well connected hosting which is more easily regulated by the cartel via their control of governments), else trust a full node.

Centralization enables an ELE event which is quite plausible and has been explained by myself several times in this thread. That is where the cartel masters via Circle, Coinbase, Paypal, Facebook, 21 Inc, etc move their zombie masses onto to a fork (probably a pegged side chain in order to avoid the WMD war with the MPEX GavinCoin short) which has the technical attributes they want such as central bank controlled debasement rates and mandatory KYC on all transactions, then they can wreck havoc on the Core chain causing users to move their value out of it and to this cartel side chain. The sort of havoc they can do on Core include for example G7 (perhaps G20) countries regulation of pools forcing KYC to accompany all transactions. As the Core chain becomes a minority chain (declining transaction volume) its hashrate will plummet and then the cartel can buyout some mining farms (which have become worth much less due to the plummet) to 50+% attack the Core chain. While the cartel is moving its masses onto Core driving up the transaction volume for ASIC farms, thus increasing the size of loans to create them, thus when they pull the rug (by moving the zombie masses to their pegged side chain) these ASIC mining farms will go bankrupt.

Larger blocks forces more users to delegate to full nodes (with or without IBLT), providing more top-down organization for the cartel to work its way towards this end goal. When they are ready to wreck havoc on the Core chain later, the larger the blocks, then the more they can more easily wreck havoc against the remaining full nodes they don't control. For example, undulating resource requirements by moving their zombie masses' transactions on and off the Core chain, can cause remaining full nodes to commit to higher cost hosting while capturing only a fraction of the transaction revenue. The attacks that larger blocks enable are probably more than I can enumerate in one post.

majamalu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652



View Profile WWW
June 11, 2015, 05:26:06 AM
 #26288


Centralization enables an ELE event which is quite plausible and has been explained by myself several times in this thread. That is where the cartel masters via Circle, Coinbase, Paypal, Facebook, etc move their zombie masses onto to a fork (probably a pegged side chain in order to avoid the WMD war with the MPEX GavinCoin short) which has the technical attributes they want such as central bank controlled debasement rates and mandatory KYC on all transactions, then they can wreck havoc on the Core chain causing users to move their value out of it and to this cartel side chain. The sort of havoc they can do on Core include for example G7 (perhaps G20) countries regulation of pools forcing KYC to accompany all transactions. As the Core chain becomes a minority chain (declining transaction volume) its hashrate will plummet and then the cartel can buyout some mining farms (which have become worth much less due to the plummet) to 50+% attack the Core chain.

Come on man. Stop your display of ignorance. Aren't you embarrassed yet.


That is exactly why chyperdoc always has been against sidechains.

http://elbitcoin.org - Bitcoin en español
http://mercadobitcoin.com - MercadoBitcoin
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 11, 2015, 05:29:12 AM
 #26289

That is exactly why chyperdoc always has been against sidechains.

But he can't stop federated pegged side chains.

And pegged side chains are superior risk management strategy versus an all-or-nothing risk of Bitcoin vs. altcoin fork war (from a diversification standpoint, i.e. you buy the altcoin if you want upside ROI but don't have to worry about being diversified against ELE or a radical transposition of wealth effect if you hold 100% in BTC). Less risk means more adoption of crypto-currency in general.

Note I think altcoins can coexist and benefit from pegged side chains (nullifying the risk that pegged side chains could copy and steal value from innovation, i.e. threat of Communism!). They just need to be clever about what they do once pegged side chains are a reality in the market.

P.S. they ought to just increase the block size slightly and incorporate the SPV now, but unfortunately the myopic politics is slow to catch up to reality. Any way it will all be subsumed as I described:

...changing the protocol to allow SPV proofs is an abuse of centralized power.

No worries. Core is doomed. A pegged side-chain with SPV built-in will win. Then minority Core will be 50+% attacked into oblivion. MPEX's short will be nullified by the peg.

marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2436



View Profile
June 11, 2015, 05:45:33 AM
 #26290

marcus of augustus stooping to new lows:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/39bwwn/arguments_in_the_bitcoin_block_size_debate_an/cs2f6fm

talking about bitcoin-killing extensions, game overs, and ELE "extinction level events"  Roll Eyes

Is it FUD if the dangers are real, clear and present?

Forewarned is forearmed. Anybody who wants to run on the XT fork deserves to know the dangers they are getting themselves into. Attempting to censor me through intimidation is not going to work.

Cconvert2G36
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392


View Profile
June 11, 2015, 05:53:14 AM
 #26291

Cryptonote/Monero vs. Sumcoin/Blockstream's Confidential Transactions
Afaics, the anonymity does degenerate in a way that it doesn't in Cyptonote (Monero), which is conceptually relevant to my initial objection above regarding the fact that the recipients must be able to prove the amount they received (aka the Sumcoin viewkey).

...

The author doesn't state the holistic problem ... , that as values are revealed where the coin histories are not untraceable and unlinkable, then solving for other unknown values in the system

Thank you for your feedback.


I climbed down that theoretical physics rabbit hole and I am convinced there is nothing there. The entropy is limited by the number of opcodes in the hardware or software instruction set. It is not possible to spontaneously generate deterministic order of out disorder; and PoW requires a deterministic winner of each block. Order that arises from chaos was already there but under sampled (i.e. unobserved).

Attempt noted.

The author apparently thinks that users won't reveal their view keys in public.

The author (me) does not think that.

But does, apparently, attempt to publish pragmatic improvements in technology, without raising his expectations of others to the point of being discouraging.

As you do not publish your design, I can only respond with wild imagination. Your bearer coin might do well to hide values in its off-chain components; whether this specific technology may be useful for that, I do not know. I can imagine that the pure hash on-chain re-orgs are going to be possible and fun. Lamport signatures or much longer keylength for quantum computing. Of course, when people are Sybil nodes, and your spend is to an under-cover agent, and the courts shall accept the agent's circumstantial proof as sufficient and ignore the [lack of] math, ... oh what a world.


 Cheesy I have thoroughly vetted and confirmed your analysis re: NWO takeover of first gen POW attempts, feeble as they may be. My flea bites have necessitated a complete rethink of my theory, however.
majamalu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652



View Profile WWW
June 11, 2015, 06:00:42 AM
 #26292


Note I think altcoins can coexist and benefit from pegged side chains (nullifying the risk that pegged side chains could copy and steal value from innovation, i.e. threat of Communism!).

Well, the altcoins stole value from btc innovation in the first place.

http://elbitcoin.org - Bitcoin en español
http://mercadobitcoin.com - MercadoBitcoin
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 11, 2015, 06:12:23 AM
 #26293


The author apparently thinks that users won't reveal their view keys in public.

The author (me) does not think that.

But does, apparently, attempt to publish pragmatic improvements in technology, without raising his expectations of others to the point of being discouraging.

As you do not publish your design, I can only respond with wild imagination. Your bearer coin might do well to hide values in its off-chain components; whether this specific technology may be useful for that, I do not know. I can imagine that the pure hash on-chain re-orgs are going to be possible and fun. Lamport signatures or much longer keylength for quantum computing. Of course, when people are Sybil nodes, and your spend is to an under-cover agent, and the courts shall accept the agent's circumstantial proof as sufficient and ignore the [lack of] math, ... oh what a world.

Again I appreciate what you have done with the Sumcoin whitepaper. For one, you made it much more intelligible than the unpolished brain dumps I had read from Adam and Gregory. Also I prefer your technical writing skills compared to mine. And perhaps on the same block chain some coexistence of Cryptonote's rings (with equal denominations) and this new homomorphic encryption (with unequal denominations) might be the optimal solution. We should probably discuss that at some point and maybe you and others are already doing that.

I don't think my design removes the block chain, rather I argue it just moves non-scalable part of it and alters the trust model to something that isn't a lie to ourselves. It is a similar argument that Gregory (Jorge) makes but inverts the construct and puts more decision power into the ends of the network (which is why I presume you use the term "bearer"). So I could see your work being incorporated. One my goals is to be agnostic to the transaction model because my weakness is I am only an autodidact on the crypto-math, thus I want others (such as yourself) to have the freedom to innovate there without needing to market a new instance of a consensus algorithm (i.e. maximize the division-of-labor and let each focus on his/her strengths in a separation-of-concerns).

I believe quantum resistant rings, PKE trap doors, ZK exist and we just need to reformulate them into these new constructs. Hopefully we can motivate some research perhaps with calls to action and/or financial incentives.

Yeah I agree we need anonymity that is mathematically reliable, because the math-inept society won't forgive us for being math literate about plausible deniability.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 11, 2015, 06:31:28 AM
 #26294


Note I think altcoins can coexist and benefit from pegged side chains (nullifying the risk that pegged side chains could copy and steal value from innovation, i.e. threat of Communism!).

Well, the altcoins stole value from btc innovation in the first place.

No they expanded the ecosystem by increasing innovation (even if in most cases that innovation was only to increase speculation opportunities since many come to this ecosystem for speculation) and that insight is also the generative essence of my insight into what altcoins need to do to survive along with pegged side chains.

If you wanted a monopoly on speculation to drive the Bitcoin price to the moon, then close the doors to entropy (which is only possible within your fleeting Coasian closed system) and attain your miniaturized desktop rendition of the solar system.

Pegged side chains will probably drive consolidation of speculation into fewer variants, because of the importance of capturing the voting power of the peg which is machine verifiably not duplicitous. I think the speculation markets are exhausted/diluted of too many copycoin variants and so this appears to be timely so we can gain synergies.

lunarboy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 544



View Profile
June 11, 2015, 08:10:29 AM
 #26295

TPTB_need_war, this thread isn't the same without your insight,

Yeah, it would be readable for a start.  Tongue
kazuki49
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350



View Profile
June 11, 2015, 10:54:54 AM
 #26296


Note I think altcoins can coexist and benefit from pegged side chains (nullifying the risk that pegged side chains could copy and steal value from innovation, i.e. threat of Communism!).

Well, the altcoins stole value from btc innovation in the first place.

No they expanded the ecosystem by increasing innovation (even if in most cases that innovation was only to increase speculation opportunities since many come to this ecosystem for speculation) and that insight is also the generative essence of my insight into what altcoins need to do to survive along with pegged side chains.

Yeah, heres why I'm personally not interested in (Bitcoin) sidechains:

Sidechains are altcoins, which use Bitcoins as their basis. By subscribing to the sidechain, you subscribe to the same ethos as Bitcoin... namely, the vast number of coins owned by Satoshi and now the core developers (some of whom were rumoured or seen to have made large purchases of Bitcoins with the formation of Blockstream).

There is also a black swan in form of Monero sidechains brewing in the future:

Quote
The idea is that the dynamic block limit should give us the ability to slowly grow as consumer technology (bandwidth, latency, disk space) improves, but if we find that we're starting to outpace it we can make the limiter more aggressive. Moreover, we're (hopefully) going to have enough functionality moved to daughter-chains / sidechains over the next few years that mainchain won't be filled with unnecessary metadata.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/394dep/how_does_monero_scale/cs0utg7

can't status quo innovation in the Internet era Grin
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
June 11, 2015, 12:35:55 PM
 #26297

Attempting to censor me through intimidation is not going to work.

Hi guise, how's the slow-mo trainwreck going in here? everyone happy? good  Wink

Notice how it went off the rails when you started crappin all over the devs?

Try to keep it in your trousers, remember who's piloting this plane, who's the passengers and stop trying to grab the stick, KK? Ta, tally ho.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 11, 2015, 02:56:18 PM
 #26298

such a shame.  GG dumping to new lows.  very bad sign:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 11, 2015, 03:15:48 PM
 #26299

my, my.  /u/nullc continuing to be being assailed:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/39f6j6/bitnodes_which_recently_updated_its_crawling/
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 11, 2015, 03:17:32 PM
 #26300

There is also a black swan in form of Monero sidechains brewing in the future

Will never fly due to the consolidation effect:

I can't wait for the multitude of sidechain forks that all compete with each other. Sidechains themselves require incentives to operate securely, such as fees and the continued security of the Bitcoin network, so I'd guess we'll start to see a lot of the same issues in sidechain space as we do in altchain space. I really don't think there's any difference between the two. You can also issue your own assets already on Bitcoin (e.g. coinprism, counterparty), so the notion of token issuance for use in general scamming will surely appear on sidechains as well. You can't out-technology human speculation in finance.

There is no speculation incentive because all investments are denominated in BTC. Thus this will force consolidation. Unless there are revenue models and/or dividends for side chains.

Pages: « 1 ... 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 1365 ... 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!