Bitcoin Forum
December 05, 2016, 06:54:06 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 ... 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 1366 1367 1368 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1804712 times)
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 11, 2015, 04:42:50 PM
 #26341

even under the "benevolent dictator" scenario, that principal core dev would not control Bitcoin and it would not be decentralized.

the decentralization comes from all the full nodes, miners, and user base which is spread round the world with the economic majority calling the shots of which the "benevolent dictator" must listen and respond to otherwise someone just creates a hard fork to which the economic majority will migrate to all possible b/c of open source and Satoshi's original design.

Overreaching diatribes that don't analyze the details are devoid of information.

There are many, many ways what you wrote about is not necessarily true. I've detailed several scenarios for control via centralization upthread (and Hearn might be one head of a centralization-by-regulation monster).

Yet it seems you are arguing that your hero Gavin (and Satoshi) has (have) no power.

1480964046
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480964046

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480964046
Reply with quote  #2

1480964046
Report to moderator
1480964046
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480964046

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480964046
Reply with quote  #2

1480964046
Report to moderator
1480964046
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480964046

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480964046
Reply with quote  #2

1480964046
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480964046
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480964046

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480964046
Reply with quote  #2

1480964046
Report to moderator
1480964046
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480964046

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480964046
Reply with quote  #2

1480964046
Report to moderator
1480964046
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480964046

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480964046
Reply with quote  #2

1480964046
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 11, 2015, 04:47:28 PM
 #26342

all of the armchair logic spewed forth from financially conflicted logisticians, including myself, are invalid until "proven" otherwise.  the only reliable, proven scheme that has worked to this day is Satoshi's original blockchain which has been constructed with the proper incentives.  this proven mainchain should be nurtured, cherished, protected at all costs to avoid subversion.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 11, 2015, 04:50:22 PM
 #26343

Cypherdoc I have a better suggestion. How about we observe what happens? And you shut up.

I doubt your arguments have been informational enough to impact any of the key actors in this process.

tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1974


View Profile
June 11, 2015, 04:51:25 PM
 #26344

even under the "benevolent dictator" scenario, that principal core dev would not control Bitcoin and it would not be decentralized.

the decentralization comes from all the full nodes, miners, and user base which is spread round the world with the economic majority calling the shots of which the "benevolent dictator" must listen and respond to otherwise someone just creates a hard fork to which the economic majority will migrate to all possible b/c of open source and Satoshi's original design.

which is why we need to stick to Satoshi's original vision and reject bastardizations of it like SC's.

Did Satoshi's vision include kludging around the problem that the 'correct' chain may not be the longest one and it might be necessary to feed auxiliary data to SPV clients such that they could make choose the appropriate choice (since, of course, the user is incapable of doing so on his own?)

Just curious because your 'benevolent dictator' seems to see it as a distinct enough possibility to publicly muse about.

I would suggest that once such a solution was in place, it would be an extra tool in the taint-coin toolbox even if abstract layer economic methods themselves failed to do the job.  The economic-only methods themselves might fail if Bitcoin cannot be bloated sufficiently so it would be good to have a back-up I suppose.


tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1974


View Profile
June 11, 2015, 05:00:32 PM
 #26345


Does Mike Hearn really control Bitcoin?
...

I can only speak to my observations, but it really does seem to me that at this point Mike Hearn controls Gavin Andresen as effectively as a hand inserted into a sock controls a puppet.  This was not always the case, but it seems (to me) that within the last year or so it has become very hard to not notice.

Now controlling Mr. Andresen is not equivalent to controlling Bitcoin (thank God!) and the frustration of this seems to be showing on Mr. Hearn, but it is a relatively potent tool.  And 'if all one has is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail' as they say.


TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 11, 2015, 05:01:00 PM
 #26346

tvbcof, I liked your upthread point that Bitcoin is really about who has the power to do shit.

Pegged side chains are apparently coming without any changes to Core source.

As for larger blocks, apparently no one has enough power to make this happen. MPEX will make it a war of attrition until pegged side chains arrive.

After that GavinCoin can be launched as a pegged side chain (which MPEX can't attack due to the peg) and the market can vote.

So why is Cypherdoc wasting our time?

Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
June 11, 2015, 05:02:43 PM
 #26347

Cypherdoc I have a better suggestion. How about we observe what happens? And you shut up.

I doubt your arguments have been informational enough to impact any of the key actors in this process.

I don't think Cypherdoc the guy with the microphone and an auditorium full of devotees, I think the people you want to shut up are the minority being paid $21M to spread there version of Bitcoin.
I'd condone your approach if you asked them to shut up.  

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 11, 2015, 05:03:59 PM
 #26348

Cypherdoc I have a better suggestion. How about we observe what happens? And you shut up.

I doubt your arguments have been informational enough to impact any of the key actors in this process.

I don't think Cypherdoc the guy with the microphone and an auditorium full of devotees, I think the people you want to shut up are the minority being paid $21M to spread there version of Bitcoin.
I'd condone your approach if you asked them to shut up.  

Why should we stop pegged side chains (and can we)? What is the problem with them? Refer to my prior post for my logic.

Anything that pegged side chains have the power to do, can be done even without Blockstream. The beans have been spilled.

Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
June 11, 2015, 05:12:19 PM
 #26349

Cypherdoc I have a better suggestion. How about we observe what happens? And you shut up.

I doubt your arguments have been informational enough to impact any of the key actors in this process.

I don't think Cypherdoc the guy with the microphone and an auditorium full of devotees, I think the people you want to shut up are the minority being paid $21M to spread there version of Bitcoin.
I'd condone your approach if you asked them to shut up.  

Why should we stop pegged side chains (and can we)? What is the problem with them? Refer to my prior post for my logic.

Anything that pegged side chains have the power to do, can be done even without Blockstream. The beans have been spilled.
I see only positive outcomes should Sidechains be limited in functionality released as Sidecains Elements.  To answer your question you have 250 pages of reading to do to catch up,- hint scroll back to the date the sidechain paper was released it will give you a good start date. (on the up side the content is a lot more focused and coherent than the constant word flow you project in here at the moment ;-)

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 11, 2015, 05:16:22 PM
 #26350

even under the "benevolent dictator" scenario, that principal core dev would not control Bitcoin and it would not be decentralized.

the decentralization comes from all the full nodes, miners, and user base which is spread round the world with the economic majority calling the shots of which the "benevolent dictator" must listen and respond to otherwise someone just creates a hard fork to which the economic majority will migrate to all possible b/c of open source and Satoshi's original design.

which is why we need to stick to Satoshi's original vision and reject bastardizations of it like SC's.

Did Satoshi's vision include kludging around the problem that the 'correct' chain may not be the longest one and it might be necessary to feed auxiliary data to SPV clients such that they could make choose the appropriate choice (since, of course, the user is incapable of doing so on his own?)

Just curious because your 'benevolent dictator' seems to see it as a distinct enough possibility to publicly muse about.

I would suggest that once such a solution was in place, it would be an extra tool in the taint-coin toolbox even if abstract layer economic methods themselves failed to do the job.  The economic-only methods themselves might fail if Bitcoin cannot be bloated sufficiently so it would be good to have a back-up I suppose.



depending on what majority % XT decides to turn on the large block setting, i don't think the bolded part will happen.  if enough of the economic majority switched to XT the others would have to follow. 
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 11, 2015, 05:17:20 PM
 #26351

would the brainless stop perseverating over MPEX?

anyone who tries to manipulate the mkts like they're threatening to do will get creamed.
jmw74
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 236


View Profile
June 11, 2015, 05:33:54 PM
 #26352

I don't get all this hand-wringing about hard forks.

Everyone is paranoid that their fork won't be popular (whether among end-users or miners).

They seem to forget that on a world scale, nobody gives a crap about bitcoin still. Whether your fork occupies 0.0004% or 0.00004% of the world money supply is a rather minor distinction.

Look at it another way, would it be that horrible if your fork of bitcoin was "only" as popular as bitcoin was in 2011? That didn't stop anyone in 2011. And your fork would be way easier to use than bitcoin was then.

Put yet another way, I'd rather bitcoin be "right" than "popular". Whichever fork is what I want, that's what I'm going to use. If I wanted a "popular" currency and payment system, the dollar and Visa would be obvious choices, but that's not what any of us want.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 11, 2015, 05:38:50 PM
 #26353

I don't get all this hand-wringing about hard forks.

Everyone is paranoid that their fork won't be popular (whether among end-users or miners).

They seem to forget that on a world scale, nobody gives a crap about bitcoin still. Whether your fork occupies 0.0004% or 0.00004% of the world money supply is a rather minor distinction.

Look at it another way, would it be that horrible if your fork of bitcoin was "only" as popular as bitcoin was in 2011? That didn't stop anyone in 2011. And your fork would be way easier to use than bitcoin was then.

Put yet another way, I'd rather bitcoin be "right" than "popular". Whichever fork is what I want, that's what I'm going to use. If I wanted a "popular" currency and payment system, the dollar and Visa would be obvious choices, but that's not what any of us want.

and therein lies the answer of which fork will be most popular and will win at the end of the day.  hint:  look at the polls.

in other words, devs can dev all they want but they won't if they aren't being funded.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 11, 2015, 05:54:31 PM
 #26354

brutal anti-silverbox move:

rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
June 11, 2015, 06:01:13 PM
 #26355

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.

MoA, I've appreciated your past comments here, but think you are wrong on the XT fork paranoia . These replies to you over in Reddit explain why the fork is fine and how you can verify it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/394fn1/mike_hearn_in_about_1_week_bitcoin_xt_will/cs0fvmd
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 11, 2015, 06:10:00 PM
 #26356

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.

MoA, I've appreciated your past comments here, but think you are wrong on the XT fork paranoia . These replies to you over in Reddit explain why the fork is fine and how you can verify it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/394fn1/mike_hearn_in_about_1_week_bitcoin_xt_will/cs0fvmd

this is really funny since i immediately suggested this to MofA weeks ago when he protested when XT got announced.  and i am not a coder.  i can go back and get the quote if anyone doubts me:

Hearns:
You can easily use "diff -ur" to see the differences, or use the git command line (eg "git diff 0.10.2A..upstream/master"), or just look at the commits as they are all rebased onto the top of the upstream branch.
jmw74
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 236


View Profile
June 11, 2015, 06:47:17 PM
 #26357

I don't get all this hand-wringing about hard forks.

Everyone is paranoid that their fork won't be popular (whether among end-users or miners).

They seem to forget that on a world scale, nobody gives a crap about bitcoin still. Whether your fork occupies 0.0004% or 0.00004% of the world money supply is a rather minor distinction.

Look at it another way, would it be that horrible if your fork of bitcoin was "only" as popular as bitcoin was in 2011? That didn't stop anyone in 2011. And your fork would be way easier to use than bitcoin was then.

Put yet another way, I'd rather bitcoin be "right" than "popular". Whichever fork is what I want, that's what I'm going to use. If I wanted a "popular" currency and payment system, the dollar and Visa would be obvious choices, but that's not what any of us want.

and therein lies the answer of which fork will be most popular and will win at the end of the day.  hint:  look at the polls.

in other words, devs can dev all they want but they won't if they aren't being funded.

You just did it again!

If popularity means winning, then we might as well all go home. I hate to break it to you, but bitcoin is terribly, terribly unpopular. At best, 0.01% of the world has used it.

The whole reason we're still here is that we want tools that work for us, and if the whole world decides to join us, great! If not, it'll go on just fine as a niche product.

I personally think bitcoin can be a much better-known niche product than it is today, but it will always be niche. And not just due to limitations on bandwidth. Consensus takes time. If you're willing to trust a 3rd party (no consensus needed!), they can run circles around bitcoin. They don't yet, but they could.

Bitcoin will become the pressure relief valve. If banks and governments don't give us a fair deal, we use bitcoin instead.  Bitcoin will never be the default though, it will always be the censorship-resistance tool.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 11, 2015, 07:05:20 PM
 #26358

i really like these guys.  doing actual analysis and simulations.  bottom line:  we don't have much time:

https://tradeblock.com/blog/bitcoin-network-capacity-analysis-part-4-simulating-practical-capacity
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 11, 2015, 07:59:36 PM
 #26359

https://www.coinprices.io/articles/the-hard-fork-no-need-to-worry-bitcoin-upgrades-harness-free-market-consensus
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
June 11, 2015, 08:26:40 PM
 #26360


Bitcoin is the first "voluntary consensus" system I think we've seen. Other systems may be centrally decided or democratically decided, but in all cases once a decision is made you have to follow it. For example we have:

  • The FED - Small group of people make all decisions. No one else has any influence over said decisions. Once a decision is made, everyone is forced to follow the FED's decisions or go to jail.
  • Democracy - Large scale popularity vote, everyone gets to include their voice (in theory, we all know there are problems in today's "democracy"). Decisions (in theory) follow the opinion of the majority. Once a decision is made, everyone is forced to follow the decision or go to jail.

In both cases, once a decision is made you have to follow it or go to jail.

Then enter bitcoin. Everyone gets to choose which system or path to participate on. There is some form of centralized decision (the devs) but people are free to ignore them. Decisions also come down to a large scale popularity vote of sorts and most will follow the economic majority.

However there is no requirement to follow either the devs or the economic majority. Any group of people can tell the rest to f'off and follow their own path. They will be isolated and excluded from the majority, but they are not stopped and if later proved right the majority might just come back to join them.

This is unique as far as I can see, I am looking forward to seeing how the 20MB fork plays out largely as the first real test of how well "voluntary consensus" works in practice.

200 years ago the very idea of trying democracy was considered a "grand experiment" (one that many predicted would fail). I think a key failing of democracy however is it is still binding. Today "voluntary consensus" is the grand experiment.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1366 1367 1368 ... 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!