Bitcoin Forum
September 20, 2017, 10:11:22 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   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 ... 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 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1977535 times)
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
June 14, 2015, 08:02:54 PM
 #26441

The one good thing to have come out of Blockstream is the confidential values technique for blinding output amounts.

What if that technique outlives sidechains and Blockstream?
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1505945482
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1505945482

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1505945482
Reply with quote  #2

1505945482
Report to moderator
1505945482
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1505945482

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1505945482
Reply with quote  #2

1505945482
Report to moderator
BldSwtTrs
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 884


🌟 COMSA ICO: 10/02/17 🌟


View Profile
June 14, 2015, 08:25:04 PM
 #26442

The one good thing to have come out of Blockstream is the confidential values technique for blinding output amounts.

What if that technique outlives sidechains and Blockstream?
Can confidential values be implemented without a sidechain/directly on the mainchain?


                               ,,,,╓╖µpp╖╖,,,,
                         ,╓g▄▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▄µ╖          ,╖
                     ,╓@▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓Ñ╖    ,@▓▌
                  ,á▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓µ╫▓▓▓▌
                ╓@▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓█▓▀╜╙            '╙▀▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▌
              ╓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓█▓▀`                       ╙▀▓▓▓███████▌
             @▓▓▓▓▓▓▓█▀`            ,,,,,         ,g▓███████▀`
           ╓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▀         ,µ▄▓▓▓▓▓▓▓█▓▓▓▄@, ,@▓███████▀
          ]▓▓▓▓███▓`       ╓▄▓█▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓█████████████▓╜
         ]▓▓▓▓█▓█╝       ╓▓█████▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓████████████▀╜
         ▓▓▓▓███▌       ╙▓███████▓▒       "▀▓██████▀`
        ╫▓▓▓███▌          "▀████████▄        '▓██▀
        ▓█▓███▓▒            `▀████████▄,       `
       ]▓█████▌                ╙████████▓,
       ]▓█████▌                  ╙▓█▓█▓▓▓█▓╖
       ]▓█████▌                    ╙▀█▓▓▓▓▓▓▓╖
        ▓█████▓[            ,,       `▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▄
        ▓██████[            ╓@        ╙▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓╖
        ╠██████▓          ╓▓▓▓▓m        ╙▓█▓▓▓▓▓█▓@
         ▓█████╜       ,g▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▄╖╖,,,╓╖▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓
         └▓█▓╜       ,@▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓████████████▓▓█▀
          '"       ╓@▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀▓▓▓▓█████████████▀╙        ,
                 ╓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓╜    ╙▀▀▀▀▓▓▓▀▀▀▀╜          ╓▓▓▓╖
               g▓█▓▓▓▓▓▓▓`                          ,g▓▓▓▓▓▓▓w
            ,g▓██████████▓▄,                    ,╓@▓▓█▓▓▓█▓██╜
            ▓████████████████▓▄▄p╖,,     ,,╓µ▄▄▓██████████▓╜
            ▓█████╜╙▀███████████████████████████████████▀`
            ▓██▓╜     "▀▀███████████████████████████▀╜`
            ▓▀`            ╙▀▀▀███████████████▀▀▀"
. COMSA
ICO: Oct 2 - Nov 6
█████
▄▄▄
███
███
▀▀▀
███
███
███
▀▀▀
███
███
███
█████
█████
▄▄▄▄▄
█████
█████
▀▀▀▀▀
█████
█████
█████
▀▀▀▀▀
█████
█████
█████
█████
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 14, 2015, 08:55:52 PM
 #26443

The one good thing to have come out of Blockstream is the confidential values technique for blinding output amounts.

What if that technique outlives sidechains and Blockstream?

Very good chance at that happening.
Mixles
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 63


View Profile
June 14, 2015, 09:09:57 PM
 #26444

The one good thing to have come out of Blockstream is the confidential values technique for blinding output amounts.

They hide only the mantissa part of the number and take 2.5KB to achieve that.

My confidential values technique hides the whole number in 0.4KB (subject to ongoing peer review, positive so far).

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1085436.msg11597427#msg11597427

Can confidential values be implemented without a sidechain/directly on the mainchain?

Yes.

Donations to 1SumKArxoEJ1HoGibmj8ygw1DZWYBvjmM
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


View Profile
June 14, 2015, 09:36:48 PM
 #26445

I think Gavin should de-hitch his wagon from Mike Hearn after hearing how Mike proposed centralized checkpointing. The blacklisting thing was his one free pass at a really horrible idea. Now it just looks like he doesn't get what Bitcoin is really about.

I can see why Gavin would utilize XT as an end-run around the political gridlock in core, and I also see that Mike Hearn has a unique perspective and background that is useful, but he should not be a core committer in my opinion. Gavin is the only person qualified to (provisionally) lead the project as far as I can see now, but I think "palling around with Mike Hearn" will be viewed with suspicion, especially if it's unnecessary. Why not just just add in the patch to Core and fork off if necessary?
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
June 14, 2015, 09:41:49 PM
 #26446

I think Gavin should de-hitch his wagon from Mike Hearn after hearing how Mike proposed centralized checkpointing. The blacklisting thing was his one free pass at a really horrible idea. Now it just looks like he doesn't get what Bitcoin is really about.

I can see why Gavin would utilize XT as an end-run around the political gridlock in core, and I also see that Mike Hearn has a unique perspective and background that is useful, but he should not be a core committer in my opinion. Gavin is the only person qualified to (provisionally) lead the project as far as I can see now, but I think "palling around with Mike Hearn" will be viewed with suspicion, especially if it's unnecessary. Why not just just add in the patch to Core and fork off if necessary?
https://github.com/btcsuite/btcd
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 14, 2015, 09:43:23 PM
 #26447

I think Gavin should de-hitch his wagon from Mike Hearn after hearing how Mike proposed centralized checkpointing. The blacklisting thing was his one free pass at a really horrible idea. Now it just looks like he doesn't get what Bitcoin is really about.

I can see why Gavin would utilize XT as an end-run around the political gridlock in core, and I also see that Mike Hearn has a unique perspective and background that is useful, but he should not be a core committer in my opinion. Gavin is the only person qualified to (provisionally) lead the project as far as I can see now, but I think "palling around with Mike Hearn" will be viewed with suspicion, especially if it's unnecessary. Why not just just add in the patch to Core and fork off if necessary?

i too think that Gavin has to explicitly state that he will be the lead core dev for XT.  i don't have as much of a problem as you seem to have with Hearn being a core dev for XT as long as Gavin has the last word.  the other good thing is that Gavin can bring in a whole new core dev crew with more academic expertise with more of a like mind towards sound money, which is a big part with how i see these differences btwn Gavin and Greg. 

the checkpoint thing Hearns was talking about was only if there were 2 persistent chains with XT being a minority.  i don't think that will happen.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
June 14, 2015, 09:51:01 PM
 #26448

I think Gavin should de-hitch his wagon from Mike Hearn after hearing how Mike proposed centralized checkpointing. The blacklisting thing was his one free pass at a really horrible idea. Now it just looks like he doesn't get what Bitcoin is really about.

I can see why Gavin would utilize XT as an end-run around the political gridlock in core, and I also see that Mike Hearn has a unique perspective and background that is useful, but he should not be a core committer in my opinion. Gavin is the only person qualified to (provisionally) lead the project as far as I can see now, but I think "palling around with Mike Hearn" will be viewed with suspicion, especially if it's unnecessary. Why not just just add in the patch to Core and fork off if necessary?

I'd agree if you're referring to that interview he did, he didn't do the goal of decentralized control any good.

I'm still open to XT, just not sure he's a good "Linus Torvalds"

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268


View Profile
June 14, 2015, 09:58:12 PM
 #26449

I think Gavin should de-hitch his wagon from Mike Hearn after hearing how Mike proposed centralized checkpointing. The blacklisting thing was his one free pass at a really horrible idea. Now it just looks like he doesn't get what Bitcoin is really about.

I can see why Gavin would utilize XT as an end-run around the political gridlock in core, and I also see that Mike Hearn has a unique perspective and background that is useful, but he should not be a core committer in my opinion. Gavin is the only person qualified to (provisionally) lead the project as far as I can see now, but I think "palling around with Mike Hearn" will be viewed with suspicion, especially if it's unnecessary. Why not just just add in the patch to Core and fork off if necessary?

I'd agree if you're referring to that interview he did, he didn't do the goal of decentralized control any good.

If you've been paying attention there is nothing new in Mike's recent activities.  Granted, they have become a little more audacious of late.  Probably an artifact of getting pretty much complete control of Gavin and an element of desperation given the fairly amazing progress made by the Blockstream folk.  His half-decade long hopes for the system (a monitoring tool controllable by his beloved leaders in mainstreamland) are fluttering away.


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 14, 2015, 10:18:45 PM
 #26450

not starting off the week well.  they got 15 hrs to rescue this:

thebigtalk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252

Bitcoin and co.


View Profile
June 14, 2015, 10:32:05 PM
 #26451

not starting off the week well.  they got 15 hrs to rescue this:



I don't want this ending up stable in 220-ish again. Hope they'll be able to pull it up again. There's a thread I just saw around about the upcoming rise. What do you guys think about that?
marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2380



View Profile
June 14, 2015, 11:34:20 PM
 #26452

The one good thing to have come out of Blockstream is the confidential values technique for blinding output amounts.

What if that technique outlives sidechains and Blockstream?

Perhaps it is time you declared what Monetas's position is on blocksize? And if there is anything in your contracts that allow opt-out "for the betterment of bitcoin" if you become conflicted? You know the same clauses that key blockstream employees have that cypherdoc has glossed over many times in his persistent smearing, defamation and character assassination that you seem to be supporting curiously ...

cypherdoc: how's the hashfast debacle progressing? Been sued for your involvement in that scam yet?

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 14, 2015, 11:39:27 PM
 #26453

The one good thing to have come out of Blockstream is the confidential values technique for blinding output amounts.

What if that technique outlives sidechains and Blockstream?

Perhaps it is time you declared what Monetas's position is on blocksize? And if there is anything in your contracts that allow opt-out "for the betterment of bitcoin" if you become conflicted? You know the same clauses that key blockstream employees have that cypherdoc has glossed over many times in his persistent smearing, defamation and character assassination that you seem to be supporting curiously ...

cypherdoc: how's the hashfast debacle progressing? Been sued for your involvement in that scam yet?

at least i have the self control not to become as venomous as you.

is this a crusade for you?  you honor me for putting me up on such a pedestal.
Cconvert2G36
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392


View Profile
June 14, 2015, 11:48:31 PM
 #26454

If you're not catching flak, you're not over the target.
marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2380



View Profile
June 14, 2015, 11:51:32 PM
 #26455

I think Gavin should de-hitch his wagon from Mike Hearn after hearing how Mike proposed centralized checkpointing. The blacklisting thing was his one free pass at a really horrible idea. Now it just looks like he doesn't get what Bitcoin is really about.

I can see why Gavin would utilize XT as an end-run around the political gridlock in core, and I also see that Mike Hearn has a unique perspective and background that is useful, but he should not be a core committer in my opinion. Gavin is the only person qualified to (provisionally) lead the project as far as I can see now, but I think "palling around with Mike Hearn" will be viewed with suspicion, especially if it's unnecessary. Why not just just add in the patch to Core and fork off if necessary?

I'd agree if you're referring to that interview he did, he didn't do the goal of decentralized control any good.

If you've been paying attention there is nothing new in Mike's recent activities.  Granted, they have become a little more audacious of late.  Probably an artifact of getting pretty much complete control of Gavin and an element of desperation given the fairly amazing progress made by the Blockstream folk.  His half-decade long hopes for the system (a monitoring tool controllable by his beloved leaders in mainstreamland) are fluttering away.

I'm glad someone else is paying attention. The productivity of the current crop of core devs has outpaced the surveillance branch and Gavin's threat to fork is a desperate attempt to regain control, which is fast slipping away from them, just through sheer innovation. They are losing in the meritocracy stakes.

Gavin's last major contribution was back-dooring bitcoin privacy through the broken X.409 bolt-on kludge, 'payments security' (theatre). He is not a leader in content, quality or name any longer as far as I am concerned. And he still needs to come clean about how much and when he knew about the Bitcoin Foundation collapse, after drawing a salary from them for so long and being the sole reason it was instituted. He seems to be in a hurry to distance himself from that particular fiasco.

marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2380



View Profile
June 14, 2015, 11:53:48 PM
 #26456

The one good thing to have come out of Blockstream is the confidential values technique for blinding output amounts.

What if that technique outlives sidechains and Blockstream?

Perhaps it is time you declared what Monetas's position is on blocksize? And if there is anything in your contracts that allow opt-out "for the betterment of bitcoin" if you become conflicted? You know the same clauses that key blockstream employees have that cypherdoc has glossed over many times in his persistent smearing, defamation and character assassination that you seem to be supporting curiously ...

cypherdoc: how's the hashfast debacle progressing? Been sued for your involvement in that scam yet?

at least i have the self control not to become as venomous as you.

is this a crusade for you?  you honor me for putting me up on such a pedestal.

do unto others as you would have them do unto you ...

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 14, 2015, 11:59:50 PM
 #26457

The one good thing to have come out of Blockstream is the confidential values technique for blinding output amounts.

What if that technique outlives sidechains and Blockstream?

Perhaps it is time you declared what Monetas's position is on blocksize? And if there is anything in your contracts that allow opt-out "for the betterment of bitcoin" if you become conflicted? You know the same clauses that key blockstream employees have that cypherdoc has glossed over many times in his persistent smearing, defamation and character assassination that you seem to be supporting curiously ...

cypherdoc: how's the hashfast debacle progressing? Been sued for your involvement in that scam yet?

at least i have the self control not to become as venomous as you.

is this a crusade for you?  you honor me for putting me up on such a pedestal.

do unto others as you would have them do unto you ...

do you ever have any real arguments to bring to the debate?  or is it always just slander and defamation with you?
marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2380



View Profile
June 15, 2015, 12:08:18 AM
 #26458

The one good thing to have come out of Blockstream is the confidential values technique for blinding output amounts.

What if that technique outlives sidechains and Blockstream?

Perhaps it is time you declared what Monetas's position is on blocksize? And if there is anything in your contracts that allow opt-out "for the betterment of bitcoin" if you become conflicted? You know the same clauses that key blockstream employees have that cypherdoc has glossed over many times in his persistent smearing, defamation and character assassination that you seem to be supporting curiously ...

cypherdoc: how's the hashfast debacle progressing? Been sued for your involvement in that scam yet?

at least i have the self control not to become as venomous as you.

is this a crusade for you?  you honor me for putting me up on such a pedestal.

do unto others as you would have them do unto you ...

do you ever have any real arguments to bring to the debate?  or is it always just slander and defamation with you?

Unfortunately that is the standard you have set in your own thread, and on reddit also it seems. I'm just obliging after you choose to play the man and not the ball, on enough occasions now to show that it is not just a fluke, but you are intent on poisoning the debate and swerving away from legitimate technical discussion. Endlessly parroting character smears doesn't make them real.

I kind of regret that I may have armed you with so many big words and concepts that you might actually sound convincingly smart enough to be dangerous, to the unwary reader.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 15, 2015, 12:13:50 AM
 #26459

The one good thing to have come out of Blockstream is the confidential values technique for blinding output amounts.

What if that technique outlives sidechains and Blockstream?

Perhaps it is time you declared what Monetas's position is on blocksize? And if there is anything in your contracts that allow opt-out "for the betterment of bitcoin" if you become conflicted? You know the same clauses that key blockstream employees have that cypherdoc has glossed over many times in his persistent smearing, defamation and character assassination that you seem to be supporting curiously ...

cypherdoc: how's the hashfast debacle progressing? Been sued for your involvement in that scam yet?

at least i have the self control not to become as venomous as you.

is this a crusade for you?  you honor me for putting me up on such a pedestal.

do unto others as you would have them do unto you ...

do you ever have any real arguments to bring to the debate?  or is it always just slander and defamation with you?

Unfortunately that is the standard you have set in your own thread, and on reddit also it seems. I'm just obliging after you choose to play the man and not the ball, on enough occasions now to show that it is not just a fluke, but you are intent on poisoning the debate and swerving away from legitimate technical discussion. Endlessly parroting character smears doesn't make them real.

I kind of regret that I may have armed you with so many big words and concepts that you might actually sound convincingly smart enough to be dangerous, to the unwary reader.

lots and lots of big words.  never any justification for preventing Bitcoin from fulfilling it's original vision:

Satoshi Nakamoto wrote:
> The bandwidth might not be as prohibitive as you
> think.
 A typical transaction would be about 400 bytes
> (ECC is nicely compact).  Each transaction has to be
> broadcast twice, so lets say 1KB per transaction.
> Visa processed 37 billion transactions in FY2008, or
> an average of 100 million transactions per day.  That
> many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth, or
> the size of 12 DVD or 2 HD quality movies, or about
> $18 worth of bandwidth at current prices.



https://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography%40metzdowd.com/msg10006.html
gmaxwell
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2296



View Profile
June 15, 2015, 12:23:02 AM
 #26460

lots and lots of big words.  never any justification for preventing Bitcoin from fulfilling it's original vision:
Your selective quoting ignores how this was a response to a 'how could this possibly work at all'.  I've used the same kind of response to "omg flooding network! how could that possibly work! it's completely non-scalable!" -- to point out that even non-scalable can achieve some remarkable stuff.  This doesn't answer any particular question about the exact tradeoff that works, but works to wake people up.  Particular because before Bitcoin the alternative was exclusively centralized systems so when you show that if you don't care about decentralization (which you must not if you question the value it provides compared to all that came before) then it can reach arbitrarily high scale.

We can't hope to guess at what anyone from back then would think about the current state of the world, though we do know that e.g. the current mining ecosystem would have been regarded as a system failure from the original precepts; and we also know that decentralization and autonomy were principle motivations for the creation of the system in the first place.

While I'm here, hows your Bitcoin Spinoffs project going, Cypherdoc?

Bitcoin will not be compromised
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 ... 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!