Bitcoin Forum
December 04, 2016, 01:59:39 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 ... 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 1374 1375 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1803904 times)
marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086



View Profile
June 14, 2015, 11:51:32 PM
 #26481

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.

1480816779
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480816779

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480816779
Reply with quote  #2

1480816779
Report to moderator
1480816779
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480816779

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480816779
Reply with quote  #2

1480816779
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480816779
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480816779

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480816779
Reply with quote  #2

1480816779
Report to moderator
marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086



View Profile
June 14, 2015, 11:53:48 PM
 #26482

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
 #26483

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: 2086



View Profile
June 15, 2015, 12:08:18 AM
 #26484

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
 #26485

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: 2016



View Profile
June 15, 2015, 12:23:02 AM
 #26486

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?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 15, 2015, 12:24:05 AM
 #26487

marcus and his character assassins like to argue that Bitcoin should be a "settlement currency". 

how can it ever be a settlement currency when it's use is currently confined to a small group of users?  let alone when the Blockstream plan is to shunt the vast majority of tx's to SC's or LN preventing our transition to mining paid for by tx fees?

it's a ludicrous economic plan that will cause Bitcoin itself to wither and die.  but when your business model depends on SC consulting fees it will be quite lucrative; in USD.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 15, 2015, 12:30:29 AM
 #26488

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?

hey Greg, do you even understand the concept of "financial conflict"?  if 6 of the Fed Bd of Governors were to set up a for profit company that directly benefitted from the institution of a particular new rule applied to US monetary policy, what would you say to that?

btw, Spinoffs is not my project; it's PeterR's.  i haven't commented in that thread for probably a year or so.
gmaxwell
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2016



View Profile
June 15, 2015, 12:35:55 AM
 #26489

As a point of order; since this seems to be a common and oft-exploited set of misconceptions.

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.
Or the proposals to add censorship to tor that _seriously_ pissed off the tor developers? Or the coin confiscation proposal? Or the near constant, first short recourse to centralized, authoritarian solutions-- at a level of consistency that it would be a comedy if it weren't so sad?

Quote
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?
Mike has never been a core committer-- he's only ever submitted a couple patches, in fact.  His work has been mostly on BitcoinJ, which is whats used by android wallet and multibit hd. He's certainly knowledgeable about the Bitcoin system, so I point this out only as a correction-in-fact not a judgement statement.

Gavin does not lead the Bitcoin Core project-- the project lead is Wladimir and has been for some time (and I mean this in actual documented agreed on roles, and not just in terms of activities), and Gavin has been largely inactive for the last year (I don't say this to complain-- he was very busy with troubled times at the Bitcoin foundation).


hey Greg, do you even understand the concept of "financial conflict"?  if 6 of the Fed Bd of Governors were to set up a for profit company that directly benefitted from the institution of a particular new rule applied to US monetary policy, what would you say to that?
btw, Spinoffs is not my project; it's PeterR's.  i haven't commented in that thread for probably a year or so.
marcus and his character assassins like to argue that Bitcoin should be a "settlement currency".  
how can it ever be a settlement currency when it's use is currently confined to a small group of users?  let alone when the Blockstream plan is to shunt the vast majority of tx's to SC's or LN preventing our transition to mining paid for by tx fees?
it's a ludicrous economic plan that will cause Bitcoin itself to wither and die.  but when your business model depends on SC consulting fees it will be quite lucrative; in USD.

You have some comparison a bit backwards there, there are other people lobbing for a sudden rule change to the system-- against substantial controversy and out from under the preferences of a substantial minority (e.g. your poll shows a quarter in opposition) whos interest you might want to explore.

Two of the Five people with commit access to Bitcoin core (or a half dozen out of a hundred contributors) created Blockstream to build some important tech that we the space need (and had been lamenting it's non-existence for a long time before we went and found a way to fund doing it!). As the primary technical innovators in this space (certainly if you exclude altcoin work) we can be assured good consulting incomes so long as we keep doing good, important, quality work-- regardless of what happens with SC or LN... and we have a _long_ backlog of powerful technology that we couldn't release for use in Bitcoin without it just ending up in an altcoin before the prospect of sidechains.  But no matter what you protest, you cannot stop LN or SC from existing in some form or another; and they offer advantages Bitcoin by itself fundamentally cannot: e.g. LN can give _instantly_ irreversible payments-- think of all the applications that hold of on using Bitcoin for lack of that; but it's not possible in the plain Bitcoin system.  Look at CT-- we can't just go and try that in Bitcoin and figure out how to advance it, prior to SC there was no avenue to adapt to new needs without picking switching from Bitcoin to a competing currency. None of these things have anything to do with block size, and-- in fact, both SC and LN _strongly_ prefer the biggest blocksize the network can handle.  What they can't tolerate, however, is Bitcoin being very centralized-- and I don't think your own interests can tolerate that either (assuming you still own some Bitcoin).

I bring up spinoffs beyond it just being an honest question because it was your argument on these points-- why worry about what happens to bitcoin when we can create some altcoin that enriches the existing bitcoin holders.  I don't know how much this perspective influences your position here, arguably a spinnoff perspective would strongly prefer original bitcoin would fail, it it would just transfer ownership into a new network before people notice and buy up their coins on the cheap as the developers of counterparty did. ::shrugs:: It's easy to throw rocks about conflicts of interest. But the reality is that the arguments I've presented are straightforward, coherent, extend long before any plausibly argued conflict of interest, and are shared to some degree or another by almost everyone in the technical space, including ones which no amount of fevered imagination can construct a coherent conflict of interest story.

(And at least in my case you know who I am, what business I'm in, what my history is, heck I've even shared details of my employment contract with you---- this is not the same for most other people. But even with that opacity, it's easy to find "shadows" of conflict of interest, if someone wants take your approach of claiming any that can be claimed whenever it supports an argument)

Though back to your question, if you've given up on spinoffs as a salvation-- what do you think is going to make Bitcoin competative against the eventual altcoin that actually gets the formula right and makes significant, no compromise, technical advantages over Bitcoin--- and probably doesn't bother to cut you in on it?  Keep in mind, most of the people we hope will some day use Bitcoin haven't even been born yet.  Unless we fail and sully the potential for cryptocurrency in the public's mind, this is only the very beginning of a long history.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 15, 2015, 01:07:09 AM
 #26490

As a point of order; since this seems to be a common and oft-exploited set of misconceptions.

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.
Or the proposals to add censorship to tor that _seriously_ pissed off the tor developers? Or the coin confiscation proposal? Or the near constant, first short recourse to centralized, authoritarian solutions-- at a level of consistency that it would be a comedy if it weren't so sad?

Quote
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?
Mike has never been a core committer-- he's only ever submitted a couple patches, in fact.  His work has been mostly on BitcoinJ, which is whats used by android wallet and multibit hd. He's certainly knowledgeable about the Bitcoin system, so I point this out only as a correction-in-fact not a judgement statement.

Gavin does not lead the Bitcoin Core project-- the project lead is Wladimir and has been for some time (and I mean this in actual documented agreed on roles, and not just in terms of activities), and Gavin has been largely inactive for the last year (I don't say this to complain-- he was very busy with troubled times at the Bitcoin foundation).


hey Greg, do you even understand the concept of "financial conflict"?  if 6 of the Fed Bd of Governors were to set up a for profit company that directly benefitted from the institution of a particular new rule applied to US monetary policy, what would you say to that?
btw, Spinoffs is not my project; it's PeterR's.  i haven't commented in that thread for probably a year or so.
marcus and his character assassins like to argue that Bitcoin should be a "settlement currency".  
how can it ever be a settlement currency when it's use is currently confined to a small group of users?  let alone when the Blockstream plan is to shunt the vast majority of tx's to SC's or LN preventing our transition to mining paid for by tx fees?
it's a ludicrous economic plan that will cause Bitcoin itself to wither and die.  but when your business model depends on SC consulting fees it will be quite lucrative; in USD.

You have some comparison a bit backwards there, there are other people lobbing for a sudden rule change to the system-- against substantial controversy and out from under the preferences of a substantial minority (e.g. your poll shows a quarter in opposition) whos interest you might want to explore.

Two of the Five people with commit access to Bitcoin core (or a half dozen out of a hundred contributors) created Blockstream to build some important tech that we the space need (and had been lamenting it's non-existence for a long time before we went and found a way to fund doing it!). As the primary technical innovators in this space (certainly if you exclude altcoin work) we can be assured good consulting incomes so long as we keep doing good, important, quality work-- regardless of what happens with SC or LN... and we have a _long_ backlog of powerful technology that we couldn't release for use in Bitcoin without it just ending up in an altcoin before the prospect of sidechains.  But no matter what you protest, you cannot stop LN or SC from existing in some form or another; and they offer advantages Bitcoin by itself fundamentally cannot: e.g. LN can give _instantly_ irreversible payments-- think of all the applications that hold of on using Bitcoin for lack of that; but it's not possible in the plain Bitcoin system.  Look at CT-- we can't just go and try that in Bitcoin and figure out how to advance it, prior to SC there was no avenue to adapt to new needs without picking switching from Bitcoin to a competing currency. None of these things have anything to do with block size, and-- in fact, both SC and LN _strongly_ prefer the biggest blocksize the network can handle.  What they can't tolerate, however, is Bitcoin being very centralized-- and I don't think your own interests can tolerate that either (assuming you still own some Bitcoin).

I bring up spinoffs beyond it just being an honest question because it was your argument on these points-- why worry about what happens to bitcoin when we can create some altcoin that enriches the existing bitcoin holders.  I don't know how much this perspective influences your position here, arguably a spinnoff perspective would strongly prefer original bitcoin would fail, it it would just transfer ownership into a new network before people notice and buy up their coins on the cheap as the developers of counterparty did. ::shrugs:: It's easy to throw rocks about conflicts of interest. But the reality is that the arguments I've presented are straightforward, coherent, extend long before any plausibly argued conflict of interest, and are shared to some degree or another by almost everyone in the technical space, including ones which no amount of fevered imagination can construct a coherent conflict of interest story.

Though back to your question, if you've given up on spinoffs as a salvation-- what do you think is going to make Bitcoin competative against the eventual altcoin that actually gets the formula right and makes significant, no compromise, technical advantages over Bitcoin--- and probably doesn't bother to cut you in on it?  Keep in mind, most of the people we hope will some day use Bitcoin haven't even been born yet.  Unless we fail and sully the potential for cryptocurrency in the public's mind, this is only the very beginning of a long history.



i've always said that when it comes down to federated server pegged SC's, go right ahead.  it doesn't change the protocol so i don't worry.  it's not a valid proxy for spvp anyways so i'm not sure why you'd claim it would be.  yeah, i have a problem with spvp b/c it's a protocol change to facilitate your business model and i'd think most of the for-profit companies that have constructed themselves around op_return embedded data would be outraged at facing higher tx fees.  perhaps that's why Luke has been accusing them of spam these days?

for the thousandth time, 1MB was a temporary patch to counteract DoS on the network when it was small and vulnerable.  today is quite different, which goes to your pt that things have evolved for Bitcoin to easily remove that artificial limit to allow for the inevitable growth that will come in the next spike.  cramping it at 1MB, which was never meant to happen, is the height of hypocrisy. many, many ppl including in the technical community that i see here and on reddit feel that the limit should be raised.  everyone who works in SV understands that rapidly gaining mkt share via the Uber and AirBnB model  works and is crucial to outrunning regulation.  your small block theory is the epitome of centralization forcing all users off the mainchain and into offchain solutions, some more centralized and regulated than others.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 15, 2015, 01:09:33 AM
 #26491

also, about your hangup about every single user being capable of running a full node, Satoshi saw otherwise:

Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe
for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section eight) to check for
double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or
about 12KB per day.  Only people trying to create new coins would need to run
network nodes.  At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the
network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to
specialists with server farms of specialized hardware.  
A server farm would
only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with
that one node.


https://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography%40metzdowd.com/msg09964.html
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 15, 2015, 01:18:47 AM
 #26492

Spinoffs


it's been so long since i've even thought of spinoffs.  PeterR should be able to attest to that.  it shouldn't even be needed the way Bitcoin has progressed.  

i see Bitcoin as being highly successful and fulfilling it's vision.  you seem to see shadows everywhere.

i see XT as merely an upgrade to that vision needed for growth which will make mining sustainable in the long run by keeping tx fees on the mainchain.  
elux
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1454



View Profile
June 15, 2015, 01:29:09 AM
 #26493

for the thousandth time, 1MB was a temporary patch to counteract DoS on the network when it was small and vulnerable.  today is quite different, which goes to your pt that things have evolved for Bitcoin to easily remove that artificial limit to allow for the inevitable growth that will come in the next spike.  cramping it at 1MB, which was never meant to happen, is the height of hypocrisy. many, many ppl including in the technical community that i see here and on reddit feel that the limit should be raised.  everyone who works in SV understands that rapidly gaining mkt share via the Uber and AirBnB model  works and is crucial to outrunning regulation.  your small block theory is the epitome of centralization forcing all users off the mainchain and into offchain solutions, some more centralized and regulated than others.

Hear, hear.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 15, 2015, 01:38:16 AM
 #26494

Greg,

it's just not the for profits that want to embed data into the mainchain that will be outraged, it will be all of the for profits in the space.  which is ALL of them. eventually.  why?  b/c they all depend on growth which means increasing users which can only happen by increasing the limit.  there may be a few of them that you can temporarily convince with your obfuscations.

the reason SC's won't work is b/c none of them are going to want to hitch their futures to Blockstream that has shown they will do what's best for themselves and not Bitcoin.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 15, 2015, 03:39:57 AM
 #26495

so the other day they lie to us that a deal had been struck just so they can ramp the stock mkt and yet we hear this only 2h ago:

Default dangerously closer after Greece debt talks collapse

Brussels (AFP) - Default by debt-wracked Greece loomed dangerously closer after last-ditch talks between Athens and its EU-IMF creditors collapsed on Sunday, bringing the threat of a Greek exit from the euro closer than ever.


http://news.yahoo.com/greece-bailout-talks-end-no-deal-significant-gaps-171655815.html
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 15, 2015, 04:53:39 AM
 #26496

It really is that bad:

There are claims of an astonishing three-year fall in a Greek person’s life expectancy in just five years since the country’s economy crashed. If confirmed, this would be without precedent in modern Europe.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3123060/Babies-held-hostage-medical-fees-porters-paramedics-19-20-cut-searing-despatch-Athens-s-blood-soaked-hospitals-shows-Greece-literally-dying-leave-Euro.html
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974


View Profile
June 15, 2015, 05:42:11 AM
 #26497


Though back to your question, if you've given up on spinoffs as a salvation-- what do you think is going to make Bitcoin competative against the eventual altcoin that actually gets the formula right and makes significant, no compromise, technical advantages over Bitcoin--- and probably doesn't bother to cut you in on it?  Keep in mind, most of the people we hope will some day use Bitcoin haven't even been born yet.  Unless we fail and sully the potential for cryptocurrency in the public's mind, this is only the very beginning of a long history.

Just FWIW, if the current Blockstream cohort does this there is some chance that I would convert over via proof-of-burn on reasonable terms, and especially if the clowns cannot be run out of Bitcoin (which doesn't seem eminent.)  I'd want to see it backing sidechains and would want to see a modestly promising sidechains ecosystem in practice first.


... everyone who works in SV understands that rapidly gaining mkt share via the Uber and AirBnB model  works and is crucial to outrunning regulation.

Pfft!  How's that working out for you after half a decade now?  Not well?  How very surprising that a solution which is vastly inferior to the competition in the exchange currency space cannot get a foothold.  Even with an amazing degree of media support, and even a surprising degree regulatory support here in the U.S. for that matter.

Edit:  BTW, what the fuck do you know about SV anyway?  'Outrunning regulation' was no more a winning strategy than 'security through obscurity'.  Sure, it can work fine...mostly when nobody gives a shit about you.

FNG
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588


View Profile
June 15, 2015, 11:18:40 AM
 #26498

marcus and his character assassins like to argue that Bitcoin should be a "settlement currency". 

how can it ever be a settlement currency when it's use is currently confined to a small group of users?  let alone when the Blockstream plan is to shunt the vast majority of tx's to SC's or LN preventing our transition to mining paid for by tx fees?

it's a ludicrous economic plan that will cause Bitcoin itself to wither and die.  but when your business model depends on SC consulting fees it will be quite lucrative; in USD.
Spot on.

BTC needs to go through it's growth phases to get to it's ultimate destination. 1mb blocks doesn't allow for this to happen.

Their plan kills the network effect which leads to bitcoin integration. It's a direct threat to bitcoin maintaining and winning as "The Worldwide Ledger". Their activities are the greatest threat to bitcoin. A possible drop in nodes or their "centralization" threat is nowhere near as severe as them kneecapping bitcoin in it's race to global use and integration.

It was a no-brainer that bitcoin was going to come out on top and be "the blockchain". I'm not so sure anymore.
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
June 15, 2015, 11:37:01 AM
 #26499

so the other day they lie to us that a deal had been struck just so they can ramp the stock mkt and yet we hear this only 2h ago:

Default dangerously closer after Greece debt talks collapse

Brussels (AFP) - Default by debt-wracked Greece loomed dangerously closer after last-ditch talks between Athens and its EU-IMF creditors collapsed on Sunday, bringing the threat of a Greek exit from the euro closer than ever.


http://news.yahoo.com/greece-bailout-talks-end-no-deal-significant-gaps-171655815.html

If someone could control that information flow, they could play the market multiple times before they eventually pulled out, just before the carnage.
Natalia_AnatolioPAMM
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile WWW
June 15, 2015, 12:15:29 PM
 #26500

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.

I guess the chance is more than good

Earn money when BTC crashes - join BTC-E PAMM
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1374 1375 ... 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!