Bitcoin Forum
November 21, 2017, 12:32:42 PM *
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 ... 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 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2010732 times)
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 17, 2015, 01:55:29 PM
 #26681

check out of the gold collapse

I told you all upthread there would likely be a bounce this June in both gold and BTC but the final lows are still coming.

I continue (via Armstrong) to predict every price move. Yet I (and he) get no acknowledgement.

What a shame! The feet of the prophets are to be kissed!

He is still pissed off because I don't buy into his "we are going back to cavemen" theory of economics.


No. This species is going forward; leaving your collectivist behavior behind. Crypto based Anonymity is not a tool to maintain collectivism; it will destroy collectivism and society and that will lead to the rebirth of the selfsufficient community. Not nice for you the collectivsts, but inevitable. Cheesy

Well then take solace in that I am working for you then because I (as AnonyMint) have been pushing for greater anonymity since 2013. And I am pushing for it not just in cryptocoins but also on the entire internet and my plans are much broader in scope than just cryptocoins.

Wow, on the entire internet?! That's really impressive!

He's that good.

It is not me. It is you all are that good but you don't know how to organize yourselves except to be corralled by the banksters (even you don't know it). The only way to accomplish that is get a lot of capital focused on solving these problems. Right now all your capital is going to the utility and hardware companies. It is not being focused where it can actually form an ecosystem. The Bitcoin ecosystem is dominated by bankster whoreshipping venture capital (and your individual capital gets siphoned off by PoW and the shitcoins).

This is the reason you would buy my coin, because there will be an ecosystem that as a geek you will be damn proud of. And it will be your ecosystem, not mine. I am just here as the seed (who needs to as quickly as possibly set things on an open-source auto-pilot and get out of the way), and will hopefully be rewarded for my efforts so I can retire comfortably.

Somebody has to be crazy enough to try. Then the others will follow once they see it working.

1511267562
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511267562

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511267562
Reply with quote  #2

1511267562
Report to moderator
1511267562
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511267562

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511267562
Reply with quote  #2

1511267562
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.
1511267562
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511267562

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511267562
Reply with quote  #2

1511267562
Report to moderator
1511267562
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511267562

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511267562
Reply with quote  #2

1511267562
Report to moderator
thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
June 17, 2015, 02:06:52 PM
 #26682

For the expansionist here, what do you think?  Should we compromise at 8MB?  Personally I am ok with that, esp if an automatic periodic increase is baked in.

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114577/chinese-mining-pools-propose-alternative-8-mb-block-size

EDIT: page 1337!  gotta have something substantive on it :-)

i'm ok with it with the automatic expansion.  but i'm alittle concerned with the miner voting for expansion.  why just them and is voting really the way we want to go?

Yes the BIP 100 voting scheme seems a bit under developed at this point.  The problem is that POW mining is the only way to prove independent existence, this is the basis of distributed consensus -- you can easily create a bunch of fake AWS "full" nodes for example -- 1000 nodes just forward requests to a single full node.  And if you could solve the voting problem without using mining, you could use that solution to remove mining from consensus (i.e. from bitcoin).

One way to prove unique nodes is to require that every node use asymmetric functions to encode the data to be stored, with uniquifying "salt".  This is essentially hashing but backwards.

For example, every node chooses a unique 256bit identifier (salt).  Then for every 8 or 16 bits of blockchain data Di, it finds and stores Xi such that Hash(Xi + identifier + i) = Di (where "+" means "append").

This search happens continually as the blockchain is being created.

Now a client can validate the uniqueness of storage by another node by requesting random chunks of data from the node.  The node responds with its ID and Xi0-i1.  The client can then quickly validate this by running the hash function and comparing the result to its own blockchain.

A "full" node (one that is calculating this data and storing it as the blockchain is created) will be able to respond quickly where one that is not doing so will have to calculate the reverse hash function (essentially a random search like mining but easier because only 8 or 16 bits) on the fly.

Once you have this "proof of storage" you might be able to turn it into allowing node voting...

So someone rents hard disk space on Amazon AWS during the voting period and becomes many unique entities.

You were correct that there is no way to prove one computer, one vote. PoW doesn't work by voting. It works by random chance. The only problem PoW solves is consensus on ordering.

Ah I grow weary in this thread.

U repeated exactly what I said.  And then didn't read my partial soln

Ahem, try reading again. You proposed proof-of-storage as a potential means to voting.

Prior proof-of-storage (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=310323.0) "wastes" storage like POW "wastes" CPU.  It proves that storage exists.  The proposal above proves that a unique copy of the blockchain is stored somewhere.  This is much more valuable than proof that storage exists so it is perhaps better named proof-of-full-node.  The reason you can't just rent hard disk space on AWS to fake this out is because you need to calculate the inverse hash for every byte of the blockchain, salted by your node id.  The designer can choose how hard this is so it could take (say) a normal computer 6 months to do the entire 5 year blockchain. So the proof of storage is backed by POW which makes it hard to calculate the values on-the-fly.  You could rent a bunch of AWS storage AND separately rent a supercomputer to individually calculate the hash-1 blockchain data, storing the result into AWS.  But if you do that, you actually HAVE N individual copies of the blockchain so would receive N votes.

Because I am basically arguing with myself here I will now criticize the approach's limitations.  It is possible that modifications to this approach could solve them:

1. "Difficulty" is chosen in advance, not dynamically.  This is problematic as processing power increases.
2. It takes a long time for a new node to become a provably "full" node.  Of course, nodes could become non-provably "full" nodes just by downloading the blockchain as is done today, and nodes could advertise themselves as partly provable, receiving a partial vote...
3. The provable blockchain could be constructed by many CPUs running in parallel... is this a problem?  If so we could force serialization by salting Xi with Xi-1.
4. The system functions as a real-time interactive proof.  There is no way store a historical proof that a node was full on date D.  Bitcoin-style POW+blockchain does store historical proof of computation power.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 17, 2015, 02:10:46 PM
 #26683

i smell DOOM for Blockstream, gmax, and Adam:

“We have really good communication with Gavin Andresen on this issue."
Doom is not the ideal outcome.

It would likely mean any positive contributions they could make would be squandered.

well, they could go BK; in a year or so.  

mining really is the last piece to Gavin's puzzle and that quote is telling.  everyone else in the space clearly has an interest in seeing tx growth; users, merchants, exchanges.  and they have expressed themselves as such.  the only one's that were questionable were the miners; esp the big Chinese one's that had spoken up a couple of weeks ago.  now that they seem to be clearly onboard with the Big Picture, which Blockstream clearly isn't, the only thing remaining is just exactly how much we are going to increase the block size.  since 8MB is completely fine with them, that should be the starting point.  we definitely should build in an automatic increase.

the only part that makes me pause is this voting mechanism for block size expansion which was part of Jeff's proposal.  but overall, quite positive.

JGarzik's proposal:
http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf
Wherein the central authority of developers to set block size is passed to the miners who vote (with the highs and lows dropped).

This seems to solve the issue of figuring out the right size a bit better than one person picking an arbitrary number.

It also moves the ball forward in automating the governance of the protocol.

As soon as you introduce voting to Bitcoin, you've entirely lost to the banksters. Any one who doesn't realize democracy is a lie, is really a sheep. I already explained the Logic of Collective Action is a power vacuum. It is amazes me that smart people can't understand this holistically.

A power vacuum is an entropic void that requires a leader. But the only way to lead collective action is to promise everything and steal everything (if you don't, someone else will and they will amass more power). The logic on that is explained in more detail else where.

I grow weary. Just go ahead to your NWO outcome. Some of us others will fork away and survive to continue the human race. <bankster illogic>Perhaps it is better you all continue with your myopia and cull yourselves, so we can clean up the gene pool.</bankster illogic>

justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
June 17, 2015, 02:14:33 PM
 #26684

Does this post show up for anyone else?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3a5f1v/mike_hearn_on_those_who_want_all_scaling_to_be/cs9jehy

I think it might have been censored.
dEBRUYNE
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


View Profile
June 17, 2015, 02:17:53 PM
 #26685

Does this post show up for anyone else?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3a5f1v/mike_hearn_on_those_who_want_all_scaling_to_be/cs9jehy

I think it might have been censored.

Shows up just fine here.

Privacy matters, use Monero - A true untraceable cryptocurrency
Why Monero matters? http://weuse.cash/2016/03/05/bitcoiners-hedge-your-position/
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 17, 2015, 02:20:59 PM
 #26686

For the expansionist here, what do you think?  Should we compromise at 8MB?  Personally I am ok with that, esp if an automatic periodic increase is baked in.

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114577/chinese-mining-pools-propose-alternative-8-mb-block-size

EDIT: page 1337!  gotta have something substantive on it :-)

i'm ok with it with the automatic expansion.  but i'm alittle concerned with the miner voting for expansion.  why just them and is voting really the way we want to go?

Yes the BIP 100 voting scheme seems a bit under developed at this point.  The problem is that POW mining is the only way to prove independent existence, this is the basis of distributed consensus -- you can easily create a bunch of fake AWS "full" nodes for example -- 1000 nodes just forward requests to a single full node.  And if you could solve the voting problem without using mining, you could use that solution to remove mining from consensus (i.e. from bitcoin).

One way to prove unique nodes is to require that every node use asymmetric functions to encode the data to be stored, with uniquifying "salt".  This is essentially hashing but backwards.

For example, every node chooses a unique 256bit identifier (salt).  Then for every 8 or 16 bits of blockchain data Di, it finds and stores Xi such that Hash(Xi + identifier + i) = Di (where "+" means "append").

This search happens continually as the blockchain is being created.

Now a client can validate the uniqueness of storage by another node by requesting random chunks of data from the node.  The node responds with its ID and Xi0-i1.  The client can then quickly validate this by running the hash function and comparing the result to its own blockchain.

A "full" node (one that is calculating this data and storing it as the blockchain is created) will be able to respond quickly where one that is not doing so will have to calculate the reverse hash function (essentially a random search like mining but easier because only 8 or 16 bits) on the fly.

Once you have this "proof of storage" you might be able to turn it into allowing node voting...

So someone rents hard disk space on Amazon AWS during the voting period and becomes many unique entities.

You were correct that there is no way to prove one computer, one vote. PoW doesn't work by voting. It works by random chance. The only problem PoW solves is consensus on ordering.

Ah I grow weary in this thread.

U repeated exactly what I said.  And then didn't read my partial soln

Ahem, try reading again. You proposed proof-of-storage as a potential means to voting.

Prior proof-of-storage (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=310323.0) "wastes" storage like POW "wastes" CPU.  It proves that storage exists.  The proposal above proves that a unique copy of the blockchain is stored somewhere.  This is much more valuable than proof that storage exists so it is perhaps better named proof-of-full-node.  The reason you can't just rent hard disk space on AWS to fake this out is because you need to calculate the inverse hash for every byte of the blockchain, salted by your node id.  The designer can choose how hard this is so it could take (say) a normal computer 6 months to do the entire 5 year blockchain. So the proof of storage is backed by POW which makes it hard to calculate the values on-the-fly.  You could rent a bunch of AWS storage AND separately rent a supercomputer to individually calculate the hash-1 blockchain data, storing the result into AWS.  But if you do that, you actually HAVE N individual copies of the blockchain so would receive N votes.

Because I am basically arguing with myself here I will now criticize the approach's limitations.  It is possible that modifications to this approach could solve them:

1. "Difficulty" is chosen in advance, not dynamically.  This is problematic as processing power increases.
2. It takes a long time for a new node to become a provably "full" node.  Of course, nodes could become non-provably "full" nodes just by downloading the blockchain as is done today, and nodes could advertise themselves as partly provable, receiving a partial vote...
3. The provable blockchain could be constructed by many CPUs running in parallel... is this a problem?  If so we could force serialization by salting Xi with Xi-1.
4. The system functions as a real-time interactive proof.  There is no way store a historical proof that a node was full on date D.  Bitcoin-style POW+blockchain does store historical proof of computation power.

Okay I got it now (I was very fatigued before prior reply and you didn't give any high level description). It is a historic proof that an entity was winning PoW blocks. So basically you have to set a threshold as to what level of cumulative PoW difficulty constitutes a vote, thus a centralized party decides what class of voter is included.

This is representative governance, because the users can't vote and those with more PoW can vote more times (creating numerous sockpuppets which is essentially analogous to my prior rebuttal). Representative governance is even more prone to capture by the Logic of Collective Action.

Bitcoin has no choice but to head these sort of perilous directions because the fundamental design is flawed.

If Bitcoin's design would scale without intervention, we wouldn't be seeing the need to do this.

justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
June 17, 2015, 02:28:18 PM
 #26687

Now it does for me as well.

I think the auto moderator may have grabbed it for a few minutes, which makes me wonder exactly what kind of setting theymos is using for it.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 17, 2015, 02:44:19 PM
 #26688

Now it does for me as well.

I think the auto moderator may have grabbed it for a few minutes, which makes me wonder exactly what kind of setting theymos is using for it.

Note to Blockstream, compromise on a BIP and increase the block size already (and don't blablah about you already suggested they propose a BIP, Gavinmike aren't leaders, etc ... get a compromise done with as few words as possible). You are being out maneuvered politically and will be painted as the bad guys if you continue to write more rebuttals to Mike Hearn. STFU (with the diatribes from Adam) and live to fight another day. Stop that nonsense policy on the bitcoin.org that is divisive.

To Adam and Gregory, when you joined Bitcoin you implicitly agreed that it was "one for all and all for one". If you do anything politically to violate that, even if with good intentions to protect Bitcoin from a mad rush towards centralization or technical breakage as the Coinbase et al drive up TPS rapidly towards Visa scale, then you are violating your own interests believe it or not.

Instead of fighting your battle on the political front, go get clever on your technical work and make an end run around what you fear. STFU and reach compromise asap so you can live to fight another day.

Yes Gavinmike are diluting your power. They know what they are doing. You better know they can do it. If you are wise, you will rescue the clout you still have and retain some of it by using your political power less auspiciously (or let's say don't try to paint yourselves as the good guys, because it makes people sneer or skeptical when they read those diatribes that reflect on your egos more than on the reality of the situation) so you can win some concessions on the rate of increase.

Adam and Gregory are engineers and ostensibly thus far not very astute political scientists.

They apparently can't see that Gavinmike purposely incited them to fight in order to drive a wedge between them and more than 50% of the power in the community. It doesn't matter who is right, because both directions are flawed thus whomever resists forward movement will be the bad guys. The most astute action on their part is to not fight in public.

thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
June 17, 2015, 02:45:08 PM
 #26689

For the expansionist here, what do you think?  Should we compromise at 8MB?  Personally I am ok with that, esp if an automatic periodic increase is baked in.

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114577/chinese-mining-pools-propose-alternative-8-mb-block-size

EDIT: page 1337!  gotta have something substantive on it :-)

i'm ok with it with the automatic expansion.  but i'm alittle concerned with the miner voting for expansion.  why just them and is voting really the way we want to go?

Yes the BIP 100 voting scheme seems a bit under developed at this point.  The problem is that POW mining is the only way to prove independent existence, this is the basis of distributed consensus -- you can easily create a bunch of fake AWS "full" nodes for example -- 1000 nodes just forward requests to a single full node.  And if you could solve the voting problem without using mining, you could use that solution to remove mining from consensus (i.e. from bitcoin).

One way to prove unique nodes is to require that every node use asymmetric functions to encode the data to be stored, with uniquifying "salt".  This is essentially hashing but backwards.

For example, every node chooses a unique 256bit identifier (salt).  Then for every 8 or 16 bits of blockchain data Di, it finds and stores Xi such that Hash(Xi + identifier + i) = Di (where "+" means "append").

This search happens continually as the blockchain is being created.

Now a client can validate the uniqueness of storage by another node by requesting random chunks of data from the node.  The node responds with its ID and Xi0-i1.  The client can then quickly validate this by running the hash function and comparing the result to its own blockchain.

A "full" node (one that is calculating this data and storing it as the blockchain is created) will be able to respond quickly where one that is not doing so will have to calculate the reverse hash function (essentially a random search like mining but easier because only 8 or 16 bits) on the fly.

Once you have this "proof of storage" you might be able to turn it into allowing node voting...

So someone rents hard disk space on Amazon AWS during the voting period and becomes many unique entities.

You were correct that there is no way to prove one computer, one vote. PoW doesn't work by voting. It works by random chance. The only problem PoW solves is consensus on ordering.

Ah I grow weary in this thread.

U repeated exactly what I said.  And then didn't read my partial soln

Ahem, try reading again. You proposed proof-of-storage as a potential means to voting.

Prior proof-of-storage (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=310323.0) "wastes" storage like POW "wastes" CPU.  It proves that storage exists.  The proposal above proves that a unique copy of the blockchain is stored somewhere.  This is much more valuable than proof that storage exists so it is perhaps better named proof-of-full-node.  The reason you can't just rent hard disk space on AWS to fake this out is because you need to calculate the inverse hash for every byte of the blockchain, salted by your node id.  The designer can choose how hard this is so it could take (say) a normal computer 6 months to do the entire 5 year blockchain. So the proof of storage is backed by POW which makes it hard to calculate the values on-the-fly.  You could rent a bunch of AWS storage AND separately rent a supercomputer to individually calculate the hash-1 blockchain data, storing the result into AWS.  But if you do that, you actually HAVE N individual copies of the blockchain so would receive N votes.

Because I am basically arguing with myself here I will now criticize the approach's limitations.  It is possible that modifications to this approach could solve them:

1. "Difficulty" is chosen in advance, not dynamically.  This is problematic as processing power increases.
2. It takes a long time for a new node to become a provably "full" node.  Of course, nodes could become non-provably "full" nodes just by downloading the blockchain as is done today, and nodes could advertise themselves as partly provable, receiving a partial vote...
3. The provable blockchain could be constructed by many CPUs running in parallel... is this a problem?  If so we could force serialization by salting Xi with Xi-1.
4. The system functions as a real-time interactive proof.  There is no way store a historical proof that a node was full on date D.  Bitcoin-style POW+blockchain does store historical proof of computation power.

Okay I got it now (I was very fatigued before prior reply and you didn't give any high level description). It is a historic proof that an entity was winning PoW blocks. So basically you have to set a threshold as to what level of cumulative PoW difficulty constitutes a vote, thus a centralized party decides what class of voter is included.

This is representative governance, because the users can't vote and those with more PoW can vote more times (creating numerous sockpuppets). Representative governance is even more prone to capture by the Logic of Collective Action.

Bitcoin has no choice but to head these sort of perilous directions because the fundamental design is flawed.

If Bitcoin's design would scale without intervention, we wouldn't be seeing the need to do this.

I don't think you get it.  It is a proof that an entity is storing a UNIQUE copy of the blockchain.  What little prior PoS work I've read seems to prove that storage exists, or that a file is being stored.  Unfortunately they do not address the idea that you want to store a file in 2 places A & B and ensure that A & B are not in collusion and so the file is only stored one of the 2 locations.

Honestly I'm less interested in the BIP 100 voting scheme (and the usefulness of voting in general as a governance mechanism) as I am in healing the rift between miners and full nodes.  Clearly no-one is going to implement the above proposal for bitcoin just so full nodes can vote on BIP 100! :-)

Justus: I could see your post just fine.

79b79aa8d5047da6d3XX
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 192

◕_◕


View Profile
June 17, 2015, 02:51:15 PM
 #26690

link repost from adam's thread, in case you missed it:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-17/rbs-customer-payments-missing-after-latest-technology-failure
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 17, 2015, 03:13:09 PM
 #26691

For the expansionist here, what do you think?  Should we compromise at 8MB?  Personally I am ok with that, esp if an automatic periodic increase is baked in.

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114577/chinese-mining-pools-propose-alternative-8-mb-block-size

EDIT: page 1337!  gotta have something substantive on it :-)

i'm ok with it with the automatic expansion.  but i'm alittle concerned with the miner voting for expansion.  why just them and is voting really the way we want to go?

Yes the BIP 100 voting scheme seems a bit under developed at this point.  The problem is that POW mining is the only way to prove independent existence, this is the basis of distributed consensus -- you can easily create a bunch of fake AWS "full" nodes for example -- 1000 nodes just forward requests to a single full node.  And if you could solve the voting problem without using mining, you could use that solution to remove mining from consensus (i.e. from bitcoin).

One way to prove unique nodes is to require that every node use asymmetric functions to encode the data to be stored, with uniquifying "salt".  This is essentially hashing but backwards.

For example, every node chooses a unique 256bit identifier (salt).  Then for every 8 or 16 bits of blockchain data Di, it finds and stores Xi such that Hash(Xi + identifier + i) = Di (where "+" means "append").

This search happens continually as the blockchain is being created.

Now a client can validate the uniqueness of storage by another node by requesting random chunks of data from the node.  The node responds with its ID and Xi0-i1.  The client can then quickly validate this by running the hash function and comparing the result to its own blockchain.

A "full" node (one that is calculating this data and storing it as the blockchain is created) will be able to respond quickly where one that is not doing so will have to calculate the reverse hash function (essentially a random search like mining but easier because only 8 or 16 bits) on the fly.

Once you have this "proof of storage" you might be able to turn it into allowing node voting...

So someone rents hard disk space on Amazon AWS during the voting period and becomes many unique entities.

You were correct that there is no way to prove one computer, one vote. PoW doesn't work by voting. It works by random chance. The only problem PoW solves is consensus on ordering.

Ah I grow weary in this thread.

U repeated exactly what I said.  And then didn't read my partial soln

Ahem, try reading again. You proposed proof-of-storage as a potential means to voting.

Prior proof-of-storage (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=310323.0) "wastes" storage like POW "wastes" CPU.  It proves that storage exists.  The proposal above proves that a unique copy of the blockchain is stored somewhere.  This is much more valuable than proof that storage exists so it is perhaps better named proof-of-full-node.  The reason you can't just rent hard disk space on AWS to fake this out is because you need to calculate the inverse hash for every byte of the blockchain, salted by your node id.  The designer can choose how hard this is so it could take (say) a normal computer 6 months to do the entire 5 year blockchain. So the proof of storage is backed by POW which makes it hard to calculate the values on-the-fly.  You could rent a bunch of AWS storage AND separately rent a supercomputer to individually calculate the hash-1 blockchain data, storing the result into AWS.  But if you do that, you actually HAVE N individual copies of the blockchain so would receive N votes.

Because I am basically arguing with myself here I will now criticize the approach's limitations.  It is possible that modifications to this approach could solve them:

1. "Difficulty" is chosen in advance, not dynamically.  This is problematic as processing power increases.
2. It takes a long time for a new node to become a provably "full" node.  Of course, nodes could become non-provably "full" nodes just by downloading the blockchain as is done today, and nodes could advertise themselves as partly provable, receiving a partial vote...
3. The provable blockchain could be constructed by many CPUs running in parallel... is this a problem?  If so we could force serialization by salting Xi with Xi-1.
4. The system functions as a real-time interactive proof.  There is no way store a historical proof that a node was full on date D.  Bitcoin-style POW+blockchain does store historical proof of computation power.

Okay I got it now (I was very fatigued before prior reply and you didn't give any high level description). It is a historic proof that an entity was winning PoW blocks. So basically you have to set a threshold as to what level of cumulative PoW difficulty constitutes a vote, thus a centralized party decides what class of voter is included.

This is representative governance, because the users can't vote and those with more PoW can vote more times (creating numerous sockpuppets). Representative governance is even more prone to capture by the Logic of Collective Action.

Bitcoin has no choice but to head these sort of perilous directions because the fundamental design is flawed.

If Bitcoin's design would scale without intervention, we wouldn't be seeing the need to do this.

I don't think you get it.  It is a proof that an entity is storing a UNIQUE copy of the blockchain.  What little prior PoS work I've read seems to prove that storage exists, or that a file is being stored.  Unfortunately they do not address the idea that you want to store a file in 2 places A & B and ensure that A & B are not in collusion and so the file is only stored one of the 2 locations.

Honestly I'm less interested in the BIP 100 voting scheme (and the usefulness of voting in general as a governance mechanism) as I am in healing the rift between miners and full nodes.  Clearly no-one is going to implement the above proposal for bitcoin just so full nodes can vote on BIP 100! :-)

If you are not talking about its utility for voting, then how can you say I don't get it, when I was responding to its utility for voting, since that is the context in which you sold your idea initially. And for voting it sucks as I explained because it is basically one vote for one hashrate. So you could simplify your idea into its functional equivalent which is a vote placed into each block, which is fundamentally what your idea does for voting (your idea adds the ability to scale up the threshold of how many blocks constitute one vote but I don't see how that is functionally any different than a threshold on the number of blocks of yes to constitute a yes vote).

Yes you could use one vote per block to vote for those who have stake. And I think that would be a horrendous design for the same reason I think PoS sucks compared to PoW, i.e. that the entropy (randomness) of the system is limited internally and thus is game-able. Whereas, PoW is only game-able from the 50% (actually 30% if propagation is an issue for selfish mining) vector, but I claim (awaiting peer review soon) that I have removed that attack vector from my design.

Apologies to rain on your design. You are obviously creative and contemplating new designs which I applaud. What happened to me is I started to think about the problem at a higher level of semantics and then I was able to make the breakthrough. Studying the math for selfish mining lead me to the concept that propagation delay was the enemy I was fighting.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 17, 2015, 03:40:26 PM
 #26692

Chomsky's confrontation with a truther idiot:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3i9ra-i6Knc

I watched it.

His arguments are:

1) If you don't do science through the establishment, then you are not doing science.

2) Only people trained in universities can be trusted to do peer review.

3) Bush was running the government (and not the DEEP STATE) and Bush's only objective was not "you are either for us or you are against us". He entirely sidesteps the point of 9/11 was to foist  "you are either for us or you are against us" on the entire world. And he substitutes a strawman, Hegelian dialectic for logic. He sidesteps the concept that the DEEP STATE plays many different elements against each other in order to retain control.

In short he is either knowingly acting as a gatekeeper, senile, or just not that smart. I would bet on the first conclusion.

freakying99
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 430


Pythagoras and Plato are my brothers.


View Profile
June 17, 2015, 04:02:59 PM
 #26693

I sold some btc this morning on localbitcoins and then went and bought 3 ounces of gold.
Did I make the right choice?
elux
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1458



View Profile
June 17, 2015, 04:15:16 PM
 #26694


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-17/greek-debt-committee-just-declared-all-debt-illegal-illegitimate-and-odious
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 17, 2015, 04:27:15 PM
 #26695


this doesn't look good to me:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 17, 2015, 04:46:29 PM
 #26696

I sold some btc this morning on localbitcoins and then went and bought 3 ounces of gold.
Did I make the right choice?

NO
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
June 17, 2015, 05:03:43 PM
 #26697

Chomsky's confrontation with a truther idiot:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3i9ra-i6Knc

I watched it.

His arguments are:

1) If you don't do science through the establishment, then you are not doing science.

2) Only people trained in universities can be trusted to do peer review.

3) Bush was running the government (and not the DEEP STATE) and Bush's only objective was not "you are either for us or you are against us". He entirely sidesteps the point of 9/11 was to foist  "you are either for us or you are against us" on the entire world. And he substitutes a strawman, Hegelian dialectic for logic. He sidesteps the concept that the DEEP STATE plays many different elements against each other in order to retain control.

In short he is either knowingly acting as a gatekeeper, senile, or just not that smart. I would bet on the first conclusion.

I'll agree with your bet.  Classic controlled opposition.  I have to think that Chomsky (and Kruggman) is fully aware of what 9/11 was all about but for whatever reason or set of reasons they believe that it is better to cover it up.  One of the strongest guesses about why this might be is that it is their job.

I'm not sure what the venue was, but one of the most amazing things I noticed was what the audience clapped about.  The programming to 'shut down' has been deeply and broadly implanted for sure.  As I continue to detach from the 'mainstream progressives', this is fast becoming the most disgusting attribute I notice in these people.


rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1149


View Profile
June 17, 2015, 05:54:00 PM
 #26698

JGarzik's proposal:
http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf
Wherein the central authority of developers to set block size is passed to the miners who vote (with the highs and lows dropped).

This seems to solve the issue of figuring out the right size a bit better than one person picking an arbitrary number.

It also moves the ball forward in automating the governance of the protocol.

There are a couple of things to like about this proposal.

The first is that miners voting on blocksize plus IBLT effectively guarantees the blocksize limit will be removed and the bitcoin MC will be allowed to scale as required. The reasoning is simple, IBLT only works if the majority of unconfirmed transactions are included in the next block. If transaction volume bumps against a blocksize limit, then a only a subset of transactions can be included in a block and the miner cannot transmit their block using IBLT and instead has to re-transmit the entire block, increasing the risk of being orphaned.

For example let's say that because of the blocksize limit, only 50% of unconfirmed transactions can be included in the block. Miners on the receiving end do not know which 50% of transactions are in the block and which 50% are not. This means they cannot use IBLT and have to transmit the entire block. However it is in miners' interest to use IBLT to reduce their orphan rate and because it enables them to easily include as many transactions as possible for fees.

Because of this it makes sense with IBLT that miners would favor keeping the blocksize limit high enough that it does act as a real limit, but rather constantly rises as needed to match user volume. It is essentially another way to get to Gavin's original proposal of doubling the limit every 2 years.

The second thing to like is it moves us toward the environment where miners themselves are voting on what bitcoin is. Not developers, not regulators, not users, not full nodes (which are subject to Sybil attacks), but miners who spend real work to vote.

It also will force pools to publicly announce their voting preferences, which in turns allows individual miners to see their preferences and decide which pool to switch to to match their own view. For example if most individual miners want to support larger blocks, but the larger chinese pools vote for 1MB limits, well we might just see miners switching to pools that match their views or that have the capability to grow properly. It brings back the true market, which this dev fight shows we don't have right now.

Personally I like this proposal the best right now.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 17, 2015, 05:59:20 PM
 #26699

JGarzik's proposal:
http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf
Wherein the central authority of developers to set block size is passed to the miners who vote (with the highs and lows dropped).

This seems to solve the issue of figuring out the right size a bit better than one person picking an arbitrary number.

It also moves the ball forward in automating the governance of the protocol.

There are a couple of things to like about this proposal.

The first is that miners voting on blocksize plus IBLT effectively guarantees the blocksize limit will be removed and the bitcoin MC will be allowed to scale as required. The reasoning is simple, IBLT only works if the majority of unconfirmed transactions are included in the next block. If transaction volume bumps against a blocksize limit, then a only a subset of transactions can be included in a block and the miner cannot transmit their block using IBLT and instead has to re-transmit the entire block, increasing the risk of being orphaned.

For example let's say that because of the blocksize limit, only 50% of unconfirmed transactions can be included in the block. Miners on the receiving end do not know which 50% of transactions are in the block and which 50% are not. This means they cannot use IBLT and have to transmit the entire block. However it is in miners' interest to use IBLT to reduce their orphan rate and because it enables them to easily include as many transactions as possible for fees.

Because of this it makes sense with IBLT that miners would favor keeping the blocksize limit high enough that it does act as a real limit, but rather constantly rises as needed to match user volume. It is essentially another way to get to Gavin's original proposal of doubling the limit every 2 years.

The second thing to like is it moves us toward the environment where miners themselves are voting on what bitcoin is. Not developers, not regulators, not users, not full nodes (which are subject to Sybil attacks), but miners who spend real work to vote.

It also will force pools to publicly announce their voting preferences, which in turns allows individual miners to see their preferences and decide which pool to switch to to match their own view. For example if most individual miners want to support larger blocks, but the larger chinese pools vote for 1MB limits, well we might just see miners switching to pools that match their views or that have the capability to grow properly. It brings back the true market, which this dev fight shows we don't have right now.

Personally I like this proposal the best right now.

the only problem with voting is that it seems to me that that could be gamed in some way. also, miners aren't forced to follow the results of a vote.  maybe better to leave voting out all together?  just set an automatic adjustment increase and let the market players adapt around it.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 17, 2015, 06:00:40 PM
 #26700

big move in mkts.

must have been an FOMC anncmt...
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 ... 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!