Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[ssmc2]

Comparing a successful fork to a runaway sidechain.

A chain fork, while painful, will succeed only if the fork is better than the original. A bitcoiner need only do nothing to join the fork.

A sidechain will either be less valuable and therefore be very small, or more valuable and therefore run away. A bitcoiner might be left behind, unless he converts to the sidechain in time.

I prefer a chain fork to a runaway sidechain.

Runaway sidechain never goin back,
Wrong way on a one way track

[1714211959]

1714211959

[1714211959]

1714211959

[1714211959]

1714211959

[1714211959]

1714211959

[1714211959]

1714211959

[smooth]

Comparing a successful fork to a runaway sidechain.

A chain fork, while painful, will succeed only if the fork is better than the original. A bitcoiner need only do nothing to join the fork.

A sidechain will either be less valuable and therefore be very small, or more valuable and therefore run away. A bitcoiner might be left behind, unless he converts to the sidechain in time.

I prefer a chain fork to a runaway sidechain.

Yes, chain fork = (Peter R's) spin off, though the latter carries a connotation of being done in a somewhat less chaotic fashion. As I said before, spin offs make a lot more sense than side chains as a way to (potentially) upgrade bitcoin. Even Adam's one-way pegs are better than side chains, but spin offs are better than one way pegs.

[kazuki49]

https://twitter.com/jonmatonis/status/611844197331693568

the best part about being right about whats beyond the curve is watch others come to the same conclusion you did after being ejected from the initial conversations by your suppose peers.

Don't get smug. Scroll down to where Jon favorites several of my counter argument tweets. He'll come around. He just hasn't been following the technical discussions.

Don't get smug. Your tweets, like your posts, have nothing of exceptional. Do you realize how schizophrenic you sound here:



Who told you poor folks that increasing block size will magically increase the userbase? It will do exactly the opposite to Bitcoin, almost no one will be able to run nodes themselves. Derpyt Dorpity.

anyway here's where I end with one of my favorite saying around these places: talking about bitcoin, even in group, do not make you part of bitcoin.

[cypherdoc]

I'm a Monero Pimp

there are many good reasons to think nodes will go up as userbase increases.  none of which you understand no doubt.

[dHe_zHiq]

Which is a good investment, investing with bitcoin or gold, what is your reason?

[TPTB_need_war]

This only works if mining is homogeneous throughout the network, which is very much not how Bitcoin exists today. Otherwise it is up to the policies of a few individual (large) miners how likely a transaction is to get mined, not an emergent property of network propagation.

Disagree. If nodes are following a policy of first seen, then the necessary attribute is an emergent property of network propagation.

If you are arguing that mining clients won't follow the sane rule of first seen, then you are arguing against the Bitcoin model of mutual incentive to hold the entire economic concept together.

The motivation behind replace-by-fee is not to just go and break things, as detractors argue. It is to make instant payments safer by removing the incentive to double spend. The reason being that if you can double spend by increasing the fee, the recipient can too. The result is a bidding war where the entire amount gets burned in fees, and you gain nothing, removing the incentive to double spend in the first place.

Whereas afaics (?), Todd's proposal doesn't help the recipient who already delivered the goods (the spender can burn up the recipient's payment out-of-spite just to destroy Bitcoin), which was the entire point of 0-confirmations in the first place.

[TPTB_need_war]

Comparing a successful fork to a runaway sidechain.

A chain fork, while painful, will succeed only if the fork is better than the original. A bitcoiner need only do nothing to join the fork.

A sidechain will either be less valuable and therefore be very small, or more valuable and therefore run away. A bitcoiner might be left behind, unless he converts to the sidechain in time.

I prefer a chain fork to a runaway sidechain.

Yes, chain fork = (Peter R's) spin off, though the latter carries a connotation of being done in a somewhat less chaotic fashion. As I said before, spin offs make a lot more sense than side chains as a way to (potentially) upgrade bitcoin. Even Adam's one-way pegs are better than side chains, but spin offs are better than one way pegs.

But Blockstream's two-way pegged side chains don't runaway from your BTC value. Thus they are best, because they are not all-or-nothing choices, you can go back and forth, and your BTC value is protected.

[TPTB_need_war]

One of the more amazing actions:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3aei7c/heres_what_the_canadian_senate_just_put_in_the/

Oh so very NWO-ish (your local laws will be marked valid or invalid by the world governing authority because you must register them in a public block chain where they can be marked for everyone to follow). And you applaud it.  

[lunarboy]

This should be interesting to watch,

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3agk61/ultimate_bitcoin_stress_test_monday_june_22nd/

By 14:00 GMT Monday June 22, the mempool of standard fee transactions will be 10mb By 24:00 GMT Monday June 22nd, the mempool of standard fee transactions will be 130mb By 13:00 GMT Tuesday June 22rd, the mempool of standard fee transactions will be 241mb

At this point the backlog of transactions will be approximately 241 blocks, or 1.67 days. When the average new transactions are factored into the equation, the backlog could drag on for 2-3 days. At this point, questions are raised such as whether or not this will cause a "crash landing." It is impossible to know with certainty, however we are anxiously looking forward to Monday.

[solex]

Peter Todd again. I don't like this.

Yesterday F2Pool, currently the largest pool with 21% of the hashing power, enabled full replace-by-fee (RBF) support after discussions with me. This means that transactions that F2Pool has will be replaced if a conflicting transaction pays a higher fee. There are no requirements for the replacement transaction to pay addresses that were paid by the previous transaction.

http://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg08422.html

I've never understood Peter Todd's rationale for promoting replace-by-fee.  

The way Bitcoin was designed, if a node sees a second transaction that spends an output already spent by a previous transaction, it ignores the second transaction.  The result is that the second (and in most cases, fraudulent) transaction propagates to very few nodes and has little chance of being mined into a block.  If the entire network applies this policy homogeneously, double-spending zero-confirm transactions is very difficult, especially if merchants just wait a few second to monitor the propagation of the TX with a well-connected listening node.

What Peter Todd's "replace-by-fee" support does, is allows any unconfirmed transaction to be removed from a node's mempool if a conflicting transaction, received after the original transaction, pays a higher fee.  If all nodes in the network adopted this policy, it would make zero-confirm transactions trivially-easy to double spend.  

Is there some benefit to RBF that I'm missing?  This seems like a reckless policy.  

Peter Todd's promotion of replace-by-fee scorched-earth is an attempt to keep the 1MB by the "back door", an attempt to realize the "Bitcoin as digital gold only for high-value transactions" dream. The effect of this change is to eliminate small purchases e.g. for cups of coffee, which require a workable zero-conf environment. Buying a car where the parties can wait for block confirmations would still be fine. He says that "zero-conf never worked" yet BitPay's business model repeatedly proves this false, every hour of every day.

I summarize my feelings here with:
Bitcoin as digital gold only for high-value transactions is a castle built upon quicksand. Bitcoin as digital gold for all transactions, where fiat is normally used, is a castle built upon solid rock.

Edit: this is interesting wrt tx vols:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ag3jr/number_of_bitcoin_transactions_follows_cubic_trend/

[justusranvier]

This should be interesting to watch,

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3agk61/ultimate_bitcoin_stress_test_monday_june_22nd/

By 14:00 GMT Monday June 22, the mempool of standard fee transactions will be 10mb By 24:00 GMT Monday June 22nd, the mempool of standard fee transactions will be 130mb By 13:00 GMT Tuesday June 22rd, the mempool of standard fee transactions will be 241mb

At this point the backlog of transactions will be approximately 241 blocks, or 1.67 days. When the average new transactions are factored into the equation, the backlog could drag on for 2-3 days. At this point, questions are raised such as whether or not this will cause a "crash landing." It is impossible to know with certainty, however we are anxiously looking forward to Monday.

The SatoshiDice stress tess was a lot better than this plan.

At least the capacity problems they caused were from actual customers receving a service for which they were willing to pay rather than admitted spam.

[smooth]

Comparing a successful fork to a runaway sidechain.

A chain fork, while painful, will succeed only if the fork is better than the original. A bitcoiner need only do nothing to join the fork.

A sidechain will either be less valuable and therefore be very small, or more valuable and therefore run away. A bitcoiner might be left behind, unless he converts to the sidechain in time.

I prefer a chain fork to a runaway sidechain.

Yes, chain fork = (Peter R's) spin off, though the latter carries a connotation of being done in a somewhat less chaotic fashion. As I said before, spin offs make a lot more sense than side chains as a way to (potentially) upgrade bitcoin. Even Adam's one-way pegs are better than side chains, but spin offs are better than one way pegs.

But Blockstream's two-way pegged side chains don't runaway from your BTC value. Thus they are best, because they are not all-or-nothing choices, you can go back and forth, and your BTC value is protected.

I consider the entire scheme unstable and unsound, and quite plausibly will never even be implemented (in other than federated form, at which point it instead becomes uninteresting).

Spin offs are not an all-or-nothing choice. You can simply do nothing and perpetually retain the full value of your original holdings. In the case where a spin off actually goes somewhere (retains non-trivial value for some non-trvial period of time), for new holdings/transactions you can do the same by acquiring/selling a bundle consisting of equal (or proportional in general) amounts of each coin (or wallets and tools can do this automatically as long as the outcome remains unclear).

At the leading edge of the block size ruckus, someone on this thread (although I don't remember who it was), reinvented the same concept starting with the idea of a chain fork. The idea being to improve the tools so that chain forks can occur sanely and the contentious political debates such as the block size can be avoided and left to the market instead.

Of course, a fair criticism of this is the requirement to develop and deploy better tools for users to transact using multiple chains. However, sidechains require the same sort of development and deployment.

EDIT: I suppose one way SPV sidechains could be implemented would be with a non-consensus chain fork i.e. spin-off. So there is that.

[tvbcof]

Peter Todd's promotion of replace-by-fee scorched-earth is an attempt to keep the 1MB by the "back door", an attempt to realize the "Bitcoin as digital gold only for high-value transactions" dream. The effect of this change is to eliminate small purchases e.g. for cups of coffee, which require a workable zero-conf environment. Buying a car where the parties can wait for block confirmations would still be fine. He says that "zero-conf never worked" yet BitPay's business model repeatedly proves this false, every hour of every day.

How unsurprising to see you so upset about a method of creating an actual market for transaction processing.  What will the welfare bums do if without commies like you to make sure they have low-cost or free access under a highly subsidized exchange currency to buy their energy drinks (converted from fiat that came out of my pocket complements of the State's own transfer of wealth schemes.)

I summarize my feelings here with:
Bitcoin as digital gold only for high-value transactions is a castle built upon quicksand. Bitcoin as digital gold for all transactions, where fiat is normally used, is a castle built upon solid rock.

As soon as enough people can be squeezed, fungibility can be attacked by tainting.  This would be trivial to do through the mainstream legal system entirely independent of the protocol, code, infrastructure operators, etc.  The only necessary ingredient is a mass of sheep using the system so that a reasonable segment of the user-base is responsive to differential value attacks.  Building this userbase is where you and cypherdoc come in handy.

Your solution for the core value foundation is not even built on quicksand.  It's built on a completely imaginary cloud.  The ONLY thing holding the disaster back at this moment is that the attackers are smart enough not to jump to soon and are giving you some time to do your work.

[cypherdoc]

 Building this userbase is where you and cypherdoc come in handy.

yep, you got it butthead.

build it across Africa, SE Asia, Russia, & the Middle East.  all territories in which your authoritarianism is impotent.

[tvbcof]

Building this userbase is where you and cypherdoc come in handy.

yep, you got it butthead.

build it across Africa, SE Asia, Russia, & the Middle East.  all territories in which your authoritarianism is impotent.

Kumbaya my Node*, Kumbaya.

_{(*) high bandwidth required.  All others use Multibitch.}

[Cconvert2G36]

Building this userbase is where you and cypherdoc come in handy.

yep, you got it butthead.

build it across Africa, SE Asia, Russia, & the Middle East.  all territories in which your authoritarianism is impotent.

Kumbaya my Node*, Kumbaya.

_{(*) high bandwidth required.  All others use Multibitch.}

A full node on every cell phone, a chicken in every pot.

[2112]

At the leading edge of the block size ruckus, someone on this thread (although I don't remember who it was), reinvented the same concept starting with the idea of a chain fork. The idea being to improve the tools so that chain forks can occur sanely and the contentious political debates such as the block size can be avoided and left to the market instead.

Of course, a fair criticism of this is the requirement to develop and deploy better tools for users to transact using multiple chains. However, sidechains require the same sort of development and deployment.

Well, I proposed and published the idea of "digital prospectus" and its "amendments" here on this forum late in 2011.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=54382.0

I wore this in my forum signature since then.

As one would expect, the developers actually don't want to be held to their word of "not changing" or "changing only for better" when there are means to actually set those promises in the "cryptographic stone" as opposed to the present state-of-the-art "pinky swear".

It is up to investors to force the developers to behave, not vice-versa.

[cypherdoc]

follow this conversation and you'll realize who and what we're having to deal with:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3agk61/ultimate_bitcoin_stress_test_monday_june_22nd/cscgdwy

[tvbcof]

A full node on every cell phone, a chicken in every pot.

LOL!  I like it!

Actually, one of my rationals for keeping Bitcoin lite and tight is that I could see users getting a significant break on some sidchain implementations if they supported the Bitcoin network as something of a tag-along even if they never needed to use it natively.

Even if sidechains are lazy and will let others do the work of securing the backing store (which must be assumed for design purposes) I could imagine sidechains themselves needing to compete with one another to exercise their pegging operations against the mainchain in a timely manner.  If their own userbase were supporting Bitcoin this could give them an extra advantage over simply paying reasonable fees.

I'll mention again that in efficient sidechain implementations, a single backing store adjustment (Bitcoin transaction) might reflect many thousands of underlying user-level transactions.  Thus, users really could pay a trivial fee.  The economics of native Bitcoin support are then equivalent as a low-use backing store and a high use 'one-size-fits-all' scenario it just that the risk of centralization is just about the opposite.  Indeed, various sidechains can target different (and sometimes mutually exclusive) market segments so mass utilization rates could be much higher (along with the reward for supporting native Bitcoin of course.)

[TPTB_need_war]

follow this conversation and you'll realize who and what we're having to deal with:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3agk61/ultimate_bitcoin_stress_test_monday_june_22nd/cscgdwy

You are dealing with someone who is technically correct (but politically naive):

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3agk61/ultimate_bitcoin_stress_test_monday_june_22nd/cscmlla