Bitcoin Forum
December 04, 2016, 08:41:24 PM *
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 ... 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 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1804285 times)
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 19, 2015, 12:31:14 PM
 #26861

Doctor doctor, what is wrong with me?
This supermarket life, is getting long
What is the heart life of a color TV?
What is the shelf life of a teenage queen?
Ooh Western Woman
Ooh Western Girl

Hey I escaped from that culture (perhaps to something different only in superficial appearances?) in my 20s. I remember getting annoyed in my girl friend's apartment because she and her roommates where watching some sitcom that was treating us like we had an IQ of 90. After that, I think I rarely watched TV again, perhaps just only sporting events.

You will never change the fact that the center of the bell curve has the propensity to be sheep.

The only thing we can truly accomplish is to push the power to the ends of the social+technology network, so that the sheep can't cause centralized contagion.

If you succeed to accomplish a complete wipeout of technology (e.g. NSA power derives from your support of environmentalism) and resource dispersion (e.g. your religious battle against carbon), you will get instead a horrific outcome w.r.t. to the human species.

P.S. I edited my prior post.


The risk you are failing to attribute to gold is that you won't be able to find any where to sell it.

The government will close down all black markets when they move us to electronic money.

Black markets can only exist where the mainstream money is not trackable. Ponder that.

Your only chance to not lose all your wealth will be an anonymous crypto-currency. Remember I warned you and you didn't listen.

Why would someone who has anonymous crypto-currency want to trade it for gold wherein they risk their anonymity in a sting operation. Duh.

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
June 19, 2015, 12:42:53 PM
 #26862

Peter Todd again. I don't like this.

Quote
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.  

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106


View Profile
June 19, 2015, 01:45:26 PM
 #26863

Peter Todd again. I don't like this.

Quote
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.  

me neither.

that said I've collected a few resources in a "read-later" fashion, with the aim to eventually understand Todd's reasons, here's a partial list:

http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/32276657/
http://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg06992.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg07122.html
https://medium.com/@octskyward/replace-by-fee-43edd9a1dd6d


Fwiw f2pool representative just post in the aforementioned thread:

Quote from: Chun Wang on btc dev lsit
Hello. We recognize the problem. We will switch to FSS RBF (*) soon. Thanks.

(*) FSS RBF =  first-seen-safe RBF



Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
June 19, 2015, 01:50:24 PM
 #26864


Fwiw f2pool representative just post in the aforementioned thread:

Quote from: Chun Wang on btc dev lsit
Hello. We recognize the problem. We will switch to FSS RBF (*) soon. Thanks.

(*) FSS RBF =  first-seen-safe RBF


Yay, I'm happy!  First-seen-safe RBF is fine by me Smiley

(Although I think child-pays-parent solves all the problems with "stuck transactions" in a more elegant way.)  

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 19, 2015, 02:00:43 PM
 #26865


Afaics, some hair-brained idea to attempt to discourage double-spends within a 0-confirmation interval (or n-confirmations of an orphaned chain).

The only way to deal with double-spends within this interval is to trust the reports from a majority of the P2P network and assume that is what will be in the winning chain.

All these other ideas will just be worse. Todd so far (in the few instances I've come across his logic) has not impressed me as being an astute designer and developer.

However, my assumptions could be wrong if there are other complex (and fragile!) rules being employed in the P2P network w.r.t. to transaction ordering. I do expect Bitcoin to become a fragile, broken spaghetti. This is what happens from design-by-kitchen-soup consensus.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 19, 2015, 03:53:12 PM
 #26866

what's laughable as hell is Adam accusing Mike of a financial conflict of interest in 20MB blocks.  now it's clear to me why he never got Bitcoin until mid 2013:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3aeow8/blockstream_has_a_very_serious_conflict_of/
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
June 19, 2015, 05:02:41 PM
 #26867

Peter Todd again. I don't like this.

Quote
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.  
I deleted my last post in this thread because after some reflection I thought there was a chance I was being unfair to Peter Todd and the post was unhelpfully inflammitory.

Then, not ten minutes later, he and his supporters confirm exactly what I said on the mailing list.

They want to intentionally break native Bitcoin transactions to punish anyone who doesn't adopt Proofchains.

Users are not to be allowed to make their own risk assessments and adopt Proofchains if and only if they think it's the best solution for their particular problem based on their own judgement - they need to be forced into a better solution because Peter Todd knows best for them.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1974


View Profile
June 19, 2015, 05:26:12 PM
 #26868

Peter Todd again. I don't like this.

Quote
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.  
...
Is there some benefit to RBF that I'm missing?  This seems like a reckless policy.  
...
They want to intentionally break native Bitcoin transactions to punish anyone who doesn't adopt Proofchains.
...

RBF... Sweet!

The howls of rage by people who have been trying to pretend that Bitcoin is not a batch system and papering this fact over with insecure shitware, propaganda, and ignorance is hugely amusing.

The solution is simple, and looks like it should be available in a more robust form than I imagined sooner than I anticipate.  That is, use a sidecoin that is designed to support the use-case properly if they need real-time behavior.


justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
June 19, 2015, 05:33:50 PM
 #26869

The howls of rage by people who have been trying to pretend that Bitcoin is not a batch system and papering this fact over with insecure shitware, propaganda, and ignorance is hugely amusing.

The solution is simple, and looks like it should be available in a more robust form than I imagined sooner than I anticipate.  That is, use a sidecoin that is designed to support the use-case properly if they need real-time behavior.
What actually happened is that when F2Pool realized they had been mislead about the effects of the change, they promptly reverted it.

Because, unlike the spherical cow models the game theorists are always using, they value the long term value of their investment rather than the short term benefit of gaining a few extra pennies on each block.

Incentives do work after all.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 19, 2015, 05:39:29 PM
 #26870


...but rather just postulating how long a cat might be entertained with an acorn versus a grasshopper, I retort that the elite have no time to play with any of us who are not leaders of thousands, and they will expend no time to classify us differently than Zarathustra. The only people worth their attention are those who command significant following, wealth, or some uber technology such as Armstrong's supercomputer model. Also my model of the culling is a long and slow burn into totalitarianism. These collapses take decades to morph into genocide. The timing for the next Great Depression to start is Oct 2015 (that will correspond to 1929). Remember how many years from that until the killings fields began at the hands of the Nazis.

Long years of leisure and boredom await those at the top of the pyramid if they pulled it off.  All I can say, and all I said, is that if 'I' were an elite I would anticipate this and tune my selection criteria accordingly.

They are going to be plenty preoccupied trying to hold their top-down system together because I believe there will be an alternative system take hold that is competing with them entirely outside their sphere of control capabilities. They competed for control against geographical frontiers in the past, and now they will compete against technological frontiers, namely decentralization, open-source Inverse Commons, and anonymity.

Realize these frontiers are particularly threatening to them because their own top-ranking members parasite and divert flows to the frontiers secretly. In short, I think I will get a lot of private support from the TPTB for my new ecosystem, but in public they will fight me ("you don't shit where you eat"). Wink Cool Tongue

Also the circumstances are different in that Asia and not the USA is the safe haven for this coming transition, but Asia is already highly top-down structured in many respects.

America probably needs to get much closer to a Chinese style totalitarian regime before things can go without a hitch, and I sense many of our leaders drooling at the thought of such a panacea.  You might take the time to look up some of James Corbett's  work on the relationship between the U.S. and China (and the FSU) if you've not done so.  The hypotheses he proposes are intriguing.

In America the totalitarianism is political correctness (ideology and inflexibility) and in China it is political connections (pragmatism).

I expect the collapse from 2017 to 2020 to be a chaotic period of massive disruption (bank failures, technological unemployment accelerated by bankruptcy of old paradigms that were held up by debt, massive new job opportunities in virtual online work that most people are not qualified to do), where the young asians will excel because they are already accustomed to massive sacrifices and far away travel to obtain employment. Everybody in asia will be on the move (new training centers, moving to where internet connectivity is best, etc). Whereas, the boomers will hunker down and take drugs to escape from change. The West is stagnant and will collapse into a zombie State.

The Asian governments won't need to institute much totalitarianism because their debts are small and their populations are young and flexible. The main threats are coming from the NE Asians, i.e. the Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans. But Japan is ready to have its final whirlwind default then bottom and leverage the rest of Asia going back up. S.Korea will take a hit, but they too can leverage the rest of Asia. China will exert totalitarianism externally with expansionism over the coming Asia Union. The main problem in Asia now is China's appetite for power. We will see Japan+USA attempting to hold China in check, but behind the scenes this is power sharing agreement to foist increased control over the subject Asians by this new Troika.

So all-in-all I see Asia adopting electronic currency and other NWO edicts, but being otherwise the most dynamic area. The financial capital of the world will shift from West to East.

Putin is starting to get it:

Putin’s Speech – Tax Free Corporates for 4 Years




The likely reason Asia was higher than Europe before the Black Death is because Europe collapsed having too a high a population for the available agricultural work, thus there was no incentive to innovate and wages were in deflation. Whereas Asia was growing rice which is very labor intensive thus wages were not in deflation. After the Black Death wiped out 60% of Europe's population, then labor was scarce and innovation increased and the Industrial Revolution overtook Asia. I learned this from Nick Szabo's blog.


I suspect most of the widespread death (if it comes) will be due to perhaps a pandemic, which Armstrong's model has targeted for 2019.

Westerners  will have relied on the government and environmentalism and feminism to save them, and won't have the tools to save themselves. We saw that during Katrina in 2006 and that was not a pandemic.

Why own a generator because that pollutes with carbon! Why learn how to make ethanol, because that does not power an electric motor, etc..

Another source of great culling can be letting boomers rot in Obamacare rationed hospice. I offer the VA scandal as a test run example.

I've long felt that a pandemic is a no-brainer for culling.  Effective, selective, and relatively humane...I don't see any reason why most of the elites would be excessively cruel for no good reason.  I mean they are not God!

If the 'elite' don't get us with a biological agents one of their crackpot minions who's been brainwashed into an anti-humanic frenzy probably will eventually.  A single post-doc with some lab equipment could probably pull it off at this point.

The pandemic serves the purpose of creating a need for government to organize quarantines, etc.. It encourages world government level cooperation.


Silver is headed below $12 and gold below $1050.

The reason for that is the strong Dollar.

No. You will see the private assets rise with the dollar after October.

The reason is because there is a mad rush into the short end of the bond curve in Europe as the contagion there develops into the BIG BANG in October (which btw has been predicting by Armstrong since 1985 when he first published his model's prediction!).

Understand that capital chases capital, because it heads where the prices are rising the fastest.

So this is sucking capital out of other assets.

Also during a contagion, the most liquid (not leveraged assets) are sold first.

This coming low in private assets is to set up their massive rise after the BIG BANG in October.

Patel
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176



View Profile WWW
June 19, 2015, 05:59:18 PM
 #26871

Out of all the threads on this forum, I think this is the most resourceful for discussion on maxblocksize, blockstream, hard fork, and other arguments.

So thanks to contributers for posting comments on these issues.

Off topic, I'd like to point out that Bitcoin is actually at it's most vulnerable state for the next year. With Blockstream's Confidential Transactions and Elements, a hard fork, lots of internal controversy, and a block halving, now is the perfect time for opposition to do their damage to Bitcoin and how CT will anonymize transactions in the sidechains.



Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1554



View Profile
June 19, 2015, 06:13:35 PM
 #26872

The howls of rage by people who have been trying to pretend that Bitcoin is not a batch system and papering this fact over with insecure shitware, propaganda, and ignorance is hugely amusing.

The solution is simple, and looks like it should be available in a more robust form than I imagined sooner than I anticipate.  That is, use a sidecoin that is designed to support the use-case properly if they need real-time behavior.
What actually happened is that when F2Pool realized they had been mislead about the effects of the change, they promptly reverted it.

Because, unlike the spherical cow models the game theorists are always using, they value the long term value of their investment rather than the short term benefit of gaining a few extra pennies on each block.

Incentives do work after all.


+1.

Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.
But Bitcointalk & /r/bitcoin are heavily censored. bitco.in/forum, forum.bitcoin.com, and /r/btc are open.
Best info on Casascius coins: http://spotcoins.com/casascius
Natalia_AnatolioPAMM
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile WWW
June 19, 2015, 06:39:51 PM
 #26873



Eliminating mankind entirely may be your lunatic goal, but that particular goal is very, very, very difficult to achieve. Entropy is not on your side.


Mankind along with many other species is already nearly entirely eliminated by the society, which does not represent mankind. Society/collectivism is a cancerous, proliferous cartoon of mankind. It is a pandemic disease. My goal is the rebirth of mankind. The society/collectivism is something to be overcome.


Doctor doctor, what is wrong with me?
This supermarket life, is getting long
What is the heart life of a color TV?
What is the shelf life of a teenage queen?
Ooh Western Woman
Ooh Western Girl

News hound sniffs the air
When Jessica Hahn goes down
He latches onto that symbol of detachment
Attracted by the peeling way of feeling
The celebrity of the abused shell, the belle
Ooh Western Woman
Ooh Western Girl

The children on Melrose strut their stuff
Is absolute zero cold enough?
And out in the valley, warm and clean
The little ones sit by the TV screen

No thoughts to think
No tears to cry
All sucked dry
Down to the very last breath

Bartender what is wrong with me?
Why am I so out of breath?
The captain said 'Excuse me ma'am'
'This species has amused itself to death'

Amused itself to death
It has amused itself to death
Amused itself to death

We watched the tragedy unfold
We did as we were told, bought and sold
It was the greatest show on Earth
But then it was over

We oohed and ahhed
We drove our racing cars
We ate our last few jars of caviar
And somewhere out there in the stars
A keen eyed lookout spied a flickering light
Our last hurrah
Our last hurrah

And when they found our shadows
Groups 'round the TV sets
They ran down every lead
They repeated every test
They checked out all the data on their list
And then
The alien anthropologists
Admitted they were still perplexed
But on eliminating every other reason for our sad demise
They logged the only explanation left
This species has amused itself to death


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-P614lmP3Y&list=RDK-P614lmP3Y#t=25

i love the song!!

Earn money when BTC crashes - join BTC-E PAMM
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 19, 2015, 06:40:29 PM
 #26874

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114530/bitcoin-wallet-software-providers-express-support-for-block-size-increase

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37y8wm/list_of_bitcoin_services_that_supportoppose/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3947ck/multiple_polls_results_regarding_bitcoin/
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1974


View Profile
June 19, 2015, 06:56:20 PM
 #26875

The howls of rage by people who have been trying to pretend that Bitcoin is not a batch system and papering this fact over with insecure shitware, propaganda, and ignorance is hugely amusing.

The solution is simple, and looks like it should be available in a more robust form than I imagined sooner than I anticipate.  That is, use a sidecoin that is designed to support the use-case properly if they need real-time behavior.

What actually happened is that when F2Pool realized they had been mislead about the effects of the change, they promptly reverted it.

Because, unlike the spherical cow models the game theorists are always using, they value the long term value of their investment rather than the short term benefit of gaining a few extra pennies on each block.

Incentives do work after all.

Hey, if my competition wants to pound a square peg into a round hole with a sledgehammer why should I let that bother me?

Looks like about 20-25% of people understand Bitcoin as I do whether they are new arrivals or otherwise.  I really do see some utility in a fracture along this fault line and believe that it could be the best thing which could happen for the eco-system.  Especially if it is not a complete surprise.

Developments to leverage Bitcoin in the capacity where it makes sense are at this point mature enough that they won't be going away at least as a template form.  I'll look for timing of problems to coincide with a period when Bitcoin could otherwise be of real value to people.  Specifically when people most need and ex-mainstream means of wealth preservation.  That would be unfortunate but it is sometimes impractical to win every battle and those who are clued in will still be able to make some use of it.


kazuki49
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350



View Profile
June 19, 2015, 06:59:58 PM
 #26876

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.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 19, 2015, 07:03:32 PM
 #26877

One of the more amazing actions:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3aei7c/heres_what_the_canadian_senate_just_put_in_the/
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 19, 2015, 07:08:37 PM
 #26878

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.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1974


View Profile
June 19, 2015, 07:23:32 PM
 #26879

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.

Matonis 'came around' several years ago, and likely induced various other power-players to do the same.  It was one of the things that kept me interested in and hopeful for Bitcoin.  I doubt that the guy will suffer a regression...unless some sort of flaw can be exploited...


smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
June 19, 2015, 08:23:07 PM
 #26880

Peter Todd again. I don't like this.

Quote
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.

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.

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.

However, this too only works if mining is diffuse (essentially homogenous) because otherwise you can conspire with a miner to refund part of the fee back to you under the table.

So rbf is largely pointless, and at this point indeed is an instance of the ongoing philosophical debate over whether Bitcoin should be a real time ecommerce payment system or a batch settlement system.


Pages: « 1 ... 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 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 ... 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!