Bitcoin Forum
May 25, 2017, 03:24:34 AM *
News: If the forum does not load normally for you, please send me a traceroute.
 
   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 ... 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 1395 1396 ... 1559 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1903056 times)
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142


View Profile
June 20, 2015, 06:02:52 AM
 #26901


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.)


1495682674
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1495682674

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1495682674
Reply with quote  #2

1495682674
Report to moderator
1495682674
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1495682674

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1495682674
Reply with quote  #2

1495682674
Report to moderator
1495682674
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1495682674

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1495682674
Reply with quote  #2

1495682674
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1495682674
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1495682674

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1495682674
Reply with quote  #2

1495682674
Report to moderator
1495682674
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1495682674

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1495682674
Reply with quote  #2

1495682674
Report to moderator
1495682674
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1495682674

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1495682674
Reply with quote  #2

1495682674
Report to moderator
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 20, 2015, 06:04:02 AM
 #26902

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

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 20, 2015, 06:11:58 AM
 #26903

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).

Because of the vulnerability of the network to 50% attacks? But what if a side chain isn't vulnerable to 50% attacks. Any other reasons you think it is unstable and unsound?

Why is federated uninteresting? The masses don't give a hoot about theoretical decentralization (otherwise they wouldn't buy Bitcoin nor Monero nor any other existing cryptocoin in first place because none are theoretical sound decentralization).

Whose leg are we pulling here.

muhrohmat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252


View Profile
June 20, 2015, 06:12:15 AM
 #26904

well the quimical value we give to bitcoin like rock gold etc its related to our induced apreciation for money insted for instances other things and that can be very high yes like more than gold soo its possible the rise

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 20, 2015, 06:17:18 AM
 #26905


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.

A full node in every stick of bubble gum, and a whole earth in every pot.*

* when the hacker humor goes opaque, they shouldn't know they are being ridiculed.


OMG  Shocked:     Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1166666 times)

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428



View Profile
June 20, 2015, 09:06:25 AM
 #26906

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).

Because of the vulnerability of the network to 50% attacks? But what if a side chain isn't vulnerable to 50% attacks.

In that case, assuming other more serious compromises aren't made, then your system is simply far superior to Bitcoin. You should replace it and not carry the Bitcoin system around as unnecessary and uncompetitive overhead.

Quote
Any other reasons you think it is unstable and unsound?

Economically I don't believe that two different assets can be successfully pegged to the same price, especially not in a decentralized manner (though doing it in a centralized manner also likely fails to a version of the calculation problem). If you extrapolate from this premise, it is clear that various failure modes are inevitable, some quite catastrophic. But possibly people are mostly smart enough to stay clear of the whole thing in which case the failure mode is non-catestrophic (a whimper not a bang).

Quote
Why is federated uninteresting? The masses don't give a hoot about theoretical decentralization (otherwise they wouldn't buy Bitcoin nor Monero nor any other existing cryptocoin in first place because none are theoretical sound decentralization).

Whose leg are we pulling here.

I don't really care what the masses buy, except in so far as I can successfully front run them.

Non-decentralized systems are uninteresting because there are many well known ways to implement them that don't have the cost and performance compromises nor the user-unfriendliness of blockchains.
lunarboy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 544



View Profile
June 20, 2015, 11:59:50 AM
 #26907

This should be interesting to watch,

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

Quote
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.

Agreed, but with a permission-less ledger nobody can or should be able to stop them. So if the protocol breaks from a $300/hour usage test it wasn't worth much to begin with. Time to address the issues and and scale up.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
June 20, 2015, 12:21:01 PM
 #26908

So if the protocol breaks from a $300/hour usage test it wasn't worth much to begin with.
Of course the protocol is not going to break. Does anyone thing it will?

It's not about the protocol or the network.
lunarboy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 544



View Profile
June 20, 2015, 02:17:48 PM
 #26909

So if the protocol breaks from a $300/hour usage test it wasn't worth much to begin with.
Of course the protocol is not going to break. Does anyone thing it will?

It's not about the protocol or the network.

Ok break, is a little harsh. The usage of the term depends on the same structural divides currently splintering the development. Namely, what is the protocol/network for? It will be broken under this stress test WRT micro transactions, as they will be crowded out due to cost.

I don't want to comment further on this as I don't feel qualified to pass judgement. I do feel it's an interesting development, and am intrigued to see where the chips land afterwards. Will certain peoples standpoints soften? Will it spark some development compromise? Or is the whole idea some sort of scam to somehow make a few coins?
 
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 20, 2015, 02:43:53 PM
 #26910

So if the protocol breaks from a $300/hour usage test it wasn't worth much to begin with.
Of course the protocol is not going to break. Does anyone thing it will?

It's not about the protocol or the network.

Ok break, is a little harsh. The usage of the term depends on the same structural divides currently splintering the development. Namely, what is the protocol/network for? It will be broken under this stress test WRT micro transactions, as they will be crowded out due to cost.

I don't want to comment further on this as I don't feel qualified to pass judgement. I do feel it's an interesting development, and am intrigued to see where the chips land afterwards. Will certain peoples standpoints soften? Will it spark some development compromise? Or is the whole idea some sort of scam to somehow make a few coins?
 

My bet would be that the Coinwallet ploy is tied to that large asymmetric bid wall on BFX which is probably someone's short position trying to get out. 
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 20, 2015, 02:47:51 PM
 #26911

OK! Time to get busy!

https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoinxt/commit/821e223ccc4c8ab967399371761718f1015c766b
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756



View Profile
June 20, 2015, 02:48:06 PM
 #26912

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.

Pegging two different, however slightly, money types together is a problem in theory and practice. As long as they are different, they will have different value. If the value is smaller, they will be converted to bitcoins. If the value is larger, they will be converted to sidecoins.

When a fiat system goes bust, a new one is created, and it is quite common to peg the value to for instance the dollar. This is to try to give people a reason to trust the new money. The reason to have local money at all, is to get the seigniorage, which otherwise would be wasted to another government. To peg the value, you need an institution to be the guarantor, that means a kind of bank with reserves in the other money type. In practice, exact pegging is not possible, because there will be leakage of value to speculants and money exchange services. Therefore there will be a band, where the value will be pegged to somewhere between the upper and lower limits. Even better, the exact limits are secret, to avoid speculation near the edge. This can go on for a while, until they have created too much (sometimes too little), the peg breaks and is set to another value.

If there is a mathematical peg defined by protocol and secured by the blockchain, the difference in value will have to escape somehow, and that is either the coins disappear if they are worth less than bitcoin, otherwise all bitcoins will be converted to sidecoins. It is not rocket science.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 20, 2015, 03:43:01 PM
 #26913

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3aieuj/gavin_andresens_block_size_increase_code_8mb_cap/cscxaox
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1120



View Profile
June 20, 2015, 03:48:03 PM
 #26914


so ... block size will be 8,192,000,000 bytes in 2036.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 20, 2015, 03:54:45 PM
 #26915

the market is going to LOVE Gavin's new XT release.  it set a reliable "plan" going forward.  markets love certainty and the message is clear:  BITCOIN IS PRIMED FOR GROWTH.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 20, 2015, 03:55:37 PM
 #26916


see that big green candle?

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 20, 2015, 04:02:26 PM
 #26917

what Gavin's XT proposal does is not only automate out financiers, banksters, politicians, & corrupt gvts, but also DEVS. 

esp a few core devs who think they know better.

and that, imo, is a worthy goal.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 20, 2015, 04:10:45 PM
 #26918

heads up.

the anti Gavin guys have taken to a new strategy on Reddit to push upvoted primary comments DOWN.  that's by sub-commenting negatively and heavily in the top most upvoted comment so ppl read their negative shit first near the top.  phantomcircuit (Strateman from Blockstream) and BitFast (Greenaddress skeptic) are filling up Gavin's thread with this strategy.
Ronan-
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 52


View Profile
June 20, 2015, 04:15:50 PM
 #26919

what Gavin's XT proposal does is not only automate out financiers, banksters, politicians, & corrupt gvts, but also DEVS. 

esp a few core devs who think they know better.

and that, imo, is a worthy goal.

heads up.

the anti Gavin guys have taken to a new strategy on Reddit to push upvoted primary comments DOWN.  that's by sub-commenting negatively and heavily in the top most upvoted comment so ppl read their negative shit first near the top.  phantomcircuit (Strateman from Blockstream) and BitFast (Greenaddress skeptic) are filling up Gavin's thread with this strategy.

Reddit is already heavily astroturfed in favor of Gavin's strategy. Which if does include pushing other devs out is deeply wrong. I was on the fence before but I cannot support Gavin if he is trying to become the king of bitcoin. Its fundamentally anti-bitcoin and everything we stand for. What does this all come from? The aggressive need to scale so we can bubble again? Since when has this community become so greedy.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 20, 2015, 04:33:07 PM
 #26920

what Gavin's XT proposal does is not only automate out financiers, banksters, politicians, & corrupt gvts, but also DEVS. 

esp a few core devs who think they know better.

and that, imo, is a worthy goal.

heads up.

the anti Gavin guys have taken to a new strategy on Reddit to push upvoted primary comments DOWN.  that's by sub-commenting negatively and heavily in the top most upvoted comment so ppl read their negative shit first near the top.  phantomcircuit (Strateman from Blockstream) and BitFast (Greenaddress skeptic) are filling up Gavin's thread with this strategy.

Reddit is already heavily astroturfed in favor of Gavin's strategy. Which if does include pushing other devs out is deeply wrong. I was on the fence before but I cannot support Gavin if he is trying to become the king of bitcoin. Its fundamentally anti-bitcoin and everything we stand for. What does this all come from? The aggressive need to scale so we can bubble again? Since when has this community become so greedy.

you miss the whole pt of what i said. 

Gavin is ALSO trying to automate out HIMSELF.

if you've observed Gavin carefully ever since he was given the keys by Satoshi, he has always been much more optimistic and hands off with Bitcoin than all the other core devs who just obsess all day long about what's wrong with Bitcoin and what they should be doing about it.  Gavin, being the understanding leader that he is, simply let those guys go off and tinker at the edges for the longest time.  now, when the block size limit continues to be hit, he HAS to step up and take charge to prevent repeated DoS'ing of the network.  in the meantime, what was entirely unpredictable was a faction of core dev going off and creating their own private for profit company which actually depends on deprecating/choking Bitcoin Core. 

his vision with XT, which i entirely agree with, is to get it to a point where it upgrades itself over time to keep up with internet capacity.  he doesn't want this shitfest debate coming up again.  that's not good news for devs who gotta dev.

this is a worthy goal.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1395 1396 ... 1559 »
  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!