Bitcoin Forum
December 18, 2017, 09:06:25 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 ... 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 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2022644 times)
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2352


View Profile
June 20, 2015, 07:21:40 PM
 #26901


Given the keys by Satoshi? Even you are blindly repeating that? Satoshi only gave him the alert keys, the metaphorical keys you speak of do not exist. Gavin took advantage of Satoshi's disappearance by repeating that same story over and over again of Satoshi putting his email on the website like it means he is Satoshi's heir. There is no such position in bitcoin anyways.

What you portray as 'going off to tinker' and 'obsessing' is creating solutions and being cautious about modifying what is like changing the function of a car engine while the car is moving. This hyperbole betrays the weakness of your position, only the weak side resorts to such in a discussion. The network has been DoSed, but not significantly and in any capacity to impact more than most users. Deprecating/choking bitcoin core? How? By moving wealth (that probably wasn't already there due to an inadequacy) from something bitcoin can't do well or can't do at all into a sidechain? The only choking is of possible future financial wealth, which shows stake in the game.

what's ridiculous is your claim in bold.  

if it was so controversial, why hasn't your point come up before?  i've never heard any of the other core devs spouting your allegations, even now.

That's because they have been plenty busy trying to keep Bitcoin viable and valuable most likely.  I very much doubt that they have time for your silly games.  In fact I have reason to believe that some of them have not been paying much attention to your ilk and are somewhat mystified at your absurdity.

I, for one, am glad that with some exceptions the devs who are actually doing shit have not gotten their hands stuck in the cypherdoc tar-baby.  Bitcoin is much better off for it.

edit: link

1513631185
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513631185

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513631185
Reply with quote  #2

1513631185
Report to moderator
1513631185
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513631185

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513631185
Reply with quote  #2

1513631185
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Natalia_AnatolioPAMM
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
June 20, 2015, 07:25:48 PM
 #26902


I guess he was the one
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624



View Profile
June 20, 2015, 07:28:51 PM
 #26903

I think you are making a catastrophic mistake to ignore them. I hope your view doesn't represent Monero's position?

Nobody is ignoring them. I just think they won't really have much relevance, or if they do they will destabilize the greater Bitcoin system. But I doubt the latter because the obstacles of relying on far weaker security such as merged mining, along with giving up most of Bitcoin's network effect, are simply too great. The vast majority will just stick with vanilla Bitcoin, which will force the rest to do the same.

Monero is a piece of software and doesn't have a position, but if against all odds sidechains become widely used the equivalent functionality will likely be added to Monero, and then Bitcoin can become a sidechain to Monero (no, I'm not kidding).
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 20, 2015, 07:40:09 PM
 #26904


No
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 20, 2015, 07:43:46 PM
 #26905

I think you are making a catastrophic mistake to ignore them. I hope your view doesn't represent Monero's position?

Nobody is ignoring them. I just think they won't really have much relevance, or if they do they will destabilize the greater Bitcoin system. But I doubt the latter because the obstacles of relying on far weaker security such as merged mining, along with giving up most of Bitcoin's network effect, are simply too great. The vast majority will just stick with vanilla Bitcoin, which will force the rest to do the same.

Monero is a piece of software and doesn't have a position, but if against all odds sidechains become widely used the equivalent functionality will likely be added to Monero, and then Bitcoin can become a sidechain to Monero (no, I'm not kidding).


While I don't agree with smooth that Monero has a future, I do agree with everything he's saying about SC's. So in that perverse sense, Monero has a greater chance to survive than Blockstream and SC's. Go for it.

At least Monero is not a leech.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2352


View Profile
June 20, 2015, 07:50:38 PM
 #26906

...
Monero is a piece of software and doesn't have a position, but if against all odds sidechains become widely used the equivalent functionality will likely be added to Monero, and then Bitcoin can become a sidechain to Monero (no, I'm not kidding).

In general principle I could see something like that happening, but I doubt that it would be Monaro or anything like it which takes on the reserve role.

Although I've not studied Monaro at all it feels like pre-mine scammery to me.  That's just a gut sense.  More than that, though, the very things that people crow about (privacy, opacity, etc) work against a reserve currency or backing store.  To be effective in this regard a backing store needs to be as transparent as possible.  I'm much more comfortable knowing that some particular entity (even a total dick-head) controls exactly a certain part of the backing store than having to guess at it.  This is especially the case if I am confident that I can watch it move around.

The defense against attack by this loss of privacy that I would be comfortable with would be if the someone or some entity who controlled X percent of the backing store could just stand up and tell attackers, "ya, I own it.  Go fuck yourself." and I could verify that his position to say that was sound.  A example here would be MP's reaction to the U.S. SEC's harassment.

At the end of the day, lending support to a backed monetary system will require the backing store controller to put his Bitcoin (for instance) up for grabs by anyone who wants to take a position.  They could trade it off for 'things' and the only way for the controller not to lose it would be to buy it back.  Someone who controls a lot of the backing store could use this leverage to game the collection of systems.  Opacity and privacy here only makes this potential threat vastly worse.


smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624



View Profile
June 20, 2015, 07:55:48 PM
 #26907

Although I've not studied Monaro at all it feels like pre-mine scammery to me.

Whatever good, bad or irrelevant things there might be going on with Monero, it is certainly not premined. If you had done even a tiny bit of studying you would have figured that out.

Given the tiny value of the coin at this point you can certainly be excused for not investing even that level of effort though. I have no idea why it is discussed on this thread so much. Some will probably blame me for bringing it up, but they'd be 100% wrong.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624



View Profile
June 20, 2015, 07:59:23 PM
 #26908

I think you are making a catastrophic mistake to ignore them. I hope your view doesn't represent Monero's position?

Nobody is ignoring them. I just think they won't really have much relevance, or if they do they will destabilize the greater Bitcoin system. But I doubt the latter because the obstacles of relying on far weaker security such as merged mining, along with giving up most of Bitcoin's network effect, are simply too great. The vast majority will just stick with vanilla Bitcoin, which will force the rest to do the same.

Monero is a piece of software and doesn't have a position, but if against all odds sidechains become widely used the equivalent functionality will likely be added to Monero, and then Bitcoin can become a sidechain to Monero (no, I'm not kidding).


While I don't agree with smooth that Monero has a future, I do agree with everything he's saying about SC's. So in that perverse sense, Monero has a greater chance to survive than Blockstream and SC's. Go for it.

At least Monero is not a leech.

I never said Monero has a future, though strictly speaking, to say something has no future you'd have to claim it will be dead by tomorrow, or next month, or next year. All of those seem reasonably unlikely in the case of Monero to me, and I'm just trying to be objective about it here, not an advocate. So I'm not really sure what having a future means in this context. I doubt Bitcoin or USD will last forever either.

As far as sidechains, I give cypherdoc credit for his intuition about them. Despite not really understanding the technology (nor claiming to), he's been more insightful about the concept at a high level than many people who should know better, including it's inventors. That is assuming we can take their statements of what they are trying to accomplish at face value though, which may not be true.




cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 20, 2015, 08:01:40 PM
 #26909

Although I've not studied Monaro at all it feels like pre-mine scammery to me.

Whatever good, bad or irrelevant things there might be going on with Monero, it is certainly not premined. If you had done even a tiny bit of studying you would have figured that out.

Given the tiny value of the coin at this point you can certainly be excused for not investing even that level of effort though. I have no idea why it is discussed on this thread so much. Some will probably blame me for bringing it up, but they'd be 100% wrong.


Maybe kazukiPIMP?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 20, 2015, 08:36:43 PM
 #26910

Finally an adult weighs in:

http://konradsgraf.squarespace.com/blog1/2015/6/20/preview-the-market-for-bitcoin-transaction-inclusion-and-the.html
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 20, 2015, 10:15:12 PM
 #26911

XT nodes now 147

if someone can provide an easy Ubuntu tute to switch from Core to XT that would be great.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2352


View Profile
June 20, 2015, 10:46:16 PM
 #26912

XT nodes now 147

if someone can provide an easy Ubuntu tute to switch from Core to XT that would be great.

Code:
make install

HTH.


smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624



View Profile
June 20, 2015, 11:02:52 PM
 #26913


I agree with him that the block size limit is an anti-spam feature and should be treated as such, but the question is why (for example) 20 MB of spam is considered acceptable now. I see no good reason to allow 20x as much spam, when little to nothing has been done to control spam in any other way.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 20, 2015, 11:28:02 PM
 #26914


I agree with him that the block size limit is an anti-spam feature and should be treated as such, but the question is why (for example) 20 MB of spam is considered acceptable now. I see no good reason to allow 20x as much spam, when little to nothing has been done to control spam in any other way.


according to the new XT code today, the max would be 8MB, with doubling every 2y if 75% miners up-version. 

you'd have to believe, for all the same reasons we've argued against for yrs, that a large miner would be willing to risk paying 8MB worth of spam tx fees for a prolonged period of time to try for the fuzzy goal of driving smaller miners out of business over an unspecified period of time, which may never come, and which comes at great risk to themselves from orphaning.  given that the top 5 Chinese miners have already told us they are stuck behind the GFC with poor connectivity, i'm not sure how they do this mythical attack.  trying to tap into the relay network apparently doesn't help. they've already told us flat out that 8MB is the max they can handle at this point and Gavin has demonstrated he is a mature negotiator and conceded this metric to them unlike the Blockstream ppl who always just say "NO".

if a user wants to spam 8MB worth of stress tx's it will cost them 8x as much as today.  expensive?  maybe, maybe not.  but at least they will be paying good fees to miners who will be happy with that.  the real question is can they sustain that spam for any length of time.  we'll just have to see.  then the question is why hasn't anybody done that yet?  i think it's also important to note that if someone tries this attack, it's reasonable to expect that miners and other users will react.  either by jacking tx fees even exorbitantly higher or blocking the offending ip address.  point being, no one is just going to stand aside and watch a spammer destroy the network.
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
June 20, 2015, 11:29:02 PM
 #26915


Excellent and timely post by Kondrad!  Impressive--I recall he also posted a comprehensive article on sidechains, shortly after the Blockstream white paper was published.  

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

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 20, 2015, 11:30:23 PM
 #26916


Excellent and timely post by Kondrad!  Impressive--I recall he also posted a comprehensive article on sidechains, shortly after the Blockstream white paper was published.  

yeah, it's a killer and extremely bad news for the 1MB folk.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 20, 2015, 11:34:12 PM
 #26917


Excellent and timely post by Kondrad!  Impressive--I recall he also posted a comprehensive article on sidechains, shortly after the Blockstream white paper was published.  

https://twitter.com/KonradSGraf/status/612347123732992000
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 20, 2015, 11:59:13 PM
 #26918

New poll above.

please vote.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
June 21, 2015, 12:02:12 AM
 #26919

It would be great if you'd be specific that the proposal is about increasing the block size limit, which is only indirectly and occasionally related to the actual size of mined blocks.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 12:03:21 AM
 #26920


I agree with him that the block size limit is an anti-spam feature and should be treated as such, but the question is why (for example) 20 MB of spam is considered acceptable now. I see no good reason to allow 20x as much spam, when little to nothing has been done to control spam in any other way.


according to the new XT code today, the max would be 8MB, with doubling every 2y if 75% miners up-version. 

you'd have to believe, for all the same reasons we've argued against for yrs, that a large miner would be willing to risk paying 8MB worth of spam tx fees for a prolonged period of time to try for the fuzzy goal of driving smaller miners out of business over an unspecified period of time, which may never come, and which comes at great risk to themselves from orphaning.

Not necessarily. It could be more of a gradual process of spam being accepted into a system that isn't well protected against spam. The miners who are better equipped to produce somewhat larger blocks produce them (by including lower value, lower fee transactions aka spam), which puts more of a strain on smaller miners who drop out. As smaller miners drop out, the average block size then increases, which puts even more strain on the slightly-less-small miners, who then drop out, repeating the process.

The end result is larger spammier blocks, and less broad participation in mining.

The fact remains that as I said there is no more of a mechanism to control spam other than a block size limit than there was when satoshi added the block limit, and I don't really see how spam is 20x8x less of a problem or potential problem now. I'd support a smaller increase though, since I do see technological progress as having reduced the threat of spam by a smaller factor.

Longer term I see the 8 MB and auto doubling every two years as even worse than 20 MB. There is no rational basis to believe with high confidence that gigabyte blocks would be acceptable in 15 years.
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 ... 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!