Bitcoin Forum
December 05, 2016, 12:43:17 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 ... 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 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1804596 times)
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 07:17:28 PM
 #27041

...
The key element if IBLT would be a structured ordering of transactions within a block. My personal feeling is that this is like the difference in handling ability between water in liquid form and water in solid form.  An ice cube is much more flexible to transport, and much easier to match to a mold (e.g., an identifiable ice tray configuration), but it is also more brittle.  An ice cube is also much easier to catch in a strainer than it's liquid counterpart.

that is the intent.

Of course.  It vastly expands the attack surface.



perhaps.  then a different solution will be made.  key thing about Bitcoin is that there are legions of smart, talented ppl working on it now with even more to come.  if we can surgically dissect out the financially conflicted cancer, then core dev can advance in a healthy manner.  Bitcoin has evolved to that of a public good.  we should want that dissection to occur.

Doubling block size every 2 years is cancer.

That's OK. Then we just cut back.

I'd rather try than not try at all.


Not increasing block size will enable to start transaction's fee discovery and it creates environment for innovations. This innovations will reduce fees and move transaction to SC. BItcoin will stay decentralized and more powerful.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 07:21:40 PM
 #27042

oh Lordy, now i'm having to educate TBI on digital gold:

https://twitter.com/twobitidiot/status/612652436126363648

Saw that.

Not sure why he would be so flippant about increasing the hard cap.

Maybe because he's a TBI?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 07:28:08 PM
 #27043

...
The key element if IBLT would be a structured ordering of transactions within a block. My personal feeling is that this is like the difference in handling ability between water in liquid form and water in solid form.  An ice cube is much more flexible to transport, and much easier to match to a mold (e.g., an identifiable ice tray configuration), but it is also more brittle.  An ice cube is also much easier to catch in a strainer than it's liquid counterpart.

that is the intent.

Of course.  It vastly expands the attack surface.



perhaps.  then a different solution will be made.  key thing about Bitcoin is that there are legions of smart, talented ppl working on it now with even more to come.  if we can surgically dissect out the financially conflicted cancer, then core dev can advance in a healthy manner.  Bitcoin has evolved to that of a public good.  we should want that dissection to occur.

Doubling block size every 2 years is cancer.

That's OK. Then we just cut back.

I'd rather try than not try at all.


Not increasing block size will enable to start transaction's fee discovery and it creates environment for innovations. This innovations will reduce fees and move transaction to SC. BItcoin will stay decentralized and more powerful.

Facepalm.

The debate has evolved considerably since last October.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974


View Profile
June 21, 2015, 07:34:34 PM
 #27044


Not increasing block size will enable to start transaction's fee discovery and it creates environment for innovations. This innovations will reduce fees and move transaction to SC. BItcoin will stay decentralized and more powerful.

Facepalm.

The debate has evolved considerably since last October.

A debate does not 'evolve' by one guy (no matter what his impression of himself) or group re-stating the same flawed assertions over and over again.  I and most others on my side of the philosophical debate are entirely unimpressed (and somewhat perplexed) at your activities, but oh well.


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 07:49:22 PM
 #27045


Not increasing block size will enable to start transaction's fee discovery and it creates environment for innovations. This innovations will reduce fees and move transaction to SC. BItcoin will stay decentralized and more powerful.

Facepalm.

The debate has evolved considerably since last October.

A debate does not 'evolve' by one guy (no matter what his impression of himself) or group re-stating the same flawed assertions over and over again.  I and most others on my side of the philosophical debate are entirely unimpressed (and somewhat perplexed) at your activities, but oh well.



Please let us know how well Elements is working. I honestly want to know.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 08:12:08 PM
 #27046


Not increasing block size will enable to start transaction's fee discovery and it creates environment for innovations. This innovations will reduce fees and move transaction to SC. BItcoin will stay decentralized and more powerful.

Facepalm.

The debate has evolved considerably since last October.

A debate does not 'evolve' by one guy (no matter what his impression of himself) or group re-stating the same flawed assertions over and over again.  I and most others on my side of the philosophical debate are entirely unimpressed (and somewhat perplexed) at your activities, but oh well.



Please let us know how well Elements is working. I honestly want to know.

Confidential Transactions
 -> it is another excellent project from gmaxwell

Quote
Confidential Transactions is enabled in Elements and used by default by all ordinary transactions.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 08:28:44 PM
 #27047

I like this explanation.

ok here in detail how and why it works:

1. payer and payee agree on a 2-of-2 address and own addresses
2. payer crafts a bond transaction that deposits X to the common address, but sends only the hash (outpoint) of it to payee. payer does not yet broadcast it, hence no risk to him.
3. payee crafts and signs a refund transaction that spends the outpoint back to payee time locked, such that it can not be included into the block chain until that time point. Payee can safely sign since if he does not own any coin with the outpoint.
4. payer verifies that the refund transaction if counter-signed and broadcasted by him would return the bond to him and if so broadcasts the bond transaction. He can safely do so, since if payee would not proceed, but he could get his money back on his own after the timeout.
5. now payer wanst to use some service of payee and crafts and signs a settlement transaction spending the same outpoint that pays him X-delta and delta to payee. The transaction is not yet valid since it needs payee's signature, hence payer can not broadcast it. Payer sends it to Payee.
6. Payee verifies that the settlement transaction has valid signature of payer and that it gives him enough to offer the service. Payee could countersign and broadcast the settlement transaction thereby closing the channel and also invalidating (double spending) the refund transaction.
7. Payer keeps sending new versions of the settlement transaction with increasing deltas while using the service. If delta does not increase sufficiently Payee closes the channel.
8. At close of the channel Payee will counter-sign and broadcast latest version, since that is most favorable to him.
9. Payee will close the channel well before the refund timout to avoid a race of the two alternatives.

edit:
This can be used as fast credit card. There is no need to wait for confirmations. Payment is instant. It can be used for all payments during month and then cleared by 1 transaction at the end of month.  (with credit card company)
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 08:45:03 PM
 #27048


And that's precisely why we need to keep all those TX's on the mainchain.

Why ? If we split same amount of transactions into 10,000 chains then
a) you can mine all 10,000 chains (it will cost you same resources as 1 BIG chain)  -> big corporation
b) you can mine/verify only 1-3 small chains on your phone -> 99.9% ordinary people

i pointed out upthread how that will lead to tremendous centralization of mining as small miners with poor connectivity would be crushed trying to deal with 10000 chains at once in terms of resources, maintenance, coding reqs, etc.

not good.

It isn't really clear whether one chain 10000x as large is better or worse for small miners than 10000 separate chains. In the latter case at least a smaller miner could drop some of the least important/valuable chains. You can't drop part of blocks.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 08:54:15 PM
 #27049


And that's precisely why we need to keep all those TX's on the mainchain.

Why ? If we split same amount of transactions into 10,000 chains then
a) you can mine all 10,000 chains (it will cost you same resources as 1 BIG chain)  -> big corporation
b) you can mine/verify only 1-3 small chains on your phone -> 99.9% ordinary people

i pointed out upthread how that will lead to tremendous centralization of mining as small miners with poor connectivity would be crushed trying to deal with 10000 chains at once in terms of resources, maintenance, coding reqs, etc.

not good.

It isn't really clear whether one chain 10000x as large is better or worse for small miners than 10000 separate chains. In the latter case at least a smaller miner could drop some of the least important/valuable chains. You can't drop part of blocks.


It is even more important if you are not miner. With 10,000x as large chain ordinary user cannot verify if block is valid.  If there are only last 5 big miners left then they can start to produce fake block. b/c there is nobody (except 5 miners)  who has enough resources to verify all blocks.


Edit:
Everyone must verify everything is bad design. => this will collapse.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 08:59:42 PM
 #27050


And that's precisely why we need to keep all those TX's on the mainchain.

Why ? If we split same amount of transactions into 10,000 chains then
a) you can mine all 10,000 chains (it will cost you same resources as 1 BIG chain)  -> big corporation
b) you can mine/verify only 1-3 small chains on your phone -> 99.9% ordinary people

i pointed out upthread how that will lead to tremendous centralization of mining as small miners with poor connectivity would be crushed trying to deal with 10000 chains at once in terms of resources, maintenance, coding reqs, etc.

not good.

It isn't really clear whether one chain 10000x as large is better or worse for small miners than 10000 separate chains. In the latter case at least a smaller miner could drop some of the least important/valuable chains. You can't drop part of blocks.


It is even more important if you are not miner. With 10,000x as large chain ordinary user cannot verify if block is valid.  If there are only last 5 big miners left then they can start to produce fake block. b/c there is nobody (except 5 miners)  who has enough resources to verify all blocks.


Edit:
Everyone must verify everything is bad design. => this will collapse.

More facepalm
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974


View Profile
June 21, 2015, 09:01:39 PM
 #27051


Please let us know how well Elements is working. I honestly want to know.

Go to hell.  You can stand by and find out whether Maxwell and company's stuff pans out better than your assumptions that technology will keep up with exponential growth and Bitcoin will be unmolested by TPTB as it takes over for fiat.

You could piddle around with gmax's cli while you wait if you want since the stuff is already in released alpha it seems.

Confidential Transactions
 -> it is another excellent project from gmaxwell

Quote
Confidential Transactions is enabled in Elements and used by default by all ordinary transactions.

and

...

Just wow.  I lacked the ability and interest to think up such stuff.

I was negative about all the bells and whistles being added to the native Bitcoin protocol over the years.  Because I was by and large to lazy to follow the commits and technical discussions, I took my impression of the technical capabilities as the core team as a group from my impression of Gavin and his talking-paperclip class nonsense and nearly complete disregard/misunderstanding of the salient risk factors more than I should have.  This made me feel that there was great risk to putting almost anything into Core since it could be sufficient as a backing store in it's very primitive form.  Now I'm starting to see the genius of what some of these less visible players were shooting for in some of their work over the years.  My hat is off to them!

There really is a significant risk, I think, that what is evolving is simply so powerful that it will have to be stopped by TPTB by any and all means possible.  I've long held that this battle would be best to happen earlier than later.  My only hope was that it would start up before the likes of Hearn managed to contaminate the existing blockchain whereupon the value I have within it would ultimately be significantly reduced.


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 09:14:04 PM
 #27052


Please let us know how well Elements is working. I honestly want to know.

Go to hell.  You can stand by and find out whether Maxwell and company's stuff pans out better than your assumptions that technology will keep up with exponential growth and Bitcoin will be unmolested by TPTB as it takes over for fiat.

You could piddle around with gmax's cli while you wait if you want since the stuff is already in released alpha it seems.

Confidential Transactions
 -> it is another excellent project from gmaxwell

Quote
Confidential Transactions is enabled in Elements and used by default by all ordinary transactions.

and

...

Just wow.  I lacked the ability and interest to think up such stuff.

I was negative about all the bells and whistles being added to the native Bitcoin protocol over the years.  Because I was by and large to lazy to follow the commits and technical discussions, I took my impression of the technical capabilities as the core team as a group from my impression of Gavin and his talking-paperclip class nonsense and nearly complete disregard/misunderstanding of the salient risk factors more than I should have.  This made me feel that there was great risk to putting almost anything into Core since it could be sufficient as a backing store in it's very primitive form.  Now I'm starting to see the genius of what some of these less visible players were shooting for in some of their work over the years.  My hat is off to them!

There really is a significant risk, I think, that what is evolving is simply so powerful that it will have to be stopped by TPTB by any and all means possible.  I've long held that this battle would be best to happen earlier than later.  My only hope was that it would start up before the likes of Hearn managed to contaminate the existing blockchain whereupon the value I have within it would ultimately be significantly reduced.



my, such anger.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974


View Profile
June 21, 2015, 09:17:30 PM
 #27053


my, such anger.

I don't do anger very much, but I will admit to being fairly passionate about Bitcoin.  I've been dicking around with it off and on for a long while and I've got something riding on it both in monetary and philosophical terms.


smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 09:33:41 PM
 #27054


And that's precisely why we need to keep all those TX's on the mainchain.

Why ? If we split same amount of transactions into 10,000 chains then
a) you can mine all 10,000 chains (it will cost you same resources as 1 BIG chain)  -> big corporation
b) you can mine/verify only 1-3 small chains on your phone -> 99.9% ordinary people

i pointed out upthread how that will lead to tremendous centralization of mining as small miners with poor connectivity would be crushed trying to deal with 10000 chains at once in terms of resources, maintenance, coding reqs, etc.

not good.

It isn't really clear whether one chain 10000x as large is better or worse for small miners than 10000 separate chains. In the latter case at least a smaller miner could drop some of the least important/valuable chains. You can't drop part of blocks.


It is even more important if you are not miner. With 10,000x as large chain ordinary user cannot verify if block is valid.  If there are only last 5 big miners left then they can start to produce fake block. b/c there is nobody (except 5 miners)  who has enough resources to verify all blocks.

It isn't clear that having non-miners using 1 of 10,000 chains is good either. It means you can't transact with someone using one of the other 9999 chains without an intermediary.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 09:37:19 PM
 #27055


More facepalm

Let's implant doubling-cancer into bitcoin. I'm sure that more politicians will join(eat) us.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 09:50:42 PM
 #27056



It isn't clear that having non-miners using 1 of 10,000 chains is good either. It means you can't transact with someone using one of the other 9999 chains without an intermediary.


- Usually you are not transacting with all people in the world (if you are not world wide spread corporation and you have office in all regions).

- 99% of your transaction are located in your town (quarter).

 - I think you are not interested in collecting and verifying all transaction from China or Russia, USA, EU

=> 9,997 chains are irrelevant for you. You only cares if number of bitcoins is same .. less than 21,000,000 and if chain holding your coins is valid
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 10:00:53 PM
 #27057

- 99% of your transaction are located in your town (quarter).

Incorrect.

Nevertheless the idea of partitioning payment systems by some sort of natural (if fuzzy) boundaries is reasonable.

I still prefer off-chain (possibly partitioned) payment systems with a single settlement chain though. Not sold on merged mining at all.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 10:08:18 PM
 #27058

- 99% of your transaction are located in your town (quarter).

Incorrect.

Nevertheless the idea of partitioning payment systems by some sort of natural (if fuzzy) boundaries is reasonable.

I still prefer off-chain (possibly partitioned) payment systems with a single settlement chain though. Not sold on merged mining at all.



Merge mining, the hidden requested SC subsidy.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 10:12:10 PM
 #27059

- 99% of your transaction are located in your town (quarter).

Incorrect.

Nevertheless the idea of partitioning payment systems by some sort of natural (if fuzzy) boundaries is reasonable.

I still prefer off-chain (possibly partitioned) payment systems with a single settlement chain though. Not sold on merged mining at all.



ok, if you do not like "natural boundaries" we can create corporate chains. :-)
 a) local-Tesco-Sidechain  
 b) or you can use Coca-Cola-Sidechain
 c) or use Free-Wifi-Geaks-Sidechain
 d) ... some local drug dealer chain

I do not know exactly how to build TREE OF CHAINS what will serve all people needs .. but I know that it is possible and free market will choose what is important and what is not
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 10:30:50 PM
 #27060

- 99% of your transaction are located in your town (quarter).

Incorrect.

Nevertheless the idea of partitioning payment systems by some sort of natural (if fuzzy) boundaries is reasonable.

I still prefer off-chain (possibly partitioned) payment systems with a single settlement chain though. Not sold on merged mining at all.



ok, if you do not like "natural boundaries" we can create corporate chains. :-)
 a) local-Tesco-Sidechain  
 b) or you can use Coca-Cola-Sidechain
 c) or use Free-Wifi-Geaks-Sidechain
 d) ... some local drug dealer chain

I do not know exactly how to build TREE OF CHAINS what will serve all people needs .. but I know that it is possible and free market will choose what is important and what is not

Instead of putting the entire Bitcoin protocol at risk for your speculative endeavors, why don't you just have the balls to build those businesses that accept BTC?
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 ... 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!