Bitcoin Forum
December 05, 2016, 12:43:32 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 ... 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 1404 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1804603 times)
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 10:39:29 PM
 #27061

- 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

I never said anything negative about natural boundaries. It is merged mining of multiple chains that is a sham, and also attempting to peg units of different assets (with different security, liquidity, network, etc. properties) to the same price.

I see nothing wrong with payment channels though. There doesn't seem to be any good reason to put routine micro transactions on a chain (side- or otherwise) at all.

1480941812
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480941812

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480941812
Reply with quote  #2

1480941812
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480941812
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480941812

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480941812
Reply with quote  #2

1480941812
Report to moderator
1480941812
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480941812

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480941812
Reply with quote  #2

1480941812
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 10:55:30 PM
 #27062

New poll above reminder.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 10:58:57 PM
 #27063

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?

I'm not putting the entire Bitcoin protocol at risk for my speculative endeavors. ... lol, do you think I have the power to build all new businesses that will accept all BTCs ? ... do you think I will rule ALL THE WORD ? -> You are WRONG I will NOT and at the same time I will not let you to rule my word.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 11:26:11 PM
 #27064

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?

I'm not putting the entire Bitcoin protocol at risk for my speculative endeavors. ... lol, do you think I have the power to build all new businesses that will accept all BTCs ? ... do you think I will rule ALL THE WORD ? -> You are WRONG I will NOT and at the same time I will not let you to rule my word.


Its not you I'm worried  about. It's your ideas.
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 11:28:00 PM
 #27065

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.



According to the "high growth rate" curve in the graph above, the blockchain will be 10,000x as large in 2035.  Here's a quick estimate of some of the costs to run a node twenty years from now, assuming no change in the cost of disk space or Internet bandwidth for 20 years.



Even under these (a) optimistic growth rates, and (b) extremely pessimistic cost improvements for disk space and bandwidth, the cost is still not so prohibitive that there would only be "5 big miners left."  For example, I'd image that all major research universities, bitcoin corporations, various branches of governments, and power users (whales) would still run nodes (1000+ nodes).  The network could actually be more decentralized than it is now.  


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

Only full nodes need to verify everything.  Not every user needs to run a full node.  

Why do so many people equate users with full nodes?

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

Activity: 1246



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 11:33:06 PM
 #27066

According to the "high growth rate" curve in the graph above, the blockchain will be 10,000x as large in 2035.  Here's a quick estimate of some of the costs to run a node twenty years from now, assuming no change in the cost of disk space or Internet bandwidth for 20 years.

Nice work Peter R. I often find your presentations compelling and this is no exception.

One quibble. You gloss over the distinction between miners and nodes:

Quote
Even under these (a) optimistic growth rates, and (b) extremely pessimistic cost improvements for disk space and bandwidth, the cost is still not so prohibitive that there would only be "5 big miners left."  For example, I'd image that all major research universities, bitcoin corporations, various branches of governments, and power users (whales) would still run nodes (1000+ nodes).  The network could actually be more decentralized than it is now.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 11:37:43 PM
 #27067

According to the "high growth rate" curve in the graph above, the blockchain will be 10,000x as large in 2035.  Here's a quick estimate of some of the costs to run a node twenty years from now, assuming no change in the cost of disk space or Internet bandwidth for 20 years.

Nice work Peter R. I often find your presentations compelling and this is no exception.

One quibble. You gloss over the distinction between miners and nodes:

Quote
Even under these (a) optimistic growth rates, and (b) extremely pessimistic cost improvements for disk space and bandwidth, the cost is still not so prohibitive that there would only be "5 big miners left."  For example, I'd image that all major research universities, bitcoin corporations, various branches of governments, and power users (whales) would still run nodes (1000+ nodes).  The network could actually be more decentralized than it is now.

Although IBLT or something like it could considerably narrow that difference.
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
June 22, 2015, 12:09:16 AM
 #27068

One quibble. You gloss over the distinction between miners and nodes:

Fair point.  I took Odalv's comment to mean that there would be no nodes except for those run by these fictitious "5 big miners."  Maybe that's not what he meant.  

Anyways, I can't see a future with less than a thousand or so nodes.  And in such a future (~one thousand nodes), I'd imagine a much larger portion of these nodes would run mining pools, simply to help pay for the node's monthly costs.  

I don't buy the "centralization" fears related to increased blocksize.

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
lunarboy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 544



View Profile
June 22, 2015, 12:11:59 AM
 #27069


More facepalm

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

Concur.  Voted yes to the new poll, but would much rather see a dynamic size increase when the blocks get to a certain transaction density/time.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 22, 2015, 12:27:25 AM
 #27070


More facepalm

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

Concur.  Voted yes to the new poll, but would much rather see a dynamic size increase when the blocks get to a certain transaction density/time.

Doubling can't occur unless 75%of miners concur.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 22, 2015, 12:33:39 AM
 #27071

I can't see a future with less than a thousand or so nodes.

I don't buy the "centralization" fears related to increased blocksize.

Because you don't factor in the government's ease of regulating 1000 permanently sited nodes compared to zillions of ephemeral nodes in a truly decentralized system.

KYC required on every transaction is one of many potential horrific outcomes of your "decentralization = 1000 nodes".

Smart?


TPTB_need_war was already confused thinking that the block subsidy would have become "so minuscule it has essentially stopped funding mining" by 2032  Wink

WTF  Huh I already explained your myopic incomprehension of what I wrote upthread. And you repeat your incomprehension again  Roll Eyes

Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
June 22, 2015, 12:43:57 AM
 #27072

I can't see a future with less than a thousand or so nodes.

I don't buy the "centralization" fears related to increased blocksize.

Because you don't factor in the government's ease of regulating 1000 permanently sited nodes compared to zillions of ephemeral nodes in a truly decentralized system.

Imagine that every major research university runs a full node. If you were this "scary, monolithic government" that you seem to fear, how would you go about controlling the software that scientists are running in their cryptocurrency labs?  I'm sure you could introduce several rouge nodes, but that wouldn't matter.  You have to control them all.  And then you need to control the nodes of the bitcoin companies, power users, and government agencies across the world. How are you going to do it, Anonymint?

Secondly, the ~1000 node scenario is not what I suspect will play out; it's just that even if that scenario does play out, the network could still be more decentralized than it is now.  


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

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 22, 2015, 12:46:26 AM
 #27073

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.

You are conflating a physical peg with a peg enforced by market exchange dominance. The latter is destined to fail when the dominator exhausts resources. The former fails only if the physical peg fails, i.e. the side chain breaks the protocol rules of the peg.

I do no  such thing. If you by physical peg mean an unbreakable peg - that means only that the difference in value will find another way to escape.

Escape as I explained via arbitrage of flow to or from the main chain which is precisely the way side coins are advertised to perform.

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
June 22, 2015, 12:47:04 AM
 #27074

Imagine that every major research university runs a full node. If you were this "scary, monolithic government" that you seem to fear, how would you go about controlling the software that scientists are running in their cryptocurrency labs?  I'm sure you could introduce several rouge nodes, but that wouldn't matter.  You have to control them all.

For a lot of things only control over 50% (or perhaps less) of the hash rate is needed. That's only a fraction of the fraction of the 1000 nodes that are mining.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 22, 2015, 12:49:53 AM
 #27075

I can't see a future with less than a thousand or so nodes.

I don't buy the "centralization" fears related to increased blocksize.

Because you don't factor in the government's ease of regulating 1000 permanently sited nodes compared to zillions of ephemeral nodes in a truly decentralized system.

Imagine that every major research university runs a full node. If you were this "scary, monolithic government" that you seem to fear, how would you go about controlling the software that scientists are running in their cryptocurrency labs?

Are you really serious asking that?

Did you not read the upthread discussion about how the universities are captured.

How else do you think they foisted the lie of Man Made Global Temperature Change on us?

Universities are the easiest the regulate. They aren't moving.

If you are this naive, there isn't any reason for us to talk further. How can a child have a conversation about how the world works.

Why would any professor risk his jobcareer or university risk its reputation by doing illegal activities?

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
June 22, 2015, 12:53:55 AM
 #27076

Universities are the easiest the regulate. They aren't moving.

This is a bit behind the times. Major universities are becoming multinational entities, some are already recognizable as such. Nevertheless I still agree with your conclusion that relatively few nodes at identified major institutions are relatively easy to regulate.


TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 22, 2015, 12:55:28 AM
 #27077

Universities are the easiest the regulate. They aren't moving.

This is a bit behind the times. Major universities are becoming multinational entities, some are already recognizable as such. Nevertheless I still agree with your conclusion that relatively few nodes at identified major institutions are relatively easy to regulate.

Politicians and governance are becoming multi-national too.

Welcome to the NWO. You can't even vote for the European Commission any more.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 22, 2015, 01:06:18 AM
 #27078

if Bitcoin were to have failed, it would have done it by now.

Depends on what the goal was.

For me the goal was 1) censorship-freedom money aka permission-less commerce, and 2) immutable protocol enforced rules including money supply.

Bitcoin has already failed at #2, because the protocol is being changed now. And this proves it can be changed in any way that the masses can be fooled to support.

And #1 failure is just around the corner.


Peter R,

distributed != decentralization

You assume the former provides the latter.

Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
June 22, 2015, 01:06:47 AM
 #27079

I can't see a future with less than a thousand or so nodes.

I don't buy the "centralization" fears related to increased blocksize.

Because you don't factor in the government's ease of regulating 1000 permanently sited nodes compared to zillions of ephemeral nodes in a truly decentralized system.

Imagine that every major research university runs a full node. If you were this "scary, monolithic government" that you seem to fear, how would you go about controlling the software that scientists are running in their cryptocurrency labs?

Are you really serious asking that?

Yes.  And you didn't answer.  Specifically, how would you achieve this (remember, there are research universities in numerous legal jurisdictions and in order to be effective you have to control nodes at a lot of them)?

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

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 22, 2015, 01:09:26 AM
 #27080

I can't see a future with less than a thousand or so nodes.

I don't buy the "centralization" fears related to increased blocksize.

Because you don't factor in the government's ease of regulating 1000 permanently sited nodes compared to zillions of ephemeral nodes in a truly decentralized system.

Imagine that every major research university runs a full node. If you were this "scary, monolithic government" that you seem to fear, how would you go about controlling the software that scientists are running in their cryptocurrency labs?

Are you really serious asking that?

Yes.  And you didn't answer.  Specifically, how would you achieve this (remember, there are research universities in numerous legal jurisdictions and in order to be effective you have to control nodes at a lot of them)?

Observe and watch the G20 and world government take form (very slowly like death by a 1000 paper cuts). It will be sight to behold. Like a "1000 points of light" as Grandady Bush put it.

You continue to it oblivious and naive one.

Pages: « 1 ... 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 1404 ... 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!