Bitcoin Forum
May 28, 2017, 02:38:29 PM *
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 ... 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 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 ... 1559 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1905889 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 07:51:58 PM
 #27241

that's quite encouraging.  the more i hear from this Rusty guy, the more i like him:

"Cheers,
Rusty.
PS. I work for Blockstream.  And I'm supposed to be working on
    Lightning, not this."


"this Rusty guy" is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rusty_Russell

to make a long story short he wrote Linux kernel packets filtering system ipchains/iptables (aka Linux firewall), lguest virtualization system (ancestor of docker/lxc) and contribute to samba/cifs  (a way to let Linux and ms win talk together), just to name a few.

edit: fix misattribution about samba/cifs projecf

no, i know who he is.  i like his independent spirit.
1495982309
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1495982309

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1495982309
Reply with quote  #2

1495982309
Report to moderator
1495982309
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1495982309

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1495982309
Reply with quote  #2

1495982309
Report to moderator
POLONIEX TRADING SIGNALS
+50% Profit and more via TELEGRAM
ALTCOINTRADER.CO
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 23, 2015, 07:52:12 PM
 #27242

great talk:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIxwTx7o_B4
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 08:00:55 PM
 #27243

wow, no wonder ppl are so willing to offer up their coin for short selling.  dangerous as hell though.  i won't, and never will, do it:

The Bitcoin ecosystem will soon need a reference interest rate similar to LIBOR. I am promoting the concept of BIBOR (Bitcoin Inter Broker Offered Rate). This reference rate is important in striking contracts, making loans, and for brokers providing bitcoin to potential short sellers. According to broker loan rates, the current implied annual interest rate for bitcoin is 26.5% (.0644 per day compounded x 365 days).

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114648/jon-matonis-the-bitcoin-ecosystem-will-soon-need-a-reference-interest-rate-similar-to-libor
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


View Profile
June 23, 2015, 08:01:31 PM
 #27244

"this Rusty guy" is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rusty_Russell

to make a long story short he wrote Linux kernel packets filtering system ipchains/iptables (aka Linux firewall), lguest virtualization system (ancestor of docker/lxc) and contribute to samba/cifs  (a way to let Linux and ms win talk together), just to name a few.

edit: fix misattribution about samba/cifs projecf

no, i know who he is.  i like his independent spirit.

just want to be sure Tongue

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

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
June 23, 2015, 08:08:06 PM
 #27245

to make a long story short he wrote Linux kernel packets filtering system ipchains/iptables (aka Linux firewall)
Random coincidence: You post about this today, while I've spent all day writing rules for an automation system (cfengine) that will generate the configuration files for tool for automating the creation of iptables rules (shorewall).
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


View Profile
June 23, 2015, 08:43:21 PM
 #27246

to make a long story short he wrote Linux kernel packets filtering system ipchains/iptables (aka Linux firewall)
Random coincidence: You post about this today, while I've spent all day writing rules for an automation system (cfengine) that will generate the configuration files for tool for automating the creation of iptables rules (shorewall).

devops is one of my domains, though I'm currently using https://www.chef.io/, but I'll surely look at cfengine.

that said you sure are very versatile!

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

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
June 23, 2015, 09:11:35 PM
 #27247

devops is one of my domains, though I'm currently using https://www.chef.io/, but I'll surely look at cfengine.

that said you sure are very versatile!
It's out of necessity. I have a home server whose routine maintenance is consuming too much of my time. I need to put an automation system in place so that I have more time available to do things other than keep my server running.

Also a sufficiently-complete automation system is close enough to Linux distro that I might as well make it publicly available as one.

To save time.

NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
June 23, 2015, 09:37:14 PM
 #27248

But polls show that Gavin has a clear majority... its just certain core devs who object and not on technical grounds.  And most of them are working for a single organization.  How is that "hectoring a community"?


It isn't. Who said that?

There is a difference between "we need a hard fork to increase the block size" and "Gavin's plan is the way to do it, (which ever plan he settles upon)"

Most all the devs want a hard fork to increase block size.  Very few are on board with Gavin's plan.
Anyhow, it looks like the Bitcoin Core hard fork will be more likely to progress from gmaxwell's BIP, and the XT fork from Gavins perhaps.
They may remain compatible until there is a block that one would process and the other wouldn't.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1120



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 09:38:21 PM
 #27249

that's quite encouraging.  the more i hear from this Rusty guy, the more i like him:

"Cheers,
Rusty.
PS. I work for Blockstream.  And I'm supposed to be working on
    Lightning, not this."


"this Rusty guy" is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rusty_Russell

to make a long story short he wrote Linux kernel packets filtering system ipchains/iptables (aka Linux firewall), lguest virtualization system (ancestor of docker/lxc) and contribute to samba/cifs  (a way to let Linux and ms win talk together), just to name a few.

edit: fix misattribution about samba/cifs projecf

no, i know who he is.  i like his independent spirit.

Wow, what happened. Do you like "for profit" and  "blockstream" developer ?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 09:45:36 PM
 #27250

that's quite encouraging.  the more i hear from this Rusty guy, the more i like him:

"Cheers,
Rusty.
PS. I work for Blockstream.  And I'm supposed to be working on
    Lightning, not this."


"this Rusty guy" is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rusty_Russell

to make a long story short he wrote Linux kernel packets filtering system ipchains/iptables (aka Linux firewall), lguest virtualization system (ancestor of docker/lxc) and contribute to samba/cifs  (a way to let Linux and ms win talk together), just to name a few.

edit: fix misattribution about samba/cifs projecf

no, i know who he is.  i like his independent spirit.

Wow, what happened. Do you like "for profit" and  "blockstream" developer ?

NO, I DON'T.
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 09:48:17 PM
 #27251

But polls show that Gavin has a clear majority... its just certain core devs who object and not on technical grounds.  And most of them are working for a single organization.  How is that "hectoring a community"?


It isn't. Who said that?

There is a difference between "we need a hard fork to increase the block size" and "Gavin's plan is the way to do it, (which ever plan he settles upon)"

Most all the devs want a hard fork to increase block size.  Very few are on board with Gavin's plan.
Anyhow, it looks like the Bitcoin Core hard fork will be more likely to progress from gmaxwell's BIP, and the XT fork from Gavins perhaps.
They may remain compatible until there is a block that one would process and the other wouldn't.

You can include me in that contingent: we do need a hard fork to increase the block size (and only for what that will achieve, buying time). Very few people are debating that now, and I myself have been aware of the scalability issue for almost as long as I've been interested in bitcoin.

Re: which designs will be implemented on which fork; I thought Gavin had decided against the hostile fork?

Vires in numeris
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
June 23, 2015, 09:54:39 PM
 #27252

But polls show that Gavin has a clear majority... its just certain core devs who object and not on technical grounds.  And most of them are working for a single organization.  How is that "hectoring a community"?


It isn't. Who said that?

There is a difference between "we need a hard fork to increase the block size" and "Gavin's plan is the way to do it, (which ever plan he settles upon)"

Most all the devs want a hard fork to increase block size.  Very few are on board with Gavin's plan.
Anyhow, it looks like the Bitcoin Core hard fork will be more likely to progress from gmaxwell's BIP, and the XT fork from Gavins perhaps.
They may remain compatible until there is a block that one would process and the other wouldn't.

You can include me in that contingent: we do need a hard fork to increase the block size (and only for what that will achieve, buying time). Very few people are debating that now, and I myself have been aware of the scalability issue for almost as long as I've been interested in bitcoin.

Re: which designs will be implemented on which fork; I thought Gavin had decided against the hostile fork?

I would rather see voting by miners done in the future for changes to be made in the future, than see guesses made today applied far into the future.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 10:05:31 PM
 #27253

I would rather see voting by miners done in the future for changes to be made in the future, than see guesses made today applied far into the future.

For readers who have studied feedback control systems:

   Q. How do you get a good closed-loop response?

   A. Start with a good open-loop one. 

The point is that the Bitcoin system will need tweaking (feedback) at some point in time in the future.  It is best if these tweaks are as small as possible.  That means that the guesses we make now about the future (realize that there's no way not to guess) should be as realistic as possible, thereby giving us a good open-loop response that needs as little feedback as possible to correct. 

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

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 10:08:46 PM
 #27254

I would rather see voting by miners done in the future for changes to be made in the future, than see guesses made today applied far into the future.

For readers who have studied feedback control systems:

   Q. How do you get a good closed-loop response?

   A. Start with a good open-loop one.  

The point is that the Bitcoin system will need tweaking (feedback) at some point in time in the future.  It is best if these tweaks are as small as possible.  That means that the guesses we make now about the future (realize that there's no way not to guess) should be as realistic as possible, thereby giving us a good open-loop response that needs as little feedback as possible to correct.  

Gavin's guesses about the future look pretty good to me in his current proposal.  what do you think?

i still think he is trying to automate out himself.
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 10:13:14 PM
 #27255

But polls show that Gavin has a clear majority... its just certain core devs who object and not on technical grounds.  And most of them are working for a single organization.  How is that "hectoring a community"?


It isn't. Who said that?

There is a difference between "we need a hard fork to increase the block size" and "Gavin's plan is the way to do it, (which ever plan he settles upon)"

Most all the devs want a hard fork to increase block size.  Very few are on board with Gavin's plan.
Anyhow, it looks like the Bitcoin Core hard fork will be more likely to progress from gmaxwell's BIP, and the XT fork from Gavins perhaps.
They may remain compatible until there is a block that one would process and the other wouldn't.

You can include me in that contingent: we do need a hard fork to increase the block size (and only for what that will achieve, buying time). Very few people are debating that now, and I myself have been aware of the scalability issue for almost as long as I've been interested in bitcoin.

Re: which designs will be implemented on which fork; I thought Gavin had decided against the hostile fork?

I would rather see voting by miners done in the future for changes to be made in the future, than see guesses made today applied far into the future.

That sounds sensible, but it also sounds like you're signed up to Greg Maxwell's prospectus on the issue. I like the idea of dynamic sizing, and of flexibility to make decisions only once that decision is required, but arguments have been made that this creates a perverse incentive for the miners to collude on the vote. Not to say I agree with that, but I haven't fully decided yet. This debate needs a really long time to be adequately digested. Influential people in this community arguably don't understand the system we have now for what it is, the idea that this debate is somehow ready for everyone to make an informed decision is not sensible.

Vires in numeris
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 10:19:19 PM
 #27256

I would rather see voting by miners done in the future for changes to be made in the future, than see guesses made today applied far into the future.

For readers who have studied feedback control systems:

   Q. How do you get a good closed-loop response?

   A. Start with a good open-loop one. 

The point is that the Bitcoin system will need tweaking (feedback) at some point in time in the future.  It is best if these tweaks are as small as possible.  That means that the guesses we make now about the future (realize that there's no way not to guess) should be as realistic as possible, thereby giving us a good open-loop response that needs as little feedback as possible to correct. 

There's a faint suggestion here that there is only one possible way to make bitcoin scale up, and it involves guessing which block size corresponds to which required rate of transactions. Which implies you believe the whole thing scales up using block size increases only. Is this really what you're implying?

Vires in numeris
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 10:21:21 PM
 #27257

sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


View Profile
June 23, 2015, 10:26:35 PM
 #27258

I would rather see voting by miners done in the future for changes to be made in the future, than see guesses made today applied far into the future.

That sounds sensible, but it also sounds like you're signed up to Greg Maxwell's prospectus on the issue. I like the idea of dynamic sizing, and of flexibility to make decisions only once that decision is required, but arguments have been made that this creates a perverse incentive for the miners to collude on the vote. Not to say I agree with that, but I haven't fully decided yet. This debate needs a really long time to be adequately digested. Influential people in this community arguably don't understand the system we have now for what it is, the idea that this debate is somehow ready for everyone to make an informed decision is not sensible.

As far as I remember the debate about the max block size cap started a "long" time ago,
an it risked to stall indefinitely.

In my opinion Gavin's conduct has objectively an accelerating effect on the decision
process. I dare to say that such "extreme" attitude had stimulated a lot devs
in focusing to find a solution and to come to a compromise.

I'm not saying that his proposal is perfect or better than any others on the table, just
stating that his strategy have moved the situation toward a new equilibrium by a long shot.

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

Activity: 1652



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 10:39:26 PM
 #27259

I would rather see voting by miners done in the future for changes to be made in the future, than see guesses made today applied far into the future.

That sounds sensible, but it also sounds like you're signed up to Greg Maxwell's prospectus on the issue. I like the idea of dynamic sizing, and of flexibility to make decisions only once that decision is required, but arguments have been made that this creates a perverse incentive for the miners to collude on the vote. Not to say I agree with that, but I haven't fully decided yet. This debate needs a really long time to be adequately digested. Influential people in this community arguably don't understand the system we have now for what it is, the idea that this debate is somehow ready for everyone to make an informed decision is not sensible.

As far as I remember the debate about the max block size cap started a "long" time ago,
an it risked to stall indefinitely.

In my opinion Gavin's conduct has objectively an accelerating effect on the decision
process. I dare to say that such "extreme" attitude had stimulated a lot devs
in focusing to find a solution and to come to a compromise.

I'm not saying that his proposal is perfect or better than any others on the table, just
stating that his strategy have moved the situation toward a new equilibrium by a long shot.

I agree. Gavin's threat of a unilateral hardfork did successfully concentrate minds on coming up with solutions to the problem. How do you know that his intention was not to stage a dev-team coup? He behaved exactly as if he really intended to, nothing suggested otherwise (although I don't claim to be aware of every bit of public commentary Gavin has made, as previously mentioned, I am not a twitter user  Grin)

Vires in numeris
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 10:48:13 PM
 #27260

I would rather see voting by miners done in the future for changes to be made in the future, than see guesses made today applied far into the future.

For readers who have studied feedback control systems:

   Q. How do you get a good closed-loop response?

   A. Start with a good open-loop one.  

The point is that the Bitcoin system will need tweaking (feedback) at some point in time in the future.  It is best if these tweaks are as small as possible.  That means that the guesses we make now about the future (realize that there's no way not to guess) should be as realistic as possible, thereby giving us a good open-loop response that needs as little feedback as possible to correct.  

There's a faint suggestion here that there is only one possible way to make bitcoin scale up, and it involves guessing which block size corresponds to which required rate of transactions. Which implies you believe the whole thing scales up using block size increases only. Is this really what you're implying?

No, I'm just trying to make the point that there's no way not to guess.  A lot of people think the "static" 1 MB limit is somehow neutral while a growing cap is more of a guess.  They're both guesses.  One will turn out to be more accurate than the other and thus require less tweaking going forward...

On that note, starting with a good open-loop response is not the only way to get a good closed-loop one.  There's another way: throw a lot of energy at your system!  Or in Bitcoin's case, a lot of debate and arguments!!    

Now imagine if Satoshi had taken another few moments when implementing the cap.  He writes this in the code:

- "Let's set the cap at 1 MB for now…"

- "…but since Nielsen's Law suggests 50% growth per year, let's make the cap increase by 50% each year too…"

- "…this may need some tweaking in the future, but it's better to make a guess that's slightly off, than one that ridiculously off (like a static limit)!"

If he had done this, the blocksize limit would be set at 11.4 MB now and I bet everyone would be pretty happy.  It would just be taken for granted that "of course the limit grows with time because the systems grows with time too!"

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 ... 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!