Bitcoin Forum
November 24, 2017, 03:47:54 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 ... 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 1414 1415 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2013839 times)
HeliKopterBen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622



View Profile
June 24, 2015, 01:22:32 AM
 #27281

Well, the facts are that Gavin literally did just that; an alternative, hardforked client with a 20 MB block limit, and anyone from the core deve team that didn't like that could watch while he lobbies miners, services and merchants to accept the new client. That was what he said, he has not retracted it, nor confessed the ulterior motive you are affording him. Those are the facts, are they not?

Why do they have to sit back and watch?  Can they not lobby those same miners, services, and merchants.  Besides, the miners are mostly in control anyway.  That's why gavin was so quick to accept the 8mb deal offered by the Chinese miners.  He knows who ultimately enforces the code.  The blockstream guys don't seam to understand that.

Counterfeit:  made in imitation of something else with intent to deceive:  merriam-webster
Join ICO Now Coinlancer is Disrupting the Freelance marketplace!
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511538474
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511538474

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511538474
Reply with quote  #2

1511538474
Report to moderator
1511538474
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511538474

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511538474
Reply with quote  #2

1511538474
Report to moderator
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 01:37:11 AM
 #27282

judge for yourself.  don't bother to tell me your conclusion b/c i already know what it will be:

https://twitter.com/adam3us

Adam has said they are in private discussions, which is what I urged them to do.

He retweeted these Wladmir tweets which are clearly show Wladmir gets it:

https://twitter.com/orionwl/status/613212008020844544

https://twitter.com/orionwl/status/613218317436887040

https://twitter.com/orionwl/status/613214989386678272

https://twitter.com/orionwl/status/613209976857829376

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 02:47:46 AM
 #27283


Hard money is a delusion.

What you really want is soft money that is decentralized and thus remains permission-less (censorship-free).


I'd argue what you are talking about here is a need for cash, or least the symbol of cash. And decentralization alone isn't enough to create an ecash. It has to be fungible, untraceable and unlinkable. Bitcoin's only fungible as long as you can guarantee your wallet won't become blacklisted, and as the tracking tech gets more and more sophisticated, this becomes more and more of a crap-shoot.

If I'm a "cash only" mom and pop restaurant who relied on a loan from an underworld organization to secure my business and need to pay restitution to secure my business and myself, am I going to risk using a currency that can be used to reveal all my tax revenue (credit) or (cash) one that lets me keep a profit over what I pay to my Bosses--the Mafia, the Yakuza, my kid's College Loan Syndicate?

You have to remember that most small business owners aren't technologically sophisticated and cash fills a very pertinent need in their lives. They aren't going to get a degree in sidechains or mixers or tumblers in order to perform their daily business--especially when those things still have a risk of tainting their accounts when the best of practices are followed.

The $ symbol exist and a lot of people want a digital equivalent, and BTC won't fill that demand until it is in the core. Right now  BTC symbolizes Behind Bars or worse....

I am saying that for as long as loaning money and charging it to the sovereign debt-fiat backstop (i.e. the Logic of Collective Action) is the easier way for the masses to get "free money", then all attempts at non-free money will be subsumed by that aforementioned paradigm which inherently concentrates power.

For example, the 50% attack on PoW.

So that is why if you are going to succeed, then your perpetual debasement must be high enough to compete, then you need a way to give this away (distribute it) to the masses that can't be gamed such that it really is taken by the wealthy.

I solved this design problem finally!

necrita
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 49


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 04:12:56 AM
 #27284

I concur with tvbcof that there may be an opportunity during the hard fork for people to speculate and make a fortune.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 04:57:56 AM
 #27285


I concur with tvbcof that there may be an opportunity during the hard fork for people to speculate and make a fortune.

It looks like we probably won't even get a chance to play.  The bloatchain fork looks like it will be stillborn at best.  They'll probably give it up soon.

Even if not, in the best of circumstances playing these games would have been iffy since all Bitcoin-based crypto-currencies and probably all crypto-currencies generally would suffer a black eye that would take all of them down significantly for a good period of time.  It still might be possible to play various differentials but it would be risky and a lot of work.

The good news is that as sidechains start to blossom it will click in even the most dense of minds (i.e., cypherdoc's) that hodling BTC is effectively a simultaneous bet on the success of any sidechain no matter what niche it fills.  Further, since sidechains themselves will sprout like weeds to fill any empty space they will be very robust against attack.  These two things in and of themselves could have a fairly dramatic increase in interest and in price for native BTC.


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 24, 2015, 05:10:34 AM
 #27286


I concur with tvbcof that there may be an opportunity during the hard fork for people to speculate and make a fortune.

It looks like we probably won't even get a chance to play.  The bloatchain fork looks like it will be stillborn at best.  They'll probably give it up soon.

Even if not, in the best of circumstances playing these games would have been iffy since all Bitcoin-based crypto-currencies and probably all crypto-currencies generally would suffer a black eye that would take all of them down significantly for a good period of time.  It still might be possible to play various differentials but it would be risky and a lot of work.

The good news is that as sidechains start to blossom it will click in even the most dense of minds (i.e., cypherdoc's) that hodling BTC is effectively a simultaneous bet on the success of any sidechain no matter what niche it fills.  Further, since sidechains themselves will sprout like weeds to fill any empty space they will be very robust against attack.  These two things in and of themselves could have a fairly dramatic increase in interest and in price for native BTC.



it's going to be fun watching you crawl.

you're reading this totally wrong as usual.
sidhujag
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 05:14:39 AM
 #27287

Fun watching u two dance.. Get a room already! :p

★☆★Syscoin - Decentralized Marketplace and Multisig Platform
Pay with Bitcoin, ZCash and many more
For more visit Syscoin.org  ★☆★
mmmaybe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 462



View Profile WWW
June 24, 2015, 05:18:41 AM
 #27288

Fun watching u two dance.. Get a room already! :p

No threesome...? Tongue Or a whole Bitcointalk orgie haha.


Has gold collapsed? Didn't know that, but BTC has gone up - a tiny bit. I still expect a whole different price level for BTC.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 05:20:16 AM
 #27289


I concur with tvbcof that there may be an opportunity during the hard fork for people to speculate and make a fortune.

It looks like we probably won't even get a chance to play.  The bloatchain fork looks like it will be stillborn at best.  They'll probably give it up soon.

Even if not, in the best of circumstances playing these games would have been iffy since all Bitcoin-based crypto-currencies and probably all crypto-currencies generally would suffer a black eye that would take all of them down significantly for a good period of time.  It still might be possible to play various differentials but it would be risky and a lot of work.

The good news is that as sidechains start to blossom it will click in even the most dense of minds (i.e., cypherdoc's) that hodling BTC is effectively a simultaneous bet on the success of any sidechain no matter what niche it fills.  Further, since sidechains themselves will sprout like weeds to fill any empty space they will be very robust against attack.  These two things in and of themselves could have a fairly dramatic increase in interest and in price for native BTC.



it's going to be fun watching you crawl.

you're reading this totally wrong as usual.

Specifically he must think the pegged side chains are going to be failure prone and or easy to attack forcing people to stay away from them.

He must think Gavinmike have cornered the world's developer talent pool.

Does he have any clue how many developers do not work on or with cryptocurrency related projects? The sky is wide open for providing an ecosystem for them and competing away from the paralysis of Bitcoin Core.

tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 05:31:37 AM
 #27290

Fun watching u two dance.. Get a room already! :p

Me and cypherdoc:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qoys8eUn9k


Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 826


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 05:56:53 AM
 #27291

Perhaps the bitcoin economy has matured enough that a set max block size is not actually needed anymore?!

What if we had some type of patch that eliminated "silly sized blocks" and allowed miners to set any soft limit they want? Have it something like: allow any size as long as it's not more than x3 (or other number) the previous months average block size.

Market incentives will drive each mining pools soft limits. Increasing the limits will stimulate growth (increase centralization if done too fast compared to technology because of resources needed) while smaller blocks will increase fees. Some may like smaller blocks because of risk of orphans while others will want large blocks to grow the user base of people using bitcoins. Allowing a x3 size block means that as long as a minority are making small blocks, those who want larger ones can still help grow the "silly size" limit and those who have weak internet connections just have to download the blocks and can continue making small ones.

A spam attacker could only create large blocks that were bigger than all the pools soft limits only by mining it himself and the largest block he could create would be a x3 of the blocks on the system. And just like it's in their economic self interest to not get bigger than 51% it would also be in pools own self interest to not have a soft limit that would risk too much centralization of the system by making it too large for current technology and allows for the system to rapidly adapt at the time. The fact that most mining is done by pools means that the soft limit can be more fluid.

Ultimately if we let pools set any limit they want would they set limits that would allow bitcoin to thrive? If we assume the majority of pools act in the interest of a growing decentralized system would max block size be needed anymore other than something to prevent a "silly size" block?



Yep. Glitters. The market takes care of it. The remaining movable hard limit is just a technical insuranse not to progress too fast.


TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 05:58:11 AM
 #27292

Fun watching u two dance.. Get a room already! :p

Me and cypherdoc:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qoys8eUn9k

And I only wanted to box  Shocked

(checking to make sure I still have all 21 fingers, toes, and ...)

tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 06:06:25 AM
 #27293

Fun watching u two dance.. Get a room already! :p

Me and cypherdoc:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qoys8eUn9k

And I only wanted to box  Shocked

Here's what inevitably happens to poor cypherdoc when he bothers me:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnSpeGlc9ic

It's been going on for years but the guy never seems to learn.


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 24, 2015, 06:10:50 AM
 #27294

let's list a few of the tactics employed by the Blockstream devs:

1.  appeal to authority- "the entire dev/technical community is against this"-which they're not if you look outside core dev.
2.  scare tactics- "if Bitcoin forks, it will fail"
3.  character assassination- "Gavin hasn't coded for over a year", "we are shocked by his behavior", "he's out courting merchants, exchanges, & miners behind our backs".

i honestly ask you, which of the 3 tactics has Gavin employed on Reddit or here?  my answer is NONE.  and here we yet another example of #2 tonite by gmax:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3awomg/how_the_bitcoin_experiment_might_fail/

he's getting pounded too.  and these are the reasons Blockstream will lose in the end.  no one trusts them.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 24, 2015, 06:12:47 AM
 #27295

Fun watching u two dance.. Get a room already! :p

Me and cypherdoc:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qoys8eUn9k

And I only wanted to box  Shocked

Here's what inevitably happens to poor cypherdoc when he bothers me:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnSpeGlc9ic

It's been going on for years but the guy never seems to learn.



no one cares for your socialist, elitist view around here except for maybe TPTB and a few others.  but go ahead, dream on.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 06:36:13 AM
 #27296

the reasons Blockstream will lose in the end.  no one trusts them.

We don't need to trust them, just the technology.

The federated servers can't deviate, for if they do, the BTC will be considered stolen and implicitly blacklisted on the Bitcoin coin.

Side chains don't need federated servers after we've eliminated Bitcoin Core (moved all the BTC out of it), which I don't think will take long.

Sorry your ASICs will be paperweights.

You are astute at politics, but a technological whipping boy.

no one cares for your socialist, elitist view

The socialists, elitists include the gavinmikrophones who say we have to have one size fits all and no technological progress.


da2ce7
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1222


Live and Let Live


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 06:47:39 AM
 #27297

let's list a few of the tactics employed by the Blockstream devs:

1.  appeal to authority- "the entire dev/technical community is against this"-which they're not if you look outside core dev.
2.  scare tactics- "if Bitcoin forks, it will fail"
3.  character assassination- "Gavin hasn't coded for over a year", "we are shocked by his behavior", "he's out courting merchants, exchanges, & miners behind our backs".

i honestly ask you, which of the 3 tactics has Gavin employed on Reddit or here?  my answer is NONE.  and here we yet another example of #2 tonite by gmax:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3awomg/how_the_bitcoin_experiment_might_fail/

he's getting pounded too.  and these are the reasons Blockstream will lose in the end.  no one trusts them.


I've been closely following the debate, in-fact I even tried my hand at a proposal.

I'm a very cautious man by nature. I first want to comment how the core development team has so-far done an underrepresented engineering work in computer science in keeping the Bitcoin network running.  This achievement should not be under-stated.  They have really done an remarkable job.

Part of their success has been their extremely conservative nature. In the past, when changes have been rushed through, such as BIP 16 https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0016.mediawiki , without full consideration of the proposed alternatives (BIP 17) https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0017.mediawiki we have found serious issues with them in hindsight.

To quote:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/34mrtj/eli5_why_is_peter_todd_important_and_why_do_some/
Quote
[–]nullcGreg Maxwell - Bitcoin Expert 14 points 1 month ago*

To give an external perspective from Luke's on this;

I now agree that BIP17 was better; not just slightly better but very clearly better in important, meaningful ways.

At the time I preferred BIP16, in hindsight I made an error in reasoning-- part of this was that I incorrectly believed that the difference was smaller than it actually was: There were substantial differences in terms of limitations of P2SH that none of us (probably not even Luke) understood at the time. (I say not even Luke because Luke's primary argument was about the "aesthetics" of the implementation, which were not-- by themselves-- that persuasive to anyone.)

A lack of care in this deployment resulted in substantial non-trivial (3-5 blocks) network forks for a period of about two months. BIP16's irregularity resulted in alternative implementers being somewhat slower to implement and more error prone. Luke just gave a concrete example (the idiotic 520 byte limit; which I think we didn't even realize existed in BIP16 at the time, spec was updated later to mention it); another is that you can't combine multiple P2SH scripts, e.g. to get an OR where you can spend a coin with either a small script or a big one-- that one we knew existed but didn't give adequate thought to, it's turned out to be a rather annoying limitation.

At the time the fact that the BIP16 approach had more testing and work on it, especially after the embarrassing design reboot after OP_EVAL turned out to be vulnerability introducing, and Gavin's strong preference for it, combined with the assessment of "little difference" made me prefer BIP16; as anything else would have meant additional delays. In reality, it was basically years before there was widespread P2SH use, an additional delay would have been better. It's worth noting that the person (roconnor) who found the OP_EVAL flaw also preferred BIP17-- which was probably a sign we should have paid more attention to. It's not a big regret but I do consider it a lesson.

It didn't help that some people (mostly not Luke himself) tried to construct a public drama with non-technical community members over what was still just a kind of boring technical argument. Unfortunately; trying to make drama can have exactly the opposite effect of embedding people in their positions and making them immune to reason. It's almost universally a bad move if you care about achieving a high quality result. I keep trying to remind myself of the importance of deciding to be immune to political drama in order to avoid the failure modes it creates if you let it influence you.

You can see a chart of opinions at the time: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/P2SH_Votes BIP16 was a condorcet winner; but most people considered either approach acceptable.

Rushing important decisions is a fools game. A prudent person makes well informed and slow careful choices.


I would much prefer to suffer the discomfort of transaction fees being a few more cents, than to rush a hard fork and fuck up the community (the most valuable thing that Bitcoin has).

(From a Old Hat).

One off NP-Hard.
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 06:59:04 AM
 #27298

I'm less interested in rushing the hard fork than I was, now that it seems less likely that Bitcoin breaks due to full blocks.

High fees eventually is burdensome, but that's a much less urgent problem because it takes real adoption to get fees high and it ramps gently. Hopefully fees will give us a nice smooth ramp up in pain so that the need to hard fork can come smoothly to a head, rather than suddenly, leaving the holdouts with no ground to stand on so that consensus is easier, without having the pain be so sudden and intense that it results in a PR fiasco.

Gavin's plan to schedule a hard fork for a future date is fine with me, though, since it can always be unscheduled if necessary. In the meantime we can expect everything to be tried and tested so that we'll know whether it's really necessary and how much opposition there really is.

A fork will be necessary eventually either way, and everyone acknowledges that. Since the question is only "when and by how much,"  the ramping fees creates a nice gentle mounting of pressure toward consensus on exactly how the "raise the cap" vs. "optimize other ways" contours play out.
Bagatell
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 722



View Profile
June 24, 2015, 07:01:42 AM
 #27299

Quote
[–]nullcGreg Maxwell - Bitcoin Expert 14 points 1 month ago*

It didn't help that some people (mostly not Luke himself) tried to construct a public drama with non-technical community members over what was still just a kind of boring technical argument. Unfortunately; trying to make drama can have exactly the opposite effect of embedding people in their positions and making them immune to reason. It's almost universally a bad move if you care about achieving a high quality result. I keep trying to remind myself of the importance of deciding to be immune to political drama in order to avoid the failure modes it creates if you let it influence you.


And here we are again.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 07:10:48 AM
 #27300

I'm less interested in rushing the hard fork than I was, now that it seems less likely that Bitcoin breaks due to full blocks.

I believe the rush was fabricated to draw Blockstream into a political cat fight which of course Gavinmike could win because the majority are easily hoodwinked by "this is for the masses" and Blockstream "is against progress" and are "elitists". I think they wanted to prevent side chains some how if they could gain control over the fork, such as blacklisting all BTC that went off chain.

That is why I urged Adam to cool it in public (no direct communication, just my posts and one unacknowledged private message).

Appears Gavinmike may be losing now as awareness is rising.

Pages: « 1 ... 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 1414 1415 ... 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!