Bitcoin Forum
December 10, 2016, 03:30:09 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   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 ... 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 1416 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1807453 times)
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
June 24, 2015, 12:30:19 AM
 #27301

- the system remains open such that if I feel really really strongly about it, that I can run a node and mine too

You wouldn't have enough hashrate to have any impact against a network with only 10 miners. Duh.

You're missing the game theory behind what keeps bitcoin secure, which is probably why you're so convinced that it will fail.  For example, you said a new entrant wouldn't have enough hashrate to compete.  However, if it requires a lot of hash rate for that new entrant to compete, then that means the system is very likely not centralized.  The reason is that if the miners formed a cartel (and bitcoin became centralized), then they would all lower their hashrates to earn a greater profit.  But by doing so, they would invite competition from new members that aren't in the cartel (b/c suddenly it's profitable for new miners to join).  

TLDR: I believe bitcoin will remain decentralized if it remains possible for participants to freely join the network and mine (i.e., it remains a dynamic-membership multi-party signature (DMMS) consensus scheme).

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
1481340609
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481340609

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481340609
Reply with quote  #2

1481340609
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481340609
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481340609

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481340609
Reply with quote  #2

1481340609
Report to moderator
1481340609
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481340609

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481340609
Reply with quote  #2

1481340609
Report to moderator
1481340609
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481340609

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481340609
Reply with quote  #2

1481340609
Report to moderator
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 12:33:19 AM
 #27302

I dont see it like that, I see Gmaxwell plowing ahead with his SideChains with full intent to implement the change to Bitcoin regardless of introducing new protocol intensives to take transactions off chain and the resulting economic consequence, this very action is a hostile takeover by Blockstream.

that said, it's always been that no one can force users to use a modified version of Bitcoin if development becomes centralized, saying "it'll never happen it's oven-source, we'll just fork the code". well its now centralized, Gmaxwell has been very vocal in promoting the fact that Gavin has no voice in the development of Bitcoin and is in the minority, and is quick to say he is not a Lead Developer, while technical true, he has taken on a self proclaimed role of Lead Scientist, in my view a more general and holistic vantage point.

there is lots of misinformation out there, and I don't see the masses getting involved in this debate, just looking at the pols people keep talking about, there are at most a few 100 or so voters, while Coinbase boast over 3M individual wallets that's a lot of early adopters invested in Bitcoin - ( i imagine that is 1 or 2 wallets per user) and we are not seeing them push for the changes.

at the end of the day Bitcoin incentives are driven by the economic majority, not a centralized core group, the economic majority will promote the incentive sachems that are the most beneficial to the largest audience to maximize there return. even miners shouldn't be have a voice like they do in this debate.

What you don't see that is in a consensus network where the transaction is the full node (i.e. the majority are the miners), then all the issues (including scaling) fall away.

And the only way to get there, is with a pegged side chain.

If what I stated was already published and proven, then you who are resisting SCs are the obstacles to progress.

This is why you don't understand me. Because you can't (yet) see what I see because it hasn't been described publicly (yet).

tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1988


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 12:35:57 AM
 #27303

Financial disclaimers:

Hearn:  self employed, Lighthouse open source project
Gavin:  research MIT institutional salary
cypherdoc:  coins
Maxwell, Back, Wiullie, Friendenbach, Corallo, Togami, Timon:  Blockstream salaries, stock options, $21M of investor money

no matter how you cut it, the first 3 don't have traditional financial conflicts as defined in the "real" world.

Seems to me that Andresen and Hearn were two of the most active people in the now defunct Bitcoin Foundation that took hundreds of thousand (if not millions) of dollars out of people's pockets before the organization ended up broke and at the bottom of a smoking crater.  I don't especially believe that this was a purposeful scam but I don't rule it out.  One way or another it is kind of a blight.

There is nothing mysterious about a group of the most highly regarded and active developers in the ecosystem joining forces to work on a promising long-term solution to a problem with Bitcoin that everyone of them could probably see as the read the whitepaper for the first time.

Basically your 'conflict of interest' dog just doesn't hunt.  That is reflected in your poll which is looking more flaccid by the day as people wise up.  You folks need to go back to the drawing board and figure out a new strategy.  Good luck with that...sidechains are getting closer day by day.  tic-toc-tic-toc


TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 12:38:58 AM
 #27304

- the system remains open such that if I feel really really strongly about it, that I can run a node and mine too

You wouldn't have enough hashrate to have any impact against a network with only 10 miners. Duh.

You're missing the game theory behind what keeps bitcoin secure, which is probably why you're so convinced that it will fail.  For example, you said a new entrant wouldn't have enough hashrate to compete.  However, if it requires a lot of hash rate for that new entrant to compete, then that means the system is very likely not centralized.

Duh. Exactly that was _my_ point if you argue there will be only 10 miners.

I am not going to waste my entire day as you drag me into more nonsense debate.

The reason is that if the miners formed a cartel (and bitcoin became centralized), then they would all lower their hashrates to earn a greater profit.

Not necessarily. You always assume Nash equilibrium and are myopic about out-of-band incentives, such as the incentive to apply censorship (KYC compliance) and other payoffs that can come from that.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 12:52:37 AM
 #27305

My god, cheezes christ, what a socialist pile of crap.

I can personally guarantee that bitcoin with the crucial coin limit will continue, even if I have to run my own miner and wait decennia before the difficulty adjusts. More likely though, I will be joined by at least a percentage of current miners, meaning the system will continue with the slight annoyance of having confirmation times of a day or so. Have your fork, the inflatacoin will go the way of the fiats.

And without SCs, your hard limit fork will be absolutely worthless in exchange value.

I think you need to review a thread I wrote as AnonyMint:

No Money Exists Without the Majority

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=226033.0

Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
June 24, 2015, 12:53:14 AM
 #27306

- the system remains open such that if I feel really really strongly about it, that I can run a node and mine too

You wouldn't have enough hashrate to have any impact against a network with only 10 miners. Duh.

You're missing the game theory behind what keeps bitcoin secure, which is probably why you're so convinced that it will fail.  For example, you said a new entrant wouldn't have enough hashrate to compete.  However, if it requires a lot of hash rate for that new entrant to compete, then that means the system is very likely not centralized.

Duh. Exactly that was _my_ point if you argue there will be only 10 miners.

I am not going to waste my entire day as you drag me into more nonsense debate.


I said I didn't expect there to ever be only 10 miners!  I was pointing out, though, that we probably don't need as many nodes/miners as many people think we need.  I then gave the very extreme example of 10 miners, spread out in different legal jurisdictions and run by people with different ideologies, and stated that such a network could still be "decentralized."

Quote
The reason is that if the miners formed a cartel (and bitcoin became centralized), then they would all lower their hashrates to earn a greater profit.

Not necessarily. You always assume Nash equilibrium and are myopic about out-of-band incentives, such as the incentive to apply censorship (KYC compliance) and other payoffs that can come from that.

Fine.  Maybe they earn a profit or perks some other way and not directly by reducing their hashrate.  It doesn't matter.  The point is they're getting above-market-value for the work they're doing.  If the network is free to join, then others who are not in the cartel will want to join in order to "eat their lunch."

Again, I believe bitcoin will remain decentralized if it remains possible for participants to freely join the network and mine (i.e., it remains a dynamic-membership multi-party signature (DMMS) consensus scheme).


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

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 12:59:36 AM
 #27307

If the network is free to join, then others who are not in the cartel will want to join in order to "eat their lunch."

They can't. I already told you that you wouldn't have enough hashrate unless you were a member of the cartel monopoly that is able to charge the cost of mining to the entire population via the capture of the sovereign bond-fiat connection.

What do you think KYC and 9/11 is all about?

You are socially myopic.

Edit: don't forget a monopoly can also raise transaction fees but withhold transactions for the minority miners. I (AnonyMint) described this attack in 2013 (Transactions Withholding Attack).

lissandra
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 12:59:51 AM
 #27308

My god, cheezes christ, what a socialist pile of crap.

I can personally guarantee that bitcoin with the crucial coin limit will continue, even if I have to run my own miner and wait decennia before the difficulty adjusts. More likely though, I will be joined by at least a percentage of current miners, meaning the system will continue with the slight annoyance of having confirmation times of a day or so. Have your fork, the inflatacoin will go the way of the fiats.

And without SCs, your hard limit fork will be absolutely worthless in exchange value.

I think you need to review a thread I wrote as AnonyMint:

No Money Exists Without the Majority

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=226033.0

Well that only make sense right.

cause what value is it if no one holds it, so yeah majority of the people need to hold it for any point of value.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 01:08:22 AM
 #27309

My god, cheezes christ, what a socialist pile of crap.

I can personally guarantee that bitcoin with the crucial coin limit will continue, even if I have to run my own miner and wait decennia before the difficulty adjusts. More likely though, I will be joined by at least a percentage of current miners, meaning the system will continue with the slight annoyance of having confirmation times of a day or so. Have your fork, the inflatacoin will go the way of the fiats.

And without SCs, your hard limit fork will be absolutely worthless in exchange value.

I think you need to review a thread I wrote as AnonyMint:

No Money Exists Without the Majority

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=226033.0

Well that only make sense right.

cause what value is it if no one holds it, so yeah majority of the people need to hold it for any point of value.

Or some use case that cause a minority to demand it.

So they need to argue some features their hard limit fork will have that drive a use case. If store-of-value is the use case, they have to explain how their coins are better than gold. If their system has no anonymity then it is surely toast. Also how does their minority system resist 50% attack? Whack-A-Mole isn't a viable retort. They will never get the necessary changes to the protocol without SCs.

HeliKopterBen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622



View Profile
June 24, 2015, 01:22:32 AM
 #27310

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
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 01:37:11 AM
 #27311

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
 #27312


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
 #27313

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

Activity: 1988


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 04:57:56 AM
 #27314


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
 #27315


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: 1302


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 05:14:39 AM
 #27316

Fun watching u two dance.. Get a room already! :p
mmmaybe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 462



View Profile WWW
June 24, 2015, 05:18:41 AM
 #27317

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
 #27318


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
*
Online Online

Activity: 1988


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 05:31:37 AM
 #27319

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: 714



View Profile
June 24, 2015, 05:56:53 AM
 #27320

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.

Pages: « 1 ... 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 1416 ... 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!