Bitcoin Forum
December 06, 2016, 08:33:36 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 ... 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 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1804946 times)
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106


View Profile
June 26, 2015, 12:55:35 PM
 #27521

BIP 101 from Gavin:
 
  BIP: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/163
 
  Code: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6341

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481013216
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481013216

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481013216
Reply with quote  #2

1481013216
Report to moderator
1481013216
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481013216

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481013216
Reply with quote  #2

1481013216
Report to moderator
1481013216
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481013216

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481013216
Reply with quote  #2

1481013216
Report to moderator
Voktar
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 55


View Profile
June 26, 2015, 01:52:39 PM
 #27522

Yep, great news, finally...

I hope Bitcoin will be again on track with the true Shatoshi vision, a tool to serve their users, rich or poor,  not a tool to enrich miners, not a mere layer below other dozens of layers like the actual core devs want.

Lets the baby scale Wink


.

"pit pat piffy wing wong wang"
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 26, 2015, 04:20:58 PM
 #27523

wow, this is getting some legs:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 26, 2015, 04:22:03 PM
 #27524

corporate investment grade bonds.  not good at all:

sidhujag
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288


View Profile
June 26, 2015, 04:29:25 PM
 #27525


not at all.. its either now or wait for a few years for the bears.. they r pushing hard.
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
June 26, 2015, 04:31:39 PM
 #27526

Unbelievable!  It's almost as if subsidizing spam/noise transactions creates more of them.   Huh

Indeed, building wider motorways doesn't necessarily solve traffic congestion. A bunch of other things sometimes do (raising gasoline/car taxes/prices, regulation, unemployment, crime, alternative transport, virtual working, better city layout, emigration...).

Toll could remove congestion on the smallest road. But it does not solve the capacity problem directly, only as a price signal to entrepreneurs to build higher capacity roads.

There is a reason that metropols have multiplie high capacity multiple lane roads going in and out. They  need the capacity. The towns could not have grown to metropols without them.
kazuki49
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350



View Profile
June 26, 2015, 04:36:33 PM
 #27527



This kind of talk will be used to remove the 21m coin limit in Bitcoin.

I'm sorry if you can't see it.
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
June 26, 2015, 04:44:01 PM
 #27528



This kind of talk will be used to remove the 21m coin limit in Bitcoin.

I'm sorry if you can't see it.

No, it's food for dreamers. Imaging all the people...I know I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one!
Lennon was a bitcoiner, obviously.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 26, 2015, 04:48:22 PM
 #27529



This kind of talk will be used to remove the 21m coin limit in Bitcoin.

I'm sorry if you can't see it.

your disrespect of dedicated insightful ppl in Bitcoin is astounding.

of course, i wouldn't expect anything less from the Monero Pimp.
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
June 26, 2015, 04:49:06 PM
 #27530

This is more of a fork than the blocksize increase, it is a fundamental change to the underlying protocol

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3b7260/checklocktimeverify_has_been_merged_finally/

Where is the analysis that proves this change is OK? I've been told that is the hurdle. Are users asking for this? Do users have options to reject it? Why is it OK that a small group of people get to fork Bitcoin.

This change forks Bitcoin into a BlockstreamCoin, and everyone is expected to just accept it because the "Board of Directors" have said to.
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
June 26, 2015, 04:54:55 PM
 #27531

Imagine if we hit the network limit in the future. To simplify, imagine we have two clusters of users, nodes and miners, connected with a starved link.

When a transactions is created in the one cluster, it may not be transfered quickly enough to the other cluster, where the next block happens to be found. Obviously, zero confirmation transactions will be of less use.

Due to the same starved link problem, a block may not propagate to a miner in the other cluster quickly enough, leading to a higher orphan rate, and may be to orphan chains of some length. That means the six confirmation safe level may have to be extended. Six confirmations have always been an advice anyway, for each confirmation the confidence increases.

In such a scenario, one cluster may prove to be the leading mining arena, and any miner must make sure that they are well connected to that cluster.

But will it take down bitcoin? No.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 26, 2015, 04:57:44 PM
 #27532

whoops, $DJT going negative again.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
June 26, 2015, 05:05:50 PM
 #27533

https://bitcoinism.liberty.me/what-is-mining-why-do-we-need-it-and-how-much-is-enough/
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
June 26, 2015, 05:07:00 PM
 #27534

If we get a permanent fork out of this, there will be a fierce naming duel in the blogospere. I predict the two names that come out of it are bitcoin and blockstreamcoin.

Most probably, one fork will disappear so quickly that the fork will not be permanent, but exist only hours.

tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974


View Profile
June 26, 2015, 05:22:38 PM
 #27535

If we get a permanent fork out of this, there will be a fierce naming duel in the blogospere. I predict the two names that come out of it are bitcoin and blockstreamcoin.

Most probably, one fork will disappear so quickly that the fork will not be permanent, but exist only hours.


Soft-fork.  Doesn't matter much as long as there are some nodes which understand it, and no real reason for a node operator to not just go with it except for hard-core politics.  In order to fight it one would have to patch their node to specifically drop the messages since otherwise it's just random data which would be passed not unlike the very many extensions which have been soft-forked in in the past.  One thing about a flooding network is that specific discrimination is only as effective as one's ability to get a nearly 100% majority on-board.  Miners are the choke-points for such discrimination.

TL-DR:  you lose.

Note:  Actually these are my own assumptions based on my understandings of the protocol and expectation of implementation.  Edits: minor.


Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
June 26, 2015, 06:20:57 PM
 #27536

This is more of a fork than the blocksize increase, it is a fundamental change to the underlying protocol

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3b7260/checklocktimeverify_has_been_merged_finally/

Where is the analysis that proves this change is OK? I've been told that is the hurdle. Are users asking for this? Do users have options to reject it? Why is it OK that a small group of people get to fork Bitcoin.

This change forks Bitcoin into a BlockstreamCoin, and everyone is expected to just accept it because the "Board of Directors" have said to.

I'm not sure the Bitcoin experiment survives, I trust the developers know the code works, but i have no dough they don't understand the resulting ramifications and all the externalities.

In your view what is it that you see is controversial and some examples of how it works?

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974


View Profile
June 26, 2015, 06:45:08 PM
 #27537


Read the above long-winded, contentless, screed of cold leftovers if you like.  Or skim.  I'll be a good guy and break down the real issue right here:

Today's implementation of mining is like having a tin can tied to a horse's tail.  The fast the horse runs, the faster the can follows.  We've currently got about 6 miners (or horses so-to-speak) that make any real difference.

The main trouble with this is that each of the horses is going to hit the profitability break-even cliff at roughly the same time due to similar economics (though geo-politics could intercede.)  At that point there will be large chunks of sha256 power available since it's pointless to mine Bitcoin with it...at least for economic reasons.

The alternative is to try to match endless inflation against profitability not unlike how debt-based fiat systems work.  Bitcoin has so many sources of volatility that this would be a tough row to hoe even if it were (stupidly) chosen as a strategy.

Note that the economics of mining under our current paradigm are not even effected by block-size/fee-structure arguments.  That's a separate issue.


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 26, 2015, 07:01:07 PM
 #27538


Read the above long-winded, contentless, screed of cold leftovers if you like.  Or skim.  I'll be a good guy and break down the real issue right here:

Today's implementation of mining is like having a tin can tied to a horse's tail.  The fast the horse runs, the faster the can follows.  We've currently got about 6 miners (or horses so-to-speak) that make any real difference.

The main trouble with this is that each of the horses is going to hit the profitability break-even cliff at roughly the same time due to similar economics (though geo-politics could intercede.)  At that point there will be large chunks of sha256 power available since it's pointless to mine Bitcoin with it...at least for economic reasons.

The alternative is to try to match endless inflation against profitability not unlike how debt-based fiat systems work.  Bitcoin has so many sources of volatility that this would be a tough row to hoe even if it were (stupidly) chosen as a strategy.

Note that the economics of mining under our current paradigm are not even effected by block-size/fee-structure arguments.  That's a separate issue.



I don't even have to read his article yet to see that you don't have the faintest clue how bitcoin works. That's always been the case though.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 26, 2015, 07:02:13 PM
 #27539

Imagine if we hit the network limit in the future. To simplify, imagine we have two clusters of users, nodes and miners, connected with a starved link.

When a transactions is created in the one cluster, it may not be transfered quickly enough to the other cluster, where the next block happens to be found. Obviously, zero confirmation transactions will be of less use.

Due to the same starved link problem, a block may not propagate to a miner in the other cluster quickly enough, leading to a higher orphan rate, and may be to orphan chains of some length. That means the six confirmation safe level may have to be extended. Six confirmations have always been an advice anyway, for each confirmation the confidence increases.

In such a scenario, one cluster may prove to be the leading mining arena, and any miner must make sure that they are well connected to that cluster.

But will it take down bitcoin? No.

Moar nonsense from someone who apparently has insufficient experience in software engineering. Sorry to make this personal (especially with someone who has expressed some appreciation for my input on the forum yet with reservations about my etiquette), but some of you guys have no self-restraint. Some of you (and you know who you are) go on and on and on posting about technical issues without even the slightest bit of reticence nor shame that you might be totally-fucking-wrong. The reason this thread is not in the Development & Technical Discussion board, is because many of the posts in this thread would likely be deleted by the moderator there to prevent the promulgation of misinformation.

Hey n00bs, a starved link means it can never catch up with the transaction rate. Infinite confirmations won't help you. The two clusters will diverge as two forks with the BTC money supply effectively doubled if every HODLer can access both clusters.

The only way to deal with this situation is treat each of the clusters as pegged side chains of each other, then lock the value for each coin on one of the clusters (which is something plausible on a starved link such as a short wave radio feed). This is yet another reason I am excited about Blockstream's work.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 26, 2015, 07:14:12 PM
 #27540

Look how the 1MB down vote gang goes after my simple non threatening request to vote here in the above poll:

http://reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3aykzr/btcchina_we_think_gavins_proposal_is_a/csh5nnd

This means a lot of things since it gives them equal opportunity to come here and vote too:

1. They are afraid of the results.
2. They don't like me
3. They are a bunch of thugs.
4. They want to hide the truth

All the above apply.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 ... 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!