Bitcoin Forum
November 21, 2017, 04:35:47 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 ... 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 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2010898 times)
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 26, 2015, 08:28:42 PM
 #27521


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 believe you are referring to the usury model that likely funds the large ASIC farms. Interest compounding is an exponential function and thus can't go on forever unless the money supply expands at the same or greater exponential rate also (and even that can't go on forever because it misallocates real capital and resources).

The article does not address the fact that the State has the motive to censor transactions to enforce KYC up to the level of cost it can extract from society, because this is the only way the Industrial Age society can continue to parasite on the Knowledge Age with the NWO.

Thus if you want to defend against the takeover of Bitcoin to effectively a fiat currency, you need essentially the hashrate that extracts more value from society than the State can. This is why I decided that the security of Bitcoin (and all derivative altcoins including Monero) was a eugenics paradigm and doomed to fail.

Thus I set myself about finding the solution to the problem. And I did! Coming soon to a cinema near you...

1511282147
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511282147

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511282147
Reply with quote  #2

1511282147
Report to moderator
1511282147
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511282147

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511282147
Reply with quote  #2

1511282147
Report to moderator
1511282147
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511282147

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511282147
Reply with quote  #2

1511282147
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511282147
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511282147

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511282147
Reply with quote  #2

1511282147
Report to moderator
1511282147
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511282147

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511282147
Reply with quote  #2

1511282147
Report to moderator
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
June 26, 2015, 08:30:37 PM
 #27522

It is not true. Miner who do not understand op-code will not include transaction in block b/c he risks that his block will be ignored in case a transaction is invalid. But in case that other miners added this transaction into block  he will ignore  new op-code as it is NOP (no operation) instruction. (this mean, he will not verify if coins can be moved)

Then it is a virus that turns every old version full node into an SPV client over time as the derivative transactions can't be fully verified from the root.

Did I just invent a new insight?

If your node cannot understand something, it should not verify the subset of transactions which fall into this category.  I think (but am not certain) that this would be one of the definitions of a hard-fork vs. a soft-fork.  That is to say, if a node can be fooled in following the rules coded into it into verifying as true a transaction which is false, that would be a hard-fork.

Note that 'verifying true what is false' is NOT the same thing as 'failing to verify'.

If your node is 'turning into an SPV client' than it's probably an indication that it's time to patch your software.  If you are ejected from the network if you do not do so, it's an indication that a hard-fork has happened.


Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
June 26, 2015, 08:33:41 PM
 #27523

It is not true. Miner who do not understand op-code will not include transaction in block b/c he risks that his block will be ignored in case a transaction is invalid. But in case that other miners added this transaction into block  he will ignore  new op-code as it is NOP (no operation) instruction. (this mean, he will not verify if coins can be moved)

Then it is a virus that turns every old version full node into an SPV client over time as the derivative transactions can't be fully verified from the root.

Did I just invent a new insight?

Evaluating NOP as doing nothing is what current nodes do. :-) NOPs are there just for this reason. => add new functionality in case it is required. :-)
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 26, 2015, 08:36:09 PM
 #27524

It is not true. Miner who do not understand op-code will not include transaction in block b/c he risks that his block will be ignored in case a transaction is invalid. But in case that other miners added this transaction into block  he will ignore  new op-code as it is NOP (no operation) instruction. (this mean, he will not verify if coins can be moved)

Then it is a virus that turns every old version full node into an SPV client over time as the derivative transactions can't be fully verified from the root.

Did I just invent a new insight?

If your node cannot understand something, it should not verify the subset of transactions which fall into this category.  I think (but am not certain) that this would be one of the definitions of a hard-fork vs. a soft-fork.  That is to say, if a node can be fooled in following the rules coded into it into verifying as true a transaction which is false, that would be a hard-fork.

Note that 'verifying true what is false' is NOT the same thing as 'failing to verify'.

If your node is 'turning into an SPV client' than it's probably an indication that it's time to patch your software.  If you are ejected from the network if you do not do so, it's an indication that a hard-fork has happened.

I wasn't claiming an old version full node would verify what it can't.

If your old version full node can't verify any transaction, then it is equivalent to a SPV node.

Derivative transactions is a virus that eventually spreads to all transactions.

Thus you could put an undocumented opcode out there and eventually force all full nodes to be SPV nodes by spending in derivative transactions to normal opcodes and spreading out your dust into as many places as possible.

kazuki49
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350



View Profile
June 26, 2015, 08:46:03 PM
 #27525


Please transport that to me within 10 minutes via my laptop's 3G (often dropping down to 56 kbps) wireless connection.

Yep, the naivete around here is astounding.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
June 26, 2015, 08:49:52 PM
 #27526


I wasn't claiming an old version full node would verify what it can't.

If your old version full node can't verify any transaction, then it is equivalent to a SPV nodes.

Only if you trust and/or mis-read what it is telling you.


Derivative transactions is a virus that eventually spreads to all transactions.

Thus you could put an undocumented opcode out there and eventually force all full nodes to be SPV nodes by spending in derivative transactions to normal opcodes and spreading out your dust into as many places as possible.

Sure.  Just get miners to accept it.  As I say, this tends not to happen without going through the BIP process (onerous though it may be.)  At least until Hearn get's his 'benevolent dictator' upgrade popularized sufficiently which will hopefully be never.

This is one of the reasons why there is a dichotomy between how those who are 'into' Bitcoin enough to be contributors an those who are players at a different level have such a difference of opinion on the XT project I think.  It's probably why Matonis seems to indicate that XT would kill Bitcoin.


TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 26, 2015, 08:55:19 PM
 #27527


I wasn't claiming an old version full node would verify what it can't.

If your old version full node can't verify any transaction, then it is equivalent to a SPV nodes.

Only if you trust and/or mis-read what it is telling you.

Please stop trying to weasel words away from the logic that the full node is relegated to being the same as any other SPV node.


Derivative transactions is a virus that eventually spreads to all transactions.

Thus you could put an undocumented opcode out there and eventually force all full nodes to be SPV nodes by spending in derivative transactions to normal opcodes and spreading out your dust into as many places as possible.

Sure.  Just get miners to accept it.

But your argument was that by default miners ignore and accept opcodes they don't parse (aka not a hard fork), thus no need to convince miners to accept your undocumented opcode (aka a soft fork). Please make up your mind which functionality you are arguing miners do by default in the old version. You are moving the goal posts.

Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
June 26, 2015, 08:56:36 PM
 #27528

It is not true. Miner who do not understand op-code will not include transaction in block b/c he risks that his block will be ignored in case a transaction is invalid. But in case that other miners added this transaction into block  he will ignore  new op-code as it is NOP (no operation) instruction. (this mean, he will not verify if coins can be moved)

Then it is a virus that turns every old version full node into an SPV client over time as the derivative transactions can't be fully verified from the root.

Did I just invent a new insight?

If your node cannot understand something, it should not verify the subset of transactions which fall into this category.  I think (but am not certain) that this would be one of the definitions of a hard-fork vs. a soft-fork.  That is to say, if a node can be fooled in following the rules coded into it into verifying as true a transaction which is false, that would be a hard-fork.

Note that 'verifying true what is false' is NOT the same thing as 'failing to verify'.

If your node is 'turning into an SPV client' than it's probably an indication that it's time to patch your software.  If you are ejected from the network if you do not do so, it's an indication that a hard-fork has happened.

I wasn't claiming an old version full node would verify what it can't.

If your old version full node can't verify any transaction, then it is equivalent to a SPV node.

Derivative transactions is a virus that eventually spreads to all transactions.

Thus you could put an undocumented opcode out there and eventually force all full nodes to be SPV nodes by spending in derivative transactions to normal opcodes and spreading out your dust into as many places as possible.

99,9% of transactions are simplest (move coins from adress A to address B and C) ... but single bitcoin transaction can be much more complex
luigi1111
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1113



View Profile
June 26, 2015, 09:26:53 PM
 #27529


Derivative transactions is a virus that eventually spreads to all transactions.

Thus you could put an undocumented opcode out there and eventually force all full nodes to be SPV nodes by spending in derivative transactions to normal opcodes and spreading out your dust into as many places as possible.

Sure.  Just get miners to accept it.

But your argument was that by default miners ignore and accept opcodes they don't parse (aka not a hard fork), thus no need to convince miners to accept your undocumented opcode (aka a soft fork). Please make up your mind which functionality you are arguing miners do by default in the old version. You are moving the goal posts.

I *think* he was saying that you need to get (a) miner(s) to accept it so that it can get placed into a block, which would be necessary to create a situation like you're discussing.

Might not be what he meant though.

Edit: meaning, I think, that "miners" (same as other full nodes) would accept/ignore codes they don't know IF they are included in a block, but would not accept them for inclusion into their own blocks.
chessplayer99z
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1


View Profile WWW
June 26, 2015, 09:29:03 PM
 #27530

Very good info thanks! Smiley
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
June 26, 2015, 09:36:26 PM
 #27531

Edit: meaning, I think, that "miners" (same as other full nodes) would accept/ignore codes they don't know IF they are included in a block, but would not accept them for inclusion into their own blocks.

+1 .. this is soft fork
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
June 26, 2015, 09:54:08 PM
 #27532

cypherdoc, I do not believe that you will create "free" storage service with capacity "8,000 MB every 10 minutes" and with "100% guaranty" that no data will ever be lost. .... otherwise 8GB'er SC will fail (one simple mistake, single transactions is lost .. and  all data are invalid ).
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 26, 2015, 11:11:30 PM
 #27533

Great article. Emphasizes how all the geeks on this thread don't understand fundamentally what bitcoin is about. I don't necessarily agree with his characterization as commodity money nor with the 4 somewhat confusing classifications of money but overall he gets it:

http://wallstreettechnologist.com/2015/05/30/why-you-should-be-a-bitcoin-maximalist/
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
June 26, 2015, 11:12:32 PM
 #27534

Edit: meaning, I think, that "miners" (same as other full nodes) would accept/ignore codes they don't know IF they are included in a block, but would not accept them for inclusion into their own blocks.

+1 .. this is soft fork

That was my basic understanding, but I'm glad to get confirmation from ~odalv on this.

Unfortunately it is conceptually up an orbit two past where most general users in the ecosystem are at.  Unfortunate because it has a large bearing on why various arguments and disputes come from.  On one hand I've always argued that everyone who hodls should be aware of this minutia, but I cannot honestly say that I have a what I would classify as proficiency myself and I have the advantage of having a better than average background in systems and codebase management and such.

I do hope (and sense) that this conversation has been valuable to some of the participants.


tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
June 26, 2015, 11:26:29 PM
 #27535

Great article. Emphasizes how all the geeks on this thread don't understand fundamentally what bitcoin is about. I don't necessarily agree with his characterization as commodity money nor with the 4 somewhat confusing classifications of money but overall he gets it:

http://wallstreettechnologist.com/2015/05/30/why-you-should-be-a-bitcoin-maximalist/

Yet another long screed where some imbecile bloviates about 'money'.  Yawn.  Skimming a few sentances scattered througout the disertation is enough to see that it is a waste of time (or worse.)

Bitcoin is Bitcoin.  Whether one has some innate insecurity which makes them need to believe it is 'money' or is not 'money' or yada yada yada doesn't change Bitcoin in the slightest.  For years I've argued that whatever it is, it is fine to NOT consider it 'money' just on practical legal grounds, but at the end of the day, who gives a fuck?

I didn't even get to the end where (presumably from your (often completely wrong) representation of the story) the guy claims that Bitcoin should be the one ring that rules them all or whatever.  Not worth the bother.  From the few sentences I did read the guy's conclusions are almost certainly useless bullshit no matter what they are.


TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 27, 2015, 12:27:58 AM
 #27536

Edit: meaning, I think, that "miners" (same as other full nodes) would accept/ignore codes they don't know IF they are included in a block, but would not accept them for inclusion into their own blocks.

+1 .. this is soft fork

That was my basic understanding, but I'm glad to get confirmation from ~odalv on this.

Nothing has been stated which refutes my logic. If the old version has the functionality that luigi1111, Odalv, and tcbcof have reaffirmed is their assumption, then the dire outcome I explained is the potential result. Perhaps there are other possible mitigations to such an attack.

Somebody needs to bring this to the attention of the Core devs. Appears on the surface of it, they may have a serious lapse in logic (but not having seen their rebuttal, I might be missing something).

And thus please iCebreaker and tvbcof stop asserting or insinuating that Gmaxwell is smarter than me on every aspect of computer science. I already stated upthread that he is smarter than me on many aspects, including the depth of the cryptography math. I have already bested him on several occasions, including being the first to point out in his thread the logic of why CoinJoin can not work. I (with smooth's post leading the way) also recently pointed out that their white paper is unrealistic on the possibility of SPV proof transfers within 2 days, and that they failed to explain the lossy transfer and speculative angle. I also provided the math to prove Gmaxwell wrong in the Longest Chain thread. And now this.

I am not in a competition of ego with Gregory. He appeared to try to frame it that way in the past and I asked him not to in public (and lost my cool to him in private one time). Lately I've had a very brief private positive exchange with him and I hope it remains so. I would never try to assert my qualifications are greater than his. He can have that title, I don't want it. I am interested in results, not reputation (but please don't slander me when you don't know me).

Possibly the reason reputation is not so critically important to me, is that I have no desire whatsoever to go take employment. I am 50 years old (day after) tomorrow and I am really not interested to work under command of anyone else. I will work for the market and as a collaborator with anyone worthy.

tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
June 27, 2015, 12:41:57 AM
 #27537

...
And thus please iCebreaker and tvbcof stop asserting or insinuating that Gmaxwell is smarter than me on every aspect of computer science.

WTF?  I never said any such thing.  In point of fact I basically took it as more or less self-evident, but I never had any reason to state it.  Until now Wink

I already stated upthread that he is smarter than me on many aspects, including the depth of the cryptography math. I have already bested him on several occasions, including being the first to point out in his thread the logic of why CoinJoin can not work. I (with smooth's post leading the way) also recently pointed out that their white paper is unrealistic on the possibility of SPV proof transfers within 2 days, and that they failed to explain the lossy transfer and speculative angle. I also provided the math to prove Gmaxwell wrong in the Longest Chain thread. And now this.

I am not in a competition of ego with Gregory.

Now why would anyone suspect such a thing Huh

He appeared to try to frame it that way in the past and I asked him not to in public (and lost my cool to him in private one time). Lately I've had a very brief private positive exchange with him and I hope it remains so. I would never try to assert my qualifications are greater than his. He can have that title, I don't want it. I am interested in results, not reputation (but please don't slander me when you don't know me).

Possibly the reason reputation is not so critically important to me, is that I have no desire whatsoever to go take employment. I am 50 years old (day after) tomorrow and I am really not interested to work under command of anyone else. I will work for the market and as a collaborator with anyone worthy.

Happy birthday.


TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 27, 2015, 12:42:07 AM
 #27538

Yet another long screed where some imbecile bloviates ...  the guy's conclusions are almost certainly useless bullshit no matter what they are.

If for no other reason than nearly no one can predict the technological black swan, especially people not close to the technical minutia.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 27, 2015, 12:46:55 AM
 #27539

WTF?  I never said any such thing.  In point of fact I basically took it as more or less self-evident, but I never had any reason to state it.  Until now Wink

My comment was more directed at iCebreaker (and Cyperdorc) than you, but you have insinuated that you trust Blockstream more than any others because of their uber geeky talent. I also saw you were somewhat dismissive of my suggestion that I might have something significant (although it appeared you sort of morphed that view today), but I wouldn't say you were overtly dismissive. I just read your mind.  Wink

I am not in a competition of ego with Gregory.

Now why would anyone suspect such a thing Huh

Because others try to frame it that way. And they push it in my face with "Gregory wiped your ass on the floor" type of slander when in fact that is not the truth. Like any science, neither of us has omniscience. He pointed out some flaws in my thoughts, and I did so too to his.

Happy birthday.

Cheers.  Smiley

iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834


[LOL2X]


View Profile WWW
June 27, 2015, 12:57:47 AM
 #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


1. Polls on blocksize are so retarded. Like if Bitcoin was a democracy

Look how you constantly try to frame yourself as a Victim.   Roll Eyes

OMG POOR YOU THE 1MB "GANG" OF "THUGS" IS SO MEAN AND TERRIBLE!!!11!!1

5 downvotes and you crank up the victimology machine, imagining yourself as the target of some nefarious conspiracy.

Quick, check under your bed just in case the Learned Elders of Blocksteam might be hiding there!   Grin

Sidechains are up and running.  CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY has been merged.

Gavininsta hopes of 20MB blocks are a thing of the past.  Its only success was shifting the Overton Window such that 8MB doesn't seem as crazy.  Every core dev and his cat are submitting contradictory/incompatible/confusing BIPs.

I told you GavinCoin would get r3kt like Stannis on the Blackwater, and that exactly what has happened.

Try not to be such a poor sport about it, old chap.  The already unseemly self-pity is becoming nauseating.   Wink


██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine
whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." 
David Chaum 1996
"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect."  Adam Back 2014
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
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 ... 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!