Bitcoin Forum
November 20, 2017, 09:25:39 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 ... 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 1428 1429 1430 1431 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2010360 times)
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 28, 2015, 11:23:18 AM
 #27601

Many Core developers are risk adverse, it's their way or the highway as they are the gate keepers, they are also the ones who would have to fix any problems so they feel they are better equipped to make this decision. - problem is this has highlighted a conflict in development and that is central controlled policy makers decided for us which brigs into question the whole idea that Bitcoin is decentralized.  

In my view If anything we should be planning for Bitcoin growth and working on ways to prevent the existing mechanism from abuse.  

Blockstream (i.e. the Core devs) are planning to unleash the freedom for anyone to innovate on BTC pegged value, which is precisely what you are clamoring for.

1511213139
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511213139

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511213139
Reply with quote  #2

1511213139
Report to moderator
1511213139
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511213139

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511213139
Reply with quote  #2

1511213139
Report to moderator
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.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 28, 2015, 11:26:36 AM
 #27602

Much of the blocksize-limit debate is about keeping Bitcoin decentralized.  But I'm not even sure we even agree what that word means!  I'll propose the following as a working definition:

  "A system is decentralized if no entity exists that can exert veto power over the consensus process."

Interestingly, according to this definition a system cannot be more decentralized or less decentralized.  Similar to how a woman cannot be a little bit pregnant, a system is either decentralized or it is not.  

Of course there's certain behaviours that a woman can do to increase the chances of moving from the "not" state to the "pregnant" state, and certain precautions she can take to decrease these chances--but this is a different matter entirely to whether she is or is not pregnant.  Analogously, there are certain designs that may be more (or less) robust to moving to a centralized state, but that's a different thing from whether the system is or is not decentralized.  

So we actually need two distinct terms: "decentralized" is one of them, but we need another term that refers to the system's likelihood of remaining in the decentralized state.  

That is fine for as long as you don't revert to conflating 'entity' with 'node' as you've attempted to with your past simpleton arguments.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 28, 2015, 11:38:17 AM
 #27603

There may be bug (or luck to find some number) and then creating bitcoins out of nothing. And nobody can verify.
That is the risk - the scheme relies on the security of ECDSA to protect the currency supply.

We're already relying on ECDSA to protect our balances from overt theft, so I'm not sure how much it actually changes the security model to also rely on it to protect our balances from covert theft via counterfeiting.

The reason I'm interested in amount blinding is that my current project is working out a multi-step plan to kill graph analysis. With the right plan and without blinded amounts we can kill graph analysis, but with blinded amounts we can drive a stake through its heart to make sure it stays dead.

We are also using SHA-256 and RIPEMD-160 hashes to protect our balances. So even ECDSA is broken our balances can be safe and then ECDSA replaced.

Actually, the best path to a safe balance is not having a public balance at all.

http://i.imgur.com/fUVBvXK.png

http://i.imgur.com/FY7q54I.png

http://i.imgur.com/MUOwbae.png

One of the problems with making the amounts public in Cryptonote is that it makes transactions and wallets more complex (and consume more bandwidth) because mixing is done on equal denominations (of a power-of-10 in Monero case).

The value hiding protocols also require smallness and non-negativity proofs on the transaction outputs in order to restrain the printing of money out-of-thin-air, and these might have vulnerabilities in addition to the hardness of the discrete logarithm assumption of ECDSA. Today I introduced an idea for eliminating those extra assumptions at the cost of revealing the relative values but not the magnitudes.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 28, 2015, 11:45:25 AM
 #27604

political blabber

He missed important technical and economic arguments, but that is okay because I doubt he would understand them any way.

Disgruntled Bitards-to-the-moon since we've obliterated their illogic in their own thread, lol.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 28, 2015, 11:53:22 AM
 #27605

I'll still vouch for Frap.doc's character.

So why did he allegedly (court deposition I read, and he refused to provide a link to his rebuttal deposition) take 10% of every HashFast vaporware sold (whether he promoted that referral or not) and promote it here on the forum? How can that company be sure he is doing all the referrals if it was not obviously intended to be vaporware. Obviously they all knew what they were doing.

How could someone with good character swindle people?

He says he can't comment on the case, but he could I assume provided a link to his public deposition so we can hear his side of the case. I don't like people prying into my private life, which why I would not try to use my reputation to sell something (including an altcoin). I don't understand why a successful eye doctor would jeopardize his privacy.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 28, 2015, 12:34:23 PM
 #27606

Non-trivial revenue from fees would throw a huge monkey-wrench into that plan, and in particular because a blacklisted (or non-whitelisted) transaction instigator could and would pay even higher fees.  I wonder (and suspect) that that is part of what is driving the desperation to not have transaction fees become a significant part of infrastructure support.

I suggest a slight variation that rather by making their blocks larger than the smaller full nodes can mine without delegating to a pool (which could then censor on KYC or whatever as need be[1]), larger nodes get more revenue per block thus they can drive difficulty so relatively high that smaller full nodes become a shrinking percent of the hashrate.

Remember with control of 51% of the hashrate, any block can be filtered out of the longest chain. I already obliterated rocks' illogic on his claim of the ability to prove such an attack is underway.

[1] I am aware of the newer pool protocols that allow miners to insert transactions (which not all pools support), but if oblivious shares (hard fork) was implemented then pools could ignore these since they miner could not send their winning block directly to the P2P network. One way to probably force the implementation of oblivious shares is with a significant hashrate to do the share withholding attack on pools that don't support it.

Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
June 28, 2015, 03:17:15 PM
 #27607

We are also using SHA-256 and RIPEMD-160 hashes to protect our balances. So even ECDSA is broken our balances can be safe and then ECDSA replaced.
Pray tell how you will replace ECDSA when the coins are already assigned to keys for it?  (and when everyone and their sister constantly reuses addresses). A compromise of CT would mean that it was feasible to find discrete logs in this group, with that, anyone who learned your public key could recover your private key.  There are scenarios where the hashing, absent any address reuse, helps  (e.g. say the discrete log finding takes weeks)-- but it's important to not exaggerate the gains.

But indeed it isn't the ~quite~ same.

It's perfectly possible to construct schemes for private values which are unconditionally sound; meaning that there is no cryptographic assumption behind their inflation resistance, and a cryptographic break would only result in a loss of privacy.  I had previously thought that it was necessarily the case that any such scheme would have to be less efficient; but I have since realized my original reasoning for that was incorrect; though I do not (yet) know of a way to construct an unconditionally sound scheme which is anywhere near as efficient as CT;  but finding one is on my TODO list (though it falls below other improvements for CT privacy and network security that I'm working on).


I do not know :-), but maybe in case that ECDSA is broken we can split transacion into 2 part.
 1. broadcast transaction without public key (I do not know how to prevent from spaming)
 2. and then confirm transaction by broadcasting public key few blocks later.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 28, 2015, 03:29:07 PM
 #27608

I'll still vouch for Frap.doc's character.

So why did he allegedly (court deposition I read, and he refused to provide a link to his rebuttal deposition) take 10% of every HashFast vaporware sold (whether he promoted that referral or not) and promote it here on the forum? How can that company be sure he is doing all the referrals if it was not obviously intended to be vaporware. Obviously they all knew what they were doing.

How could someone with good character swindle people?

He says he can't comment on the case, but he could I assume provided a link to his public deposition so we can hear his side of the case. I don't like people prying into my private life, which why I would not try to use my reputation to sell something (including an altcoin). I don't understand why a successful eye doctor would jeopardize his privacy.

go here, register, then read my Declaration and Responses if you want:  https://www.pacer.gov/
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 28, 2015, 03:37:11 PM
 #27609

yes, Monday is going to be ugly:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-28/ecb-says-greek-bank-holiday-now-necessary
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 28, 2015, 03:57:23 PM
 #27610

To any mining pool operators out there reading,

next year July your mining pool income will be cut in half by the block halving.  you must supplement that income by onboarding as many tx paying fees into the main Bitcoin blockchain if you want to survive long term.  offboarding those tx paying fees into centralized services like Coinbase or Bitpay will not help you.  what this means is that you indirectly need to grow the userbase that generates these tx paying fees.

you have no choice but to increase block size limits, and soon, otherwise unconfirmed tx's and unaffordable tx fees will drive new and even existing users away and you will forever be dependent on a small community of geeks and developers for business profits.  not a sustainable situation.
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
June 28, 2015, 04:09:29 PM
 #27611

We are also using SHA-256 and RIPEMD-160 hashes to protect our balances. So even ECDSA is broken our balances can be safe and then ECDSA replaced.
Pray tell how you will replace ECDSA when the coins are already assigned to keys for it?  (and when everyone and their sister constantly reuses addresses). A compromise of CT would mean that it was feasible to find discrete logs in this group, with that, anyone who learned your public key could recover your private key.  There are scenarios where the hashing, absent any address reuse, helps  (e.g. say the discrete log finding takes weeks)-- but it's important to not exaggerate the gains.

But indeed it isn't the ~quite~ same.

It's perfectly possible to construct schemes for private values which are unconditionally sound; meaning that there is no cryptographic assumption behind their inflation resistance, and a cryptographic break would only result in a loss of privacy.  I had previously thought that it was necessarily the case that any such scheme would have to be less efficient; but I have since realized my original reasoning for that was incorrect; though I do not (yet) know of a way to construct an unconditionally sound scheme which is anywhere near as efficient as CT;  but finding one is on my TODO list (though it falls below other improvements for CT privacy and network security that I'm working on).


I do not know :-), but maybe in case that ECDSA is broken we can split transacion into 2 part.
 1. broadcast transaction without public key (I do not know how to prevent from spaming)
 2. and then confirm transaction by broadcasting public key few blocks later.


Consider also whether this is a fundamental justification for the development of side chains.  
A break in ECDSA (or even a perceived break) could instigate migrations to secured chains for resilience.

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
shmadz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498


@theshmadz


View Profile
June 28, 2015, 04:19:04 PM
 #27612

To any mining pool operators out there reading,

next year July your mining pool income will be cut in half by the block halving.  

Are you doing ok cypher? You seem to be increasingly hyperbolic and desperate in your comments. This one in particular is exceedingly misleading and smells like a blatant attempt to use unfounded fear, uncertainty, and doubt to make your case and influence others.

You do of course realize that if the price were to rise to 500 by next July their income will remain precisely the same as it is today?

Luckily, I'm sure the miners understand the economics of mining well enough that they will not be taking your misguided advice.

"You have no moral right to rule us, nor do you possess any methods of enforcement that we have reason to fear." - John Perry Barlow, 1996
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 28, 2015, 06:21:01 PM
 #27613

To any mining pool operators out there reading,

next year July your mining pool income will be cut in half by the block halving.  

Are you doing ok cypher? You seem to be increasingly hyperbolic and desperate in your comments. This one in particular is exceedingly misleading and smells like a blatant attempt to use unfounded fear, uncertainty, and doubt to make your case and influence others.

You do of course realize that if the price were to rise to 500 by next July their income will remain precisely the same as it is today?

Luckily, I'm sure the miners understand the economics of mining well enough that they will not be taking your misguided advice.

And if it doesn't rise, what's your  long term plan for miners to supplement the lost block reward income?  
Cconvert2G36
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392


View Profile
June 28, 2015, 06:37:31 PM
 #27614

To any mining pool operators out there reading,

next year July your mining pool income will be cut in half by the block halving.  

Are you doing ok cypher? You seem to be increasingly hyperbolic and desperate in your comments. This one in particular is exceedingly misleading and smells like a blatant attempt to use unfounded fear, uncertainty, and doubt to make your case and influence others.

You do of course realize that if the price were to rise to 500 by next July their income will remain precisely the same as it is today?

Luckily, I'm sure the miners understand the economics of mining well enough that they will not be taking your misguided advice.

And if it doesn't rise, what's your  long term plan for miners to supplement the lost block reward income?  

Just like 2012, unprofitable miners drop off, difficulty falls, BTC income per TH rises. Of course tx volume needs to rise greatly and create a larger fee incentive eventually, but I don't think the time preceding the drop to 12.5 is that period.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 28, 2015, 06:41:58 PM
 #27615

To any mining pool operators out there reading,

next year July your mining pool income will be cut in half by the block halving.  

Are you doing ok cypher? You seem to be increasingly hyperbolic and desperate in your comments. This one in particular is exceedingly misleading and smells like a blatant attempt to use unfounded fear, uncertainty, and doubt to make your case and influence others.

You do of course realize that if the price were to rise to 500 by next July their income will remain precisely the same as it is today?

Luckily, I'm sure the miners understand the economics of mining well enough that they will not be taking your misguided advice.

And if it doesn't rise, what's your  long term plan for miners to supplement the lost block reward income?  

Just like 2012, unprofitable miners drop off, difficulty falls, BTC income per TH rises. Of course tx volume needs to rise greatly and create a larger fee incentive eventually, but I don't think the time preceding the drop to 12.5 is that period.

Why should we trust your assessment of what the proper time period is? 

Why not lift the limit entirely and let the market figure it out?
Cconvert2G36
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392


View Profile
June 28, 2015, 06:52:51 PM
 #27616

To any mining pool operators out there reading,

next year July your mining pool income will be cut in half by the block halving.  

Are you doing ok cypher? You seem to be increasingly hyperbolic and desperate in your comments. This one in particular is exceedingly misleading and smells like a blatant attempt to use unfounded fear, uncertainty, and doubt to make your case and influence others.

You do of course realize that if the price were to rise to 500 by next July their income will remain precisely the same as it is today?

Luckily, I'm sure the miners understand the economics of mining well enough that they will not be taking your misguided advice.

And if it doesn't rise, what's your  long term plan for miners to supplement the lost block reward income?  

Just like 2012, unprofitable miners drop off, difficulty falls, BTC income per TH rises. Of course tx volume needs to rise greatly and create a larger fee incentive eventually, but I don't think the time preceding the drop to 12.5 is that period.

Why should we trust your assessment of what the proper time period is? 

Why not lift the limit entirely and let the market figure it out?

BTW, I'm FOR lifting the blocksize to at least 8MB, preferably higher, and with built in scaling.

I just don't think relationship between the two issues is all that important, at least before this upcoming halving, and maybe the one after that.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 28, 2015, 07:06:01 PM
 #27617

To any mining pool operators out there reading,

next year July your mining pool income will be cut in half by the block halving.  

Are you doing ok cypher? You seem to be increasingly hyperbolic and desperate in your comments. This one in particular is exceedingly misleading and smells like a blatant attempt to use unfounded fear, uncertainty, and doubt to make your case and influence others.

You do of course realize that if the price were to rise to 500 by next July their income will remain precisely the same as it is today?

Luckily, I'm sure the miners understand the economics of mining well enough that they will not be taking your misguided advice.

And if it doesn't rise, what's your  long term plan for miners to supplement the lost block reward income?  

Just like 2012, unprofitable miners drop off, difficulty falls, BTC income per TH rises. Of course tx volume needs to rise greatly and create a larger fee incentive eventually, but I don't think the time preceding the drop to 12.5 is that period.

Why should we trust your assessment of what the proper time period is? 

Why not lift the limit entirely and let the market figure it out?

BTW, I'm FOR lifting the blocksize to at least 8MB, preferably higher, and with built in scaling.

I just don't think relationship between the two issues is all that important, at least before this upcoming halving, and maybe the one after that.



Great to here that. Hope you mean it.

But you're  ignoring the fact that a vast majority of the community does  want an increase now. So why should we just go with your opinion again?
Cconvert2G36
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392


View Profile
June 28, 2015, 07:15:47 PM
 #27618

Great to here that. Hope you mean it.

But you're  ignoring the fact that a vast majority of the community does  want an increase now. So why should we just go with your opinion again?

I am for an increase, sooner the better. Not sure how I can say this more clearly. I just don't think that the maxblocksize argument alters the incentives in the mining game, yet.

I think you are getting too used to having people badger you in this thread these days. You're starting to see enemies when they are friends.   Cheesy
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


View Profile
June 28, 2015, 07:29:16 PM
 #27619

Meanwhile... A money pit called Ethereum.
thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
June 28, 2015, 07:31:08 PM
 #27620

Many Core developers are risk adverse, it's their way or the highway as they are the gate keepers, they are also the ones who would have to fix any problems so they feel they are better equipped to make this decision. - problem is this has highlighted a conflict in development and that is central controlled policy makers decided for us which brigs into question the whole idea that Bitcoin is decentralized.  

In my view If anything we should be planning for Bitcoin growth and working on ways to prevent the existing mechanism from abuse.  

Blockstream (i.e. the Core devs) are planning to unleash the freedom for anyone to innovate on BTC pegged value, which is precisely what you are clamoring for.

I've got no problem with this.  Its nice that most of the value BTC holders have may be preserved.  But its pretty disingenuous to deliberately hamstring Bitcoin thereby forcing users into their solution.

And if ppl do move to blockstream "sponsored" chains I question the legal/political ramifications of blockchains that have a big corporate target to aim at for censorship, identity tracking ,etc.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1428 1429 1430 1431 ... 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!