Bitcoin Forum
May 20, 2019, 07:32:49 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
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 ... 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 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2028356 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
July 06, 2015, 12:15:39 AM
 #28201

The banking crisis in Greece and the proposed 30% bail-in on balances of 8,000 euros got me thinking…There's actually a euro banknote printing facility run by the Bank of Greece in Athens.  Is there any chance, given the political mess, that the Bank of Greece directly prints banknotes to meet withdrawal demands, thereby ending the bank runs?  I realize this would be a no-no according to rules for eurozone membership but I wouldn't be surprised if such an idea gained popular support.  

According to ZeroHedge, it looks like there might be something to this Euro Banknote Printing Facility in Athens:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-07-05/greece-contemplates-nuclear-options-may-print-euros-implement-parallel-currency-nati

Very dangerous.   ECB could respond by claiming all Y series notes not legal tender.  Of course greece could presumably print other serial numbers easily.  And it could invoke the nuclear option where all greek overseas bank accounts are frozen and ultimately confiscated.  

Where is qoute about double txn validation?  Should be unnecessary...

but Euros are fungible, are they not?
1558380769
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558380769

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558380769
Reply with quote  #2

1558380769
Report to moderator
1558380769
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558380769

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558380769
Reply with quote  #2

1558380769
Report to moderator

European Cryptocurrency Mining Equipment Reseller

Bank Transfer & Bitcoin Accepted!

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1558380769
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558380769

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558380769
Reply with quote  #2

1558380769
Report to moderator
thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1000


View Profile
July 06, 2015, 02:02:35 AM
 #28202

The banking crisis in Greece and the proposed 30% bail-in on balances of 8,000 euros got me thinking…There's actually a euro banknote printing facility run by the Bank of Greece in Athens.  Is there any chance, given the political mess, that the Bank of Greece directly prints banknotes to meet withdrawal demands, thereby ending the bank runs?  I realize this would be a no-no according to rules for eurozone membership but I wouldn't be surprised if such an idea gained popular support.  

According to ZeroHedge, it looks like there might be something to this Euro Banknote Printing Facility in Athens:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-07-05/greece-contemplates-nuclear-options-may-print-euros-implement-parallel-currency-nati

Very dangerous.   ECB could respond by claiming all Y series notes not legal tender.  Of course greece could presumably print other serial numbers easily.  And it could invoke the nuclear option where all greek overseas bank accounts are frozen and ultimately confiscated.  

Where is qoute about double txn validation?  Should be unnecessary...

but Euros are fungible, are they not?

They aren't exactly the same so there's a tiny possibility to break fungibility.  Any serial # beginning with a Y was printed by the Greek central bank... other countries could give their citizens 1 week (say) to exchange any Y notes that made it across the border for equivalent value.  You'd show up at any bank (say) with photo ID and the bills.

Of course the press in Greece could probably be modified to change serial numbers pretty easily...

laurentmt
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 386
Merit: 250


View Profile
July 06, 2015, 02:39:22 AM
 #28203

miners will pare down block sizes for maximum verification times and propagation times.
I agree that it could be a positive outcome but I "prefer" my option for 2 reasons:
- The theoretical reason: there's no solution faster than no validation Wink
- The practical reason: from the recent fork, we can see that some (many ?) mining pools prefer no validation than paring down block sizes (e.g. F2Pool mines small or big blocks).
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
July 06, 2015, 03:03:36 AM
 #28204

miners will pare down block sizes for maximum verification times and propagation times.
I agree that it could be a positive outcome but I "prefer" my option for 2 reasons:
- The theoretical reason: there's no solution faster than no validation Wink
- The practical reason: from the recent fork, we can see that some (many ?) mining pools prefer no validation than paring down block sizes (e.g. F2Pool mines small or big blocks).

what's interesting is that we've never seen it done to the degree it is now.  we had the Mystery Miner a few years ago but he stopped it pretty quick.  also, despite many upgrades added to the protocol previously, we've never had a fork as a result of SPV mining before either.  what's different this time is the consistently full blocks and the fact that Wang Chun told us they create SPV blocks in response to large blocks as a defense.  it seems they consider full blocks large blocks so the excessive SPV mining created last nights fork in light of BIP66 and the upgrade to 0.10.x.  so in that sense, the 1MB cap is the direct cause of what is happening. 
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
July 06, 2015, 04:10:25 AM
 #28205

I think it is correct to invest small amounts in many promising, +EV projects, Bitcoin and Monero (and Newcoin) included.

What are +EV projects? What is Newcoin?

Oh please don't ask and remember I am a naive n00b who doesn't know how to program "Hello world".

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
July 06, 2015, 04:13:55 AM
 #28206

Somebody is buying a lot of bitcoins today.

I think it's at least 2 guys.

Or maybe death and taxes.

gmaxwell
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2730
Merit: 2253



View Profile
July 06, 2015, 04:40:08 AM
Last edit: July 06, 2015, 04:58:44 AM by gmaxwell
 #28207

ok, we've all been lead to believe up to now that validation of tx's had to occur twice by full nodes.  first, upon receipt.  second, upon receipt of the block.  this was crucial to the FUD scare tactic of decrementing
[...]
what am i missing?
Where I expicitly pointed out to you in many places, in excruciating detail, that this was not at all the case??  https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/39tgno/letting_miners_vote_on_the_maximum_block_size_is/cs6rek5?context=3   You seemed so happy to argue with it before, has your memory vanished now that you don't think it would be convient for you?

what's interesting is that we've never seen it done to the degree it is now.  we had the Mystery Miner a few years ago but he stopped it pretty quick.  also, despite many upgrades added to the protocol previously, we've never had a fork as a result of SPV mining before either.  what's different this time is the consistently full blocks and the fact that Wang Chun told us they create SPV blocks in response to large blocks as a defense.  it seems they consider full blocks large blocks so the excessive SPV mining created last nights fork in light of BIP66 and the upgrade to 0.10.x.  so in that sense, the 1MB cap is the direct cause of what is happening.  

The incohearence in some of these posts is so foaming so thick that it's oozing out and making the floor slick; careful-- you might slip and mess up your future as "the LeBron James of the Bitcoin world" (as your attorney decribed you (18:30), under oath, to a federal judge as part of litigation related to your possession of 3000 BTC taken primarly from members of this forum.).

As miners have created larger blocks F2Pool expirenced high orphaning (>4% according to them); they responded by adding software to mine without transfering or verifying blocks to avoid delays related to transfering and processing block data. Contrary to your claim-- the blocksize limit stems the bleeding here. Their issue is that large blocks take more time to transfer/handle and that they're falling behind as a result. Making blocks _bigger_ would not help this problem, it would do the _opposite_. If a miner wanted to avoid any processing of transaction backlog they'd simply set their minimum fee high and they'd never even mempool the large backlog.

Reasonable minds can differ on the relative importance of difference considerations, but when you're falling all over yourself to describe evidence against your position as support of it-- redefining F2pools crystal clear and plain descption of "large blocks" as their source of problems with the technically inexplicable "full" that you think supports your position, it really burns up whatever credibility you had left. That you can get away with it in this thread without a loud wall of "WTF" just shows what a strange echochamber it has become.
lebing
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288
Merit: 1000

Enabling the maximal migration


View Profile
July 06, 2015, 04:44:27 AM
 #28208


Bro, do you even blockchain?
-E Voorhees
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162
Merit: 1007



View Profile
July 06, 2015, 04:49:23 AM
 #28209

what's interesting is that we've never seen it done to the degree it is now.  we had the Mystery Miner a few years ago but he stopped it pretty quick.  also, despite many upgrades added to the protocol previously, we've never had a fork as a result of SPV mining before either.  what's different this time is the consistently full blocks and the fact that Wang Chun told us they create SPV blocks in response to large blocks as a defense.  it seems they consider full blocks large blocks so the excessive SPV mining created last nights fork in light of BIP66 and the upgrade to 0.10.x.  so in that sense, the 1MB cap is the direct cause of what is happening. 

I'm trying to understand your thinking on this matter.  It makes perfect sense to me that we'd see an increase in empty blocks as the average block size rises.  It seems you think the frequency of empty blocks would also actually decrease if we raised the limit (assuming the rate of transactions stayed the same).  Is this an accurate assessment of what you're saying?  Can you explain again why you think that? 

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162
Merit: 1007



View Profile
July 06, 2015, 05:58:24 AM
 #28210

Bitcoin sits at a strange intersection of computer science, mathematics, economics and sociology, and we can all probably learn a bit from each other.  Communication is hard, especially across disciplines.  



Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
BlindMayorBitcorn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190
Merit: 1064



View Profile
July 06, 2015, 06:01:36 AM
 #28211

Bitcoin sits at a strange intersection of computer science, mathematics, economics and sociology, and we can all probably learn a bit from each other.  Communication is hard, especially across disciplines.  




+1

The principle of charity should always guide us.

Forgive my petulance and oft-times, I fear, ill-founded criticisms, and forgive me that I have, by this time, made your eyes and head ache with my long letter. But I cannot forgo hastily the pleasure and pride of thus conversing with you.
gmaxwell
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2730
Merit: 2253



View Profile
July 06, 2015, 06:32:13 AM
Last edit: July 06, 2015, 06:50:38 AM by gmaxwell
 #28212

Bitcoin sits at a strange intersection of computer science, mathematics, economics and sociology, and we can all probably learn a bit from each other.  Communication is hard, especially across disciplines.  
Thats quite fair and true.

As an aside, today's 3 block invalid chain reorg included a 'v3' block on the invalid fork which contained a lot of transactions. Which may suggest someone is SPV mining while including transactions (something I'd pointed out was possible previously).
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
July 06, 2015, 07:17:55 AM
 #28213

That you can get away with it in this thread without a loud wall of "WTF" just shows what a strange echochamber it has become.

Oh, there was plenty of WTF when I read his last post, and some prior to that when he was trying to make a similar argument, but it's pretty clear that he's made up his mind and no amount of WTFing is going to change it.

+63

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
July 06, 2015, 07:46:30 AM
 #28214

Questions: Why couldn't RBF be improved so that same inputs must always pay to the same outputs when txn is replaced, except that any increases in the output values (not change in output address allowed) for increasing the fee must be matched by increase inputs? Thus the buyer can no longer steal value from the merchant which already delivered the goods. Wouldn't that resolve the complaint against RBF?

And wouldn't that then remove my argument that fixed block size limit is incompatible with 0-conf txns? (my argument was first-seen must be overruled by fee per KB when block size is a scarce resource).


Ah I realized my error. The transaction could be forever replaced. Okay instead, how about designating another UXTO address that can be exclusively drawn from? Ah but that would mean only the buyer can RBF which is not fair if the seller is the one harmed (otherwise seller could steal value from buyer).

ErisDiscordia
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1071
Merit: 1047


Imposition of ORder = Escalation of Chaos


View Profile
July 06, 2015, 08:14:31 AM
 #28215

Bitcoin sits at a strange intersection of computer science, mathematics, economics and sociology, and we can all probably learn a bit from each other.  Communication is hard, especially across disciplines.  




well said! Having an interest in most of these fields, yet considering myself an expert in none of them I try to limit my role on the forums to facilitating productive discussion. With so many big egos around it can be very difficult at times.

It's all bullshit. But bullshit makes the flowers grow and that's beautiful.
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1007


View Profile
July 06, 2015, 08:42:58 AM
 #28216

Bitcoin sits at a strange intersection of computer science, mathematics, economics and sociology, and we can all probably learn a bit from each other.  Communication is hard, especially across disciplines.  
Thats quite fair and true.

As an aside, today's 3 block invalid chain reorg included a 'v3' block on the invalid fork which contained a lot of transactions. Which may suggest someone is SPV mining while including transactions (something I'd pointed out was possible previously).

If I may ask, what were the pools involved in this reorg?

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
July 06, 2015, 09:46:44 AM
Last edit: July 06, 2015, 09:59:49 AM by TPTB_need_war
 #28217

you might slip and mess up your future as "the LeBron James of the Bitcoin world" (as your attorney decribed you (18:30), under oath, to a federal judge as part of litigation related to your possession of 3000 BTC taken primarly from members of this forum.).

I listened only to the 7 minute point where judge was skewering the female attorney who is arguing for the plaintiffs against our resident Dr. Lebron alias Cypherdorc (lol, just kidding ya my BOO!).

In any case, the plaintiffs will lose the case with that bonehead attorney and line of argument.

If they wanted to win, they wouldn't argue that DorkyDoc didn't do adequate promotion (because there is an entire thread on this forum showing he did, and now we have a core Dev admitting he invested 100 BTC based on Dorc's thread which adds validity to his promotional value). Rather they would argue that contract was fraudulent because why would they limit themselves to an exclusive marketing arrangement when there were multitudes of others who had similar reputations on Bitcointalk.org at the time (which is provable). In other words, DonaldDorc wasn't a scarce resource and thus it was an intentional overpayment of collusion.

But then the problem is HashFast (the plaintiff) would argue against themselves, so that is why they are not arguing to win the case. They've hired a female attorney to purposefully lose the case. This is a setup. I speculate I know what is happening here.

Vokain and Gmax kiss your BTC goodbye. Suckers.

(just joking for the dramatic effect but it also a point to everyone to be careful and responsible and also raises the question why is a core Dev speculating on scams, I would never get caught in that... my weaknesses was ... nevermind. Gmax thanks for sharing any way)

P.S. Gmax you committed a category error. It doesn't matter to his case if he slobbers on the technology (and because so many people can't understand the technology including some of the readers here, the attorneys, and the judge); it only matters that he has a huge following.

(my pops is former West coast Division head attorney for Exxon)


newb4now
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500


View Profile
July 06, 2015, 09:59:00 AM
 #28218

Again I think the heart of it for me personally is that felt Monero doesn't really own anything, other than its own (perhaps smaller than Bitcoin's rather small) community and its refined implementation. In the sense that Python owns its syntax. If you create a JPython you are still helping Python. If you create a BitcoinJ, you are still helping Bitcoin. This is what I meant when I wrote the ecosystem was a "clusterfuck" (or let's say non-ideal). We had developers and communities fighting each other on the same protocol. It felt like copycoins vs. Bitcoin, except in this case none of them were the first and legitimate one.

Yes, that's what happens when you build something and try to launch it with a fraudulent 82% premine, a fake backstory, and an army of shills trying to make it appear popular and established. A clusterfuck. So that is (or more accurately was) a fair characterization, but not one of any of our making, and one that Monero has attempted (with a fair degree of success) to replace with a vibrant and successful community.

I disagree with your last sentence though. Monero is indeed the first legitimate cryptonote coin, which was launched as a minimal fork for the sole reason of getting rid of the fraudulent premine. (Also worth noting that the public face of the cryptonote team welcomed and invited forks, and even released a "coin fork creation kit"; https://cryptonotestarter.org)

Monero has always been a fully public open source project where everyone including the original developers has been (and continue to be) welcome to contribute. For all we know, some of the original developers (who are anonymous, as are many Monero contributing developers) have contributed. We know, for example, that during the chain fork attack last year, the cryptonote group sent a fix (though the community had already by that time developed one anyway).

Quote
One of the signs of leadership is being able to get everyone working together.

You can't necessarily ever get everyone working together. Nevertheless a great many people are indeed working together a year later, and that should say something about the leadership. When you count the core developers, contributing developers to the core project, people working on Monaro-related businesses such as MyMonero and Crypto-Kingdom, mining pools, various independent developers and other significant projects (such as the new Android mobile wallet) there are at least several dozen actual developers working on various aspects of it, along with many non-developers contributing in their own ways too.

I will leave to others whether that constitutes good leadership, but my opinion should be fairly obvious.

I find it interesting how most coins only have 1 primary developer (and often fail when/if that developer leaves) and some coins have many people developing. Did some/most of these developers come to Monero on their own? Or were they invited to Monero from existing developers whom they already new?

Do you have any tips for attracting (or keeping) developers? Specifically for new coins that do not have much if any funding yet.

Bitcoin I can understand as most core developers were early adopters and have a vested interest in the project.

Now that bitcoin has been relatively well established (compared to all other coins) it seems that most new development is going into supporting services and infrastructure instead of bitcoin itself. Do you see that as a pattern that will be repeated with other coins (that developers who come along after a coin has been established will be more interested in building supporting services instead of working on the core itself)?
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
July 06, 2015, 10:02:23 AM
Last edit: July 06, 2015, 02:20:25 PM by TPTB_need_war
 #28219

Do you have any tips for attracting (or keeping) developers?

Yeah hire them. It helps if you are a programmer too and can talk shop with them. Presenting sexy tech helps a lot too. Helps also if you are likeable, reasonable, and demonstrate strong technical acumen. Mutual respect builds confidence.

Realize there are very few people who can possess all those skills, plus marketing skills, organizational skills, etc.. Not easy to find such a leader. Monero apparently had a core group of well-heeled guys (some that are also programmers) that gelled I believe via some connection to rpietila and David but perhaps I am mistaken. Probing my memory of the threads I read back in April, perhaps it was Tacotime that was the driving force.

Specifically for new coins that do not have much if any funding yet.

Nope. Get funding. Unless you are lucky to find well-heeled devs such as apparently Tacotime, fluffypony, smooth, etc.. But they don't want to corralled by someone into a project. They joined together because they had mutual respect and wanted to together address an anonymity weakness in the market.

Now that bitcoin has been relatively well established (compared to all other coins) it seems that most new development is going into supporting services and infrastructure instead of bitcoin itself. Do you see that as a pattern that will be repeated with other coins (that developers who come along after a coin has been established will be more interested in building supporting services instead of working on the core itself)?

That is the big question. Critical mass is well... critical. Blockstream's pegged side chains may help that a lot.

Monero appears to have its own community now and I am not following it, but for the brief moment I was reading their thread the other day, I saw others contributing a GUI. So maybe they are starting to get some traction on that. It is a big mountain to climb compared to Bitcoin's network effects.

newb4now
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500


View Profile
July 06, 2015, 10:18:01 AM
 #28220

Do you have any tips for attracting (or keeping) developers?

Yeah hire them. It helps if you are a programmer too and can talk shop with them. Presenting sexy tech helps a lot too. Helps also if you are likeable, reasonable, and demonstrate strong technical acumen. Mutual respect builds confidence.

Realize there are very few people who can possess all those skills, plus marketing skills, organizational skills, etc.. Not easy to find such a leader. Monero apparently had a core group of guys that gelled I believe via some connection to rpietila but perhaps I am mistaken.

Specifically for new coins that do not have much if any funding yet.

Nope. Get funding.

I think rpietila came along early in the life of Monero but after the core devs already joined the project.

One if the interesting things I see in Monero is that proportionally more bitcoin early adopters are involved than I see in other alt coins.

Is it because:

1. Bitcoin early adopters see Monero as a viable hedge to side chains and other potential fungibility/privacy fixes for bitcoin?

or

2. Bitcoin early adopters have been around long enough to recognize obvious pump/dump clone coins lacking much innovation and are far better at avoiding them than cryptocurrency newcomers trying to find the "next bitcoin"

I think we all can agree that 99+% of all altcoins will fail. How do early adopters identify coins that may be among the <1% to succeed as either a bitcoin hedge or a viable option to fill some niche that bitcoin either can/will not?
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 ... 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!