Bitcoin Forum
December 03, 2016, 12:00:20 PM *
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 ... 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 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1803615 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 16, 2015, 12:34:27 AM
 #28881

I really couldn't care less how Mycelium has been a MAJOR force in bringing Bitcoin to the noobs

See this is the problem. "Noobs" preferring user interface and "ease-of-use" in place of robust, well designed software and then crying when the software fails them because of faulty implementation.

I've never used it, but Frap.doc is apparently a devoted fan of Mycelium and utterly distraught over its recent glitch.

Expecting 100% uptime from such a service and freaking out and declaring Bitcoin dead over a little outage is a professional noob move only he has mastered.

Speaking of professional noob maneuvers:



#REKT, please call your office.  Dr. LeBron Bitcoin is on line 2...something about a "vast GavinCoiner majority?"   Cheesy

when Mycelium, just a few days ago, invoked a fee bidding mechanism in their wallet, you were the first shill to jump up and down and scream "see fee mkt!"  now that they blow up, you throw them under the bus.  your sort of behavior is simply indicative of someone shilling for Blockstream while throwing shit all over the wall hoping something sticks.

You do realise everything you describe here applies to you.

You are the exact representation of someone throwing shit at the wall hoping any causality or correlation you can pull out your ass and defend your position will stick. It is the same story over and over again, you did it with sidechains and now you are at it again regarding the blocksize.

Was Mycelium correct in their intention to invoke a fee bidding mechanism? Yes

Are they running their wallet behind an admitted faulty node implementation? Yes



nice try noob.

you're another example of a shit thrower.  never provide any technical discussion or insight. 

in case you'd like to go back and review all my technical posts, including those in direct discussion with nullc, like with the UTXO and CNB stuff.  he actually tried to obfuscate and i've documented where he contradicts himself about UTXO being in RAM.  Peter R also proved with statistical significance my hunch that the defensive 0 tx blocks were indeed coming within a minute of full blocks.  it also appears i was right about those defensive blocks coming in the presence of bloated mempools.  i was in fact documenting these 0 tx blocks weeks before the spam attack as something strange happening.  i also think i'm right that the spammers are attacking as we've gotten close to filling blocks with real demand so as to disrupt new and existing users.  the attacks will continue to try and hinder that growth.  i've filled these pages with real technical and interpretive discussion about what's actually going on yet what do we get from idiots like you?  nothing.  nothing insightful except ad hominem attacks. 

brg444, you're useless.  admit it.  just like during the SC debate, you're contributing nothing.  nothing at all except trolling.
1480766420
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480766420

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480766420
Reply with quote  #2

1480766420
Report to moderator
1480766420
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480766420

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480766420
Reply with quote  #2

1480766420
Report to moderator
1480766420
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480766420

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480766420
Reply with quote  #2

1480766420
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 16, 2015, 12:38:56 AM
 #28882

speaking of Mike Hearn

anyone caught that one the other day?  Cheesy

http://log.bitcoin-assets.com/?date=11-07-2015#1197442

Quote
Luke-Jr:(it's ironic but true that Mike Hearn has written two changes in Bitcoin Core, and both of them introduced serious bugs..)

this is the one you chose to place your faith in frap.doc ?  Cheesy Cheesy

is that an MPEX channel?  figures you'd be caught hanging out there.  and what of LukeJr?  is he your hero now?  nobody takes him seriously.  i should've known.  he's way down the totem pole.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
July 16, 2015, 12:39:08 AM
 #28883

nice try noob.

you're another example of a shit thrower.  never provide any technical discussion or insight.  

in case you'd like to go back and review all my technical posts, including those in direct discussion with nullc, like with the UTXO and CNB stuff.  he actually tried to obfuscate and i've documented where he contradicts himself about UTXO being in RAM.  Peter R also proved with statistical significance my hunch that the defensive 0 tx blocks were indeed coming within a minute of full blocks.  it also appears i was right about those defensive blocks coming in the presence of bloated mempools.  i was in fact documenting these 0 tx blocks weeks before the spam attack as something strange happening.  i also think i'm right that the spammers are attacking as we've gotten close to filling blocks with real demand so as to disrupt new and existing users.  the attacks will continue to try and hinder that growth.  i've filled these pages with real technical and interpretive discussion about what's actually going on yet what do we get from idiots like you?  nothing.  nothing insightful except ad hominem attacks.  

brg444, you're useless.  admit it.  just like during the SC debate, you're contributing nothing.  nothing at all except trolling.

I have no interest in your little disputes and whether you are right or wrong on certain issues. As is often pointed out by icebreaker you are truly irrelevant in the grand scheme of things so I couldn't careless about your infantile "battles".

I'm just here to point out how disingenuous you are whatever the debate is. And that is why, no one will ever take you seriously. We can see through you bs clear as day


"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 16, 2015, 12:46:05 AM
 #28884

nice try noob.

you're another example of a shit thrower.  never provide any technical discussion or insight.  

in case you'd like to go back and review all my technical posts, including those in direct discussion with nullc, like with the UTXO and CNB stuff.  he actually tried to obfuscate and i've documented where he contradicts himself about UTXO being in RAM.  Peter R also proved with statistical significance my hunch that the defensive 0 tx blocks were indeed coming within a minute of full blocks.  it also appears i was right about those defensive blocks coming in the presence of bloated mempools.  i was in fact documenting these 0 tx blocks weeks before the spam attack as something strange happening.  i also think i'm right that the spammers are attacking as we've gotten close to filling blocks with real demand so as to disrupt new and existing users.  the attacks will continue to try and hinder that growth.  i've filled these pages with real technical and interpretive discussion about what's actually going on yet what do we get from idiots like you?  nothing.  nothing insightful except ad hominem attacks.  

brg444, you're useless.  admit it.  just like during the SC debate, you're contributing nothing.  nothing at all except trolling.

I have no interest in your little disputes and whether you are right or wrong on certain issues. As is often pointed out by icebreaker you are truly irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

I'm just here to point out how disingenuous you are whatever the debate is. And that is why, no one takes you seriously.



no, they do in fact take me seriously.  why do you think this thread is so popular?  to be fair, i won't take all the credit b/c there are some truly brilliant ppl here like NL, Peter, rocks, zerg, solex, maja, Adrian, JR, Melbustus, Zara, Erdogan, ZB, etc (sorry if i missed some).  you take me seriously too.  otherwise, you wouldn't keep stopping by everyday and racking up all the views.  all you trolls like tvbcof, iCEBlow, MOA, all realize the importance of keeping me down as much as possible.  you guys LOVE this thread.  won't work though as this thread has survived 4 long yrs of trolls like you.  ALOT of ppl have flat out told me this thread is bitcointalk.  or what's left of it.  i actually think that's any overstatement as i find the forum to be extremely useful for all sorts of info.  but who am i to argue?

no brg444, you love me and this thread so keep pushing it up and racking up the views.  you HELP me.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 16, 2015, 12:52:49 AM
 #28885

hey tvbcof & iCEBlow:

i bitch slap you selling:



and double bitch slap you shorting:



 Cheesy
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
July 16, 2015, 12:56:22 AM
 #28886

in case you'd like to go back and review all my technical posts, including those in direct discussion with nullc, like with the UTXO and CNB stuff.  he actually tried to obfuscate and i've documented where he contradicts himself about UTXO being in RAM.  Peter R also proved with statistical significance my hunch that the defensive 0 tx blocks were indeed coming within a minute of full blocks.  it also appears i was right about those defensive blocks coming in the presence of bloated mempools.  i was in fact documenting these 0 tx blocks weeks before the spam attack as something strange happening.  i also think i'm right that the spammers are attacking as we've gotten close to filling blocks with real demand so as to disrupt new and existing users.  the attacks will continue to try and hinder that growth.  i've filled these pages with real technical and interpretive discussion about what's actually going on yet what do we get from idiots like you?  nothing.  nothing insightful except ad hominem attacks. 

Behold! Generalissmo LeBron Bitcoin of the First Free Shit Army's Gavinista Corp (Frappuccino Division).



Largely responsible for BitconSX's staggering 1.7% and falling network penetration rate.

Friend to all magical African boys.  Truly a legend in his own mind!

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
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Wallets - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }


Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


"I believed @Dashpay instamine was a bug & not a feature but then read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg13017231#msg13017231
I'm not against people making money, but can't support questionable origins."
https://twitter.com/Tone_LLT/status/717822927908024320


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004

"Hard forks cannot be co
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
July 16, 2015, 12:58:22 AM
 #28887

And the hits keep coming for the dangerous experiment of maintaining artificially constrained blocks. From 2009-14 Bitcoin functioned with no effective block size limit and mining decentralization post-ASIC was improving. Now, in 2015, that this latent piece of software is allowed to take effect the unintended consequences rear up:
(my bold emphasis below)

(Updated:  I said 1/phi, I should have said 1 - 1/phi.  The attack works for any miners who controls more than 38% of hashing)

The so-called "stress test" was successful.  The attack it was testing is underway.  

Any miner who cotrols more than one minus 1/phi of the mining power, makes a profit while paying the fees it takes to maintain a permanent backlog of transactions, for as long as the blocks are more than half full of other transactions.

The mining-expenses market is unstable when there are enough legitimate transactions to fill more than half a block, because such a miner will reap more per yuan invested in mining power than any other miner.  This leads to a monopoly.

Well, crap.  I have done the math now.  

I know exactly what's happening.  It's a Golden Ratio Attack.  This is serious.  It ends with a mining monopoly.

What we have now is no longer a test.  The test was apparently successful.  What we have here is the new business model that was being tested.  

This backlog will probably be sustained FOREVER, because the people doing it make a profit by doing so.

The following assumes expenses roughly equal for miners relative to the amount of hashing power they control.  This is not exactly true, because a miner someplace where electricity is subsidized (like China) has substantially lower expenses.  In such a place the fraction of mining power required to make it profitable would be even less.

The *initial* "stress test" was a test to see whether the miner controlled sufficient hashing power to make a profit by doing this.  We can assume that test was successful, because now this miner is doing it.  Probably permanently.

The miner decides how much they want per transaction (anything that the traffic will bear, as long as it keeps blocks more than half full of real transactions), then keeps the backlog sufficiently full with bogus transactions to prevent any tx that pay less than that from going through.

Maintaining the backlog subsidizes other people's mining as well as their own, but means they don't need to compete with miners willing to process transactions for less money in fees because those miners aren't willing to process transactions for less fees when any transactions with more fees are available.

Let's work the math.  If 2/3 of the transactions actually processed are "real", then whoever is maintaining the backlog is paying the tx fees for 1/3 of every block. If this is someone with half the mining power then they get half of their third back, so their average cost per block is the fees for 1/6 of the block.  If we are talking about someone with half the mining power, their average return per block is 1/2 the fees for a block.  Because 1/2 is greater than 1/3, they are making a profit.  

The breakeven point for the biggest miner was when his fraction of the mining power plus the fraction of each block devoted to legitimate transactions was equal to one.  We can conclude that whoever is doing this, if he started the instant it was profitable, controlled 1 - 2/(1 + sqrt(5)) of the mining power at that time.  This happens to be one minus the inverse of the Golden Ratio.

It will continue to be in the financial best interests of any miner controlling more than 1 - 2/(1 + sqrt(5)) of the mining power for as long as blocks are more than half full with legitimate transactions.  

This does not affect, and is not influenced by revenue from block subsidies AT ALL.

All miners will see increased fee revenues in the competitive market.  They will respond to more revenue by  investing more in equipment.  Those miners are still competing fairly with each other, though they will make less on their investment than whoever's maintaining the backlog.  It is not in their best interests to add bogus transactions to the queue because with a smaller fraction than 38% of the mining power they would lose money on the fees they invest.

But any miner for whom this IS profitable, will make additional revenue that the fair market among miners does not.  What percentage more, depends on what fraction of the hashing power he controls. Any such miner is competing at an advantage and will eventually drive all other miners out of the market.

Miners for whom this is profitable must control at least 38% of the mining power.  Therefore there can be no more than two miners doing it at a profit.  And it's got positive feedback, so those two cannot compete fairly. Assuming there are two, the instant one of them has more hashing power than the other, he has a competitive advantage over the other (gets back as revenue a greater fraction of all fees spent) than the other miner) and will eventually drive him out of the market.



iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
July 16, 2015, 01:15:18 AM
 #28888

And the hits keep coming for the dangerous experiment of maintaining artificially constrained blocks. From 2009-14 Bitcoin functioned with no effective block size limit and mining decentralization post-ASIC was improving. Now, in 2015, that this latent piece of software is allowed to take effect the unintended consequences rear up:
(my bold emphasis below)

The so-called "stress test" was successful.  The attack it was testing is underway.  

Any miner who cotrols more than one minus 1/phi of the mining power, makes a profit while paying the fees it takes to maintain a permanent backlog of transactions, for as long as the blocks are more than half full of other transactions.

The mining-expenses market is unstable when there are enough legitimate transactions to fill more than half a block, because such a miner will reap more per yuan invested in mining power than any other miner.  This leads to a monopoly.

Well, crap.  I have done the math now.  

I know exactly what's happening.  It's a Golden Ratio Attack.  This is serious.  It ends with a mining monopoly.

What we have now is no longer a test.  The test was apparently successful.  What we have here is the new business model that was being tested.  

Attacks are beneficial for antifragile systems.  Without adversity, they never grow stronger.

Perhaps this new Phi Attack will lead to economically balanced tx feeds, as Sunny King has implemented in Peercoin and Primecoin:

Quote
Since I mentioned the topic of transaction fees last week, l should mention the exact kind of simplification of fee policy in peercoin/primecoin. As I explained last week, blockchain technology is not well suited as an ultra high volume transaction processing system, thus we want to discourage tiny payments such as a fragment of cent, also known as 'dust' in bitcoin. Bitcoin charges additional fees for these dust transactions. In peercoin and primecoin, each transaction output must have a value at least 0.01. For the next release of peercoin, the output value can also be 0 to accommodate data transactions. But still, dust is not allowed, you either have an output value greater than or equal to 0.01 or a value of 0.

Another simplification is that we don't allow no-fee transactions, so the default 0.01 per KB fee is a requirement, not an option as in bitcoin. This eliminates the complication for user to understand the tradeoff between no-fee and quality of service.

Some might question the consistency of the approach as we move to allow data transaction in peercoin's next release. Data transaction is simply a mechanism to allow user to explicitly declare extra data in the transaction, otherwise user could still stuff data into transaction in obscure ways. In principle transaction fee is the only cost associated with blockchain space usage.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=114994.msg11882960#msg11882960

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
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Wallets - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }


Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


"I believed @Dashpay instamine was a bug & not a feature but then read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg13017231#msg13017231
I'm not against people making money, but can't support questionable origins."
https://twitter.com/Tone_LLT/status/717822927908024320


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004

"Hard forks cannot be co
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 16, 2015, 01:16:38 AM
 #28889

And the hits keep coming for the dangerous experiment of maintaining artificially constrained blocks. From 2009-14 Bitcoin functioned with no effective block size limit and mining decentralization post-ASIC was improving. Now, in 2015, that this latent piece of software is allowed to take effect the unintended consequences rear up:
(my bold emphasis below)

(Updated:  I said 1/phi, I should have said 1 - 1/phi.  The attack works for any miners who controls more than 38% of hashing)

The so-called "stress test" was successful.  The attack it was testing is underway.  

Any miner who cotrols more than one minus 1/phi of the mining power, makes a profit while paying the fees it takes to maintain a permanent backlog of transactions, for as long as the blocks are more than half full of other transactions.

The mining-expenses market is unstable when there are enough legitimate transactions to fill more than half a block, because such a miner will reap more per yuan invested in mining power than any other miner.  This leads to a monopoly.

Well, crap.  I have done the math now.  

I know exactly what's happening.  It's a Golden Ratio Attack.  This is serious.  It ends with a mining monopoly.

What we have now is no longer a test.  The test was apparently successful.  What we have here is the new business model that was being tested.  

This backlog will probably be sustained FOREVER, because the people doing it make a profit by doing so.

The following assumes expenses roughly equal for miners relative to the amount of hashing power they control.  This is not exactly true, because a miner someplace where electricity is subsidized (like China) has substantially lower expenses.  In such a place the fraction of mining power required to make it profitable would be even less.

The *initial* "stress test" was a test to see whether the miner controlled sufficient hashing power to make a profit by doing this.  We can assume that test was successful, because now this miner is doing it.  Probably permanently.

The miner decides how much they want per transaction (anything that the traffic will bear, as long as it keeps blocks more than half full of real transactions), then keeps the backlog sufficiently full with bogus transactions to prevent any tx that pay less than that from going through.

Maintaining the backlog subsidizes other people's mining as well as their own, but means they don't need to compete with miners willing to process transactions for less money in fees because those miners aren't willing to process transactions for less fees when any transactions with more fees are available.

Let's work the math.  If 2/3 of the transactions actually processed are "real", then whoever is maintaining the backlog is paying the tx fees for 1/3 of every block. If this is someone with half the mining power then they get half of their third back, so their average cost per block is the fees for 1/6 of the block.  If we are talking about someone with half the mining power, their average return per block is 1/2 the fees for a block.  Because 1/2 is greater than 1/3, they are making a profit.  

The breakeven point for the biggest miner was when his fraction of the mining power plus the fraction of each block devoted to legitimate transactions was equal to one.  We can conclude that whoever is doing this, if he started the instant it was profitable, controlled 1 - 2/(1 + sqrt(5)) of the mining power at that time.  This happens to be one minus the inverse of the Golden Ratio.

It will continue to be in the financial best interests of any miner controlling more than 1 - 2/(1 + sqrt(5)) of the mining power for as long as blocks are more than half full with legitimate transactions.  

This does not affect, and is not influenced by revenue from block subsidies AT ALL.

All miners will see increased fee revenues in the competitive market.  They will respond to more revenue by  investing more in equipment.  Those miners are still competing fairly with each other, though they will make less on their investment than whoever's maintaining the backlog.  It is not in their best interests to add bogus transactions to the queue because with a smaller fraction than 38% of the mining power they would lose money on the fees they invest.

But any miner for whom this IS profitable, will make additional revenue that the fair market among miners does not.  What percentage more, depends on what fraction of the hashing power he controls. Any such miner is competing at an advantage and will eventually drive all other miners out of the market.

Miners for whom this is profitable must control at least 38% of the mining power.  Therefore there can be no more than two miners doing it at a profit.  And it's got positive feedback, so those two cannot compete fairly. Assuming there are two, the instant one of them has more hashing power than the other, he has a competitive advantage over the other (gets back as revenue a greater fraction of all fees spent) than the other miner) and will eventually drive him out of the market.



hmmm, where did we hear this one before?:

Here are some attacks which are affected by the number of nodes and/or miners and/or hashrate:

Attacker: Miners
Attack: Double spending. A miner can spend bitcoins on a product or service, then produce a block which invalidates the spend
Probability of success: 100% when the hash rate of the attacker exceeds the hash rate of the rest of the network
Severity: Number of bitcoins controlled by the attacker * number of attacks performed

Attacker: Miners
Attack: Denial of service. A miner can engage in selective censorship of transactions
Probability of success: 100% when the hash rate of the attacker exceeds the hash rate of the rest of the network
Severity: % success rate of censor identifying transactions they wish to block * value of the blocked transactions

Attacker: Nodes
Attack: Double spending. An attacker can defraud a target who is using an SPV wallet by providing them with invalid block headers which allow the attacker to pay the target with a transaction which references non-existant inputs
Probability of success: 0% unless the attacker can prevent the target from communicating with any honest nodes
Severity:  Number of bitcoins controlled by the attacker * number of attacks performed



How about this one:

Current situation where blocks are getting full from artificial 1MB cap:
Attacker: large miners like f2pool
Attack: spam network from one of its wallets to another. Drive up overall fees of regular users.
Success: 100%
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 16, 2015, 01:30:06 AM
 #28890

as for another prediction, just to ram it home:

[–]cypherdoc2 9 points 1 year ago

I'll take the cautious side here being a stake holder in Bitcoin. Not being a dev my concerns are purely theoretical and mostly economic.

    In general, a for profit company with a low to no stake in Bitcoin should not be trusted to make changes to the protocol that facilitate its profit making. Especially if it's gone out and hired core devs and comes at the expense of the competition.
    I would like to know who these core devs are supposedly supporting the whole concept besides gmax who has gone on record saying Bitcoin needs to be "fixed". I don't understand the secrecy as I've asked for those names several times. I for one don't think Bitcoin needs fixing.
    I've always conceptualized Bitcoin as being a self contained financial system so I am concerned that it's fundamental value units will be allowed to leave its system destined for what will inevitably be a weaker sidechain from a security standpoint. In that sense I don't see them as "the first app" overlaying the protocol like Andreas likes to say. I see them as fundamentally integrated into the network. Invariably, whatever token your bitcoin is transformed into will be worth less as a result. We've spent 5 long years distributing those bitcoins throughout the blockchain in a fair and truthful manner based on free market trading. $600 million has been irreversibly spent to secure that process and the blockchain is delicately balanced as a result. Bitcoins are a fundamental value unit that was made for its network and only for that network in my opinion and now we want to let them move off that network potentially never to return. Satoshi never provisioned for this. That doesn't feel right to me.
    What knock on effects would occur to the Bitcoin network if 20-30% of these tokens get lost from a sidechain failure thus wiping out all the associated bitcoins as a result? The answer could be way more complex than just "oh, my bitcoins will be worth more".
    With merged mining it would be easier to attack and steal the tokens and thus bitcoins associated with them. What can be done to prevent this?
    What if there was an economic way to solve the problem of scamcoins without touching the protocol? I reference Peter R's proposal of Spin Offs. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563925.0
    Is there really a "problem"with Bitcoin that we need to risk the entire system like this? Why can't Bitcoin act like a reserve currency around which altcoins can orbit without touching/risking the protocol? I reference the fork we got from a simple non protocol change last year from just 0.7-0.8. The devs including gmax failed to anticipate this despite the best of intentions.
    It's important to realize that we have intentionally lived with bugs in the system all these years because we're dealing with a form of money that you can't make mistakes with. Billions are at risk and damned straight I'm protective of this. Bitcoin has worked well so far imo. It seems we always get these proposals at the bottom of a price lull so be wary of people proposing changes who have no stake in the system.

I'm willing to wait until the whitepaper comes out for final judgment as maybe I'm getting too conservative in my old age but those are my concerns.

    permalink
    embed
    save
    edit
    disable inbox replies
    delete



https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/23fr63/bitcoin_20_unleash_the_sidechains/cgwt2nz
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
July 16, 2015, 01:45:12 AM
 #28891

hmmm, where did we hear this one before?:

How about this one:

Current situation where blocks are getting full from artificial 1MB cap:
Attacker: large miners like f2pool
Attack: spam network from one of its wallets to another. Drive up overall fees of regular users.
Success: 100%

Wow, you totally anticipated Cryddit's Golden Ratio Attack.  Amazing.

And that why you are indisputably the LebRon Jones of Bitcoin!

/ Roll Eyes

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
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Wallets - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }


Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


"I believed @Dashpay instamine was a bug & not a feature but then read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg13017231#msg13017231
I'm not against people making money, but can't support questionable origins."
https://twitter.com/Tone_LLT/status/717822927908024320


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004

"Hard forks cannot be co
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 16, 2015, 01:48:19 AM
 #28892

hmmm, where did we hear this one before?:

How about this one:

Current situation where blocks are getting full from artificial 1MB cap:
Attacker: large miners like f2pool
Attack: spam network from one of its wallets to another. Drive up overall fees of regular users.
Success: 100%

Wow, you totally anticipated Cryddit's Golden Ratio Attack.  Amazing.

And that why you are indisputably the LebRon Jones of Bitcoin!

/ Roll Eyes

why thank you iCEBlow!  i'm glad you recognize brilliance when you see it.  you may kiss my ass now.
majamalu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652



View Profile WWW
July 16, 2015, 02:31:39 AM
 #28893

The block size limit is not a problem.



Kim Jong-iCE will know exactly when we need more space.

http://elbitcoin.org - Bitcoin en español
http://mercadobitcoin.com - MercadoBitcoin
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
July 16, 2015, 02:56:07 AM
 #28894


I suspect we agree that should 1MB blocks become an undeniably urgent concern (EG, if we see actual congestion resulting in appropriate fees no longer prioritizing their tx) the controversy will rapidly dissipate and be replaced by emergent rough consensus.

Kim Jong-iCE will know exactly when we need more space.

The Democratic People’s Republic of Corea thanks you for recognizing my prescience and leadership in addressing this important matter.

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
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Wallets - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }


Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


"I believed @Dashpay instamine was a bug & not a feature but then read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg13017231#msg13017231
I'm not against people making money, but can't support questionable origins."
https://twitter.com/Tone_LLT/status/717822927908024320


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004

"Hard forks cannot be co
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 16, 2015, 02:59:12 AM
 #28895

conflict of interest

n. a situation in which a person has a duty to more than one person or organization, but cannot do justice to the actual or potentially adverse interests of both parties. This includes when an individual's personal interests or concerns are inconsistent with the best for a customer, or when a public official's personal interests are contrary to his/her loyalty to public business. An attorney, an accountant, a business adviser or realtor cannot represent two parties in a dispute and must avoid even the appearance of conflict. He/she may not join with a client in business without making full disclosure of his/her potential conflicts, he/she must avoid commingling funds with the client, and never, never take a position adverse to the customer.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 16, 2015, 03:00:47 AM
 #28896


I suspect we agree that should 1MB blocks become an undeniably urgent concern (EG, if we see actual congestion resulting in appropriate fees no longer prioritizing their tx) the controversy will rapidly dissipate and be replaced by emergent rough consensus.

no, the eye doctor says you're a blind fool.
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
July 16, 2015, 03:11:48 AM
 #28897


I suspect we agree that should 1MB blocks become an undeniably urgent concern (EG, if we see actual congestion resulting in appropriate fees no longer prioritizing their tx) the controversy will rapidly dissipate and be replaced by emergent rough consensus.

no, the eye doctor says you're a blind fool.

Why do you say that?

Do you believe the controversy will *not* rapidly dissipate and be replaced by emergent rough consensus, should 1MB blocks become an undeniably urgent concern?

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
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Wallets - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }


Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


"I believed @Dashpay instamine was a bug & not a feature but then read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg13017231#msg13017231
I'm not against people making money, but can't support questionable origins."
https://twitter.com/Tone_LLT/status/717822927908024320


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004

"Hard forks cannot be co
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 16, 2015, 03:26:21 AM
 #28898


I suspect we agree that should 1MB blocks become an undeniably urgent concern (EG, if we see actual congestion resulting in appropriate fees no longer prioritizing their tx) the controversy will rapidly dissipate and be replaced by emergent rough consensus.

no, the eye doctor says you're a blind fool.

Why do you say that?

Do you believe the controversy will *not* rapidly dissipate and be replaced by emergent rough consensus, should 1MB blocks become an undeniably urgent concern?

you and the other Cripplecoiner's are blind fools to what is happening right now as a result of the 1MB choke you are inflicting on Bitcoin.  you don't have the vision to determine when there is urgency.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
July 16, 2015, 03:29:42 AM
 #28899

conflict of interest

n. a situation in which a person has a duty to more than one person or organization, but cannot do justice to the actual or potentially adverse interests of both parties. This includes when an individual's personal interests or concerns are inconsistent with the best for a customer, or when a public official's personal interests are contrary to his/her loyalty to public business. An attorney, an accountant, a business adviser or realtor cannot represent two parties in a dispute and must avoid even the appearance of conflict. He/she may not join with a client in business without making full disclosure of his/her potential conflicts, he/she must avoid commingling funds with the client, and never, never take a position adverse to the customer.

well someone was kind enough to spare us the effort to "rekt" your hypocritical "concern" on reddit :

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3dg1us/the_golden_ratio_attack_blocks_more_than_half/ct4yc63

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 16, 2015, 03:33:32 AM
 #28900

conflict of interest

n. a situation in which a person has a duty to more than one person or organization, but cannot do justice to the actual or potentially adverse interests of both parties. This includes when an individual's personal interests or concerns are inconsistent with the best for a customer, or when a public official's personal interests are contrary to his/her loyalty to public business. An attorney, an accountant, a business adviser or realtor cannot represent two parties in a dispute and must avoid even the appearance of conflict. He/she may not join with a client in business without making full disclosure of his/her potential conflicts, he/she must avoid commingling funds with the client, and never, never take a position adverse to the customer.

well someone was kind enough to spare us the effort to "rekt" your hypocritical "concern" on reddit :

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3dg1us/the_golden_ratio_attack_blocks_more_than_half/ct4yc63

brg444 jumping to rektless conclusions again.  i actually have a response i have yet to use to eragmus. 
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 ... 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!