Bitcoin Forum
November 18, 2017, 05:59:33 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 ... 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 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2009004 times)
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
July 23, 2015, 12:59:07 AM
 #29181




^ Confirmed.

LOL, the Gavinistas are furiously scribbling their little manifesto.  This gonna be good.   Grin

Exactly like the Peoples' Front of Judea (or was it the Judean Peoples' Front?)

"What have the core devs ever done for us?"

I'm grateful to the developers, but this is not about them, I'm also happy that not everyone at central control is part of the heard, everything in this post is good news. if you read that tweet again, it looks like a critique of the mainstream circle jerk.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
1511027973
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511027973

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511027973
Reply with quote  #2

1511027973
Report to moderator
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.
1511027973
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511027973

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511027973
Reply with quote  #2

1511027973
Report to moderator
1511027973
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511027973

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511027973
Reply with quote  #2

1511027973
Report to moderator
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834


[LOL2X]


View Profile WWW
July 23, 2015, 01:37:40 AM
 #29182

LOL, the Gavinistas are furiously scribbling their little manifesto.  This gonna be good.   Grin

Exactly like the Peoples' Front of Judea (or was it the Judean Peoples' Front?)

"What have the core devs ever done for us?"

I'm grateful to the developers, but this is not about them, I'm also happy that not everyone at central control is part of the heard, everything in this post is good news. if you read that tweet again, it looks like a critique of the mainstream circle jerk.

Ah, but BitcoinSX is about the developers.  Specifically, SX's lack of them and predictable GFY response from Team Core when larger blocks break something Gavin failed to account for (like upstream bandwidth being ~order-of-magnitude less than down, or catastrophic consensus failure).


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

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

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 23, 2015, 02:49:53 AM
 #29183

LOL, the Gavinistas are furiously scribbling their little manifesto.  This gonna be good.   Grin

Exactly like the Peoples' Front of Judea (or was it the Judean Peoples' Front?)

"What have the core devs ever done for us?"

I'm grateful to the developers, but this is not about them, I'm also happy that not everyone at central control is part of the heard, everything in this post is good news. if you read that tweet again, it looks like a critique of the mainstream circle jerk.

Ah, but BitcoinSX is about the developers.  Specifically, SX's lack of them and predictable GFY response from Team Core when larger blocks break something Gavin failed to account for (like upstream bandwidth being ~order-of-magnitude less than down, or catastrophic consensus failure).

XT could be an interesting pseudo-test of the thought experiment i've made a coupla times about perhaps Bitcoin needing nothing more than a big enough block size increase with built in upgrades from now until eternity.  or at least until an emergency patch is needed for an extraordinary event. 
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
July 23, 2015, 07:51:29 AM
 #29184

Multiple groups coding to the protocol is likely to be a good development for Bitcoin...  Unless it turns into some red vs blue turf battle, which is a big risk with all the xxxJ personalities.

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
Torque
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
July 23, 2015, 01:24:02 PM
 #29185

"What have the core devs ever done for us?"
It doesn't matter.

At all.

This isn't academia - there is no tenure in Bitcoin.

Their position is contingent every single day on their continuing ability to produce new value.

They can choose to embrace that reality, or they can choose to pout about it. Bitcoin will be fine with or without them.

well put JR.  i hadn't even thought about it that way.

and what we absolutely don't want is core dev thinking that Bitcoin "owes them" something.

you do know that also goes for Satoshi and Gavin ?

Yep, but how to get rid of the "bad actor" core devs that are now clearly trying to push their own agendas and self interests?  Why are they now 'indoctrinated' and unfire-able?  Even Hitler could be said to have added value.

Satoshi clearly didn't have a plan to manage the core devs, or even a code of conduct as it seems.  We need a Bitcoin-equivalent Hippocratic Oath for the core devs, as well as a way to tell them to buzz off.  Maybe the Foundation can get to work on that. Tongue 
Wexlike
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 975


View Profile
July 23, 2015, 02:30:47 PM
 #29186


Satoshi clearly didn't have a plan to manage the core devs, or even a code of conduct as it seems.  We need a Bitcoin-equivalent Hippocratic Oath for the core devs, as well as a way to tell them to buzz off.  Maybe the Foundation can get to work on that. Tongue 

They signed the Hippocratic Oath equivalent when they joined Blockstream - at least that is what was presented in the media, that they would never hurt bitcoin because of their work contracts.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 23, 2015, 02:52:37 PM
 #29187

$DJT doing the next roll:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 23, 2015, 02:56:30 PM
 #29188


Satoshi clearly didn't have a plan to manage the core devs, or even a code of conduct as it seems.  We need a Bitcoin-equivalent Hippocratic Oath for the core devs, as well as a way to tell them to buzz off.  Maybe the Foundation can get to work on that. Tongue 

They signed the Hippocratic Oath equivalent when they joined Blockstream - at least that is what was presented in the media, that they would never hurt bitcoin because of their work contracts.

how effective do you expect them to be when they depend on self determination?  how much does money & stock options affect their decision making?  what does talking with your VC investors everyday do to one's view of the world?  since bigger blocks is a no brainer even for SC's & LN, why the delay/stalling?
ssmc2
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092


View Profile
July 23, 2015, 02:59:24 PM
 #29189

I wonder if the continuing GLD downtrend (with no near or medium-term end in sight) will spur some goldbugs to jump into BTC as they see it rise while their beloved PM falls. Could be one of the many contributing factors in the inevitable coming BULL run.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 23, 2015, 03:07:37 PM
 #29190

these are really bad signs for the economy in general:







cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 23, 2015, 03:08:59 PM
 #29191

all of them have that sick top left to bottom right long term year chart...
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 23, 2015, 03:12:41 PM
 #29192

I wonder if the continuing GLD downtrend (with no near or medium-term end in sight) will spur some goldbugs to jump into BTC as they see it rise while their beloved PM falls. Could be one of the many contributing factors in the inevitable coming BULL run.

you mean this POS?  well yeah, that's the whole thrust of this thread for 4y running...:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 23, 2015, 03:14:32 PM
 #29193


Satoshi clearly didn't have a plan to manage the core devs, or even a code of conduct as it seems.  We need a Bitcoin-equivalent Hippocratic Oath for the core devs, as well as a way to tell them to buzz off.  Maybe the Foundation can get to work on that. Tongue 

They signed the Hippocratic Oath equivalent when they joined Blockstream - at least that is what was presented in the media, that they would never hurt bitcoin because of their work contracts.

how effective do you expect them to be when they depend on self determination?  how much does money & stock options affect their decision making?  what does talking with your VC investors everyday do to one's view of the world?  since bigger blocks is a no brainer even for SC's & LN, why the delay/stalling?

and yeah, i asked these very questions a year ago well before the block size debate was a "thing".
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 23, 2015, 03:48:01 PM
 #29194

this is an awesome quote:

The technology will be “of fundamental importance to Wall Street,” Nasdaq Chief Executive Officer Bob Greifeld said during a phone interview Thursday. “The benefits to the industry are immense and cannot be ignored.”


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-23/nasdaq-expects-to-be-first-exchange-to-use-bitcoin-technology

you know they're going to want cheap tx fees don't you?
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
July 23, 2015, 03:56:24 PM
 #29195

this is an awesome quote:

The technology will be “of fundamental importance to Wall Street,” Nasdaq Chief Executive Officer Bob Greifeld said during a phone interview Thursday. “The benefits to the industry are immense and cannot be ignored.”


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-23/nasdaq-expects-to-be-first-exchange-to-use-bitcoin-technology

you know they're going to want cheap tx fees don't you?

It reeks of desperation when you are spinning every story, news and thoughts of yours in some low-level childish "diss".

It'd be nice if this news could get us out of this price funk though!

"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 23, 2015, 04:00:11 PM
 #29196

BlockCypher on board with bigger blocks.  their analysis corresponds with everything i've been saying (& concepts elucidated by awemany) in this thread about the attack:

Large mempools are awful

The truth is that “the” mempool is a misnomer; every miner and node has its own mempool, with different sizes, policies, and rules. Mix with a Bitcoin core implementation ill-equipped for massive mempools, and you get chaos and uncertainty. A large mempool stresses Bitcoin’s distributed infrastructure and greatly increases the possibility of user confusion when their transactions are randomly dropped.

Large mempools — relative to block size — are very bad.
Miners and nodes bore the cost

What most don’t realize is the attack was on the miners and nodes validating transactions. When a transaction has been received and validated by the network (but NOT INCLUDED in a block), the cost has already been incurred by the network in sending, validating, and relaying the transactions.
What Next?

Adapt. Upward fee pressure may be inevitable, but it’s important to note that this attack scales linearly with block size. If we had 8MB block size limits, for example, and assuming prior 1–2tps, then the attacker’s transactions would fill 7.5MB of extra transactions instead of 500KB, a full 15x more expensive, on the order of ~$60,000 a day. Still too cheap, but a higher price tag for a prospective malcontent.


https://medium.com/blockcypher-blog/a-bitcoin-spam-attack-post-mortem-s-la-ying-alive-654e914edcf4
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
July 23, 2015, 04:07:35 PM
 #29197

BlockCypher on board with bigger blocks.  their analysis corresponds with everything i've been saying (& concepts elucidated by awemany) in this thread about the attack:

Large mempools are awful

The truth is that “the” mempool is a misnomer; every miner and node has its own mempool, with different sizes, policies, and rules. Mix with a Bitcoin core implementation ill-equipped for massive mempools, and you get chaos and uncertainty. A large mempool stresses Bitcoin’s distributed infrastructure and greatly increases the possibility of user confusion when their transactions are randomly dropped.

Large mempools — relative to block size — are very bad.
Miners and nodes bore the cost

What most don’t realize is the attack was on the miners and nodes validating transactions. When a transaction has been received and validated by the network (but NOT INCLUDED in a block), the cost has already been incurred by the network in sending, validating, and relaying the transactions.
What Next?

Adapt. Upward fee pressure may be inevitable, but it’s important to note that this attack scales linearly with block size. If we had 8MB block size limits, for example, and assuming prior 1–2tps, then the attacker’s transactions would fill 7.5MB of extra transactions instead of 500KB, a full 15x more expensive, on the order of ~$60,000 a day. Still too cheap, but a higher price tag for a prospective malcontent.


https://medium.com/blockcypher-blog/a-bitcoin-spam-attack-post-mortem-s-la-ying-alive-654e914edcf4

Hmmm sorry but that's mischaracterizing the idea behind this article. They are in fact very neutral and make no mention of a preferred position on the matter.

Seems clear the culprit in this whole saga of "network disruption" was misconfigured architecture and apparently inadequate mempool implementations.

Quote
Mix with a Bitcoin core implementation ill-equipped for massive mempools, and you get chaos and uncertainty. A large mempool stresses Bitcoin’s distributed infrastructure and greatly increases the possibility of user confusion when their transactions are randomly dropped.

Evidently the core parameters were not optimized, something they suggest the core devs should concentrate and focus on maybe even before we think about block size. (I am aware there is already progress made toward alleviating this problem)

"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 23, 2015, 04:18:06 PM
 #29198

mining centralization?  what mining centralization?:

bucktotal
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 230


View Profile
July 23, 2015, 04:26:02 PM
 #29199

cypherdoc,

where are you getting those pool hashrate distribution graphs?

what about these?

https://blockchain.info/pools?timespan=4days
http://blockinfo.org/pools

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 23, 2015, 04:30:00 PM
 #29200

BlockCypher on board with bigger blocks.  their analysis corresponds with everything i've been saying (& concepts elucidated by awemany) in this thread about the attack:

Large mempools are awful

The truth is that “the” mempool is a misnomer; every miner and node has its own mempool, with different sizes, policies, and rules. Mix with a Bitcoin core implementation ill-equipped for massive mempools, and you get chaos and uncertainty. A large mempool stresses Bitcoin’s distributed infrastructure and greatly increases the possibility of user confusion when their transactions are randomly dropped.

Large mempools — relative to block size — are very bad.
Miners and nodes bore the cost

What most don’t realize is the attack was on the miners and nodes validating transactions. When a transaction has been received and validated by the network (but NOT INCLUDED in a block), the cost has already been incurred by the network in sending, validating, and relaying the transactions.
What Next?

Adapt. Upward fee pressure may be inevitable, but it’s important to note that this attack scales linearly with block size. If we had 8MB block size limits, for example, and assuming prior 1–2tps, then the attacker’s transactions would fill 7.5MB of extra transactions instead of 500KB, a full 15x more expensive, on the order of ~$60,000 a day. Still too cheap, but a higher price tag for a prospective malcontent.


https://medium.com/blockcypher-blog/a-bitcoin-spam-attack-post-mortem-s-la-ying-alive-654e914edcf4

Hmmm sorry but that's mischaracterizing the idea behind this article. They are in fact very neutral and make no mention of a preferred position on the matter.

Seems clear the culprit in this whole saga of "network disruption" was misconfigured architecture and apparently inadequate mempool implementations.

Quote
Mix with a Bitcoin core implementation ill-equipped for massive mempools, and you get chaos and uncertainty. A large mempool stresses Bitcoin’s distributed infrastructure and greatly increases the possibility of user confusion when their transactions are randomly dropped.

Evidently the core parameters were not optimized, something they suggest the core devs should concentrate and focus on maybe even before we think about block size. (I am aware there is already progress made toward alleviating this problem)

i heard a good argument the other day about this.  assuming that there are 1.1MB worth of real tx demand, that means not everyone can fit their tx into the next block and at minimum means 0.1MB worth of tx's have to wait until the next 10 min block to get thru no matter what fee they pay.  is Bitcoin a usable system at that point when some ppl may have to wait 20 min and even much longer if you start extrapolating out real use to say 100MB of real user demand?  also assume these ppl want max security of transacting on the MC.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 ... 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!