Bitcoin Forum
February 16, 2019, 06:52:55 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.17.1 [Torrent]
 
   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 ... 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 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2028316 times)
nby
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 27
Merit: 0


View Profile
July 29, 2015, 09:28:29 PM
 #29481




Now its Frap.doc's turn to get rekt:

Piling every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into one dataset doesn't scale.

Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.


 Cheesy

You should keep in mind this while posting.

Maybe then you would take a full quote of a post, instead of just extracting a part out of its context in order to prove your point.

BitDNS users might be completely liberal about adding any large data features since relatively few domain registrars are needed, while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.

But I guess that intellectual honesty has never been your goal here
1550299975
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1550299975

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1550299975
Reply with quote  #2

1550299975
Report to moderator
Your Bitcoin transactions
The Ultimate Bitcoin mixer
made truly anonymous.
with an advanced technology.
Mix coins
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1550299975
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1550299975

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1550299975
Reply with quote  #2

1550299975
Report to moderator
1550299975
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1550299975

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1550299975
Reply with quote  #2

1550299975
Report to moderator
1550299975
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1550299975

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1550299975
Reply with quote  #2

1550299975
Report to moderator
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288
Merit: 1000



View Profile
July 29, 2015, 09:28:44 PM
 #29482

how does it not correlate with my theory?  yours is just a long term zoom out of the hashrate which obscures the shorter effect of the stress test.

I think, everybody can see that the hashrate is growing. No matter if there is "stress test" or not.

And it is obvious that bitcoin price was $318 during the time you took days off.
inca
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1000


View Profile
July 29, 2015, 09:33:31 PM
 #29483




Now its Frap.doc's turn to get rekt:

Piling every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into one dataset doesn't scale.

Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.


 Cheesy

You should keep in mind this while posting.

Maybe then you would take a full quote of a post, instead of just extracting a part out of its context in order to prove your point.

BitDNS users might be completely liberal about adding any large data features since relatively few domain registrars are needed, while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.

But I guess that intellectual honesty has never been your goal here

Haha. Brilliant!! Smiley
thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1000


View Profile
July 29, 2015, 09:35:29 PM
 #29484

decision to force a fee market is a centralized solution

On it's face this is a nonsense argument since any development decisions are centralized in the same manner.

Increase the blocksize, decrease the blocksize, or leave it alone, they are all (centralized) development decisions.

It's also false that anything is really centralized about it because if there were truly a consensus for change (over the objections of the 'centralized' developers) there would be a successful fork.


Yes all dev decisions are essentially centralized, including the decision to NOT do something.  Since that is trivially true, I am talking about the effect of the decision.  And in one case miners can optimize their profitability by choosing to include transactions while in another case they are artificially limited.

Listen to New Liberty, he got this completely right. Whether miners can optimize their profitability is beside the point, because in doing so they also influence others' costs, and they are most certainly not optimizing that.

The idea of a sensible market arising for block size in the current structure if the consensus block size rule (which is the only mechanism for the "others" in the previous paragraph to participate in such a market) is a fantasy.


You are correct to question whether the incentives for miners coincides with what is optimal for the rest of the network.  As we see with empty blocks and non-validated blocks these can differ.  However, your assumption that these do not coincide whatsoever is unsupported.  And with Bitcoin it is all we have, barring some centralized committee making arbitrary decisions like we have today with the core devs.  Personally, I believe that miner incentive is a reflection of optimal network use, if not 100% the same.  For example, a miner who mines a bunch of "spam" txns knows that he must store it for eternity, just like all the other nodes.

A better example is the worry that a miner will include a txn that takes 10+ minutes to validate.  It is dangerous to build on a block that can't be readily validated.  So a miner that includes one could expect that the majority hashing power would NOT move to that block, even though it may be the longest in the chain.  The "fittest" miner will mine 2 blocks in the time it takes others to validate this one and mine the next.  That need only happen once or twice to teach the rest of the network a valuable lesson.  

So miners will evolve to be tweaking their algorithms to eliminate "crazy junk" (unless that junk is sufficiently incentivized with a large txn fee -- and if someone is willing to pay a lot for it, who are we to decide that its not important... that's the free market at work) and even include "human assist" systems to optimize decisions like these.  We may get a few "natural" forks longer than just one or 2 blocks as miners choose different strategies but that is just part of the natural behavior of the core consensus algorithm.  All of this can be done without changing consensus.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
July 29, 2015, 09:38:48 PM
 #29485

how does it not correlate with my theory?  yours is just a long term zoom out of the hashrate which obscures the shorter effect of the stress test.

I think, everybody can see that the hashrate is growing. No matter if there is "stress test" or not.

And it is obvious that bitcoin price was $318 during the time you took days off.

Haha Odalv:

Quote

You should keep in mind this while posting.

But I guess that intellectual honesty has never been your goal here
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288
Merit: 1000



View Profile
July 29, 2015, 09:41:18 PM
 #29486

Quote
Quote
how does it not correlate with my theory?  yours is just a long term zoom out of the hashrate which obscures the shorter effect of the stress test.

I think, everybody can see that the hashrate is growing. No matter if there is "stress test" or not.

And it is obvious that bitcoin price was $318 during the time you took days off.

Haha Odalv:


You should keep in mind this while posting.

Maybe then you would take a full quote of a post, instead of just extracting a part out of its context in order to prove your point.

BitDNS users might be completely liberal about adding any large data features since relatively few domain registrars are needed, while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.

But I guess that intellectual honesty has never been your goal here

Huh


edit:
are you on drugs ?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
July 29, 2015, 09:43:45 PM
 #29487

how does it not correlate with my theory?  yours is just a long term zoom out of the hashrate which obscures the shorter effect of the stress test.

I think, everybody can see that the hashrate is growing. No matter if there is "stress test" or not.

And it is obvious that bitcoin price was $318 during the time you took days off.

Haha Odalv:


You should keep in mind this while posting.

Maybe then you would take a full quote of a post, instead of just extracting a part out of its context in order to prove your point.

BitDNS users might be completely liberal about adding any large data features since relatively few domain registrars are needed, while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.

But I guess that intellectual honesty has never been your goal here
[/quote]

Huh


edit:
are you on drugs ?
[/quote]

Fixed. Troll.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288
Merit: 1000



View Profile
July 29, 2015, 09:47:10 PM
 #29488

Quote
Quote
how does it not correlate with my theory?  yours is just a long term zoom out of the hashrate which obscures the shorter effect of the stress test.

I think, everybody can see that the hashrate is growing. No matter if there is "stress test" or not.

And it is obvious that bitcoin price was $318 during the time you took days off.

Haha Odalv:


You should keep in mind this while posting.

Maybe then you would take a full quote of a post, instead of just extracting a part out of its context in order to prove your point.

BitDNS users might be completely liberal about adding any large data features since relatively few domain registrars are needed, while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.

But I guess that intellectual honesty has never been your goal here

Huh


edit:
are you on drugs ?

Fixed. Troll.
really ?
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2072
Merit: 1063


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
July 29, 2015, 09:52:57 PM
 #29489


Now its Frap.doc's turn to get rekt:

Piling every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into one dataset doesn't scale.

Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.


 Cheesy

You should keep in mind this while posting.

Maybe then you would take a full quote of a post, instead of just extracting a part out of its context in order to prove your point.

BitDNS users might be completely liberal about adding any large data features since relatively few domain registrars are needed, while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.

But I guess that intellectual honesty has never been your goal here

"Extracting?"  What an interesting word choice.   Roll Eyes

You make it sound like I put Satoshi's quote through some kind of violent mechanical processing, instead of the commonplace practice of editing for clarity and brevity.  But we all understand your goal here is to impute and exaggerate my intellectual dishonesty, in order to distract from the larger issue of why Team Gavinista is losing the Bitcoin Civil War.

The BitDNS discussion was not germane and thus excluded.  A link to the full text of the primary source was provided.


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

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
Is Dash a scam?
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288
Merit: 1000



View Profile
July 29, 2015, 10:01:14 PM
 #29490

Quote
Quote
how does it not correlate with my theory?  yours is just a long term zoom out of the hashrate which obscures the shorter effect of the stress test.

I think, everybody can see that the hashrate is growing. No matter if there is "stress test" or not.

And it is obvious that bitcoin price was $318 during the time you took days off.

Haha Odalv:


You should keep in mind this while posting.

Maybe then you would take a full quote of a post, instead of just extracting a part out of its context in order to prove your point.

BitDNS users might be completely liberal about adding any large data features since relatively few domain registrars are needed, while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.

But I guess that intellectual honesty has never been your goal here

Huh


edit:
are you on drugs ?

Fixed. Troll.

Do you pay shills ? Adrian-x and Rocks looks like children who can enjoy wooden toy train.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
July 29, 2015, 10:01:29 PM
 #29491

Gmax finally getting the treatment he deserves:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3f26b7/thank_you_mike_hearn_for_sticking_up_for_us_this/
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
July 29, 2015, 10:06:21 PM
 #29492

It's coming soon:

https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/pull/22
Wexlike
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 974
Merit: 1000


View Profile
July 29, 2015, 10:08:59 PM
 #29493


Extremely good reply, that is exactly my thinking when it comes to the blocksize debate.

The best quote imho:

Quote
If Satoshi had said from the start,

"Bitcoin cannot ever scale. So I intend it to be heavily limited and used only by a handful of people for rare transactions. I picked 1mb as an arbitrary limit to ensure it never gets popular."

... then I'd have not bothered getting involved. I'd have said, huh, I don't really feel like putting effort into a system that is intended to NOT be popular. And so would many other people.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
July 29, 2015, 10:10:09 PM
 #29494


To all the talented devs out there reading this thread, here's your chance to be a part of the new XT core team.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288
Merit: 1000



View Profile
July 29, 2015, 10:13:29 PM
 #29495


I'll bet that 8-20 MB block-chain will not last more than few hours.
nby
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 27
Merit: 0


View Profile
July 29, 2015, 10:14:45 PM
 #29496



"Extracting?"  What an interesting word choice.   Roll Eyes

You make it sound like I put Satoshi's quote through some kind of violent mechanical processing, instead of the commonplace practice of editing for clarity and brevity.  But we all understand your goal here is to impute and exaggerate my intellectual dishonesty, in order to distract from the larger issue of why Team Gavinista is losing the Bitcoin Civil War.

The BitDNS discussion was not germane and thus excluded.  A link to the full text of the primary source was provided.

WRT my choice of word, guess what ? English is not my native language. Are you going to pick on me for this ?

But you know what ? I think that I like the image you are referring to. It conveys exactly the idea of what you are doing with that quote: you squash and grind its content, keeping only what you are interested in and discarding what you can't use.

WRT the "Bitcoin Civil War", keep on dreaming. If you think that "you" will be able to stop people from running the code they think will suit their needs, be my guest
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2044
Merit: 1077



View Profile
July 29, 2015, 10:24:04 PM
 #29497

You are correct to question whether the incentives for miners coincides with what is optimal for the rest of the network.  As we see with empty blocks and non-validated blocks these can differ.  However, your assumption that these do not coincide whatsoever is unsupported.  And with Bitcoin it is all we have, barring some centralized committee making arbitrary decisions like we have today with the core devs.

Bitcoin has consensus rules. You may view that as being something decided by a central committee (in a sense that is true because the consensus rules are encoded in the software) or alternately, as something decided by the consensus of users who run the software (in deciding whether to use a modified version), but either way there is nothing improper about those consensus rules including a block size limit just as they include other limits, for example, the maximum allowable size of scripts, which op codes can be used at all, whether coins can be created out of thin air, etc.

By your argument the consensus rules should be removed and miners can just include whatever they want. After all, miners won''t want to include anything that other miners wan't want to build on, so the whole thing is entirely self-enforcing. Maybe that sort of a coin would work, but it isn't Bitcoin at all. It's very close to a greenfield redesign.

Bitcoin by its nature includes consensus rules that are enforced by all users, not just miners.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2044
Merit: 1077



View Profile
July 29, 2015, 10:29:02 PM
Last edit: July 30, 2015, 12:18:23 AM by smooth
 #29498


I score this for Mike.

He's made a strong case for what the original vision was, and maybe from the perspective of "social contract" that should be kept regardless of whether it is viewed as the "best thing" for Bitcoin. Obviously opinions strongly differ on the latter, and maybe that has to do with the context of us now living in a post-Snowden era which didn't exist when that "original vision" was defined. But the argument against the original vision being nodes all in data centers, most people using SPV, etc. is getting very thin.

Still, that's not really the point. If the original vision is unconstrained growth, and the argument is that the original vision should not be violated, then let it be, security issues or otherwise.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400
Merit: 1006



View Profile WWW
July 29, 2015, 10:51:06 PM
 #29499

He's made a strong case for what the original vision was, and maybe from the perspective of "social contract" that should be kept regardless of whether it is viewed as the "best thing" for Bitcoin. Obviously opinions strongly differ on the latter, and maybe that has to do with the context of us now living in a post-Snowden era which didn't exist when that "original vision" was defined. But the argument against the original vision being nodes all in data centers, most people using SPV, etc. is getting very thin.
There are security challenges with a network consisting mostly of light nodes.

Why aren't more people talking about ways to address them rather than using their existence as an excuse to prevent progress?
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1000


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
July 29, 2015, 11:25:41 PM
Last edit: July 29, 2015, 11:56:27 PM by solex
 #29500

by running a full node you're helping to prop your investment in the coin and you should be using it to secure your own tx's; which should be a security measure you're willing to pay for.  as the user base grows, if we let it, then merchant base grows with it and they will be more than willing from a security and fiduciary standpoint to increase the availability of full nodes across the network.

^This^ is key to the preservation of Bitcoin as a growing decentralised network.
Yes, miners earn rewards directly and have a estimated ROI, but the majority of full nodes are non-mining, their owners are looking at the long-game, ecosystem growth, and the current situation of be-your-own-bank, escape from CB fiat, fast economical permissionless money transfers.

Constraining volume with a block limit which does not at least increase in line with improving technology will seriously erode the confidence of non-mining node owners, who will switch off, or switch to an alternative coin. This is the real threat to decentralisation.

If average blocks were to increase to 3,5, or 10MB and at some level cause problems for the network then full node owners would rally with Core Dev to put in place a lower temporary limit, or help fund obvious scaling improvements. Bitcoin the network constrained by technical limits will bring people to work together to maintain the $4 Billion enterprise. Bitcoin constrained by an artificial limit which is not wanted by the majority of mining power and user-base will achieve the opposite and destroy co-operation, destroy the enthusiasm to work together, and increase centralisation by reducing node counts.

Edit, of relevance here too: Raystonn nails shut the coffin of the plan to force a "settlement layer"

Quote
Much like anywhere else where liquidity moves within a
system, value will move to the network of least friction.  The reality right
now is it's very easy to move value from Bitcoin to another blockchain with
less friction.  Because of this, there will never be a high value settlement
network created by an artificially imposed limit on transaction rate.  The
value will simply bleed out of Bitcoin to alternative blockchains offering
lower fees if this is attempted.  This is basic economics.

Pages: « 1 ... 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 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 ... 1558 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Bitcointalk.org is not available or authorized for sale. Do not believe any fake listings.
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!