Bitcoin Forum
November 21, 2017, 04:24:27 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 ... 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 1526 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2010814 times)
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
July 29, 2015, 11:25:41 PM
 #29501

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.

1511281467
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511281467

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511281467
Reply with quote  #2

1511281467
Report to moderator
Join ICO Now Coinlancer is Disrupting the Freelance marketplace!
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511281467
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511281467

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511281467
Reply with quote  #2

1511281467
Report to moderator
1511281467
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511281467

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511281467
Reply with quote  #2

1511281467
Report to moderator
inca
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


View Profile
July 29, 2015, 11:27:59 PM
 #29502

I am I the only one who can feel the narrative of the blocksize debate shifting?
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
July 29, 2015, 11:40:20 PM
 #29503


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


is that you Gmax?

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596



View Profile
July 30, 2015, 12:17:17 AM
 #29504

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?

Largely because at the moment too many people are obsessed with the block size debate as a gladiatorial contest.

I really doubt that anyone is opposed to improvements to SPV security, although it is also the case (as we've seen with the block size debate) that what one person claims is an "improvement" may not be viewed by others as such.

But to the extent your point is valid, maybe people should take a step back from the block size, work on the other pieces, and then raise the block size again when the infrastructure is there to better support it. I've made that same point with respect to DoS protection and tragedy-of-the-commons issues. You don't just take away the limit, you address the issues that made it necessary, and then it makes sense to loosen it or remove it.



tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
July 30, 2015, 12:19:11 AM
 #29505


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.


Hearn has always been quite brilliant about this stuff and much more far sighted than most.  Not only that but he has demonstrated the energy and ability to make his visions come at least close to reality.  (No shit about this, BTW.)

I do hope that people analyze the path forward and make the decision which is best for them about which fork to follow.if they have much choice in the matter.  By now the various visions for the future are much more defined than they were even half a year ago so there is no excuse for people not to put up or shut up.  Fork it soon please!

I will mention again that I am willing to entertain a proof-of-burn to migrate to a solution which holds to and enhances the aspects of Bitcoin which appealed to me when I first got into it.  What would be groovy would be to do it in such a way that the XT folks could re-mine the things.  This would be good to get more people more interested in XT and jump on that bandwagon (and hopefully stop stinking up ours.)


kaykawa
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 575


View Profile
July 30, 2015, 12:58:24 AM
 #29506

Real money fluctuates in value according to the market.
Fiat only goes down in value.

edited
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834


[LOL2X]


View Profile WWW
July 30, 2015, 02:48:22 AM
 #29507

Fully parsed, what you are claiming is
Quote
The simple solution is to remove the artificial cap hard fork Bitcoin.
Do you realize how naive that makes you look?

If you truly understood your own position then you would argue it instead of just railing at people who might have an opposing view. Call me some more names, it's really helping the credibility of your argument.

What *is* bloat? (apart from the intentional choice of hyperbolic word). Can you put a value on what is considered bloated? Can you confidently say that your idea of what constitute bloat is some world wide standard?

You put words in my mouth, then claim those invented words make me look stupid. In fact this only serves to make you look even more desperate. if I didn't understand the maxim, I would not be able to point out just how incoherent your thought process must be if you are attempting to equate feature-set with size-of-data. I understand the difference between feature-set and data-size, do you? I'll bet you do. So, don't even for one second pretend you think that systems with more data are inherently more complex than systems with less data.

Do you truly believe they are the same thing or are you again being disingenuous in order to try and maintain your tenuous argument that effectively 'changing a config setting' is somehow more complicated than developing a whole new platform and all the interfaces necessary to communicate.

Its about as elegant as your debating skill....

Fully parsed your argument against Gavin's fix for CVE-2013-2292 seems to be, don't do it because it increases complexity. Again disingenuous or actually not very smart?

Then finally you try to create further confusion between the feature-set of software vs its deployment. To be clear, what is being kept simple is the software. I'm interested to know though just exactly what it is that is complex about the hard fork. I can think of other words that might apply - contentious, unpredictable even undesirable - depending on your viewpoint - but not complex. You put the new release up, and those that want it deploy it. Those that don't do not.

Interestingly those words that apply to the hard fork, could quite easily be used to describe intentionally restricting transaction growth by refusing to update the max block size. So in that respect both 'solutions' are equal.

In another very important respect, they are not equal. Releasing a version of bitcoin core with an increased block size allows for true consensus from the user base. Refusing to do so, is enforcing the view of some core-devs. That's what is despicable.

Thankfully in time, once the details have been ironed out and devs eventually accept some form of block size increase schedule (and they will, however much you cling to your delusion) the hard fork can happen in core, and then the miners can have the final say in what goes forward. If everyone sticks on 1MB coin then you get your wish! I'll send you a cookie, iced with the words "Well done you!".

I think though, that is what you are terrified of. That you know there is actually no way in hell the block size will stay at 1MB, but you are so married to your position that you can't let go and will say anything to defend it. It comes across in your posts.

"Truly understood?"  The True Scotsman called and asks you return his kilt ASAP.   Tongue

Fret and mewl more about being called mean names, your endless concern-meta scoldings and finger-wagging process objections (we already know you are afraid to "fight features") are really helping the credibility of your argument.   Cheesy

The only way to remove the 1MB cap is via a hard fork.  Thus my parsing of your absurd assertion regarding "The Simple SolutionTM" is logically correct.

To quote Hearn, "don't pretend any of this stuff is obvious."

You asked "what is bloat?"  Bloat is Gavincoin, with its undesirable sacrifice of security for (the feature of) MOAR TPS.

I made no generic claims about whether "systems with more data are inherently more complex than systems with less data."

That depends on the inheritances (ie data dependencies or non-dependencies) of the system in question.  Usenet?  No.  Bitcoin?  Yes.  Your retreat into generalities is noted, with all due scorn.   Wink

Raising the block size, if done responsibly with a view to present entailments (100k max tx) and forward implications (Future Gavin vs 2015 Gavin), is not as obvious as 'changing a config setting.'  Again, "don't pretend any of this stuff is obvious."  DoS blocks are only one example of why Bitcoin is only now scaling to 1MB, and why massive order-of-magnitude jumps are hubris.

I want to enable Layer 2+ using the minimum of additional functionality in Layer 1.  You want to stuff all of Layer 2+ into Layer 1.  It doesn't take a PhD in linguistics to see who is proposing bloat.   Grin

Funny how you try to throw the term "eventually" in my face, when I've already said I agree a block size will happen in exactly that timespan.  Quick, pout moar about what a horrible person I am for agreeing with Satoshi!


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

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 30, 2015, 04:29:22 AM
 #29508

this is what i've been saying:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3f2u2f/the_block_size_from_a_classic_ddos_mitigation/
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
July 30, 2015, 06:10:38 AM
 #29509

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?
What would you propose that the free market wouldn't do by itself?

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
jmw74
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 236


View Profile
July 30, 2015, 12:30:05 PM
 #29510

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?
What would you propose that the free market wouldn't do by itself?

The free market doesn't do anything "by itself", it's an abstract concept.

The act of building software (or anything else for that matter) is done by people who need to organize to complete the task. They can't all just sit back and wait for a magical "free market" to come along and do the work for them.
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 826


View Profile
July 30, 2015, 01:05:56 PM
 #29511

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?
What would you propose that the free market wouldn't do by itself?

The free market doesn't do anything "by itself", it's an abstract concept.

The act of building software (or anything else for that matter) is done by people who need to organize to complete the task. They can't all just sit back and wait for a magical "free market" to come along and do the work for them.

You need to read up on the market.

EDIT: All right, that was unfair. Explanation: The market is people who organize to work together. It is magic, in the sense that its workings are not intuitively appearant to a new person entering the world, its workings have to be learnt.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 30, 2015, 01:38:40 PM
 #29512

George Gilder: Bitcoin is the Gold of the Internet

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drbEqLIEI3M
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 30, 2015, 01:41:13 PM
 #29513

Martin Armstrong continues to demonstrate idiocy.  he probably is TPTB_needs_war:

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/35453
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 30, 2015, 02:02:33 PM
 #29514

Newmont leading the way:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 30, 2015, 02:08:34 PM
 #29515

3D Xpoint memory: Faster-than-flash storage unveiled

Why do we need faster storage? The flash storage in my smartphone and PC seems more than fast enough to view and record the photos and videos I want.

Because there are other situations where using today's storage slows things down or introduces constraints.

So-called "big data" tasks are a particular issue.

For example, efforts to sequence and analyse our genes/DNA hold the potential for new and personalised medical treatments.

But copying the huge amounts of information involved backwards and forwards makes this an extremely time-intensive activity at present.

Faster storage would also help cloud services better handle big files.


http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-33675734
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 30, 2015, 02:13:10 PM
 #29516

Gold has potential to plummet to $700: Strategist

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/30/gold-has-potential-to-hit-700-strategist.html
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


View Profile
July 30, 2015, 02:27:47 PM
 #29517

Pieter Wuille's BIP proposal: "Block size according to technological growth"

https://gist.github.com/sipa/c65665fc360ca7a176a6


edit: btc dev ml announcment http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009763.html

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

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 30, 2015, 02:36:53 PM
 #29518

Pieter Wuille's BIP proposal: "Block size according to technological growth"

https://gist.github.com/sipa/c65665fc360ca7a176a6


edit: btc dev ml announcment http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009763.html


what does it mean when Wladimir "merges" a BIP over on github?
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


View Profile
July 30, 2015, 02:42:08 PM
 #29519

Pieter Wuille's BIP proposal: "Block size according to technological growth"

https://gist.github.com/sipa/c65665fc360ca7a176a6


edit: btc dev ml announcment http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009763.html


what does it mean when Wladimir "merges" a BIP over on github?

?

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

Activity: 1218


View Profile
July 30, 2015, 02:47:14 PM
 #29520

Pieter Wuille's BIP proposal: "Block size according to technological growth"

https://gist.github.com/sipa/c65665fc360ca7a176a6


edit: btc dev ml announcment http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009763.html


tl;dr

starting from Jan 2017 a 4.4% increase every 97 days, i.e. 17.7% per year

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1526 ... 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!