Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 08:03:42 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [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 ... 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 1527 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1807001 times)
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
July 29, 2015, 09:52:57 PM
 #29521


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.

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
1481270622
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481270622

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481270622
Reply with quote  #2

1481270622
Report to moderator
1481270622
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481270622

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481270622
Reply with quote  #2

1481270622
Report to moderator
1481270622
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481270622

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481270622
Reply with quote  #2

1481270622
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481270622
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481270622

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481270622
Reply with quote  #2

1481270622
Report to moderator
1481270622
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481270622

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481270622
Reply with quote  #2

1481270622
Report to moderator
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
July 29, 2015, 10:01:14 PM
 #29522

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



View Profile
July 29, 2015, 10:01:29 PM
 #29523

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



View Profile
July 29, 2015, 10:06:21 PM
 #29524

It's coming soon:

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

Activity: 746



View Profile
July 29, 2015, 10:08:59 PM
 #29525


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



View Profile
July 29, 2015, 10:10:09 PM
 #29526


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: 1064



View Profile
July 29, 2015, 10:13:29 PM
 #29527


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

Activity: 27


View Profile
July 29, 2015, 10:14:45 PM
 #29528



"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: 1246



View Profile
July 29, 2015, 10:24:04 PM
 #29529

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: 1246



View Profile
July 29, 2015, 10:29:02 PM
 #29530


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



View Profile WWW
July 29, 2015, 10:51:06 PM
 #29531

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


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
July 29, 2015, 11:25:41 PM
 #29532

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.

inca
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
July 29, 2015, 11:27:59 PM
 #29533

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

Activity: 1330



View Profile
July 29, 2015, 11:40:20 PM
 #29534


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: 1246



View Profile
July 30, 2015, 12:17:17 AM
 #29535

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
*
Online Online

Activity: 1988


View Profile
July 30, 2015, 12:19:11 AM
 #29536


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: 568


View Profile
July 30, 2015, 12:58:24 AM
 #29537

Real money fluctuates in value according to the market.
Fiat only goes down in value.
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
July 30, 2015, 02:48:22 AM
 #29538

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!

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 30, 2015, 04:29:22 AM
 #29539

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: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
July 30, 2015, 06:10:38 AM
 #29540

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.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1527 ... 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!