Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 11:36:27 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 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 1528 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1807347 times)
jmw74
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 236


View Profile
July 30, 2015, 12:30:05 PM
 #29541

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.
1481326587
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481326587

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481326587
Reply with quote  #2

1481326587
Report to moderator
1481326587
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481326587

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481326587
Reply with quote  #2

1481326587
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481326587
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481326587

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481326587
Reply with quote  #2

1481326587
Report to moderator
1481326587
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481326587

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481326587
Reply with quote  #2

1481326587
Report to moderator
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
July 30, 2015, 01:05:56 PM
 #29542

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
 #29543

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
 #29544

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
 #29545

Newmont leading the way:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 30, 2015, 02:08:34 PM
 #29546

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
 #29547

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: 1106


View Profile
July 30, 2015, 02:27:47 PM
 #29548

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
 #29549

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: 1106


View Profile
July 30, 2015, 02:42:08 PM
 #29550

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: 1106


View Profile
July 30, 2015, 02:47:14 PM
 #29551

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.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 30, 2015, 02:48:17 PM
 #29552

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?

?

Wlad @ 2:21AM via email from ML:

Merged #163.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.
smooth
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1246



View Profile
July 30, 2015, 02:50:11 PM
 #29553

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?

?

Wlad @ 2:21AM via email from ML:

Merged #163.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

It means the proposal was accepted into to the official repo of bips: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 30, 2015, 02:51:36 PM
 #29554

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?

?

Wlad @ 2:21AM via email from ML:

Merged #163.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

It means the proposal was accepted into to the official repo of bips.


huh, i thought that was already done when they assigned it a #.  guess not.

so it doesn't mean anything in regards to having gained consensus...
smooth
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1246



View Profile
July 30, 2015, 02:57:23 PM
 #29555

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?

?

Wlad @ 2:21AM via email from ML:

Merged #163.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

It means the proposal was accepted into to the official repo of bips.


huh, i thought that was already done when they assigned it a #.  guess not.

Reading the work flow description, it seems assigning a number and adding it to the repo should happen together:

If the BIP editor approves, he will assign the BIP a number, label it as Standards Track, Informational, or Process, give it status "Draft", and add it to the git repository

But in fact that seems not to be the case in practice, since 100 and 102 aren't there currently: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips

Quote
so it doesn't mean anything in regards to having gained consensus...

No.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 30, 2015, 02:59:53 PM
 #29556

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?

?

Wlad @ 2:21AM via email from ML:

Merged #163.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

It means the proposal was accepted into to the official repo of bips.


huh, i thought that was already done when they assigned it a #.  guess not.

Reading the work flow description, it seems assigning a number and adding it to the repo should happen together:

If the BIP editor approves, he will assign the BIP a number, label it as Standards Track, Informational, or Process, give it status "Draft", and add it to the git repository

But in fact that seems not to be the case in practice, since 100 and 102 aren't there currently: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips

Quote
so it doesn't mean anything in regards to having gained consensus...

No.

thx smooth.  it's great to have someone like you around.
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
July 30, 2015, 03:00:19 PM
 #29557

1. Hard block size unlimited.

2. Accept as valid blocks of size up to X for the time being, X decided by consensus amongst miners and developers and individuals in the community, re the current block size discussion.

3. Produce max Y size blocks for the time being, value of Y (less than X) decided by a (per def benevolent, since it is voluntary) cartel of miners.

4. Each individual miner produces blocks of max size Z, Z decided egoistically to maximize profit, to avoid technical problems and to minimize risk of orphaning, dependent on his trust of the real consensus of the previous points.

tl;dr no hard limit.
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
July 30, 2015, 03:03:37 PM
 #29558

I am I the only one who can feel the narrative of the blocksize debate shifting?

That's probably just gas.

The block size will increase "eventually" but Not Tonight, Dear.   Cheesy

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

"January 2017"   Cheesy

Team Gavinista will never go for this.  They demand Dramatic Action Now and Faster, Please.

Too bad that's not going to happen.  If only they understood why the 1MB cap is neither arbitrary nor artificial:

Quote

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
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
July 30, 2015, 06:31:21 PM
 #29559

I'm curious why some people in this thread support the removal of a blocksize cap when Gavin himself suggests this is not conceivable.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3f5yyr/block_size_according_to_technological_growth_by/ctlqzs7

"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
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106


View Profile
July 30, 2015, 06:47:15 PM
 #29560

I'm curious why some people in this thread support the removal of a blocksize cap when Gavin himself suggests this is not conceivable.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3f5yyr/block_size_according_to_technological_growth_by/ctlqzs7

because their opinions only partially overlap with Gavin's?

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1528 ... 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!