Bitcoin Forum
June 23, 2017, 02:03:32 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.14.2  [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 ... 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 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 ... 1559 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1920553 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 04, 2015, 06:08:45 PM
 #29801

Dow dumping, gold continuing it's drop.

Bitcoin UP.
1498183412
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1498183412

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1498183412
Reply with quote  #2

1498183412
Report to moderator
There are several different types of Bitcoin clients. EWallets are like banks -- a central organization has complete control over your money. You shouldn't put much money in EWallets.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1498183412
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1498183412

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1498183412
Reply with quote  #2

1498183412
Report to moderator
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1680


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
August 04, 2015, 06:24:13 PM
 #29802

Think about it, satoshi moving coins around would be an absolute disaster. I don't want a guy with access to near 1 million coins. It's just ridiculous.

If you've not factored this possibility into your plans, you may wish to reevaluate.

I've made my peace with it. If satoshi dumps 7% of all coins into the market, price will retrace for a bit. Then resume its inexorable climb. No Big Deal.

He can only do it once. Once it is done, it removes this spectre hanging over us.

Anyone with a campaign ad in their signature -- for an organization with which they are not otherwise affiliated -- is automatically deducted credibility points.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 04, 2015, 06:26:55 PM
 #29803

I've tried really hard to try and see the opposing POV but I come up short every time, and I think that's because I can't understand the philosophy behind making BTC some elitist tool when it seemed right from the outset that it was anything but.

If that makes me part of the "free-shit" army, then so be it. I'm not (yet) so morally bankrupt that I think that my well being can only come at the expense of others. That's what cripplecoin sounds like, thats why I don't want any part of it.

You aren't trying that hard if you can't read and understand this fairly simple, single sentence summation of the opposing POV:

Quote
The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain".

Where in Davout's statement is the "moral bankruptcy?"  All I see is economic literacy and an understanding of the technical limitations of scaling Bitcoin I/O.

Where in Davout's statement is the desire for well being coming "at the expense of others?"  All I see is a workable plan for radical inclusion ("everyone gets to benefit"), albeit not in the manner preferred by those with atrociously paltry understandings of Bitcoin and economics.

Who are these financial institutions, and why do assume they are necessary. You seem to ignore the fact that bitcoin is money. Its a medium of exchange, a unit of account, a store of value. The blockchain facilitates these things. Your financial institutions are an unnecessary complexity, the blockchain doesn't need financial institutions it *is* the institution.

Your summation quite clearly reveals some other agenda. You know that increasing the block size undermines it, so you are fighting tooth and nail to try and prevent it.


I'm guessing you don't quite understand the nuances behind the idea icebreaker is trying to lead you to.. or maybe you outright disagree. Here is Peter Wuille's version of the same logic:

Quote
I see centralization and scalability as a trade-off, and for better or for worse, the block chain only offers one trade-off. I want to see technology
built on top that introduces lower levels of trust than typical fully centralized systems, while offering increased convenience, speed, reliability, and scale. I just don't think that all of that can happen on the lowest layer without hurting everything built on top.
We need different trade-offs, and the blockchain is just one, but a very fundamental one.
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/009908.html

"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
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 04, 2015, 06:33:20 PM
 #29804

On an unrelated note I've rarely seen a company drop the ball like blockchain.info.

Can someone tell me what the hell these guys are doing with their funding? It seems everytime I read about them is because they broke something once again.

"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
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756



View Profile
August 04, 2015, 07:10:51 PM
 #29805

Peter R's paper:

Exellent paper. Re point 2 in the "further study" part, which concerns mining cartels. A common misconception in folk economy is that a cartel is negative for customers. This is generally not true in the free market, because inside pressure to break the cartel (by consenting to do one thing and covertly do another thing), and outside pressure (other cartels or individual miners can compete if the effect of the cartel is negative for customers), make the cartel unstable unless it produces value for the customers.

The misconception comes from the fact that cartels are often able to build a monopoly through collusion with the state power. So, the negative aspect is the monopoly backed by state power, not the cartel.


brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 04, 2015, 08:35:09 PM
 #29806

this has my attention

http://morph.is/v0.1/

Quote
At this point of its early stages, MORPHiS is a global encrypted distributed datastore intended to replace the cloud for storage and far more. This first release also includes DMAIL (distributed mail), inherently spam resistant, inherently encrypted, uncensorable, free distributed messaging.

MORPHiS is simple to run, accessible to everyone: Download, double click, and your web browser now opens a window viewing the root MORPHiS UI page where you can already browse and upload to the next generation of the Internet - MORPHiS.

Through the power of distributed technology MORPHiS is software run by each of us to create an independent network that requires no centralized servers or control. Upload files to the network via the web browser, SSH client, or use "mcc", the command line MORPHiS UI.

MORPHiS is also a start to the foundational layer for The World Brain. It is a project that aims at a future of truly free and open dialogue, knowledge and ideas, not only on the web, but in our everyday lives.

If MORPHiS is successful, I believe it has the potential to connect us all on a trust based system via the next generation of the internet; deprecating necessary evil, making mass government surveillance impossible, and not to mention, the future possibility of dissolving human conflict into unity. Until then, it deprecates: email, bittorrent, youtube, the internet, etc.

I am doing this all for free for all humanity because I hate evil. I am morally opposed to slavery in every form, including the covert economic slavery powered by lies that is used today in all nations that claim they do not allow slavery.

Most important is that this project isn't about one person, or even a few. It's about all of us, working together to create the world we want to live in, free from corruption, slavery, evil and manipulation; a vision many have thought impossible, until now.

"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
sgbett
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442



View Profile
August 04, 2015, 08:43:01 PM
 #29807

...snip...

I'm guessing you don't quite understand the nuances behind the idea icebreaker is trying to lead you to.. or maybe you outright disagree. Here is Peter Wuille's version of the same logic:

Quote
I see centralization and scalability as a trade-off, and for better or for worse, the block chain only offers one trade-off. I want to see technology
built on top that introduces lower levels of trust than typical fully centralized systems, while offering increased convenience, speed, reliability, and scale. I just don't think that all of that can happen on the lowest layer without hurting everything built on top.
We need different trade-offs, and the blockchain is just one, but a very fundamental one.
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/009908.html

You guess wrong. I understand the potential benefits of those technologies. Ice has made it clear that he wants to force adoption of those technologies by meddling with bitcoin.

I've already said what I think of that...

...snip...
I think block size increase should be done in good time to stop all of this forced LN/sidechain/alt-coin nonsense you are pimping. If those things are good, and wanted then they will stand on there own merit. Whereas you think we should do it later, after rome is burning.
...snip...

Full Node: http://46.51.193.129 (BU) || http://haschinabannedbitcoin.com
"A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution" - Satoshi Nakamoto
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756



View Profile
August 04, 2015, 08:49:54 PM
 #29808

The misconception comes from the fact that cartels are often able to build a monopoly through collusion with the state power. So, the negative aspect is the monopoly backed by state power, not the cartel.

Yeah, nature itself hates centralization, and that's exactly why society evolved from humungous, highly-centralized nation-states into multitudes of independent, autonomous asnarcho-capitalist settlements.

The notion of a monopoly as huge and all-consuming as a nation-state existing within modernity is simply absurd!

A sensible newbie, refreshing, bullish!
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile
August 04, 2015, 09:41:13 PM
 #29809

this has my attention

http://morph.is/v0.1/

Quote
At this point of its early stages, MORPHiS is a global encrypted distributed datastore intended to replace the cloud for storage and far more. This first release also includes DMAIL (distributed mail), inherently spam resistant, inherently encrypted, uncensorable, free distributed messaging.

MORPHiS is simple to run, accessible to everyone: Download, double click, and your web browser now opens a window viewing the root MORPHiS UI page where you can already browse and upload to the next generation of the Internet - MORPHiS.

Through the power of distributed technology MORPHiS is software run by each of us to create an independent network that requires no centralized servers or control. Upload files to the network via the web browser, SSH client, or use "mcc", the command line MORPHiS UI.

MORPHiS is also a start to the foundational layer for The World Brain. It is a project that aims at a future of truly free and open dialogue, knowledge and ideas, not only on the web, but in our everyday lives.

If MORPHiS is successful, I believe it has the potential to connect us all on a trust based system via the next generation of the internet; deprecating necessary evil, making mass government surveillance impossible, and not to mention, the future possibility of dissolving human conflict into unity. Until then, it deprecates: email, bittorrent, youtube, the internet, etc.

I am doing this all for free for all humanity because I hate evil. I am morally opposed to slavery in every form, including the covert economic slavery powered by lies that is used today in all nations that claim they do not allow slavery.

Most important is that this project isn't about one person, or even a few. It's about all of us, working together to create the world we want to live in, free from corruption, slavery, evil and manipulation; a vision many have thought impossible, until now.

I like the way this tech is moving, when the blockchain transaction volume hits Visa capacity I'm sure well see distributed cloud storage solutions like this emerge for housing the blockchain, even options to earn revenue by contributing to a P2P storage and relay network. 

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 04, 2015, 10:57:34 PM
 #29810

trouble:

brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 05, 2015, 12:39:48 AM
 #29811

so if I understand correctly Peter's "landmark paper" rise to the top was.."short like leprechaun".

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/009916.html

a valiant effort I guess. getting some more peer-review probably would've been of better judgment?

ps. I'm not against you "crowd-sourcing" your grammar but I thought the whole exercise on reddit made your thread unreadable.

"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
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456



View Profile
August 05, 2015, 01:36:52 AM
 #29812

so if I understand correctly Peter's "landmark paper" rise to the top was.."short like leprechaun".

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/009916.html

a valiant effort I guess. getting some more peer-review probably would've been of better judgment?

ps. I'm not against you "crowd-sourcing" your grammar but I thought the whole exercise on reddit made your thread unreadable.

I think the attacks on it are basically straw-man attacks. 

Quote from: Peter R, writing to bitcoin-dev
The paper does not argue that a block size limit is unnecessary in general, and in fact brings up questions related to mining cartels and the size of the UTXO set.

There is nothing wrong with writing a paper that addresses one part of a larger and less-well-defined social context. That's how science works.

I'm surprised that no one else has commented specifically on the last paragraph though.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile
August 05, 2015, 01:57:07 AM
 #29813

so if I understand correctly Peter's "landmark paper" rise to the top was.."short like leprechaun".

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/009916.html

a valiant effort I guess. getting some more peer-review probably would've been of better judgment?

ps. I'm not against you "crowd-sourcing" your grammar but I thought the whole exercise on reddit made your thread unreadable.

that links not a peer-review, it's a concern that an increase in hash rate increases propagation rate, (or orphan rate is not just a function of propagation time) which is not correct for the reason stated, it just stated that orphan rate is a bigger burden for smaller miners who produce fewer blocks, all things being equal over time this burden evens out. If a miner were to optimize using this information it's feasible that smaller miners would be more risk adverse to orphaning and optimize for faster propagation in sacrifice of maximizing fees, the concern in the link leads to the conclusion that its not one size fits all, nothing more.

This is actually good news, it adds uncontrollable variables dependent on the rate the block makers make blocks to the game theory. What is likely to happen is small miners pick up just the higher fees and send out slightly smaller blocks at the earliest opportunity in relation to the bigger miners who are optimizing for different criteria. That's just healthy competition in a free market Eco system.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1708


https://monero.stackexchange.com/a/1203


View Profile WWW
August 05, 2015, 01:58:52 AM
 #29814

I've tried really hard to try and see the opposing POV but I come up short every time, and I think that's because I can't understand the philosophy behind making BTC some elitist tool when it seemed right from the outset that it was anything but.

If that makes me part of the "free-shit" army, then so be it. I'm not (yet) so morally bankrupt that I think that my well being can only come at the expense of others. That's what cripplecoin sounds like, thats why I don't want any part of it.

You aren't trying that hard if you can't read and understand this fairly simple, single sentence summation of the opposing POV:

Quote
The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain".

Where in Davout's statement is the "moral bankruptcy?"  All I see is economic literacy and an understanding of the technical limitations of scaling Bitcoin I/O.

Where in Davout's statement is the desire for well being coming "at the expense of others?"  All I see is a workable plan for radical inclusion ("everyone gets to benefit"), albeit not in the manner preferred by those with atrociously paltry understandings of Bitcoin and economics.

Who are these financial institutions, and why do assume they are necessary. You seem to ignore the fact that bitcoin is money. Its a medium of exchange, a unit of account, a store of value. The blockchain facilitates these things. Your financial institutions are an unnecessary complexity, the blockchain doesn't need financial institutions it *is* the institution.

Your summation quite clearly reveals some other agenda. You know that increasing the block size undermines it, so you are fighting tooth and nail to try and prevent it.


How nice of you to ignore my two questions (Where in Davout's statement is the "moral bankruptcy?" and Where in Davout's statement is the desire for well being coming "at the expense of others?"), thereby backing off your previous unkind assertions about our motivations.

Oh wait, you are still speculating about motives.  Ok fine, let's 'go there' again....   Roll Eyes

What is the mysterious "some other agenda" you are talking about?  If my summation "quite clearly reveals" it, the specifics shouldn't be very hard for you to elaborate.   Grin Grin Grin

The exact names of the financial institutions aren't important, only that their "sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain."

You are of course aware the radical transparency and real-time accounting/auditing enabled by blockchains in general is all the rage.  So why does it fall upon me to spoon feed you common knowledge as if you are five years old?

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Core GUI - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }
MoneroForCash.com  |  Buy and sell XMR near you  |  Easymonero.com  |  Bitsquare.io - Decentralized XMR Exchange  |  Buy XMR with fiat
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014

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


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
HeliKopterBen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622



View Profile
August 05, 2015, 02:02:40 AM
 #29815

so if I understand correctly Peter's "landmark paper" rise to the top was.."short like leprechaun".

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/009916.html

a valiant effort I guess. getting some more peer-review probably would've been of better judgment?

ps. I'm not against you "crowd-sourcing" your grammar but I thought the whole exercise on reddit made your thread unreadable.

I don't see how proportion of hash rate has anything to do with orphan rate.  Each broadcast block has the same chance of being orphaned as the next broadcast block, regardless of your proportion of hashrate, with network speed and connectivity being the only major variable.  He needs to show some peterr-style analysis.

Counterfeit:  made in imitation of something else with intent to deceive:  merriam-webster
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1708


https://monero.stackexchange.com/a/1203


View Profile WWW
August 05, 2015, 02:06:19 AM
 #29816

Just finished Peter R's paper. Really excellent, clear, and much-needed formalization of an important aspect of the debate often mentioned here.

Is that the sound of the tide turning I hear?

No tide is turning, that sound you heard is just flatulence.

Peter R's ideas are an excellent basis for an altcoin.  They will have to be put into a BIP and accepted by the economic majority before any tide starts turning.

And until the network experiences actual congestion rather than simply starting to work the way it's supposed to, you will never have popular support for fixing something that isn't broken.

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Core GUI - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }
MoneroForCash.com  |  Buy and sell XMR near you  |  Easymonero.com  |  Bitsquare.io - Decentralized XMR Exchange  |  Buy XMR with fiat
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014

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


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
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile
August 05, 2015, 02:15:42 AM
 #29817

Just finished Peter R's paper. Really excellent, clear, and much-needed formalization of an important aspect of the debate often mentioned here.

Is that the sound of the tide turning I hear?

No tide is turning, that sound you heard is just flatulence.

Peter R's ideas are an excellent basis for an altcoin.  They will have to be put into a BIP and accepted by the economic majority before any tide starts turning.

And until the network experiences actual congestion, rather than simply starting to work the way it's supposed to, you will never have popular support for fixing something that isn't broken.

I'm not sure when you got into Bitcoin, but that paper is an analysis of Bitcoin, without a limit not an idea for an alt? Limiting bitcoin may be what we have now, but removing the limit doesn't make it an alt, to the contrary it'll make it the dominant fork.

I keep having to smile at the people who want to change Bitcoin, they have this unfounded premise that it belongs to them and its a little naive and they say thinks like "you souled try this on a sidechain", or "you should spin-off Bitcoin and see what happens" or "there will be a fork and we'll keep calling cripplecoin Bitcoin and you'll need a new name for the Original Bitcoin digital cash idea".

;-)

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 05, 2015, 02:18:54 AM
 #29818

so if I understand correctly Peter's "landmark paper" rise to the top was.."short like leprechaun".

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/009916.html

a valiant effort I guess. getting some more peer-review probably would've been of better judgment?

ps. I'm not against you "crowd-sourcing" your grammar but I thought the whole exercise on reddit made your thread unreadable.

I don't see how proportion of hash rate has anything to do with orphan rate.  Each broadcast block has the same chance of being orphaned as the next broadcast block, regardless of your proportion of hashrate, with network speed and connectivity being the only major variable.  He needs to show some peterr-style analysis.

Yes, that is precisely the point :

Quote
Ignoring many other issues related to uncapped block sizes, this demonstrates that, in network topologies where the majority of the malicious actions of a single miner can be sufficient to drive the poorly connected minority hashrate out of business, without negatively impacting the revenue of the malicious actor.

https://github.com/DavidVorick/Simulations/blob/master/Unlimited%20Blocksize/main.go

"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
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile
August 05, 2015, 02:24:58 AM
 #29819

so if I understand correctly Peter's "landmark paper" rise to the top was.."short like leprechaun".

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/009916.html

a valiant effort I guess. getting some more peer-review probably would've been of better judgment?

ps. I'm not against you "crowd-sourcing" your grammar but I thought the whole exercise on reddit made your thread unreadable.

I don't see how proportion of hash rate has anything to do with orphan rate.  Each broadcast block has the same chance of being orphaned as the next broadcast block, regardless of your proportion of hashrate, with network speed and connectivity being the only major variable.  He needs to show some peterr-style analysis.

Yes, that is precisely the point :

Quote
Ignoring many other issues related to uncapped block sizes, this demonstrates that, in network topologies where the majority of the malicious actions of a single miner can be sufficient to drive the poorly connected minority hashrate out of business, without negatively impacting the revenue of the malicious actor.

https://github.com/DavidVorick/Simulations/blob/master/Unlimited%20Blocksize/main.go

he's arguing that having a faster network than the competition and the majority of hash power will increase your propagation rate and give you a competitive advantage, that's nothing new, that's just a market incentive to make the network better through competition. faster networks access is not exclusive to greater hashing ability so its an non issue.   

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456



View Profile
August 05, 2015, 02:26:26 AM
 #29820

so if I understand correctly Peter's "landmark paper" rise to the top was.."short like leprechaun".

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/009916.html

a valiant effort I guess. getting some more peer-review probably would've been of better judgment?

ps. I'm not against you "crowd-sourcing" your grammar but I thought the whole exercise on reddit made your thread unreadable.

I don't see how proportion of hash rate has anything to do with orphan rate.  Each broadcast block has the same chance of being orphaned as the next broadcast block, regardless of your proportion of hashrate, with network speed and connectivity being the only major variable.  He needs to show some peterr-style analysis.

It is simple. You never orphan your own blocks. So if you have hypothetically a 99% hash rate you will have an orphan rate that is <1% regardless of propagation time. Someone else on the same network may have an orphan rate that is much greater than 1% given high propagation time.

The numbers work out differently with a more realistic hash rate share (say 15%) but the principle is the same. The higher your share the more of an advantage you get from the prevailing orphan rate being high.

Pages: « 1 ... 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 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 ... 1559 »
  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!