Bitcoin Forum
July 26, 2017, 08:42:14 PM *
News: BIP91 seems stable: there's probably only slightly increased risk of confirmations disappearing. You should still prepare for Aug 1.
 
   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 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1938881 times)
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722


Support SEGWIT on 8/1/17 https://github.com/UASF


View Profile WWW
August 05, 2015, 02:28:21 AM
 #29801


[ Argumentum ad Ignorantiam ]


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

Thank you for that beautifully conclusive and elegantly instructive quote, which may be restated as

Wuille's Razor: Layer 1 scalability is inversely proportional to decentralization.

Is the logic behind this really so nuanced?  To me, it seems completely obvious.  But not everyone enjoys my effortless grasp of economics, systems theory, and computer science.   Tongue

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
1501101734
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1501101734

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1501101734
Reply with quote  #2

1501101734
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1501101734
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1501101734

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1501101734
Reply with quote  #2

1501101734
Report to moderator
1501101734
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1501101734

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1501101734
Reply with quote  #2

1501101734
Report to moderator
majamalu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652



View Profile WWW
August 05, 2015, 02:50:42 AM
 #29802


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.


How do you define "economic majority"?

http://elbitcoin.org - Bitcoin en español
http://mercadobitcoin.com - MercadoBitcoin
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1484



View Profile
August 05, 2015, 03:06:01 AM
 #29803


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.


How do you define "economic majority"?

When people stop arguing about it. Trying to push a hard fork when people can't agree on what is to be done is insane. Arguably when you do that you are creating an altcoin, although hopefully you are at least careful with how you do it so you don't break both coins.

iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722


Support SEGWIT on 8/1/17 https://github.com/UASF


View Profile WWW
August 05, 2015, 03:31:12 AM
 #29804


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...


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.


Well that's helpful.  I like how you frame me as (capable of) imposing some kind of coercion on all of mankind, to "force" adoption of Layer 2+ (SC/LN) and Layer A+ (altcoins/SC/LN).  Also admirable is your hilarious exaggeration of full blocks as "Rome burning."   Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

Now we know you subscribe to the surreal Red Queen Interpretation, whereby in doing nothing we are accused of "meddling."

Now we know you simply refuse to accept the fact there exists a trade-off between Layer 1 scalability and decentralization.

Now we know you want to pile every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into one dataset, because you think Layer 1 can be made to scale without limit simply by increasing the max_blocksize.

Please show the class the work which justifies your conclusion.  I assume you have some breathtakingly original research which will surprise us all by refuting Mr. Wuille, Dr. Backamoto, and Professor Szaboshi.

Just kidding!  We all know you can't do that.  But it's fun to tease you, because the "LN/sidechain/alt-coin nonsense" you are so butthurt about is not going away, and grows more powerful with each new commit:

Code:
https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning
https://github.com/ElementsProject/elements
https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero

^That is bleeding edge computer science.  Your FUD and concern trolling is not.   Kiss

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, 03:39:10 AM
 #29805

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.



Ok that makes sense

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

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
August 05, 2015, 03:41:41 AM
 #29806

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish

Bitcoin does what it says on the tin.  
It does it reliably, and without fail continuously for more than half a decade.

Maybe we will get to a point where it can do more, but this must not be at risk of failing to do what it does.
Many risks are insidious, and not well understood until too late so it is incumbent upon us now to at least address all those that are understood.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
majamalu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652



View Profile WWW
August 05, 2015, 03:53:42 AM
 #29807


Now we know you subscribe to the surreal Red Queen Interpretation, whereby in doing nothing we are accused of "meddling."


You are in fact meddling with Satoshi's plan. You know, those uncomfortable quotes.  Wink

http://elbitcoin.org - Bitcoin en español
http://mercadobitcoin.com - MercadoBitcoin
majamalu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652



View Profile WWW
August 05, 2015, 03:56:16 AM
 #29808


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.


How do you define "economic majority"?

When people stop arguing about it. Trying to push a hard fork when people can't agree on what is to be done is insane. Arguably when you do that you are creating an altcoin, although hopefully you are at least careful with how you do it so you don't break both coins.


That's not a definition, that's the usual FUD.

http://elbitcoin.org - Bitcoin en español
http://mercadobitcoin.com - MercadoBitcoin
majamalu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652



View Profile WWW
August 05, 2015, 04:35:15 AM
 #29809

The concept of Economic majority does not easily lend itself to an intuitive understanding, perhaps because prior to the existence of Bitcoin the free software world had never faced the challenge to bring out a monetary system, and because economic science had never before dealt with a monetary system entirely based on software.

I'll give it a shot: Economic majority is the one composed of long term investors that collectively control most of the bitcoins and therefore share an interest to preserve, and if possible increase, the utility - and thus economic value - of Bitcoin.

If, for example, you are the owner of 0.001 bitcoin and you only accept and use the software version which keeps the 21 million cap to the amount of bitcoins that will exist, you are part of the economic majority.

On the other hand, if you own 1,000,000 bitcoins and, for some reason - maybe a stroke - you are in favor of turning Bitcoin into a monetary system with an ever growing inflation of the money supply, you are part of the economic minority, and no one will accept your coins if you insist on using only your version of the software.

This doesn't mean that the economic majority is always right; it just mean that if you go against it you are the one that is creating an altcoin.

http://elbitcoin.org - Bitcoin en español
http://mercadobitcoin.com - MercadoBitcoin
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722


Support SEGWIT on 8/1/17 https://github.com/UASF


View Profile WWW
August 05, 2015, 04:39:27 AM
 #29810


Now we know you subscribe to the surreal Red Queen Interpretation, whereby in doing nothing we are accused of "meddling."


You are in fact meddling with Satoshi's plan. You know, those uncomfortable quotes.  Wink

Oh dear, it's "Off with their heads!" time again.  I'm sorry, Your Highness.

I should have realized there is no trade off between Layer 1 scaling and decentralization.  How silly of me!

Oops, I also should have realized adoption and efficiency (not resiliency) are the paramount goals of decentralized non-state sanctioned currency.


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
Cconvert2G36
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392


View Profile
August 05, 2015, 05:27:30 AM
 #29811

Increase to 2-4MB, not enough for pedal to the metal scaling fans, too much for accelerated fee market fans. Perfect for real world testing of a variable that we haven't tested yet.
uvwvj
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 161


View Profile
August 05, 2015, 05:39:21 AM
 #29812

My extreme statist solution - which I see ultimately increasing scale across multiple systems

Current 10 minute blocks with 25BTC being mined

At next halving (2016)

1 minute blocks with 1.25 BTC being mined
Each block with 1MB limit
add Blockstream sidechain tech into code

**Equates to 10 minute blocks at 10MB with side chain capabilities mining 12.5 BTC**

This solution will allow on block transfers that will allow blocks to happen faster in real world transfers, with the reciever deciding how many confirmed blocks he feels safe with in a small amount of time, along with allowing much more transactions. - True P2P

By adding blockstream sidechain code they can integrate sidechains and ledgers as needed to assist in blockchain growth - even if this means introducing pegged coins to Bitcoin

This still allows a company like Coinbase to offer off the block transfers between user and a company like Overstock with the "Bitlicense" protecting your Coinbase held Bitcoins with "FDIC Bitlicense"
klee
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470



View Profile
August 05, 2015, 06:17:52 AM
 #29813

Thread title:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1064374.msg12057609#msg12057609

BTC: 1K9atu5zgz7izCMAynk5adBJ8Qn2YgS6nT
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036



View Profile
August 05, 2015, 06:24:09 AM
 #29814

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.
Ok that makes sense

I think the "you" in the phrase "you never orphan your own blocks" needs to be thought about more carefully, but the point is valid that a block's propagation impedance [my (gamma x C)^-1 in the paper] is much less when the information is communicated across a miner's own hardware network compared to when the information is communicated to other miners. The paper spoke to this [albeit less than I should have in hindsight and I didn't explicitly talk about intra-miner communication] in the Conclusion and in End Note 13.  

I was actually working on an "Appendix B" to formalize my definition for tau(Q) by considering these details more rigorously, but the math become too complex and so I felt that such an analysis deserved a follow-up paper instead.  

In any case, my suspicion is:

(1) As long as information regarding the transactions in a solved block needs to be communicated between miners (and even within a miner's own network), the Shannon-Hartley limit will apply, orphaning cost will be non-zero, and the fee market will remain healthy.

(2) We will be able to show that any attempts to create a "mining cartel" that prevents outsiders from accessing the same "fast relay networks" as the cartel members will fail, as individual members will improve their profitability by "cheating" by providing access to non-members. [A point Erdogan mentioned earlier in this thread.]

(3) The results of the paper will hold "as long as honest nodes collectively control more CPU power than any cooperating group of attacker nodes."  [Satoshi White Paper]

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036



View Profile
August 05, 2015, 07:05:34 AM
 #29815

Thank you to everyone for your acknowledgement of my paper--it is satisfying to see something you've worked hard on begin to make an impact in the discussion!  Like I said earlier, it was really just a formalization of some of the ideas we've been discussing here over the past months.    

I'm very happy with how the paper was received.  Between public and private comments (and Peter Todd calling it pseudo science) several aspects of the paper were challenged, and now I'm further convinced that the model and results are both useful and valid.  I think the most accurate criticism of the paper was that I should have spent more effort discussing the inter/intra communication issues (the "you don't orphan you're own block" point).1 Hopefully, I'll have time to work on this in the fall.  

I exchanged emails with Greg Maxwell over several aspects of the paper that he questioned.  One point he did make, that I admit is valid but do not personally see as an issue, is that the most profitable "configuration" according to the results from the paper is a single "super pool" made up of ALL the network's hashing power (which would be centralizing).  This would minimize the propagation impedance.  While I agree that this is true, it seems like just another way of looking at the 51% problem.  We already know that if one entity controls a huge amount of hash power they can do nasty things and gain certain advantages.  But it would be nice to find a way to explain why this shouldn't happen with more rigour than the "game theory" or "anti-fragile" fallback positions…


The experiment with the $10 bounties produced a mixed result.  On the one hand, I think it got people who normally wouldn't read such a paper more involved in the discussion, but on the other hand (like brg444 pointed out) it may have made the thread less readable.  I ended up paying out $90 to catch several small errors.  The error I was most pleased to catch was Noosterdam's "innumerate" versus "enumerate."  I think I've been using these words interchangeably my entire life but they actually mean very different things!


1Note that the math is valid nonetheless, as this just affects the propagation delay which was accounted for in the model.  

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722


Support SEGWIT on 8/1/17 https://github.com/UASF


View Profile WWW
August 05, 2015, 07:28:26 AM
 #29816

a single "super pool" made up of ALL the network's hashing power

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/P2Pool

The ideal was P2Pool mining by ~every wallet user.  The reality fell short of that.  Orphan blocks are killing p2pool, and bloated Gavinblocks may be the last nail in its coffin.

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
Natalia_AnatolioPAMM
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
August 05, 2015, 07:38:54 AM
 #29817


threatening  indeed
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722


Support SEGWIT on 8/1/17 https://github.com/UASF


View Profile WWW
August 05, 2015, 08:10:45 AM
 #29818

My extreme statist solution - which I see ultimately increasing scale across multiple systems

At next halving (2016)

1 minute blocks with 1.25 BTC being mined
Each block with 1MB limit
add Blockstream sidechain tech into code

**Equates to 10 minute blocks at 10MB with side chain capabilities mining 12.5 BTC**

That's how you fail, not how you scale.  Let's try going in the other direction:


BIP 1337 (Keep Bitcoin Elite)

Shorter blocks waste computational resources, so PoW security decreases as block frequency increases.  Because variances multiply attacking forces, time is an ally of Nakamoto Consensus and an enemy of its adversaries.

As Bitcoin becomes more a (IE The Ultimate) settlement layer, block timing should be adjusted contingent on block size modifications.  Given the trade-offs involved, increases of max_blocksize will be married to proportional changes of block time/reward.  For example, if we double max_blocksize to 2MB, we necessarily double block time/reward as well.

The more important Bitcoin becomes, the more important is equal access to full node functionality.  If Bitcoin's Mother Of All Blockchains is the rule the world, everyone should be able to verify it.  Any other outcome violates Chaum's maxim regarding the danger of poorly designed e-cash and tyranny.

The point is to regulate the ambitions of the Gavinistas and their ambivalence about maintaining a diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient network.  In business, this is called a poison pill ("A strategy used by corporations to discourage hostile takeovers").   Grin

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
lebing
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288

Enabling the maximal migration


View Profile
August 05, 2015, 08:20:46 AM
 #29819

I exchanged emails with Greg Maxwell over several aspects of the paper that he questioned.  One point he did make, that I admit is valid but do not personally see as an issue, is that the most profitable "configuration" according to the results from the paper is a single "super pool" made up of ALL the network's hashing power (which would be centralizing).  This would minimize the propagation impedance.  While I agree that this is true, it seems like just another way of looking at the 51% problem.  We already know that if one entity controls a huge amount of hash power they can do nasty things and gain certain advantages.  But it would be nice to find a way to explain why this shouldn't happen with more rigour than the "game theory" or "anti-fragile" fallback positions…


Fantastic work Peter. You have done bitcoin a great service to Bitcoin with your work.

a request: I would be interested in seeing the exchanges you had with Greg (assuming he agrees to make them public as well) if you don't mind.

re: Peter Todd, banning him might be enough reason to move to XT alone. His trolling to coding ratio is too damn high.

Bro, do you even blockchain?
-E Voorhees
sgbett
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470



View Profile
August 05, 2015, 08:50:44 AM
 #29820

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?

You don't ask questions because you want answers. Your questions are devices used to restate another persons argument in such a way that you can then make arguments against them which cannot be refuted. By doing this you are attempting to create the illusion that your arguments actually refute what the other person said (as opposed to your mischaracterisation of what they said).

As this is a generalisation, your immediate reaction is to then go away and discover a single incident where this did not happen, and then argue that because this didn't happen one time, it never happens.

You use the same pattern here, without a question.

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

[The exact names of the financial institutions aren't important] - Yes exact names are not important.

[only that their "sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain."] - you attempt to establish the credibility of this statement by contrasting it against the absurd.

This is a recurring theme, and it is the whole basis of your argument. You craft entire walls of text specifically designed to give the impression that you are of superior intellect, and that the other person is a buffoon. You think that by doing this you increase the legitimacy of your position. You do not.

This is the subtlety that you are missing: "Let each thing stand on its own merit"

This applies equally to LN / Sidechains as it does to your own self.

Sometimes one is just plain wrong. Acknowledging this is more important than being right.

For example, your handwaving over full blocks. I likened them to Rome Burning for a very good reason. Full blocks and a constantly increasing mempool cause significant problems. Maybe you should look into it, its the thing that most concerned me and I think is the biggest motivation for making sure that full blocks don't happen.

Peter R's paper, demonstrating the block size is self limiting, puts a fork in it! (so to speak)

It isn't me that is trolling ICE. I post what I believe to be true, based on what I have read, and learned and understood. I think there is a difference between us though: I know I might be wrong, and if I am, I'll be fine about it.

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
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 ... 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!