Bitcoin Forum
December 10, 2016, 07:20:26 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 ... 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 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1807627 times)
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
August 10, 2015, 05:53:03 PM
 #30081

Thermos has been down voted into the ground on reddit for his behavior.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gdad5/meta_on_hardforking_if_bitcoin_is_so_vulnerable/ctx6rgs

In another post he claims that consensus has not been achieved simply because Greg Peter and luke Jr do not agree and that is enough to out vote Gavin and mike. How seriously fucked up is that view.

I say XT should do away with waiting for 75% now, and simply fork at some block 3 months out and let people pick the vision they want to support. In the end the ecosystem will gravitate to one winner.

After checking he actually says "Wladamir, Greg, and Pieter are opposed to it". But yeah nice try of you to throw LukeJr in there  Wink

PS. I expected you to be above the all too common argumentum ad populum found amongst Gavinistas.

For future reference here's a post I digged up from reddit today that sums up well the idiocy behind juvenile comments such as "Thermos has been down voted into the ground on reddit"



Oh and btw good luck and have fun with your XTcoin

OK my memory on the names was wrong, who cares, that doesn't change the point that his fundamental sentiment is that bitcoin is decided by a small group of people, which is horrible.

That post you included above is utter nonsense as a reply. Thermos being downvoted into the ground is valid to point out because it demonstrates just how much the community disagrees.

And that is the thing you don't seem to understand, bitcoin is a community defined construct, it is whatever its users want it to be. Is is not defined by a FOMC like entity.

Thank you I will enjoy my bitcoin with millions of other users, you enjoy you blockstream fork away from satoshi's vision that we all signed up for.
1481354426
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481354426

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481354426
Reply with quote  #2

1481354426
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481354426
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481354426

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481354426
Reply with quote  #2

1481354426
Report to moderator
laurentmt
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 379


View Profile
August 10, 2015, 06:03:45 PM
 #30082

@Peter R: Having followed the discussion on this thread, I must say that I'm quite impressed by the work done for this paper. Bravo !
I still have to read the end of the paper but I've got a question related to the impossibility of an unhealthy fee market (chapter 7).
According to you, what would be the consequences of a new propagation mechanism like IBLT (see https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/e20c3b5a1d4b97f79ac2) ?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 10, 2015, 06:23:40 PM
 #30083

Gold up.  Cypherdoc collapsing.

tvbcof:  "woof, woof!":

inca
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
August 10, 2015, 06:29:02 PM
 #30084

Thermos has been down voted into the ground on reddit for his behavior.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gdad5/meta_on_hardforking_if_bitcoin_is_so_vulnerable/ctx6rgs

In another post he claims that consensus has not been achieved simply because Greg Peter and luke Jr do not agree and that is enough to out vote Gavin and mike. How seriously fucked up is that view.

I say XT should do away with waiting for 75% now, and simply fork at some block 3 months out and let people pick the vision they want to support. In the end the ecosystem will gravitate to one winner.

After checking he actually says "Wladamir, Greg, and Pieter are opposed to it". But yeah nice try of you to throw LukeJr in there  Wink

PS. I expected you to be above the all too common argumentum ad populum found amongst Gavinistas.

For future reference here's a post I digged up from reddit today that sums up well the idiocy behind juvenile comments such as "Thermos has been down voted into the ground on reddit"



Oh and btw good luck and have fun with your XTcoin

OK my memory on the names was wrong, who cares, that doesn't change the point that his fundamental sentiment is that bitcoin is decided by a small group of people, which is horrible.

That post you included above is utter nonsense as a reply. Thermos being downvoted into the ground is valid to point out because it demonstrates just how much the community disagrees.

And that is the thing you don't seem to understand, bitcoin is a community defined construct, it is whatever its users want it to be. Is is not defined by a FOMC like entity.

Thank you I will enjoy my bitcoin with millions of other users, you enjoy you blockstream fork away from satoshi's vision that we all signed up for.


Excellent points.

Bitcoin is at an interesting impasse. I think those in favour of small blocks will force a fork of bitcoin which ironically creates a new chain which instead of becoming 'gavincoin' or 'xt coin' simply becomes bitcoin. This will render the original Core chain worthless overnight, when payment processors and exchanges etc follow the money and investment funding the ecosystem.

To average joe there probably won't be anything to even notice other than price volatility.

Either that or keeping bitcoin crippled for non-technical reasons will mark the point of decline in market capitalisation of the bitcoin chain compared with alternate chain(s). One can imagine value flowing from bitcoin to a successor which scales to the needs of the businesses and users in the ecosystem rather than a small cabal of programmers. I am reminded of the Ernest Hemingway quote about how he went bankrupt. ('Two ways. Gradually and then suddenly'.) It isn't a stretch to see a similar thing happen with bitcoin.

klee
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
August 10, 2015, 06:33:20 PM
 #30085

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1064374.msg12105991#msg12105991

Can someone do the same for Bitcoin??

BTC: 1K9atu5zgz7izCMAynk5adBJ8Qn2YgS6nT
Wexlike
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 746



View Profile
August 10, 2015, 06:35:54 PM
 #30086

Thermos has been down voted into the ground on reddit for his behavior.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gdad5/meta_on_hardforking_if_bitcoin_is_so_vulnerable/ctx6rgs

In another post he claims that consensus has not been achieved simply because Greg Peter and luke Jr do not agree and that is enough to out vote Gavin and mike. How seriously fucked up is that view.

I say XT should do away with waiting for 75% now, and simply fork at some block 3 months out and let people pick the vision they want to support. In the end the ecosystem will gravitate to one winner.

After checking he actually says "Wladamir, Greg, and Pieter are opposed to it". But yeah nice try of you to throw LukeJr in there  Wink

PS. I expected you to be above the all too common argumentum ad populum found amongst Gavinistas.

For future reference here's a post I digged up from reddit today that sums up well the idiocy behind juvenile comments such as "Thermos has been down voted into the ground on reddit"



Oh and btw good luck and have fun with your XTcoin

OK my memory on the names was wrong, who cares, that doesn't change the point that his fundamental sentiment is that bitcoin is decided by a small group of people, which is horrible.

That post you included above is utter nonsense as a reply. Thermos being downvoted into the ground is valid to point out because it demonstrates just how much the community disagrees.

And that is the thing you don't seem to understand, bitcoin is a community defined construct, it is whatever its users want it to be. Is is not defined by a FOMC like entity.

Thank you I will enjoy my bitcoin with millions of other users, you enjoy you blockstream fork away from satoshi's vision that we all signed up for.


Excellent points.

Bitcoin is at an interesting impasse. I think those in favour of small blocks will force a fork of bitcoin which ironically creates a new chain which instead of becoming 'gavincoin' or 'xt coin' simply becomes bitcoin. This will render the original Core chain worthless overnight, when payment processors and exchanges etc follow the money and investment funding the ecosystem.

To average joe there probably won't be anything to even notice other than price volatility.

Either that or keeping bitcoin crippled for non-technical reasons will mark the point of decline in market capitalisation of the bitcoin chain compared with alternate chain(s). One can imagine value flowing from bitcoin to a successor which scales to the needs of the businesses and users in the ecosystem rather than a small cabal of programmers. I am reminded of the Ernest Hemingway quote about how he went bankrupt. ('Two ways. Gradually and then suddenly'.) It isn't a stretch to see a similar thing happen with bitcoin.



Well, i upgraded my node to XT. That is how you vote in a decentralized system.
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
August 10, 2015, 07:04:13 PM
 #30087

@Peter R: Having followed the discussion on this thread, I must say that I'm quite impressed by the work done for this paper. Bravo !
I still have to read the end of the paper but I've got a question related to the impossibility of an unhealthy fee market (chapter 7).
According to you, what would be the consequences of a new propagation mechanism like IBLT (see https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/e20c3b5a1d4b97f79ac2) ?

Great question.  

There's two cases to consider: (1) how an IBLT propagation mechanism will affect spam costs for an attacker, and (2) how it will affect the health of the fee market in general.  

1. IBLT will make spam proportionally more costly for an attacker, since the propagation efficiency of IBLT relies on partially synchronized mempools.  There's more on this here.

2. The paper viewed the IBLT scheme as a way to compress block solutions by some factor γ, where γ represents the coding gain. In this regard, it is similar to the compression already achieved by the Corallo Relay Network, only with a higher coding gain.  Assuming that block solutions are propagated across physical channels, and that the quantity of pure information communicated per solution is proportional to the amount of information contained within the block, then the communication time will always grow asymptotically like O(Q) as per the Shannon-Hartley theorem, and the fee market will be healthy.  In other words, as long as the block solutions contain information in the sense defined by Shannon (also called the Shannon Entropy) about the transactions they contain, then bigger blocks will contain more of it and, by the Shannon-Hartley Carrying Capacity Theorem, the communication speed has a fundamental lower bound governed by the laws of physics.

So to answer your question, my view is that IBLT would not affect the health of the fee market (but it would reduce the average fee per transaction).

This discussion relates to my main point of contention with Greg Maxwell.  In email correspondence, he suggested that it would be possible to have infinite coding gain for block solutions announcement. (I.e., he suggested that block solutions can truly be communicated in an amount of time that does not depend, even asymptotically, on the amount of transactions included in the block.  He said this is possible if what went into a block was already agreed upon far ahead of time [so that zero information needed to be communicated when the block was solved]).  I think the onus is on him to rigorously show:

(a) Under what assumptions/requirements such a communication scheme is physically possible.

(b) That such a configuration is not equivalent to a single entity1 controlling >50% of the hash power.

(c) That the network moving into such a configuration is plausible.

Nevertheless, I've agreed with him to discuss this point of contention when I make the other corrections to my paper.  

1For example, if--in order to achieve such a configuration with infinite coding gain--miners can no longer choose how to structure their blocks according to their own volition, then I would classify those miners as slaves rather than as peers, and the network as already centralized.

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

Activity: 1988


View Profile
August 10, 2015, 07:16:22 PM
 #30088

Gold up.  Cypherdoc collapsing.

tvbcof:  "woof, woof!":



I thought for a minute that you may have figured out the incredibly complex technology required to make your images appropriately sized for your post (hint:  width={nnn} within the opening img tag.)  Guess not.


brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 10, 2015, 08:16:25 PM
 #30089


That post you included above is utter nonsense as a reply. Thermos being downvoted into the ground is valid to point out because it demonstrates just how much the community disagrees.

And that is the thing you don't seem to understand, bitcoin is a community defined construct, it is whatever its users want it to be. Is is not defined by a FOMC like entity.

poor guy.. you are even more naive than I thought.

the point YOU (and quite a few here) dont seem to understand is that the reddit mob in no way, shape or form defines "the community".

if there is a consensus amongst anyone with half a brain it is that no sane discussions on the topic of the block size debate can be had over there. The post I included explain exactly while it is so.

now you can keep fooling yourself with delusions of community consensus or get a grip and realise that no amount of upvotes or downvotes will shift the balance in the outcome of this issue.


"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
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 10, 2015, 08:38:52 PM
 #30090

Gold up.  Cypherdoc collapsing.

tvbcof:  "woof, woof!":



I thought for a minute that you may have figured out the incredibly complex technology required to make your images appropriately sized for your post (hint:  width={nnn} within the opening img tag.)  Guess not.



little dog means just that; little.

and btw, try using 880 as the value and tell me what your peabrain thinks.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 10, 2015, 08:43:10 PM
 #30091

About censorship:

The current mob campaigning against censorship is precisely the same group that has spent the last couple months downvoting censoring  each and every reasonable and perfectly valid argument brought against block size increase or any thing that did not fit in their groupthink.

For that reason I am thoroughly enjoying the little hissy fit they are now throwing

"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
laurentmt
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 379


View Profile
August 10, 2015, 08:57:39 PM
 #30092

If my understanding of IBLT is correct, its main advantage is that the quantity of information transmitted on the wire is constant, whatever the number of transactions inside the block.

IMHO, it's fair to say that propagation of these data is not the whole story. There's a reconciliation to be done between the new block and the local mempool but I think it's also fair to make the hypothesis that with such a mechanism in place, mining pools may have an incentive to keep an exhaustive mempool (in order to avoid the burden of requesting missing transactions and to increase their performances/profits).

Anyway, I think we can say that with an IBLT, some operations will depend on the number of transactions (in mempool and new block) but for now, I don't know how the delay introduced by these operations would compare with the delay related to the propagation in the network (in term of order of magnitudes).

This study is very interesting, because from an engineering point of view, having a mechanism requiring constants resources (time or space) is the "holy grail" but according to your paper that may also imply the birth of an unhealthy fee market (and a new challenge for bitcoin Wink.

As said many times by others, current solutions just kick the can down the road and a proper solution for propagation in the network remains to be found and implemented (imho the relay network should be considered as a temporary "patch" (no offense intended to its creator) and shouldn't become a replacement of the p2p network).

Understanding the economic consequences of future solutions is really needed before we decide to go down the road and not so much has been done until now. So, keep up the good work !




Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
August 10, 2015, 09:14:21 PM
 #30093

If my understanding of IBLT is correct, its main advantage is that the quantity of information transmitted on the wire is constant, whatever the number of transactions inside the block.

IMHO, it's fair to say that propagation of these data is not the whole story. There's a reconciliation to be done between the new block and the local mempool but I think it's also fair to make the hypothesis that with such a mechanism in place, mining pools may have an incentive to keep an exhaustive mempool (in order to avoid the burden of requesting missing transactions and to increase their performances/profits).

...

Right, the reconciliation process will take time (information must be communicated), and the amount of time will have a lower limit proportional to the Shannon Entropy in the new block.  One could argue that the Shannon Entropy in a new block will not in general be proportional to the size of the block, but that doesn't make any sense to me.  In fact, the only way I can imagine that it would be possible is if the block solutions contain no information about the included transactions at all (i.e., the case of infinite coding gain).  But if there's no information communicated about the transactions included in a block, then in my opinion the miners aren't peers but slaves and the system is already centralized.  

If the network is composed of peers who build blocks based on their own volition, then I argue that information (Shannon Entropy) about the transactions contained within the new blocks must be communicated as part of the block solution.  If this is the case, the fee market will remain healthy (according to the definition of a healthy fee market given in feemarket.pdf).

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

Activity: 1153


View Profile
August 10, 2015, 09:14:28 PM
 #30094


That post you included above is utter nonsense as a reply. Thermos being downvoted into the ground is valid to point out because it demonstrates just how much the community disagrees.

And that is the thing you don't seem to understand, bitcoin is a community defined construct, it is whatever its users want it to be. Is is not defined by a FOMC like entity.

poor guy.. you are even more naive than I thought.

the point YOU (and quite a few here) dont seem to understand is that the reddit mob in no way, shape or form defines "the community".

if there is a consensus amongst anyone with half a brain it is that no sane discussions on the topic of the block size debate can be had over there. The post I included explain exactly while it is so.

now you can keep fooling yourself with delusions of community consensus or get a grip and realise that no amount of upvotes or downvotes will shift the balance in the outcome of this issue.

What is Bitcoin if not a community of individuals independently deciding to use and ascribe value to something other than government fiat money and to create their own construct for money.

Yours and the other dev's view of BitcoinXT, is no different from Krugman's and Yellen's view of Bitcoin. i.e. "You people can't define what is money because we already said it is this and anyone who disagrees is delusional". Well guess what, you are as delusional as Krugman and Yellen.

And yes, reddit is a more accurate view of the total bitcoin ecosystem then the dev's mailing list.

 And if not, that doesn't matter either, the whole point of Bitcoin is that I can make my own choices, and me and others are free to leave the current Bitcoin and choose our own path. If you don't want to transact on my chain, then fine, that is your choice, but I've already decided to not transact on yours.
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
August 10, 2015, 09:24:11 PM
 #30095

Using logic, I can see two possible reason for being a block minimalist developer.

1)  Since "Uh oh, here it is we who decide the size of the blocks", because having power is good. Since there is no consensus within the self appointed dominator group, we have to wait until the royals can come to agreement.

2) They want to suffocate bitcoin, permanently if possible, to get a head start on their endevour into competing systems.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 10, 2015, 10:32:22 PM
 #30096

If my understanding of IBLT is correct, its main advantage is that the quantity of information transmitted on the wire is constant, whatever the number of transactions inside the block.

IMHO, it's fair to say that propagation of these data is not the whole story. There's a reconciliation to be done between the new block and the local mempool but I think it's also fair to make the hypothesis that with such a mechanism in place, mining pools may have an incentive to keep an exhaustive mempool (in order to avoid the burden of requesting missing transactions and to increase their performances/profits).

Anyway, I think we can say that with an IBLT, some operations will depend on the number of transactions (in mempool and new block) but for now, I don't know how the delay introduced by these operations would compare with the delay related to the propagation in the network (in term of order of magnitudes).

This study is very interesting, because from an engineering point of view, having a mechanism requiring constants resources (time or space) is the "holy grail" but according to your paper that may also imply the birth of an unhealthy fee market (and a new challenge for bitcoin Wink.

As said many times by others, current solutions just kick the can down the road and a proper solution for propagation in the network remains to be found and implemented (imho the relay network should be considered as a temporary "patch" (no offense intended to its creator) and shouldn't become a replacement of the p2p network).

Understanding the economic consequences of future solutions is really needed before we decide to go down the road and not so much has been done until now. So, keep up the good work !






i agree with this view.  the relay network is cutting corners and making risky shortcuts in relaying w/o essentially verifying.  it only recently added a node in Beijing within the GFC.  i wonder though if it's origins were a means of compensating for the top 5 largest miners being in China?

again, one of my reasons for wanting to increase blocksize is to increase competition in mining outside of China to those who have greater bandwidth.  this would help level the playing field.
thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
August 11, 2015, 12:03:13 AM
 #30097

If my understanding of IBLT is correct, its main advantage is that the quantity of information transmitted on the wire is constant, whatever the number of transactions inside the block.

IMHO, it's fair to say that propagation of these data is not the whole story. There's a reconciliation to be done between the new block and the local mempool but I think it's also fair to make the hypothesis that with such a mechanism in place, mining pools may have an incentive to keep an exhaustive mempool (in order to avoid the burden of requesting missing transactions and to increase their performances/profits).

...

Right, the reconciliation process will take time (information must be communicated), and the amount of time will have a lower limit proportional to the Shannon Entropy in the new block.  One could argue that the Shannon Entropy in a new block will not in general be proportional to the size of the block, but that doesn't make any sense to me.  In fact, the only way I can imagine that it would be possible is if the block solutions contain no information about the included transactions at all (i.e., the case of infinite coding gain).  But if there's no information communicated about the transactions included in a block, then in my opinion the miners aren't peers but slaves and the system is already centralized.  

If the network is composed of peers who build blocks based on their own volition, then I argue that information (Shannon Entropy) about the transactions contained within the new blocks must be communicated as part of the block solution.  If this is the case, the fee market will remain healthy (according to the definition of a healthy fee market given in feemarket.pdf).

Basing the argument on information theory is problematic because there are 2 phases to the communication (txn exchange and block solution broadcast) and we are just focused on the second phase.  Observations like communication must be proportional to # txns apply to the whole communication not its parts.
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
August 11, 2015, 12:10:37 AM
 #30098

Basing the argument on information theory is problematic because there are 2 phases to the communication (txn exchange and block solution broadcast) and we are just focused on the second phase.  Observations like communication must be proportional to # txns apply to the whole communication not its parts.

The fact that there are two phases in the communication is what allows the block solution to be compressed by a factor of γ (the coding gain).  The model takes this into account.


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

Activity: 1512


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
August 11, 2015, 12:21:38 AM
 #30099

Gold up.  Cypherdoc collapsing.

I LOL'd.  Sad to see Frap.doc is not immune to the contagious stupidity of Reddit, and has been reduced to posting cute doggy pics in place of his formerly astute analysis and insight.

It's almost as if Team Gavin had something on him and is forcing this daft, nonsensical, out-of-character recent misbehavior.   Undecided

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
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988


View Profile
August 11, 2015, 12:24:29 AM
 #30100

...
again, one of my reasons for wanting to increase blocksize is to increase competition in mining outside of China to those who have greater bandwidth.  this would help level the playing field.

'Again', eh?  I'd never heard you make that argument before though you are a veritable fountain of desperate nonesense.

But ya, we like totally have to keep them slanty-eyed chinks from horning in on our distributed crypto-currency.

As Gavin says, people are obviously going to trust their own government more than others to manage things in the best interests of their countrymen.  And you never know what those commies would do if they got control.


Pages: « 1 ... 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 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 ... 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!