Bitcoin Forum
November 21, 2017, 04:32:12 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [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 ... 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 1556 1557 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2010849 times)
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1149


View Profile
August 11, 2015, 09:49:59 PM
 #30181

Have you guys seen this, a DAC gambling/prediction engine built on top of Ethereum

http://reason.com/blog/2015/08/11/augur-gambling-prediction-ethereum

I think this is the first example of a true DAC out in the wild that I've seen. Bitcoin still hasn't even gotten started yet.

Edit: the reason folks are solid libertarians but most of them still don't get bitcoin.
1511281932
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511281932

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511281932
Reply with quote  #2

1511281932
Report to moderator
Join ICO Now Coinlancer is Disrupting the Freelance marketplace!
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511281932
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511281932

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511281932
Reply with quote  #2

1511281932
Report to moderator
1511281932
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511281932

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511281932
Reply with quote  #2

1511281932
Report to moderator
jmw74
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 236


View Profile
August 11, 2015, 09:53:41 PM
 #30182

I question the need for new messages to help SPV clients find the right path because 1) they seem exploitable to me and 2) all they need is the header chain to find the right path and headers are already short and fast to transmit. Waiting for x blocks again seems to protect them if you assume a majority of well connected miners.
This is a far weaker security model that what is achievable.

If you can point a way to exploit this technique, I'd appreciate having it pointed out:

https://gist.github.com/justusranvier/451616fa4697b5f25f60

I'm a bit shocked that no one is talking about this idea.

It would greatly increase the security (and hence the value) of SPV clients and allow far greater scaling with almost no sacrifice in security.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 11, 2015, 09:54:10 PM
 #30183

market responding well to the arrival of XT!  iCEBLOW & co is going to get blown away:

rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1149


View Profile
August 11, 2015, 09:57:59 PM
 #30184

I question the need for new messages to help SPV clients find the right path because 1) they seem exploitable to me and 2) all they need is the header chain to find the right path and headers are already short and fast to transmit. Waiting for x blocks again seems to protect them if you assume a majority of well connected miners.
This is a far weaker security model that what is achievable.

If you can point a way to exploit this technique, I'd appreciate having it pointed out:

https://gist.github.com/justusranvier/451616fa4697b5f25f60

I guess I'm just expressing the opinion that the current header based proof if work mechanism is working fine so far and is difficult to exploit. I'll take a look when I have time (but you're a smart guy so I'm sure the solution is strong). Its just that in this instance I'm not sure we have a problem yet, and I'm starting to take a if its not broke why fix it view largely out of fear that an unneeded change might have adverse unknown consequences (but maybe we will someday and so its very useful to have solutions ready)
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
August 11, 2015, 10:02:00 PM
 #30185

I'm a bit shocked that no one is talking about this idea.

It would greatly increase the security (and hence the value) of SPV clients and allow far greater scaling with almost no sacrifice in security.
A pessimistic explanation would be that maybe nobody actually wants solutions to any of Bitcoin's problems. They just want to have problems to point to as excuses for furthering one agenda or another.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 11, 2015, 10:03:40 PM
 #30186

2 1/2 yrs later after my newsletter post on this:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/silicon-valley-going-wall-street-171001127.html
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 826


View Profile
August 11, 2015, 10:12:04 PM
 #30187

It is resolved. We won. The devil lost.

thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
August 11, 2015, 10:13:03 PM
 #30188

this sounds exactly like something i'd say:
The Blockstream Business Plan (self.Bitcoin)
submitted an hour ago * by Celean

And if this is true Blockstream is making a HUGE mistake.  I don't think many people are doing multiple txns per day, every day right now.  I don't even think many people do 1 txn per week.  I doubt that people will be willing to sequester coins into the LN for significant periods (no I have no facts to back up this intuition).  

So I don't think that the lightning network solves the problem we have today which is getting people to do their FIRST txn (expand the network) and then getting them to use it periodically (use encourages merchants to accept it).

Once people are using BTC a couple times per day, LN is becomes very valuable.  Its actually WORSE if you do just one txn in a payment channel (it takes 2 blockchain txns instead of 1).

So LN won't actually solve the typical use pattern today.  And if that pattern is forced to pay high fees people will choose other payment options stagnating Bitcoin growth (or best case transforms into low velocity digital gold) to the point where we'll never need the volumes LN can offer.



cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 11, 2015, 10:14:59 PM
 #30189

this sounds exactly like something i'd say:
The Blockstream Business Plan (self.Bitcoin)
submitted an hour ago * by Celean

And if this is true Blockstream is making a HUGE mistake.  I don't think many people are doing multiple txns per day, every day right now.  I don't even think many people do 1 txn per week.  I doubt that people will be willing to sequester coins into the LN for significant periods (no I have no facts to back up this intuition).  

So I don't think that the lightning network solves the problem we have today which is getting people to do their FIRST txn (expand the network) and then getting them to use it periodically (use encourages merchants to accept it).

Once people are using BTC a couple times per day, LN is becomes very valuable.  Its actually WORSE if you do just one txn in a payment channel (it takes 2 blockchain txns instead of 1).

So LN won't actually solve the typical use pattern today.  And if that pattern is forced to pay high fees people will choose other payment options stagnating Bitcoin growth (or best case transforms into low velocity digital gold) to the point where we'll never need the volumes LN can offer.





it was never about practicality or common sense.  let alone fairness. 

it was about greed.
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834


[LOL2X]


View Profile WWW
August 11, 2015, 10:16:10 PM
 #30190

It appears now that the reddit post proving censorship of the now "uncensored" reddit post (44% of hash power supports 8 MB) has itself been censored:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gm3ww/this_thread_was_removedhidden_from_front_page/

Quote
Just to clear things up, that thread wasn't removed by a moderator, I removed it to address some factual inaccuracies and add some additional sources. It is now reposted.

So much for thermos being the "epitome of authoritarianism" and ready to start "book burnings."   Grin

If you and the toxic Redditards (eg Frap.doc) could learn the diff between moderation and censorship, that would be great.

XTnodes = 3%


Wow, very disruption.  Such revolutionary!


██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"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
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 11, 2015, 10:19:09 PM
 #30191

Big middle finger to iCEBLOW, brg444, tvbcof, and MOA:

iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834


[LOL2X]


View Profile WWW
August 11, 2015, 10:24:34 PM
 #30192

it was never about practicality or common sense.  let alone fairness. 

it was about greed.

Attacking what you imagine to be people's motivations is easy.

Refuting the actual computer science and game theory is hard:

Quote


Quote

The vast majority of research demonstrates that blocksize does matter, blocksize caps are required to secure the network, and large blocks are a centralizing pressure.

Here’s a short list of what has been published so far:

1) No blocksize cap and no minimum fee leads to catastrophic breakage as miners chase marginal 0 fees:

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2400519

It’s important to note that mandatory minimum fees could simply be rebated out-of-band, which would lead to the same problems.

2) a) Large mining pools make strategies other than honest mining more profitable:

    http://www.cs.cornell.edu/~ie53/publications/btcProcArXiv.pdf

2) b) In the presence of latency, some alternative selfish strategy exists that is more profitable at any mining pool size. The larger the latency, the greater the selfish mining benefit:

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1507.06183v1.pdf

3) Mining simulations run by Pieter Wuille shows that well-connected peers making a majority of the hashing power have an advantage over less-connected ones, earning more profits per hash. Larger blocks even further favor these well-connected peers. This gets even worse as we shift from block subsidy to fee based reward :

    http://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg08161.html

4) Other point(s):

If there is no blocksize cap, a miner should simply snipe the fees from the latest block and try to stale that block by mining their own replacement. You get all the fees plus any more from new transactions. Full blocks gives less reward for doing so, since you have to choose which transactions to include. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3fpuld/a_transaction_fee_market_exists_without_a_block/ctqxkq6


██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"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
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 11, 2015, 10:26:10 PM
 #30193

Big middle finger to iCEBLOW, brg444, tvbcof, and MOA:



you still playing that game where you pretend any random thing that suits your delusions is confirmed true if price goes up  Huh

maybe you should move away from the keyboard forever then, we had a nice little rally that time you went camping or w/e

"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 11, 2015, 10:28:07 PM
 #30194


note the non-technical assumption that idiot makes in his post upon which he bases all his technical mis-steps.  he's wrong.  where Bitcoin XT is headed, there's a big enough pie to bring every miner currently involved in the space along for the ride.  and the miners know this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=or65M4Ht4Kk
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
August 11, 2015, 10:29:16 PM
 #30195

It appears now that the reddit post proving censorship of the now "uncensored" reddit post (44% of hash power supports 8 MB) has itself been censored:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gm3ww/this_thread_was_removedhidden_from_front_page/
Quote from: Celean
Just to clear things up, that thread wasn't removed by a moderator, I removed it to address some factual inaccuracies and add some additional sources. It is now reposted.
So much for thermos being the "epitome of authoritarianism" and ready to start "book burnings."   Grin

You're referring to a totally different post that was deleted by the author (the one about the Blockstream Business Plan).  Just look three comments up:


Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
awemany
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28


View Profile
August 11, 2015, 10:36:57 PM
 #30196

[...]

So I don't think that the lightning network solves the problem we have today which is getting people to do their FIRST txn (expand the network) and then getting them to use it periodically (use encourages merchants to accept it).

Once people are using BTC a couple times per day, LN is becomes very valuable.  Its actually WORSE if you do just one txn in a payment channel (it takes 2 blockchain txns instead of 1).

So LN won't actually solve the typical use pattern today.  And if that pattern is forced to pay high fees people will choose other payment options stagnating Bitcoin growth (or best case transforms into low velocity digital gold) to the point where we'll never need the volumes LN can offer.

This is actually a great argument! I think you are completely 100% correct here, but to have another strong case for the blocksize increase, what we would need to have here is some data on actual usage patterns of Bitcoin to support this argument.

Did someone already extract 'typical spending patterns' vs. 'typical investment patterns' from the Blockchain?
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
August 11, 2015, 10:39:25 PM
 #30197

[...]

So I don't think that the lightning network solves the problem we have today which is getting people to do their FIRST txn (expand the network) and then getting them to use it periodically (use encourages merchants to accept it).

Once people are using BTC a couple times per day, LN is becomes very valuable.  Its actually WORSE if you do just one txn in a payment channel (it takes 2 blockchain txns instead of 1).

So LN won't actually solve the typical use pattern today.  And if that pattern is forced to pay high fees people will choose other payment options stagnating Bitcoin growth (or best case transforms into low velocity digital gold) to the point where we'll never need the volumes LN can offer.
This is actually a great argument!


+2.  Yes, it is a great argument thezerg!

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

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 11, 2015, 10:41:22 PM
 #30198

this sounds exactly like something i'd say:

The Blockstream Business Plan (self.Bitcoin)-


what is really going on here is that Blockstream wants to shift the long term miner tx fees away from the mainchain into SC & LN tx fees paid to their federated nodes, LN gateways, & consulting fees for SC's.  
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834


[LOL2X]


View Profile WWW
August 11, 2015, 10:45:06 PM
 #30199

You're referring to a totally different post that was deleted by the author (the one about the Blockstream Business Plan). 

I referred to a post which was actually on-topic (ie, about Bitcoin and not some troll fork alt) being immediately and incorrectly regarded as "censored" when in fact the author deleted it.

Of course posts about alts are moderated in r/Bitcoin.  Duh!

You do know the difference between moderation and censorship, right?

Or are you one of the 'thermos is the epitome of authoritarianism and ready to start book burnings' drama queens busily sewing gold coins into the linings of their coats?


██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"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
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 11, 2015, 10:47:34 PM
 #30200

You're referring to a totally different post that was deleted by the author (the one about the Blockstream Business Plan). 

I referred to a post which was actually on-topic (ie, about Bitcoin and not some troll fork alt) being immediately and incorrectly regarded as "censored" when in fact the author deleted it.

Of course posts about alts are moderated in r/Bitcoin.  Duh!

You do know the difference between moderation and censorship, right?

Or are you one of the 'thermos is the epitome of authoritarianism and ready to start book burnings' drama queens busily sewing gold coins into the linings of their coats?

iCEBLOW translation:  "i am one greedy bastard!"
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1556 1557 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!