Bitcoin Forum
December 06, 2016, 04:19:45 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 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 1559 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1805136 times)
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 11, 2015, 11:41:23 PM
 #30241

https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gnem1/bip42_blockstream_guy_fundamentally_changed/?sort=confidence

I lolled  Cheesy

"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
1481041185
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481041185

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481041185
Reply with quote  #2

1481041185
Report to moderator
1481041185
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481041185

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481041185
Reply with quote  #2

1481041185
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481041185
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481041185

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481041185
Reply with quote  #2

1481041185
Report to moderator
1481041185
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481041185

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481041185
Reply with quote  #2

1481041185
Report to moderator
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
August 11, 2015, 11:41:28 PM
 #30242

Chinese bourses now higher. Could it be that they expect lower renminbi in the future? I look forward to the day when the mainstreem looks to bitcoin pricing of the different currencies to decide their real value.


Nop, it's the new block size consensus making ripples!

I agree on that, but why has the spread changed from negative to positive?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 11, 2015, 11:52:54 PM
 #30243

Chinese bourses now higher. Could it be that they expect lower renminbi in the future? I look forward to the day when the mainstreem looks to bitcoin pricing of the different currencies to decide their real value.


Nop, it's the new block size consensus making ripples!

I agree on that, but why has the spread changed from negative to positive?


brg444:  "aw, c'mon Erdy.  i just wanted to be a King".
Mengerian
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 7


View Profile
August 11, 2015, 11:55:22 PM
 #30244

Quote
Anyways, to really understand what happens when R->0 I think we need to make a new model that takes into account what we just learned from your chart above (that miners won't necessarily be hashing all the time).

That seems to be an interesting point illustrating how the best interest of users and miners incentives could diverge.
For users, an empty block is always better than no block because it adds work to the chain and increases the security of the previous transactions.

Miners being financially motivated to shutdown for a period of time may not be an issue though.

Let's say that coinbase rewards are zero and miners live on fees only, and given a difficulty level it does not make sense to spend electricity until X number of fees/transactions are published.

In such a situation the difficulty will adjust/decrease until 10 minute blocks are restored. This might mean that after a block is found miners turn off for 5 minutes and only turn on after 5 minutes of fees are sent, but the difficulty will have adjusted so that miners are likely to find the next block 5 minutes after turning on. Yes this would also mean that if all miners keep running we would have 5 minute blocks, but they wouldn't be. And if they did then difficulty would adjust back up.

Since these issues develop slowly, I believe we would see that difficulty will continue to adjust to maintain 10 min blocks regardless of the financial incentives of the time.

Yeah, I was thinking about this too. Interesting to imagine a global network of bitcoin miners switching their hashing farms off and on as transactions build up.

Although we could expect the 10 minute block period to stay the same, it seems that the variance in the time between blocks should go down.

As you say, for the first few minutes after a block is published, very few miners would hash until a certain threshold of transaction fees could be reaped, so very few blocks would be found soon after the previous one. At the other end of the curve, the further beyond 10 minutes that a block is not found, we could expect miners to throw every last hash at the block, willing to burn lots of power to get the chance to collect the richer reward from blocks with more transactions than average. So the chances that a block takes much longer than 10 minutes would also decrease as miners frantically burn energy in the hopes of earning richer blocks full of fees.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 11, 2015, 11:59:24 PM
 #30245

The Fed Is Out Of Options, "QE Is All It Can Do Here" Art Cashin Predicts

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-11/fed-out-options-qe-all-it-can-do-here-art-cashin-predicts

tabnloz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 793


View Profile
August 12, 2015, 12:05:31 AM
 #30246

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.

I've been following Augur for a while. I think the prediction markets and oracles have lots of potential.
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
August 12, 2015, 01:13:47 AM
 #30247

Quote
Anyways, to really understand what happens when R->0 I think we need to make a new model that takes into account what we just learned from your chart above (that miners won't necessarily be hashing all the time).

That seems to be an interesting point illustrating how the best interest of users and miners incentives could diverge.
For users, an empty block is always better than no block because it adds work to the chain and increases the security of the previous transactions.

Miners being financially motivated to shutdown for a period of time may not be an issue though.

Let's say that coinbase rewards are zero and miners live on fees only, and given a difficulty level it does not make sense to spend electricity until X number of fees/transactions are published.

In such a situation the difficulty will adjust/decrease until 10 minute blocks are restored. This might mean that after a block is found miners turn off for 5 minutes and only turn on after 5 minutes of fees are sent, but the difficulty will have adjusted so that miners are likely to find the next block 5 minutes after turning on. Yes this would also mean that if all miners keep running we would have 5 minute blocks, but they wouldn't be. And if they did then difficulty would adjust back up.

Since these issues develop slowly, I believe we would see that difficulty will continue to adjust to maintain 10 min blocks regardless of the financial incentives of the time.

Yeah, I was thinking about this too. Interesting to imagine a global network of bitcoin miners switching their hashing farms off and on as transactions build up.

Although we could expect the 10 minute block period to stay the same, it seems that the variance in the time between blocks should go down.

As you say, for the first few minutes after a block is published, very few miners would hash until a certain threshold of transaction fees could be reaped, so very few blocks would be found soon after the previous one. At the other end of the curve, the further beyond 10 minutes that a block is not found, we could expect miners to throw every last hash at the block, willing to burn lots of power to get the chance to collect the richer reward from blocks with more transactions than average. So the chances that a block takes much longer than 10 minutes would also decrease as miners frantically burn energy in the hopes of earning richer blocks full of fees.

Yes, I think you're right!  Very interesting.

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

Activity: 966



View Profile
August 12, 2015, 01:32:43 AM
 #30248

...

Mengerian & Peter R

Yes, that does make sense.  When the amounts to be won from transactions are relatively higher, than I could certainly see:

"Fire that mother up, bitchez, pedal to the metal..."

As the reward amounts get bigger.  Kind of the way the PowerBall works, people really start buying when the jackpot reaches over $200,000,000.

solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
August 12, 2015, 01:58:53 AM
 #30249

I'm really disappointed. Theymos is going full retard and muddying the waters by linking the 21M with the 1MB.
Just because there were two very obscure early bugs in the maintenance of the 21M supply limit does not mean that the limit is or ever was uncertain. It was always set in stone.

And lets take the beast head on. The 21 million limit. Firstly Satoshi never actually encoded that limit in hard stone, it was added by devs just last year I think. Secondly, we have not even heard of any arguments in favour of it's increase. If say in 20 years it does appear that the fees are insufficient, and for the example let us suppose we are using lightning, considering that so many coins have already been lost irrevocably and may continue to be lost, what makes you think that you can today pass judgment on what may be a different situation?

I expect pro-Increase-the-Block-Limit people like me and maybe this whole thread to be banhammered any day. So if that happens I will be over on: https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/

justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
August 12, 2015, 02:49:45 AM
 #30250

I'm really disappointed. Theymos is going full retard and muddying the waters by linking the 21M with the 1MB.
Just because there were two very obscure early bugs in the maintenance of the 21M supply limit does not mean that the limit is or ever was uncertain. It was always set in stone.

And lets take the beast head on. The 21 million limit. Firstly Satoshi never actually encoded that limit in hard stone, it was added by devs just last year I think. Secondly, we have not even heard of any arguments in favour of it's increase. If say in 20 years it does appear that the fees are insufficient, and for the example let us suppose we are using lightning, considering that so many coins have already been lost irrevocably and may continue to be lost, what makes you think that you can today pass judgment on what may be a different situation?

This is an example of a black box understanding of Bitcoin. There is no principles or methodologies we can apply to the problem of understanding why Bitcoin works, so it's just magic and any potential change is scary because nobody knows how magic works.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 12, 2015, 04:24:45 AM
 #30251

I'm really disappointed. Theymos is going full retard and muddying the waters by linking the 21M with the 1MB.
Just because there were two very obscure early bugs in the maintenance of the 21M supply limit does not mean that the limit is or ever was uncertain. It was always set in stone.

And lets take the beast head on. The 21 million limit. Firstly Satoshi never actually encoded that limit in hard stone, it was added by devs just last year I think. Secondly, we have not even heard of any arguments in favour of it's increase. If say in 20 years it does appear that the fees are insufficient, and for the example let us suppose we are using lightning, considering that so many coins have already been lost irrevocably and may continue to be lost, what makes you think that you can today pass judgment on what may be a different situation?

I expect pro-Increase-the-Block-Limit people like me and maybe this whole thread to be banhammered any day. So if that happens I will be over on: https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/


There's not too many things you can do in this country to piss people  off  more than violating their First Amendment rights.

Go theymos!
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 12, 2015, 04:39:39 AM
 #30252

Mods moving XT threads into the altcoin sub forum to hide. Note iCEBLow in there demanding the banishment of competition:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1148679.msg12102884#msg12102884
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
August 12, 2015, 04:45:26 AM
 #30253

Mods moving XT threads into the altcoin sub forum to hide. Note iCEBLow in there demanding the banishment of competition:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1148679.msg12102884#msg12102884

Hide? The altcoin sub forum has more traffic.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 12, 2015, 04:47:36 AM
 #30254

Mods moving XT threads into the altcoin sub forum to hide. Note iCEBLow in there demanding the banishment of competition:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1148679.msg12102884#msg12102884

Hide? The altcoin sub forum has more traffic.

Well I'LL be a rats ass!

TIL!
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
August 12, 2015, 04:52:25 AM
 #30255

I'm really disappointed. Theymos is going full retard and muddying the waters by linking the 21M with the 1MB.
Just because there were two very obscure early bugs in the maintenance of the 21M supply limit does not mean that the limit is or ever was uncertain. It was always set in stone.

And lets take the beast head on. The 21 million limit. Firstly Satoshi never actually encoded that limit in hard stone, it was added by devs just last year I think. Secondly, we have not even heard of any arguments in favour of it's increase. If say in 20 years it does appear that the fees are insufficient, and for the example let us suppose we are using lightning, considering that so many coins have already been lost irrevocably and may continue to be lost, what makes you think that you can today pass judgment on what may be a different situation?

I expect pro-Increase-the-Block-Limit people like me and maybe this whole thread to be banhammered any day. So if that happens I will be over on: https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/




Theymos has always been an extremely light-handed mod.  If he hasn't started banhammering you whining, exaggerating, self-pitying, Godwinning Gavinista SOBs by now, he not going to suddenly change that policy.

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
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
August 12, 2015, 04:55:57 AM
 #30256

There's not too many things you can do in this country to piss people  off  more than violating their First Amendment rights.

Go theymos!

You don't have a 1A right to post off-topic stuff to the wrong sub forum.

You don't have a 1A right to post on privately owned sites, period.

TIL even some highly educated professionals conflate moderation and censorship.   Tongue

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
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
August 12, 2015, 05:34:30 AM
 #30257

Someone on reddit posted a limited proof of concept lightning like network, that lacks some functionality since bitcoin is missing the required op codes.

Here is the discussion on the fees, it sounds straight out of that blockstream business plan from earlier today.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gldfn/alpha_thundernetwork_a_lightning_network/ctzeppz

That's really what this is all about, creating new fee revenue streams that take fees from the main chain.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
August 12, 2015, 05:46:29 AM
 #30258

Someone on reddit posted a limited proof of concept lightning like network, that lacks some functionality since bitcoin is missing the required op codes.

Here is the discussion on the fees, it sounds straight out of that blockstream business plan from earlier today.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gldfn/alpha_thundernetwork_a_lightning_network/ctzeppz

That's really what this is all about, creating new fee revenue streams that take fees from the main chain.

You mean the one that got thoroughly put to shame by mostly every sane poster on there?

You are also aware that lightning is an open source project right? Nobody is forcing you to use it.

Being an open source project says next to nothing about lock-ins that are achieved by network effects on related services.


 
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 12, 2015, 05:49:46 AM
 #30259

Someone on reddit posted a limited proof of concept lightning like network, that lacks some functionality since bitcoin is missing the required op codes.

Here is the discussion on the fees, it sounds straight out of that blockstream business plan from earlier today.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gldfn/alpha_thundernetwork_a_lightning_network/ctzeppz

That's really what this is all about, creating new fee revenue streams that take fees from the main chain.

You mean the one that got thoroughly put to shame by mostly every sane poster on there?

You are also aware that lightning is an open source project right? Nobody is forcing you to use it.

Being an open source project says next to nothing about lock-ins that are achieved by network effects on related services.

Lock-ins like everyone is using fiat/CC so I should feel obliged to do the same? Honestly not sure what you're getting at?

"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
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


View Profile
August 12, 2015, 06:15:28 AM
 #30260

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

This level of price change is indeed just noise. Not a good strategy to try to tie conclusions to it, especially because insofar as you succeed you just set a precedent for the other side to do the same thing. Waste of time all around.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1559 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!