Bitcoin Forum
December 10, 2016, 06:41:52 PM *
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 ... 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 1808025 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 13, 2015, 01:14:59 PM
 #30361

looks to me like this post by Mike has been taken down off the main page by mods:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3griiv/on_consensus_and_forks_by_mike_hearn/
1481395312
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481395312

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481395312
Reply with quote  #2

1481395312
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481395312
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481395312

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481395312
Reply with quote  #2

1481395312
Report to moderator
1481395312
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481395312

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481395312
Reply with quote  #2

1481395312
Report to moderator
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


View Profile
August 13, 2015, 01:18:55 PM
 #30362

looks to me like this post by Mike has been taken down off the main page by mods:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3griiv/on_consensus_and_forks_by_mike_hearn/

Still there for me. If they were taking it this far, modding a heavily commented thread off the front page, that would generate some serious blowback, so I doubt they would.
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


View Profile
August 13, 2015, 01:21:39 PM
 #30363

holy begeez.  just did a speedtest on my internet connection.  had made some routing changes that seem to have worked:



Here's mine. $30 a month Grin



Though Greg or someone will pipe in and say Speedtest does some kind of test that isn't that real-world relevant or something.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 13, 2015, 01:23:21 PM
 #30364

holy begeez.  just did a speedtest on my internet connection.  had made some routing changes that seem to have worked:



Here's mine. $30 a month Grin



yeah, but you're in Norway  Tongue
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 13, 2015, 01:25:02 PM
 #30365

looks to me like this post by Mike has been taken down off the main page by mods:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3griiv/on_consensus_and_forks_by_mike_hearn/

Still there for me. If they were taking it this far, modding a heavily commented thread off the front page, that would generate some serious blowback, so I doubt they would.

hmm, back up for me too.  WTF?

/u/raisethelimit has been having all sorts of problems:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gsxqf/all_my_posts_are_currently_being_censored_this_is/cu19uva?context=3
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


View Profile
August 13, 2015, 01:26:43 PM
 #30366

looks to me like this post by Mike has been taken down off the main page by mods:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3griiv/on_consensus_and_forks_by_mike_hearn/

Still there for me. If they were taking it this far, modding a heavily commented thread off the front page, that would generate some serious blowback, so I doubt they would.

hmm, back up for me too.  WTF?

/u/raisethelimit has been having all sorts of problems:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gsxqf/all_my_posts_are_currently_being_censored_this_is/cu19uva?context=3

This is the second time in the past few days it has looked like a possible internal squabble among the mods. Perhaps someone is hiding them and someone else is reinstating them.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 13, 2015, 01:27:16 PM
 #30367

they're still lying to you:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 13, 2015, 01:28:41 PM
 #30368

looks to me like this post by Mike has been taken down off the main page by mods:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3griiv/on_consensus_and_forks_by_mike_hearn/

Still there for me. If they were taking it this far, modding a heavily commented thread off the front page, that would generate some serious blowback, so I doubt they would.

hmm, back up for me too.  WTF?

/u/raisethelimit has been having all sorts of problems:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gsxqf/all_my_posts_are_currently_being_censored_this_is/cu19uva?context=3

This is the second time in the past few days it has looked like a possible internal squabble among the mods. Perhaps someone is hiding them and someone else is reinstating them.

unless the eye doctor has bad eyes, which he doesn't, then i swear it wasn't there 30 min ago.
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


View Profile
August 13, 2015, 01:31:54 PM
 #30369

StarMaged and others vs. theymos, BashCo, etc.?

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 13, 2015, 01:32:51 PM
 #30370


but back to this, you and i can't be outliers as much as LukeJr and gmax want everyone to think in terms of bandwidth speed.  we can easily handle a significant block size increase, no problem.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 13, 2015, 01:34:28 PM
 #30371

StarMaged and others vs. theymos, BashCo, etc.?



is StarMaged the same as the mod here, Maged?  you'd think so...
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 13, 2015, 01:41:01 PM
 #30372

still rising:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 13, 2015, 01:55:04 PM
 #30373

this pretty much sums up Luke-Jr:

[–]bitvote 1 point 16 minutes ago

^ This is a useful comment because it shows the prejudice of u/Luke-jr perspective.

I work for a bitcoin company, get paid in bitcoin, buy many, many things with bitcoin, give bitcoin to friends and family, hodl bitcoin as a speculative investment.

But for u/luke-jr, none of this makes me a bitcoin user.

Which is, on the face of it, absurd. and offensive.

I admit there is value in running a node/mining, but certainly a community that claims to favor freedom should have the ability (and courage) to welcome a diverse range of users, even if they don't meet some arbitrary standard set by an elitist insider.

This comment, more than any other in the blocksize debate so far, reveals the flaw in perspective of the Evolution Deniers. But this is getting ridiculous:

    Redefining what an alt-coin is
    Censoring a main communication platform
    And redefining "bitcoin user" so that less than 1% of bitcoin holders are anointed as 'Real Users'

Enough already. It smells like tyranny, it looks like tyranny - it IS tyranny. And Bitcoin, more than any other community, should overthrow this flawed attempt at governance.

Remember, bitcoin works through Consensus by code. Not consensus by CODERS.

The last two sentences in the white paper: "They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism"

    permalink
    save
    parent
    report
    give gold
    reply


https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3griiv/on_consensus_and_forks_by_mike_hearn/cu1krds
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 13, 2015, 02:05:15 PM
 #30374


but back to this, you and i can't be outliers as much as LukeJr and gmax want everyone to think in terms of bandwidth speed.  we can easily handle a significant block size increase, no problem.



furthermore:

http://arstechnica.co.uk/gadgets/2015/08/samsung-unveils-2-5-inch-16tb-ssd-the-worlds-largest-hard-drive/

i really see no technical reasons why we can't have bigger blocks.  now.
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
August 13, 2015, 02:09:22 PM
 #30375

looks to me like this post by Mike has been taken down off the main page by mods:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3griiv/on_consensus_and_forks_by_mike_hearn/

Perfect. As I said earlier, I don't understand the "hardness" of this fork (bigblocks). Mike Hearn said it better,

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 13, 2015, 02:41:04 PM
 #30376

Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


View Profile
August 13, 2015, 03:02:26 PM
 #30377


but back to this, you and i can't be outliers as much as LukeJr and gmax want everyone to think in terms of bandwidth speed.  we can easily handle a significant block size increase, no problem.



furthermore:

http://arstechnica.co.uk/gadgets/2015/08/samsung-unveils-2-5-inch-16tb-ssd-the-worlds-largest-hard-drive/

i really see no technical reasons why we can't have bigger blocks.  now.

Yeah I think we're past that point in the debate. It's now clear that the concern of those who make the technical claims regarding bandwidth is about ensuring that Bitcoin node-running is an all-inclusive activity. They insist that no one can be left out, or else it's not a "consensus." Well we're being left out right now, aren't we. By their logic we should be able to halt Bitcoin entirely during this debate because they don't have our consensus. There is no internal consistency in the whole "consensus" line of reasoning. It's just a feel-good buzzword except in the very narrow sense that of course a given version of Bitcoin will only operate among those who are currently in consensus. The lack of any mention of market cap or other economic factor during such invocations of consensus should be a red flag.

There are aspects of the debate where intelligent people may disagree, but this part is pure reactionary stalwartism at this point. It doesn't even jive with the fundamental nature of open source software, which makes consensus a fluid concept. At this point I'd say just find a way to put the forks on the market and let's arbitrage it out. I will submit if a fork cannot gain the market cap advantage, and I suspect the small-blockers will likewise if Core loses it. Money talks.
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
August 13, 2015, 03:17:41 PM
 #30378


At this point I'd say just find a way to put the forks on the market and let's arbitrage it out. I will submit if a fork cannot gain the market cap advantage, and I suspect the small-blockers will likewise if Core loses it. Money talks.

I had a strange idea recently: what if we don't even bother with BIP100, BIP101, etc., or trying to come to "consensus" in some formal way.  What if, instead, we just make it very easy for node operators to adjust their block size limit.  Imagine a drop down menu where you can select "1 MB, 2 MB, 4 MB, 8 MB, … ."  What would happen?  

Personally, I'd just select some big block size limit, like 32 MB.  This way, I'd be guaranteed to follow the longest proof of work chain, regardless of what the effective block size limit becomes.  I'd expect many people to do the same thing.  Eventually, it becomes obvious that the economic majority is supporting a larger limit, and a brave miner publishes a block that is 1.1 MB is size.  We all witness that indeed that block got included into the longest proof of work chain, and then suddenly all miners are confident producing 1.1 MB blocks.  Thus, the effective block size limit slowly creeps upwards, as this process is repeated over and over as demand for block space grows.

TL/DR: maybe we don't need a strict definition for the max block size limit.

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

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 13, 2015, 03:34:02 PM
 #30379


At this point I'd say just find a way to put the forks on the market and let's arbitrage it out. I will submit if a fork cannot gain the market cap advantage, and I suspect the small-blockers will likewise if Core loses it. Money talks.

I had a strange idea recently: what if we don't even bother with BIP100, BIP101, etc., or trying to come to "consensus" in some formal way.  What if, instead, we just make it very easy for node operators to adjust their block size limit.  Imagine a drop down menu where you can select "1 MB, 2 MB, 4 MB, 8 MB, … ."  What would happen?  

Personally, I'd just select some big block size limit, like 32 MB.  This way, I'd be guaranteed to follow the longest proof of work chain, regardless of what the effective block size limit becomes.  I'd expect many people to do the same thing.  Eventually, it becomes obvious that the economic majority is supporting a larger limit, and a brave miner publishes a block that is 1.1 MB is size.  We all witness that indeed that block got included into the longest proof of work chain, and then suddenly all miners are confident producing 1.1 MB blocks.  Thus, the effective block size limit slowly creeps upwards, as this process is repeated over and over as demand for block space grows.

TL/DR: maybe we don't need a strict definition for the max block size limit.

that's just a re-write of what i've been advocating; lift the limit entirely.

but yeah, your idea is great b/c it would give full node operators a sense of being in charge via a pull down menu.  i like it.

don't forget that mining pools are just huge hashing overlays of full nodes which they operate and could use to do the same type of voting.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 13, 2015, 03:36:30 PM
 #30380


but back to this, you and i can't be outliers as much as LukeJr and gmax want everyone to think in terms of bandwidth speed.  we can easily handle a significant block size increase, no problem.



furthermore:

http://arstechnica.co.uk/gadgets/2015/08/samsung-unveils-2-5-inch-16tb-ssd-the-worlds-largest-hard-drive/

i really see no technical reasons why we can't have bigger blocks.  now.

Yeah I think we're past that point in the debate. It's now clear that the concern of those who make the technical claims regarding bandwidth is about ensuring that Bitcoin node-running is an all-inclusive activity. They insist that no one can be left out, or else it's not a "consensus." Well we're being left out right now, aren't we. By their logic we should be able to halt Bitcoin entirely during this debate because they don't have our consensus. There is no internal consistency in the whole "consensus" line of reasoning. It's just a feel-good buzzword except in the very narrow sense that of course the code will only run among those who are currently in consensus. The lack of any mention of market cap or other economic factor during such invocations of consensus should be a red flag.

There are aspects of the debate where intelligent people may disagree, but this part is pure reactionary stalwartism at this point. It doesn't even jive with the fundamental nature of open source software, which makes consensus a fluid concept. At this point I'd say just find a way to put the forks on the market and let's arbitrage it out. I will submit if a fork cannot gain the market cap advantage, and I suspect the small-blockers will likewise if Core loses it. Money talks.

i've flipped the question around to the Cripplecoiner's a few times, as in, what happens if Gavin is the sole dissenter when the need to slip in the spvp for SC's comes around in a year or so?  will they gracefully and quietly back off since they won't have consensus?  the angry answer i get back always sounds like they'll ram it thru anyways.
Pages: « 1 ... 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!