Bitcoin Forum
December 04, 2016, 04:06:28 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 ... 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 1803956 times)
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
August 16, 2015, 12:46:16 AM
 #30681

This is great fun for sure!
1480824388
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480824388

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480824388
Reply with quote  #2

1480824388
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480824388
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480824388

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480824388
Reply with quote  #2

1480824388
Report to moderator
1480824388
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480824388

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480824388
Reply with quote  #2

1480824388
Report to moderator
1480824388
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480824388

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480824388
Reply with quote  #2

1480824388
Report to moderator
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
August 16, 2015, 12:48:50 AM
 #30682

Gigaboys, cue up here!
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 16, 2015, 12:52:07 AM
 #30683

TIL theymos represents and speak for all "small blockers"

Sorry, you quoted my text before I changed it to "r/bitcoin mods" to be more accurate.

Doesn't change anything. You people's insistance on misrepresentating, or outright ignoring, your "enemy",their count and their resources is what may lead you to your downfall.

I expect a smart guy like you to recognize the small, yet powerful and knowledgeable minority that is above or simply don't have time for the childish arguments and posturing of reddit and the seemingly one sided debates occuring on every forums of discussion.

Reddit mob making a lot of noise doesn't make their opinion more valuable
There is no enemy, just a few egos trying to pick a fight. The facts are there for everyone to review, for the lessor people they can follow loud egos where ever they are.

I supposed you have censused every Bitcoin owner to be able to present that as fact?

"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
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
August 16, 2015, 12:56:50 AM
 #30684

BTW: Just curious, and maybe our BIP is not needed anyways, but did you have a look at my comment with regards to not-quite hard forking?

Sorry, I spent most the day watching submissions and comments get deleted from /r/bitcoin.

I think a BIP (or something like it) is very much needed.  We have to get people to stop thinking about "Bitcoin Core" versus "Bitcoin XT," and just thinking in terms of "do I want to run software that supports bigger blocks?"  In that respect, our proposal is ideal because we could show how it would be compatible with both Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin XT.  The node operator just needs to set his block size limit to, say, 32 MB, and his node will always follow the longest proof-of-work chain composed of valid transactions.  

Moreover, we don't need 75% of the hash power to run Bitcoin XT to activate BIP101.  Instead, we need 75% of the hash power to set that flag bit.  That flag bit could be set with a patched version of Core, or by running the version of Bitcoin that we're proposing.

To answer your question about the not-quite-a-hard-fork idea, I think it's a great!  But like you said earlier, simple is better.  We need to be clear that all we're really proposing is to move the block size limit from the consensus layer to the transport layer.  

The stuff like my signalling idea and your "BSL governor" idea don't need strict consensus.  There could be several competing implementation with various degrees of interoperability.  It would still work fine.  

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

Activity: 1246



View Profile
August 16, 2015, 12:56:56 AM
 #30685

Of course the weapon of a mod is censorship.  Today was the day that the mods at /r/bitcoin threw their weapons. 

Moderation is not censorship.  Can't you win the argument based on facts and logic, without resorting to cheap self-pitying melodrama?

Reddit and bitcointalk are not public places where free speech applies.

I'd love to send you delicate snowflakes to a place with real censorship and watch you beg to be allowed to return to theymos' "epitome of authoritarianism."

You have a point somewhat but it is also fair to say that harping on the admittedly imprecise use of the word censorship isn't the point. When people make the censorship objection, you can reasonably interpret their concern as being over the subreddit banning or even over-aggressively moderating the topic. Either way the substance is the same.

Anyway, I noticed something interesting today. If you read the white paper.

1. There is nothing about block size. According to the white paper, any block (with no reference to size) is valid if the contained transactions are valid.

2. The determination of validity is made by miners, expressed by mining on top of it.

As a corollary of #2, users who see a longest chain they believe to be invalid should simply be fixing/upgrading their software, not claiming that miners are misbehaving.

While perhaps a "good idea", the concept of a longest valid chain as distinct from the longest chain is not part of the design.

Whether this is a good idea is another question entirely, but it seems to me the small block side has skipped a step in their argument.


brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 16, 2015, 01:03:40 AM
 #30686

TIL theymos represents and speak for all "small blockers"

Sorry, you quoted my text before I changed it to "r/bitcoin mods" to be more accurate.

Doesn't change anything. You people's insistance on misrepresentating, or outright ignoring, your "enemy",their count and their resources is what may lead you to your downfall.

I expect a smart guy like you to recognize the small, yet powerful and knowledgeable minority that is above or simply don't have time for the childish arguments and posturing of reddit and the seemingly one sided debates occuring on every forums of discussion.

Reddit mob making a lot of noise doesn't make their opinion more valuable

I'm getting interested to know what planet you are living on. Is it one of those Earth II's recently found by NASA, or is it a strange alternate reality that you inhabit where economics works in reverse, and the smaller a minority is the more it can rightfully claim the moral and intellectual high ground regardless of any other opinions?

I live in a place where we are mostly careful about pretending that our own little circlejerk is a just representation of what the world looks like.

The problem in your little zanity is you are convinced that reddit and this forum is a reasonable approximation of the community's opinion.

The barriers of entry here and there being extremely low, everyone and their sheep can voice their "opinion" and claim it to be as valuable as any others when realistically there couldn't be anything further from the truth.

"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
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
August 16, 2015, 01:06:32 AM
 #30687

Of course the weapon of a mod is censorship.  Today was the day that the mods at /r/bitcoin threw their weapons.  

Moderation is not censorship.  Can't you win the argument based on facts and logic, without resorting to cheap self-pitying melodrama?

Reddit and bitcointalk are not public places where free speech applies.

I'd love to send you delicate snowflakes to a place with real censorship and watch you beg to be allowed to return to theymos' "epitome of authoritarianism."

You have a point somewhat but it is also fair to say that harping on the admittedly imprecise use of the word censorship isn't the point. When people make the censorship objection, you can reasonably interpret their concern as being over the subreddit banning or even over-aggressively moderating the topic. Either way the substance is the same.

Anyway, I noticed something interesting today. If you read the white paper.

1. There is nothing about block size. According to the white paper, any block of any size is valid if the contained transactions are valid.

2. The determination of validity is made by miners, expressed by mining on top of it.

As a corollary of #2, users who see a longest chain they believe to be invalid should simply be fixing/upgrading their software, not claiming that miners are misbehaving.

While perhaps a "good idea", the concept of a longest valid chain as distinct from the longest chain is not part of the design.

Whether this is a good idea is another question entirely, but it seems to me the small block side has skipped a step in their argument.

Very nice.  Is it fair then to say:

   "Bitcoin is the longest proof-of-work chain composed of valid transactions"

This is a subtle difference from the phrase that certain personas employ to label Bitcoin-XT and other larger-block clients as "alt-coins":

  "Bitcoin is the longest proof-of-work valid chain"


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

Activity: 1246



View Profile
August 16, 2015, 01:07:35 AM
 #30688

Of course the weapon of a mod is censorship.  Today was the day that the mods at /r/bitcoin threw their weapons. 

Moderation is not censorship.  Can't you win the argument based on facts and logic, without resorting to cheap self-pitying melodrama?

Reddit and bitcointalk are not public places where free speech applies.

I'd love to send you delicate snowflakes to a place with real censorship and watch you beg to be allowed to return to theymos' "epitome of authoritarianism."

You have a point somewhat but it is also fair to say that harping on the admittedly imprecise use of the word censorship isn't the point. When people make the censorship objection, you can reasonably interpret their concern as being over the subreddit banning or even over-aggressively moderating the topic. Either way the substance is the same.

Anyway, I noticed something interesting today. If you read the white paper.

1. There is nothing about block size. According to the white paper, any block of any size is valid if the contained transactions are valid.

2. The determination of validity is made by miners, expressed by mining on top of it.

As a corollary of #2, users who see a longest chain they believe to be invalid should simply be fixing/upgrading their software, not claiming that miners are misbehaving.

While perhaps a "good idea", the concept of a longest valid chain as distinct from the longest chain is not part of the design.

Whether this is a good idea is another question entirely, but it seems to me the small block side has skipped a step in their argument.

Very nice.  Is it fair then to say:

   "Bitcoin is the longest proof-of-work chain composed of valid transactions"

This is a subtle difference from the phrase that certain personas employ to label Bitcoin-XT and other larger-block clients as an "alt-coin":

  "Bitcoin is the longest proof-of-work valid chain"

According to the original design I believe so. Furthermore, I believe that a correct interoperation of the second phrase according to the original design is identical to the first, because the determination of validity is made by miners.
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
August 16, 2015, 01:28:31 AM
 #30689

Of course the weapon of a mod is censorship.  Today was the day that the mods at /r/bitcoin threw their weapons. 

Moderation is not censorship.  Can't you win the argument based on facts and logic, without resorting to cheap self-pitying melodrama?

Reddit and bitcointalk are not public places where free speech applies.

I'd love to send you delicate snowflakes to a place with real censorship and watch you beg to be allowed to return to theymos' "epitome of authoritarianism."

You have a point somewhat but it is also fair to say that harping on the admittedly imprecise use of the word censorship isn't the point. When people make the censorship objection, you can reasonably interpret their concern as being over the subreddit banning or even over-aggressively moderating the topic. Either way the substance is the same.

Being moderated on a private forum is NOTHING like being suppressed by censorship.  What a nasty, horrible lie!  Why don't you just track down some Chinese dissidents and shit on their faces?  Either way the [trivializing, disrespectful] substance is the same.   Wink

What you gloss over as "imprecise use of the word censorship" isn't accidental or mere ignorance.  It is a calculated attack on the mods' integrity (IE shaming), and a purposeful re-framing so as to paint them as victimizing brave supporters of free speech ("zomg it's a human right!!!").

As to their (and now your) "concern as being over the subreddit banning or even over-aggressively moderating" let us note that alt-coin discussion is explicitly subject to certain time/place restrictions by the forum/sub rules.  If you break those rules, expect to be moderated.  If you persist despite moderation, expect to be banned.  Duh!  This isn't hard, except when thou doth protest too much.

It is not honest to, by visitation and participation, implicitly agree with the existing moderation rules and their arbiters (the mods), but then act SHOCKED when playing the Censorship Card fails to win a dispute over/with them.

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
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
August 16, 2015, 01:35:24 AM
 #30690

Of course the weapon of a mod is censorship.  Today was the day that the mods at /r/bitcoin threw their weapons. 

Moderation is not censorship.  Can't you win the argument based on facts and logic, without resorting to cheap self-pitying melodrama?

Reddit and bitcointalk are not public places where free speech applies.

I'd love to send you delicate snowflakes to a place with real censorship and watch you beg to be allowed to return to theymos' "epitome of authoritarianism."

You have a point somewhat but it is also fair to say that harping on the admittedly imprecise use of the word censorship isn't the point. When people make the censorship objection, you can reasonably interpret their concern as being over the subreddit banning or even over-aggressively moderating the topic. Either way the substance is the same.

Being moderated on a private forum is NOTHING like being suppressed by censorship.  What a nasty, horrible lie!  Why don't you just track down some Chinese dissidents and shit on their faces?  Either way the [trivializing, disrespectful] substance is the same.   Wink

What you gloss over as "imprecise use of the word censorship" isn't accidental or mere ignorance.  It is a calculated attack on the mods' integrity (IE shaming), and a purposeful re-framing so as to paint them as victimizing brave supporters of free speech ("zomg it's a human right!!!").
el
As to their (and now your) "concern as being over the subreddit banning or even over-aggressively moderating" let us note that alt-coin discussion is explicitly subject to certain time/place restrictions by the forum/sub rules.  If you break those rules, expect to be moderated.  If you persist despite moderation, expect to be banned.  Duh!  This isn't hard, except when thou doth protest too much.

It is not honest to, by visitation and participation, implicitly agree with the existing moderation rules and their arbiters (the mods), but then act SHOCKED when playing the Censorship Card fails to win a dispute over/with them.

Sure I agree with you that an equivalence between reddit and repressive governments is absurd and offensive, I'm just not sure the mis-usage is always as calculated as you suggest. A lot of people are just somewhat sloppy and ignorant in their use of language. I know I am sometimes guilty of that.

In this case I also disagree with the interpretation of the moderation rules, since Bitcoin-XT even if it is and altcoin, certainly is also highly relevant to Bitcoin itself. That's a distinction that eliminates most altcoin discussion generally but should also allow some. For example when discussing Bitcoin's fungibility and privacy one might draw contrasts between Bitcoin and Monero. Likewise discussing issues that exist between Bitcoin and Bitcoin-XT are also relevant.
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
August 16, 2015, 01:50:40 AM
 #30691

I agree with you that an equivalence between reddit and repressive governments is absurd and offensive, I'm just not sure the mis-usage is always as calculated as you suggest. A lot of people are just somewhat sloppy and ignorant in their use of language. I know I am sometimes guilty of that.

In this case I also disagree with the interpretation of the moderation rules, since Bitcoin-XT even if it is and altcoin, certainly is also highly relevant to Bitcoin itself. That's a distinction that eliminates most altcoin discussion generally but should also allow some. For example when discussing Bitcoin's fungibility and privacy one might draw contrasts between Bitcoin and Monero. Likewise discussing issues that exist between Bitcoin and Bitcoin-XT are also relevant.


The absurdity and offensiveness exists regardless of the sources' intentions.  The occasional cynical calculation only compounds the offense.

Once the difference has been explained to them, people are responsible for using the proper term.  What do you make of those who refuse to acknowledge the distinction (and why it's important), to justify there persistence in being sloppy and ignorant?

In this case, your peanut gallery "interpretation of the moderation rules" is not relevant, because you and the Godwinning poo-flingers are not mods, admins, or site owners.

If you can't abide (as The Dude should) by theymos' decision wrt XT, there are plenty of other forums to patronize.

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
sAt0sHiFanClub
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


Warning: Confrmed Gavinista


View Profile WWW
August 16, 2015, 01:51:42 AM
 #30692


In the remote possiblity XT becomes a matter of more importance than the hype, mirth, and scorn it generates at present, MPex and other 1MBer Elder Whales are prepared to use substantial (possibly exhaustive) portions of their extraordinarily massive war chests to repel 8MBer attacks.  To them, this is Holy War, with barbarian Gavinista hordes clamouring for a Free Shit Junta at the gates of their bespoke civilization.  They are more of a mood to impale heads atop spikes than reward with compromise Hearn's attacks on decentralization, Tor, and the consensus process.

Are you still sure you want to risk your tiny stash playing Hard Fork Poker with such ultra-high-rollers?


If you are relying on simple bullying tactics to defend your position then I fear that you are already tacitly accepting a high possibility of defeat.

I like your analagy of Gavin as Freedom Fighter (Sandinista). It is, in an oldskool fashion, quite apt.

The Sandanistas took on the american hegemony in South America, and despite the best (illegal) efforts of the CIA with the Contras, they prevailed.

Daniel Ortega is president of Nicaragua today.

Pointing out one would be foolish to attempt to undermine Bitcoin's economic majority is not "bullying tactics."

The Sandinistas are Marxist-Leninists, the "oldskool" Free Shit Army.  Do you really need me to explain what happens to freedom fighters (and everyday people) under Marxist-Leninist regimes?

The main reason Castro-wannabe Ortega seeks to be another Marxist Dictator For Life is to maintain his immunity from prosecution for the crimes of raping and abusing his daughter from the time she was 11 until 21.

From the Guardian, hardly a right-wing source:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/nov/07/thecomandantewhobecameaca




They still won.  Smiley

If they ever make a movie about the Bitcoin Fork, you should get Col. Ollie North to play you,

We must make money worse as a commodity if we wish to make it better as a medium of exchange
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
August 16, 2015, 01:51:50 AM
 #30693

...
Anyway, I noticed something interesting today. If you read the white paper.

1. There is nothing about block size. According to the white paper, any block of any size is valid if the contained transactions are valid.

2. The determination of validity is made by miners, expressed by mining on top of it.

As a corollary of #2, users who see a longest chain they believe to be invalid should simply be fixing/upgrading their software, not claiming that miners are misbehaving.

While perhaps a "good idea", the concept of a longest valid chain as distinct from the longest chain is not part of the design.

Whether this is a good idea is another question entirely, but it seems to me the small block side has skipped a step in their argument.

Very nice.  Is it fair then to say:

   "Bitcoin is the longest proof-of-work chain composed of valid transactions"

This is a subtle difference from the phrase that certain personas employ to label Bitcoin-XT and other larger-block clients as an "alt-coin":

  "Bitcoin is the longest proof-of-work valid chain"

According to the original design I believe so. Furthermore, I believe that a correct interoperation of the second phrase according to the original design is identical to the first, because the determination of validity is made by miners.


I think your observation is quite important.  Three arguments against changing the block size were:

   (a) that it changes Bitcoin in a fundamental way;

   (b) that changes to the consensus layer should never (or only extremely rarely) occur;

   (c) that it would lead to centralization.

According to this new interpretation, a change to the block size doesn't represent a fundamental change to Bitcoin because it was always miners that determined the validity of a block by mining on top of it anyways.  Furthermore, this re-inforces the idea we were talking about yesterday that the block size limit is not actually part of the consensus layer.  The consensus layer should only define which transactions are valid.

Point (c) may or may not be true.  But by a group of developers limiting the block size and ignoring the will of the economic majority, Bitcoin would have already lost the battle against centralization.  

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

Activity: 1246



View Profile
August 16, 2015, 01:57:07 AM
 #30694

...
Anyway, I noticed something interesting today. If you read the white paper.

1. There is nothing about block size. According to the white paper, any block of any size is valid if the contained transactions are valid.

2. The determination of validity is made by miners, expressed by mining on top of it.

As a corollary of #2, users who see a longest chain they believe to be invalid should simply be fixing/upgrading their software, not claiming that miners are misbehaving.

While perhaps a "good idea", the concept of a longest valid chain as distinct from the longest chain is not part of the design.

Whether this is a good idea is another question entirely, but it seems to me the small block side has skipped a step in their argument.

Very nice.  Is it fair then to say:

   "Bitcoin is the longest proof-of-work chain composed of valid transactions"

This is a subtle difference from the phrase that certain personas employ to label Bitcoin-XT and other larger-block clients as an "alt-coin":

  "Bitcoin is the longest proof-of-work valid chain"

According to the original design I believe so. Furthermore, I believe that a correct interoperation of the second phrase according to the original design is identical to the first, because the determination of validity is made by miners.


I think your observation is quite important.  Three arguments against changing the block size were:

   (a) that is changes Bitcoin in a fundamental way;

   (b) that changes to the consensus layer should never (or only extremely rarely) occur;

   (c) that it would lead to centralization.

According to this new interpretation, a change to the block size doesn't represent a fundamental change to Bitcoin because it was always miners that determined the validity of a block by mining on top of it anyways.  Furthermore, this re-inforces the idea we were talking about yesterday that the block size limit is not actually part of the consensus layer.  The consensus layer should only define which transactions are valid.

Point (c) may or may not be true.  But by a group of developers limiting the block size and ignoring the will of the economic majority, Bitcoin would have already lost the battle against centralization.  

I agree, although I will note that it is unclear how to determine the "will of the economic majority" objectively.

I also do not rule out that changes to the original design (such as validity being determined in some manner other than by miners building on top of blocks they consider to be valid) may be desirable or can be done in an appropriate manner. I do not believe that appropriate manner includes assuming such a change to have already been made.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 16, 2015, 01:57:11 AM
 #30695

[..]

In the remote possiblity XT becomes a matter of more importance than the hype, mirth, and scorn it generates at present, MPex and other 1MBer Elder Whales are prepared to use substantial (possibly exhaustive) portions of their extraordinarily massive war chests to repel 8MBer attacks.  To them, this is Holy War, with barbarian Gavinista hordes clamouring for a Free Shit Junta at the gates of their bespoke civilization.  They are more of a mood to impale heads atop spikes than reward with compromise Hearn's attacks on decentralization, Tor, and the consensus process.

[...]

So you suggest the Elder Whales will buy up bitcoins from their stash of xtcoins? Just like a central bank would do? Well that is going to be interesting. But there is a risk of losing it all, so I would not bet that it plays out that way.


What are you smoking, crack?  Elder Whales exercising their GavinCoin Short option is nothing like what central banks do.  Your confused, sketchy understanding of the situation continues to surprise and baffle me with its surreal assumptions and bizarre conclusions.   Cheesy

So how do they defend the cripplecoin. Pitchforks?


This is one way to defend Bitcoin from XTcoin: The GavinCoin Short.

i hope you don't take that simplistic attack seriously.  if MP and you Cripplecoiner's insist on it, i may have to step in and take some free coin.
Chainsaw
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 525


x


View Profile
August 16, 2015, 02:31:12 AM
 #30696

BTW: Just curious, and maybe our BIP is not needed anyways, but did you have a look at my comment with regards to not-quite hard forking?

Sorry, I spent most the day watching submissions and comments get deleted from /r/bitcoin.

I think a BIP (or something like it) is very much needed.  We have to get people to stop thinking about "Bitcoin Core" versus "Bitcoin XT," and just thinking in terms of "do I want to run software that supports bigger blocks?"  In that respect, our proposal is ideal because we could show how it would be compatible with both Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin XT.  The node operator just needs to set his block size limit to, say, 32 MB, and his node will always follow the longest proof-of-work chain composed of valid transactions.  

Moreover, we don't need 75% of the hash power to run Bitcoin XT to activate BIP101.  Instead, we need 75% of the hash power to set that flag bit.  That flag bit could be set with a patched version of Core, or by running the version of Bitcoin that we're proposing.

To answer your question about the not-quite-a-hard-fork idea, I think it's a great!  But like you said earlier, simple is better.  We need to be clear that all we're really proposing is to move the block size limit from the consensus layer to the transport layer.  

The stuff like my signalling idea and your "BSL governor" idea don't need strict consensus.  There could be several competing implementation with various degrees of interoperability.  It would still work fine.  


Peter, how do we get your voice of reason better heard amidst all this noise?
I feel like what happened today mirrors the current state of the election cycle. The masses are moths to the flame of drama, and we've been served up a heaping helping today.

You recognize the critical aspects. Wall Street, Bankers, and the rest of the world is never going to commit to a currency which is yet to prove it can solve its own problems. Bitcoin is open source, and we are at the inflection point where it stands to begin its journey to a world currency.  We must demonstrate to the world that, somehow, an open source project can solve its own problems.

A hard fork is contentious.

For months, I thought on this problem. Yeah I'm a 15-year SE, and I've followed Bitcoin closely since 2011. But I'm not in the trenches like you guys. My technical breadth may be broader, but you guys blow me away in depth.  Predictably, my voice has not been heard. 

My attempts have been at trying to find a conciliatory path.
In my mind, the only way this could ever happen would be to burn a cycle. First we'd need to deploy a mechanism which allows for an open-source voting mechanism to be embedded within the protocol. Simultaneously, that voting behavior would be used to control block size.

I find it difficult to argue against your position.  The off-the-cuff Sybil attacks, I presume, are refuted by the detailed analysis you provided in your recent, excellent paper. (Though I do have concerns about bad actors for whom monetary gain is not their primary motivator.)

It seems to me what you propose gives everyone what they want.

Nobody is discussing this today. It is all about "Is the Satoshi email real", censorship, and everyone trying to figure out whether they will be entrenching themselves on the side of "Forks are evil" or "this is necessary", making the problem worse.

What to do?

Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
August 16, 2015, 02:47:28 AM
 #30697

218
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
August 16, 2015, 03:30:43 AM
 #30698

I agree with you that an equivalence between reddit and repressive governments is absurd and offensive, I'm just not sure the mis-usage is always as calculated as you suggest. A lot of people are just somewhat sloppy and ignorant in their use of language. I know I am sometimes guilty of that.

In this case I also disagree with the interpretation of the moderation rules, since Bitcoin-XT even if it is and altcoin, certainly is also highly relevant to Bitcoin itself. That's a distinction that eliminates most altcoin discussion generally but should also allow some. For example when discussing Bitcoin's fungibility and privacy one might draw contrasts between Bitcoin and Monero. Likewise discussing issues that exist between Bitcoin and Bitcoin-XT are also relevant.


The absurdity and offensiveness exists regardless of the sources' intentions.  The occasional cynical calculation only compounds the offense.

Once the difference has been explained to them, people are responsible for using the proper term.  What do you make of those who refuse to acknowledge the distinction (and why it's important), to justify there persistence in being sloppy and ignorant?

They are stupid or trolling or both.

Quote
In this case, your peanut gallery "interpretation of the moderation rules" is not relevant, because you and the Godwinning poo-flingers are not mods, admins, or site owners.

So you are saying if you disagree with a moderation policy you wouldn't express that? I'm skeptical to the extreme. We can have still opinions without authority.
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
August 16, 2015, 03:32:51 AM
 #30699

Pointing out one would be foolish to attempt to undermine Bitcoin's economic majority is not "bullying tactics."

The Sandinistas are Marxist-Leninists, the "oldskool" Free Shit Army.  Do you really need me to explain what happens to freedom fighters (and everyday people) under Marxist-Leninist regimes?

The main reason Castro-wannabe Ortega seeks to be another Marxist Dictator For Life is to maintain his immunity from prosecution for the crimes of raping and abusing his daughter from the time she was 11 until 21.

From the Guardian, hardly a right-wing source:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/nov/07/thecomandantewhobecameaca




They still won.  Smiley

If they ever make a movie about the Bitcoin Fork, you should get Col. Ollie North to play you,


The authoritarian Marxist-Leninist Sandinistas won, and the people of Nicaragua lost.

Ollie North kicks ass.  You pinkos are still butt-raging about his efforts to keep communism contained.  Boo hoo, you lost the Cold War!   Cheesy

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
smoothie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834


LEALANA Monero Physical Silver Coins


View Profile
August 16, 2015, 07:51:50 AM
 #30700

more censorship on reddit: https://de.reddit.com/r/bitcoin/comments/3h5211

[–]evoorhees 259 Punkte 8 Stunden zuvor
I posted this about 10 min ago and my thread was deleted immediately:
Title: XT is not only On Topic, it is THE most important topic right now. Stop the censorship. (self.Bitcoin) submitted 12 minutes ago by evoorhees
Text: The discussion of XT and the fork is the most important topic in Bitcoin right now. Please stop censoring it. Regardless of one's opinion on block sizes, the debate must happen. Whichever mod/s is censoring needs to stop.

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

            ,╓p@@███████@╗╖,           
        ,p████████████████████N,       
      d█████████████████████████b     
    d██████████████████████████████æ   
  ,████²█████████████████████████████, 
 ,█████  ╙████████████████████╨  █████y
 ██████    `████████████████`    ██████
║██████       Ñ███████████`      ███████
███████         ╩██████Ñ         ███████
███████    ▐▄     ²██╩     a▌    ███████
╢██████    ▐▓█▄          ▄█▓▌    ███████
 ██████    ▐▓▓▓▓▌,     ▄█▓▓▓▌    ██████─
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓█,,▄▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
    ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓─  
     ²▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓╩    
        ▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀       
           ²▀▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀▀`          
                   ²²²                 
███████████████████████████████████████

. ★☆ WWW.LEALANA.COM        My PGP fingerprint is A764D833.        SMOOTHIE'S HEALTH AND FITNESS JOURNAL          History of Monero development Visualization ★☆ .
LEALANA  PHYSICAL MONERO COINS 999 FINE SILVER.
 
Pages: « 1 ... 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!