Bitcoin Forum
July 28, 2017, 03:15:09 PM *
News: BIP91 seems stable: there's probably only slightly increased risk of confirmations disappearing. You should still prepare for Aug 1.
 
   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 ... 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 1940991 times)
smooth
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1484



View Profile
August 16, 2015, 01:18:19 PM
 #30721

Side chains are certainly altcoins.

Maybe in your universe.

Lol how are they not?

They are essentially watered down versions of Bitcoin lol with a separate block chain.

They're not necessarily watered down, they might be concentrated, or some of both, who knows. But either way they are quite literally altcoins that are backed by Bitcoin. That makes them both altcoins and applications of Bitcoin both.




Watered down as in the amount of hash rate keeping the chain secure is less than the main chain. Pretty sure that fits an accurate description of side chains being watered down version of Bitcoin.

Yes I agree with that. I thought you meant feature-wise, although that doesn't even make sense because obviously most side chains are going to want to add features otherwise there is no point.
1501254909
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1501254909

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1501254909
Reply with quote  #2

1501254909
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1501254909
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1501254909

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1501254909
Reply with quote  #2

1501254909
Report to moderator
1501254909
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1501254909

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1501254909
Reply with quote  #2

1501254909
Report to moderator
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036



View Profile
August 16, 2015, 01:19:54 PM
 #30722

I combined the Sickpig's idea that the block size limit is a transport limitation that crept into the consensus layer, with Smooth's observation that the Bitcoin white paper never mentions a block size limit, and rolled it into a toned-down version of the "moderators-throwing-their-swords" story:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h73ws/the_morning_after_the_moderation_mistake_thoughts/

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

Activity: 1036



View Profile
August 16, 2015, 03:05:57 PM
 #30723



From: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h7dgl/there_is_no_fork_new_bitcoin_comic_strip/

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756



View Profile
August 16, 2015, 03:16:16 PM
 #30724

^ great art!
vokain
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708


V.V.V.V.V.


View Profile
August 16, 2015, 03:37:51 PM
 #30725

Side chains are certainly altcoins.

Maybe in your universe.

Lol how are they not?

They are essentially watered down versions of Bitcoin lol with a separate block chain.

Side chains are implemented on top of bitcoin - they dont directly change the underlying protocol, only interact with it - like a wallet would.

However, some changes to core are required to support certain sidechain proposals.  

Edit:  Actually, when you tke into account the tokens for using sidechains ( eth, factoids, etc.) then, yeah, the lines really do begin to blur. Maybe call it alt-coin-lite? Grin

Good morning good morning

So in this case, discussion of sidechains as a technological application of Bitcoin should be okay but once you step into the actual tokens or implementations  of sidechains then I think it becomes off Bitcoin topic?

...مكتوب
Escape the plutocrats’ zanpakutō, Flower in the Mirror, Moon on the Water: brave “the ascent which is rough and steep” (Plato).
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 16, 2015, 03:39:08 PM
 #30726

continuing the ramp:

Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756



View Profile
August 16, 2015, 03:42:01 PM
 #30727

continuing the ramp:



Have a look at https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/?q= it is more up to date.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 16, 2015, 03:45:01 PM
 #30728

Go on smoothie.  Go on evoorhees.  Fuck off to greener, censorship-free pastures where may you attempt to attack Bitcoin all you want.

Don't let me stop you.  You're free now...move into the light...   Cheesy

iCEBLOW throwing his weapons.  or, blowing his weapons.

or, in medical terms, engaging in "projectile vomiting".
sgbett
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470



View Profile
August 16, 2015, 03:55:03 PM
 #30729

I'm not against bigger blocks. I am, however, vehemently against some minority coercing rather than appealing on merit a change that affects every member of a system for some collectivist notion of "the common good" without everyone's voluntary consent. Great, bigger blocks can fit more transactions, but maybe we should wait until there is full consensus that fees are indeed too high and we all agree to move together to using bigger blocks. Til then...Perhaps we can even work out a dynamic block size schedule based on rigorously proven and acceptedly fair feedback cycles by then and not have to go through the whole process again.

If XT is so great, no one should have to sell it to anyone, people will just switch.

But people won't because there is greater risk cost to switch than to stay until some situation demands full consensus migration. Antifragility.

Activating a hardfork based on what miners do is really bad. You could easily have a situation where 75% of miners support XT but none of the big Bitcoin exchanges or businesses do. Then miners would start mining coins that they couldn't spend anywhere useful, and SPV users would find that they can't transact with the businesses they want to deal with. The currency would be split, and in this case XT would be in a far weaker position than Bitcoin.

The possibility of this sort of network/currency split is what makes XT not a "legitimate hardfork", but rather the programmed creation of an altcoin. A consensus hardfork can only go forward once it has been determined that it's nearly impossible for the Bitcoin economy to split in any significant way. Not every Bitcoin user on Earth has to agree, but enough that there won't be a noticeable split.

Bitcoin is not ruled by miners. In a hardfork, miners barely matter at all. (Softforks are different.) What's important is what the economy does.

If the economy splits without full consensus in either direction, then this may happen:

Quote

If that happens, trouble for those on the fork and any businesses/entities that forked over without full consensus.

Its doing my head in now just how much these arguments (that rely on ignorance) keep being repeatedly used to try and scare people.

It ignores the fact that for big blocks to be happening, there must already be 75% of hashing power signalling support for it. When that happens the first big block can be mined, before that bigger blocks are not mined.

So now you have 75% of the network working on a chain that supports bigger blocks and mining bigger blocks, whilst 25% try to mine a chain that only contains <1MB blocks.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out which chain will *very quickly* becomes longest.  Everyone using bigger blocks carries on as normal, the orphaned miners on their 'orphaned' chain can continue to try and operate as long as they like but they can't actually affect the longest chain, which gets ever longer. This idea that they have two sets of coins is of no concern to anyone other than them, because they are the only people that recognise their orphaned blockchain. The coins in the new addresses on their orphaned chain cannot be spent on the main chain because they don't exist there.

The only possible attack here is that over the next several months MP will explicitly reject blocks from nodes advertising they are 70010 protocol. For this to have any material effect though, he would need >50% of the current network hashing power to also explicitly reject those blocks, so that people running XT are disincentivised to continue doing so.

With any less than 50% then MP is economically disadvantaging himself, and then it is a question of how big his pockets are (I'm sure they are very, more power to him) and how much he is prepared to risk.

So lets be realistic about what MP can achieve, he has to get >50% to switch to BitcoinMP (i.e. auto reject > 70010 protocol) to kill XT. However, switching to BitcoinMP now increases the risk of any blocks you mine becoming orphaned until >50% are on BitcoinMP too.

Conversely, big blockers need >75% to signal 70010 support to kill core. Upgrading to XT now (or advertising as 70010) has no disadvantage unless BitcoinMP has >50%

What we really need is for someone to knock up mpnodes.com to help people figure out whether there is any advantage to be had explicitly supporting <1MB Wink

In the meantime the majority continues to express ambivalence. Lets see how that pans out.

Full Node: http://46.51.193.129 (BU) || http://haschinabannedbitcoin.com
"A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution" - Satoshi Nakamoto
TheRealSteve
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686

FUN > ROI


View Profile
August 16, 2015, 04:00:58 PM
 #30730

Have a look at https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/?q= it is more up to date.
Graph might be more informative though: https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/dashboard/#user-agents

Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756



View Profile
August 16, 2015, 04:10:39 PM
 #30731


Hah, looks like china is not big on nodes.
vokain
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708


V.V.V.V.V.


View Profile
August 16, 2015, 04:14:20 PM
 #30732


I was ignorant of the 75% thing until last night.
Now I wonder, pools are fickle. If 75% is achieved and bigger blocks start being validated, what could happen if 75% goes back down for whatever reason? I don't know enough technically to articulate this too well, but maybe there's something there.

Edit: just read about the 1000 blocks condition

...مكتوب
Escape the plutocrats’ zanpakutō, Flower in the Mirror, Moon on the Water: brave “the ascent which is rough and steep” (Plato).
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 16, 2015, 04:16:44 PM
 #30733

I have been thinking about the mail from the nickname Satoshi Nakamoto, whoerever it is. His argument is not about the technical side of the debate but about politics and long term future.

I think people need to talk less about the technical implications and more about the political implications of this fork.
 
The argument of this guy is that if the XT fork is sucessful, that means that in the future someone with enough political influence can make a fork successful. That means that one days the President of the United States, who definitely has enough political influence, will be able to push a succesful fork. And we all know what that would mean: no more 21 million limit. We will be back to central banking.

The argument that the community will decide what is its best interest is invalid. Aristotle already knew that democracy turn into demagogy. And history and economics show that the outcomes of democratic process don't align with the best interest of the voters.

Basically the problem is that: by forking we are choosing a democratic political process, and it's the very same process which lead to central banking and is currently unable to stop it.

Just because someone makes a client (XT or original satoshi client) doesn't mean they make people choose to use that client.

If that were so then Satoshi himself had political influence thus negating your point entirely.

I don't see anything that XT is doing other than allowing people a choice to switch their client to one that supports bigger blocks (and a few other minor things).

Ultimately people choose what they want to use.

Political influence lol.

Sorry but I make my own choices by thinking with my brain, not who is in the lime light.
It's people who have chosen central banking.

Trusting people for making good choices in monetary matters is a recipe for central banking. Populism will always win at the end of the day.

no, the Blockstream core devs already had their own Jekyll Island moment in the backwoods of California early last year.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 16, 2015, 04:17:15 PM
 #30734

still ramping:

Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756



View Profile
August 16, 2015, 04:19:11 PM
 #30735

I have been thinking about the mail from the nickname Satoshi Nakamoto, whoerever it is. His argument is not about the technical side of the debate but about politics and long term future.

I think people need to talk less about the technical implications and more about the political implications of this fork.
 
The argument of this guy is that if the XT fork is sucessful, that means that in the future someone with enough political influence can make a fork successful. That means that one days the President of the United States, who definitely has enough political influence, will be able to push a succesful fork. And we all know what that would mean: no more 21 million limit. We will be back to central banking.

The argument that the community will decide what is its best interest is invalid. Aristotle already knew that democracy turn into demagogy. And history and economics show that the outcomes of democratic process don't align with the best interest of the voters.

Basically the problem is that: by forking we are choosing a democratic political process, and it's the very same process which lead to central banking and is currently unable to stop it.

Just because someone makes a client (XT or original satoshi client) doesn't mean they make people choose to use that client.

If that were so then Satoshi himself had political influence thus negating your point entirely.

I don't see anything that XT is doing other than allowing people a choice to switch their client to one that supports bigger blocks (and a few other minor things).

Ultimately people choose what they want to use.

Political influence lol.

Sorry but I make my own choices by thinking with my brain, not who is in the lime light.
It's people who have chosen central banking.

Trusting people for making good choices in monetary matters is a recipe for central banking. Populism will always win at the end of the day.

no, the Blockstream core devs already had their own Jekyll Island moment in the backwoods of California early last year.

^^
Trusting not people, but regulators to manage the money? Just cheezus man, raise your head and look.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 16, 2015, 04:25:59 PM
 #30736

If XT is so great, no one should have to sell it to anyone, people will just switch.

There is avast difference to discussing XT vs "selling" XT to users.

Kind of hard to discuss it if reddit moderators keep deleting posts/threads related to XT and moving XT discussion to alt coin section of this forum.

People can only switch if there is enough discussion about XT.

They won't just wake up one day and go "i'll with go to xtnodes.com and download the latest client" without anyone previously mentioning it on a forum etc.

Ultimately users will choose what they want in the end.

All of this back and forth is drama and kiddy BS. Pick a stance and stick to it without the ad hominem or personal attacks (<----directed at those going out of their way to bash others).

You can discuss proposals to change the Bitcoin main chain, but a forked chain that is not also the main chain is an altchain and not truly Bitcoin.

[–]theymos -1 points 4 days ago
Discussion of hardforks is not silenced. That's why a possible hardfork has been discussed ad nauseam on /r/Bitcoin for the past few months. XT-specific submissions are removed because XT is not Bitcoin.
permalinksavecontextfull comments (189)reportgive gold

...yet XT is using the exact same chain/protocol as core aside from the future possibility of block size increase.

Not an alt chain in any sense as it has been used on other coins like litecoin that are completely separate chains and protocols.

XT operates just like CORE as of right now.

and preserves the past historical ledger perfectly and reissues identical coins on the XT chain.  you don't lose.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 16, 2015, 04:36:52 PM
 #30737

Side chains are certainly altcoins.



Yeah and they don't run on top of Bitcoin. They run parallel like any other alt coin.

Yet once again it is okay to discuss side chains on reddit? Lol

and there is every incentive by a SC founder to make it dominant over the MC.  why?  b/c it would force all current Bitcoin cold wallet holders to migrate to the new dominant innovative SC which itself has it's early adopters/designers who stand to make a fortune by flipping their founder's coin to the panicked Bitcoin migraters.

thus, every corporation/entity that consults with Blockstream to design an innovative, proprietary SC will, before they pay a dime in consulting fees, force Blockstream to sign an airtight non-compete to prevent any backporting of said innovation back to Bitcoin.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 16, 2015, 04:38:43 PM
 #30738

But I don't agree that 75% of hashrate or whatever is network consensus.

I predict that miners won't (vote to) change unless there is network consensus.



one down:

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3h6lk8/toomim_bros_supports_democracy_and_bitcoin_xt/
sAt0sHiFanClub
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


Warning: Confrmed Gavinista


View Profile WWW
August 16, 2015, 04:41:36 PM
 #30739


But if the old ledger will not preserve the XT ledger perfectly, what happens if suddenly the 75% drops 25% or otherwise? Why 75%?

Its not a moving target. Its a change point. If you want to change back, for whatever reason, you start a new process to get the network to follow you.

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

Activity: 1708


V.V.V.V.V.


View Profile
August 16, 2015, 04:43:43 PM
 #30740


But if the old ledger will not preserve the XT ledger perfectly, what happens if suddenly the 75% drops 25% or otherwise? Why 75%?

Its not a moving target. Its a change point. If you want to change back, for whatever reason, you start a new process to get the network to follow you.

I see now. Thank you. Also just read about the 1000 blocks conditional.

...مكتوب
Escape the plutocrats’ zanpakutō, Flower in the Mirror, Moon on the Water: brave “the ascent which is rough and steep” (Plato).
Pages: « 1 ... 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!