Bitcoin Forum
December 03, 2016, 07:59:40 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 ... 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 1803792 times)
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
August 16, 2015, 12:32:20 PM
 #30741

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.


1480795180
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480795180

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480795180
Reply with quote  #2

1480795180
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480795180
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480795180

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480795180
Reply with quote  #2

1480795180
Report to moderator
1480795180
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480795180

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480795180
Reply with quote  #2

1480795180
Report to moderator
sAt0sHiFanClub
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


Warning: Confrmed Gavinista


View Profile WWW
August 16, 2015, 12:32:52 PM
 #30742

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

We must make money worse as a commodity if we wish to make it better as a medium of exchange
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
August 16, 2015, 12:33:49 PM
 #30743

I can understand that theymos is in a very difficult spot - he is probably right (in a literal, technical sense) in the assertion that XT as a theory is on topic, but as a viable, downloadable solution it becomes an alt-coin. Until it reaches consensus,

But what troubles me is the zeal with which this policy is still being executed across the platforms. At this point, who really benefits from a suppression of debate?
(bear in mind that we are free to discuss it here and many other topics)

During the fall of the Berlin wall, there was a pivotal moment when the border guards finally recognised the futility of their duty, and allowed people through unchallenged.

Way out of the mess: Core adds a largeblock patch, different from gavins but who cares. Othere XT patches are delayed to make them look important.

If not, they go the way of the Xfree86 developers - into the fog.

Next fight is over the name. I suggest renaming XT to core by april depending on 75% supermajority as expressed by just doing it. Smiley



It would have to follow a BIP. But isnt this scenario what MH and GA wanted all along?  The failure to get this resulted in XT.

Exactly. It is the way out, no fork, everybody is happy (some just a tad butthurt).


smoothie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834


LEALANA Monero Physical Silver Coins


View Profile
August 16, 2015, 12:39:14 PM
 #30744

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.

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

            ,╓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.
 
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106


View Profile
August 16, 2015, 12:53:03 PM
 #30745

https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/632877777688006656

Quote from: Jeff Garzik
Based on public statements and/or in-coinbase BIP 100 miner voting, over 80% of #bitcoin hashpower supports blocks larger than 1MB.

ed: Roger Ver XT endorsement

https://mobile.twitter.com/rogerkver/status/632866706864652288

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
August 16, 2015, 01:18:19 PM
 #30746

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.
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
August 16, 2015, 01:19:54 PM
 #30747

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: 938



View Profile
August 16, 2015, 03:05:57 PM
 #30748



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: 714



View Profile
August 16, 2015, 03:16:16 PM
 #30749

^ great art!
vokain
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610


V.V.V.V.V.


View Profile
August 16, 2015, 03:37:51 PM
 #30750

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
 #30751

continuing the ramp:

Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
August 16, 2015, 03:42:01 PM
 #30752

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
 #30753

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: 1330



View Profile
August 16, 2015, 03:55:03 PM
 #30754

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.

http://haschinabannedbitcoin.com
Full Node: http://46.51.193.129 (BU)
"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
 #30755

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: 714



View Profile
August 16, 2015, 04:10:39 PM
 #30756


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

Activity: 1610


V.V.V.V.V.


View Profile
August 16, 2015, 04:14:20 PM
 #30757


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
 #30758

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
 #30759

still ramping:

Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
August 16, 2015, 04:19:11 PM
 #30760

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.
Pages: « 1 ... 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!