Bitcoin Forum
November 19, 2017, 12:12:38 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [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 ... 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 2009086 times)
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 17, 2015, 03:24:30 AM
 #30841

Can you explain which insights you're referring to?  It looks to me like mostly technical misunderstandings about how a fork would play out combined with a lack of knowledge about Bitcoin.  For example, explain how this is true:

"If Gavincoin wins, Bitcoin holdhouts lose nothing and Gavin supporters gain nothing. If Gavincoin flounders, Gavin supporters lose everything"

I think you're just pulling for straws and interpreting "lose everything" in your own way but I will play along. Maybe quoting some Mircea will knock some sense into some people here. Don't worry I should spare you the ad hominems and try not to hurt anyone's feelings.

Let's first point out general fallacies shared and painted all over this very forum & reddit:

Quote
III. I don't understand why anybody would be against a larger block.

The popular name to this is "arguing to ignorance". What you understand or don't understand is not a proper subject of discussion, and you aren't welcome to try and foist it on intelligent people who aren't your parents.

Quote
IV. Satoshi himself envisioned much larger blocks.

This is called "arguing to authority", and it tries to give pecuniary value to that only truly worthless article of all times and places : the esteem of the mob.

Later in the same article we observe a reasonable and practical observation of what a future with Bitcoin will and should look like. To quote :

Quote
For the reasons noted and for many other reasons I am pretty much satisfied that Bitcoin is not nor will it ever be a direct means of payment for retail anything. You may end up paying for a month's worth of coffee vouchers at your favourite coffee shop via Bitcoin (so shop scrip built on top of Bitcoin), you may end up settling your accounts monthly at the restaurant in Bitcoin (so store credit built on top of Bitcoin), you will probably cash into whatever local currency from Bitcoin (be it Unified Standard Dubaloos or Universally Simplified Dosidoes or whatever else) but all that is entirely different a story.

About our actual argument, he seemingly shares my concerns:

Quote
VI. This is a clerical issue, because block propagation and other considerations incentivize miners to keep blocks small anyway. The 1MB is just a hard limit getting in the way of things, the marketplace of miners should be allowed to fix block size as it seems appropriate.

While this argument has been disingenuously brought by Gavin himself, the fact is that the proposed inverted bloom filters upgrade would allow all blocks to propagate in constant time, regardless of their size.

Some might still ask: why is that?

Quote
davout: gavinandresen: "oh, the IBLT stuff? yes, that’d make propagation O(1)" <<< so with that, there's no network bottleneck anymore, at least no real incentive for miners to keep blocks small, right?

gavinandresen:davout: Miners would only have the meta-incentive of “we can collectively maximize revenue if we make blocks THIS big”

Except miners are not a person. They are multiple, geographically diverse groups of interests each bounded by different resources, costs and infrastructure. I kind of happen to think that this is what is broken with the "nodes and miners should be able to decide on whatever block size they like" proposition. I can also see clear as day through the attempt of many here at rationalizing this behavior as "free-market decides best, how dare you propose centrally designed SPAM CONTROL."

The assumption you seem to make is that miners & nodes (through the magic of the "invisible hand" I suppose) will arrive at an equilibrium of decentralization in some kind of benevolent act "because incentives & game theory". If we consider that the argument about cost of creating large block is moot, the rational then becomes: miners will act in an altruistic way to conserve trust of the network.

These points are not very clear to me. I don't imagine a scenario where several resourceful corporations do not turn this into an arms race that few will be able to keep up with. We are now only beginning to see mining and network infrastructure enter professional stage. If the incentive to mine Bitcoin increases the seemingly amateur and small scale set ups should soon be erased off the network and replaced by massive datacenters that should outnumber any of these small players so as to make their "voice" in the balance exercise of decentralization vs. block size worthless.

You might imagine that as "bitcoiners" realize this issue they will "protest" but I suggest that by this point A. you will not be able to actually become aware of the problem and B. there will be nothing to do about it as the network will have become "captured" because of "network ossification" and the general laziness of the herd which will prefer comfort and stability over change and doubt.

"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
1511050358
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511050358

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511050358
Reply with quote  #2

1511050358
Report to moderator
Coinlancer is Disrupting the Freelance marketplace!
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511050358
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511050358

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511050358
Reply with quote  #2

1511050358
Report to moderator
1511050358
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511050358

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511050358
Reply with quote  #2

1511050358
Report to moderator
1511050358
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511050358

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511050358
Reply with quote  #2

1511050358
Report to moderator
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
August 17, 2015, 03:27:08 AM
 #30842


Sidechains are workable as of now under the existing protocol.


So this irc never happened?

Quote
00:51:22 <gmaxwell> the altcoin is also a bitcoin node, and monitors bitcoin for coins assigned to the altcoin, and then permits someone on the altcoin to emerge those coins from thin air.. and then when you want to send them back you make a special transaction in the altchain and prove you did it to bitcoin.
00:51:23 <adam3us> gmaxwell: i suppose the other thing is it itself requires bitcoin changes, perhaps non-trivial ones, and that is part of the reason for the exercise.
00:51:46 <gmaxwell> yea, unfortunately it requires changes to bitcoin.
00:52:18 <gmaxwell> we could _almost_ do it in script without the disabled opcodes, but there are enough little corners that I suspect we can't.

Which "altcoin" are they talking about here?


you name it; they aim to sidechain it.

I think you're missing the point. The whole conversation is here:

http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/papers2/bitcoin/wizards/2013-12-18.txt

It is quite clear that they consider sidechains to be altcoins backed by bitcoin. Because, well, quite obviously, that exactly what sidechains are.

Until of course that got rebranded.


that was a good read.

note the complexity.  BlueMatt brought that up along with the greater size of the proof required for altcoins to return to MC:

"00:37:09 <BlueMatt> yea, though depending on cutting-edge crypto is ugly..."

Speaking of sidechains, the one thing I never understood after reading the Blockstream paper was whether anyone had actually devised a technique to implement the "efficient SPV proofs."  This is the "cutting-edge crypto" required to move the coins back to the main chain.  In my opinion, this should be a significant part of the paper, as it's the only part that's not at all obvious (at least to me) how it would work (and getting your coins back is also sort of the most important part).  The authors wrote about half a page on the topic on p. 8, and devoted Appendix B to it as well (2.5 pages).

From the description on p. 8, I understand the idea of the SPV proof.  The appendix, however, seems more like an argument that such a proof might exists and what its properties might be, rather than a fully-defined implementation of a workable solution.   

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

Activity: 1834


[LOL2X]


View Profile WWW
August 17, 2015, 03:30:23 AM
 #30843


Im just here observing your desperation curve, wondering where it will intersect the bitcoinXT adoption curve.


Good luck observing the "bitcoinXT adoption curve."  You're going to need it.   Wink

We have entered the fog of war, with version stamp weaponization ensuing exactly as I predicted.

This is a special fork for those who do not agree with the blocksize scheduled increase as proposed by Gavin and Mike in their divisive altcoin fork, "Bitcoin XT".

This version can be used to protect the status quo until real technical consensus is formed about the blocksize.

This version is indistinguishable from Bitcoin XT 0.11A except that it will not actually hard fork to BIP101, yet appears on the p2p network as Bitcoin XT 0.11A replete with features, yet at a consensus level behaves just like Bitcoin Core 0.11. If it is used to mine, it will produce XT block versions without actually supporting >1MB blocks.

Running this version and/or mining with XT block versions will make it impossible for the Bitcoin XT network to detect the correct switchover and cause a premature fork of anyone foolish enough to support BIP101 without wide consensus from the technical community.

It prevents correct detection of Bitcoin XT adoption in the wild since usage will be known to have been tampered with and thus all statistical data gathered by getnodes can only be considered unreliable.

https://github.com/xtbit/notbitcoinxt#not-bitcoin-xt

Your move, hearn@sigint.google.mil.   Cool


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

Monero
"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
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
August 17, 2015, 03:37:04 AM
 #30844


Im just here observing your desperation curve, wondering where it will intersect the bitcoinXT adoption curve.


Good luck observing the "bitcoinXT adoption curve."  You're going to need it.   Wink

We have entered the fog of war, with version stamp weaponization ensuing exactly as I predicted.

This is a special fork for those who do not agree with the blocksize scheduled increase as proposed by Gavin and Mike in their divisive altcoin fork, "Bitcoin XT".

This version can be used to protect the status quo until real technical consensus is formed about the blocksize.

This version is indistinguishable from Bitcoin XT 0.11A except that it will not actually hard fork to BIP101, yet appears on the p2p network as Bitcoin XT 0.11A replete with features, yet at a consensus level behaves just like Bitcoin Core 0.11. If it is used to mine, it will produce XT block versions without actually supporting >1MB blocks.

Running this version and/or mining with XT block versions will make it impossible for the Bitcoin XT network to detect the correct switchover and cause a premature fork of anyone foolish enough to support BIP101 without wide consensus from the technical community.

It prevents correct detection of Bitcoin XT adoption in the wild since usage will be known to have been tampered with and thus all statistical data gathered by getnodes can only be considered unreliable.

https://github.com/xtbit/notbitcoinxt#not-bitcoin-xt

Your move, hearn@sigint.google.mil.   Cool

Wait a second…the small block supporters are going to sybil attack the network in favour of BitcoinXT?  So your plan is to increase the momentum behind XT, helping to convince miners, exchanges, payment processors and web wallets that larger blocks are inevitable, thereby compelling them to add support for larger blocks sooner than they otherwise would have?

Carry on then...


Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 17, 2015, 03:38:24 AM
 #30845

I think you're missing the point. The whole conversation is here:

http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/papers2/bitcoin/wizards/2013-12-18.txt

It is quite clear that they consider sidechains to be altcoins backed by bitcoin. Because, well, quite obviously, that exactly what sidechains are.

Until of course that got rebranded.


that was a good read.

note the complexity.  BlueMatt brought that up along with the greater size of the proof required for altcoins to return to MC:

"00:37:09 <BlueMatt> yea, though depending on cutting-edge crypto is ugly..."

Are you doing this on purpose?

Did you consider or even understand the context in which this was said?

Note to the reader: "the complexity" is brought forward when having to scale sidechains by making them more efficient through compacting the necessary proof required to move between chains using SNARKs. Absolutely not something that is necessary to have workable sidechains now or ever.

"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
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 17, 2015, 03:42:24 AM
 #30846

Speaking of sidechains, the one thing I never understood after reading the Blockstream paper was whether anyone had actually devised a technique to implement the "efficient SPV proofs."  This is the "cutting-edge crypto" required to move the coins back to the main chain.

No, read again, absolutely not what Matt is referring to.

"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: 1064



View Profile
August 17, 2015, 03:47:17 AM
 #30847

Speaking of sidechains, the one thing I never understood after reading the Blockstream paper was whether anyone had actually devised a technique to implement the "efficient SPV proofs."  This is the "cutting-edge crypto" required to move the coins back to the main chain.

No, read again, absolutely not what Matt is referring to.

I'm talking about the crypto required to produce an efficient SPV proof to move the coins from the sidechain back to the main chain (Appendix B).  We don't have to call it "cutting edge" if you don't want to; however, can you link me to a paper that fully specifies how such an "efficient SPV proof" could be implemented for Bitcoin?  

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

Activity: 1834


[LOL2X]


View Profile WWW
August 17, 2015, 03:54:44 AM
 #30848

Wait a second…the small block supporters are going to sybil attack the network in favour of BitcoinXT?  So your plan is to increase the momentum behind XT, helping to convince miners, exchanges, payment processors and web wallets that larger blocks are inevitable, thereby compelling them to add support for larger blocks sooner than they otherwise would have?

Carry on then...

Yes, that is our plan and (TYVM) we will carry on.

But "in favour of BitcoinXT" may not turn out to actually mean what you think it does at the moment...




Engage people with what they expect; it is what they are able to discern and confirms their projections. It settles them into predictable patterns of response, occupying their minds while you wait for the extraordinary moment — that which they cannot anticipate.
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

“Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

"If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected .”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

“When the enemy is relaxed, make them toil. When full, starve them. When settled, make them move.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War


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

Monero
"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
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 17, 2015, 03:56:52 AM
 #30849

Speaking of sidechains, the one thing I never understood after reading the Blockstream paper was whether anyone had actually devised a technique to implement the "efficient SPV proofs."  This is the "cutting-edge crypto" required to move the coins back to the main chain.

No, read again, absolutely not what Matt is referring to.

I'm talking about the crypto required to produce an efficient SPV proof to move the coins from the sidechain back to the main chain (Appendix B).  We don't have to call it "cutting edge" if you don't want to; however, can you link me to a paper that fully specifies how such an "efficient SPV proof" could be implemented for Bitcoin?  

To be quite honest I'm not sure of the technical details but I don't believe that an actual SPV proof involves any "cutting edge" crypto. I believe the confusion may come from several debates on how to make these proofs more compact as they can be rather large.

This might help?

Quote
3. the side-chain has no mining reward, but it allows you to mint coins at no mining cost by providing an SPV proof that the coin has been suspended as in 2 on bitcoin.  The SPV proof must be buried significantly before being used to reduce risk of reorganization.  The side-chain is an SPV client to the bitcoin network, and so maintains a view of the bitcoin hash chain (but not the block data).

4. the bitcoin chain is firewalled from security bugs on the side chain, because bitcoin imposes the rule that no more coins can be reanimated than are currently suspend (with respect to a given chain).

5. to simplify what they hypothetical bitcoin change would need to consider and understand, after a coin is reanimated there is a maturity period imposed (say same as fresh mined coins).  During the maturity period the reanimation script allows a fraud proof to spend the coins back.  A fraud bounty fee (equal to the reanimate fee) can be offered by the mover to incentivize side-chain full nodes to watch reanimations and search for fraud proofs.

6. a fraud proof is an SPV proof with a longer chain showing that the proof of burn was orphaned.

There are a few options to compress the SPV proof, via Fiat-Shamir transform to provide a compact proof of amount work contained in a merkle tree of proofs of work (as proposed by Fabien Coelho link on http://hashcash.org/papers/) with params like 90% of work is proven.  But better is something Greg proposed based on skip-lists organized in a tree, where 'lucky' proofs of work are used to skip back further.  (Recalling that if you search for a 64-bit leading-0 proof-of-work, half the time you get a 65-bit, quarter 66-bit etc.)  With this mechanism you can accurately prove the amount of proof of work in a compressed tree (rather than ~90%).

http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/bitcoin-development/thread/20140316225819.GA19846%40netbook.cypherspace.org/#msg32108143

"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
Cconvert2G36
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392


View Profile
August 17, 2015, 03:59:17 AM
 #30850


Can you please get your Theymos Is Literally Hitler narrative sorted out?  It's getting confusing.

Im just here observing your desperation curve, wondering where it will intersect the bitcoinXT adoption curve.

 Grin Grin Grin  

When t = t*.



Simple function, 1000 words.


Im just here observing your desperation curve, wondering where it will intersect the bitcoinXT adoption curve.


Good luck observing the "bitcoinXT adoption curve."  You're going to need it.   Wink

We have entered the fog of war, with version stamp weaponization ensuing exactly as I predicted.

This is a special fork for those who do not agree with the blocksize scheduled increase as proposed by Gavin and Mike in their divisive altcoin fork, "Bitcoin XT".

This version can be used to protect the status quo until real technical consensus is formed about the blocksize.

This version is indistinguishable from Bitcoin XT 0.11A except that it will not actually hard fork to BIP101, yet appears on the p2p network as Bitcoin XT 0.11A replete with features, yet at a consensus level behaves just like Bitcoin Core 0.11. If it is used to mine, it will produce XT block versions without actually supporting >1MB blocks.

Running this version and/or mining with XT block versions will make it impossible for the Bitcoin XT network to detect the correct switchover and cause a premature fork of anyone foolish enough to support BIP101 without wide consensus from the technical community.

It prevents correct detection of Bitcoin XT adoption in the wild since usage will be known to have been tampered with and thus all statistical data gathered by getnodes can only be considered unreliable.

https://github.com/xtbit/notbitcoinxt#not-bitcoin-xt

Your move, hearn@sigint.google.mil.   Cool

Using the analogy (throwing the hockey stick) was apt before its time.
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
August 17, 2015, 04:01:44 AM
 #30851

Speaking of sidechains, the one thing I never understood after reading the Blockstream paper was whether anyone had actually devised a technique to implement the "efficient SPV proofs."  This is the "cutting-edge crypto" required to move the coins back to the main chain.

No, read again, absolutely not what Matt is referring to.

I'm talking about the crypto required to produce an efficient SPV proof to move the coins from the sidechain back to the main chain (Appendix B).  We don't have to call it "cutting edge" if you don't want to; however, can you link me to a paper that fully specifies how such an "efficient SPV proof" could be implemented for Bitcoin?  

To be quite honest I'm not sure of the technical details but I don't believe that an actual SPV proof involves any "cutting edge" crypto. I believe the confusion may come from several debates on how to make these proofs more compact as they can be rather large.

Indeed, using straightforward crypto they could be very large. 

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 17, 2015, 04:07:12 AM
 #30852

Speaking of sidechains, the one thing I never understood after reading the Blockstream paper was whether anyone had actually devised a technique to implement the "efficient SPV proofs."  This is the "cutting-edge crypto" required to move the coins back to the main chain.

No, read again, absolutely not what Matt is referring to.

I'm talking about the crypto required to produce an efficient SPV proof to move the coins from the sidechain back to the main chain (Appendix B).  We don't have to call it "cutting edge" if you don't want to; however, can you link me to a paper that fully specifies how such an "efficient SPV proof" could be implemented for Bitcoin?  

To be quite honest I'm not sure of the technical details but I don't believe that an actual SPV proof involves any "cutting edge" crypto. I believe the confusion may come from several debates on how to make these proofs more compact as they can be rather large.

Indeed, using straightforward crypto they could be very large.

No worries, we've got large blocks now as well, haven't we  Cheesy

You'd think they are goddamned stubborn at Blockstream. Why worry about innovating zero-knowledge proof to scale their sidechain when we can just inflate the block size to infinity!

"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
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834


[LOL2X]


View Profile WWW
August 17, 2015, 04:17:50 AM
 #30853

Simple function, 1000 words.

The function is simple.  Observing the actual XT adoption curve, through the fog of war and despite weaponized version stamps, is another matter entirely.

I'm not surprised you'd rather gloat about the funny picture than address what happens when XT is led down our garden path, into premature aggression and subsequent disaster.   Grin


Using the analogy (throwing the hockey stick) was apt before its time.

Core is using XT's own strength (mob rule popularity contests) to thwart its attack.

That's elegant judo, not hockey violence.   Cool


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

Monero
"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
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
Cconvert2G36
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392


View Profile
August 17, 2015, 04:30:28 AM
 #30854

Simple function, 1000 words.

The function is simple.  Observing the actual XT adoption curve, though the fog of war and despite weaponized version stamps, is another matter entirely.

I'm not surprised you'd rather gloat about the funny picture than address what happens when XT is led down our garden path, into premature aggression and subsequent disaster.   Grin


Using the analogy (throwing the hockey stick) was apt before its time.

Core is using XT's own strength (mob rule popularity contests) to thwart its attack.

That's elegant judo, not hockey violence.   Cool

You foresee multi petahash mining concerns running a client posing as XT just to give MP an orgasm, I don't see it happening that way.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 17, 2015, 04:32:22 AM
 #30855

Quote
Hearn has in the past been a consistent advocate for having more Bitcoin users pushed onto less reliable SPV wallets instead of fully validating Bitcoin nodes, a move that is dangerous in an environment with substantially larger blocks and a higher orphaned block rate. The use of SPV wallets clearly and plainly increases the risk of users being duped by double spend attacks during common one to three block forks triggered by orphaned blocks, events which would likely become far more common as increasingly large block sizes and block verification times make XTCoin security measurably weaker than that of Bitcoin.

http://qntra.net/2015/08/hearn-releases-code-to-potentially-fork-xtc-from-bitcoin/

Maybe XT should be renamed SPVcoin? Any takers?

"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
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 17, 2015, 04:37:34 AM
 #30856

About the Satoshi comment:

Quote
Zeke says:
It's a brilliant comment, made even better by its plausible deniability. If the author really is SN, and he signed it to prove authorship, then he would be invoking personal authority rather than reason to influence the debate. And would also completely undermine even a reformed Gavin, b/c now we would know that SN is waiting in the wings to offer divine guidance. Instead, we have a comment that points out with convincing reasoning that regardless of originalist doctrine, SN's early opinions are not canonical. Furthermore, it is equally plausible that a present-day SN would disagree with the approach of coercing a hard-fork to XT.

When you think about it, if Satoshi really had something to say that is exactly how he would do it.

Of course the Gavinistas are never going to accept even the slightest possibility it is him seeing the butthurt induced by his comments.

"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
Cconvert2G36
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392


View Profile
August 17, 2015, 04:39:20 AM
 #30857

About the Satoshi comment:

Quote
Zeke says:
It's a brilliant comment, made even better by its plausible deniability. If the author really is SN, and he signed it to prove authorship, then he would be invoking personal authority rather than reason to influence the debate. And would also completely undermine even a reformed Gavin, b/c now we would know that SN is waiting in the wings to offer divine guidance. Instead, we have a comment that points out with convincing reasoning that regardless of originalist doctrine, SN's early opinions are not canonical. Furthermore, it is equally plausible that a present-day SN would disagree with the approach of coercing a hard-fork to XT.

When you think about it, if Satoshi really had something to say that is exactly how he would do it.

Of course the Gavinistas are never going to accept even the slightest possibility it is him seeing the butthurt induced by his comments.

Yeah, the real SN would definitely invoke Barack Obama. Confirmed
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 17, 2015, 04:44:54 AM
 #30858

About the Satoshi comment:

Quote
Zeke says:
It's a brilliant comment, made even better by its plausible deniability. If the author really is SN, and he signed it to prove authorship, then he would be invoking personal authority rather than reason to influence the debate. And would also completely undermine even a reformed Gavin, b/c now we would know that SN is waiting in the wings to offer divine guidance. Instead, we have a comment that points out with convincing reasoning that regardless of originalist doctrine, SN's early opinions are not canonical. Furthermore, it is equally plausible that a present-day SN would disagree with the approach of coercing a hard-fork to XT.

When you think about it, if Satoshi really had something to say that is exactly how he would do it.

Of course the Gavinistas are never going to accept even the slightest possibility it is him seeing the butthurt induced by his comments.

Yeah, the real SN would definitely invoke Barack Obama. Confirmed

I don't see why he wouldn't? Care to explain your logic? Because you didn't "portray him" that way?

"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
Cconvert2G36
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392


View Profile
August 17, 2015, 04:58:11 AM
 #30859

About the Satoshi comment:

Quote
Zeke says:
It's a brilliant comment, made even better by its plausible deniability. If the author really is SN, and he signed it to prove authorship, then he would be invoking personal authority rather than reason to influence the debate. And would also completely undermine even a reformed Gavin, b/c now we would know that SN is waiting in the wings to offer divine guidance. Instead, we have a comment that points out with convincing reasoning that regardless of originalist doctrine, SN's early opinions are not canonical. Furthermore, it is equally plausible that a present-day SN would disagree with the approach of coercing a hard-fork to XT.

When you think about it, if Satoshi really had something to say that is exactly how he would do it.

Of course the Gavinistas are never going to accept even the slightest possibility it is him seeing the butthurt induced by his comments.

Yeah, the real SN would definitely invoke Barack Obama. Confirmed

I don't see why he wouldn't? Care to explain your logic? Because you didn't "portray him" that way?

I didn't "perceive" him that way? Maybe. He always rose above the political BS and focused on the bolts.

And any message delivered in this manner, under the name "Satoshi Nakamoto"... is an ad verecundiam, regardless of whether you are able to contort your mind to believe otherwise. 
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834


[LOL2X]


View Profile WWW
August 17, 2015, 05:04:17 AM
 #30860

About the Satoshi comment:

Quote
Zeke says:
It's a brilliant comment, made even better by its plausible deniability. If the author really is SN, and he signed it to prove authorship, then he would be invoking personal authority rather than reason to influence the debate. And would also completely undermine even a reformed Gavin, b/c now we would know that SN is waiting in the wings to offer divine guidance. Instead, we have a comment that points out with convincing reasoning that regardless of originalist doctrine, SN's early opinions are not canonical. Furthermore, it is equally plausible that a present-day SN would disagree with the approach of coercing a hard-fork to XT.

When you think about it, if Satoshi really had something to say that is exactly how he would do it.

Of course the Gavinistas are never going to accept even the slightest possibility it is him seeing the butthurt induced by his comments.

Yeah, the real SN would definitely invoke Barack Obama Alistair Darling, Chancellor of the Exchequer. Confirmed

Fixed your comment by removing the butthurt.   Wink


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

Monero
"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
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
Pages: « 1 ... 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!