Bitcoin Forum
December 11, 2016, 10:23:06 AM *
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 ... 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 1808624 times)
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 17, 2015, 12:50:31 AM
 #30861


The likelihood of sidechains becoming an integral part of Bitcoin is, I'd argue, far more important than any chance XT fork has at succeeding.

Keep burying your head in the ground and ignore innovation

But thats it - you're not arguing, you are just saying.  

sidechains require far more fundamental changes to bitcoin to work than anything being done in this patch.

 Huh

Do you even know what you're talking about?

make a point or shut up.

Sidechains are workable as of now under the existing protocol.

A softfork would allow more freedom in their functions, features and decentralization.


"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
1481451786
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481451786

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481451786
Reply with quote  #2

1481451786
Report to moderator
1481451786
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481451786

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481451786
Reply with quote  #2

1481451786
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481451786
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481451786

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481451786
Reply with quote  #2

1481451786
Report to moderator
1481451786
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481451786

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481451786
Reply with quote  #2

1481451786
Report to moderator
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
August 17, 2015, 12:59:38 AM
 #30862


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*.


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

Activity: 1512


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
August 17, 2015, 01:02:55 AM
 #30863

With respect to Nick Most-Likely-To-Be-Satoshi-And-That-Is-Worth-A-Lot-Even-If -He-Isn't Szabo, I despise the "$4 billion system" argument. Every one of those investors knows it is a high risk asset with the potential for a 1000x return (and therefore, by any reasonable economics or logic, enormous risks). These are not widows and orphans.

Maybe the block size increase is a bad idea and maybe XT is a bad way to do it, but that argument is absurd sensationalism at its worst.

If anyone is aware Bitcoin is an experiment, it is Nick Szabo.

The specific figure is of no particular matter to his argument, but it's worth noting the experiment has gained considerable scope, such that a significant real world financial aspect exists and should be taken into account (in this case, by the Planning Dept.).

That's exactly why including it is sensationalism.

Although I have to say to me it has the opposite effect: Only $4 billion? Good, still very safe to take some changes. Or maybe: Only $4 billion? This thing obviously still needs a lot of work.


The bolded parts are exactly why including it is not sensationalism.

The specific figure is a just neutral fact and was not sensationalized.  It's not like he used ZOMG ALLCAPS FOUR BILLION or wrote out $4,000,000,000.00 with all the zeros.

You are exaggerating, just like when you used "maybe" in front of "block size increase is a bad idea."   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
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 17, 2015, 01:24:13 AM
 #30864

iCE please, i beg you, take your meds!  

Haldol 1 tab po qid, as directed,  # to be dispensed:  10000 tabs,  1000 refills.

4 pills a day keeps the doctor away!
sAt0sHiFanClub
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


Warning: Confrmed Gavinista


View Profile WWW
August 17, 2015, 01:49:27 AM
 #30865


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.

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

Activity: 1246



View Profile
August 17, 2015, 01:59:44 AM
 #30866


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?
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 17, 2015, 02:08:09 AM
 #30867


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?


Elements never happened? Which "sidechain" are we talking about here?

What is the "fundamental" change to Bitcoin?

"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
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 17, 2015, 02:24:10 AM
 #30868


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.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
August 17, 2015, 02:29:26 AM
 #30869


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.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988


View Profile
August 17, 2015, 02:46:20 AM
 #30870

SC's are clearly altcoins.

Different class.  'Sidecoins' are most accurately described as a proxy for Bitcoin.  Use of sidecoins impacts the macro-economics of Bitcoin in pretty much exactly the way that use of Bitcoin itself does.  'Alts' are completely stand-alone and as such are competitors.  'sidechains' are more like colored-coins and in some ways it might be argued that this is what they are at their core.

i see sidecoins as inflationary.  the author can choose any issuance or inflation schedule he pleases to be backed by scBTC.  when viewed this way, the entire fiat money system could be viewed as a sidechain with USD as the sidecoin with gold backing at least before 1971.

Sidechains are by definition not inflationary.  That's the point of the two-way peg and is completely elementary.  I know you have at least a working understanding of the meaning of the words 'inflationary' and 'deflationary'.  Thus, I think you are being a lying and deceitful piece of shit.  After the Hashfast shilling funds you pocketed I know you have it in you so that is be far the strongest hypothesis.

Quote

Sidechains are a disaster for people hoping to do analytics on the blockchain down to an individual level because they need to tap into every sidecoin's system.  Since some sidechains will be specifically designed to make that a challenge the task becomes impossible.  Disaster!

It cannot really be argued that sidechains are going to steal Bitcoin's thunder by robbing it of transaction fees since everyone on the bloatist side is dead set against meaningful fees.  It's pretty clear to me as someone who has been in the business that to the extent that revenue is anticipated by Bitcoin infrastructure operators, it is to come from harvest of intelligence data and either processing it themselves or selling it to a processor.  This is the way most internet services work these days.

total misunderstanding of this argument.  you're talking about individual tx fees which can stay cheap w/o a block limit.  what will grow is the total aggregate amount of tx fees to pay miners as the reward dissipates and as the userbase grows unconstrained.  these meaningful fees will allow Bitcoin to keep secure by growing mining security.

With sidechains not only is the total Bitcoin 'market cap' by definition the sum total of the value of all sidechains combine plus the native Bitcoin user's holdings, but fees from every sidechain transaction could be fractional and agragated into a significant per-transaction fee on the Bitcoin network.

Yes, the cut that a sidechain might take would subtract from what Bitcoin operators get for running the native network infrastructure, but sidechains will have to compete with one another, and probably most sidechains will extract value in the manner you bloatchain guys want for Bitcoin (by milking intel out of users) or be run at a loss to further a domain specific goal.  (e.g., I would use a sidecoin akin to what namecoin is doing because distributed and uncensorable domain DNS is something I care about.)

You have never to my recollection answered any of these points.  Whether it is simply because they are above your comprehension, or whether it is because you are focused on your task of getting Bitcoin centralized I do not know.

Quote

A nicety for some is that the highest value for intelligence comes from 'full capture' so there is an economic incentive to achieve this.  Near-monopolization of operating infrastructure would also would make coin white/black-listing relatively workable just as Mr. Hearn has predicted for years.

as the userbase spreads out, so will full node and mining distribution.  this will be good as we need to move away from the areas of highest concentration today, that being N. America and Europe.


That's a funny argument to hear from someone who just advocated bloating Bitcoin in order to freeze out Chinese infrastructure providers by exploiting the native bandwidth problems brought on by their national censorship program.

Here again is another area of risk that you studiously ignore;  the idea that network censorship is even possible here in 'the land of the free.'  If it fucks up the Chinese and their ability to run Bitcoin infrastructure, I can promise you that it will do the same only worse here if/when it is put into place.  Again, the idea that it _won't_ be put into place in a fiat economic crisis where crypto-currency is gaining a foothold is absurd to me.  I have to think you at least worry for your stash that such a thing is possible lending more strength to the idea that there is something fishy about your goals here.

I won't even touch on the observation of the absurdity that full nodes and mining distribution will 'spread out' as it becomes more impractical to operate them.  The evidence over the last few years speaks loudly enough, and we are still at 1MB.


brg444 and Adam spent months teaching us how any type of coin ala Truthcoin can hitch themselves to a SC in addition to the migrated scBTC.  in fact, have you EVER heard Blockstream place any type of restriction on what kind of speculative asset can be supported on a SC?  answer: no.  they are a form of dilution, hence inflation, to Bitcoin and will turn Bitcoin into a WoW trading platform.
Quote
The economics of 'speculation' in a full-peg environment are no different than people simply using native Bitcoin heavily.  People are perfectly free to speculate in native Bitcoin, and to date that is what has happened in the economy mostly I think.

You bloatcoiners may have plans to implement control measures in XT which preclude speculation as far as I know.  With the infrastructure needed for tainting, control of speculation would, in fact, be tenable.

edit: slight (between ngix gateway errors.)

no, SC's encourage speculative money to chase sidecoins, scBTC, and/or any other speculative asset they choose to sell on the SC like Truthcoins.  given that these SC's are bound to be less secure, they will have much greater failure rates than if they just bought BTC itself or invested in businesses that deal in BTC directly.  what we want instead is for speculators to invest in BTC itself to drive the market price much higher.  which is actually needed to allow large $million tx's to occur on MC w/o causing volatility.  that, or invest in merchants/businesses that can service the userbase growth that a no block limit will encourage.

The beauty and strength of sidechains is that they are isolated from Bitcoin and Bitcoin is isolated from them.  That is one of the main goals of the project.  A whole sidechain system is just another user to Bitcoin.  People can speculate until the cows come home and I'm sure they will.  Some of them will also fail and/or implode.  The worst that will happen is that some Bitcoin get lost into the ether of nothingness.  That would be deflationary.  Sidechains, just like Bitcoin or gold, are something with certain kinds of risks and things that people need to be appropriately wary of and not lazy in applying a risk management strategy.  No magic bullets.  There are certainly some extra protections though.  At the end of the day they are no stronger than the Bitcoin (or other backing store if you bloatchainers fuck up Bitcoin) which serves as backing.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 17, 2015, 03:14:46 AM
 #30871


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..."
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 17, 2015, 03:24:30 AM
 #30872

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
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
August 17, 2015, 03:27:08 AM
 #30873


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: 1512


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
August 17, 2015, 03:30:23 AM
 #30874


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

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
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
August 17, 2015, 03:37:04 AM
 #30875


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: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 17, 2015, 03:38:24 AM
 #30876

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: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 17, 2015, 03:42:24 AM
 #30877

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: 938



View Profile
August 17, 2015, 03:47:17 AM
 #30878

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: 1512


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
August 17, 2015, 03:54:44 AM
 #30879

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

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
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 17, 2015, 03:56:52 AM
 #30880

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
Pages: « 1 ... 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!