Bitcoin Forum
December 07, 2016, 08:51:01 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 ... 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 1805438 times)
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 09:27:44 AM
 #31121


That profit does depend on side chains becoming a reality but that's kind of backwards since sidechains ARE a reality, just not under the optimal security models they'd like to attain (SPV Proof). As gavinFanClub mentioned sidechains can be operated as we speak using federated servers which is perfectly fine for a private, corporate sidechain for example.


If you are going to rely on federated servers, why not just use the Factom model? Factom uses federated servers in a similar, but much more elegant design.

One that works with bitcoin as it currently is.

...because what Factom is attempting to do (data layer on top of Bitcoin) is not in any way similar to what sidechains can achieve (inter-operability between blockchains using units deriving scarcity from main Bitcoin blockchain)

maybe worth it to watch the video here to be better informed : http://www.blockstream.com/developers/

"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
1481100661
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481100661

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481100661
Reply with quote  #2

1481100661
Report to moderator
1481100661
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481100661

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481100661
Reply with quote  #2

1481100661
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
sAt0sHiFanClub
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


Warning: Confrmed Gavinista


View Profile WWW
August 18, 2015, 09:30:06 AM
 #31122


You asked for details about my knowledge of Blockstream development resources, I pointed you to my source.

Are you cypherdoc cousin by any chance? Is your next step to issue a BTC bounty to try and dox me and my personal life to "prove I'm a blockstream shill".

I'm just a regular dude trying to kick some sense into your head and calling out the bullshit I read

I've moderated the language in my post. Of course you're entitled to hold any opinion you like.

However, as good as you feel the blockstream proposal is ( and I dont deny it has merit) , it still indicates a problematic conflict of interest between bitcoin core members who will directly profit from blockstream and their role in advancing the best case for Bitcoin and its community.

Mike Hearn is a board advisor at Circle and Gavin is under MIT payroll. Developers need to get paid too you know. By all account most developers are under a certain conflict of interest (think of Garzik also at Bitpay). Assuming they are "problematic" is your own opinion.

"Of course you're entitled to hold any opinion you like." Just make sure it has some merit..


So your new is argument is "They are all doing it, so why can't we??"  Huh

Not winning any meritorious badges with that one.  Grin

We must make money worse as a commodity if we wish to make it better as a medium of exchange
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 09:33:16 AM
 #31123


You asked for details about my knowledge of Blockstream development resources, I pointed you to my source.

Are you cypherdoc cousin by any chance? Is your next step to issue a BTC bounty to try and dox me and my personal life to "prove I'm a blockstream shill".

I'm just a regular dude trying to kick some sense into your head and calling out the bullshit I read

I've moderated the language in my post. Of course you're entitled to hold any opinion you like.

However, as good as you feel the blockstream proposal is ( and I dont deny it has merit) , it still indicates a problematic conflict of interest between bitcoin core members who will directly profit from blockstream and their role in advancing the best case for Bitcoin and its community.

Mike Hearn is a board advisor at Circle and Gavin is under MIT payroll. Developers need to get paid too you know. By all account most developers are under a certain conflict of interest (think of Garzik also at Bitpay). Assuming they are "problematic" is your own opinion.

"Of course you're entitled to hold any opinion you like." Just make sure it has some merit..


So your new is argument is "They are all doing it, so why can't we??"  Huh

Not winning any meritorious badges with that one.  Grin

Nop.

The argument is there is nothing wrong with conflict-of-interest per say when stated. They do not necessarily imply wrongdoing.

More interestingly I happens that as it stands I know more about the potential conflict-of-interest of Blockstream developers than I know about Gavin's or Mike's.

"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
sAt0sHiFanClub
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


Warning: Confrmed Gavinista


View Profile WWW
August 18, 2015, 09:34:45 AM
 #31124


 sidechains can achieve inter-operability between blockchains using units deriving scarcityvalue from main Bitcoin blockchain


ftfy. Finally you get it.



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 18, 2015, 09:36:36 AM
 #31125


You asked for details about my knowledge of Blockstream development resources, I pointed you to my source.

Are you cypherdoc cousin by any chance? Is your next step to issue a BTC bounty to try and dox me and my personal life to "prove I'm a blockstream shill".

I'm just a regular dude trying to kick some sense into your head and calling out the bullshit I read

I've moderated the language in my post. Of course you're entitled to hold any opinion you like.

However, as good as you feel the blockstream proposal is ( and I dont deny it has merit) , it still indicates a problematic conflict of interest between bitcoin core members who will directly profit from blockstream and their role in advancing the best case for Bitcoin and its community.

Mike Hearn is a board advisor at Circle and Gavin is under MIT payroll. Developers need to get paid too you know. By all account most developers are under a certain conflict of interest (think of Garzik also at Bitpay). Assuming they are "problematic" is your own opinion.

"Of course you're entitled to hold any opinion you like." Just make sure it has some merit..


So your new is argument is "They are all doing it, so why can't we??"  Huh

Not winning any meritorious badges with that one.  Grin

Nop.

The argument is there is nothing wrong with conflict-of-interest per say when stated. They do not necessarily imply wrongdoing.

Are you stating you don't have any?

Quote
More interestingly I happens that as it stands I know more about the potential conflict-of-interest of Blockstream developers than I know about Gavin's or Mike's.

How is that? You said Mike is on Circle's board (I don't know what else he does for work, I'm going to guess you probably do though). That's a pretty obvious affiliation and transparent potential COI. Gavin works for a non-profit research institution. You can read out of that whatever you like, but in any case it's not hidden at all.

brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 09:51:26 AM
 #31126

Are you stating you don't have any?

Quote
More interestingly I happens that as it stands I know more about the potential conflict-of-interest of Blockstream developers than I know about Gavin's or Mike's.

How is that? You said Mike is on Circle's board (I don't know what else he does for work, I'm going to guess you probably do though). That's a pretty obvious affiliation and transparent potential COI. Gavin works for a non-profit research institution. You can read out of that whatever you like, but in any case it's not hidden at all.

 Cheesy

The often repeated suggestion here that I am somehow a company shill or industry insiders or w/e is so outrageously funny to me. I consider myself the exact opposite of someone you'd expect to be interested in cryptocurrency. I have no technical background, barely any formal economic education. None of my friends give a rats ass about it and there is absolutely no local community where I live. I've said before the closest ties you can stick on me about Blockstream is that I live about 2 hours away from their corporate office. Other than that I'm just any regular 25 year old college dropout, if you care to know  Grin

Anyway...Yes I'm stating I have no such thing as a conflict of interest. I am not professionally involved in anything resembling crypto and have never had contact with any industry person other than twitter, reddit and this forum.

As for your other question. The reason I stated we know more about Blockstream's potential conflict-of-interest is that the community pitchfork forced their hands into divulging non-negligible aspects of their financial remuneration and general contractual arrangements. I have no such details about Gavin & Mike's financial ties.


"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 18, 2015, 09:54:58 AM
 #31127


 sidechains can achieve inter-operability between blockchains using units deriving scarcityvalue from main Bitcoin blockchain


ftfy. Finally you get it.

It is up to the user to decide on what to do with his bitcoins. If a sidechain succeeds at attracting trust out of the mainchain it will surely be because it offers a valuable service. I don't see what is wrong with this seeing as they intend to build these systems in the most secure and trustless way achievable.

Of course stupid people will do stupid things. Buyers beware and all that but ultimately it is my opinion that sidechains will do fantastic things for the ecosystem.

"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
sAt0sHiFanClub
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


Warning: Confrmed Gavinista


View Profile WWW
August 18, 2015, 10:37:08 AM
 #31128


 sidechains can achieve inter-operability between blockchains using units deriving scarcityvalue from main Bitcoin blockchain


ftfy. Finally you get it.

It is up to the user to decide on what to do with his bitcoins. If a sidechain succeeds at attracting trust out of the mainchain it will surely be because it offers a valuable service. I don't see what is wrong with this seeing as they intend to build these systems in the most secure and trustless way achievable.

Of course stupid people will do stupid things. Buyers beware and all that but ultimately it is my opinion that sidechains will do fantastic things for the ecosystem.

No disagreement from me on those points.

But I dont see the point of supporting the deliberate ongoing hobbling of bitcoin with an arbitrary limit, while at the same time advocating a different solution that itself will require a more far reaching change in bitcoin to work correctly.

We must make money worse as a commodity if we wish to make it better as a medium of exchange
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 10:45:00 AM
 #31129


 sidechains can achieve inter-operability between blockchains using units deriving scarcityvalue from main Bitcoin blockchain


ftfy. Finally you get it.

It is up to the user to decide on what to do with his bitcoins. If a sidechain succeeds at attracting trust out of the mainchain it will surely be because it offers a valuable service. I don't see what is wrong with this seeing as they intend to build these systems in the most secure and trustless way achievable.

Of course stupid people will do stupid things. Buyers beware and all that but ultimately it is my opinion that sidechains will do fantastic things for the ecosystem.

No disagreement from me on those points.

But I dont see the point of supporting the deliberate ongoing hobbling of bitcoin with an arbitrary limit, while at the same time advocating a different solution that itself will require a more far reaching change in bitcoin to work correctly.

Part of my position is that I don't consider Bitcoin to be hobbled in anyway as it stands. Blocks are averaging at most half of the actual limit absent of spam attacks. I also happen to not trust Gavin or Hearn at all and consider their proposition as divisive and absolutely counter-productive.

I would also disagree that the changes required to make sidechains operate within Bitcoin are "far reaching". I understand that merged-mining is a source of debate but the script code in itself is not the source of any potential harm to the system AFAIK.

"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 18, 2015, 10:50:06 AM
 #31130

Like I said, it's about to get unbearable for larger miners:

https://m.facebook.com/MiningBitcoinCz/posts/846144602138294
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 10:57:29 AM
 #31131

Like I said, it's about to get unbearable for larger miners:

https://m.facebook.com/MiningBitcoinCz/posts/846144602138294

Good morning doc!

Would you please do us the service to explain your hyperbole?

A pool with 2% of the hashrate will make it "unbearable" for who? how?

"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
Wexlike
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Activity: 746



View Profile
August 18, 2015, 11:04:42 AM
 #31132

Its funny that litecoin has a maximum blocksize of 4MB per 10 minutes, dogecoin has a maximum of 10MB per 10 minutes. But for bitcoin a blocksize of 8MB means absolute destruction and centralisation.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 11:09:00 AM
 #31133

Its funny that litecoin has a maximum blocksize of 4MB per 10 minutes, dogecoin has a maximum of 10MB per 10 minutes. But for bitcoin a blocksize of 8MB means absolute destruction and centralisation.

Yes, very funny that you would bring up this totally irrelevant and asinine comparison  Cheesy Cheesy

"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 18, 2015, 11:17:25 AM
 #31134

Brian Armstrong gets it:

https://twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/633307650965409792
hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134



View Profile
August 18, 2015, 11:17:43 AM
 #31135

Its funny that litecoin has a maximum blocksize of 4MB per 10 minutes, dogecoin has a maximum of 10MB per 10 minutes. But for bitcoin a blocksize of 8MB means absolute destruction and centralisation.

Yes, very funny that you would bring up this totally irrelevant and asinine comparison  Cheesy Cheesy

Lol yea im off bitcoin.  Gogo ripple!
sAt0sHiFanClub
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


Warning: Confrmed Gavinista


View Profile WWW
August 18, 2015, 11:27:13 AM
 #31136


Part of my position is that I don't consider Bitcoin to be hobbled in anyway as it stands. Blocks are averaging at most half of the actual limit absent of spam attacks. I also happen to not trust Gavin or Hearn at all and consider their proposition as divisive and absolutely counter-productive.

But it is. Just because the house is not on fire today, doesn't mean you don't buy a fire extinguisher.  Bitcoin is hobbled, and blockstream and LN go to great lengths to point this out when setting out there business case.


Quote from: brg444
I would also disagree that the changes required to make sidechains operate within Bitcoin are "far reaching". I understand that merged-mining is a source of debate but the script code in itself is not the source of any potential harm to the system AFAIK.

If I had a satoshi for every time a developer said that....

The xt block limit change is considered trivial - replacing a #define with a configurable variable routine. ( there is a bit more, but its that in essence)

Getting scripts to work correctly is a far more complicated matter - the place holders exist (trivial implementation), but the functionality hasn't even been ring fenced yet.



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

Activity: 746



View Profile
August 18, 2015, 11:29:40 AM
 #31137


1/ It's just unbelievable
2/ that a company like twitter
3/ is worth 20 billion US$.
4/ Really a weird world
5/ that we live in.

TheRealSteve
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686

FUN > ROI


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 11:51:16 AM
 #31138

Will gavin and Mike visit each miner, put a gun to their head, and force them to switch to XT.  Explain what mechanism they will use to force miners and users to upgrade to XT against their will.

While not directly relevant to the mechanism in which XT plans to introduce itself, here's a snippet from earlier times (back when it was still '20MB or bust') that would still apply if miners ended up being dishonest (e.g. voting for larger blocks and kicking in the mechanism, but not actually processing them - let alone mining them).

Couture: I mean, if we extrapolate... if most companies that you've talked to are on board with this - with switching to Bitcoin XT - then what you're saying is essentially that this is gonna happen, this block size increase is gonna happen, no matter what.

Hearn: I think so.  The only question is: how long does it take for people to, y'know, opt in?  Do we really have the majority that we think we do?  I mean, you know, from polling, you know, going and talking to, you know, important players in the ecosystem we think we do, but there's nothing quite like measuring it for real.

Couture: Mm-hmm

Hearn: And then, the worst case scenario is: the majority of - the economic majority, that we call it - is in favor, but the hash power - mining - majority is not.  That would be a very messy situation for Bitcoin.

Crain: So, can you explain that?  How would that happen?  So you mean that, like, let's say Coinbase and the big companies and they're all in favor, but the mining, uhmm..

Hearn: Yeah, so let's say that, uhm, you know, so that those.. there's been some concerns raised by mining pools in China, for example, where there's a lot of mining going on that.. their connectivity is extremely poor, to the rest of the internet, for a bunch of reasons.  So if the needs of the wider global Bitcoin community start diverging from what, you know, miners in China want, then who wins?  The answer is: the economic majority wins, right, the wider community wins - but it would require a bit of, y'know, a bit of a technical mess to sort everything out in that case.

Crain: Because you somehow have to get, uhm, clients to ignore, potentially, the longest chain...

Hearn: Yeah

Crain: ...to only accept Bitcoin...

Hearn: Yeah.  So, people - again, merchants and exchanges sort of be running Bitcoin XT.  If we imagine this sort of worst case scenario happening, they would ignore the longest chain - doesn't matter that it's the longest - if it's, uhm, y'know, well, no let me rephrase that.

[concurrent]
Crain: They would, they would take the longest chain...
Hearn: They would be forced

Crain: ...with that specific version of the software, right?

Hearn: Yeah.  So let me rephrase that.  Right.  If miners deci...were building a longer chain than the 20 mega chain then, you know, the client would keep switching back to them and keep ending up with this bigger and bigger backlog.  Uhm, and at that point, what we would have to do is, like, checkpoint blocks into both the full nodes and the SPV wallets, so that's a much larger and more complicated upgrade, uhm, to force it onto the larger chain, right.  And in the worst case scenario, if the miners and the rest of the Bitcoin community end up in some kind of, like, full-fledged war, that would basically wreck Bitcoin.  So, we would hope that miners wouldn't do that.  Of course..

Crain: Yeah...

Hearn: ...it's not in their best interests to mess up Bitcoin for everyone.

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
August 18, 2015, 11:53:18 AM
 #31139

Its funny that litecoin has a maximum blocksize of 4MB per 10 minutes, dogecoin has a maximum of 10MB per 10 minutes. But for bitcoin a blocksize of 8MB means absolute destruction and centralisation.

Clone-and-tweak altcoins are being held up as examples of good design?
Wexlike
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Activity: 746



View Profile
August 18, 2015, 12:21:23 PM
 #31140

Its funny that litecoin has a maximum blocksize of 4MB per 10 minutes, dogecoin has a maximum of 10MB per 10 minutes. But for bitcoin a blocksize of 8MB means absolute destruction and centralisation.
Clone-and-tweak altcoins are being held up as examples of good design?
Nope, I wanted to show that blockchains and mining networks which have the possibility of carrying more than 1MB of data per 10 minutes don't just collapse.

Edit: Anyway, i guess we will find consensus with 8MB blocks in bitcoin.
Pages: « 1 ... 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!