Bitcoin Forum
September 19, 2017, 12:00:22 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.14.2  [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 ... 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 1976904 times)
knight22
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358


--------------->¿?


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 03:21:02 PM
 #31141

Can someone please tell me what the problem is with this Bitcoin XT?

Is it a social engineering attack on the Bitcoin network?

See here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1155498.0

1505822422
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1505822422

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1505822422
Reply with quote  #2

1505822422
Report to moderator
1505822422
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1505822422

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1505822422
Reply with quote  #2

1505822422
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1505822422
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1505822422

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1505822422
Reply with quote  #2

1505822422
Report to moderator
1505822422
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1505822422

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1505822422
Reply with quote  #2

1505822422
Report to moderator
1505822422
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1505822422

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1505822422
Reply with quote  #2

1505822422
Report to moderator
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1778


http://DashNdrink.com


View Profile WWW
August 18, 2015, 03:27:17 PM
 #31142

I do think the founders of Blockstream (mostly gmaxwell and adam3us; the perspectives of the others are somewhat less apparent) have (and, importantly, had; see next paragraph) a different vision for how Bitcoin is supposed to work. Different, that is, from most of the community and also from satoshi's public writings (including the white paper).

You already know adam3us's HashCash is One of the Eight Blessed References in Satoshi's Holy Whitepaper.

LOL, let's tell Dr. Backamoto all about "how Bitcoin is supposed to work."

He needs "most of the community" too halp hem lern dat maor gud.   Cheesy

Seriously though, all of this blather about "the community" is starting to sound a little too 'Occupy' for my liking.

Talking about Bitcoin does not make you part of it.

What's next, bloviating about 'stakeholders?'   Roll Eyes

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Core GUI - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }
MoneroForCash.com  |  Buy and sell XMR near you  |  Easymonero.com  |  Bitsquare.io - Decentralized XMR Exchange  |  Buy XMR with fiat
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014

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


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
Mengerian
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 7


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 03:28:31 PM
 #31143

Peter R / awemany,

The user-configurable software blocksize limit proposal got me thinking a bit about what features would be best for a full node implementation.

I like to think about individual incentives, what individual actors in a system may be motivated to do, then after extrapolate out to see how these choices would affect the whole system. In fact, the realization that Bitcoin could work in an environment where all the participants follow their individual incentives was what interested me in it in the first place.

So what do I, individually, want in a full node implementation? I am not a miner. I run a full node (on my crappy 6-year-old laptop) because I want to be able to monitor transactions on the Bitcoin network and make sure they are valid. So to be able to best do this, the software should:
1) Keep track of the longest proof-of-work blockchain
2) monitor other branching proof-of-work chains and let me know about them
3) detect what what consensus rules are being followed in any branching proof-of-work chains.

Software that does this would allow an individual to make informed decisions about what transactions they are willing to accept, and help them mitigate the risk of falling out of consensus. It could also possibly enable more sophisticated actions such as speculating between competing blockchain forks.

So if everyone else also followed this behaviour, what would happen? It seems to me that the overall system would end up being more robust, with less risk of accidental blockchain forks, and any forks that do occur resolving quickly to global consensus again.
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1778


http://DashNdrink.com


View Profile WWW
August 18, 2015, 03:35:54 PM
 #31144


Quote
So who is actually stupid enough to be the first to accept XTcoins?

I honestly don't know.  Not me, that's for sure.  I just run an XT node to be trendy and look cool.


Oh the butthurt of some users in this thread is strong.

 Cheesy

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Core GUI - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }
MoneroForCash.com  |  Buy and sell XMR near you  |  Easymonero.com  |  Bitsquare.io - Decentralized XMR Exchange  |  Buy XMR with fiat
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014

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


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
pa
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 507


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 03:37:32 PM
 #31145

Meni Rosenfeld on XT: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h9cq4/its_time_for_a_break_about_the_recent_mess/cu6udfe
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 18, 2015, 03:41:31 PM
 #31146

On another note, Peter R., did you have a look at my PMs on reddit?

Yes, sorry, I've been caught up by the strangeness of seeing this thread moved.  

I'll answer you question here:  I do not think we should promote this idea more aggressively until we improve its presentation and address some of the objections.  In particular:

1. Solex, Justus, and JorgeStolfi made a good point about the importance of a well-defined limit.  I think the graph I posted yesterday was wrong:



I think there will actually be a vertical line of about 60-80% of the hash power at exactly the same limit, with tails on either side.  The lower-limit tail will eventually get forked off.  If this is true, it would address the concern raised of an attacker publishing a block of just-the-right size to cause a (for example) 47/53 network split.  The reason we get the vertical line of "spontaneous consensus" is that everyone knows that unless that line exists, the network could be forked (game theory).

2. We need to make it clear that this is compatible with BIP101, and that we're not even suggesting that the entire network needs to adopt it.  In other words, we're sort of raising awareness that the limit can be set by the community rather than by the developers of a particular implementation of Bitcoin.  

Of course you are free to do as you wish, but I personally would not mail the proposal to the bitcoin-dev list at this time.  



c'mon Peter, you gotta give me some credit too:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg12167438#msg12167438
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1778


http://DashNdrink.com


View Profile WWW
August 18, 2015, 03:44:53 PM
 #31147


Mike Hearn is a board advisor at Circle


Well then, Circle is dead to me until they change that arrangement.  Back to Satoshi Square and Buttonwood.

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Core GUI - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }
MoneroForCash.com  |  Buy and sell XMR near you  |  Easymonero.com  |  Bitsquare.io - Decentralized XMR Exchange  |  Buy XMR with fiat
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014

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


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
stoat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 03:45:49 PM
 #31148

Can someone please tell me what the problem is with this Bitcoin XT?

Is it a social engineering attack on the Bitcoin network?

See here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1155498.0

How utterly unilluminating.  

Anyone answer my original question?

0x8d1b4e41652eacec5715dc5c4833f6b713573de6 If you agree with me, please support a friend of mine in need.
Mengerian
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 7


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 04:27:15 PM
 #31149

To further elaborate my thoughts:

The functions of a full node are to provide both monitoring and validation.

Monitoring the state of the network should be the first function of a node. In order to do this a node should a able to keep track of transactions and blocks that may follow differing consensus rules, and detect competing blockchain forks. In the case of block size, the software should keep track of any block regardless of size, subject to its technical ability.

Current software, both XT and Core, do not provide the greatest monitoring, since they only keep track of the longest blockchain that follows the one set of consensus rules they implement.

Validating transactions comes after monitoring, when the node operator can choose which transactions to accept, which to relay, and which proof of work blockchain is considered valid. Trying to stay in sync with network consensus will be of primary importance here.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1540



View Profile
August 18, 2015, 04:30:52 PM
 #31150

I do think the founders of Blockstream (mostly gmaxwell and adam3us; the perspectives of the others are somewhat less apparent) have (and, importantly, had; see next paragraph) a different vision for how Bitcoin is supposed to work. Different, that is, from most of the community and also from satoshi's public writings (including the white paper).

You already know adam3us's HashCash is One of the Eight Blessed References in Satoshi's Holy Whitepaper.

Do the authors of all eight of those references, plus the whitepaper itself, agree on everything 100%?
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
August 18, 2015, 04:39:06 PM
 #31151

I think cypher is counting all nodes not just the top 5.
the metric to watch is, 1 and 2 are they dropping?
1   /Satoshi:0.11.0/   2229 (36.30%)
2   /Satoshi:0.10.2/   1158 (18.86%)

actually, i don't think we should be looking at %'s.  why?  b/c don't forget that the Cripplecoiner's can spin up their own nodes too just to give the impression that their % share is holding.  i'm concentrating on the absolute #'s for XT nodes.  yes, i'm ignoring the pseudo-XT's for now b/c i think that was a stupid idea out of the box and doubt any of those guys are that dumb to do that. if XT nodes can get up to 3500-4500 or even less, to me, that would be a fantastic sign of adoption and future success of the XT chain as long as miner follow along, which they should.
Agree, I'm not invested in XT per se, it's all nodes that have the equivalent of BIP 101. It's the use of central control to mitigate the problems of central control that's threatening Bitcoin, XT is the only viable option at this time.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1778


http://DashNdrink.com


View Profile WWW
August 18, 2015, 04:42:48 PM
 #31152

I believe congratulations are in order.  We've been moved to the alt-coin section!

WTF is this!?   Angry


LOL U MAD BRO?


#R3KT

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Core GUI - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }
MoneroForCash.com  |  Buy and sell XMR near you  |  Easymonero.com  |  Bitsquare.io - Decentralized XMR Exchange  |  Buy XMR with fiat
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014

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


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
Hunyadi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1269


☑ ♟ ☐ ♚


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 04:48:54 PM
 #31153

WTF?!?!? Moving this topic to the alt-section was a bitchy move.


▂▃▅▇█▓▒░BTC-Cultist░▒▓█▇▅▃▂
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
August 18, 2015, 04:50:57 PM
 #31154

I think cypher is counting all nodes not just the top 5.
the metric to watch is, 1 and 2 are they dropping?
1   /Satoshi:0.11.0/   2229 (36.30%)
2   /Satoshi:0.10.2/   1158 (18.86%)



Something you might want to consider; is of the massive mining power in china only one node (from the 105) is actually running XT

 https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/?page=1&q=China

China has already said they won't support XT

What central authority represents the 100+ nodes running in China? If they want to partake in this relay network they better start supporting it.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
zanzibar
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 598


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 04:55:09 PM
 #31155


Mike Hearn is a board advisor at Circle


Well then, Circle is dead to me until they change that arrangement.  Back to Satoshi Square and Buttonwood.

I'm sure once they hear your displeasure they will oust Mike Hearn immediately.  Roll Eyes  
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
August 18, 2015, 04:58:41 PM
 #31156

Can someone support if this is actually happening?

I often read Bitcoin talk from a browser that has no cookies and is not logged in.

I usually start by browsing to the speculation section and click the gold collapsing thread, it's always near the top.

Today however I'm having issues so I though I'd catch up reading on my cookie free browser.

And well cypher it looks like you are now no longer there, I think discussion here has been blocked to the public.

Is this the same for everyone?

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
lunarboy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 544



View Profile
August 18, 2015, 05:27:14 PM
 #31157


Thanks for the that.

Quote
Bitcoin-XT represents a somewhat reckless approach, which in the name of advancement shatters existing structures, fragments the community, and spins the ecosystem into chaos.

A new enemy of Frap.doc and the Gavinistas emerges!

Let's see what kind of poo they fling this time.

If you're going to quote Meni at least have some respect and not take it out of context. here is the full post in it's entirety

Quote
MeniRosenfeldMeni Rosenfeld - Bitcoin Expert 172 points 9 hours ago*x2

Sorry for being the odd one out in theymos' list, not having my stance on the issue clear Smiley. I will clarify it, but only after I explain at length why I reject the whole premise of the question.

This used to be a technical debate about block sizes. We were presented with two bad choices: Keep it at 1MB which is obviously too low, or increase to 8MB/20MB which is obviously too high (obvious to me anyway). As a community we've failed to reach a compromise, and I think that if more people pushed for a reasonable number like 3-4 MB in the short term (including also Gavin and Mike on one extreme, and Peter on the other), things would be different now.

Given that compromise failed, Gavin and Mike went ahead to push Bitcoin-XT, and now the real issue isn't about technology, it's about the philosophy of Bitcoin evolution. To me, Bitcoin-XT represents a somewhat reckless approach, which in the name of advancement shatters existing structures, fragments the community, and spins the ecosystem into chaos. Whereas Bitcoin Core represents a frigid approach, where no technology improvement will ever be made because consensus can't be reached, and where we can't do anything about the fact that we can't do anything, because of the delegitimization of attempts to change the status quo by forking and letting the best currency win (and make no mistakes, there will be many necessary technology improvements down the road; the block size limit pales in comparison).

Both choices are bad.

I had plans once to write a paper about the game-theoretic aspects of changing the Bitcoin protocol, the contingencies in case of a fork, and how the mere threat of a fork can create a Schelling point which would prevent it from happening. I regret never getting around to it, because it might have been illuminating in the current debate. (For that matter, the other paper I had plans for writing was about transaction fees and how they relate to things like a block size limit; I regret that too, but again the block size is no longer the real issue).

But anyway, I do strongly believe that the possibility of forking Bitcoin - even if at first it has no consensus - is vital to Bitcoin's health, growth and survival. It's the glue that holds everything together and makes sure the Bitcoin economy has a say in case something goes wrong with the development. Ideally a contentious fork would forever remain a theoretical possibility - but if it is possible it means it can happen, and that's what we're seeing right now. Rejecting a fork on the grounds that it's a fork is wrong.

Of course, there are grounds to reject Bitcoin-XT on the grounds that its timing and method are wrong. The objection to the technical change was too strong to just gloss over it. We're definitely not anywhere near the point where Pieter, Greg or Wladimir can be conceivably considered rogue and we should break away from them. Mike and Gavin have, quite arrogantly I would say, assumed that this is just like any other software change and that virtually everyone will just automatically follow them, where the reality is far from it. They didn't properly consider the consequences of making this move without enough support. (They might reply that they have been fighting for this for a long time and exhausted all other options, but I don't accept this - they made many attempts at persuasion, but not enough at compromise).

So here we are, having to choose between two bad alternatives. The mere act of choosing commits, in my opinion, the logical fallacy of privileging the hypothesis. There are millions of possible approaches, and "someone" out there restricted them to just 2. Most of the decision process (culling from millions to 2) was made for me and I'm left rubber-stamping one of the choices that remain. (See also http://lesswrong.com/lw/mi/stop_voting_for_nincompoops/).

But hey, even a noisy bit contains some information, and the question was asked, so...

Given the choice between short-term sticking with 1MB or going all the way to 8MB, I am in favor of going to 8MB.

Given the choice between sticking with Bitcoin Core or switching to Bitcoin-XT, I am in slight favor of sticking with Bitcoin Core, but that could change any time.

All that said, the parent post explaining theymos' policy makes no sense to me. As explained above, the possibility of forking is an integral part of Bitcoin. As long as Bitcoin-XT has non-negligible support as the true Bitcoin implementation, even with nothing resembling unanimous consensus, it is a part of what Bitcoin is, and of course is on topic on a Bitcoin subreddit.

Even if for some reason we take a purist approach that Bitcoin = Bitcoin Core, I'd imagine that most posts about Bitcoin-XT would compare it in some way to Bitcoin Core, and as such are on-topic (just like a post comparing Bitcoin and Litecoin would be on topic).

I'm considering upgrading the above to a post, but honestly, since it includes a discussion of Bitcoin-XT, I'm not even sure it passes the moderation rules...
Pages: « 1 ... 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!