tvbcof
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 4592
Merit: 1276
|
 |
June 20, 2015, 05:48:19 PM |
|
Reddit is already heavily astroturfed in favor of Gavin's strategy. Which if does include pushing other devs out is deeply wrong. I was on the fence before but I cannot support Gavin if he is trying to become the king of bitcoin. Its fundamentally anti-bitcoin and everything we stand for. What does this all come from? The aggressive need to scale so we can bubble again? Since when has this community become so greedy.
you miss the whole pt of what i said. Gavin is ALSO trying to automate out HIMSELF. if you've observed Gavin carefully ever since he was given the keys by Satoshi, he has always been much more optimistic and hands off with Bitcoin than all the other core devs who just obsess all day long about what's wrong with Bitcoin and what they should be doing about it. Gavin, being the understanding leader that he is, simply let those guys go off and tinker at the edges for the longest time. now, when the block size limit continues to be hit, he HAS to step up and take charge to prevent repeated DoS'ing of the network. in the meantime, what was entirely unpredictable was a faction of core dev going off and creating their own private for profit company which actually depends on deprecating/choking Bitcoin Core. his vision with XT, which i entirely agree with, is to get it to a point where it upgrades itself over time to keep up with internet capacity. he doesn't want this shitfest debate coming up again. that's not good news for devs who gotta dev. this is a worthy goal. Since I got interested, Gavin's focus seemed to be on making the GUI more pretty and such rather than to put much focus on things like pruning (which was one of the big selling points to me in the whitepaper and still has not happened.) Another in the list of useless and counterproductive development pushes was to get SSL with it's reliance on certificate authorities put in. That one opened us up to the heartbleed bug. There did seem to be a change when Gavin visited the Council of Foriegn Relations and refused the most basic of transparency requests on the part of the user-base. It seems to correspond roughly with the point when Hearn's whole arm worked it's way from Gavin's ass all the way up to his jaw. That's what it seems to me at any rate. It also seems to correspond whit the point when he stopped doing almost any coding at all. 'devs gotta dev' because Bitcoin is important, under stress, and has a variety of core defects and has experienced a stream of quasi-attacks. Most of the devs have spent their efforts on these issues as far as I'm concerned and have done quite a nice job. To my way of thinking Gavin has never been hugely helpful but until relatively recently he has at least not been obstructionist. |
sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In order to achieve higher forum ranks, you need both activity points and merit points.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Odalv
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1000
|
|
June 20, 2015, 06:54:48 PM |
|
so ... block size will be 8,192,000,000 bytes in 2036. see that big green candle? ... Is it you who created that candle ? |
|
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war
|
|
June 20, 2015, 06:57:17 PM
Last edit: June 20, 2015, 07:08:15 PM by TPTB_need_war |
|
Comparing a successful fork to a runaway sidechain.
A chain fork, while painful, will succeed only if the fork is better than the original. A bitcoiner need only do nothing to join the fork.
A sidechain will either be less valuable and therefore be very small, or more valuable and therefore run away. A bitcoiner might be left behind, unless he converts to the sidechain in time.
I prefer a chain fork to a runaway sidechain.
Yes, chain fork = (Peter R's) spin off, though the latter carries a connotation of being done in a somewhat less chaotic fashion. As I said before, spin offs make a lot more sense than side chains as a way to (potentially) upgrade bitcoin. Even Adam's one-way pegs are better than side chains, but spin offs are better than one way pegs. But Blockstream's two-way pegged side chains don't runaway from your BTC value. Thus they are best, because they are not all-or-nothing choices, you can go back and forth, and your BTC value is protected. I consider the entire scheme unstable and unsound, and quite plausibly will never even be implemented (in other than federated form, at which point it instead becomes uninteresting). Because of the vulnerability of the network to 50% attacks? But what if a side chain isn't vulnerable to 50% attacks. In that case, assuming other more serious compromises aren't made, then your system is simply far superior to Bitcoin. You should replace it and not carry the Bitcoin system around as unnecessary and uncompetitive overhead. If you can carry those BTC units on your coin's network orthogonally to your coin's units, then you get the benefits of leveraging Bitcoin's existing network efforts while ramping up your own coin. Transition isn't instantaneous. Many may prefer to transfer BTC value and then later after convinced, they convert BTC to your coin. Any other reasons you think it is unstable and unsound?
Economically I don't believe that two different assets can be successfully pegged to the same price, especially not in a decentralized manner (though doing it in a centralized manner also likely fails to a version of the calculation problem). If you extrapolate from this premise, it is clear that various failure modes are inevitable, some quite catastrophic. But possibly people are mostly smart enough to stay clear of the whole thing in which case the failure mode is non-catestrophic (a whimper not a bang). Well long-term, it impossible to guarantee that the protocol of the pegged side chain will continue to warrant that it is not creating new BTC units, thus long-term there is no way the peg will be respected on the side of the side chain. The Bitcoin Core block chain wouldn't care because money supply there is not subject to change by what a side coin does. (ditto vice versa) So yes the BTC value in the pegged side chain can not be warranted long-term, but that is not the targeted purpose. It is a short-term (couple of years or so) test of flow from Core into a new network. If the flow is sufficient, then it succeeds and eventually diverges from Bitcoin Core long-term. Short-term is enough to meet investor expectations. I think you are making a catastrophic mistake to ignore them. I hope your view doesn't represent Monero's position? Why is federated uninteresting? The masses don't give a hoot about theoretical decentralization (otherwise they wouldn't buy Bitcoin nor Monero nor any other existing cryptocoin in first place because none are theoretical sound decentralization).
Whose leg are we pulling here.
I don't really care what the masses buy, except in so far as I can successfully front run them. Non-decentralized systems are uninteresting because there are many well known ways to implement them that don't have the cost and performance compromises nor the user-unfriendliness of blockchains. But if that semi-centralized federalism is a pathway to a superior decentralized network, then that centralization gets discarded... Careful the myopia... |
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war
|
|
June 20, 2015, 07:01:38 PM |
|
Comparing a successful fork to a runaway sidechain.
A chain fork, while painful, will succeed only if the fork is better than the original. A bitcoiner need only do nothing to join the fork.
A sidechain will either be less valuable and therefore be very small, or more valuable and therefore run away. A bitcoiner might be left behind, unless he converts to the sidechain in time.
I prefer a chain fork to a runaway sidechain.
Yes, chain fork = (Peter R's) spin off, though the latter carries a connotation of being done in a somewhat less chaotic fashion. As I said before, spin offs make a lot more sense than side chains as a way to (potentially) upgrade bitcoin. Even Adam's one-way pegs are better than side chains, but spin offs are better than one way pegs. But Blockstream's two-way pegged side chains don't runaway from your BTC value. Thus they are best, because they are not all-or-nothing choices, you can go back and forth, and your BTC value is protected. Pegging two different, however slightly, money types together is a problem in theory and practice. As long as they are different, they will have different value. If the value is smaller, they will be converted to bitcoins. If the value is larger, they will be converted to sidecoins. When a fiat system goes bust, a new one is created, and it is quite common to peg the value to for instance the dollar. This is to try to give people a reason to trust the new money. The reason to have local money at all, is to get the seigniorage, which otherwise would be wasted to another government. To peg the value, you need an institution to be the guarantor, that means a kind of bank with reserves in the other money type. In practice, exact pegging is not possible, because there will be leakage of value to speculants and money exchange services. Therefore there will be a band, where the value will be pegged to somewhere between the upper and lower limits. Even better, the exact limits are secret, to avoid speculation near the edge. This can go on for a while, until they have created too much (sometimes too little), the peg breaks and is set to another value. If there is a mathematical peg defined by protocol and secured by the blockchain, the difference in value will have to escape somehow, and that is either the coins disappear if they are worth less than bitcoin, otherwise all bitcoins will be converted to sidecoins. It is not rocket science. You are conflating a physical peg with a peg enforced by market exchange dominance. The latter is destined to fail when the dominator exhausts resources. The former fails only if the physical peg fails, i.e. the side chain breaks the protocol rules of the peg. |
|
|
|
tvbcof
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4592
Merit: 1276
|
|
June 20, 2015, 07:21:40 PM |
|
Given the keys by Satoshi? Even you are blindly repeating that? Satoshi only gave him the alert keys, the metaphorical keys you speak of do not exist. Gavin took advantage of Satoshi's disappearance by repeating that same story over and over again of Satoshi putting his email on the website like it means he is Satoshi's heir. There is no such position in bitcoin anyways.
What you portray as 'going off to tinker' and 'obsessing' is creating solutions and being cautious about modifying what is like changing the function of a car engine while the car is moving. This hyperbole betrays the weakness of your position, only the weak side resorts to such in a discussion. The network has been DoSed, but not significantly and in any capacity to impact more than most users. Deprecating/choking bitcoin core? How? By moving wealth (that probably wasn't already there due to an inadequacy) from something bitcoin can't do well or can't do at all into a sidechain? The only choking is of possible future financial wealth, which shows stake in the game.
what's ridiculous is your claim in bold. if it was so controversial, why hasn't your point come up before? i've never heard any of the other core devs spouting your allegations, even now. That's because they have been plenty busy trying to keep Bitcoin viable and valuable most likely. I very much doubt that they have time for your silly games. In fact I have reason to believe that some of them have not been paying much attention to your ilk and are somewhat mystified at your absurdity. I, for one, am glad that with some exceptions the devs who are actually doing shit have not gotten their hands stuck in the cypherdoc tar-baby. Bitcoin is much better off for it. edit: link |
sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
|
|
|
|
Natalia_AnatolioPAMM
|
|
June 20, 2015, 07:25:48 PM |
|
so ... block size will be 8,192,000,000 bytes in 2036. see that big green candle? ... Is it you who created that candle ? I guess he was the one |
|
|
|
|
smooth
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
|
|
June 20, 2015, 07:28:51 PM |
|
I think you are making a catastrophic mistake to ignore them. I hope your view doesn't represent Monero's position?
Nobody is ignoring them. I just think they won't really have much relevance, or if they do they will destabilize the greater Bitcoin system. But I doubt the latter because the obstacles of relying on far weaker security such as merged mining, along with giving up most of Bitcoin's network effect, are simply too great. The vast majority will just stick with vanilla Bitcoin, which will force the rest to do the same. Monero is a piece of software and doesn't have a position, but if against all odds sidechains become widely used the equivalent functionality will likely be added to Monero, and then Bitcoin can become a sidechain to Monero (no, I'm not kidding). |
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
June 20, 2015, 07:40:09 PM |
|
so ... block size will be 8,192,000,000 bytes in 2036. see that big green candle? ... Is it you who created that candle ? I guess he was the one No |
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
June 20, 2015, 07:43:46 PM |
|
I think you are making a catastrophic mistake to ignore them. I hope your view doesn't represent Monero's position?
Nobody is ignoring them. I just think they won't really have much relevance, or if they do they will destabilize the greater Bitcoin system. But I doubt the latter because the obstacles of relying on far weaker security such as merged mining, along with giving up most of Bitcoin's network effect, are simply too great. The vast majority will just stick with vanilla Bitcoin, which will force the rest to do the same. Monero is a piece of software and doesn't have a position, but if against all odds sidechains become widely used the equivalent functionality will likely be added to Monero, and then Bitcoin can become a sidechain to Monero (no, I'm not kidding). While I don't agree with smooth that Monero has a future, I do agree with everything he's saying about SC's. So in that perverse sense, Monero has a greater chance to survive than Blockstream and SC's. Go for it. At least Monero is not a leech. |
|
|
|
|
tvbcof
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4592
Merit: 1276
|
|
June 20, 2015, 07:50:38 PM |
|
...
Monero is a piece of software and doesn't have a position, but if against all odds sidechains become widely used the equivalent functionality will likely be added to Monero, and then Bitcoin can become a sidechain to Monero (no, I'm not kidding).
In general principle I could see something like that happening, but I doubt that it would be Monaro or anything like it which takes on the reserve role. Although I've not studied Monaro at all it feels like pre-mine scammery to me. That's just a gut sense. More than that, though, the very things that people crow about (privacy, opacity, etc) work against a reserve currency or backing store. To be effective in this regard a backing store needs to be as transparent as possible. I'm much more comfortable knowing that some particular entity (even a total dick-head) controls exactly a certain part of the backing store than having to guess at it. This is especially the case if I am confident that I can watch it move around. The defense against attack by this loss of privacy that I would be comfortable with would be if the someone or some entity who controlled X percent of the backing store could just stand up and tell attackers, "ya, I own it. Go fuck yourself." and I could verify that his position to say that was sound. A example here would be MP's reaction to the U.S. SEC's harassment. At the end of the day, lending support to a backed monetary system will require the backing store controller to put his Bitcoin (for instance) up for grabs by anyone who wants to take a position. They could trade it off for 'things' and the only way for the controller not to lose it would be to buy it back. Someone who controls a lot of the backing store could use this leverage to game the collection of systems. Opacity and privacy here only makes this potential threat vastly worse. |
sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
|
|
|
smooth
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
|
|
June 20, 2015, 07:55:48 PM |
|
Although I've not studied Monaro at all it feels like pre-mine scammery to me. Whatever good, bad or irrelevant things there might be going on with Monero, it is certainly not premined. If you had done even a tiny bit of studying you would have figured that out. Given the tiny value of the coin at this point you can certainly be excused for not investing even that level of effort though. I have no idea why it is discussed on this thread so much. Some will probably blame me for bringing it up, but they'd be 100% wrong. |
|
|
|
|
smooth
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
|
|
June 20, 2015, 07:59:23 PM |
|
I think you are making a catastrophic mistake to ignore them. I hope your view doesn't represent Monero's position?
Nobody is ignoring them. I just think they won't really have much relevance, or if they do they will destabilize the greater Bitcoin system. But I doubt the latter because the obstacles of relying on far weaker security such as merged mining, along with giving up most of Bitcoin's network effect, are simply too great. The vast majority will just stick with vanilla Bitcoin, which will force the rest to do the same. Monero is a piece of software and doesn't have a position, but if against all odds sidechains become widely used the equivalent functionality will likely be added to Monero, and then Bitcoin can become a sidechain to Monero (no, I'm not kidding). While I don't agree with smooth that Monero has a future, I do agree with everything he's saying about SC's. So in that perverse sense, Monero has a greater chance to survive than Blockstream and SC's. Go for it. At least Monero is not a leech. I never said Monero has a future, though strictly speaking, to say something has no future you'd have to claim it will be dead by tomorrow, or next month, or next year. All of those seem reasonably unlikely in the case of Monero to me, and I'm just trying to be objective about it here, not an advocate. So I'm not really sure what having a future means in this context. I doubt Bitcoin or USD will last forever either. As far as sidechains, I give cypherdoc credit for his intuition about them. Despite not really understanding the technology (nor claiming to), he's been more insightful about the concept at a high level than many people who should know better, including it's inventors. That is assuming we can take their statements of what they are trying to accomplish at face value though, which may not be true. |
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
June 20, 2015, 08:01:40 PM |
|
Although I've not studied Monaro at all it feels like pre-mine scammery to me. Whatever good, bad or irrelevant things there might be going on with Monero, it is certainly not premined. If you had done even a tiny bit of studying you would have figured that out. Given the tiny value of the coin at this point you can certainly be excused for not investing even that level of effort though. I have no idea why it is discussed on this thread so much. Some will probably blame me for bringing it up, but they'd be 100% wrong. Maybe kazukiPIMP? |
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
June 20, 2015, 08:36:43 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
June 20, 2015, 10:15:12 PM |
|
XT nodes now 147
if someone can provide an easy Ubuntu tute to switch from Core to XT that would be great.
|
|
|
|
|
tvbcof
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4592
Merit: 1276
|
|
June 20, 2015, 10:46:16 PM |
|
XT nodes now 147
if someone can provide an easy Ubuntu tute to switch from Core to XT that would be great.
HTH. |
sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
|
|
|
smooth
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
|
|
June 20, 2015, 11:02:52 PM |
|
I agree with him that the block size limit is an anti-spam feature and should be treated as such, but the question is why (for example) 20 MB of spam is considered acceptable now. I see no good reason to allow 20x as much spam, when little to nothing has been done to control spam in any other way. |
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
June 20, 2015, 11:28:02 PM |
|
I agree with him that the block size limit is an anti-spam feature and should be treated as such, but the question is why (for example) 20 MB of spam is considered acceptable now. I see no good reason to allow 20x as much spam, when little to nothing has been done to control spam in any other way. according to the new XT code today, the max would be 8MB, with doubling every 2y if 75% miners up-version. you'd have to believe, for all the same reasons we've argued against for yrs, that a large miner would be willing to risk paying 8MB worth of spam tx fees for a prolonged period of time to try for the fuzzy goal of driving smaller miners out of business over an unspecified period of time, which may never come, and which comes at great risk to themselves from orphaning. given that the top 5 Chinese miners have already told us they are stuck behind the GFC with poor connectivity, i'm not sure how they do this mythical attack. trying to tap into the relay network apparently doesn't help. they've already told us flat out that 8MB is the max they can handle at this point and Gavin has demonstrated he is a mature negotiator and conceded this metric to them unlike the Blockstream ppl who always just say "NO". if a user wants to spam 8MB worth of stress tx's it will cost them 8x as much as today. expensive? maybe, maybe not. but at least they will be paying good fees to miners who will be happy with that. the real question is can they sustain that spam for any length of time. we'll just have to see. then the question is why hasn't anybody done that yet? i think it's also important to note that if someone tries this attack, it's reasonable to expect that miners and other users will react. either by jacking tx fees even exorbitantly higher or blocking the offending ip address. point being, no one is just going to stand aside and watch a spammer destroy the network. |
|
|
|
|
Peter R
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1007
|
|
June 20, 2015, 11:29:02 PM |
|
Excellent and timely post by Kondrad! Impressive--I recall he also posted a comprehensive article on sidechains, shortly after the Blockstream white paper was published. |
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
June 20, 2015, 11:30:23 PM |
|
Excellent and timely post by Kondrad! Impressive--I recall he also posted a comprehensive article on sidechains, shortly after the Blockstream white paper was published. yeah, it's a killer and extremely bad news for the 1MB folk. |
|
|
|
|
|
Poll
