Peter R
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1007
|
 |
June 24, 2015, 12:53:14 AM |
|
- the system remains open such that if I feel really really strongly about it, that I can run a node and mine too
You wouldn't have enough hashrate to have any impact against a network with only 10 miners. Duh. You're missing the game theory behind what keeps bitcoin secure, which is probably why you're so convinced that it will fail. For example, you said a new entrant wouldn't have enough hashrate to compete. However, if it requires a lot of hash rate for that new entrant to compete, then that means the system is very likely not centralized. Duh. Exactly that was _my_ point if you argue there will be only 10 miners. I am not going to waste my entire day as you drag me into more nonsense debate. I said I didn't expect there to ever be only 10 miners! I was pointing out, though, that we probably don't need as many nodes/miners as many people think we need. I then gave the very extreme example of 10 miners, spread out in different legal jurisdictions and run by people with different ideologies, and stated that such a network could still be "decentralized." The reason is that if the miners formed a cartel (and bitcoin became centralized), then they would all lower their hashrates to earn a greater profit.
Not necessarily. You always assume Nash equilibrium and are myopic about out-of-band incentives, such as the incentive to apply censorship (KYC compliance) and other payoffs that can come from that. Fine. Maybe they earn a profit or perks some other way and not directly by reducing their hashrate. It doesn't matter. The point is they're getting above-market-value for the work they're doing. If the network is free to join, then others who are not in the cartel will want to join in order to "eat their lunch." Again, I believe bitcoin will remain decentralized if it remains possible for participants to freely join the network and mine (i.e., it remains a dynamic-membership multi-party signature (DMMS) consensus scheme). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transactions must be included in a block to be properly completed. When you send a transaction, it is broadcast to miners. Miners can then optionally include it in their next blocks. Miners will be more inclined to include your transaction if it has a higher transaction fee.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war
|
|
June 24, 2015, 12:59:36 AM
Last edit: June 24, 2015, 01:13:22 AM by TPTB_need_war |
|
If the network is free to join, then others who are not in the cartel will want to join in order to "eat their lunch."
They can't. I already told you that you wouldn't have enough hashrate unless you were a member of the cartel monopoly that is able to charge the cost of mining to the entire population via the capture of the sovereign bond-fiat connection. What do you think KYC and 9/11 is all about? You are socially myopic. Edit: don't forget a monopoly can also raise transaction fees but withhold transactions for the minority miners. I (AnonyMint) described this attack in 2013 (Transactions Withholding Attack). |
|
|
|
|
lissandra
|
|
June 24, 2015, 12:59:51 AM |
|
My god, cheezes christ, what a socialist pile of crap.
I can personally guarantee that bitcoin with the crucial coin limit will continue, even if I have to run my own miner and wait decennia before the difficulty adjusts. More likely though, I will be joined by at least a percentage of current miners, meaning the system will continue with the slight annoyance of having confirmation times of a day or so. Have your fork, the inflatacoin will go the way of the fiats.
And without SCs, your hard limit fork will be absolutely worthless in exchange value. I think you need to review a thread I wrote as AnonyMint: No Money Exists Without the Majority https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=226033.0Well that only make sense right. cause what value is it if no one holds it, so yeah majority of the people need to hold it for any point of value. |
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war
|
|
June 24, 2015, 01:08:22 AM |
|
My god, cheezes christ, what a socialist pile of crap.
I can personally guarantee that bitcoin with the crucial coin limit will continue, even if I have to run my own miner and wait decennia before the difficulty adjusts. More likely though, I will be joined by at least a percentage of current miners, meaning the system will continue with the slight annoyance of having confirmation times of a day or so. Have your fork, the inflatacoin will go the way of the fiats.
And without SCs, your hard limit fork will be absolutely worthless in exchange value. I think you need to review a thread I wrote as AnonyMint: No Money Exists Without the Majority https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=226033.0Well that only make sense right. cause what value is it if no one holds it, so yeah majority of the people need to hold it for any point of value. Or some use case that cause a minority to demand it. So they need to argue some features their hard limit fork will have that drive a use case. If store-of-value is the use case, they have to explain how their coins are better than gold. If their system has no anonymity then it is surely toast. Also how does their minority system resist 50% attack? Whack-A-Mole isn't a viable retort. They will never get the necessary changes to the protocol without SCs. |
|
|
|
|
HeliKopterBen
|
|
June 24, 2015, 01:22:32 AM |
|
Well, the facts are that Gavin literally did just that; an alternative, hardforked client with a 20 MB block limit, and anyone from the core deve team that didn't like that could watch while he lobbies miners, services and merchants to accept the new client. That was what he said, he has not retracted it, nor confessed the ulterior motive you are affording him. Those are the facts, are they not?
Why do they have to sit back and watch? Can they not lobby those same miners, services, and merchants. Besides, the miners are mostly in control anyway. That's why gavin was so quick to accept the 8mb deal offered by the Chinese miners. He knows who ultimately enforces the code. The blockstream guys don't seam to understand that. |
Counterfeit: made in imitation of something else with intent to deceive: merriam-webster
|
|
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war
|
|
June 24, 2015, 02:47:46 AM |
|
Hard money is a delusion.
What you really want is soft money that is decentralized and thus remains permission-less (censorship-free).
I'd argue what you are talking about here is a need for cash, or least the symbol of cash. And decentralization alone isn't enough to create an ecash. It has to be fungible, untraceable and unlinkable. Bitcoin's only fungible as long as you can guarantee your wallet won't become blacklisted, and as the tracking tech gets more and more sophisticated, this becomes more and more of a crap-shoot. If I'm a "cash only" mom and pop restaurant who relied on a loan from an underworld organization to secure my business and need to pay restitution to secure my business and myself, am I going to risk using a currency that can be used to reveal all my tax revenue (credit) or (cash) one that lets me keep a profit over what I pay to my Bosses--the Mafia, the Yakuza, my kid's College Loan Syndicate? You have to remember that most small business owners aren't technologically sophisticated and cash fills a very pertinent need in their lives. They aren't going to get a degree in sidechains or mixers or tumblers in order to perform their daily business--especially when those things still have a risk of tainting their accounts when the best of practices are followed. The $ symbol exist and a lot of people want a digital equivalent, and BTC won't fill that demand until it is in the core. Right now BTC symbolizes Behind Bars or worse.... I am saying that for as long as loaning money and charging it to the sovereign debt-fiat backstop (i.e. the Logic of Collective Action) is the easier way for the masses to get "free money", then all attempts at non-free money will be subsumed by that aforementioned paradigm which inherently concentrates power. For example, the 50% attack on PoW. So that is why if you are going to succeed, then your perpetual debasement must be high enough to compete, then you need a way to give this away (distribute it) to the masses that can't be gamed such that it really is taken by the wealthy. I solved this design problem finally! |
|
|
|
necrita
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 49
Merit: 0
|
|
June 24, 2015, 04:12:56 AM |
|
I concur with tvbcof that there may be an opportunity during the hard fork for people to speculate and make a fortune.
|
|
|
|
|
tvbcof
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4578
Merit: 1276
|
|
June 24, 2015, 04:57:56 AM |
|
I concur with tvbcof that there may be an opportunity during the hard fork for people to speculate and make a fortune.
It looks like we probably won't even get a chance to play. The bloatchain fork looks like it will be stillborn at best. They'll probably give it up soon. Even if not, in the best of circumstances playing these games would have been iffy since all Bitcoin-based crypto-currencies and probably all crypto-currencies generally would suffer a black eye that would take all of them down significantly for a good period of time. It still might be possible to play various differentials but it would be risky and a lot of work. The good news is that as sidechains start to blossom it will click in even the most dense of minds (i.e., cypherdoc's) that hodling BTC is effectively a simultaneous bet on the success of any sidechain no matter what niche it fills. Further, since sidechains themselves will sprout like weeds to fill any empty space they will be very robust against attack. These two things in and of themselves could have a fairly dramatic increase in interest and in price for native BTC. |
sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
June 24, 2015, 05:10:34 AM |
|
I concur with tvbcof that there may be an opportunity during the hard fork for people to speculate and make a fortune.
It looks like we probably won't even get a chance to play. The bloatchain fork looks like it will be stillborn at best. They'll probably give it up soon. Even if not, in the best of circumstances playing these games would have been iffy since all Bitcoin-based crypto-currencies and probably all crypto-currencies generally would suffer a black eye that would take all of them down significantly for a good period of time. It still might be possible to play various differentials but it would be risky and a lot of work. The good news is that as sidechains start to blossom it will click in even the most dense of minds (i.e., cypherdoc's) that hodling BTC is effectively a simultaneous bet on the success of any sidechain no matter what niche it fills. Further, since sidechains themselves will sprout like weeds to fill any empty space they will be very robust against attack. These two things in and of themselves could have a fairly dramatic increase in interest and in price for native BTC. it's going to be fun watching you crawl. you're reading this totally wrong as usual. |
|
|
|
|
sidhujag
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2044
Merit: 1005
|
|
June 24, 2015, 05:14:39 AM |
|
Fun watching u two dance.. Get a room already! :p
|
|
|
|
|
|
mmmaybe
|
|
June 24, 2015, 05:18:41 AM |
|
Fun watching u two dance.. Get a room already! :p
No threesome...?  Or a whole Bitcointalk orgie haha. Has gold collapsed? Didn't know that, but BTC has gone up - a tiny bit. I still expect a whole different price level for BTC. |
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war
|
|
June 24, 2015, 05:20:16 AM |
|
I concur with tvbcof that there may be an opportunity during the hard fork for people to speculate and make a fortune.
It looks like we probably won't even get a chance to play. The bloatchain fork looks like it will be stillborn at best. They'll probably give it up soon. Even if not, in the best of circumstances playing these games would have been iffy since all Bitcoin-based crypto-currencies and probably all crypto-currencies generally would suffer a black eye that would take all of them down significantly for a good period of time. It still might be possible to play various differentials but it would be risky and a lot of work. The good news is that as sidechains start to blossom it will click in even the most dense of minds (i.e., cypherdoc's) that hodling BTC is effectively a simultaneous bet on the success of any sidechain no matter what niche it fills. Further, since sidechains themselves will sprout like weeds to fill any empty space they will be very robust against attack. These two things in and of themselves could have a fairly dramatic increase in interest and in price for native BTC. it's going to be fun watching you crawl. you're reading this totally wrong as usual. Specifically he must think the pegged side chains are going to be failure prone and or easy to attack forcing people to stay away from them. He must think Gavinmike have cornered the world's developer talent pool. Does he have any clue how many developers do not work on or with cryptocurrency related projects? The sky is wide open for providing an ecosystem for them and competing away from the paralysis of Bitcoin Core. |
|
|
|
tvbcof
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4578
Merit: 1276
|
|
June 24, 2015, 05:31:37 AM |
|
Fun watching u two dance.. Get a room already! :p
Me and cypherdoc: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qoys8eUn9k |
sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
|
|
|
Erdogan
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1005
|
|
June 24, 2015, 05:56:53 AM |
|
Perhaps the bitcoin economy has matured enough that a set max block size is not actually needed anymore?!
What if we had some type of patch that eliminated "silly sized blocks" and allowed miners to set any soft limit they want? Have it something like: allow any size as long as it's not more than x3 (or other number) the previous months average block size.
Market incentives will drive each mining pools soft limits. Increasing the limits will stimulate growth (increase centralization if done too fast compared to technology because of resources needed) while smaller blocks will increase fees. Some may like smaller blocks because of risk of orphans while others will want large blocks to grow the user base of people using bitcoins. Allowing a x3 size block means that as long as a minority are making small blocks, those who want larger ones can still help grow the "silly size" limit and those who have weak internet connections just have to download the blocks and can continue making small ones.
A spam attacker could only create large blocks that were bigger than all the pools soft limits only by mining it himself and the largest block he could create would be a x3 of the blocks on the system. And just like it's in their economic self interest to not get bigger than 51% it would also be in pools own self interest to not have a soft limit that would risk too much centralization of the system by making it too large for current technology and allows for the system to rapidly adapt at the time. The fact that most mining is done by pools means that the soft limit can be more fluid.
Ultimately if we let pools set any limit they want would they set limits that would allow bitcoin to thrive? If we assume the majority of pools act in the interest of a growing decentralized system would max block size be needed anymore other than something to prevent a "silly size" block?
Yep. Glitters. The market takes care of it. The remaining movable hard limit is just a technical insuranse not to progress too fast. |
|
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war
|
|
June 24, 2015, 05:58:11 AM |
|
And I only wanted to box  (checking to make sure I still have all 21 fingers, toes, and ...) |
|
|
|
tvbcof
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4578
Merit: 1276
|
|
June 24, 2015, 06:06:25 AM |
|
And I only wanted to box Here's what inevitably happens to poor cypherdoc when he bothers me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnSpeGlc9icIt's been going on for years but the guy never seems to learn. |
sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
June 24, 2015, 06:10:50 AM
Last edit: June 24, 2015, 06:30:10 AM by cypherdoc |
|
let's list a few of the tactics employed by the Blockstream devs: 1. appeal to authority- "the entire dev/technical community is against this"-which they're not if you look outside core dev. 2. scare tactics- "if Bitcoin forks, it will fail" 3. character assassination- "Gavin hasn't coded for over a year", "we are shocked by his behavior", "he's out courting merchants, exchanges, & miners behind our backs". i honestly ask you, which of the 3 tactics has Gavin employed on Reddit or here? my answer is NONE. and here we yet another example of #2 tonite by gmax: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3awomg/how_the_bitcoin_experiment_might_fail/he's getting pounded too. and these are the reasons Blockstream will lose in the end. no one trusts them. |
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
June 24, 2015, 06:12:47 AM |
|
no one cares for your socialist, elitist view around here except for maybe TPTB and a few others. but go ahead, dream on. |
|
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war
|
|
June 24, 2015, 06:36:13 AM |
|
the reasons Blockstream will lose in the end. no one trusts them.
We don't need to trust them, just the technology. The federated servers can't deviate, for if they do, the BTC will be considered stolen and implicitly blacklisted on the Bitcoin coin. Side chains don't need federated servers after we've eliminated Bitcoin Core (moved all the BTC out of it), which I don't think will take long. Sorry your ASICs will be paperweights. You are astute at politics, but a technological whipping boy. no one cares for your socialist, elitist view
The socialists, elitists include the gavinmikrophones who say we have to have one size fits all and no technological progress. |
|
|
|
|
Poll
