tvbcof
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4662
Merit: 1276
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 25, 2015, 02:05:07 AM |
|
It's hard not to notice that you guys are highly proficient at ignoring 'sensible counter arguments' as though they didn't exist. A lot of those 'sensible counter arguments' take the form of: "There's a tradeoff between scaling and decentralization." "Can you explain what exactly you mean by 'decentralization' and how to measure it?" "...no." I want a solution which can give me something approaching the confidence I have in precious metals under times of stress. I say that when (not if) there is another financial crisis of the type which (according to legend) incited Satoshi, and it cannot be controlled with bail-outs and such, it is a near certainty that alternates to whatever solution we are funneled into will be attacked vigorously. This includes gold and Bitcoin. I say that these attacks are nearly certain to include pressure on corporate internet infrastructure providers and leveraging of the monitoring framworks known to be available to entities such as our NSA. You seem to be saying that such things are entirely fanciful. I disagree and I simply cannot bet as much as I would like on a solution which does not have the potential to defend itself against such things. Bitcoin with it's 1MB/block cap has this potential, but only barely by my systems analysis and the available technologies and geopolitical landscapes as I understand them. I want a value core that is as defensible as possible, and I want it to be Bitcoin because BTC is all that I own at this time. I'll fight for it as long as there is hope then I'll switch to something else if we lose this battle. If XT is so great, it should be great as a sidechain. I honestly hope that it gets your 'critical mass' and 'outruns regulation' but I'm certainly not betting my BTC stash on it. In fact I'll work toward this because I'm happy to use such a solution for whatever I can. I already leverage the 'kindness' of various mega-players who give me nice toys for 'free', and XT seems like it would be a shoe-in for such use. Hopefully you guys are porting the XT 'upgrades' to your btcd as we speak, and hopefully the hooks to make the XT protocol a sidechain will be easy and freely available to you.
|
sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
|
|
|
justusranvier
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1013
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 25, 2015, 02:13:02 AM |
|
I want a solution which can give me something approaching the confidence I have in precious metals under times of stress.
I say that when (not if) there is another financial crisis of the type which (according to legend) incited Satoshi, and it cannot be controlled with bail-outs and such, it is a near certainty that alternates to whatever solution we are funneled into will be attacked vigorously. This includes gold and Bitcoin.
I say that these attacks are nearly certain to include pressure on corporate internet infrastructure providers and leveraging of the monitoring framworks known to be available to entities such as our NSA. There is no way to achieve the goal you want through the methods you're proposing. If you want a currency that can store value, then it needs to be used by other people. That means it has to support the kind of usage levels that you're afraid of. If remains too small to be effectively attacked, then it will also be too small to retain any kind of monetary value. Safety through smallness is a dead end, which leaves safety through growth. That might not work, but staying small for certain won't work.
|
|
|
|
tvbcof
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4662
Merit: 1276
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 25, 2015, 02:27:43 AM |
|
I want a solution which can give me something approaching the confidence I have in precious metals under times of stress.
I say that when (not if) there is another financial crisis of the type which (according to legend) incited Satoshi, and it cannot be controlled with bail-outs and such, it is a near certainty that alternates to whatever solution we are funneled into will be attacked vigorously. This includes gold and Bitcoin.
I say that these attacks are nearly certain to include pressure on corporate internet infrastructure providers and leveraging of the monitoring framworks known to be available to entities such as our NSA.
There is no way to achieve the goal you want through the methods you're proposing. If you want a currency that can store value, then it needs to be used by other people. That means it has to support the kind of usage levels that you're afraid of. If remains too small to be effectively attacked, then it will also be too small to retain any kind of monetary value. Safety through smallness is a dead end, which leaves safety through growth. That might not work, but staying small for certain won't work. Gold in modern societies counters your argument, but I agree that wide use is desirable. Not necessarily for security but more for humanity. This is exactly why sidechains are so important. They're promise is a cryptographically strong and thus near perfect proxy for Bitcoin which is then free to hide out. That it hides out significantly under the care of people with the skills to protect it is a good thing and a key to it's robustness. Again, not at all unlike gold. The sidechains where Bitcoin use flows among the masses are highly flexible to fill a variety of niches (e.g., a 'safe' monitored and controlled currency for use within the mandates of the state.) They are also dispensable which addresses the single-point-of-failure problem. What I never did envision was the crypto methods which could allow individuals using a successfully attacked sidechain to reclaim their original BTC eventually. Brilliant!
|
sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
|
|
|
justusranvier
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1013
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 25, 2015, 02:54:31 AM |
|
Gold in modern societies counters your argument Gold is almost entirely propped up by central banks who control the majority of the world's supply. They never had to pay for that gold themselves, since it was obtained via the taxing powers of the respective governments. How vaulable would gold be if all the central banks auctioned off their supplies to the highest bidder and then refused to buy any more? In terms of ensuring Bitcoin's survival in the face of hostile and well-resourced interests, I think a better model to look at is the Tor project. Why are they able to survive in spite of a lot of powerful interests who'd like to see otherwise?
|
|
|
|
tvbcof
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4662
Merit: 1276
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 25, 2015, 03:44:50 AM |
|
... In terms of ensuring Bitcoin's survival in the face of hostile and well-resourced interests, I think a better model to look at is the Tor project. Why are they able to survive in spite of a lot of powerful interests who'd like to see otherwise?
Last I looked TOR survives with 80% of it's financing coming directly from the U.S. government and most knowledgeable people who I find credible (in addition to my own analysis) saying that it has limited usefulness against attackers with the capabilities of the NSA. Call me a skeptic, but the claims that TOR is funded by the govt to help Iranian dissidents avoid persecution and what-not I have a hard time swallowing it hook, line, and sinker. That's but one of a long list of rather questionable observations as far as I am concerned. I may use TOR for protection against certain privacy losses against certain classes of attacker, but I certainly would not trust such a solution with a great deal of my financial nest-egg. Or at least not against a situation where the government wanted me to use a different solution for wealth preservation and transmission than I wished to.
|
sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 25, 2015, 04:25:06 AM |
|
... In terms of ensuring Bitcoin's survival in the face of hostile and well-resourced interests, I think a better model to look at is the Tor project. Why are they able to survive in spite of a lot of powerful interests who'd like to see otherwise?
Last I looked TOR survives with 80% of it's financing coming directly from the U.S. government and most knowledgeable people who I find credible (in addition to my own analysis) saying that it has limited usefulness against attackers with the capabilities of the NSA. Call me a skeptic, but the claims that TOR is funded by the govt to help Iranian dissidents avoid persecution and what-not I have a hard time swallowing it hook, line, and sinker. That's but one of a long list of rather questionable observations as far as I am concerned. I may use TOR for protection against certain privacy losses against certain classes of attacker, but I certainly would not trust such a solution with a great deal of my financial nest-egg. Or at least not against a situation where the government wanted me to use a different solution for wealth preservation and transmission than I wished to. Onion routing was created by the US Navy. I dug up a few links:
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 25, 2015, 04:34:32 AM Last edit: June 25, 2015, 04:52:21 AM by TPTB_need_war |
|
"Can you explain what exactly you mean by 'decentralization' and how to measure it?"
"...no."
The concept of how political regulatory capture works is beyond the comprehension of people who choose to believe it doesn't exist. Thus it doesn't matter how many times I define a metric for decentralized mining to you related to the autonomy of ephemeral nodes on home internet connections (as a valid resilience against the regulatory capture phenomenon of the Logic of Collective Action), you will still won't acknowledge it. Another vector of decentralization is that there should be no politics involved with the protocol. We clearly see Bitcoin has failed that metric too. But it an enormous fucking waste of time to argue here. It would be more productive to talk to myself in a desert. I am going to enjoy LMAO when you retards are toast.
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 25, 2015, 04:47:20 AM Last edit: June 25, 2015, 05:32:49 AM by TPTB_need_war |
|
I want a solution which can give me something approaching the confidence I have in precious metals under times of stress.
I say that when (not if) there is another financial crisis of the type which (according to legend) incited Satoshi, and it cannot be controlled with bail-outs and such, it is a near certainty that alternates to whatever solution we are funneled into will be attacked vigorously. This includes gold and Bitcoin.
I say that these attacks are nearly certain to include pressure on corporate internet infrastructure providers and leveraging of the monitoring framworks known to be available to entities such as our NSA. There is no way to achieve the goal you want through the methods you're proposing. If you want a currency that can store value, then it needs to be used by other people. That means it has to support the kind of usage levels that you're afraid of. If remains too small to be effectively attacked, then it will also be too small to retain any kind of monetary value. Safety through smallness is a dead end, which leaves safety through growth. That might not work, but staying small for certain won't work. The BTC peg means that tvbcof could leverage the chain which spreads BTC out to the masses, while storing his BTC on a side chain that has the attributes he wants. And if that side chain employs my consensus algorithm, then it can not be 50% attacked. So therefor there is no risk. Even if you disbelieve I have such a solution, the side chain could perhaps use merged mining. Even if you disbelieve that both my solution won't exist and merged mining won't be sufficient, then tvbcof claims it is possible to recover your BTC from an attacked side chain (but I need to go check the white paper to learn how this claim is achieved). Edit: I can't find anything in the Blockstream whitepaper to support tvbcof's claim that one can recover their assets from an attacked chain. The closest is section 4.2 Fraudulent transfers, but the only really viable action there is to dilute everyone's BTC by the amount of the stolen coins.
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 25, 2015, 04:58:05 AM |
|
Good grief Gavin not only didn't understand the exponential function, he now explains that he apparently never learned the concept of statistical variance. For example, I can only be sure to obtain about 56 kbps here where I am when I am on a 3G (that drops down to EDGE/2G) wireless connection with my laptop. And these are the retards you entrust the future of Bitcoin to? Did all these Yes voters just suddenly become dumb or were they somehow fooled?
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 25, 2015, 05:30:43 AM |
|
i smell desperation from the 1MB'ers.
they love to flap their lips don't they?
btw, my poll is back over 73%. tisk, tisk.
|
|
|
|
smooth
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 25, 2015, 05:39:14 AM |
|
Edit: I can't find anything in the Blockstream whitepaper to support tvbcof's claim that one can recover their assets from an attacked chain. The closest is section 4.2 Fraudulent transfers, but the only really viable action there is to dilute everyone's BTC by the amount of the stolen coins.
Who is going to do that, some administrator? A bankruptcy trustee? No. The best that could be achieved would be to build in some sort of rules like that into the scripts. No concrete method for doing that is proposed, but even if it were, it couldn't possibly handle all possible failures, since some if not all failures are by definition unanticipated. In the event that the state of a side chain were scrambled, there would just be no way to know who should be able to redeem. For this reason, even the hint (or in some cases merely a rumor) of a problem on a side chain will lead to a run-on-the-bank scenario.
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 25, 2015, 05:44:59 AM |
|
Edit: I can't find anything in the Blockstream whitepaper to support tvbcof's claim that one can recover their assets from an attacked chain. The closest is section 4.2 Fraudulent transfers, but the only really viable action there is to dilute everyone's BTC by the amount of the stolen coins.
Who is going to do that, some administrator? No. The best that could be achieved would be to build in some sort of rules like that into the scripts. No concrete method for doing that is proposed, but even if it were, it couldn't possibly handle all possible failures, since some if not all failures are by definition unanticipated. In the event that the state of a side chain were scrambled, there would just be no way to know who should be able to redeem. For this reason, even the hint (or in some cases merely a rumor) of a problem on a side chain will lead to a run-on-the-bank scenario. the way it would need to happen in normal circumstances is for the scBTC to be mined back to BTC, by reversing the proof, most likely via merge mining. since the most common cause of a failure is likely to come from a 51% of the SC since it is inherently less secure (<100% MM'd) by definition being able to get mined back is not going to happen. after all, that would be the purpose for the attack; to kill off everyone's scBTC while simultaneously shorting scBTC on an exchange while going long BTC on the MC. that would be a fun attack.
|
|
|
|
tvbcof
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4662
Merit: 1276
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 25, 2015, 05:56:20 AM |
|
Edit: I can't find anything in the Blockstream whitepaper to support tvbcof's claim that one can recover their assets from an attacked chain. The closest is section 4.2 Fraudulent transfers, but the only really viable action there is to dilute everyone's BTC by the amount of the stolen coins.
Who is going to do that, some administrator? A bankruptcy trustee? No. The best that could be achieved would be to build in some sort of rules like that into the scripts. No concrete method for doing that is proposed, but even if it were, it couldn't possibly handle all possible failures, since some if not all failures are by definition unanticipated. In the event that the state of a side chain were scrambled, there would just be no way to know who should be able to redeem. For this reason, even the hint (or in some cases merely a rumor) of a problem on a side chain will lead to a run-on-the-bank scenario. The whitepaper seemed pretty basic as most of them are. It's counter-productive to bog a reader down in minutia in such works. The 'flash of insight' came, I think, with Maxwell's update on the various 'elements' and progress on them. Whether he outlined it specifically or whether I half invented it, I'm not sure. I had put my mind to the problem of incremental value pegging and mostly failed but I kinda started to see some of the possibilities when (I think) Maxwell was describing some of the time-lock primitives and such. I never really appreciated (or even fully understood) some of the stuff about payment channels. To me it seemed like a lot of trouble and undesirable complexity for a rather narrow use-case. I can recognize the efficiency of controlling flows with start/stop messenging along a pre-defined channel (vs. a multitude of incremental value transactions) but it didn't (to me) translate much beyond paying for a porn movie until one finished their thing which can be difficult to predict ahead of time. I'm starting to glimpse how such efficiency could be used in more critical contexts, and in particular how such a thing could result in a default return of value absent occasional update pings.
|
sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
|
|
|
tvbcof
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4662
Merit: 1276
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 25, 2015, 06:14:22 AM |
|
i smell desperation from the 1MB'ers.
they love to flap their lips don't they?
btw, my poll is back over 73%. tisk, tisk.
My much more accurate poll is running 40/60 at the moment.
|
sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
|
|
|
necrita
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 49
Merit: 0
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 25, 2015, 06:16:09 AM |
|
Cypher, you and Trolfi should unite. He's dispensing the gospel day after day on reddit and the forum. I see that as burying one's head 100 feet deep in the sand and laying down a foot-thick concrete slab on top.
Transaction fees did not go up, because most clients were not prepared to upgrade their fees, and replace-by-fee is still not a common practice. Transactions that paid the standard fee got delayed for many hours. If the "attackers" had used higher paying transactions, then hiigher-paying transactions would have been delayed too.
The "attackers" had intended to spend 5000 euros on the test, but their own BitcoinD servers crashed under the load and so they gave up after spending less than 500 euros. Even so, the large queues that formed at the nodes crashed Blockchain.info, knocked out bitcoin ATMs, caused problems for BitPay and other services.
The small-blockians have no meaningful technical arguments against the block increase, so they are resorting to personal attacks on Mike and Gavin, and exaggerating the danger of a possible a split of the coin. Which would never be a real risk if they did not make such a fuss about the increase themselves.
Again, I am each day more convinced that Blockstream had promised to their investors that the network would saturate in a year or two, and then the crowds would come knocking at their door for their Sidechains/LN solutions; and that Blockstream had most of the core devs, so that they could make the changes that they needed to the protocol while blocking any changes that their competitors would need. That would explain why they were so upset, and why they continue to oppose it when the major players have all agreed to it.
|
|
|
|
tvbcof
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4662
Merit: 1276
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 25, 2015, 06:27:55 AM |
|
Cypher, you and Trolfi should unite. He's dispensing the gospel day after day on reddit and the forum.
The good professor and his side-kick cypherdoc have always been like two peas in a pod. I think they had a little spat for a while but their sensibilities are so similar I'm sure they won't stay apart for long.
|
sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 25, 2015, 06:29:59 AM |
|
Cypher, you and Trolfi should unite. He's dispensing the gospel day after day on reddit and the forum. I see that as burying one's head 100 feet deep in the sand and laying down a foot-thick concrete slab on top.
Transaction fees did not go up, because most clients were not prepared to upgrade their fees, and replace-by-fee is still not a common practice. Transactions that paid the standard fee got delayed for many hours. If the "attackers" had used higher paying transactions, then hiigher-paying transactions would have been delayed too.
The "attackers" had intended to spend 5000 euros on the test, but their own BitcoinD servers crashed under the load and so they gave up after spending less than 500 euros. Even so, the large queues that formed at the nodes crashed Blockchain.info, knocked out bitcoin ATMs, caused problems for BitPay and other services.
The small-blockians have no meaningful technical arguments against the block increase, so they are resorting to personal attacks on Mike and Gavin, and exaggerating the danger of a possible a split of the coin. Which would never be a real risk if they did not make such a fuss about the increase themselves.
Again, I am each day more convinced that Blockstream had promised to their investors that the network would saturate in a year or two, and then the crowds would come knocking at their door for their Sidechains/LN solutions; and that Blockstream had most of the core devs, so that they could make the changes that they needed to the protocol while blocking any changes that their competitors would need. That would explain why they were so upset, and why they continue to oppose it when the major players have all agreed to it.
Its obvious and anyone should be able to see it.
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 25, 2015, 06:33:23 AM |
|
i smell desperation from the 1MB'ers.
they love to flap their lips don't they?
btw, my poll is back over 73%. tisk, tisk.
My much more accurate poll is running 40/60 at the moment. Pea sized numbers like your brain.
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 25, 2015, 06:41:35 AM |
|
Cypher, you and Trolfi should unite. He's dispensing the gospel day after day on reddit and the forum. I see that as burying one's head 100 feet deep in the sand and laying down a foot-thick concrete slab on top.
Transaction fees did not go up, because most clients were not prepared to upgrade their fees, and replace-by-fee is still not a common practice. Transactions that paid the standard fee got delayed for many hours. If the "attackers" had used higher paying transactions, then hiigher-paying transactions would have been delayed too.
The "attackers" had intended to spend 5000 euros on the test, but their own BitcoinD servers crashed under the load and so they gave up after spending less than 500 euros. Even so, the large queues that formed at the nodes crashed Blockchain.info, knocked out bitcoin ATMs, caused problems for BitPay and other services.
The small-blockians have no meaningful technical arguments against the block increase, so they are resorting to personal attacks on Mike and Gavin, and exaggerating the danger of a possible a split of the coin. Which would never be a real risk if they did not make such a fuss about the increase themselves.
Again, I am each day more convinced that Blockstream had promised to their investors that the network would saturate in a year or two, and then the crowds would come knocking at their door for their Sidechains/LN solutions; and that Blockstream had most of the core devs, so that they could make the changes that they needed to the protocol while blocking any changes that their competitors would need. That would explain why they were so upset, and why they continue to oppose it when the major players have all agreed to it.
actually, wasnt it Trolfi who made the excellent comment in here when he was hanging around about wanting to see Blockstream's Pitch Deck when they were presenting to their SV investors? I thought that was a cool term. .
|
|
|
|
Zarathustra
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1004
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 25, 2015, 01:16:40 PM |
|
My last post for today... Cypherdoc's poll seems to have gotten a recent infusion of interest on the XT side of things not reflected in mine. Just a bump to remind the interested to make 'their' thoughts known as widely as possible.
I notice it correlated with when I wasn't posting, and then as soon as I posted, the poll went back our direction. Clearly politics is battle of filibuster, because the minds of the voters are malleable. Seems that you and your colleague are professional losers, amateurish filibusters with lacking charisma. ![Cheesy](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/cheesy.gif) Noone of the 1MBers was able to compete with that: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946236.0
|
|
|
|
|