Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Erdogan]

...

- Then we have tvbcof, who is an avowed socialist.

Where? Seems like a hard money dude from what I've read.

Jefferson was philosophically opposed to slavery (supposedly) but he was a slave owner.  I recognize both the limitations of 'hard money' and the engineering benefits of Keynesian monetary management schemes and debt-based money.  I've been a long time 'gold bug' who believes that in an idealized social order 'hard money' would be problematic.  Bitcoin and gold are about the same thing to me in terms of monetary science, and I feel it most prudent to protect my own ass at the moment.  'keeping some powder dry' so to speak.

Although in earlier life I'd legitimately (and probably incorrectly) considered myself to be a 'socialist', I'd mostly abandoned that label by the time of my first post here.  I re-enabled the tag from time to time here but mostly for trolling purposes.

The main reason I have most recently rejected 'socialism' with significantly more vigor is that I see more clearly that we are way more advanced along this path than I had realized.  We overshot any possible usefulness and are on the steep downward path toward totalitarianism.  The 'socialists' seem to be thinking that they could leverage the utility of crony capitalism to perhaps grease the rails.  Some of them maybe believed they could shake it.  In fact they were some combination of being themselves used as tools and just becoming evil (or more evil in a lot of cases.)  They are stuck in a box canyon.  I bailed and will take my chances with the Libertarians since at the end of the day I always did have more in common with them in some of the most important ways anyhow.

Interesting. You are right about the path we are on.

[1713239477]

1713239477

[EsBitcoin.org]

About Poll,
I think that bitcoin needs a variable size, readjust depending on the size.

[hdbuck]

About Poll,
I think that bitcoin needs a variable size, readjust depending on the size.

yes, i would disregard any fixed size bumps, as throwing random numbers to kick the can further down the road seems quite juvenile.

[cypherdoc]

character assassins please step up.

you're letting the thread fall too low.

[Adrian-x]

About Poll,
I think that bitcoin needs a variable size, readjust depending on the size.

That mechanism exists it's cleverly linked to the value stored in the network.
The debate is when the network has a low value how should we intervene to prevent abuse.

One side see introducing mechanisms for high fees as the best deterrent. The opponents say that will limit adoption.
The other see growth as a higher priority and intervention only if abuse becomes a problem. Innovation in tech sets a good president for this approach.

Many Core developers are risk adverse, it's their way or the highway as they are the gate keepers, they are also the ones who would have to fix any problems so they feel they are better equipped to make this decision. - problem is this has highlighted a conflict in development and that is central controlled policy makers decided for us which brigs into question the whole idea that Bitcoin is decentralized.  

In my view If anything we should be planning for Bitcoin growth and working on ways to prevent the existing mechanism from abuse.  

[cypherdoc]

geezuz crimony.  look at the blocks filling up.  and this is NOT a spam attack. it's from use:

http://btc.blockr.io/block/list/

yet Cripplecoin.

[cypherdoc]

geezuz crimony.  look at the blocks filling up.  and this is NOT a spam attack. it's from use:

http://btc.blockr.io/block/list/

yet Cripplecoin.

blocks are filling up b/c of the buying going on. 

who here wants to be stuck with unconfirmed tx buy pressure b/c of the fricking 1MB'ers?

[justusranvier]

throwing random numbers to kick the can further down the road seems quite juvenile.

A fixed size increase as a way to buy time before the measures needed to make the limit unnecessary can be put into place is a very reasonable and practical solution.

The long term solution is to have no magic constants for transaction rate limits, but getting there will take time.

[cypherdoc]

tvbcof, TPTB, iCEBlow, MOA, kazukiPIMP?

i know they gotcha on Ignore but that's beside the point.  the point is for you to help me generate even more views and keep the thread front and center so more and moar ppl can view the poll results and so you can reinforce my importance and this thread to the community.

get with the character assassinations you thugs.

[justusranvier]

Quoted for truth:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3bajai/by_expecting_a_few_developers_to_make/cskk0vq

Absolutely. A decision to hard fork or not is not up to any developer, it doesn't matter whether they are a core developer, working on XT, or a different version. It doesn't matter if 90% of developers want the rules to change, or 5% do, they should be given slightly more consideration than the rest of the community when it comes to deciding to fork or not.

If their egos are so damn fragile that they'll spit the dummy when the community does something they don't like, then they need to be schooled on what their purpose in the Bitcoin community is, and what it isn't. They are advisers, mentors, and improvers that have the know-how to make changes in the Bitcoin software that can be reviewed and implemented by the community, for the community's benefit. They are NOT representatives of the community that have the power to veto or direct how Bitcoin should grow, or develop over time. The fact that they some take sides (side with people rather than support solutions), get personal, threaten to up and leave/sell their coins, and spread FUD, rather than state their case logically and technically is not what any developer should be doing.

[Odalv]

geezuz crimony.  look at the blocks filling up.  and this is NOT a spam attack. it's from use:

http://btc.blockr.io/block/list/

yet Cripplecoin.

blocks are filling up b/c of the buying going on.  

who here wants to be stuck with unconfirmed tx buy pressure b/c of the fricking 1MB'ers?

According to https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html there are 2,794,041 (53.24%) addresses with value less than 0.0001 btc.

If we have enough space for this shit https://blockchain.info/tx/73026d18b0b3e627c7b1b84bea69496963b91d7e2ddb1b9efab9622836e6c6c8 then we do not need increase in block size.

Let them pay $1 per transaction.

[Peter R]

Quoted for truth:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3bajai/by_expecting_a_few_developers_to_make/cskk0vq

Absolutely. A decision to hard fork or not is not up to any developer, it doesn't matter whether they are a core developer, working on XT, or a different version. It doesn't matter if 90% of developers want the rules to change, or 5% do, they should be given slightly more consideration than the rest of the community when it comes to deciding to fork or not.

If their egos are so damn fragile that they'll spit the dummy when the community does something they don't like, then they need to be schooled on what their purpose in the Bitcoin community is, and what it isn't. They are advisers, mentors, and improvers that have the know-how to make changes in the Bitcoin software that can be reviewed and implemented by the community, for the community's benefit. They are NOT representatives of the community that have the power to veto or direct how Bitcoin should grow, or develop over time. The fact that they some take sides (side with people rather than support solutions), get personal, threaten to up and leave/sell their coins, and spread FUD, rather than state their case logically and technically is not what any developer should be doing.

+1.  I read that comment and thought the same thing.

[Peter R]

Much of the blocksize-limit debate is about keeping Bitcoin decentralized.  But I'm not even sure we even agree what that word means!  I'll propose the following as a working definition:

  "A system is decentralized if no entity exists that can exert veto power over the consensus process."

Interestingly, according to this definition a system cannot be more decentralized or less decentralized.  Similar to how a woman cannot be a little bit pregnant, a system is either decentralized or it is not.  

Of course there's certain behaviours that a woman can do to increase the chances of moving from the "not" state to the "pregnant" state, and certain precautions she can take to decrease these chances--but this is a different matter entirely to whether she is or is not pregnant.  Analogously, there are certain designs that may be more (or less) robust to moving to a centralized state, but that's a different thing from whether the system is or is not decentralized.  

So we actually need two distinct terms: "decentralized" is one of them, but we need another term that refers to the system's likelihood of remaining in the decentralized state.  

[justusranvier]

I read that comment and thought the same thing.

I think it would be a tragedy for them to miss that lesson, and then lose the ability to make beneficial contributions to Bitcoin in the future.

I'd love to see the blinded output amounts from Confidential Transactions make it into Bitcoin, but I don't think their current approach to this debate is a viable way of ensuring they'll be in a position to advocate for that in the future.

[Peter R]

I read that comment and thought the same thing.

I think it would be a tragedy for them to miss that lesson, and then lose the ability to make beneficial contributions to Bitcoin in the future.

On a related note, the people whom I follow and consider the top thinkers in bitcoin, were perhaps 2 to 1 in favour of SPVP sidechains.  I've noticed that this blocksize debate has triggered several of them to reconsider, and my hunch is that this group is now 2 to 1 against.

[Odalv]

I read that comment and thought the same thing.

I think it would be a tragedy for them to miss that lesson, and then lose the ability to make beneficial contributions to Bitcoin in the future.

I'd love to see the blinded output amounts from Confidential Transactions make it into Bitcoin, but I don't think their current approach to this debate is a viable way of ensuring they'll be in a position to advocate for that in the future.

I would afraid to have CT on main chain.
There may be bug (or luck to find some number) and then creating bitcoins out of nothing. And nobody can verify.

[justusranvier]

There may be bug (or luck to find some number) and then creating bitcoins out of nothing. And nobody can verify.

That is the risk - the scheme relies on the security of ECDSA to protect the currency supply.

We're already relying on ECDSA to protect our balances from overt theft, so I'm not sure how much it actually changes the security model to also rely on it to protect our balances from covert theft via counterfeiting.

The reason I'm interested in amount blinding is that my current project is working out a multi-step plan to kill graph analysis. With the right plan and without blinded amounts we can kill graph analysis, but with blinded amounts we can drive a stake through its heart to make sure it stays dead.

[Odalv]

There may be bug (or luck to find some number) and then creating bitcoins out of nothing. And nobody can verify.

That is the risk - the scheme relies on the security of ECDSA to protect the currency supply.

We're already relying on ECDSA to protect our balances from overt theft, so I'm not sure how much it actually changes the security model to also rely on it to protect our balances from covert theft via counterfeiting.

The reason I'm interested in amount blinding is that my current project is working out a multi-step plan to kill graph analysis. With the right plan and without blinded amounts we can kill graph analysis, but with blinded amounts we can drive a stake through its heart to make sure it stays dead.

We are also using SHA-256 and RIPEMD-160 hashes to protect our balances. So even ECDSA is broken our balances can be safe and then ECDSA replaced.

[tvbcof]

tvbcof, TPTB, iCEBlow, MOA, kazukiPIMP?

i know they gotcha on Ignore but that's beside the point.  the point is for you to help me generate even more views and keep the thread front and center so more and moar ppl can view the poll results and so you can reinforce my importance and this thread to the community.

get with the character assassinations you thugs.

Just FWIW, your attacks on Maxwell in particular contributed to my pulling out all the stops in going after your champions Hearn and Andresen.  Even so, I never stooped to using absurd bullshit arguments (that I can recall.)  All of my critiques have been what I felt comfortable arguing vigorously.  Perhaps for that reason they are rarely challenged (to my dismay.)

[Erdogan]

Much of the blocksize-limit debate is about keeping Bitcoin decentralized.  But I'm not even sure we even agree what that word means!  I'll propose the following as a working definition:

  "A system is decentralized if no entity exists that can exert veto power over the consensus process."

Interestingly, according to this definition a system cannot be more decentralized or less decentralized.  Similar to how a woman cannot be a little bit pregnant, a system is either decentralized or it is not.  

Of course there's certain behaviours that a woman can do to increase the chances of moving from the "not" state to the "pregnant" state, and certain precautions she can take to decrease these chances--but this is a different matter entirely to whether she is or is not pregnant.  Analogously, there are certain designs that may be more (or less) robust to moving to a centralized state, but that's a different thing from whether the system is or is not decentralized.  

So we actually need two distinct terms: "decentralized" is one of them, but we need another term that refers to the system's likelihood of remaining in the decentralized state.  

Not bad. The market is what we need.