Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[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.

[kazuki49]

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.

Actually, the best path to a safe balance is not having a public balance at all.

https://i.imgur.com/fUVBvXK.png

https://i.imgur.com/FY7q54I.png

https://i.imgur.com/MUOwbae.png

[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.

Agreed.

My bank charges me $10 for international transfer.

$1 per transaction ( 250 bytes )  is $4,000 per 1 MB block.
 - 6 * $4,000 =>  $24,000 per hour
 - 24 * $24,000 => $576,000 fee/day

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

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.

Not to give an opinion on the merit of the above posters, but have you weighed the benefits of page position versus the harm to the signal-to-noise ratio from continual acrimonious/low-content bickering? Even the harm to the reputation of this thread as the easiest place to quickly (i.e., without having to sort through many pages of noise) get abreast of the actually important happenings and debates in the space? Due to the existing quality the good name of the thread will only grow, pushing it ever high on the page, even without all the noise. The noise certainly helps keep the thread near the top but at the cost of threatening to ruin the main selling point of the thread.

[lunarboy]

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.

Not to give an opinion on the merit of the above posters, but have you weighed the benefits of page position versus the harm to the signal-to-noise ratio from continual acrimonious/low-content bickering? Even the harm to the reputation of this thread as the easiest place to quickly (i.e., without having to sort through many pages of noise) get abreast of the actually important happenings and debates in the space? Due to the existing quality the good name of the thread will only grow, pushing it ever high on the page, even without all the noise.

the ole S/N has been lots better since i put them all on ignore. Although there has been the odd entire page of "This user is currently ignored." looking at you TBTP. 

[tvbcof]

...
Let them pay $1 per transaction.

Agreed.

My bank charges me $10 for international transfer.

$1 per transaction ( 250 bytes )  is $4,000 per 1 MB block.
 - 6 * $4,000 =>  $24,000 per hour
 - 24 * $24,000 => $576,000 fee/day

I pay around $10 per transaction and am happy to do it.  Bitcoin is vastly faster and less hassle than wire transfers, and more reliable than mainstream banking in my experience (having accounts silently shut down with no (written) explanation and no interaction but with a fully licensed and compliant entity (Coinbase).)  Edit:  BTW, my bank charges me $25 or so for wires.

In that case the revenue is more like a quarter-million dollars per hour, and my rough guess without researching it much is that at 1MB Bitcoin could already consume most of the world market for wire transfers.  Or at least international ones.

With these kinds of numbers, even running a pretty small mining setup solo would be better odds than playing the lottery.  If pools were attacked successfully most of the participants would fragment and those who could still obtain access to the Bitcoin network (receive transactions successfully) would likely keep right on chugging away.  In fact, in such an event the large mining farms who are not protected by the state would probably be off-line making the difficulty less.  Of course some of them might keep chugging away working on attacks (specifically, tainting.)

---

Another edit:

Hearn said famously about tainting:  'There is no difference between confiscating someone's BTC and keeping them from being spent for 20 years.'  His example was Qaddafi.  The 20 year figure comes from the Independent miners who were assumed to be priced out of the market by those operating on economies of scale and exploiting revenue streams not available to any but the largest entities on the global internet.

Non-trivial revenue from fees would throw a huge monkey-wrench into that plan, and in particular because a blacklisted (or non-whitelisted) transaction instigator could and would pay even higher fees.  I wonder (and suspect) that that is part of what is driving the desperation to not have transaction fees become a significant part of infrastructure support.

[Odalv]

...
Let them pay $1 per transaction.

Agreed.

My bank charges me $10 for international transfer.

$1 per transaction ( 250 bytes )  is $4,000 per 1 MB block.
 - 6 * $4,000 =>  $24,000 per hour
 - 24 * $24,000 => $576,000 fee/day

I pay around $10 per transaction and am happy to do it.  Bitcoin is vastly faster and less hassle than wire transfers, and more reliable than mainstream banking in my experience (having accounts silently shut down with no (written) explanation and no interaction but with a fully licensed and compliant entity (Coinbase).)  Edit:  BTW, my bank charges me $25 or so for wires.

In that case the revenue is more like a quarter-million dollars per hour, and my rough guess without researching it much is that at 1MB Bitcoin could already consume most of the world market for wire transfers.  Or at least international ones.

With these kinds of numbers, even running a pretty small mining setup solo would be better odds than playing the lottery.  If pools were attacked successfully most of the participants would fragment and those who could still obtain access to the Bitcoin network (receive transactions successfully) would likely keep right on chugging away.  In fact, in such an event the large mining farms who are not protected by the state would probably be off-line making the difficulty less.  Of course some of them might keep chugging away working on attacks (specifically, tainting.)

Combine this 1 MB backbone with thousands of SC where you can make micro-payments instantly
  - we can handle 100,000 transaction/sec.
  - all you need is phone
  - you can run full node and 2-3 preferred fast-wallet services on tihs phone.

[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.

Not to give an opinion on the merit of the above posters, but have you weighed the benefits of page position versus the harm to the signal-to-noise ratio from continual acrimonious/low-content bickering? Even the harm to the reputation of this thread as the easiest place to quickly (i.e., without having to sort through many pages of noise) get abreast of the actually important happenings and debates in the space? Due to the existing quality the good name of the thread will only grow, pushing it ever high on the page, even without all the noise. The noise certainly helps keep the thread near the top but at the cost of threatening to ruin the main selling point of the thread.

interesting points.  no, i haven't done anything formal but i do know that the popularity is growing.  for instance, at the end of February 2015 the view count was approximately 800K.  four months later we're here at 1.2M.  and i'm very sure of that as i made a mental note at the time for a particular reason.  so 400K equals 3333 views per day or 2.31 views per minute.  the previous mental check, which is much more fuzzy cuz i was only roughly keeping track was from Oct 2014 to Feb 2015 when i believe the starting pt was at 400K very roughly.  i remember that time especially well b/c that was precisely when the SC WP came out and brg444 entered the thread.  all of you must remember him and how he spammed the heck out of me just like the current guys. i even remember complimenting him on driving the view rate so high so fast single handedly.  so overall the growth rate was roughly the same from Oct to now or 100K/mo.  the significant metric though is how it took from the beginning of the thread, which was March 13, 2012 all the way to Oct 2014 for it to go to 400K.  the last 8 mo the thread has grown by 200% alone.  in other words, the recent pace of the last 8 months has been increasing at a torrid rate.

[Odalv]

This site http://bitcoinrichlist.com/charts/bitcoin-distribution-by-address?atblock=350000

reports 67,723,836 (96.97%) spam addresses -> is this true ?