Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[TPTB_need_war]

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.

I suggest a slight variation that rather by making their blocks larger than the smaller full nodes can mine without delegating to a pool (which could then censor on KYC or whatever as need be[1]), larger nodes get more revenue per block thus they can drive difficulty so relatively high that smaller full nodes become a shrinking percent of the hashrate.

Remember with control of 51% of the hashrate, any block can be filtered out of the longest chain. I already obliterated rocks' illogic on his claim of the ability to prove such an attack is underway.

[1] I am aware of the newer pool protocols that allow miners to insert transactions (which not all pools support), but if oblivious shares (hard fork) was implemented then pools could ignore these since they miner could not send their winning block directly to the P2P network. One way to probably force the implementation of oblivious shares is with a significant hashrate to do the share withholding attack on pools that don't support it.

[Odalv]

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.

Pray tell how you will replace ECDSA when the coins are already assigned to keys for it?  (and when everyone and their sister constantly reuses addresses). A compromise of CT would mean that it was feasible to find discrete logs in this group, with that, anyone who learned your public key could recover your private key.  There are scenarios where the hashing, absent any address reuse, helps  (e.g. say the discrete log finding takes weeks)-- but it's important to not exaggerate the gains.

But indeed it isn't the ~quite~ same.

It's perfectly possible to construct schemes for private values which are unconditionally sound; meaning that there is no cryptographic assumption behind their inflation resistance, and a cryptographic break would only result in a loss of privacy.  I had previously thought that it was necessarily the case that any such scheme would have to be less efficient; but I have since realized my original reasoning for that was incorrect; though I do not (yet) know of a way to construct an unconditionally sound scheme which is anywhere near as efficient as CT;  but finding one is on my TODO list (though it falls below other improvements for CT privacy and network security that I'm working on).

I do not know :-), but maybe in case that ECDSA is broken we can split transacion into 2 part.
 1. broadcast transaction without public key (I do not know how to prevent from spaming)
 2. and then confirm transaction by broadcasting public key few blocks later.

[cypherdoc]

I'll still vouch for Frap.doc's character.

So why did he allegedly (court deposition I read, and he refused to provide a link to his rebuttal deposition) take 10% of every HashFast vaporware sold (whether he promoted that referral or not) and promote it here on the forum? How can that company be sure he is doing all the referrals if it was not obviously intended to be vaporware. Obviously they all knew what they were doing.

How could someone with good character swindle people?

He says he can't comment on the case, but he could I assume provided a link to his public deposition so we can hear his side of the case. I don't like people prying into my private life, which why I would not try to use my reputation to sell something (including an altcoin). I don't understand why a successful eye doctor would jeopardize his privacy.

go here, register, then read my Declaration and Responses if you want:  https://www.pacer.gov/

[cypherdoc]

yes, Monday is going to be ugly:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-28/ecb-says-greek-bank-holiday-now-necessary

[cypherdoc]

To any mining pool operators out there reading,

next year July your mining pool income will be cut in half by the block halving.  you must supplement that income by onboarding as many tx paying fees into the main Bitcoin blockchain if you want to survive long term.  offboarding those tx paying fees into centralized services like Coinbase or Bitpay will not help you.  what this means is that you indirectly need to grow the userbase that generates these tx paying fees.

you have no choice but to increase block size limits, and soon, otherwise unconfirmed tx's and unaffordable tx fees will drive new and even existing users away and you will forever be dependent on a small community of geeks and developers for business profits.  not a sustainable situation.

[NewLiberty]

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.

Pray tell how you will replace ECDSA when the coins are already assigned to keys for it?  (and when everyone and their sister constantly reuses addresses). A compromise of CT would mean that it was feasible to find discrete logs in this group, with that, anyone who learned your public key could recover your private key.  There are scenarios where the hashing, absent any address reuse, helps  (e.g. say the discrete log finding takes weeks)-- but it's important to not exaggerate the gains.

But indeed it isn't the ~quite~ same.

It's perfectly possible to construct schemes for private values which are unconditionally sound; meaning that there is no cryptographic assumption behind their inflation resistance, and a cryptographic break would only result in a loss of privacy.  I had previously thought that it was necessarily the case that any such scheme would have to be less efficient; but I have since realized my original reasoning for that was incorrect; though I do not (yet) know of a way to construct an unconditionally sound scheme which is anywhere near as efficient as CT;  but finding one is on my TODO list (though it falls below other improvements for CT privacy and network security that I'm working on).

I do not know :-), but maybe in case that ECDSA is broken we can split transacion into 2 part.
 1. broadcast transaction without public key (I do not know how to prevent from spaming)
 2. and then confirm transaction by broadcasting public key few blocks later.

Consider also whether this is a fundamental justification for the development of side chains.  
A break in ECDSA (or even a perceived break) could instigate migrations to secured chains for resilience.

[shmadz]

To any mining pool operators out there reading,

next year July your mining pool income will be cut in half by the block halving.  

Are you doing ok cypher? You seem to be increasingly hyperbolic and desperate in your comments. This one in particular is exceedingly misleading and smells like a blatant attempt to use unfounded fear, uncertainty, and doubt to make your case and influence others.

You do of course realize that if the price were to rise to 500 by next July their income will remain precisely the same as it is today?

Luckily, I'm sure the miners understand the economics of mining well enough that they will not be taking your misguided advice.

[cypherdoc]

To any mining pool operators out there reading,

next year July your mining pool income will be cut in half by the block halving.  

Are you doing ok cypher? You seem to be increasingly hyperbolic and desperate in your comments. This one in particular is exceedingly misleading and smells like a blatant attempt to use unfounded fear, uncertainty, and doubt to make your case and influence others.

You do of course realize that if the price were to rise to 500 by next July their income will remain precisely the same as it is today?

Luckily, I'm sure the miners understand the economics of mining well enough that they will not be taking your misguided advice.

And if it doesn't rise, what's your  long term plan for miners to supplement the lost block reward income?  

[Cconvert2G36]

To any mining pool operators out there reading,

next year July your mining pool income will be cut in half by the block halving.  

Are you doing ok cypher? You seem to be increasingly hyperbolic and desperate in your comments. This one in particular is exceedingly misleading and smells like a blatant attempt to use unfounded fear, uncertainty, and doubt to make your case and influence others.

You do of course realize that if the price were to rise to 500 by next July their income will remain precisely the same as it is today?

Luckily, I'm sure the miners understand the economics of mining well enough that they will not be taking your misguided advice.

And if it doesn't rise, what's your  long term plan for miners to supplement the lost block reward income?  

Just like 2012, unprofitable miners drop off, difficulty falls, BTC income per TH rises. Of course tx volume needs to rise greatly and create a larger fee incentive eventually, but I don't think the time preceding the drop to 12.5 is that period.

[cypherdoc]

To any mining pool operators out there reading,

next year July your mining pool income will be cut in half by the block halving.  

Are you doing ok cypher? You seem to be increasingly hyperbolic and desperate in your comments. This one in particular is exceedingly misleading and smells like a blatant attempt to use unfounded fear, uncertainty, and doubt to make your case and influence others.

You do of course realize that if the price were to rise to 500 by next July their income will remain precisely the same as it is today?

Luckily, I'm sure the miners understand the economics of mining well enough that they will not be taking your misguided advice.

And if it doesn't rise, what's your  long term plan for miners to supplement the lost block reward income?  

Just like 2012, unprofitable miners drop off, difficulty falls, BTC income per TH rises. Of course tx volume needs to rise greatly and create a larger fee incentive eventually, but I don't think the time preceding the drop to 12.5 is that period.

Why should we trust your assessment of what the proper time period is? 

Why not lift the limit entirely and let the market figure it out?

[Cconvert2G36]

To any mining pool operators out there reading,

next year July your mining pool income will be cut in half by the block halving.  

Are you doing ok cypher? You seem to be increasingly hyperbolic and desperate in your comments. This one in particular is exceedingly misleading and smells like a blatant attempt to use unfounded fear, uncertainty, and doubt to make your case and influence others.

You do of course realize that if the price were to rise to 500 by next July their income will remain precisely the same as it is today?

Luckily, I'm sure the miners understand the economics of mining well enough that they will not be taking your misguided advice.

And if it doesn't rise, what's your  long term plan for miners to supplement the lost block reward income?  

Just like 2012, unprofitable miners drop off, difficulty falls, BTC income per TH rises. Of course tx volume needs to rise greatly and create a larger fee incentive eventually, but I don't think the time preceding the drop to 12.5 is that period.

Why should we trust your assessment of what the proper time period is? 

Why not lift the limit entirely and let the market figure it out?

BTW, I'm FOR lifting the blocksize to at least 8MB, preferably higher, and with built in scaling.

I just don't think relationship between the two issues is all that important, at least before this upcoming halving, and maybe the one after that.

[cypherdoc]

To any mining pool operators out there reading,

next year July your mining pool income will be cut in half by the block halving.  

Are you doing ok cypher? You seem to be increasingly hyperbolic and desperate in your comments. This one in particular is exceedingly misleading and smells like a blatant attempt to use unfounded fear, uncertainty, and doubt to make your case and influence others.

You do of course realize that if the price were to rise to 500 by next July their income will remain precisely the same as it is today?

Luckily, I'm sure the miners understand the economics of mining well enough that they will not be taking your misguided advice.

And if it doesn't rise, what's your  long term plan for miners to supplement the lost block reward income?  

Just like 2012, unprofitable miners drop off, difficulty falls, BTC income per TH rises. Of course tx volume needs to rise greatly and create a larger fee incentive eventually, but I don't think the time preceding the drop to 12.5 is that period.

Why should we trust your assessment of what the proper time period is? 

Why not lift the limit entirely and let the market figure it out?

BTW, I'm FOR lifting the blocksize to at least 8MB, preferably higher, and with built in scaling.

I just don't think relationship between the two issues is all that important, at least before this upcoming halving, and maybe the one after that.

Great to here that. Hope you mean it.

But you're  ignoring the fact that a vast majority of the community does  want an increase now. So why should we just go with your opinion again?

[Cconvert2G36]

Great to here that. Hope you mean it.

But you're  ignoring the fact that a vast majority of the community does  want an increase now. So why should we just go with your opinion again?

I am for an increase, sooner the better. Not sure how I can say this more clearly. I just don't think that the maxblocksize argument alters the incentives in the mining game, yet.

I think you are getting too used to having people badger you in this thread these days. You're starting to see enemies when they are friends.   

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Meanwhile... A money pit called Ethereum.

[thezerg]

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.  

Blockstream (i.e. the Core devs) are planning to unleash the freedom for anyone to innovate on BTC pegged value, which is precisely what you are clamoring for.

I've got no problem with this.  Its nice that most of the value BTC holders have may be preserved.  But its pretty disingenuous to deliberately hamstring Bitcoin thereby forcing users into their solution.

And if ppl do move to blockstream "sponsored" chains I question the legal/political ramifications of blockchains that have a big corporate target to aim at for censorship, identity tracking ,etc.

[cypherdoc]

Great to here that. Hope you mean it.

But you're  ignoring the fact that a vast majority of the community does  want an increase now. So why should we just go with your opinion again?

I am for an increase, sooner the better. Not sure how I can say this more clearly. I just don't think that the maxblocksize argument alters the incentives in the mining game, yet.

I think you are getting too used to having people badger you in this thread these days. You're starting to see enemies when they are friends.   

I don't see you as an enemy. I just acknowledged that it is great you want an increase.

I simply asked you why we should ignore, right now, a vast majority of the community who wants to see an increase built in now so that we can be ready come January?

[cypherdoc]

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.  

Blockstream (i.e. the Core devs) are planning to unleash the freedom for anyone to innovate on BTC pegged value, which is precisely what you are clamoring for.

I've got no problem with this.  Its nice that most of the value BTC holders have may be preserved.  But its pretty disingenuous to deliberately hamstring Bitcoin thereby forcing users into their solution.

And if ppl do move to blockstream "sponsored" chains I question the legal/political ramifications of blockchains that have a big corporate target to aim at for censorship, identity tracking ,etc.

I've been meaning to mention this scenario.

Big corporate consults with Blockstream to construct a proprietary corporate SC with a significant innovation that Bitcoin proper definitely would want to incorporate. Before any of this success is known to the market,  corporate forces Blockstream to sign a non-compete.

With Bitcoin Core still controlled by these devs, said innovation can't get back ported to Bitcoin Core because it continually gets blocked by non consensus. A hard fork introduced by anonymous dev can't get off the ground for the same reasons XT might not get off the ground.

What then?

[Cconvert2G36]

I don't see you as an enemy. I just acknowledged that it is great you want an increase.

I simply asked you why we should ignore, right now, a vast majority of the community who wants to see an increase built in now so that we can be ready come January?

I refuse to argue on behalf of a point I didn't make. 

Although, now that you mention it... what if a vast majority of the community (ill defined), wanted to increase the block reward? If the "community" = mining nodes and full nodes, this is exactly how changes happen. A majority of hashing power and servicing nodes become a dominant fork, and the losers either join them or have an altcoin with an impossible difficulty. 

The mining incentive structure is built in, and not terribly reliant on the general user community's opinion. Larger blocks servicing increased tx volume and their accompanying fees is good for miners (to the point of being limited by hardware and bandwidth capacity). Altering the block reward, would probably nuke the coin's value, so there is a sort of MAD incentive against it.

Again, I'm for an increase to the limit, and I think miners acting rationally would be too. They would do it because of their own self interest though, not because a poll of reddit users wanted them to.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

^ Time to post this again: http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/who-controls-bitcoin/

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

The spring appears to be coiling for a massive, long-overdue move. A mere 10x-ing might be too tame this time around; we have a lot of catching up to do.

Greece implementing capital controls enforced by a week-long bank holiday, right on cue.