Bitcoin Forum
March 28, 2020, 03:50:36 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: Bitcoin fork proposal by respected Bitcoin lead dev Gavin Andresen, to increase the block size from 1MB to 20MB.
pro
anti
agnostic
DGAF

Pages: « 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 [60] 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 ... 131 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Bitcoin 20MB Fork  (Read 154258 times)
Cryddit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 1044


View Profile
February 12, 2015, 07:57:15 AM
Last edit: February 12, 2015, 08:15:37 AM by Cryddit
 #1181


So....  First, I have no idea where this "bounty" comes from.  Who would pay it and why?  Second, it'll be an orphaned block unless the majority of hash power is already on the B version, so where could a 'taint' come from anyway?  Unless the majority of hashing power accepts that block as valid, the chain it's in will be orphaned long before its coinbase can be spent, and if it's orphaned none of the other clients are going to accept that block as evidence that a transaction has happened, so they'll just ignore it, repeat its transactions in <1Mb blocks, and the world goes on.

I think maybe you believe that someone has motivations they don't have.


Like I said earlier, I will wish to send myself transactions on your 'B' chain as soon as I can.  These I will be able to spend on the 'B' chain while they remain on the 'A' chain which is the chain I am betting on for long duration survival and usefulness.

Ah.  You then are one of the people I was referring to as a crook, and want to do double spends.

Quote
Making sure that transactions are tainted with coinbase from 'B' will insure that transactions can never be re-played on 'A'.  Thus, I'll want to get some coinbase from the first block which is over 1MB as soon as possible.

Except that coinbase from B can't exist until B has majority hashing power.  Any block that would produce a 'B-only' coinbase will have to violate protocol-A (be over 1M bytes long) AND be 100 blocks old before that coinbase can be spent.  Because client-A won't mine on any chain containing a block that violates protocol-A,  unless B has majority hashing power that B-only block will be orphaned long before then.   Further, because no miner will even attempt to produce a client-B block until incremented block version numbers in the recently-mined blocks indicate that B has an overwhelming supermajority of hashing power, there simply won't exist a >1Mb block, or any opportunity to "taint",  until that happens.
Roullete Flip Duels Bubble Player vs B2 Player vs Player Player vs B2 Supports Lightning Network The Social Gambling Games Play Now
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
kwukduck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1941
Merit: 1000


View Profile
February 12, 2015, 07:57:32 AM
 #1182

So we get to 140 tps...
What happens if we reach that in say 5 years... Another hard fork?
I just don't think changing it like this is a smart way of dealing with the issue, why not a dynamic size that scales with the network as some other coins do...?

14b8PdeWLqK3yi3PrNHMmCvSmvDEKEBh3E
redsn0w
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1778
Merit: 1041


#Free market


View Profile
February 12, 2015, 08:03:07 AM
 #1183

So we get to 140 tps...
What happens if we reach that in say 5 years... Another hard fork?
I just don't think changing it like this is a smart way of dealing with the issue, why not a dynamic size that scales with the network as some other coins do...?

Now I think the hardfork isn't necessary (I've read a lot of article,topics). The 1 MB blocksize is necessary to keep the coin decentralized (more & more people save the blockchain on their PC) and bitcoin will stay a valid an great alternative to the current economy system in the next few years. For example if someone want to send money to his relatives in another country/nation, in this case bitcoin can help (because the fees are lower than moneygram,western union, bank transfer, etc...) and the 7 tps  aren't a real problem.
balu2
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742
Merit: 500


View Profile
February 12, 2015, 08:08:04 AM
 #1184

yes, i know. Gavincoin proposal is an attack on bitcoin. I just wanted to figure out which public channels to watch so i can be among the first ones to sell in case the community is forked and bitcoin hijacked.
I guess i'll just sell now and wait until the dust settles. Won't go anywhere before the halving anyways.
I think i might buy Mpcoin later if it comes to the MCA

Why do you think Gavincoin is an attack on bitcoin while MPcoin isn't?

How is bitcoin an attack on bitcoin? Afterall you want to fork off into an alt. Conservative folks will stay on the bitcoin chain. The neophyle fail-lords will fork to altcoin gavin-thing and pretend everything would be normal before then years later telling people 'whops, sorry, we need to raise the max coin limit for network security'.

I'll stick with the conservative stuff as i think a hard cap will be important for the value.
All your idiotic comments don't impress me and not a single fuck was given about the bloat-altfork.
balu2
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742
Merit: 500


View Profile
February 12, 2015, 08:09:33 AM
 #1185

yes, i know. Gavincoin proposal is an attack on bitcoin. I just wanted to figure out which public channels to watch so i can be among the first ones to sell in case the community is forked and bitcoin hijacked.
I guess i'll just sell now and wait until the dust settles. Won't go anywhere before the halving anyways.
I think i might buy Mpcoin later if it comes to the MCA

Why do you think Gavincoin is an attack on bitcoin while MPcoin isn't?

MP coin is not intrusive, It is just the basic aftermath of hard forking bitcoin.
You are using mpcoin as of now btw ;-)

correct. Mpcoin is what everyone is currently using - and it works just fine.

Really i don't give a single fuck about the gavin-bloat
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 3150
Merit: 1079


View Profile
February 12, 2015, 08:10:14 AM
 #1186


So....  First, I have no idea where this "bounty" comes from.  Who would pay it and why?  Second, it'll be an orphaned block unless the majority of hash power is already on the B version, so where could a 'taint' come from anyway?  Unless the majority of hashing power accepts that block as valid, the chain it's in will be orphaned long before its coinbase can be spent, and if it's orphaned none of the other clients are going to accept that block as evidence that a transaction has happened, so they'll just ignore it, repeat its transactions in <1Mb blocks, and the world goes on.

I think maybe you believe that someone has motivations they don't have.


Like I said earlier, I will wish to send myself transactions on your 'B' chain as soon as I can.  These I will be able to spend on the 'B' chain while they remain on the 'A' chain which is the chain I am betting on for long duration survival and usefulness.

Ah.  You then are one of the people I was referring to as a crook, and want to do double spends.

It's not a double-spend.  It's two different solutions.  Nobody (including me) is going to throw away free money.

It very well could be the case that people will value 'two-system' money more than single-system money.  Adios fungibility (on the 'B' chain)...it was nice knowing ya.
 
Quote
Making sure that transactions are tainted with coinbase from 'B' will insure that transactions can never be re-played on 'A'.  Thus, I'll want to get some coinbase from the first block which is over 1MB as soon as possible.

Except that coinbase from B can't exist until B has majority hashing power.  Any block that would produce a 'B-only' coinbase will have to violate protocol-A (be over 1M bytes long) AND be 100 blocks old before that coinbase can be spent.  Because client-A won't mine on any chain containing a block that violates protocol-A,  unless B has majority hashing power that B-only block will be orphaned long before then.


I take it as almost a given that there will be more hashing on your 'B'.  Maybe not, but it doesn't make much difference.  Difficulties will adjust and valuations will fluctuate and various balances will be reached.  I would expect a fair amount of inconvenience from attackers on 'A'.  What doesn't kill us only makes us stronger, and I for one am happy to get techniques for working around superior resource attacks tried out.  As an 'A-hodler' I'm perfectly fine sitting on my stash for weeks, patching my system, and that sort of thing to deal with whatever eventualities come up.


Buffer Overflow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1015



View Profile
February 12, 2015, 08:14:16 AM
 #1187

yes, i know. Gavincoin proposal is an attack on bitcoin. I just wanted to figure out which public channels to watch so i can be among the first ones to sell in case the community is forked and bitcoin hijacked.
I guess i'll just sell now and wait until the dust settles. Won't go anywhere before the halving anyways.
I think i might buy Mpcoin later if it comes to the MCA

Why do you think Gavincoin is an attack on bitcoin while MPcoin isn't?

MP coin is not intrusive, It is just the basic aftermath of hard forking bitcoin.
You are using mpcoin as of now btw ;-)

correct. Mpcoin is what everyone is currently using - and it works just fine.

Really i don't give a single fuck about the gavin-bloat

No. Mpcoin has a permanent block cap size, bitcoin has a temporary one. They are both totally different.

cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736
Merit: 1002

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
February 12, 2015, 08:23:26 AM
 #1188

So we get to 140 tps...
What happens if we reach that in say 5 years... Another hard fork?
I just don't think changing it like this is a smart way of dealing with the issue, why not a dynamic size that scales with the network as some other coins do...?

Now I think the hardfork isn't necessary (I've read a lot of article,topics). The 1 MB blocksize is necessary to keep the coin decentralized (more & more people save the blockchain on their PC) and bitcoin will stay a valid an great alternative to the current economy system in the next few years. For example if someone want to send money to his relatives in another country/nation, in this case bitcoin can help (because the fees are lower than moneygram,western union, bank transfer, etc...) and the 7 tps  aren't a real problem.
Your first wrongfully point assumes in five years people will still be using 500GB hard drives. Your second point wrongfully assumes miners won't keep fees low facing higher demand.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1000


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
February 12, 2015, 08:23:39 AM
 #1189

So we get to 140 tps...
What happens if we reach that in say 5 years... Another hard fork?
I just don't think changing it like this is a smart way of dealing with the issue, why not a dynamic size that scales with the network as some other coins do...?

Now I think the hardfork isn't necessary (I've read a lot of article,topics). The 1 MB blocksize is necessary to keep the coin decentralized (more & more people save the blockchain on their PC) and bitcoin will stay a valid an great alternative to the current economy system in the next few years. For example if someone want to send money to his relatives in another country/nation, in this case bitcoin can help (because the fees are lower than moneygram,western union, bank transfer, etc...) and the 7 tps  aren't a real problem.

Satoshi Nakomoto's email to Mike Hearn in April 2009

"Hi Mike,

I'm glad to answer any questions you have.  If I get time, I ought to write a FAQ to supplement the paper.

There is only one global chain.

The existing Visa credit card network processes about 15 million Internet purchases per day worldwide.  Bitcoin can already scale much larger than that with existing hardware for a fraction of the cost.  It never really hits a scale ceiling.  If you're interested, I can go over the ways it would cope with extreme size.

By Moore's Law, we can expect hardware speed to be 10 times faster in 5 years and 100 times faster in 10.  Even if Bitcoin grows at crazy adoption rates, I think computer speeds will stay ahead of the number of transactions.

I don't anticipate that fees will be needed anytime soon, but if it becomes too burdensome to run a node, it is possible to run a node that only processes transactions that include a transaction fee.  The owner of the node would decide the minimum fee they'll accept.  Right now, such a node would get nothing, because nobody includes a fee, but if enough nodes did that, then users would get faster acceptance if they include a fee, or slower if they don't.  The fee the market would settle on should be minimal.  If a node requires a higher fee, that node would be passing up all transactions with lower fees.  It could do more volume and probably make more money by processing as many paying transactions as it can.  The transition is not controlled by some human in charge of the system though, just individuals reacting on their own to market forces.
"

Bitcoin was designed to scale up from day one. Deal with it.

iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2156
Merit: 1070


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
February 12, 2015, 08:29:50 AM
 #1190

Yes, more hardware requirement==more centralisation. But if the devs don't forget to implement the optimizations part of the plans (i.e. "The Future Looks Bright" in https://blog.bitcoinfoundation.org/a-scalability-roadmap/) then everyone can run a full peer node in the future just as easy as now.

O look. The pruning bullshit.

If everyones prunes the spent outputs, how does a full node synchronize from scratch?
From 'trusted' archive nodes? Gimme a break.


The Gavincoiners use at least three canards to justify their attack on Bitcoin: pruning, disk space, and scale.

The pruning canard relies on experimental yet-to-be-invented vaporware and excludes synching from scratch, necessitating trust in archive nodes.  The entire point of BTC is to replace trust with proof.  When you want a prunable mini-blockchain, use Cryptonite instead of BTC.

The disk space canard overemphasizes the undisputed high density and availability of economical storage, in order to distract from the far more important bandwidth constraints under which much of the world (and hardened TOR-like networks) operate.

The scale canard is the same used by those opposing a gold standard.  Low TPS isn't an obstacle to scaling any more than a limited supply of gold.  The price of each simply increases and scaling is provided by quality (magnitude), not quantity, of transactions.  Substitution also plays a key role, as the more numerous but less important transactions migrate to secondary networks like silver/copper or Litecoin/Primecoin.

Bitcoin is no stronger than its ability to deal with an attack such as was undertaken against Kim Dotcom.

^This^ is why we must keep Bitcoin small, nimble, diffuse, and defensible.


██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine
whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." 
David Chaum 1996
"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect."  Adam Back 2014
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
Is Dash a scam?
Cryddit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 1044


View Profile
February 12, 2015, 08:31:07 AM
 #1191


I take it as almost a given that there will be more hashing on your 'B'.  Maybe not, but it doesn't make much difference.  Difficulties will adjust and valuations will fluctuate and various balances will be reached.  I would expect a fair amount of inconvenience from attackers on 'A'.  What doesn't kill us only makes us stronger, and I for one am happy to get techniques for working around superior resource attacks tried out.  As an 'A-hodler' I'm perfectly fine sitting on my stash for weeks, patching my system, and that sort of thing to deal with whatever eventualities come up.


You realize that no 'breaker' block (that is, no chain-B-only coinbase) will exist until after chain-B has 95% of the hashing power, and that because the vast majority of people still on A at that time will be there only by accident, that'll rapidly rise to 99%plus of the hashing power.  

That leaves a post-fork chain-A getting, at best, one block a day.  One <1MB block.  Giving chain-A a transaction rate, until the next difficulty adjustment, of maybe 1 transaction per minute, with 1-week confirmation times.   Difficulty adjusts every 2016 blocks, which, if you get it right on the cusp of a diff adjustment and actually manage to keep 1/2% of miners on it, which you won't, means chain-A will be like that for ten years.  

You're pointing a BB gun at an elephant here, and the BB gun isn't even loaded.  

cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736
Merit: 1002

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
February 12, 2015, 08:36:54 AM
 #1192

Yes, more hardware requirement==more centralisation. But if the devs don't forget to implement the optimizations part of the plans (i.e. "The Future Looks Bright" in https://blog.bitcoinfoundation.org/a-scalability-roadmap/) then everyone can run a full peer node in the future just as easy as now.

O look. The pruning bullshit.

If everyones prunes the spent outputs, how does a full node synchronize from scratch?
From 'trusted' archive nodes? Gimme a break.


The Gavincoiners use at least three canards to justify their attack on Bitcoin: pruning, disk space, and scale.

The pruning canard relies on experimental yet-to-be-invented vaporware and excludes synching from scratch, necessitating trust in archive nodes.  The entire point of BTC is to replace trust with proof.  When you want a prunable mini-blockchain, use Cryptonite instead of BTC.

The disk space canard overemphasizes the undisputed high density and availability of economical storage, in order to distract from the far more important bandwidth constraints under which much of the world (and hardened TOR-like networks) operate.

The scale canard is the same used by those opposing a gold standard.  Low TPS isn't an obstacle to scaling any more than a limited supply of gold.  The price of each simply increases and scaling is provided by quality (magnitude), not quantity, of transactions.  Substitution also plays a key role, as the more numerous but less important transactions migrate to secondary networks like silver/copper or Litecoin/Primecoin.

Bitcoin is no stronger than its ability to deal with an attack such as was undertaken against Kim Dotcom.

^This^ is why we must keep Bitcoin small, nimble, diffuse, and defensible.
You mean small blocks can stop US Marshals from breaking down your doors and taking your stuff?

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1007


Gerald Davis


View Profile
February 12, 2015, 08:37:09 AM
 #1193


I take it as almost a given that there will be more hashing on your 'B'.  Maybe not, but it doesn't make much difference.  Difficulties will adjust and valuations will fluctuate and various balances will be reached.  I would expect a fair amount of inconvenience from attackers on 'A'.  What doesn't kill us only makes us stronger, and I for one am happy to get techniques for working around superior resource attacks tried out.  As an 'A-hodler' I'm perfectly fine sitting on my stash for weeks, patching my system, and that sort of thing to deal with whatever eventualities come up.


You realize that no 'breaker' block (that is, no chain-B-only coinbase) will exist until after chain-B has 95% of the hashing power, and that because the vast majority of people still on A at that time will be there only by accident, that'll rapidly rise to 99%plus of the hashing power. 

That leaves a post-fork chain-A getting, at best, one block a day.  One <1MB block.  Giving chain-A a transaction rate, until the next difficulty adjustment, of maybe 1 transaction per minute, with 1-week confirmation times.   Difficulty adjusts every 2016 blocks, which, if you get it right on the cusp of a diff adjustment and actually manage to keep 1/2% of miners on it, means chain-A will be like that for six. years. 

You're pointing a BB gun at an elephant here, and the BB gun isn't even loaded. 



Yeah they imagine some kind of romantic war but there are only two scenarios
a) the fork doesn't get support and thus never happens (or is postponed)
b) the fork occurs only after a super majority of miners, full nodes, merchants, and users are already supporting it.

I guess nobody remembers the P2SH rollout.
onemorebtc
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 266
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 12, 2015, 08:55:15 AM
 #1194

So we get to 140 tps...
What happens if we reach that in say 5 years... Another hard fork?
I just don't think changing it like this is a smart way of dealing with the issue, why not a dynamic size that scales with the network as some other coins do...?

Now I think the hardfork isn't necessary (I've read a lot of article,topics). The 1 MB blocksize is necessary to keep the coin decentralized (more & more people save the blockchain on their PC) and bitcoin will stay a valid an great alternative to the current economy system in the next few years. For example if someone want to send money to his relatives in another country/nation, in this case bitcoin can help (because the fees are lower than moneygram,western union, bank transfer, etc...) and the 7 tps  aren't a real problem.

maybe other people want to do other people with btc than transaction money to another country?
why dont you let them use it just as a currency - which it is designed for btw.

transfer 3 onemorebtc.k1024.de 1
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2156
Merit: 1070


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
February 12, 2015, 09:02:59 AM
 #1195

...
But eventually after six months or so, let's say I get an 1100 kilobyte block (block B1, built on block A0).  It goes out on the network, and all the people
...

Ha!  Try six minutes or so.  I'll bet there will be a pretty nice bounty for exclusive use of the first 'gavintaint' (as disgusting as that sounds) and it is fairly cheap to spam a block to capacity...since all the Libertarians here are dead-set on subsidizing Bitcoin for the huddled masses to use.  An amazing quailty of Bitcoin is that it can turn Libertarians into Socialist.  Go figure.

'gavintaint' is kind of like the bathtub ring left by The Cat In The Hat so it won't be hard to come by, but it might be handy to be the first guy get access to some.  I predict that as soon as gavintaint is available there will be a big rush by many hodlers to double-up.  This should fill your 'B' blocks for some time.

Gavincoin is the Obamacare of crypto; we have to pass it in order to find out what it does!   Cheesy

Not all of the Libertarians here believe Bitcoin needs to keep handing out free-samples, much less expand our free-sample giveaway program 20 times larger, followed by 40% annual increases.

Some of us see the value in doing one thing better than anyone else, instead of being all coins to all people at the cost of our original identity and niche.  Some of believe Bitcoin should start charging whatever prices the market will bear for its amazing utility, instead of eternally subsidizing (at the cost of network resilience and survivability) chain bloating latte purchases and Counterparty spam.

I can't wait to see what MP and his compatriots will and won't do in the Fork Wars.  Gavintaint is the most fearsome weapon in their arsenal, and we may also see pool users bribed to hash for the belligerents' fork of choice.

CKpool would be a great platform for Mircea Poolescu, which offers miners unbeatable rates for their support of Bitcoin Classic...


██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine
whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." 
David Chaum 1996
"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect."  Adam Back 2014
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
Is Dash a scam?
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2156
Merit: 1070


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
February 12, 2015, 09:29:44 AM
 #1196

Bitcoin is no stronger than its ability to deal with an attack such as was undertaken against Kim Dotcom.

^This^ is why we must keep Bitcoin small, nimble, diffuse, and defensible.
You mean small blocks can stop US Marshals from breaking down your doors and taking your stuff?

My doors?  My stuff?  You need to learn what the words "defensible" and "diffuse" mean!

Small blocks and their low propagation times/bandwidth requirements are important because of this:

Some people may remember 'megauploads'.  The case is instructive.

At its peak it accounted for a noticeable percentage of total global internet traffic.  Then, at the flip of a switch it was gone along with everyone's data who had been using the service no matter what the nature of the data.

Why was it so trivial to shut down megauploads?  All of the gear and networks that the service used were trivial to identify and valuable to the owners.  

people who live under the assumption that somehow 'freedom' and 'fairness' is going to protect the Bitcoin network if the mainstream financial players, and thus U.S. govt, wants it shut down are living in a fantasy la-la-land.  There are several things which could keep it going:

 - It more useful alive than dead to the existing powers that be, and/or

 - It is decentralized and supported by gear which is both cloakable and dispensable by the operators.  There would need be a lot of potential operators and they can be born anywhere and pop up anywhere overnight.


██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine
whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." 
David Chaum 1996
"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect."  Adam Back 2014
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
Is Dash a scam?
traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 12, 2015, 09:32:04 AM
 #1197

The scale canard is the same used by those opposing a gold standard.  Low TPS isn't an obstacle to scaling any more than a limited supply of gold.  The price of each simply increases and scaling is provided by quality (magnitude), not quantity, of transactions.  Substitution also plays a key role, as the more numerous but less important transactions migrate to secondary networks like silver/copper or Litecoin/Primecoin.

To me, and I come from a completely different paradigm, which is the obvious arising of a universal poker coin which cannot be said to be unrelated. The ideal poker markets that are eventually created by having a near instant and near costless means of exchange creates a cradle for a solution basically that is "quixcoin" (I "think" Szabo mentioned it recently and is Sergio L's coin). I am far from technical, but to me this is the birth of the actual implementation of "mental poker".  But I instantly get confronted with the question or assertion about why one would not just use bitcoin. This is of course in relation to many skilled type games, and the markets that support them.  Thats a mutibillion dollar industry that could snap over the bitcoin nearly over night which is contingent on bitcoin having some form or amount of limitations (transition from fiat to bitcoin, but ultimately to separate value from the game with separate "coins" protocols, or networks, however we view it all) . This is an incredibly interesting conversation.  I am almost sad I will not be able to share the contents and meaning with many people I know irl. Someone accuses someone of being a thief, but I think rather we must all think like thieves in order to create the ultra secure platform.

I think I do see an inevitable "test" or experiment, and so then there is a democratic choice, you can vote for change or not for change, you can try to be malicious or try to be cooperative.  

Here is the outline:
https://thewealthofchips.wordpress.com/2015/02/11/outline/

Here are notes on "dialogue" which may be useful:
https://thewealthofchips.wordpress.com/2015/02/12/notes-on-on-dialogue-and-in-relation-to-the-block-size-discussion-dialoue/

Quote from: bohm
Thus everybody is quite free. It’s not like a mob where the collective mind takes over-not at all. It is something between the individual and the collective. It can move between them. It’s a harmony of the individual and the collective,in which the whole constantly moves toward coherence. So there is both a collective mind and an individual mind, and like a stream, the flow moves between them. The opinions, therefore, don’t matter so much. Eventually we may be somewhere between all these opinions, and we start to move beyond them in another direction-a tangential direction-into something new and creative.

Now, that would be the ideal situation. I’ve painted the ideal picture.

And so that is the ideal and we perhaps have the possibility for the truth of this, although somewhat shocking about how far back certain "protocol" technology may have gone:
Quote from: bohm
The tacit process is common. It is shared. The sharing is not merely the explicit communication and the body language and all that, which are part of it, but there is also a deeper tacit process which is common. I think the whole human race knew this for a million years; and then in five thousand years of civilisation we have lost it, because our societies got too big to carry it out.
With respect to TWON it might simply have been the outgrowing (or sinking ;p) of continents and especially in relation to the sea or "other lands" and the feasibility/economics of conquering/discovering them that caused us to "lose" this 'technology' bohm speaks of.

Very related vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRn23dQ_uJA

And then an auspicious comparison by bohm:



If the possibility of the choice of two coins arises, there might be some helpful strategy here: http://unenumerated.blogspot.ca/2008/03/logical-emergence-of-money-from-barter.html#links



Stephen Gornick
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1001


View Profile
February 12, 2015, 09:59:17 AM
Last edit: February 12, 2015, 04:17:29 PM by Stephen Gornick
 #1198

As soon as I hear about A2, or maybe A3, I'll drop my B1 block because it's no longer on the longest chain.  From my point of view it's exactly like having a block orphaned for any other reason.

What if "Client B" were to reject any block that was 1MB or below, and only created blocks larger than 1MB (starting with some future block number).  Then regardless of "Client A"'s hashing power, those blocks will not be valid as far as Client B is concerned.

Sure the chains will quickly diverge (as there will be UTXOs with taint from new post-fork coins in Client A that will be rejected on Client B, and coins tainted in Client B are rejected by Client A).  If Client B only gets a really small amount of hashing capacity it won't be seen as being secure enough to persuade users to hop over to Client B.  But with a 20MB max blocksize, just 2% of the hashing capacity is still enough to absorb existing daily Bitcoin transaction load.  So does having just 2% mean this Client B dies, ... or does it just mean that we have an altcoin that was launched with initial distribution going to every person (or wallet) holding Bitcoin at the point the fork started?

Unichange.me

            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █


RoadStress
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862
Merit: 1002


View Profile
February 12, 2015, 10:04:00 AM
 #1199

To me, and I come from a completely different paradigm, which is the obvious arising of a universal poker coin which cannot be said to be unrelated. The ideal poker markets that are eventually created by having a near instant and near costless means of exchange creates a cradle for a solution basically that is "quixcoin" (I "think" Szabo mentioned it recently and is Sergio L's coin). I am far from technical, but to me this is the birth of the actual implementation of "mental poker".  But I instantly get confronted with the question or assertion about why one would not just use bitcoin. This is of course in relation to many skilled type games, and the markets that support them.  Thats a mutibillion dollar industry that could snap over the bitcoin nearly over night which is contingent on bitcoin having some form or amount of limitations (transition from fiat to bitcoin, but ultimately to separate value from the game with separate "coins" protocols, or networks, however we view it all) . This is an incredibly interesting conversation.  I am almost sad I will not be able to share the contents and meaning with many people I know irl. Someone accuses someone of being a thief, but I think rather we must all think like thieves in order to create the ultra secure platform.

Do you know anything else besides "ideal money" and "poker"?

H/w Hosting Directory & Reputation - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=622998.0
redsn0w
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1778
Merit: 1041


#Free market


View Profile
February 12, 2015, 10:51:51 AM
 #1200

So we get to 140 tps...
What happens if we reach that in say 5 years... Another hard fork?
I just don't think changing it like this is a smart way of dealing with the issue, why not a dynamic size that scales with the network as some other coins do...?

Now I think the hardfork isn't necessary (I've read a lot of article,topics). The 1 MB blocksize is necessary to keep the coin decentralized (more & more people save the blockchain on their PC) and bitcoin will stay a valid an great alternative to the current economy system in the next few years. For example if someone want to send money to his relatives in another country/nation, in this case bitcoin can help (because the fees are lower than moneygram,western union, bank transfer, etc...) and the 7 tps  aren't a real problem.

maybe other people want to do other people with btc than transaction money to another country?
why dont you let them use it just as a currency - which it is designed for btw.

Yes of course, but bitcoin is not only a currency. It is an alternative "way" for send a large quantity of money and pay lower fee, and after a currency (like € , $ , etc....) .
Pages: « 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 [60] 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 ... 131 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!