I guess from Gavin's POV holding gold and silver makes me a "currency speculator." 
I think it makes you a rapper.
Topic: Analysis and list of top big blocks shills (XT #REKT ignorers) - page 8. (Read 46564 times)
January 29, 2016, 10:30:57 AM
I think it makes you a rapper.
January 29, 2016, 10:29:47 AM
This sounds like a MBA school failure example: Ignoring your strengths and trying to match one on one with a competitor in an area where you're weakest and the slowest to improve and they're strongest and the fastest to improve. Especially since considering payment networks as the primary competition for a _currency_ is a bit bizarre. Yet a payment network is all that some have wanted Bitcoin to be... I don't begrudge that, but the weirdness of the goal doesn't relieve it from having to have a logically consistent roadmap, or permit it to take down the whole currency in its failure.
Wow, good find. The Gavinista Big Lie (Bitcoin replaces commercial, not central, banking) goes back much farther than I thought.
Looks like Hearn isn't the only one who was never really a good ideological fit for Bitcoin...and whose misalignment with Bitcoin has existed forever.
I plan on using Bitcoins as a convenient, very-low-cost means of exchange.
I don't plan on saving a significant number of Bitcoins as a store of value.
If you use Bitcoins as a store of value... well, then you're a currency speculator, which can be highly profitable but is also highly risky. Whether you're hoarding dollars or euros or yen or Bitcoins...
I don't plan on saving a significant number of Bitcoins as a store of value.
If you use Bitcoins as a store of value... well, then you're a currency speculator, which can be highly profitable but is also highly risky. Whether you're hoarding dollars or euros or yen or Bitcoins...
The circular logic is inescapable: 'Bitcoin is a currency, not a store of value; therefore holding Bitcoin as a store of value is currency speculation.'
I guess from Gavin's POV holding gold and silver makes me a "currency speculator."
blame it on his "evil little mind"
I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network. The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.
Good idea or not, SOMEBODY will try to mess up the network (or co-opt it for their own use) sooner or later. They'll either hack the existing code or write their own version, and will be a menace to the network.I admire the flexibility of the scripts-in-a-transaction scheme, but my evil little mind immediately starts to think of ways I might abuse it. I could encode all sorts of interesting information in the TxOut script, and if non-hacked clients validated-and-then-ignored those transactions it would be a useful covert broadcast communication channel.
That's a cool feature until it gets popular and somebody decides it would be fun to flood the payment network with millions of transactions to transfer the latest Lady Gaga video to all their friends...
January 29, 2016, 10:19:15 AM
This sounds like a MBA school failure example: Ignoring your strengths and trying to match one on one with a competitor in an area where you're weakest and the slowest to improve and they're strongest and the fastest to improve. Especially since considering payment networks as the primary competition for a _currency_ is a bit bizarre. Yet a payment network is all that some have wanted Bitcoin to be... I don't begrudge that, but the weirdness of the goal doesn't relieve it from having to have a logically consistent roadmap, or permit it to take down the whole currency in its failure.
Wow, good find. The Gavinista Big Lie (Bitcoin replaces commercial, not central, banking) goes back much farther than I thought.
Looks like Hearn isn't the only one who was never really a good ideological fit for Bitcoin...and whose misalignment with Bitcoin has existed forever.
I plan on using Bitcoins as a convenient, very-low-cost means of exchange.
I don't plan on saving a significant number of Bitcoins as a store of value.
If you use Bitcoins as a store of value... well, then you're a currency speculator, which can be highly profitable but is also highly risky. Whether you're hoarding dollars or euros or yen or Bitcoins...
I don't plan on saving a significant number of Bitcoins as a store of value.
If you use Bitcoins as a store of value... well, then you're a currency speculator, which can be highly profitable but is also highly risky. Whether you're hoarding dollars or euros or yen or Bitcoins...
The circular logic is inescapable: 'Bitcoin is a currency, not a store of value; therefore holding Bitcoin as a store of value is currency speculation.'
I guess from Gavin's POV holding gold and silver makes me a "currency speculator."
January 29, 2016, 10:04:49 AM
January 29, 2016, 09:54:35 AM
...
Bitcoin can't get to Visa scale tps even using fully centralized nodes and silly, hardcoded, ad hoc rules (like the"Max_tx_size = 100k" "MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 1000000"...
Bitcoin can't get to Visa scale tps even using fully centralized nodes and silly, hardcoded, ad hoc rules (like the
FTFY
January 29, 2016, 09:50:30 AM
You can't get to Visa tps from here. Our only realistic path to Visa is orthogonal scaling, where each tx does the maximum economic work possible.
Obviously you cant scale to Visa with onchain transactions and keep node decentralization. But it does not mean you cant increase to 6tps or 12tps right now and give users much better experience with Bitcoin so it is well worth while keeping node decentralization, not insignificiant and unnecessary as you say.
You're almost half right. The half where you are completely wrong is the one where you pretend trade-offs do not exist.
Bitcoin can't get to Visa scale tps even using fully centralized nodes and silly, hardcoded, ad hoc rules (like the "Max_tx_size = 100k" Gavin considered before thinking better of such indefensibly complex, future-constraining cruft). Verification using current BTC sigop code is physically impossible at 100k tps, no matter what kind of supercomputer cluster you use (except perhaps C01N
).If the first 3 tps are insignificant then so are the next 3 or 9. So, from where does your magically occurring putative "much better experience with Bitcoin" originate?
Let's investigate!
UX @ 3tps: pay a competitive fee (about 12 cents) to ensure priority processing even during peak hours' surge charges
UX @ 6tps: pay a competitive fee (about 6 cents) to ensure priority processing even during peak hours' surge charges
UX @ 12tps: pay a competitive fee (about 3 cents) to ensure priority processing even during peak hours' surge charges
Wow, an entire 9 cents of savings and at only the cost of sacrificing Bitcoin's interesting diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient properties. Sign me up for that!
Jusk kidding. Actually, I will never trade one iota of infinitely precious, crucial Bitcoin security in exchange for mere additional capacity.
Bitcoin needs every bit of security/decentralization/antifragility it can muster, because the adversity is only beginning to get started.
I'll gladly pay an extra 9 (or 90, or 900) cents to ensure Bitcoin has the best possible chance of surviving endless attacks by the combined might of the world's nation-states, central banks, and hax0rz (not to mention world wars and depressions).
This isn't about Frappuccino discounts and tipping witty cat video commentators; this is a battle for everything.
January 29, 2016, 09:29:34 AM
If you prove we will not see over 10 TB HDDs in mass production in the following 6 years, then you can get some big blockers more sceptical about scaling above 2 or 4 MB. So go ahead.
You said 10-100TB, which implied a tenfold increase in 6 years. This is not likely.All we have to do is loudly demand 100TB hard drives be available in 6 years.
Obnixious repetitive complaining will force those lazy, stubborn, greedy bastards at Seagate and Western Digital to come up with a solution.
That's how engineering works, right?
If you want reliable drives you need to use HGST.
I'm sure this will do for a while.
January 29, 2016, 09:24:59 AM
If you prove we will not see over 10 TB HDDs in mass production in the following 6 years, then you can get some big blockers more sceptical about scaling above 2 or 4 MB. So go ahead.
You said 10-100TB, which implied a tenfold increase in 6 years. This is not likely.All we have to do is loudly demand 100TB hard drives be available in 6 years.
Obnixious repetitive complaining will force those lazy, stubborn, greedy bastards at Seagate and Western Digital to come up with a solution.
That's how engineering works, right?
Roughly. Most solutions start with a problem, not the other way around.* If there's no demand for greater storage capacity, devices having such capacity are far less likely to be made
*Bitcoin, of course, being the notable exception.
January 29, 2016, 09:22:17 AM
If you prove we will not see over 10 TB HDDs in mass production in the following 6 years, then you can get some big blockers more sceptical about scaling above 2 or 4 MB. So go ahead.
You said 10-100TB, which implied a tenfold increase in 6 years. This is not likely.All we have to do is loudly demand 100TB hard drives be available in 6 years.
Obnixious repetitive complaining will force those lazy, stubborn, greedy bastards at Seagate and Western Digital to come up with a solution.
That's how engineering works, right?
How dare those bastards censor us! We will start a new subreddit r/100tbHardDrives and show them what everyone wants. Nevermind that the engineers have told us repeatedly told us they can't make 100TB+ HDD's at this time, WE WANT IT AND WE WANT IT NOW.
January 29, 2016, 09:12:19 AM
If you prove we will not see over 10 TB HDDs in mass production in the following 6 years, then you can get some big blockers more sceptical about scaling above 2 or 4 MB. So go ahead.
You said 10-100TB, which implied a tenfold increase in 6 years. This is not likely.All we have to do is loudly demand 100TB hard drives be available in 6 years.
Obnixious repetitive complaining will force those lazy, stubborn, greedy bastards at Seagate and Western Digital to come up with a solution.
That's how engineering works, right?
January 29, 2016, 06:46:52 AM
But do you know what they are for and why they're completely irrelevant to this debate? Are you just writing stuff to shut us up?
They are relevant and no I'm not. I'd like proper feedback. If someone wants to deploy multiple nodes and doesn't have a big budget aren't PI's and similar computers their best option? Regardless, I'm asking where the cut-off point is? What 'minimum sys. requirements' should full nodes have?mmkey, let's see if I can clarify:
You guys obviously have no clue as to what an 'example' is. I could care less about the Raspberry PI, but I know a lot of people using those to either mine or run nodes.
Sure. I have literally hundreds of Raspberrys and Beagle Boards in my mine. But do you know what they are for and why they're completely irrelevant to this debate? Are you just writing stuff to shut us up?
The Beagles and the RaspBs in mines are used to control ASICs, they run CGminer and receive and send work to the server/pool. Anyone using it in a way that's touching the blockchain directly is doing it wrong.
And you seem to think everyone should run a full node. In the name of decentralization.
Wrong conclusions. I think that anyone who wishes to run a full node should be able to do so relatively inexpensively (e.g. not costing the user a fortune) and easily (setting up). I do not think that more people should be pushed into SPV wallets because of some limitation in their region (internet as an example). They should be allowed to choose. You are probably going to improperly understand this again. I do not mean that I'm against 2 MB blocks. I've been actually advocating for dynamic blocks in another debate last year. I'm just trying to point out that it is not all white and black.
Good to hear.
January 29, 2016, 06:46:35 AM
A trip to the moon requires a rocket with multiple stages or otherwise the rocket equation will eat your lunch... packing everyone in clown-car style into a trebuchet and hoping for success is right out.
Despite the hyperbole... how much of an exaggeration is this, exactly? I find it difficult to believe that Hearn or Garzik's play were ever expected as serious successes by their devisors. I have a feeling the long term strategy is to maintain as diverse a ranges of pressures on all stakeholders as possible, when all of a sudden a bunch of GE/IBM/Google types will turn up in the metaphorical DeLorean/Ghostbusters van, some Egon Spengler/Christopher Lloyd type exclaiming: "We're the Bitcoin Doctors, and we're here to sort this whole mess out for you all! Don't thank us now..."
Were this an AMA I might have asked him why he chose to give up his commit access instead of his corporate partnerships.
January 29, 2016, 06:16:12 AM
A trip to the moon requires a rocket with multiple stages or otherwise the rocket equation will eat your lunch... packing everyone in clown-car style into a trebuchet and hoping for success is right out.
Despite the hyperbole... how much of an exaggeration is this, exactly? I find it difficult to believe that Hearn or Garzik's play were ever expected as serious successes by their devisers. I have a feeling the long term strategy is to maintain as diverse a ranges of pressures on all stakeholders as possible, when all of a sudden a bunch of GE/IBM/Google types will turn up in the metaphorical DeLorean/Ghostbusters van, some Egon Spengler/Christopher Lloyd type exclaiming: "We're the Bitcoin Doctors, and we're here to sort this whole mess out for you all! Don't thank us now..."
January 29, 2016, 06:00:11 AM
The Toomininstas are confronting the same problem the Gavinistas did, which is that multiplying a tiny number such as 3tps by another tiny (ie sane) number such as 2 or 4 or even 8 still only produces another tiny number such as 6tps or 12tps or 24tps.
You can't get to Visa tps from here. Our only realistic path to Visa is orthogonal scaling, where each tx does the maximum economic work possible.
You can't get to Visa tps from here. Our only realistic path to Visa is orthogonal scaling, where each tx does the maximum economic work possible.
Obviously you cant scale to Visa with onchain transactions and keep node decentralization. But it does not mean you cant increase to 6tps or 12tps right now and give users much better experience with Bitcoin so it is well worth while keeping node decentralization, not insignificiant and unnecessary as you say.
If you prove we will not see over 10 TB HDDs in mass production in the following 6 years, then you can get some big blockers more sceptical about scaling above 2 or 4 MB. So go ahead.
You said 10-100TB, which implied a tenfold increase in 6 years. This is not likely.Today it is not uncommon people have 2 TB with minority of nerds having 8 TB/16 TB.
It is not unreasonable to expect in 6 years replace the terms in the sentence above with 10 TB, 50 TB/100 TB. This is what I meant. Sorry for confussion if you thought average 55 TB in 6 years.
so you will need to really spend most time on last about 2 months of syncing only and not about half a year as of now... pretty easy fix helping scalability for new nodes syncing from 0
Your solution is checkpoints?No, it can help a bit though if the checkpoints are updated more often. If you dont care read and think about my post what I really meant why you reply then...
January 29, 2016, 05:59:29 AM
The Toomininstas are confronting the same problem the Gavinistas did, which is that multiplying a tiny number such as 3tps by another tiny (ie sane) number such as 2 or 4 or even 8 still only produces another tiny number such as 6tps or 12tps or 24tps.
You can't get to Visa tps from here. Our only realistic path to Visa is orthogonal scaling, where each tx does the maximum economic work possible.
Right, card payments are currently at around 5000 TPS on a _year round_ average basis, with highest day peaks probably at over 100k TPS. And that is now, these figures have been rapidly growing.You can't get to Visa tps from here. Our only realistic path to Visa is orthogonal scaling, where each tx does the maximum economic work possible.
These are numbers high enough that just signature processing would completely crush even high end commercially available single systems. Even if you took some really great drugs and believed plain-old-bitcoin could get anywhere near matching that in the near future while having any decentralization remaining.... so what? it wouldn't be close again after just a couple more years growth.
This sounds like a MBA school failure example: Ignoring your strengths and trying to match one on one with a competitor in an area where you're weakest and the slowest to improve and they're strongest and the fastest to improve. Especially since considering payment networks as the primary competition for a _currency_ is a bit bizarre. Yet a payment network is all that some have wanted Bitcoin to be... I don't begrudge that, but the weirdness of the goal doesn't relieve it from having to have a logically consistent roadmap, or permit it to take down the whole currency in its failure.
A trip to the moon requires a rocket with multiple stages or otherwise the rocket equation will eat your lunch... packing everyone in clown-car style into a trebuchet and hoping for success is right out.
January 29, 2016, 05:55:43 AM
A House of Lords inquiry has called for a broad investigation of the limited competition in the UK audit market, while also accusing bank auditors of being “disconcertingly complacent” about their role in the financial crisis.
The dominance of the four biggest auditors – Deloitte, Ernst & Young, KPMG and PwC – merited a detailed probe by the Office of Fair Trading, according to the House of Lords economic affairs committee.
Like the mythical ouroboros. Well played Blockstream!
The dominance of the four biggest auditors – Deloitte, Ernst & Young, KPMG and PwC – merited a detailed probe by the Office of Fair Trading, according to the House of Lords economic affairs committee.
Like the mythical ouroboros. Well played Blockstream!
January 29, 2016, 05:35:53 AM
January 29, 2016, 05:27:37 AM
If you prove we will not see over 10 TB HDDs in mass production in the following 6 years, then you can get some big blockers more sceptical about scaling above 2 or 4 MB. So go ahead.
You said 10-100TB, which implied a tenfold increase in 6 years. This is not likely.so you will need to really spend most time on last about 2 months of syncing only and not about half a year as of now... pretty easy fix helping scalability for new nodes syncing from 0
Your solution is checkpoints?But do you know what they are for and why they're completely irrelevant to this debate? Are you just writing stuff to shut us up?
They are relevant and no I'm not. I'd like proper feedback. If someone wants to deploy multiple nodes and doesn't have a big budget aren't PI's and similar computers their best option? Regardless, I'm asking where the cut-off point is? What 'minimum sys. requirements' should full nodes have?And you seem to think everyone should run a full node. In the name of decentralization.
Wrong conclusions. I think that anyone who wishes to run a full node should be able to do so relatively inexpensively (e.g. not costing the user a fortune) and easily (setting up). I do not think that more people should be pushed into SPV wallets because of some limitation in their region (internet as an example). They should be allowed to choose. You are probably going to improperly understand this again. I do not mean that I'm against 2 MB blocks. I've been actually advocating for dynamic blocks in another debate last year. I'm just trying to point out that it is not all white and black.
Similarly, the hard drive will move to a SSD based route and reach PB level storage with ease, cost is not a problem when it is mass produced. As to CPU limitation, special ASICs can be developed to accelerate the verification process, so that a 1GB block can be processed in seconds
No they won't reach that "with ease". Are you trying to say that I need to buy specialized hardware to run a node? You're completely ignoring propagation delay and orphans; are 1 GB blocks some joke?If average household want to see 4k live broadcast, they must get 1Gbps level optic fiber, and I think it will happen in latest 10 years
You're predicting that the average internet speed will be 1 Gbps in 2026? If so then you're most likely going to be wrong. Average internet speeds grew by only 10% in the last year (depending what your sources are). If you're talking solely about 1st world countries then there is a possibility. 
January 28, 2016, 11:27:02 PM
Anecdotally, I just switched plans with my ISP. Signed up for their new "Terabyte" service.
Not a bad service for some backwater village in the UK...
If you don't mind translating from British English to the International English:Not a bad service for some backwater village in the UK...
Quote from: http://aaisp.net.uk/news-2016-terabyte.html
No option without this and no calls allowed.
What does "no calls" mean in the UK? Does this mean that:1) they won't negotiate the requirement of analog phone line (called POTS elsewhere);
2) that the analog phone line will not allow incoming and outgoing calls made with analog phone and will be only used to provision VDSL2 signal to the box at your home.
In other words: is your analog telephone still connected to the copper wires coming to your home (possibly through a DSL splitter/filter) or did they force you to plug in your analog phone into a dedicated socket in the VDSL2 modem box?
Or maybe in still different way: if the electricity fails in your home or VDSL box is inoperable, would you still be able to make calls (e.g. 112 emergency) with our analog phone powered from the battery in the central phone switching office?
Thanks in advance.
January 28, 2016, 09:19:59 PM
users will probably have 10-100 TB HDDs in 6 years.
Why Pollyanna, what a nice rosy prediction you have there. If you want to make an altcoin based on hoping for the best, GLWT.
But here at Bitcoin, we plan for the worst.
We are building high-powered money capable of surviving world wars and global depressions, not a gimmicky fancy Visa to give you leverage over the latest fiat bubble.
Jump to: