Meanwhile, the Bitcoin market has reacted with predictable negativity to Hearn's overhyped 8MB attack and the implied increased possibility of catastrophic consensus failure:
Market reaction to XT fork
Topic: "Bitcoin" XT Status Update - page 6. (Read 11213 times)
Rejoice Gavinistas, for today Hearn has officially declared XT to be a (parasitic, hostile, malicious) altcoin (IE a coin with an alternative economic consensus).
Meanwhile, the Bitcoin market has reacted with predictable negativity to Hearn's overhyped 8MB attack and the implied increased possibility of catastrophic consensus failure:
Market reaction to XT fork
Meanwhile, the Bitcoin market has reacted with predictable negativity to Hearn's overhyped 8MB attack and the implied increased possibility of catastrophic consensus failure:
Market reaction to XT fork
...
Bitcoin, OTOH, restores the fundamental liberty of every person to be their own bank, maintain their economic freedom/financial privacy, etc.
...
Bitcoin, OTOH, restores the fundamental liberty of every person to be their own bank, maintain their economic freedom/financial privacy, etc.
...
Restores? When and where did every person have the fundamental liberty to be their own bank, maintain their economic freedom/financial privacy, etc.?
The answer depends on the person, jurisdiction, and period in question. Try reading some economic history, like Braudel or Szabo.
Even if the right was never previously recognized, protected, or exercised, it still existed.
C'mon, don't tell me to read some books that you don't even specify. You said, "...restores the fundamental liberty of every person...", and I said, "When and where...?" The "every" is what particularly caught my eye. Of course wealthy people have had some economic freedom and autonomy, but I'd guess the vast majority of folks in most societies did/have not. So, was just curious if you could provide some locales and time periods where "every person" had such autonomy.
Sorry for off-topicish...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt%3A_The_First_5000_Years
...
Bitcoin, OTOH, restores the fundamental liberty of every person to be their own bank, maintain their economic freedom/financial privacy, etc.
...
Bitcoin, OTOH, restores the fundamental liberty of every person to be their own bank, maintain their economic freedom/financial privacy, etc.
...
Restores? When and where did every person have the fundamental liberty to be their own bank, maintain their economic freedom/financial privacy, etc.?
The answer depends on the person, jurisdiction, and period in question. Try reading some economic history, like Braudel or Szabo.
Even if the right was never previously recognized, protected, or exercised, it still existed.
C'mon, don't tell me to read some books that you don't even specify. You said, "...restores the fundamental liberty of every person...", and I said, "When and where...?" The "every" is what particularly caught my eye. Of course wealthy people have had some economic freedom and autonomy, but I'd guess the vast majority of folks in most societies did/have not. So, was just curious if you could provide some locales and time periods where "every person" had such autonomy.
Sorry for off-topicish...
...
Bitcoin, OTOH, restores the fundamental liberty of every person to be their own bank, maintain their economic freedom/financial privacy, etc.
...
Bitcoin, OTOH, restores the fundamental liberty of every person to be their own bank, maintain their economic freedom/financial privacy, etc.
...
Restores? When and where did every person have the fundamental liberty to be their own bank, maintain their economic freedom/financial privacy, etc.?
The answer depends on the person, jurisdiction, and period in question. Try reading some economic history, like Braudel or Szabo.
Even if the right was never previously recognized, protected, or exercised, it still existed.
...
Bitcoin, OTOH, restores the fundamental liberty of every person to be their own bank, maintain their economic freedom/financial privacy, etc.
...
Bitcoin, OTOH, restores the fundamental liberty of every person to be their own bank, maintain their economic freedom/financial privacy, etc.
...
Restores? When and where did every person have the fundamental liberty to be their own bank, maintain their economic freedom/financial privacy, etc.?
Does anyone have any decent broadband speed reports worldwide? I found this report focused on Canadian speeds, but netindex seems to be a discontinued product.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/why-internet-upload-speed-in-canada-lags-behind-world-average-1.2578682
Comparing upload speeds
Global average: 7.6 Mbps
G8: 8.8 Mbps
OECD: 6.6 Mbps
Canada: 5.67 Mbps (53rd)
Global mobile average: 2.9 Mbps
Canada mobile average: 5 Mbps (14th)
G8 Countries
Japan: 28.75 Mbps
Russia: 19.84 Mbps
France: 8.54 Mbps
United States: 7.03 Mbps
United Kingdom: 6.03 Mbps
Canada: 5.67 Mbps
Germany: 4.2 Mbps
Italy: 1.7 Mbps
Nations faster than Canada
Kazakhstan 10.77 Mbps (27th)
Mongolia 9.93 Mbps (28th)
Kyrgyzstan 8.52 Mbps (34th)
Mexico 6.55 Mbps (45th)
Source: Ookla Net Index
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/why-internet-upload-speed-in-canada-lags-behind-world-average-1.2578682
Comparing upload speeds
Global average: 7.6 Mbps
G8: 8.8 Mbps
OECD: 6.6 Mbps
Canada: 5.67 Mbps (53rd)
Global mobile average: 2.9 Mbps
Canada mobile average: 5 Mbps (14th)
G8 Countries
Japan: 28.75 Mbps
Russia: 19.84 Mbps
France: 8.54 Mbps
United States: 7.03 Mbps
United Kingdom: 6.03 Mbps
Canada: 5.67 Mbps
Germany: 4.2 Mbps
Italy: 1.7 Mbps
Nations faster than Canada
Kazakhstan 10.77 Mbps (27th)
Mongolia 9.93 Mbps (28th)
Kyrgyzstan 8.52 Mbps (34th)
Mexico 6.55 Mbps (45th)
Source: Ookla Net Index
To be flippant (my specialty), of course we don't care if Netflix doesn't work over Tor. That's a frilly luxury product, not a necessity (although experiencing Hinterland in 1080p is arguably a human right
).Good idea, btw - I never caught this show. Downloading (and seeding) Hinterland as we speak since I have to use my excessive 1st world bandwidth for something while I wait for larger blocks and world domination to ensue.
A $300 laptop and 1mbit downstream is enough to ACCESS and VERIFY even 8MB blocks. It might take 2-3 minutes to download and verify a block, but it should keep up. AMPLIFY - I think that's better left to the so called power user.
It's a tradeoff - on the one hand with 1MB blocks perhaps more users can run full nodes. OTOH, with 8MB blocks some users won't be able to run a full node, however, many more users will be able to run an SPV wallet on their phone and be able to afford a low (or no fee) depending upon the priority of their transactions.
Not that the US should be the authority on what standards to use, I would point out that the FCC considers 25Mbit download speeds the new minimum for having a 'broadband' connection. http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/29/7932653/fcc-changed-definition-broadband-25mbps It's not unreasonable to think of this as a target for a full node and still expect to have strong security for the network. Those with lower resources can still participate and don't need to turn to Coinbase equivalents as their only alternative.
Amplification is a absolutely critical, non-negotiable function of ~everyone who is independently accessing and verifying the blockchain.
Run the game theory and see what happens to the health of the distributed quorum system otherwise.
I don't think I need to run the game theory - it's already in action right now. How many bitcoin core / armory users run nodes at home that are only partially available (aka off when their laptop sleeps)? How many nodes live on DHCP addresses without much persistence? Or have nodesbehind NAT w/o ports opened? Users do not have identical resources, identical motives or identical incentives. If a user can't or won't accept incoming connections to their node, it doesn't mean that the system fails. If that were the case, then bitcoin would fail due to users who don't contribute back - do you think that this will happen?
Of course the system has excess capacity sufficient to subsidize free riders. That's not the point.
The point is users should be able to contribute back if they see fit, so that option must be preserved (not precluded with 17Mb minimum upstream requirements).
The more people you force into being helpless free riders instead of contributing users, the less excess capacity exists for cosmic background leeches.
I think that force isn't the right word. 1MB doesn't force anyone to do anything anymore than 8MB forces anything. People contribute as they choose to or are capable of doing.
On this topic, if anything, 1MB blocks with greater fees might incentivize a greater number of participants to move entirely off chain to coinbase style solutions where blockchain fees are zero. The LN is great, but it's not available yet and it'll require greater capacity in the main chain to keep up with greater numbers of transactions.
If you're happy with BTC the way it is, that's fine, but most people want the ecosystem to grow much larger so as to make a 100m user base vs the maybe 500K-1m user base that exists today. No, it shouldn't centralize on a few servers, but there are minimum requirements as it stands. It's reasonable to expect them to grow in order to accommodate the larger user base.
Lastly, why do bitcoin nodes need to provide unlimited bandwidth to all requesting nodes? There should be user set limits since there are many users that can't run a full node even at 1M blocks due to ISP caps. Lots of room for improvement here.
A $300 laptop and 1mbit downstream is enough to ACCESS and VERIFY even 8MB blocks. It might take 2-3 minutes to download and verify a block, but it should keep up. AMPLIFY - I think that's better left to the so called power user.
It's a tradeoff - on the one hand with 1MB blocks perhaps more users can run full nodes. OTOH, with 8MB blocks some users won't be able to run a full node, however, many more users will be able to run an SPV wallet on their phone and be able to afford a low (or no fee) depending upon the priority of their transactions.
Not that the US should be the authority on what standards to use, I would point out that the FCC considers 25Mbit download speeds the new minimum for having a 'broadband' connection. http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/29/7932653/fcc-changed-definition-broadband-25mbps It's not unreasonable to think of this as a target for a full node and still expect to have strong security for the network. Those with lower resources can still participate and don't need to turn to Coinbase equivalents as their only alternative.
Amplification is a absolutely critical, non-negotiable function of ~everyone who is independently accessing and verifying the blockchain.
Run the game theory and see what happens to the health of the distributed quorum system otherwise.
I don't think I need to run the game theory - it's already in action right now. How many bitcoin core / armory users run nodes at home that are only partially available (aka off when their laptop sleeps)? How many nodes live on DHCP addresses without much persistence? Or have nodesbehind NAT w/o ports opened? Users do not have identical resources, identical motives or identical incentives. If a user can't or won't accept incoming connections to their node, it doesn't mean that the system fails. If that were the case, then bitcoin would fail due to users who don't contribute back - do you think that this will happen?
Of course the system has excess capacity sufficient to subsidize free riders. That's not the point.
The point is users should be able to contribute back if they see fit, so that option must be preserved (not precluded with 17Mb minimum upstream requirements).
The more people you force into being helpless free riders instead of contributing users, the less excess capacity exists for cosmic background leeches.
A $300 laptop and 1mbit downstream is enough to ACCESS and VERIFY even 8MB blocks. It might take 2-3 minutes to download and verify a block, but it should keep up. AMPLIFY - I think that's better left to the so called power user.
It's a tradeoff - on the one hand with 1MB blocks perhaps more users can run full nodes. OTOH, with 8MB blocks some users won't be able to run a full node, however, many more users will be able to run an SPV wallet on their phone and be able to afford a low (or no fee) depending upon the priority of their transactions.
Not that the US should be the authority on what standards to use, I would point out that the FCC considers 25Mbit download speeds the new minimum for having a 'broadband' connection. http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/29/7932653/fcc-changed-definition-broadband-25mbps It's not unreasonable to think of this as a target for a full node and still expect to have strong security for the network. Those with lower resources can still participate and don't need to turn to Coinbase equivalents as their only alternative.
Amplification is a absolutely critical, non-negotiable function of ~everyone who is independently accessing and verifying the blockchain.
Run the game theory and see what happens to the health of the distributed quorum system otherwise.
I don't think I need to run the game theory - it's already in action right now. How many bitcoin core / armory users run nodes at home that are only partially available (aka off when their laptop sleeps)? How many nodes live on DHCP addresses without much persistence? Or have nodesbehind NAT w/o ports opened? Users do not have identical resources, identical motives or identical incentives. If a user can't or won't accept incoming connections to their node, it doesn't mean that the system fails. If that were the case, then bitcoin would fail due to users who don't contribute back - do you think that this will happen?
A $300 laptop and 1mbit downstream is enough to ACCESS and VERIFY even 8MB blocks. It might take 2-3 minutes to download and verify a block, but it should keep up. AMPLIFY - I think that's better left to the so called power user.
It's a tradeoff - on the one hand with 1MB blocks perhaps more users can run full nodes. OTOH, with 8MB blocks some users won't be able to run a full node, however, many more users will be able to run an SPV wallet on their phone and be able to afford a low (or no fee) depending upon the priority of their transactions.
Not that the US should be the authority on what standards to use, I would point out that the FCC considers 25Mbit download speeds the new minimum for having a 'broadband' connection. http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/29/7932653/fcc-changed-definition-broadband-25mbps It's not unreasonable to think of this as a target for a full node and still expect to have strong security for the network. Those with lower resources can still participate and don't need to turn to Coinbase equivalents as their only alternative.
Amplification is a absolutely critical, non-negotiable function of ~everyone who is independently accessing and verifying the blockchain.
Run the game theory and see what happens to the health of the distributed quorum system otherwise.
"Tit for tat" (IE amplification requirement for participants) is exactly why Bittorrent works so well at optimizing dynamic cooperative configurations.
Why are you still going on about "download speeds?" They don't matter; upstream is the constraint.
8MB blocks will keep a 17Mb up pipe full (of cosmic background spam and real tx). That's not realistic for most users, especially the bandwidth-poor who have the most to gain from Bitcoin.
If Bitcoin is going to rule the world, normal people damn well better be able to access the signal, verify its integrity, and amplify their findings to other like-minded Byzantine Generals. Making the drooling masses trust SPV or Circle® is no different than keeping fiat.
This is a global revolution against central banking and fiat, not a novel replacement for your fucking Paypal app.
Bitcoin, OTOH, restores the fundamental liberty of every person to be their own bank, maintain their economic freedom/financial privacy, etc.
Which is the polar opposite of Bitcoin XT.
Not just a normal opposite, but a polar opposite? Wow, polar opposite is the most opposative you can possible be! Literally! Because math.
Hearn's XT fork shunts bandwidth-poor defecting North Korean/Floridian types (those with the highest marginal utility gained from Bitcoin) off the mainchain (and Tor) and onto SPV/pruned nodes or worse (Circle®). That is not acceptable.
Anyone with a $300 laptop and 1MB upstream should be able to *ACCESS, VERIFY, AND AMPLIFY* the world's first distributed quorum system, especially if that system may control our destiny for the next 100 years.
A $300 laptop and 1mbit downstream is enough to ACCESS and VERIFY even 8MB blocks. It might take 2-3 minutes to download and verify a block, but it should keep up. AMPLIFY - I think that's better left to the so called power user.
It's a tradeoff - on the one hand with 1MB blocks perhaps more users can run full nodes. OTOH, with 8MB blocks some users won't be able to run a full node, however, many more users will be able to run an SPV wallet on their phone and be able to afford a low (or no fee) depending upon the priority of their transactions.
Not that the US should be the authority on what standards to use, I would point out that the FCC considers 25Mbit download speeds the new minimum for having a 'broadband' connection. http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/29/7932653/fcc-changed-definition-broadband-25mbps It's not unreasonable to think of this as a target for a full node and still expect to have strong security for the network. Those with lower resources can still participate and don't need to turn to Coinbase equivalents as their only alternative.
Hearn's XT fork shunts bandwidth-poor defecting North Korean/Floridian types (those with the highest marginal utility gained from Bitcoin) off the mainchain (and Tor) and onto SPV/pruned nodes or worse (Circle®). That is not acceptable.
Anyone with a $300 laptop and 1MB upstream should be able to *ACCESS, VERIFY, AND AMPLIFY* the world's first distributed quorum system, especially if that system may control our destiny for the next 100 years.
Anyone with a $300 laptop and 1MB upstream should be able to *ACCESS, VERIFY, AND AMPLIFY* the world's first distributed quorum system, especially if that system may control our destiny for the next 100 years.
Anyone with a $300 laptop and 1MB upstream should be able to *ACCESS, VERIFY, AND AMPLIFY* the world's first distributed quorum system, especially if that system may control our destiny for the next 100 years.
If anyone is allowed to take part with freedom and majority rule, how would they be able to control the network, become Czars and further the agenda of entities that want control?
~BCX~
Bitcoin, OTOH, restores the fundamental liberty of every person to be their own bank, maintain their economic freedom/financial privacy, etc.
Which is the polar opposite of Bitcoin XT.
Not just a normal opposite, but a polar opposite? Wow, polar opposite is the most opposative you can possible be! Literally! Because math.
Hearn's XT fork shunts bandwidth-poor defecting North Korean/Floridian types (those with the highest marginal utility gained from Bitcoin) off the mainchain (and Tor) and onto SPV/pruned nodes or worse (Circle®). That is not acceptable.
Anyone with a $300 laptop and 1MB upstream should be able to *ACCESS, VERIFY, AND AMPLIFY* the world's first distributed quorum system, especially if that system may control our destiny for the next 100 years.
$300 laptops
....sounds like rich westerners to me 
Bitcoin, OTOH, restores the fundamental liberty of every person to be their own bank, maintain their economic freedom/financial privacy, etc.
Which is the polar opposite of Bitcoin XT.
Not just a normal opposite, but a polar opposite? Wow, polar opposite is the most opposative you can possible be! Literally! Because math.
Hearn's XT fork shunts bandwidth-poor defecting North Korean/Floridian types (those with the highest marginal utility gained from Bitcoin) off the mainchain (and Tor) and onto SPV/pruned nodes or worse (Circle®). That is not acceptable.
Anyone with a $300 laptop and 1MB upstream should be able to *ACCESS, VERIFY, AND AMPLIFY* the world's first distributed quorum system, especially if that system may control our destiny for the next 100 years.
Bitcoin, OTOH, restores the fundamental liberty of every person to be their own bank, maintain their economic freedom/financial privacy, etc.
Which is the polar opposite of Bitcoin XT.
~BCX~
I think that Tor needs to be built to scale and be useful, not that products should be built to scale only to current Tor speeds. Is it nice if someone can solo mine bitcoin on a full node in North Korea running on Tor? Yeah, I guess so. Should we build it with that as our focus? I'm not convinced. I think that a product that 100m people use and rely on is much harder for governments to suppress than something which maybe 500K users regularly uses but that works over Tor on a bad network despite being banned.
That conclusion greatly depends on the product in question.
To be flippant (my specialty), of course we don't care if Netflix doesn't work over Tor. That's a frilly luxury product, not a necessity (although experiencing Hinterland in 1080p is arguably a human right
).Bitcoin, OTOH, restores the fundamental liberty of every person to be their own bank, maintain their economic freedom/financial privacy, etc.
What would it take to convince you that empowering (ie not abandoning to their fate) the lower bound of Bitcoin users (the proverbial bandwidth poor North Korean or Floridian trying to move funds for an eventual defection) is of greater concern than Joe Yuppie paying for his Jamaica Blue Mountain half-caff?
PS Welcome to Monero, Brother Mustang!
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bitcoin-xt/Iov4vcCOg9M/qOTSP07
Hearn has some weird relationship with Tor, the details of which are murky (much like the relationship between In-Q-Tel and A16z).
Current use statistics are not especially relevant.
What is critical is that the option of Tor be preserved and strengthened.
See what I did there?
How exactly does BitcoinXT break Tor/I2P? Seriously, I've not seen anything about that.
There's the fact that <1% of Bitcoin transactions actually use Tor, but that's another story.
There's the fact that <1% of Bitcoin transactions actually use Tor, but that's another story.
Hearn has some weird relationship with Tor, the details of which are murky (much like the relationship between In-Q-Tel and A16z).
Current use statistics are not especially relevant.
What is critical is that the option of Tor be preserved and strengthened.
Quote
There's the fact that <1% of home owners actually use fire extingushers, but that's another story.
See what I did there?
I dunno, Hearn seems to recommend Tor for certain things - not sure that I'd agree with his breaking things over Tor comment. Example of his suggestion to avoid the use of certificate authorities for using and SPV wallet to get traffic from your own trusted node here: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010139.html
I think that anonymity/privacy is important - you know I'm an XMR believer. However, I think that Tor needs to be built to scale and be useful, not that products should be built to scale only to current Tor speeds. Is it nice if someone can solo mine bitcoin on a full node in North Korea running on Tor? Yeah, I guess so. Should we build it with that as our focus? I'm not convinced. I think that a product that 100m people use and rely on is much harder for governments to suppress than something which maybe 500K users regularly uses but that works over Tor on a bad network despite being banned.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bitcoin-xt/Iov4vcCOg9M/qOTSP07
Hearn has some weird relationship with Tor, the details of which are murky (much like the relationship between In-Q-Tel and A16z).
Current use statistics are not especially relevant.
What is critical is that the option of Tor be preserved and strengthened.
See what I did there?
How exactly does BitcoinXT break Tor/I2P? Seriously, I've not seen anything about that.
There's the fact that <1% of Bitcoin transactions actually use Tor, but that's another story.
There's the fact that <1% of Bitcoin transactions actually use Tor, but that's another story.
Hearn has some weird relationship with Tor, the details of which are murky (much like the relationship between In-Q-Tel and A16z).
Current use statistics are not especially relevant.
What is critical is that the option of Tor be preserved and strengthened.
Quote
There's the fact that <1% of home owners actually use fire extingushers, but that's another story.
See what I did there?
Jump to: