Changes to the Alogrithm Prohibited or disputed? - page 2.

inBitweTrust

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 501

Quote from: turvarya on November 28, 2014, 08:30:28 AM

Quote from: raskul on November 28, 2014, 08:21:43 AM

for the same reason there is still a 'simple machines forum' logo at the top right of the forum pages - becasue moderators don't really give a fuck, and most likely can't read.

- deleted -

What is simple machines?

There is some controversy a while ago regarding this forum and the intended 1 million dollars to "upgrade" it:

https://bitcointa.lk/threads/questions-to-theymos-about-the-1-000-000-forum-software-project.256309/

I am split on this as I can see great value in an new open source forum project but the way it was handled was anything but ideal.

raskul

sr. member

Activity: 434

Merit: 250

Quote from: turvarya on November 28, 2014, 08:30:28 AM

Quote from: raskul on November 28, 2014, 08:21:43 AM

for the same reason there is still a 'simple machines forum' logo at the top right of the forum pages - becasue moderators don't really give a fuck, and most likely can't read.

- deleted -

What is simple machines?

it's the forum brand. anyone can start a simple machines forum. bitcointalk owners can't even be arsed to make a logo and change from the brand of the company who wrote the code for the forum.

turvarya

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 500

Quote from: raskul on November 28, 2014, 08:21:43 AM

for the same reason there is still a 'simple machines forum' logo at the top right of the forum pages - becasue moderators don't really give a fuck, and most likely can't read.

- deleted -

What is simple machines?

raskul

sr. member

Activity: 434

Merit: 250

for the same reason there is still a 'simple machines forum' logo at the top right of the forum pages - becasue moderators don't really give a fuck, and most likely can't read.

- deleted -

devphp

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 260

Quote from: inBitweTrust on November 28, 2014, 08:16:17 AM

This topic has nothing to do with Altcoins yet was moved to the altcoin section. Seems as if some moderators are heavily vested in mining/POW that they don't even want to consider Bitcoin changing to anything else. Possibly because vested ideological differences or conflicts of interests(This forum is heavily supported by the mining industry).

Told ya

inBitweTrust

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 501

This topic has nothing to do with Altcoins yet was moved to the altcoin section. Seems as if some moderators are heavily vested in mining/POW that they don't even want to consider Bitcoin changing to anything else. Possibly because vested ideological differences or conflicts of interests(This forum is heavily supported by the mining industry).

It is clear that I am not an altcoin shill and am a strong proponent of Bitcoin from reviewing my history and comments within this thread.
Can someone give me a rational reason why discussing the Prohibited and disputed changes of Bitcoin deserves to be in the altcoin section?

If not I am going to stop contributing in any meaningful way to this forum.

inBitweTrust

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 501

Quote from: jbreher on November 27, 2014, 06:34:32 PM

Quote from: inBitweTrust on November 27, 2014, 09:30:39 AM

The fact that Mtgox was able to use transaction malleability as an feeble excuse for being hacked regardless of this "flaw" or "feature" being known of before hand was a technical problem within Bitcoin that caused much damage to our ecosystem.

Nonsense. MtGox's claim that transaction marketability was behind a hack in which hundreds of thousands of Bitcoins were stolen is simply not credible. Mark tried a convenient lie to weasel out of a tight spot. I know of nobody that has looked into this claim that believes this to be even a remotely possible explanation.

Read my statement again. I clearly agree with you, but the fact that this "bug" or "feature" existed for so long allowed for Mark to trick many journalists and the public into assuming his exchange was hacked because a flaw in the protocol. Perception matters and we hold some responsibility for the negative PR for allowing a scumbag like Mark to get away with this feeble excuse .

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1660

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: inBitweTrust on November 27, 2014, 09:30:39 AM

The fact that Mtgox was able to use transaction malleability as an feeble excuse for being hacked regardless of this "flaw" or "feature" being known of before hand was a technical problem within Bitcoin that caused much damage to our ecosystem.

Nonsense. MtGox's claim that transaction marketability was behind a hack in which hundreds of thousands of Bitcoins were stolen is simply not credible. Mark tried a convenient lie to weasel out of a tight spot. I know of nobody that has looked into this claim that believes this to be even a remotely possible explanation.

raskul

sr. member

Activity: 434

Merit: 250

Quote from: cryptogeeknext on November 27, 2014, 02:59:22 PM

Quote from: raskul on November 27, 2014, 02:54:09 PM

Quote from: inBitweTrust on November 27, 2014, 02:24:13 PM

Quote from: cryptogeeknext on November 27, 2014, 02:13:36 PM

I'm aware. BtcGuild saved it. The hard fork wasn't successful as the system reverted to its original mode of operation. It is much easier, than the other way around. There hasn't been a successful hard fork at this level of adoption.

I suppose we should wait till I am vindicated when the scalability hardfork is implemented next year.

i don't know of this, can someone explain this please?
why the need to hardfork?

It's the block size increase. Apparently 1Mb is not enough for any serious business, and Bitcoin wants to be serious

ah, of course. thanks.

cryptogeeknext

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 10

Bitcoin trolls back

Quote from: raskul on November 27, 2014, 02:54:09 PM

Quote from: inBitweTrust on November 27, 2014, 02:24:13 PM

Quote from: cryptogeeknext on November 27, 2014, 02:13:36 PM

I'm aware. BtcGuild saved it. The hard fork wasn't successful as the system reverted to its original mode of operation. It is much easier, than the other way around. There hasn't been a successful hard fork at this level of adoption.

I suppose we should wait till I am vindicated when the scalability hardfork is implemented next year.

i don't know of this, can someone explain this please?
why the need to hardfork?

It's the block size increase. Apparently 1Mb is not enough for any serious business, and Bitcoin wants to be serious

raskul

sr. member

Activity: 434

Merit: 250

Quote from: inBitweTrust on November 27, 2014, 02:24:13 PM

Quote from: cryptogeeknext on November 27, 2014, 02:13:36 PM

I'm aware. BtcGuild saved it. The hard fork wasn't successful as the system reverted to its original mode of operation. It is much easier, than the other way around. There hasn't been a successful hard fork at this level of adoption.

I suppose we should wait till I am vindicated when the scalability hardfork is implemented next year.

i don't know of this, can someone explain this please?
why the need to hardfork?

cryptogeeknext

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 10

Bitcoin trolls back

Quote from: inBitweTrust on November 27, 2014, 02:24:13 PM

Quote from: cryptogeeknext on November 27, 2014, 02:13:36 PM

I'm aware. BtcGuild saved it. The hard fork wasn't successful as the system reverted to its original mode of operation. It is much easier, than the other way around. There hasn't been a successful hard fork at this level of adoption.

I suppose we should wait till I am vindicated when the scalability hardfork is implemented next year.

Yep. We will wait and see.

Quote from: inBitweTrust on November 27, 2014, 02:24:13 PM

Quote from: cryptogeeknext on November 27, 2014, 01:34:17 PM

Well, it turns out that the original design principles are still well inline with the idea of decentralization. In the case of mining, PoW ensures temporal (along the time axis) diversity of the control over the system and allows competition for control to continue indefinitely. I haven't seen other proposals that would be better in this regard.

The facts indicate a precipitous drop in active nodes and a centralization of mining. To not acknowledge this means you are in denial. What some suggest is that nothing needs to be done as the laws of economics will eventually reverse this trend. This is a valid argument and the counterarguments have a lot of weight as well.

Do you at least acknowledge centralization of mining and drop off of active nodes?
At what point does one determine that something needs to be changed to reverse this direction?

I do acknowledge the drop in number of full nodes and clusterization of mining. However it seems fairly natural at this level of adoption. It still doesn't prohibit any outside player to enter the economy and challenge the incumbents without permission. If people are not satisfied with the quality of control over the system, they are free to crowd-fund farms or develop innovation and challenge the mining status quo. They are free to run full nodes too.

inBitweTrust

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 501

Quote from: cryptogeeknext on November 27, 2014, 02:13:36 PM

I'm aware. BtcGuild saved it. The hard fork wasn't successful as the system reverted to its original mode of operation. It is much easier, than the other way around. There hasn't been a successful hard fork at this level of adoption.

I suppose we should wait till I am vindicated when the scalability hardfork is implemented next year.

Quote from: cryptogeeknext on November 27, 2014, 01:34:17 PM

Well, it turns out that the original design principles are still well inline with the idea of decentralization. In the case of mining, PoW ensures temporal (along the time axis) diversity of the control over the system and allows competition for control to continue indefinitely. I haven't seen other proposals that would be better in this regard.

The facts indicate a precipitous drop in active nodes and a centralization of mining. To not acknowledge this means you are in denial. What some suggest is that nothing needs to be done as the laws of economics will eventually reverse this trend. This is a valid argument and the counterarguments have a lot of weight as well.

Do you at least acknowledge centralization of mining and drop off of active nodes?
At what point does one determine that something needs to be changed to reverse this direction?

cryptogeeknext

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 10

Bitcoin trolls back

Quote from: inBitweTrust on November 27, 2014, 01:43:19 PM

Quote from: cryptogeeknext on November 27, 2014, 01:34:17 PM

Hard fork can only create new Bitcoin, the inertia of the process will make sure the old network still exists. Convincing users to converge to one or the other is what would make the whole thing quite nasty. Hard fork has never been done before at this level of adoption.

The last Hardfork was in March 2013 and a new one is likely to happen in early to mid 2015. Are you not aware of these facts?

I'm aware. BtcGuild saved it. The hard fork wasn't successful as the system reverted to its original mode of operation. It is much easier, than the other way around. There hasn't been a successful hard fork at this level of adoption.

Quote from: inBitweTrust on November 27, 2014, 01:02:30 PM

Quote from: cryptogeeknext on November 27, 2014, 01:34:17 PM

Sometimes staying true to your original core values is the best innovation.

What happens when some of the first design principles conflict with some of the core values, namely decentralization? Would this motivate you to stay with the original design principle or change to fit the original core values?

Some people believe that nothing needs to be changed and economics with solve this dilemma naturally, others see this as a problem which requires changes . I believe there are good arguments to be made from both camps and thus am open to thinking , testing and developing solutions if the latter is true.

Well, it turns out that the original design principles are still well inline with the idea of decentralization. In case of mining, PoW ensures temporal (along the time axis) diversity of control over the system and allows competition for control to continue indefinitely. I haven't seen other proposals that would be better in this regard.

inBitweTrust

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 501

Quote from: cryptogeeknext on November 27, 2014, 01:34:17 PM

Hard fork can only create new Bitcoin, the inertia of the process will make sure the old network still exists. Convincing users to converge to one or the other is what would make the whole thing quite nasty. Hard fork has never been done before at this level of adoption.

The last Hardfork was in March 2013 and a new one is likely to happen in early to mid 2015. Are you not aware of these facts?

Quote from: inBitweTrust on November 27, 2014, 01:02:30 PM

Sometimes staying true to your original core values is the best innovation.

What happens when some of the first design principles conflict with some of the core values, namely decentralization? Would this motivate you to stay with the original design principle or change to fit the original core values?

Some people believe that nothing needs to be changed and economics with solve this dilemma naturally, others see this as a problem which requires changes . I believe there are good arguments to be made from both camps and thus am open to thinking , testing and developing solutions if the latter is true.

cryptogeeknext

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 10

Bitcoin trolls back

Quote from: inBitweTrust on November 27, 2014, 01:02:30 PM

Quote from: cryptogeeknext on November 27, 2014, 12:49:59 PM

Hard fork wouldn't change much, and it's not as quick and easy as you portray.

A hard fork can change as much or as little as it is designed to change and miners have just as much control of this as other full nodes.

Hard fork can only create new Bitcoin, the inertia of the process will make sure the old network still exists. Convincing users to converge to one or the other is what would make the whole thing quite nasty. Hard fork has never been done before at this level of adoption.

Quote from: inBitweTrust on November 27, 2014, 01:02:30 PM

Quote from: cryptogeeknext on November 27, 2014, 12:49:59 PM

Replacing PoW with something else would remove it from competition. Why would you suggest reducing the options instead of increasing them?

If it's so trivial to design a new algorithm for distributed consensus with good long-lasting characteristics of decentralization and competition, you should do it.

Where have I suggested removing 100% proof of work is the best option? I have clearly and explicitly stated that PoW could be the best option but we should be open to testing competing mechanisms and open to the possibility of changing Bitcoin with a hardfork if and only if a better mechanism exists after years of testing.

This doesn't involve decreasing a lack of options because if changes are created as they have been in the past with multiple soft and hardforks it would be different than what currently exists in the marketplace.

What is so controversial about this? Why wouldn't you pragmatically do whats best for bitcoin? Do you have faith that PoW is simply the best because of some reverence to Satoshi's original design?

Sometimes staying true to your original core values is the best innovation.

inBitweTrust

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 501

Quote from: raskul on November 27, 2014, 01:07:08 PM

tl;dr but...

i recall the question being asked previously, and it was ascertained that there was no total agreement, however the majority seemed to react towards leaving the algo as is.

I'm still of a mind that pure POW is the best way to go, but find myself more open to the argument of a slight change towards a minimal POS and for that reason, I've voted the second option in your poll. I'd be willing to listen to any proposed change, but i'd reserve the right to make up my mind at a later date for the reason that since bitcoin is still only in 'phase 2' of mining with 25BTC blocks, it may be a good idea to implement some form of POS (?), but just, not yet.

This is a rational comment I can agree with. I already have a list of concerns with the complicated and yet to be named TaPoS-like design Vitalik has proposed but I am not going to delude myself into thinking Bitcoin is perfect either. Bitcoin has a lot of maturing to do which possibly can happen organically and naturally without any hardforks but we should be open to doing what is right for the ecosystem and supporting these fundamental principles:

1) Bitcoin is defined with 21 million units
2) Demurrage is prohibited
3) Rules which increase centralization are prohibited
4) Any changes which destroy fungibility (I.E..blacklists) are prohibited
5) Any changes which destroy the Pseudonymity of Bitcoin is prohibited

Besides 100% PoW does anybody have suggestions as to the intrinsic properties which define bitcoin that should not be changed?

P.S... Additionally, I think its foolhardy that any change can be incorporated that isn't a hybrid like compromise to appease the vested interests in the PoW mining space. To assume that bitcoin could change to 100% DPoS, TaPoS, PoS, PoI , or anything that doesn't involve PoW is a very unrealistic proposal.

raskul

sr. member

Activity: 434

Merit: 250

tl;dr but...

i recall the question being asked previously, and it was ascertained that there was no total agreement, however the majority seemed to react towards leaving the algo as is.

I'm still of a mind that pure POW is the best way to go, but find myself more open to the argument of a slight change towards a minimal POS and for that reason, I've voted the second option in your poll. I'd be willing to listen to any proposed change, but i'd reserve the right to make up my mind at a later date for the reason that since bitcoin is still only in 'phase 2' of mining with 25BTC blocks, it may be a good idea to implement some form of POS (?), but just, not yet.

inBitweTrust

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 501

Quote from: cryptogeeknext on November 27, 2014, 12:49:59 PM

Hard fork wouldn't change much, and it's not as quick and easy as you portray.

A hard fork can change as much or as little as it is designed to change and miners have just as much control of this as other full nodes.

Quote from: cryptogeeknext on November 27, 2014, 12:49:59 PM

Replacing PoW with something else would remove it from competition. Why would you suggest reducing the options instead of increasing them?

If it's so trivial to design a new algorithm for distributed consensus with good long-lasting characteristics of decentralization and competition, you should do it.

Where have I suggested removing 100% proof of work is the best option? I have clearly and explicitly stated that PoW could be the best option but we should be open to testing competing mechanisms and open to the possibility of changing Bitcoin with a hardfork if and only if a better mechanism exists after years of testing.

This doesn't involve decreasing a lack of options because if changes are created as they have been in the past with multiple soft and hardforks it would be different than what currently exists in the marketplace.

What is so controversial about this? Why wouldn't you pragmatically do whats best for bitcoin? Do you have faith that PoW is simply the best because of some reverence to Satoshi's original design?

cryptogeeknext

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 10

Bitcoin trolls back

Quote from: inBitweTrust on November 27, 2014, 09:23:35 AM

Quote from: cryptogeeknext on November 27, 2014, 09:14:08 AM

No, full nodes have no say in what gets into blockchain and what doesn't, miners do.
My arguments are cast from the position of the end game scenario for each system.

I have to read Vitalik's papers to have an opinion, so this will have to wait a bit, but I would advocate against changing current PoW systems into something else simply because getting rid of PoW would not let it compete with other models on the common ground.

Full nodes have the ultimate control as they can fork the blockchain at whim and leave all the miners behind buring electricity in the service of no one besides themselves.

No, you're mistaken.
Miners produce longest valid chain, full nodes accept it.
Full nodes themselves don't produce any chain at all.

Hard fork wouldn't change much, and it's not as quick and easy as you portray.

Quote from: inBitweTrust on November 27, 2014, 09:23:35 AM

Why do you insinuate PoW is he only possible method of competition?
PoW doesn't have a monopoly of competition and it is trivial to design an algo which allows for more decentralized competition than PoW.

The crypto space is a play-field for various models to compete, PoW is not the only option, though it does look quite simple and robust. Replacing PoW with something else would remove it from competition. Why would you suggest reducing the options instead of increasing them?

If it's so trivial to design a new algorithm for distributed consensus with good long-lasting characteristics of decentralization and competition, you should do it.

Topic: Changes to the Alogrithm Prohibited or disputed? - page 2. (Read 5276 times)