Topic: Changes to the Alogrithm Prohibited or disputed? - page 6. (Read 5276 times)

Bitcoin is POW last time I checked.

This topic is about Bitcoin, not altcoins. I don't really care about any alts.

Shouldn't this be in the altcoin section?

That's ridiculous.   You don't need to know the history of IEEE standards to be a good programmer,
and even if he did, he may have been speaking loosely.

I'm no fan of ethereum, etc, but to say he doesn't know what he's talking about because he didn't
use the terminology you expected when discussing data types is kinda nuts IMO.


 

I'm saying he doesn't know much about anything.....here is a typical Vitalik statement:

Vitalik Buterin:

"…lower threshold that the total satoshi count manages to fall just below: the largest possible integer that can be exactly represented in floating point format"

Bullshit detector tripped!

Floating point since forever had two flavors: binary and decimal. The most well known standards are: IEEE 754-1985, IEEE 854-1987 & IEEE 754-2008. The only remaining question is which flavor of bullshit is being served here:

1) undereducated/incompetent
2) intentional deception/preliminary setup for future fraud
3) two-for-the-price-of-one mixture of the above

Standard links for those who are not afraid of the truth and not afraid to admit that they may have slept through some lecture:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_floating_point
http://speleotrove.com/decimal/

                                                                                               ©2112

Are you trying to suggest Vitalik isn't a prolific programmer or hasn't co-developed his own software stack?

https://github.com/vbuterin

Let me try to translate Vitelik's bulshiteese into more straightforward English:

Quote from: me in somebody's else voice

"I have zero experience in working with actual financial software. I even have no amateur's interest in learning how it works. I'm writing a demagoguery targeted at the lowest common denominator of code monkey: Javascript or PHP programmer for the web services."

                                                                                                                                                                                    ©2112

as I mentioned in the other thread, even if Vitalik's ESS scheme solves the NaS issue,
(meaning people won't be able to vote on multiple chains simultaneously with no penalty)
it doesn't mean (as far as I can tell) that miners won't try to compete with each other
using computing power to form better chains faster than everyone else, and we may just
end up back with a sort of PoW system.  So, it's quite possible there won't be any energy savings,
just complication.

I understand exactly what it means and the difficulty in getting most of the community to switch software. What have I said, suggests otherwise?

I get the impression that you don't understand what the word "consensus" means or how difficult it is to change it once it is established.

I believe you say that problem had been considered by many people, as for why, everyone has their each reason.

Some - artificial in this case - cost of holding.  See freicoin for example for about a 4.9% charge per year.

In other words, just because your coins exist doesn't mean they'll lose value every year due to fees.

One description:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demurrage_%28currency%29

It is a tax applied to a stakeholder of a currency.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demurrage_%28currency%29

Demurrage is the cost associated with owning or holding currency over a given period.

Freicoin is a cryptocurrency similar to Bitcoin. Demurrage is levied at 4.89% per annum.

Please explain "demmurage" in this context.  I don't know what you mean.

As long as nobody gets screwed over (e.g. ASIC designers) I might be open to this.

Satoshi was a genius but don't worship him as a god. If you have been paying attention the core developers have been fixing many of his errors for the past 3 years with the sloppy tarball of a coding mess he left behind.

I actually agree with this. Vitalik and others should standardize their proposals, there should be a time period of discussion and criticism. The changes should be implemented on either an alt or sidechain for a significant period of time (1-3 years) to prove itself before we even consider a hardfork with Bitcoin.

The question I have for you is are you completely opposed to a hardfork away from PoW to a provably better mechanism or hybrid PoW/TaPoS consensus algo?

Is PoW a fundamental principle that defines Bitcoin or can bitcoin evolve as needed?

The nice thing about Bitcoin consensus is that there are no rules and no prohibitions. Anyone that wants to go against any of your principles and prohibitions is free to do so. The trick is to get people to follow them.

IMO, if you think Satoshi done wrong, prove it, release alt that corrects all his "errors", then sit back and wait for it to cruise on past bitcoin next week millenium.

This thread has nothing to do with altcoins and was either mistakenly or intentionally(for unknown reasons) moved to this section by a moderator.

I generally agree with these principles:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Prohibited_changes

1) Bitcoin is defined with 21 million units
2) Demurrage is prohibited
3) Rules which increase centralization are prohibited

Additionally, I would like to suggest

4) Any changes which destroy fungibility (I.E..blacklists) are prohibited
5) Any changes which destroy the Pseudonymity of Bitcoin is prohibited

These 5 principles are core ideals which define bitcoin and any divergence from these and I will consider the hardfork an Alt and quickly lose all interest in supporting these changes.

What is listed as disputed involves changing the consensus mechanism away from 100% PoW. As many know I have been very critical of the security weaknesses found in existing PoS implementations so am certainly no alt shill or fanboi, regardless am open to a fruitful discussion of different mechanisms to better secure Bitcoin at lower costs.

Vitalik Buterin has been a great contributor to the bitcoin space and has written a recent article which appears to address many NaS problems:
https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/11/25/proof-stake-learned-love-weak-subjectivity/

Personally, I think we should be open to discussing these ideas honestly and don't make any rush decisions in suggesting a hardfork. There are some huge elephants in the room we all must acknowledge between the near impossibility of mining at a profit for the average user, reliance on centralization of pools, and the security costs from disposable ASIC's and electricity.

Discuss....