I think both will co-exist
+1
Topic: Developer JGarzik reiterates, upgradable nature of bitcoin! Challenges Ethereum! (Read 3310 times)
July 28, 2014, 05:32:03 AM
July 28, 2014, 05:27:33 AM
Except that achieving enough consensus to successfully hard fork bitcoin is effectively impossible. I mean seriously, they can't even agree on how to increase the TPS limit (increasing block size, etc.).
Bitcoin is now TBTI--Too Big To Innovate.
Bitcoin is now TBTI--Too Big To Innovate.
You don't need consensus.
There would be a fork, and two version of Bitcoin would coexist: the old one, and the new one with ethereum's features. The difference with the actual ethereum is that everybody owning BTC would now be able to use the ethereum feature set.
I'm very interested in the tech behind ethereum, but the ether currency has no future.
July 28, 2014, 04:43:14 AM
Except that achieving enough consensus to successfully hard fork bitcoin is effectively impossible. I mean seriously, they can't even agree on how to increase the TPS limit (increasing block size, etc.).
Bitcoin is now TBTI--Too Big To Innovate.
Bitcoin is now TBTI--Too Big To Innovate.
You are correct. Ethereum hasn't even launched yet and they are already designing for this eventuality.
July 28, 2014, 03:45:11 AM
Except that achieving enough consensus to successfully hard fork bitcoin is effectively impossible. I mean seriously, they can't even agree on how to increase the TPS limit (increasing block size, etc.).
Bitcoin is now TBTI--Too Big To Innovate.
Bitcoin is now TBTI--Too Big To Innovate.
but if you make an innovation attractive to miners wouldn't the fork be possible?
July 28, 2014, 02:56:48 AM
Let's put it this way -- if Vitalik really didn't believe in Bitcoin, he wouldn't be taking it for the presale.
I think both will co-exist
I think both will co-exist
July 28, 2014, 02:13:09 AM
Except that achieving enough consensus to successfully hard fork bitcoin is effectively impossible. I mean seriously, they can't even agree on how to increase the TPS limit (increasing block size, etc.).
Bitcoin is now TBTI--Too Big To Innovate.
Bitcoin is now TBTI--Too Big To Innovate.
July 28, 2014, 12:43:34 AM
Best way to tell that it's hard to make changes to core bitcoin: A core developer feels the need to create a post proclaiming it's easy to change core bitcoin
July 25, 2014, 01:34:31 PM
They use a lot of buzzwords like anti-ASIC. In fact, the entire project reminds me of the Weird Al song Mission Statement.
July 25, 2014, 01:03:50 PM
Ethereum seems to be lacking some of the key aspects of bitcoin like for instance innate decentralization. Plus, Ether will always have to decrease in price in order to keep the system competitive.
July 24, 2014, 05:59:21 AM
So darkota, would you agree that Cryptonote based coins do have a legitimate space in the crypto economy because they (as in the Bitcoin devs) can't copy whatever exclusive features they come up with right? (like ring signatures for instance)
Correct. The only coins that can stand beside/compete with Bitcoin as I said above, are coins that don't use the Bitcoin codebase, so Bitcoin won't be able to simply apply whatever features that coin has, into Bitcoin itself.
So yes, Cryptonote coins have a chance at potentially competing/standing alongside Bitcoin, since they do not use the Bitcoin codebase aka are not Bitcoin based coins.
Legit. This is why I big up Monero as much as I want. Sometimes they tell me im a shill, but im honest, I think Monero has a huge space in the crypto world when people realize how much a revolution actual internet cash would be. Bitcoin is great, but it isn't digital cash.
July 16, 2014, 12:35:19 PM
Unfortunately nobody is going to hack Ethereum into Bitcoin.
Why?
Because then they wont get rich with something new.
In the end, the selfishness of human nature is going to take its toll. Even in a decentralized paradigm.
Colored Coin is already doing much of what Ethereum offers for Bitcoin. Why?
Because then they wont get rich with something new.
In the end, the selfishness of human nature is going to take its toll. Even in a decentralized paradigm.
July 16, 2014, 12:32:35 PM
Unfortunately nobody is going to hack Ethereum into Bitcoin.
Even though they sure as hell should.
Why?
Because then they wont get rich with something new.
In the end, the selfishness of human nature is going to take its toll. Even in a decentralized paradigm.
Even though they sure as hell should.
Why?
Because then they wont get rich with something new.
In the end, the selfishness of human nature is going to take its toll. Even in a decentralized paradigm.
July 16, 2014, 12:23:44 PM
Bitcoin is a living, growing, changing thing.
It is exciting to hear that Bitcoin will be able to grow and evolve.
A refreshing change from Mike Hearn's warnings about neglect and stagnation.
It is exciting to hear that Bitcoin will be able to grow and evolve.
A refreshing change from Mike Hearn's warnings about neglect and stagnation.
July 16, 2014, 12:09:55 PM
So darkota, would you agree that Cryptonote based coins do have a legitimate space in the crypto economy because they (as in the Bitcoin devs) can't copy whatever exclusive features they come up with right? (like ring signatures for instance)
Correct. The only coins that can stand beside/compete with Bitcoin as I said above, are coins that don't use the Bitcoin codebase, so Bitcoin won't be able to simply apply whatever features that coin has, into Bitcoin itself.
So yes, Cryptonote coins have a chance at potentially competing/standing alongside Bitcoin, since they do not use the Bitcoin codebase aka are not Bitcoin based coins.
July 16, 2014, 07:53:13 AM
So darkota, would you agree that Cryptonote based coins do have a legitimate space in the crypto economy because they (as in the Bitcoin devs) can't copy whatever exclusive features they come up with right? (like ring signatures for instance)
July 14, 2014, 09:24:35 PM
The transaction format, the block format, script operations are all designed to be upgradeable. The bitcoin protocol is not locked in stone, as some claim.
BIP 16 (P2SH) demonstrated a "soft fork" network upgrade: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0016.mediawiki
BIP 34 demonstrated a majority-lock-in block format change, exercising a decentralized upgrade process: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0034.mediawiki
Bitcoin developers may let the ecosystem design interesting new features (hello, Ethereum!) and then incorporate them into bitcoin.
Bitcoin is a living, growing, changing thing.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2anxr1/reminder_bitcoin_protocol_designed_to_be/
http://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/2ao1be/jgarzik_says_they_can_just_hack_ethereum_into/
BIP 16 (P2SH) demonstrated a "soft fork" network upgrade: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0016.mediawiki
BIP 34 demonstrated a majority-lock-in block format change, exercising a decentralized upgrade process: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0034.mediawiki
Bitcoin developers may let the ecosystem design interesting new features (hello, Ethereum!) and then incorporate them into bitcoin.
Bitcoin is a living, growing, changing thing.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2anxr1/reminder_bitcoin_protocol_designed_to_be/
http://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/2ao1be/jgarzik_says_they_can_just_hack_ethereum_into/
Bitcoin developers may let the ecosystem design interesting new features (hello, Ethereum!) and then incorporate them into bitcoin. That line right there, is extremely important. It means if an alt-coin were to design something "innovative" and it's using the Bitcoin codebase, Bitcoin can simply incorporate whatever features that alt-coin has, into Bitcoin via copy/paste, rendering said alt-coin, useless.
GO BITCOIN!!
Amazing, I'm about to +1 darkota.....
Good post. I spent a very boring hour arguing this point to a Mastercoin rep a couple of months ago.
Any currency built by a third party, but utilising the BTC blockchain, is building their business on quicksand.
If the added features are any good, they will get folded into Bitcoin itself, leaving the original developers (and investors) standing out in the cold.
Even if Bitcoin doesnt do this, there is always a good chance that future changes in Bitcoin (blockchain pruning, for example) will break other systems that rely on the blockchain. Do you think Bitcoin will take the wishes of outside, competing currencies into account when they implement changes?
July 14, 2014, 09:18:41 PM
As I said before, unless you want that coin to be only used as Play Money and not by the "regular joe", then yes a 3,000 PoS distribution is Horrible. The USA alone has 300million people. Basically, that 3,000 distribution means that that coin was not meant to be eventually accepted by mainstream society..Simple. If it was a PoW coin, then anyone could buy there own miner and mine coins, for decades to come. That's not the case with 100% PoS coins, unfortunately.
firstly. theres no need to bold everything and make your writing larger.
secondly. no, anyone cannot buy a miner and start mining. its too expensive and is already available for those who can afford expensive mining gear. its a better investment/cheaper just to buy bitcoins than it is to mine to thats a false statement.
and nem isnt 100% proof of stake. its pos and poi. makes a massive difference. it means anyone who has nem be it from wages or whatever can effectively earn higher interest than you would get from a bank just for having nem.
look im not debating with you any longer. its obviously not getting anywhere. just do yourself a favor and learn about these platforms before you start debating against them as it WILL come back to bite you in the ass when you have to admit your wrong and you have lost out on the best investment opportunities since bitcoin was invented. not that you would you would admit your wrong ether.
good day.
July 14, 2014, 09:08:03 PM
As I said before, unless you want that coin to be only used as Play Money and not by the "regular joe", then yes a 3,000 PoS distribution is Horrible. The USA alone has 300million people. Basically, that 3,000 distribution means that that coin was not meant to be eventually accepted by mainstream society..Simple. If it was a PoW coin, then anyone could buy there own miner and mine coins, for decades to come. That's not the case with 100% PoS coins, unfortunately.
July 14, 2014, 09:00:40 PM
3000 person distribution evenly spread is bad for a coin thats not even launched?
July 14, 2014, 08:35:30 PM
The transaction format, the block format, script operations are all designed to be upgradeable. The bitcoin protocol is not locked in stone, as some claim.
BIP 16 (P2SH) demonstrated a "soft fork" network upgrade: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0016.mediawiki
BIP 34 demonstrated a majority-lock-in block format change, exercising a decentralized upgrade process: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0034.mediawiki
Bitcoin developers may let the ecosystem design interesting new features (hello, Ethereum!) and then incorporate them into bitcoin.
Bitcoin is a living, growing, changing thing.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2anxr1/reminder_bitcoin_protocol_designed_to_be/
http://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/2ao1be/jgarzik_says_they_can_just_hack_ethereum_into/
BIP 16 (P2SH) demonstrated a "soft fork" network upgrade: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0016.mediawiki
BIP 34 demonstrated a majority-lock-in block format change, exercising a decentralized upgrade process: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0034.mediawiki
Bitcoin developers may let the ecosystem design interesting new features (hello, Ethereum!) and then incorporate them into bitcoin.
Bitcoin is a living, growing, changing thing.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2anxr1/reminder_bitcoin_protocol_designed_to_be/
http://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/2ao1be/jgarzik_says_they_can_just_hack_ethereum_into/
Bitcoin developers may let the ecosystem design interesting new features (hello, Ethereum!) and then incorporate them into bitcoin. That line right there, is extremely important. It means if an alt-coin were to design something "innovative" and it's using the Bitcoin codebase, Bitcoin can simply incorporate whatever features that alt-coin has, into Bitcoin.
GO BITCOIN!!
and what if its not using the bitcoin code base and is totally incompatible? what then?
That's it. If the alt-coin isn't using Bitcoin's codebase/Bitcoin-based, then Bitcoin can't incorporate w/e(features etc) that Alt-coin has. Basically, alt-coins that use Bitcoin's codebase are useless, because as mentioned by OP, Bitcoin can simply copy what that alt-coin has into Bitcoin itself. Alt-coins that aren't using Bitcoin's codebase are the only ones that stand a chance to even remotely stand alongside/compete with Bitcoin.
ok great now we have established that, please refer to this post and note the very partial list of features.
for the record, nxt is totally new codebase.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7847575
still "go bitcoin"?
edit: eeehhh BUUUUURRRN!!!!!.
As you've seen with Vericoin, PoS is not the way to go. The attacker gained over 30% of Vericoins coin supply, making him eligable to do the Nothing-at-Stake attack...and it ended with a rollback, which destroyed Vericoin's fungibility and future as a cryptocurrency. That would of never happened to a PoW coin.
NXT faces that same issue+the absolutely horrible distribution.
actually it was nothing to do with vericoin. vericoin was the target of the hack, but it was the exchange that was hacked. vericoin itself was never hacked. that "nothing-at-stake" thing it total nonsense aswell. even vitalik buterin called over to the nxt forum to discus it and he stated that nxt actually does things far better than he thought and agreed they had solved(or nxt never suffered from) nothing-at-stake. i can link that to you if you want? as for distribution, that will solve itself over the long term.
First of all, yes the attack was on Mintpal, not Vericoin. But that's the only thing you've said that was correct....The attacker managed to get over 30% of all Vericoins, with 30% of Vericoin's in his hands, he had a decent enough chance to do a Nothing-at-Stake attack. Read here: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1oi7su/criticisms_of_proofofstake/, and Please read here http://ftp://ftp.gate.cnrs.fr/RePEc/2014/1404.pdf
It details how a Nothing at Stake attack can be done. Along with that attack being a huge threat, there are many other issues with PoS coins, such as they eventually Centralize over Time.
And for NXT's distribution, it will never get any better. The first 50 NXT addresses Own over 48% of all NXT coins there is. NXT's distribution, unfortunately, will always be doomed. 50 addresses, of which 1 individual possibly owns more than 1, stands among the worst distributions there ever was for a cryptocoin.
read here: https://nxtforum.org/general/how-does-nxt-fix-the-nothing-at-stake-problem/
can you explain how they become centralised over time? due to "rich getting richer"? i could say the same about mining. how many times has "51%" attack been an issue in the last 6 months? an entire 50% of mining power has been controlled by one party multiple times.
i actually agree with you that the distribution was very bad and still is, and its one of the reasons i heavily support nem.
ok lets for the sake of making some kind of progress, assume you are correct.
enter nem - New Economy movement.
PoS + PoI (proof of importance)
3000 original stake holders 1200 being veteran accounts - sock puppets removed via taint analysis. each stake holder getting an equal amount being 1 million nem.
proof of importance is an algorithm that decides your forging power based on how important you are to the network by giving a weight to every transaction - or lack of transactions - you do. ie. hoarders are punished for hoarding, you get higher weight the more you distribute the coin and higher weight for the more transactions you do to other nodes who are also of benefit to the network. sending transactions back and forth from your own accounts actually lowers your importance. this eliminates the "rich getting richer" issue and promotes the growth of a healthy network and incentivises distribution. i stand by the "nothing at stake" being pure bollox but even if it wasnt PoI would eliminate that issue if it was an issue.
due to having 3000 stake holders getting equal amounts - the initial distribution is a gigantic benefit. due to PoI the network is poised for rapid growth and then add the 3000 people. thats a network effect with incentive to grow the network effect. with little fear of anyone dumping. PoI ensures that rich dont get richer and the little guy can get just as high a chance of forging as a large holder.
nem is also written from scratch so bitcoin cant clone any of it. it will support all the features of nxt - plus more not yet announced.
its a given that nxt does have advantages over bitcoin but it also has flaws of its own. nem has these benefits over bitcoin plus benefits over nxt and doesnt have the flaws of nxt or bitcoin. sounds to good to be true right? well its not. nem stakes were trading for 1500 dollars prior to the alpha release - there are many reasons for that, the ones iv listed being only a handful.
want to find out more?
I don't know much about NEM, so I can't say on whether what you're saying is true or not. What I do know is, The nothing at Stake attack can still be accomplished on PoS coins +101 other flaws. And frankly the distribution on 100% PoS coins, pretty much guarantees that they'll never be accepted by the public. Distributing to 3,000 people is still bad distribution, there are 7billion people in this world, and over 300million alone in the U.S.A. alone. PoW has less risks and much more even distribution, so it will always triumph over PoS.
But anyway, we've gone far off topic Lol.
The original points made were:
1) Any coin using Bitcoin's codebase is useless, because Bitcoin can always incorporate whatever features that coin has into Bitcoin.
and
2) The only coins that can stand alongside Bitcoin/Compete with it, are coins that do not use the Bitcoin codebase.
Jump to: