Fork off - page 13. | Bitcointalksearch.org

cbeast

donator

Activity: 1736

Merit: 1014

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.

Quote from: davout on January 19, 2015, 08:36:41 AM

Quote from: cbeast on January 19, 2015, 06:30:36 AM

Or it won't.

Say it: "i'm a socialist". That'll make everything clearer.

Quote from: cbeast on January 19, 2015, 06:30:36 AM

Bitcoin is open source

Sure, a lot of derps of your kind have forked bitcoin to various irrelevant altcoins.
Exactly what gavin intends to do.

Quote from: cbeast on January 19, 2015, 06:30:36 AM

the overwhelming majority

of redditards. so what?
they're as irrelevant as dogecoin when it comes to Bitcoin.

One man's opinion. So what indeed.

If you read my post, I didn't completely disagree with the premise, but I'm not a libertard that believes in magic hands that fix all. I have not seen an argument against a larger block limit that uses facts. Your market forces will just have to deal with larger blocks. With more tps there will be a larger pipe to pump money into. In fact, altcoins with faster confirmations will compete for that pipe as well, but that discussion is for another day. If it comes to a point that Bitcoin cannot meet the demands of the market, then it will have committed suicide.

CryptoClub

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1000

cryptocollectorsclub.com

Quote from: colinistheman on January 10, 2015, 12:27:55 PM

One thing to note is that Mircea is highly critical of Andreas Antonopoulous and Gavin Andresen. "Critical" as in, trying to make them look bad and calling them names.

I for one hold Andreas in very high regard and do not appreciate that.
And I like Gavin too. I think they are both doing their best to aid the Bitcoin space.
Andreas talked to the Canadian senate and encouraged them to delay regulations for crying out loud.

Mircea says: "Andreas Antonopoulous thought he was very important before his untimely death." (This statement doesn't even make sense as Andreas is more popular than ever)
Mircea says: "Gavin Andresen, known principally for his costumed clown services, where he goes to various conferences dressed as this or that for the amusement of the participants."

What the...?

Mircea is like a rebel tyrant.

Source: footnotes on http://trilema.com/2015/if-you-go-on-a-bitcoin-fork-irrespective-which-scammer-proposes-it-you-will-lose-your-bitcoins/#footnote_1_59124

I trust Andreas and Gavin myself, I say fork it.

QuestionAuthority

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1393

You lead and I'll watch you walk away.

Quote from: davout on January 19, 2015, 06:03:45 AM

Quote from: tvbcof on January 17, 2015, 08:01:38 PM

Did you or anyone you know do anything fun with Phin's (one time) million dollars worth of BTC?

Imaginary BTC isn't fungible with the real thing.

Quote from: cbeast on January 17, 2015, 10:45:24 PM

Quote

Scarcity in terms of space in blocks for transactions to be confirmed is necessary to cultivate a healthy transaction fee market.

This argument presumes the value of the transactions will justify exorbitant fees.

No it really doesn't, it just says there's a market, a set of variables and that the former will bitchslap the latter into place.

Quote from: cbeast on January 17, 2015, 10:45:24 PM

I think

That remains to be demonstrated.

So Bruno is full of shit? You don't have any outstanding debts to anyone? That's good to hear.

davout

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1008

1davout

Quote from: cbeast on January 19, 2015, 06:30:36 AM

Or it won't.

Say it: "i'm a socialist". That'll make everything clearer.

Quote from: cbeast on January 19, 2015, 06:30:36 AM

Bitcoin is open source

Sure, a lot of derps of your kind have forked bitcoin to various irrelevant altcoins.
Exactly what gavin intends to do.

Quote from: cbeast on January 19, 2015, 06:30:36 AM

the overwhelming majority

of redditards. so what?
they're as irrelevant as dogecoin when it comes to Bitcoin.

cbeast

donator

Activity: 1736

Merit: 1014

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.

Quote from: davout on January 19, 2015, 06:03:45 AM

Quote from: cbeast on January 17, 2015, 10:45:24 PM

Quote

Scarcity in terms of space in blocks for transactions to be confirmed is necessary to cultivate a healthy transaction fee market.

This argument presumes the value of the transactions will justify exorbitant fees.

No it really doesn't, it just says there's a market, a set of variables and that the former will bitchslap the latter into place.

Or it won't. You probably haven't noticed, but Bitcoin is open source and scalability is considered by the overwhelming majority to be an issue. The beauty of an open source project is you can do whatever you want and nobody will care.

davout

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1008

1davout

Quote from: tvbcof on January 17, 2015, 08:01:38 PM

Did you or anyone you know do anything fun with Phin's (one time) million dollars worth of BTC?

Imaginary BTC isn't fungible with the real thing.

Quote from: cbeast on January 17, 2015, 10:45:24 PM

Quote

Scarcity in terms of space in blocks for transactions to be confirmed is necessary to cultivate a healthy transaction fee market.

This argument presumes the value of the transactions will justify exorbitant fees.

No it really doesn't, it just says there's a market, a set of variables and that the former will bitchslap the latter into place.

Quote from: cbeast on January 17, 2015, 10:45:24 PM

I think

That remains to be demonstrated.

cbeast

donator

Activity: 1736

Merit: 1014

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.

Quote

Scarcity in terms of space in blocks for transactions to be confirmed is necessary to cultivate a healthy transaction fee market.

This argument presumes the value of the transactions will justify exorbitant fees. That will end Bitcoin as a currency. I can see their point, but it's premature. Bitcoin isn't ready to replace gold as a store of value, but it's already losing power in confirming transactions. Bitcoin should work towards staying relevant as a currency until the market deems it's better as something else. While I agree with Justus that the market can help find the best equilibrium between fees and block sizes, I think it's best to allow network science to determine that ratio rather than market exploiters.

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4690

Merit: 1276

Quote from: davout on January 15, 2015, 05:05:22 AM

Quote from: jbreher on January 14, 2015, 03:17:56 AM

For a formerly important participant in this experiment, where the heck have you been?

How does your failure to see me imply my absence?

Hey! How's my favorite hypno-toad? How's the Instawallet investigation coming along? Did Inspector Clouseau catch the baddie who hacked you 'military grade' hardware? Did you or anyone you know do anything fun with Phin's (one time) million dollars worth of BTC?

forevernoob

hero member

Activity: 687

Merit: 500

Quote from: danielpbarron on January 15, 2015, 10:53:34 PM

Quote from: forevernoob on January 15, 2015, 07:40:59 PM

I read Mircea's blog post but I don't see any argument on why he is against the fork other than that it is a fork of Bitcoin and he doesn't like it.
And that he hates Gavin.

I don't get it. Someone please explain the downside of the proposed fork.
I guess one argument could be that Bitcoin is too big to fork?

Hating Gavin is enough reason to oppose his proposed hard fork; if you don't trust the chef, don't eat his food. The reasons for opposing this specific justification for a hard fork have been covered.

Point taken, thanks for giving us some more detail on the arguments against the fork.

Brangdon

sr. member

Activity: 365

Merit: 251

Quote from: danielpbarron on January 12, 2015, 11:22:45 AM

Miners aren't just gonna drop free money.

Sure they are. Because they know they'll make more money in the long run if the average fee increases.

Mining pools will help this. Without pools, miners will know that if they don't accept a given fee, some other miner will, so they lack the power to extort users. However, if a consortium of pools amounting to 51% of the hash-power agrees on a minimum fee, then (a) the other miners are likely to go along with that consensus, because they know they benefit in the long run; and (b) those that don't will find their blocks orphaned as the 51% reject blocks containing transactions that have too low fees. So the users will have no choice but to pay the minimum fee if they want to use the network at all. The only reason this hasn't happened already is that the block-reward is so high.

Quote

When the block reward halves, the fees are not going to pick up the slack.

If they don't, Bitcoin is doomed, because eventually the block-reward will halve to zero and fees will be all that miners get. Some of the slack may be taken up by increased volume of transactions: which is an argument for increasing the block size limit, so that miners can make more money from the extra transactions.

Eventually the only options are to pay for transaction validation is to increase the fees, or increase the block-size. It won't be paid for by inflation forever.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: danielpbarron on January 15, 2015, 10:53:34 PM

Quote from: forevernoob on January 15, 2015, 07:40:59 PM

I read Mircea's blog post but I don't see any argument on why he is against the fork other than that it is a fork of Bitcoin and he doesn't like it.
And that he hates Gavin.

I don't get it. Someone please explain the downside of the proposed fork.
I guess one argument could be that Bitcoin is too big to fork?

Hating Gavin is enough reason to oppose his proposed hard fork; if you don't trust the chef, don't eat his food. The reasons for opposing this specific justification for a hard fork have been covered.

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on January 15, 2015, 08:14:54 PM

At this point, i'm guessing its some kind of overreaction/miscommunication.
I don't think even Gavin is suggesting we fork RIGHT NOW...he's
doing tests in preparation...and there is no consensus yet from the
development community on whether the blocksize should be increased,
or whether an alternative approach such as sidechains should be used.
Certainly, there is no agreement to raise the blocksize right now, and
that is probably what MP is reacting to.

So bottom line, probably a lot of drama for nothing.

The only consensus that matters is by the miners; it doesn't matter what the "development community" has to say about anything.

well, true, but I think the miners are influenced by the opinions and proclamations of the core developers.

danielpbarron

full member

Activity: 212

Merit: 100

Daniel P. Barron

Quote from: forevernoob on January 15, 2015, 07:40:59 PM

I read Mircea's blog post but I don't see any argument on why he is against the fork other than that it is a fork of Bitcoin and he doesn't like it.
And that he hates Gavin.

I don't get it. Someone please explain the downside of the proposed fork.
I guess one argument could be that Bitcoin is too big to fork?

Hating Gavin is enough reason to oppose his proposed hard fork; if you don't trust the chef, don't eat his food. The reasons for opposing this specific justification for a hard fork have been covered.

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on January 15, 2015, 08:14:54 PM

At this point, i'm guessing its some kind of overreaction/miscommunication.
I don't think even Gavin is suggesting we fork RIGHT NOW...he's
doing tests in preparation...and there is no consensus yet from the
development community on whether the blocksize should be increased,
or whether an alternative approach such as sidechains should be used.
Certainly, there is no agreement to raise the blocksize right now, and
that is probably what MP is reacting to.

So bottom line, probably a lot of drama for nothing.

The only consensus that matters is by the miners; it doesn't matter what the "development community" has to say about anything.

Quote from: gog1 on January 15, 2015, 07:43:10 PM

what has Mircea done lately for bitcoin!? he can go screw himself. he's no longer relevant in BTC world.

Well he's still in business, which is already a big enough achievement in the world of bitcoin; MPEx is doing about 20`000 BTC monthly trading volume. But let's see.. there's qntra, deedbot, the bitcoin foundation, gossipd, keeping the hoard out, and the DERPs. Those are the more concrete examples, and I'm probably forgetting something; there's also the more abstract value he brings in the form of insightful blog posts.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: forevernoob on January 15, 2015, 07:40:59 PM

I read Mircea's blog post but I don't see any argument on why he is against the fork other than that it is a fork of Bitcoin and he doesn't like it.
And that he hates Gavin.

I don't get it. Someone please explain the downside of the proposed fork.
I guess one argument could be that Bitcoin is too big to fork?

At this point, i'm guessing its some kind of overreaction/miscommunication.
I don't think even Gavin is suggesting we fork RIGHT NOW...he's
doing tests in preparation...and there is no consensus yet from the
development community on whether the blocksize should be increased,
or whether an alternative approach such as sidechains should be used.
Certainly, there is no agreement to raise the blocksize right now, and
that is probably what MP is reacting to.

So bottom line, probably a lot of drama for nothing.

gog1

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 500

Quote from: forevernoob on January 15, 2015, 07:40:59 PM

I read Mircea's blog post but I don't see any argument on why he is against the fork other than that it is a fork of Bitcoin and he doesn't like it.
And that he hates Gavin.

I don't get it. Someone please explain the downside of the proposed fork.
I guess one argument could be that Bitcoin is too big to fork?

a 'bug' caused a fork in March 2013 - bitcoin has to update its protocol to keep up with times; nothing wrong with a fork

what has Mircea done lately for bitcoin!? he can go screw himself. he's no longer relevant in BTC world.

forevernoob

hero member

Activity: 687

Merit: 500

I read Mircea's blog post but I don't see any argument on why he is against the fork other than that it is a fork of Bitcoin and he doesn't like it.
And that he hates Gavin.

I don't get it. Someone please explain the downside of the proposed fork.
I guess one argument could be that Bitcoin is too big to fork?

thriftshopping

full member

Activity: 137

Merit: 100

Quote from: solex on January 14, 2015, 06:39:30 PM

Quote from: matt4054 on January 14, 2015, 06:34:40 PM

Quote from: Jammalan the Prophet on January 14, 2015, 06:31:11 PM

It does sound idiotic but this a cheaper way of attacking the blockchain than trying to build up 51% hash power.
So , is this kind of attack possible ? Can it bring legit transactions to a halt?

Yes and no, legit transactions would have to pay a higher fee than normal to get through during the attack.

True, ordinary users would have to pay more than the block-stuffer. It becomes somewhat of a bidding war, but also a huge inconvenience for users as there is no replace-unconf-tx-with-a-higher-fee yet.

It would also temporarily make it easier to pull off double spending attacks with a small amount of the network hashpower (when a merchant accepts a 0/unconfirmed transaction). An attacker with a small amount of hashpower could cause the blocks found by other miners to be full and when this first starts people sending transactions will not realize that the now standard .0001 TX fee is not going to be enough to get their tx confirmed, then the miner would simply double spend a transaction of theirs that includes the "standard" .0001 tx fee once they find a block

davout

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1008

1davout

Quote from: jbreher on January 14, 2015, 03:17:56 AM

For a formerly important participant in this experiment, where the heck have you been?

How does your failure to see me imply my absence?

QuestionAuthority

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1393

You lead and I'll watch you walk away.

Quote from: Jammalan the Prophet on January 14, 2015, 06:31:11 PM

Quote from: solex on January 14, 2015, 06:24:28 PM

Quote from: Jammalan the Prophet on January 14, 2015, 06:18:38 PM

I don't know if anybody has calculated this before as it seems pretty stupid , but how much it will cost in transaction fees to fill all the blocks to the maximum ?

Right now. Less than 1 BTC per block, or about 100 BTC per day. Which is a relatively cheap attack. The limit creates an increasing risk of this event as tx volumes approach it.

Thanks for the answer.
So if one lunatic decided to throw this money away everyday what will happen to legit transactions ?
I know there is a transaction pool for most clients but i guess there is a time limit also i guess.

It does sound idiotic but this a cheaper way of attacking the blockchain than trying to build up 51% hash power.
So , is this kind of attack possible ? Can it bring legit transactions to a halt?

It would be much cheaper for a hacker with thousands of zombies to do a Sybil attack. I don't think anyone would see 100 coins a day as a good option.

solex

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1006

100 satoshis -> ISO code

Quote from: matt4054 on January 14, 2015, 06:34:40 PM

Quote from: Jammalan the Prophet on January 14, 2015, 06:31:11 PM

It does sound idiotic but this a cheaper way of attacking the blockchain than trying to build up 51% hash power.
So , is this kind of attack possible ? Can it bring legit transactions to a halt?

Yes and no, legit transactions would have to pay a higher fee than normal to get through during the attack.

True, ordinary users would have to pay more than the block-stuffer. It becomes somewhat of a bidding war, but also a huge inconvenience for users as there is no replace-unconf-tx-with-a-higher-fee yet.

matt4054

legendary

Activity: 1946

Merit: 1035

Quote from: Jammalan the Prophet on January 14, 2015, 06:31:11 PM

It does sound idiotic but this a cheaper way of attacking the blockchain than trying to build up 51% hash power.
So , is this kind of attack possible ? Can it bring legit transactions to a halt?

Yes and no, legit transactions would have to pay a higher fee than normal to get through during the attack.

Topic: Fork off - page 13. (Read 37776 times)