Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 156. (Read 2032248 times)

I rib the guy fairly regularly about showing us the beef and subtly imply that without this he seems to be quite possibly all hat and no cattle.  OTOH, it is true (and shameful) that I treat him with kid gloves and this is due in part to his being on my side of this particular battle.  Another thing is that he rivals you (cypherdoc) for the King-of-the-Tarbabies crown and I'd just as soon not get tied up in that right now.

IIRC, I had a monster fight with the guy in his anonymint rendition on the Bundy Ranch affair.  I'm pretty sure it was him.  The venom of that interaction rivaled the worst I've had with you if you can believe that.

I think in any future arrangement of full/light nodes, Bitcoin is still Bitcoin as long as any attacker (including a miner with majority hashing power) has to pay the same proof of work cost in order to double spend as they currently have to spend today in order to get their double spend accepted by a full node.

SPV client security will be acceptable once there exist fraud proofs which an attacker can't bypass without paying the full cost of a history rewrite.

What if there were too many txns for any one computer to hold and process?  A full node could be implemented by a network of computers that trust each other but this would necessarily be costly and centralized.  But a more common situation analogous to todays P2P bitcoin network would be that every node knows a fraction of the txn history and can make statements like these UTXOs are confirmed by X amount of work.  Of course any node could request and verify the validity of any txn data it does not hold... so both of the above could coexist.

TL; DR Is it emotionally acceptable (as a holder of coins) that your node can't verify every txn that ever happened only those that it is interested in and so must rely on the network as a whole to validate the txns as a whole?

my point is that Satoshi always meant for Bitcoin to be Sound Money or cash.  not a speculative platform for financial assets.  the whitepaper title:

"Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System"

The comparisons between the infancy of Bitcoin and the infancy of the Internet have always been obvious.

It's good to see mainstream journalists pick up on it, but hopefully Bitcoin can someday escape this comparison that it can almost definitely never completely live up to.

interesting vision for Bitcoin by Reid Hoffman, Blockstream investor:

Now, is bitcoin going to be great or not? I don’t know. I think the least interesting question about bitcoin is the current price. The most interesting thing about bitcoin is that it’s an open platform the way the Internets are an open platform, but for financial systems.

http://fortune.com/2015/07/02/reid-hoffman-greylock-qa/

look up the definition of a shill.

Oh - OK.

So Anonymint is definitely a shill - but with Cypherdoc, the jury is still out.

Come on doc, tell me it aint so.

The floor is yours.

BTW - tvbcof isn't a socialist moaner - that would be me - he is in fact a sceptic (in a grand English tradition). And on a forum dedicated to value (money) and its transference that is starting to look to me to be a very good philosophical standpoint to take (arguments re. blocksize notwithstanding).

Hmm, I have no balls to sell HashFast BabyJets

A year prior he was supposed to release his "coin" but instead worked with Monero and then suggested it isn't truly anon although he did contribute to the design discussion and perhaps not the coding, and now says Monero has fundemental flaws yet all the while still claims to have the design in his head ready to be wrapped up but IMO looking for a coder to create an alt coin with which he can do a nice P&D. His views keep changing based on latest bitcoin developments which he grasps on and either uses it to his advantage by saying it will "help" his new coin which never existed or never will exist or he says it will be the end of bitcoin because of this feature (or non existant feature ie: anon, and now "infinite" transaction speed). Let bygones be bygones and let us see what he may come up with, or disappear into the night.

 

ThePussyThatBullshits_needs_STFU

We all think you've said more than enough.

No worries mates. I think I've said enough don't you?

Cheers.

Full nodes can detect invalid blocks produced by miners because they have a full history of transactions, so if a miner tries to mine a transaction that spends coins that don't exist the full node will detect this.

A miner can't spend coins that don't exist if it's being checked by full nodes - it actually has to pay enough proof of work cost to rewrite the history of the blockchain retroactively make the coins exist.

This is very expensive, even for a miner with a majority hash power.

An SPV client can only verify proof of work - it doesn't have the transaction history to verify that inputs are valid. A miner with majority hash power can spend coins that don't exist, and SPV clients will accept their chain as valid, and there currently exists no proof which an honest full node can supply to the SPV clients to convince them that the chain containing the highest proof of work is actually invalid.

You can try to fix this with committed UTXO sets, but it doesn't really change anything - SPV clients can't validate the UTXO sets any more than they can verify blocks, so a miner with majority hash power can just commit an invalid UTXO set without needing to pay the proof of work cost to retroactively rewrite the blockchain.

Maybe instead of a UTXO set, the protocol should be changed to require miners to commit a tree of existence proofs for all the inputs referenced in the block.

This way honest full nodes can produce fraud proofs which SPV clients can verify, so now the cost of producing fake blocks which SPV clients will accept is the same as the cost of producing fake blocks which full nodes will accept.

thank you, thank you, thank you.

and i might add, he insults all of us in turn trying to create doubt in each and every one of us; w/o ever producing the promised coin.

notice the vision keeps changing too.  at first it was Bitcoin will become the NWO currency which upon that achievement would then be used to rape us all in the doomsday scenario.  then it morphed to "Monero might be a thing".  then, while at first being dismissive of Blockstream and SC's, he is now saying SC's will enable his perfect coin and Bitcoin is doomed here in the present.  also, his repeated claims to leave the thread to code.  must be a bored coder.  but of course tvbcof would latch on to him as his buddy.  they're both doom and gloomer socialist types.

finally, the consistent message is that we're all doomed and nothing we do can stop that.  except his coin that never shows up.

Divide et impera, something i see much in the community lately compared to earlier years.

Yes - multi persona shill software. If it isn't here already, and being used by TPTB (as in USG etc) then I would be very surprised.

I have to say that I've followed this thread for a while. I find it, in turns, funny (tvbcof's bull baiting of cypherdoc etc) and quite interesting. The technicals of the protocol are over my head I'm afraid, though I do believe I'm getting the gist.


Anyhow, back to the shilling business. It seems to me that the multi persona/account copying and pasting shill shenanigans could well and truly be ascribed, in the context of Bitcointalk.org, not to cypherdoc, but to TPTB/Anonymint, surely.

He has exhibited all of the characteristics and tools that, to my mind, a successful shill would have at his disposal :-  he has , for example, just enough knowledge in the field to hoodwink those among us who are suggestible and naive (but not enough knowledge to clearly and concisely contribute anything meaningful)  ;   he has multiple accounts (which are fairly easily recognisable) with which to endorse and give legitimacy to his own views    ; he promises an alternative, a better alternative, a nirvana, a Shangri-la - but never delivers;    but, most of all, his mission seems to be to implant doubt and create confusion.

A kind of crypto nihilist Pontius Pilate.

 And, in truth, ultra conservative and reactionary. He has aptly named himself in his latest incarnation, TPTB. He, and they (the real TPTB that is) don't want a decentralised democratic store and mechanism by which to transfer value - they require a means by which they are able to stop the masses accessing their illegitimately horded stashes via taxation. They don't give a monkeys toss about the ordinary Jo being "his own banker" - for that is a privilege that the ordinary Jo (the "sheeple") just hasn't earned.

      Anyhow, in the end I guess we all know that you judge a tree by its fruit - and in the context in which we are all operating this might best be ascertained by the strength of the argument. I mean, the strongest argument should carry the day - and who are we to judge wether that be put forward by someone with vested interests or not (ie. a shill) - would it, indeed, matter anyway ?

FWIW it seems to me that at present btc isn't seen as a threat precisely because of the limit on transactions - lift that limit and it becomes a serious player. I can see (I think) the arguments against lifting the block limit (centralisation), and the arguments for sc's etc - but I remain to be convinced.

yep, me too. 

that's what James Rickards has been going on about for years now.  personally, from what price action we've had along with the alignment of the cycles, i expect Bitcoin to do quite well.

we just need to get past this block size issue to let it run.

Something like that. I don't necessarily believe the Shemitah theory, but I think the end of this year we will start seeing the economic bubble pop.

Personally, I want to see how a stock market/economic crises affects Bitcoin price. I can care less about the stock markets because I have nothing invested in it.

7 year collapse in Sept 2015?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DP4499Bbhw&safe=active