Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 192. (Read 2032248 times)

another person who sees problems with block size voting.  i haven't analyzed the attack; just posting here from bitcoin-dev:

On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 8:05 PM, William Madden <[email protected]> wrote:

    Here are refutations of the approach in BIP-100 here:
    http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf

    To recap BIP-100:

    1) Hard form to remove static 1MB block size limit
    2) Add new floating block size limit set to 1MB
    3) Historical 32MB message limit remains
    4) Hard form on testnet 9/1/2015
    5) Hard form on main 1/11/2016
    6) 1MB limit changed via one-way lock in upgrade with a 12,000 block
    threshold by 90% of blocks
    7) Limit increase or decrease may not exceed 2x in any one step
    Miners vote by encoding 'BV'+BlockSizeRequestValue into coinbase
    scriptSig, e.g. "/BV8000000/" to vote for 8M.
    9) Votes are evaluated by dropping bottom 20% and top 20%, and then the
    most common floor (minimum) is chosen.

    8MB limits doubling just under every 2 years makes a static value grow
    in a predictable manner.

    BIP-100 makes a static value grow (or more importantly potentially
    shrink) in an unpredictable manner based on voting mechanics that are
    untested in this capacity in the bitcoin network.  Introducing a highly
    variable and untested dynamic into an already complex system is
    unnecessarily risky.

    For example, the largely arbitrary voting rules listed in 9 above can be
    gamed.  If I control pools or have affiliates involved in pools that
    mine slightly more than 20% of blocks, I could wait until block sizes
    are 10MB, and then suddenly vote "/BV5000000/" for 20% of blocks and
    "/BV5000001/" for the remaining 10%.  If others don't consistently vote
    for the same "/BV#/" value, vote too consistently and have their value
    thrown out as the top 20%, I could win the resize to half capacity
    "/BV5000001/" because it was the lowest repeated value not in the bottom
    20%.

    I could use this to force an exodus to my sidechain/alt coin, or to
    choke out the bitcoin network.  A first improvement would be to only let
    BIP-100 raise the cap and not lower it, but if I can think of a
    vulnerability off the top of my head, there will be others on the other
    side of the equation that have not been thought of.  Why bother
    introducing a rube goldberg machine like voting when a simple 8mb cap
    with predictable growth gets the job done, potentially permanently?

Tsipras taking to Twitter!

http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2015/06/24/equities-turn-red-as-greek-optimism-fades-tsipras-vents-on-twitter/

EU Banks Forced to Report Bitcoin-Linked Accounts Transacting Over €1,000

http://www.xbt.money/eu-banks-forced-to-report-bitcoin-linked-accounts-transacting-over-e1000/

You're absolutely right.

Again sorry for being off topic.

There are other threads on this topic here already.  Why pollute this one? 

It merely scratches the surface of the capabilities, but achieving only this satisfies the Whitepaper and thus remains my criteria for success.

As a guiding principle for the project, doing anything that reduces this potential in order to achieve something other than this, would be against the spirit of Bitcoin.
Thus, those efforts could/should be a different project, or would otherwise naturally follow from the success of this one goal, which remains a long way off.

(sorry for the OT)

if memory serves somewhere in the last few dozens of pages there was a debate
involving climate change,  I've just found this interesting article titled
"What's really warming the world"

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

oh my:

gavin's just sent an email on btc dev mailing list

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-June/009047.html

when did that happen?  i asked Greg about it late last night and he said it had been assigned.  but it couldn't have been too much before that.  or did it occur after i asked?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3awomg/how_the_bitcoin_experiment_might_fail/csgt8ed

they're lying:

lol as in "blocksize 101"? MIT get out of here!

Update: gavin's BIP has been assigned number 101.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-who-is-most-exposed-to-a-greek-default-2015-06-23

“The private sector “has almost no direct exposure to Greece anymore,” wrote strategists at J.P. Morgan Cazenove, in a Monday note urging clients to get back into German stocks.


So the whole 2011-2012 Greek loan restructuring was basically a strategy to move the bagholders from rich powerful bankers and investors into the hands of the general population (as taxed by their governments), wasn't it?

EDIT: the entire system is broken.  Let private lenders lend to eurozone countries at essentially no risk (that's moral hazard of bailouts).  Then bail out the country and the private lenders using public money because of political/social concepts like one unified europe. 

How about letting governments default on loans WITHOUT kicking them out of the eurozone.  How about a government bankruptcy -> elect a new govt, fire the top 10 central bankers and any other bankers the other central banks deem responsible and have a 5-10 year probationary period where their local central bank cannot give euro-creating loans.

Knowing your way of thinking, yes; it is a modest target for something that incorporates so many different things in just one package. Maybe the "beginning of success" would've been more appropriate.

My definition of success is perhaps modest to some, but it is still far away:

Bitcoin being the protocol and the coin of the internet realm.

If it achieves this, it could well become much more, but this is the success for which it is designed.

The question is, what more qualifies as "doing nothing":

• Letting Bitcoin operate with constantly full blocks, which has never been done before, or
• Continuing to let Bitcoin operate with non-full blocks, effectively uncapped,* as it always has

   ?


*Of course a large part of the debate is over whether the current hard cap is actually doing anything. So the appeal to conservatism implied by "doing nothing" just pushes the question back.

This is true.

My vision is not clouded.

http://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-official-we-re-on-the-brink-of-earth-s-sixth-mass-extinction

I'd say it depends what you mean by "succeed".

Do you mean price-wise, as in making you rich, or changing the face of the world and finance?
It appeared to me lately that whilst both outcomes should be complementary, it probably wont be when considering the details of the path we are now on.

Explaining myself:

Bitcoin, as a disruptive technology, is meant to disrupt, hence, tearing the ambiant status quo in its field - ie. finance.

However, it seems lately that the big names in its ecosystem are more concerned about their personal gain and position than working for the greater good: enter Wall Street, banks, ETFs, lobbyists, regulations, intelligencia, politics, etc...

Well imho that is a very risky move.. sustaining the old ways and powers in place is denaturing bitcoin's subversive part.

I like to refer to myself as a bitcoiner, plain and simple, waging between personal gain and paranoia.

The key aspect for bitcoin to success for me is its capacity of giving back a little power to the people, avoiding Big Bro in a lesser extent and its corrupted-to-the-bone establishment.

I understand financial freedom has a cost, but it seems we are just turning in circles here: the head of the spear being mortified by power, money, and secrecy.

So imho, Bitcoin will probably leave us with a bitter tasting, once they will be done with it.

But being a bitcoiner also imply being a little crazy and having a little faith