Pages:
Author

Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 21. (Read 2032266 times)

legendary
Activity: 2492
Merit: 1491
LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper
August 16, 2015, 03:39:01 PM
still ramping:



Nodes are great an all, but consensus is derived from miners. 100% of nodes could be running XT but it wouldn't matter if the miners don't.

What is needed an each way to track each pool and how they are voting, that way individual miners could vote with their feet and move to pools that match their views.

Logical fallacy: if 100% of nodes are running xt then the miners are also running xt.
legendary
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1000
August 16, 2015, 03:33:23 PM
When cypherdocs capitulate, there will be future again for Bitcoin.

Sorry pal, you have to get rekt.
legendary
Activity: 4760
Merit: 1283
August 16, 2015, 03:32:10 PM

Jeff Garzik stated today that more than 80% of the hashpower supports blocks  larger than 1MB

https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/632877777688006656

I can pretty much guarantee that large miners will support whatever-the-fuck those who they rely on will tell them to.  If not, 'poof'.  The notable services such operators rely on are networking provided by global providers (if they are big enough to arrange their own peering, and if not, their more consumer grade ISP) and governments within who's jurisdiction they operate.

Both the corporate network providers and government regulatory and judicial systems are also quite linked to one another, and increasingly with global trade agreements it really does not matter what sovereign governmental structures want anyway and in so does away with pesky democracy and outdated constructs like privacy, freedom of speech, freedom of association, etc.

edit: fix quotes...again.
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
August 16, 2015, 03:25:42 PM
The only possible attack here is that over the next several months MP will explicitly reject blocks from nodes advertising they are 70010 protocol. For this to have any material effect though, he would need >50% of the current network hashing power to also explicitly reject those blocks, so that people running XT are disincentivised to continue doing so.

I have joined btc way too late to have a clear picture of MP's "arsenal" consistency, but it's not the first time that I heard a respectable member of the community to refer to his disruptive potential in a serious manner. To make a long story short, is he really so powerful?

absolutely not. 

i've never heard of him influencing anything except for the bunch of Cripplecoiner's around here who seem to idolize him.  or maybe he's a father figure.

there'e probably plenty of Bitcoiner's who have more coin than him, if that is even a measure at all of power, which i doubt.
legendary
Activity: 1153
Merit: 1000
August 16, 2015, 03:07:12 PM

Nodes are great an all, but consensus is derived from miners. 100% of nodes could be running XT but it wouldn't matter if the miners don't.

What is needed an each way to track each pool and how they are voting, that way individual miners could vote with their feet and move to pools that match their views.

Jeff Garzik stated today that more than 80% of the hashpower supports blocks  larger than 1MB

https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/632877777688006656

Up until now they have been communicating this as BIP100. We need to track BIP101 adoption.
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1008
August 16, 2015, 03:02:44 PM

Nodes are great an all, but consensus is derived from miners. 100% of nodes could be running XT but it wouldn't matter if the miners don't.

What is needed an each way to track each pool and how they are voting, that way individual miners could vote with their feet and move to pools that match their views.

Jeff Garzik stated today that more than 80% of the hashpower supports blocks  larger than 1MB

https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/632877777688006656

sr. member
Activity: 392
Merit: 250
August 16, 2015, 02:58:49 PM
i only watch the price of bitcoin !! Smiley)
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1008
August 16, 2015, 02:57:18 PM
The only possible attack here is that over the next several months MP will explicitly reject blocks from nodes advertising they are 70010 protocol. For this to have any material effect though, he would need >50% of the current network hashing power to also explicitly reject those blocks, so that people running XT are disincentivised to continue doing so.

I have joined btc way too late to have a clear picture of MP's "arsenal" consistency, but it's not the first time that I heard a respectable member of the community to refer to his disruptive potential in a serious manner. To make a long story short, is he really so powerful?
legendary
Activity: 1153
Merit: 1000
August 16, 2015, 02:51:44 PM
still ramping:



Nodes are great an all, but consensus is derived from miners. 100% of nodes could be running XT but it wouldn't matter if the miners don't.

What is needed an each way to track each pool and how they are voting, that way individual miners could vote with their feet and move to pools that match their views.
legendary
Activity: 1153
Merit: 1000
August 16, 2015, 02:49:24 PM
You know it is bad when the top post on /r/bitcoin is a Tyrion Lannister quote on free speech.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h6exq/request_let_users_decide_what_content_they_want/

It's even worse when the highest upvoted post (that even made it to /r/all) is an active call to remove /r/theymos with over 90% in favor.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h5f90/these_mods_need_to_be_changed_upvote_if_you_agree/
legendary
Activity: 4760
Merit: 1283
August 16, 2015, 02:12:00 PM
SC's are clearly altcoins.

Different class.  'Sidecoins' are most accurately described as a proxy for Bitcoin.  Use of sidecoins impacts the macro-economics of Bitcoin in pretty much exactly the way that use of Bitcoin itself does.  'Alts' are completely stand-alone and as such are competitors.  'sidechains' are more like colored-coins and in some ways it might be argued that this is what they are at their core.

Sidechains are a disaster for people hoping to do analytics on the blockchain down to an individual level because they need to tap into every sidecoin's system.  Since some sidechains will be specifically designed to make that a challenge the task becomes impossible.  Disaster!

It cannot really be argued that sidechains are going to steal Bitcoin's thunder by robbing it of transaction fees since everyone on the bloatist side is dead set against meaningful fees.  It's pretty clear to me as someone who has been in the business that to the extent that revenue is anticipated by Bitcoin infrastructure operators, it is to come from harvest of intelligence data and either processing it themselves or selling it to a processor.  This is the way most internet services work these days.

A nicety for some is that the highest value for intelligence comes from 'full capture' so there is an economic incentive to achieve this.  Near-monopolization of operating infrastructure would also would make coin white/black-listing relatively workable just as Mr. Hearn has predicted for years.
 
brg444 and Adam spent months teaching us how any type of coin ala Truthcoin can hitch themselves to a SC in addition to the migrated scBTC.  in fact, have you EVER heard Blockstream place any type of restriction on what kind of speculative asset can be supported on a SC?  answer: no.  they are a form of dilution, hence inflation, to Bitcoin and will turn Bitcoin into a WoW trading platform.

The economics of 'speculation' in a full-peg environment are no different than people simply using native Bitcoin heavily.  People are perfectly free to speculate in native Bitcoin, and to date that is what has happened in the economy mostly I think.

You bloatcoiners may have plans to implement control measures in XT which preclude speculation as far as I know.  With the infrastructure needed for tainting, control of speculation would, in fact, be tenable.

edit: slight (between ngix gateway errors.)
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1005
August 16, 2015, 12:28:04 PM
I can understand that theymos is in a very difficult spot - he is probably right (in a literal, technical sense) in the assertion that XT as a theory is on topic, but as a viable, downloadable solution it becomes an alt-coin. Until it reaches consensus,

But what troubles me is the zeal with which this policy is still being executed across the platforms. At this point, who really benefits from a suppression of debate?
(bear in mind that we are free to discuss it here and many other topics)

During the fall of the Berlin wall, there was a pivotal moment when the border guards finally recognised the futility of their duty, and allowed people through unchallenged.

Way out of the mess: Core adds a largeblock patch, different from gavins but who cares. Othere XT patches are delayed to make them look important.

If not, they go the way of the Xfree86 developers - into the fog.

Next fight is over the name. I suggest renaming XT to core by april depending on 75% supermajority as expressed by just doing it. Smiley



It would have to follow a BIP. But isnt this scenario what MH and GA wanted all along?  The failure to get this resulted in XT.

Exactly. It is the way out, no fork, everybody is happy (some just a tad butthurt).




i'm not sure about that.  no one, esp me, wants to live under a Blockstream totalitarian regime that only will act when they have a gun pointed at their heads.  look at some of the kludges they've slipped into the code w/o anyone knowing according to Hearn's forking article.

Yes, I will continue with XT also, but if they open up for longer blocks, they might keep their team. Some would not bother to switch, and the "officialness" rings with some.

legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
August 16, 2015, 12:15:37 PM
SC's are clearly altcoins.  

brg444 and Adam spent months teaching us how any type of coin ala Truthcoin can hitch themselves to a SC in addition to the migrated scBTC.  in fact, have you EVER heard Blockstream place any type of restriction on what kind of speculative asset can be supported on a SC?  answer: no.  they are a form of dilution, hence inflation, to Bitcoin and will turn Bitcoin into a WoW trading platform.
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
August 16, 2015, 12:09:54 PM
It ignores the fact that for big blocks to be happening, there must already be 75% of hashing power signalling support for it. When that happens the first big block can be mined, before that bigger blocks are not mined.

So now you have 75% of the network working on a chain that supports bigger blocks and mining bigger blocks, whilst 25% try to mine a chain that only contains <1MB blocks.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out which chain will *very quickly* becomes longest.

you had to go and ruin it, didn't you? 
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
August 16, 2015, 12:07:31 PM
legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1007
August 16, 2015, 11:50:32 AM
Bitcoin XT (larger blocks) just moved into 3rd place:

legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
August 16, 2015, 11:49:19 AM
I can understand that theymos is in a very difficult spot - he is probably right (in a literal, technical sense) in the assertion that XT as a theory is on topic, but as a viable, downloadable solution it becomes an alt-coin. Until it reaches consensus,

But what troubles me is the zeal with which this policy is still being executed across the platforms. At this point, who really benefits from a suppression of debate?
(bear in mind that we are free to discuss it here and many other topics)

During the fall of the Berlin wall, there was a pivotal moment when the border guards finally recognised the futility of their duty, and allowed people through unchallenged.

Way out of the mess: Core adds a largeblock patch, different from gavins but who cares. Othere XT patches are delayed to make them look important.

If not, they go the way of the Xfree86 developers - into the fog.

Next fight is over the name. I suggest renaming XT to core by april depending on 75% supermajority as expressed by just doing it. Smiley



It would have to follow a BIP. But isnt this scenario what MH and GA wanted all along?  The failure to get this resulted in XT.

Exactly. It is the way out, no fork, everybody is happy (some just a tad butthurt).




i'm not sure about that.  no one, esp me, wants to live under a Blockstream totalitarian regime that only will act when they have a gun pointed at their heads.  look at some of the kludges they've slipped into the code w/o anyone knowing according to Hearn's forking article.
legendary
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1019
August 16, 2015, 11:43:43 AM

But if the old ledger will not preserve the XT ledger perfectly, what happens if suddenly the 75% drops 25% or otherwise? Why 75%?

Its not a moving target. Its a change point. If you want to change back, for whatever reason, you start a new process to get the network to follow you.

I see now. Thank you. Also just read about the 1000 blocks conditional.
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
Warning: Confrmed Gavinista
August 16, 2015, 11:41:36 AM

But if the old ledger will not preserve the XT ledger perfectly, what happens if suddenly the 75% drops 25% or otherwise? Why 75%?

Its not a moving target. Its a change point. If you want to change back, for whatever reason, you start a new process to get the network to follow you.
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
August 16, 2015, 11:38:43 AM
But I don't agree that 75% of hashrate or whatever is network consensus.

I predict that miners won't (vote to) change unless there is network consensus.



one down:

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3h6lk8/toomim_bros_supports_democracy_and_bitcoin_xt/
Pages:
Jump to: