i really like these guys. doing actual analysis and simulations. bottom line: we don't have much time:
https://tradeblock.com/blog/bitcoin-network-capacity-analysis-part-4-simulating-practical-capacity
Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 242. (Read 2032248 times)
I don't get all this hand-wringing about hard forks.
Everyone is paranoid that their fork won't be popular (whether among end-users or miners).
They seem to forget that on a world scale, nobody gives a crap about bitcoin still. Whether your fork occupies 0.0004% or 0.00004% of the world money supply is a rather minor distinction.
Look at it another way, would it be that horrible if your fork of bitcoin was "only" as popular as bitcoin was in 2011? That didn't stop anyone in 2011. And your fork would be way easier to use than bitcoin was then.
Put yet another way, I'd rather bitcoin be "right" than "popular". Whichever fork is what I want, that's what I'm going to use. If I wanted a "popular" currency and payment system, the dollar and Visa would be obvious choices, but that's not what any of us want.
Everyone is paranoid that their fork won't be popular (whether among end-users or miners).
They seem to forget that on a world scale, nobody gives a crap about bitcoin still. Whether your fork occupies 0.0004% or 0.00004% of the world money supply is a rather minor distinction.
Look at it another way, would it be that horrible if your fork of bitcoin was "only" as popular as bitcoin was in 2011? That didn't stop anyone in 2011. And your fork would be way easier to use than bitcoin was then.
Put yet another way, I'd rather bitcoin be "right" than "popular". Whichever fork is what I want, that's what I'm going to use. If I wanted a "popular" currency and payment system, the dollar and Visa would be obvious choices, but that's not what any of us want.
and therein lies the answer of which fork will be most popular and will win at the end of the day. hint: look at the polls.
in other words, devs can dev all they want but they won't if they aren't being funded.
You just did it again!
If popularity means winning, then we might as well all go home. I hate to break it to you, but bitcoin is terribly, terribly unpopular. At best, 0.01% of the world has used it.
The whole reason we're still here is that we want tools that work for us, and if the whole world decides to join us, great! If not, it'll go on just fine as a niche product.
I personally think bitcoin can be a much better-known niche product than it is today, but it will always be niche. And not just due to limitations on bandwidth. Consensus takes time. If you're willing to trust a 3rd party (no consensus needed!), they can run circles around bitcoin. They don't yet, but they could.
Bitcoin will become the pressure relief valve. If banks and governments don't give us a fair deal, we use bitcoin instead. Bitcoin will never be the default though, it will always be the censorship-resistance tool.
marcus of augustus stooping to new lows:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/39bwwn/arguments_in_the_bitcoin_block_size_debate_an/cs2f6fm
talking about bitcoin-killing extensions, game overs, and ELE "extinction level events"
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/39bwwn/arguments_in_the_bitcoin_block_size_debate_an/cs2f6fm
talking about bitcoin-killing extensions, game overs, and ELE "extinction level events"
Is it FUD if the dangers are real, clear and present?
Forewarned is forearmed. Anybody who wants to run on the XT fork deserves to know the dangers they are getting themselves into. Attempting to censor me through intimidation is not going to work.
MoA, I've appreciated your past comments here, but think you are wrong on the XT fork paranoia . These replies to you over in Reddit explain why the fork is fine and how you can verify it.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/394fn1/mike_hearn_in_about_1_week_bitcoin_xt_will/cs0fvmd
this is really funny since i immediately suggested this to MofA weeks ago when he protested when XT got announced. and i am not a coder. i can go back and get the quote if anyone doubts me:
Hearns:
You can easily use "diff -ur" to see the differences, or use the git command line (eg "git diff 0.10.2A..upstream/master"), or just look at the commits as they are all rebased onto the top of the upstream branch.
marcus of augustus stooping to new lows:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/39bwwn/arguments_in_the_bitcoin_block_size_debate_an/cs2f6fm
talking about bitcoin-killing extensions, game overs, and ELE "extinction level events"
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/39bwwn/arguments_in_the_bitcoin_block_size_debate_an/cs2f6fm
talking about bitcoin-killing extensions, game overs, and ELE "extinction level events"
Is it FUD if the dangers are real, clear and present?
Forewarned is forearmed. Anybody who wants to run on the XT fork deserves to know the dangers they are getting themselves into. Attempting to censor me through intimidation is not going to work.
MoA, I've appreciated your past comments here, but think you are wrong on the XT fork paranoia . These replies to you over in Reddit explain why the fork is fine and how you can verify it.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/394fn1/mike_hearn_in_about_1_week_bitcoin_xt_will/cs0fvmd
brutal anti-silverbox move:
I don't get all this hand-wringing about hard forks.
Everyone is paranoid that their fork won't be popular (whether among end-users or miners).
They seem to forget that on a world scale, nobody gives a crap about bitcoin still. Whether your fork occupies 0.0004% or 0.00004% of the world money supply is a rather minor distinction.
Look at it another way, would it be that horrible if your fork of bitcoin was "only" as popular as bitcoin was in 2011? That didn't stop anyone in 2011. And your fork would be way easier to use than bitcoin was then.
Put yet another way, I'd rather bitcoin be "right" than "popular". Whichever fork is what I want, that's what I'm going to use. If I wanted a "popular" currency and payment system, the dollar and Visa would be obvious choices, but that's not what any of us want.
Everyone is paranoid that their fork won't be popular (whether among end-users or miners).
They seem to forget that on a world scale, nobody gives a crap about bitcoin still. Whether your fork occupies 0.0004% or 0.00004% of the world money supply is a rather minor distinction.
Look at it another way, would it be that horrible if your fork of bitcoin was "only" as popular as bitcoin was in 2011? That didn't stop anyone in 2011. And your fork would be way easier to use than bitcoin was then.
Put yet another way, I'd rather bitcoin be "right" than "popular". Whichever fork is what I want, that's what I'm going to use. If I wanted a "popular" currency and payment system, the dollar and Visa would be obvious choices, but that's not what any of us want.
and therein lies the answer of which fork will be most popular and will win at the end of the day. hint: look at the polls.
in other words, devs can dev all they want but they won't if they aren't being funded.
I don't get all this hand-wringing about hard forks.
Everyone is paranoid that their fork won't be popular (whether among end-users or miners).
They seem to forget that on a world scale, nobody gives a crap about bitcoin still. Whether your fork occupies 0.0004% or 0.00004% of the world money supply is a rather minor distinction.
Look at it another way, would it be that horrible if your fork of bitcoin was "only" as popular as bitcoin was in 2011? That didn't stop anyone in 2011. And your fork would be way easier to use than bitcoin was then.
Put yet another way, I'd rather bitcoin be "right" than "popular". Whichever fork is what I want, that's what I'm going to use. If I wanted a "popular" currency and payment system, the dollar and Visa would be obvious choices, but that's not what any of us want.
Everyone is paranoid that their fork won't be popular (whether among end-users or miners).
They seem to forget that on a world scale, nobody gives a crap about bitcoin still. Whether your fork occupies 0.0004% or 0.00004% of the world money supply is a rather minor distinction.
Look at it another way, would it be that horrible if your fork of bitcoin was "only" as popular as bitcoin was in 2011? That didn't stop anyone in 2011. And your fork would be way easier to use than bitcoin was then.
Put yet another way, I'd rather bitcoin be "right" than "popular". Whichever fork is what I want, that's what I'm going to use. If I wanted a "popular" currency and payment system, the dollar and Visa would be obvious choices, but that's not what any of us want.
would the brainless stop perseverating over MPEX?
anyone who tries to manipulate the mkts like they're threatening to do will get creamed.
anyone who tries to manipulate the mkts like they're threatening to do will get creamed.
even under the "benevolent dictator" scenario, that principal core dev would not control Bitcoin and it would not be decentralized.
the decentralization comes from all the full nodes, miners, and user base which is spread round the world with the economic majority calling the shots of which the "benevolent dictator" must listen and respond to otherwise someone just creates a hard fork to which the economic majority will migrate to all possible b/c of open source and Satoshi's original design.
which is why we need to stick to Satoshi's original vision and reject bastardizations of it like SC's.
the decentralization comes from all the full nodes, miners, and user base which is spread round the world with the economic majority calling the shots of which the "benevolent dictator" must listen and respond to otherwise someone just creates a hard fork to which the economic majority will migrate to all possible b/c of open source and Satoshi's original design.
which is why we need to stick to Satoshi's original vision and reject bastardizations of it like SC's.
Did Satoshi's vision include kludging around the problem that the 'correct' chain may not be the longest one and it might be necessary to feed auxiliary data to SPV clients such that they could make choose the appropriate choice (since, of course, the user is incapable of doing so on his own?)
Just curious because your 'benevolent dictator' seems to see it as a distinct enough possibility to publicly muse about.
I would suggest that once such a solution was in place, it would be an extra tool in the taint-coin toolbox even if abstract layer economic methods themselves failed to do the job. The economic-only methods themselves might fail if Bitcoin cannot be bloated sufficiently so it would be good to have a back-up I suppose.
depending on what majority % XT decides to turn on the large block setting, i don't think the bolded part will happen. if enough of the economic majority switched to XT the others would have to follow.
Cypherdoc I have a better suggestion. How about we observe what happens? And you shut up.
I doubt your arguments have been informational enough to impact any of the key actors in this process.
I doubt your arguments have been informational enough to impact any of the key actors in this process.
I don't think Cypherdoc the guy with the microphone and an auditorium full of devotees, I think the people you want to shut up are the minority being paid $21M to spread there version of Bitcoin.
I'd condone your approach if you asked them to shut up.
Why should we stop pegged side chains (and can we)? What is the problem with them? Refer to my prior post for my logic.
Anything that pegged side chains have the power to do, can be done even without Blockstream. The beans have been spilled.
Cypherdoc I have a better suggestion. How about we observe what happens? And you shut up.
I doubt your arguments have been informational enough to impact any of the key actors in this process.
I doubt your arguments have been informational enough to impact any of the key actors in this process.
I don't think Cypherdoc the guy with the microphone and an auditorium full of devotees, I think the people you want to shut up are the minority being paid $21M to spread there version of Bitcoin.
I'd condone your approach if you asked them to shut up.
Why should we stop pegged side chains (and can we)? What is the problem with them? Refer to my prior post for my logic.
Anything that pegged side chains have the power to do, can be done even without Blockstream. The beans have been spilled.
Cypherdoc I have a better suggestion. How about we observe what happens? And you shut up.
I doubt your arguments have been informational enough to impact any of the key actors in this process.
I doubt your arguments have been informational enough to impact any of the key actors in this process.
I don't think Cypherdoc the guy with the microphone and an auditorium full of devotees, I think the people you want to shut up are the minority being paid $21M to spread there version of Bitcoin.
I'd condone your approach if you asked them to shut up.
tvbcof, I liked your upthread point that Bitcoin is really about who has the power to do shit.
Pegged side chains are apparently coming without any changes to Core source.
As for larger blocks, apparently no one has enough power to make this happen. MPEX will make it a war of attrition until pegged side chains arrive.
After that GavinCoin can be launched as a pegged side chain (which MPEX can't attack due to the peg) and the market can vote.
So why is Cypherdoc wasting our time?
Pegged side chains are apparently coming without any changes to Core source.
As for larger blocks, apparently no one has enough power to make this happen. MPEX will make it a war of attrition until pegged side chains arrive.
After that GavinCoin can be launched as a pegged side chain (which MPEX can't attack due to the peg) and the market can vote.
So why is Cypherdoc wasting our time?
Does Mike Hearn really control Bitcoin?
...
I can only speak to my observations, but it really does seem to me that at this point Mike Hearn controls Gavin Andresen as effectively as a hand inserted into a sock controls a puppet. This was not always the case, but it seems (to me) that within the last year or so it has become very hard to not notice.
Now controlling Mr. Andresen is not equivalent to controlling Bitcoin (thank God!) and the frustration of this seems to be showing on Mr. Hearn, but it is a relatively potent tool. And 'if all one has is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail' as they say.
even under the "benevolent dictator" scenario, that principal core dev would not control Bitcoin and it would not be decentralized.
the decentralization comes from all the full nodes, miners, and user base which is spread round the world with the economic majority calling the shots of which the "benevolent dictator" must listen and respond to otherwise someone just creates a hard fork to which the economic majority will migrate to all possible b/c of open source and Satoshi's original design.
which is why we need to stick to Satoshi's original vision and reject bastardizations of it like SC's.
the decentralization comes from all the full nodes, miners, and user base which is spread round the world with the economic majority calling the shots of which the "benevolent dictator" must listen and respond to otherwise someone just creates a hard fork to which the economic majority will migrate to all possible b/c of open source and Satoshi's original design.
which is why we need to stick to Satoshi's original vision and reject bastardizations of it like SC's.
Did Satoshi's vision include kludging around the problem that the 'correct' chain may not be the longest one and it might be necessary to feed auxiliary data to SPV clients such that they could make choose the appropriate choice (since, of course, the user is incapable of doing so on his own?)
Just curious because your 'benevolent dictator' seems to see it as a distinct enough possibility to publicly muse about.
I would suggest that once such a solution was in place, it would be an extra tool in the taint-coin toolbox even if abstract layer economic methods themselves failed to do the job. The economic-only methods themselves might fail if Bitcoin cannot be bloated sufficiently so it would be good to have a back-up I suppose.
Cypherdoc I have a better suggestion. How about we observe what happens? And you shut up.
I doubt your arguments have been informational enough to impact any of the key actors in this process.
I doubt your arguments have been informational enough to impact any of the key actors in this process.
all of the armchair logic spewed forth from financially conflicted logisticians, including myself, are invalid until "proven" otherwise. the only reliable, proven scheme that has worked to this day is Satoshi's original blockchain which has been constructed with the proper incentives. this proven mainchain should be nurtured, cherished, protected at all costs to avoid subversion.
even under the "benevolent dictator" scenario, that principal core dev would not control Bitcoin and it would not be decentralized.
the decentralization comes from all the full nodes, miners, and user base which is spread round the world with the economic majority calling the shots of which the "benevolent dictator" must listen and respond to otherwise someone just creates a hard fork to which the economic majority will migrate to all possible b/c of open source and Satoshi's original design.
the decentralization comes from all the full nodes, miners, and user base which is spread round the world with the economic majority calling the shots of which the "benevolent dictator" must listen and respond to otherwise someone just creates a hard fork to which the economic majority will migrate to all possible b/c of open source and Satoshi's original design.
Overreaching diatribes that don't analyze the details are devoid of information.
There are many, many ways what you wrote about is not necessarily true. I've detailed several scenarios for control via centralization upthread (and Hearn might be one head of a centralization-by-regulation monster).
Yet it seems you are arguing that your hero Gavin (and Satoshi) has (have) no power.
even under the "benevolent dictator" scenario, that principal core dev would not control Bitcoin and it would not be decentralized.
the decentralization comes from all the full nodes, miners, and user base which is spread round the world with the economic majority calling the shots of which the "benevolent dictator" must listen and respond to otherwise someone just creates a hard fork to which the economic majority will migrate to all possible b/c of open source and Satoshi's original design.
which is why we need to stick to Satoshi's original vision and reject bastardizations of it like SC's.
the decentralization comes from all the full nodes, miners, and user base which is spread round the world with the economic majority calling the shots of which the "benevolent dictator" must listen and respond to otherwise someone just creates a hard fork to which the economic majority will migrate to all possible b/c of open source and Satoshi's original design.
which is why we need to stick to Satoshi's original vision and reject bastardizations of it like SC's.
Is XMR tracking BTC with the same ROI?
My point is that side chains on XMR is silly. XMR needs to leverage BTC side chains.
The interesting thing about sidechains is that the could be backed by anything. As a matter of fact, almost anything would be a better choice than a Bitcoin which is under management by Mike Hearn since the one thing which a backing store (be it gold, crypto, whatever) cannot tolerate are fungibility problems and they are the next phase in XT and probably the next item of focus if he get's Bitcoin moved under them.
If the idea of moving Bitcoin under XT does not become DOA, I'll have to bite the bullet and start researching alts. I doubt that the Blockstream guys are going to just crawl away and die in the unlikely event that Hearn wins and Bitcoin becomes XT. And I suspect that the Blockstream guys will see very clearly the impossibility of using XT as a sidechain backing solution.
There is always MP's 'real core' project which, as a hodler, I would be a default part of. I'm bored of Bitcoin as a fairly useless toy for the elite however and really would like to see a way for it to be put to a more broad use for humanity. Without killing it of course.
Does Mike Hearn really control Bitcoin?
In my mind, BTC is owned by the community and the community will assert its will via the voting for Blockstream pegged side chains economically.
Once I realized there is a way for altcoins to leverage pegged BTC side chains without being subsumed by them, then it all appears to fit synergistically together in a competitive ecosystem. One of the key innovations needed is to eliminate the 50% attack so that side chains aren't hostage nor hold Core hostage.
Thanks for pushing my initial (incomplete) thinking on side chains.
Jump to: