Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 247. (Read 2032248 times)

but that's a very good thing.  what's Gavin's proposal code change require?  changing a setting?

whereas SC's requires encrypting everything, changing the signature scheme, enabling over a dozen unpredictable OP_CODES, depending on the altruism of merge mining, risking pass thru scBTC on a less secure SC, draining value and fees away from MC, seriously changing the emphasis from sound money to speculation.

did i miss any?

i'll be damned.  i was gonna just post exactly this based on that quote that popped into my head.

which goes back to a previous concern of how nullc spends inordinate amounts of time politicking on forums.  amazing actually.

Yes, a little more complex then increase number to 20M :-).

I don't think they see it the way you do, pointing it out like you did brought it to my attention, although i read those same words, all i thought of was nullc writing pages and pages trying to prove his motives are consistent with a time when blockstream hadn't registered. he failed to address the fact he conserved of the idea back then too.  

he has in my view admired to tampering with evidence to prove allegations of a conflict of interest wrong.

I feel incentivized to run a full node for economic reasons, the economic reason is to preserve my savings, while I may be ensuring that part of Bitcoin’s market cap of 3.2 billion dollars is in sync with some 6000 nodes. That’s a half million dollars of responsibility I'm giving the network at my own expense, - that's a win win - i don't see it an a non economic motive. 

I listened to it.  It was a near continuous stream of desperate lies and deceit.  It was so pathetic it almost made me sad for him as he has made some significant contributions over the years.  He's lost and he knows it.

What's really funny is that the guy even realizes he might need to kludge around a POW minority problem.    Maybe he can leverage some of the federated work that Blockstream has graciously open-sourced.  Or talk with justusranvier about getting their oracle thingy put in place for XT.

I like the term "cypher-space" over dark web.  Just saying.

I agree with the reasons, (lack of/creation of other options, and yes cost).  I am running fewer full nodes myself now than even two years ago.

I say you have spoken like a true agent, Silk Road is dark web stuff.

One interesting quote there:
"The blocksize debate if anything substantially slowed the release, absorbing mindbogglingly enormous amounts of time, and also having avoid including some scaling tools to avoid people getting confused that sidechains themselves were a scaling answer."

In the process of trying to show how they are not a conflict of interest, he uses a conflict of interest (time devoted).
The thing is, he is right sidechains are only a factor in scaling, but they aren't the answer.  They do provide for some scaling, but not at all a full solution.

They waste a lot of time trying to claim that there isn't a conflict of interest.  The better method is to simply acknowledge it and move on.  People are fairly accepting of the risk for now, but their efforts to fight it and claim it doesn't exist both make them look foolish and waste their time.

i haven't seen is there an FAQ or something that i can read that will convince me I'm wrong, no one has addressed my concerns people like nullc retort and call my concerns personal attacks wrought with deformation, I've asked for a peer reviewed economic study on the impact of the proposed SPV proof protocol change, and been met with "that will never happen".

I think you are living in a circle jerk bubble.

did you listen to the Mike Hearn interview on Epicenter Bitcoin?  he says the measuring methods used back then were poor and primitive and likely overestimated the #full nodes probably well under 100K.  today its better and we're at around 6086.

it's also downtrended mainly b/c of the proliferation of spv clients, imo.

I know, but it was still worth it.
Its a downward trend for years.  Whether/when it levels or begins increasing, and under what conditions will prove interesting.  Don't you think?

yes and nullc wont sell out and abandon Bitcoin if the general community was to move in a direction he defined as suicidal.  Great leader wannabe, what's the market cap of Bitcoin, some $3,000,000,000 i don't think he thinks about the capital he is playing with.

Put another way, Bitcoin was a peer-2-peer solution back in the early days before the embrace-extend-extinguish folks produced and popularized their MultiBitch client.  Thanks God they didn't get their bloatchain dream into place, but it was not for lack of trying.

This needs to be proved, It doesn't appear to be true, any business relationship is based on trust. The federated service will be (should become) as trusted as the service or product you purchase 100% dependent on reputation.

e.g. if i buy a particular security (product / service) I trust (1) it is what it is, this is reputation and then I must trust the person proposing the business opportunity, trust (2), this is reputation.
If trust (2) can be violated, guaranteeing trust (1) is irrelevant because it was misrepresented by an abuse of reputation. arguing that we need SideChains to increase trust (1) is not a valid reason to reduce trust, we still are reliant on reputation.

Gmax and Lukejr and other SC proponents see trust (1) as a holy grail, news flash, the mortgage backed securities if constructed in a trust free "blockchain technology" environment would still be dependent on the reputation of subjective evaluations and selling false promises.  

solving the reputation dilemma is more valuable to society, this technology without Federated servers is not innovation in trustlessness, just because it is done in a trust free way using SPV proofs doesn't solve the problem of trust as reputation, if anything it allows reputation to go unscathed as the SPV proof executed a multistig contract that was agreed, it executed flawlessly as both parties agreed, too bad you trusted some subjective AAA reputation system.

250K was not due to economic incentives. There was no choice back then.

In the great Bitcoin experiment of ours...
It is increasingly likely that we will experience a scarcity market for transactions, at least for a time.
It will be some interesting data.
I doubt it will be the 'end of bitcoin', or whatever the rush to increase folks are worrying over.

Full node volume has declined from a high point of about 250K in 2011 to maybe less than 10K nodes?
With the only incentives for running a full node being non-economic, primarily informational or possibly security concerns, it will be interesting to see if that rate of decline stabilizes somewhere.

from a cursory look there are only 2 novel proposed opcodes, namely:

• A new DETERMINISTICRANDOM operation which produces a random number within a range from a seed.
• A new CHECKSIGFROMSTACK operation which verifies a signature against a message on the stack, rather than the spending transaction itself.

all the rest are OPCODEs that were disabled in 2010 due to security concerns.
 

what you're referring to with blinded amount? signature http://elementsproject.org/#signature-covers-value

edit: or "confidential transaction" (http://elementsproject.org/#confidential-transactions) ?

i thought this was great:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/395r7h/the_real_reason_for_not_reaching_consensus_on/cs0vgxe

the best part:  "Decentralization is so important that as adoption grows we must force everyone toward centralization." It's ludicrous.