Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 275. (Read 2032248 times)

I had the impression everyone's kind of joined in on the fight against the Lannisters (ruling party) who are inextricably tied to the bankers.

edit: Then I guess we have the Dragon Empire from across the sea, but they have their own messes to clean up before getting anywhere.

idk I'm only on episode 5

So the monero/side chain/MP cultists are the Lannisters? Wonder how that works out...

S. Korea is very small, rich, and high-tech; Seoul in particular is extremely densely populated (and utterly unsuited for mining at scale).

You might as well reason about all of Russian bandwidth in terms of Moscow's example, or all of America's in terms of San Francisco.

Contrary to popular opinion, the consensus mechanism for Bitcoin does not require a large super majority to set direction, any group of slightly more than 50% of participants can set direction. The reason is simple, in a 60/40 split the 40 can either fork away from the majority losing all ability to transact with the economic majority, or the 40 can follow the 60.

In the March 2013 it did not take a large super majority to switch from the 0.7 branch longest chain, if I remember correctly once roughly 50% of the hash rate switched to the shorter 0.8 branch, that was enough for the rest to see the direction and follow suit.

The polls I've seen show >80% of people are interest in 20MB blocks. If this 80 switches to 20MB blocks, the rest will follow. To not do so means becoming fully disconnected from the economic majority. Even if china represents 40% of the hashrate, they will follow the majority of users in the rest of the world. That is how consensus works. To not do so is economic suicide.

Is that how you deal with your flawed addition problem  I just pointed out? With ad hominems? iCE, stop being an idiot and trying to push Monero.

It has been your #1 argument. Sorry for blowing a large smoking hole through it.

Accommodating a minority of less than 100 nodes with the highest off blockchain transaction volume looks dependant on centralization, concentrated and not very resident. I find it ironic to think by keeping block small you feel they will achieve the goal of decentralization.  Yes they have 1.7% network diversity interest and are 98.3% dependent on political influence.

The problem is this minority have the attention of a centralized control system.

I lived for several years in Seoul and had a 100Mbps down / 10Mbps up connection for ~$15/month residential, commercial lines had more. Friends have told me they are now at 1Gbps connections.

20MB blocks translates to an average of  0.5Mbps. If miners in China have an issue with that then they have other problems.

Oh, and the entire mining farm only needs a small number of kpbs to connect to the pool node which can be anywhere.

The assumption seems to rest on the notion that if most miners were not interested in a particular fork, some sufficient fraction could and would attack it.  This is dubious for several reasons.  Among them, they would have to give up the value of mining on their favored chain.  Even if they were not able to mine it profitably (as has happened at least once in Bitcoin's history) they would still have to pay the costs out-of-pocket and hope that they could re-coup the money by ?.?.?.

One of the giant (and almost completely ignored) advantages a Bitcoin which is primarily used as a backing store has is that it can simply freeze for relatively long periods of time if a sufficiently troublesome attack is underway.  For the most part, the sidechains that Bitcoin backs can keep right on humming along an fap.doc can enjoy his latte.  A Bitcoin built to support every peon's real-time needs has no such luxury.  If Bitcoin itself is being supported by technically competent people well distributed around the world, and if there is good communications and transparency about the attack and the defenses being mounted to fend it off, end-users at the sidechain level (or Bitcoin level for that matter) can consider it a nuisance rather that a thing to be terribly concerned about.

p.s., I added the second para because in the event that XT was going and had significant firepower to deploy against Core (unlikely to last long even if it did come to pass) then Core still has relatively little to be concerned about.  Better defenses.  Defenses are what Bitcoin is (or should be) all about.  That's where the real enduring value lays...which fap.doc will learn to his dismay.

edit: slight

Look here you grumpy old fart.  You need to take your gingko and go on vacation, instead of requiring spoon-feeding in the manner of a vegetative nursing home resident.

You are constantly losing your shit and repeatedly requiring correction of your misapprehension of common knowledge and basic facts.

Watching gmax slap you around on reddit is Good Times, but a waste of his invaluable energy.  Likewise for tvbcof's, hdbuck's, and Marcus' disastrous attempts at informing and educating you.

If you stay, I suggest making a standing reservation in the burn ward.  Because GavinCoin is toast.  

Please stop telling us VanillaCoiners what our "#1" anti-GavinCoin argument is, or at least get it approximately correct.

#1 trade-offs with negative impacts on existing levels of diversity/diffusion/defensibility/resiliency
#2 UXTO explosion
#3 blocksize gaming, propagation, bandwidth, etc.

Asian Bitcoiners not only have influence in the political/social form, but also economic and technological.

They aren't using strong words; their circumspect quotes in the CT article are studiously measured, calm, and polite.

The presence of large mines/pools/exchanges outside the anglosphere is required to keep the system diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient.

Considering this, it seems to me that another ledger does not have to surpass a dominant ledger in any metric for it to coexist. When the culture of a collective strives for technological advances under the auspices of everlastingly standing against any nefarious PTB, I think this can challenge the thesis that there has to be one dominant ledger, at least immediately. Consider as an imperfect example: Apple vs. and Windows.

actually, there's no way f2pool, Eligius, and BTCPool add to 31% of the network.  i count 10% max and f2pool isn't even on the chart.

glad to hear you admit i'm right on the pt i was trying to make.  which was that increasing the block size will NOT lead to centralization.  that's yours and their's #1 argument out of the way.

now for your 31% of the network against:  Let them cry. Bitcoin is a force for good so if they want to allow themselves to be forked off the network through their local bandwidth problems, so be it. I say do something about it. It will give miners round the world a chance to level the playing field. And if Wall street really does want to get into Bitcoin, this will give them a chance to build their own mines which Fred Wilson recommended in the Andrew Ross Sorkin interview with Nathan Popper.  That would be a good thing too so as to further decentralize the process of mining and let the US into that game. Personally I think the Chinese gvt will allow their miners to step it up in terms of bandwidth eventually to stay competitive. Bitcoin is their chance to challenge the dollar which is why they haven't crushed it yet.

That's right!  Very good.  Now you know that, at minimum, ~31% of the network (f2pool + BTCChina + Eligius) are against mining GavinCoins.

BTCChina is also one of the largest exchanges.  The first line in the CT article says:


The combined defensive power of these huge pro-vanilla pools/mines/exchanges makes it more likely GavinCoin will get r3kt like Stannis on the Blackwater (perhaps thanks in part to MP's 'GavinCoin Short' wildfire WMD).

Like Bitcoin, only Monero's emission schedule is fixed (by social contract).  

In all other areas, both remain open to improvement, bound only by the constraint of community consensus.

You did not comprehend that I pointed out monopolization mechanisms by which the number of full nodes could even increase yet centralization could still occur.

You also don't seem to comprehend that the number of mining nodes has nothing to do with the fact that the consensus has the power to deny transactions. Bitcoin proponents depend on a diligent human action running full nodes that will fork or blacklist away from any malfeasance. But humans are more self-interested than they are collective goals focused, as the Logic Of Collective Action explains.

Your conceptualization revolving around the # of nodes and economic incentives equilibrium ignores the points I've made about the ability of the cartel to attain the exclusive lowest cost access to electricity and economies-of-scale on hardware optimization.

I've already explained how the incentive structure breaks in numerous scenarios. Do you have your ears covered?

BTCChina is the #3 pool miner, laggard.

whoosh, that just went right over your pinhead, didn't it?

i'm not arguing against what the Chinese miners are saying.  i'm listening to what they're saying and using that info to blow a huge hole in yours and the Blockstream devs #1 theory against large blocks, that being the large miner, large block attack they've so incessantly been wanking on about.  it's always been a dubious theory to me and now we have confirmation that it is even more ludicrous than i thought.  typical scare tactics from financially conflicted ppl such as yourself.

Bitcoin must remain concerned with "local bandwidth problems" in order to stay diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient.  Not that Gavinstas GAS about that these days; just saying for the record.

And if one cares to RTFA, one notices it contains quotes from major Chinese exchange operators, not "mine objections" (those came a couple of days ago, these are new; please try to keep up with the class).

The exchanges are key to GavinCoin's fate.  The more exchanges stay faithful to vanilla Bitcoin, the more power is given to MP's 'GavinCoin Short.'

Let me correct their statements to what they were trying to say...

The point of decentralization is that the nodes don't need to care or know, i.e. that decentralization is guaranteed by the protocol independent of any game theory the nodes play. That is a huge difference from requiring diligence and intelligence in order to remain decentralized, which in Logic of Collective Action will never be the outcome — not even once in 6000 years.

Bitcoin (and every crypto-coin I've studied) places too much power in the hands of the consensus and thus requires human diligence from the full nodes (or their functional analog in PoS) in order to remain decentralized.