Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 284.

Zangelbert Bingledack

legendary

Activity: 1036

Merit: 1000

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 04, 2015, 01:07:02 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 04, 2015, 10:59:07 AM

if ~~one's fundamental unit is~~ the full node ~~and~~is not the user, i think you're doing it wrong

I corrected that for you to stop violating the End-to-End Principle of networks.

...

An ideal crypto-coin would not violate Tim Berners-Lee's Principle of Least Power as Bitcoin egregiously does.

It would do the minimum necessary and leave as much autonomy as possible to the nodes. Ideally the nodes could even disagree about the issues you all are squabbling about and the minimum requirement would still be met.

It would be decentralized at any scale. It would scale to any level of transaction volume. It would not require any specific choice of crypto algorithm (nodes would be free to choose).

Anyone guessed my paradigm shift yet?

How do you create a network topology that is decentralized at any scale?

Natalia_AnatolioPAMM

full member

Activity: 280

Merit: 100

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 04, 2015, 01:05:23 PM

latest poll results "should the blocksize be raised?".
http://www.poll-maker.com/results329839xee274Cb0-12#tab-2:

quite obvious

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: Adrian-x on June 04, 2015, 01:17:43 PM

fiat 2.0, SDR's come on.

Hehe. Bitcoin is centralized, you are only obfuscating to yourself if you claim that it isn't.

The centralization was put in the wrong place in Bitcoin's design. Move it then the decentralization can control the centralization.

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 04, 2015, 01:07:02 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 04, 2015, 10:59:07 AM

i doubt that any cryptocoin can ever be on auto pilot as the crypto evolves as computerization advances. what is secure today won't be secure tomorrow thus requiring continual updating.

Quote from: Adrian-x on June 04, 2015, 12:19:55 PM

The voters are the nodes, some developers want to keep centralized control over the majority of the nodes, some developers realize this is bad, - maintaining control its either explicit, subconscious, or subverted.

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 04, 2015, 12:19:44 PM

this is why Satoshi talked about a slow progressive "versioning" update with the final features only being enabled after 8-12 mo or so when it's clear thru monitoring that most everyone has updated

i think it's really disingenuous for Greg to say so

Quote from: thezerg on June 04, 2015, 12:42:42 PM

if it CAN be done in 1 month, that speaks pretty negatively about decentralization... They are all marchin in step to the same drummer.

An ideal crypto-coin would not violate Tim Berners-Lee's Principle of Least Power as Bitcoin egregiously does.

It would do the minimum necessary and leave as much autonomy as possible to the nodes. Ideally the nodes could even disagree about the issues you all are squabbling about and the minimum requirement would still be met.

It would be decentralized at any scale. It would scale to any level of transaction volume. It would not require any specific choice of crypto algorithm (nodes would be free to choose).

Anyone guessed my paradigm shift yet?

fiat 2.0, SDR's come on.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 04, 2015, 01:05:23 PM

latest poll results "should the blocksize be raised?".
http://www.poll-maker.com/results329839xee274Cb0-12#tab-2:

looks where all the voters come from. does THIS look decentralized to you?:

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 04, 2015, 10:59:07 AM

if ~~one's fundamental unit is~~ the full node ~~and~~is not the user, i think you're doing it wrong

I corrected that for you to stop violating the End-to-End Principle of networks.

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 04, 2015, 10:59:07 AM

i doubt that any cryptocoin can ever be on auto pilot as the crypto evolves as computerization advances. what is secure today won't be secure tomorrow thus requiring continual updating.

Quote from: Adrian-x on June 04, 2015, 12:19:55 PM

The voters are the nodes, some developers want to keep centralized control over the majority of the nodes, some developers realize this is bad, - maintaining control its either explicit, subconscious, or subverted.

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 04, 2015, 12:19:44 PM

this is why Satoshi talked about a slow progressive "versioning" update with the final features only being enabled after 8-12 mo or so when it's clear thru monitoring that most everyone has updated

i think it's really disingenuous for Greg to say so

Quote from: thezerg on June 04, 2015, 12:42:42 PM

if it CAN be done in 1 month, that speaks pretty negatively about decentralization... They are all marchin in step to the same drummer.

An ideal crypto-coin would not violate Tim Berners-Lee's Principle of Least Power as Bitcoin egregiously does.

It would do the minimum necessary and leave as much autonomy as possible to the nodes. Ideally the nodes could even disagree about the issues you all are squabbling about and the minimum requirement would still be met.

It would be decentralized at any scale. It would scale to any level of transaction volume. It would not require any specific choice of crypto algorithm (nodes would be free to choose).

Anyone guessed my paradigm shift yet?

Stephen Gornick

legendary

Activity: 2506

Merit: 1010

Seeing a little about HayekGold from Anthem, ... uses Counterparty.
http://news.anthemvault.com/hayekcoin-becomes-hayekgold

http://www.businessinsider.com/hayek-cryptocurrency-backed-by-gold-2015-5

Once I have bought through Anthem, does this let me sell or transfer on my own? (i.e., over-the-counter, using a counterparty wallet)? Or am I simply only able to sell back to Anthem?

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

latest poll results "should the blocksize be raised?".
http://www.poll-maker.com/results329839xee274Cb0-12#tab-2:

thezerg

legendary

Activity: 1246

Merit: 1010

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 04, 2015, 12:35:55 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 04, 2015, 12:19:44 PM

Quote from: Zangelbert Bingledack on June 04, 2015, 12:14:30 PM

Quote from: thezerg on June 04, 2015, 11:35:21 AM

On another subject, the anti-expansionists think that we could hard fork in an emergency in a month. Maybe we should challenge them to prove it. Let's hard fork to 2MB (the smallest reasonable increase) or 2MB + 10% a year if they'll agree within a month. If that works, maybe I'll believe that we can do it quickly when it counts

That would have the advantage of quieting the extremists, like Mircea Popescu and his following, who refuse any change at all. Once we have made an upward change, that horse has left the stable.

Plus, if tx volume doesn't simply increase to fill the space but rather miners self-limit, it will suggest that a 20MB (or 8MB) limit isn't going to mess anything up either. It will also be progressively harder to argue for the "well-connected miners torment poorly connected miners with big blocks" attack. In many ways this will be the camel's nose under the tent, as well as serving the purpose you mentioned, that Greg and Luke claim we can hotfix on the fly (if we can, great, let's do that, but if not...).

it's SO obvious you cannot fork at the last minute. it's simply b/c a huge portion of the network won't get the memo to upgrade immediately. merchants will keep processing tx's that get forked off the network. chaos and confusion will occur. this is why Satoshi talked about a slow progressive "versioning" update with the final features only being enabled after 8-12 mo or so when it's clear thru monitoring that most everyone has updated. this is what we're doing right now with XT.

i think it's really disingenuous for Greg to say so. yet another black mark in my checkbook for him.

even if the network is lucky enough to get to the "last minute" before losing all it's customers from unconf tx's, tell me how you know you're there? apparently it will be decided by core devs like Greg. the obvious question is then, "where is the last minute?" if anything the last few weeks of contentious debate has demonstrated is that we can't decide on what the last minute will be even if we agree to wait until the last minute.

I agree with you, they probably won't be able to do it. But as ZB said this proposal breaks the "1MB because that's the way its been" mentality even if it happens in 3 months instead of 1, so that is a good thing. Ironically, if it CAN be done in 1 month, that speaks pretty negatively about decentralization -- in the same sense that all the different central banks don't make the system decentralized. They are all marchin in step to the same drummer.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 04, 2015, 12:19:44 PM

Quote from: Zangelbert Bingledack on June 04, 2015, 12:14:30 PM

Quote from: thezerg on June 04, 2015, 11:35:21 AM

On another subject, the anti-expansionists think that we could hard fork in an emergency in a month. Maybe we should challenge them to prove it. Let's hard fork to 2MB (the smallest reasonable increase) or 2MB + 10% a year if they'll agree within a month. If that works, maybe I'll believe that we can do it quickly when it counts

That would have the advantage of quieting the extremists, like Mircea Popescu and his following, who refuse any change at all. Once we have made an upward change, that horse has left the stable.

Plus, if tx volume doesn't simply increase to fill the space but rather miners self-limit, it will suggest that a 20MB (or 8MB) limit isn't going to mess anything up either. It will also be progressively harder to argue for the "well-connected miners torment poorly connected miners with big blocks" attack. In many ways this will be the camel's nose under the tent, as well as serving the purpose you mentioned, that Greg and Luke claim we can hotfix on the fly (if we can, great, let's do that, but if not...).

it's SO obvious you cannot fork at the last minute. it's simply b/c a huge portion of the network won't get the memo to upgrade immediately. merchants will keep processing tx's that get forked off the network. chaos and confusion will occur. this is why Satoshi talked about a slow progressive "versioning" update with the final features only being enabled after 8-12 mo or so when it's clear thru monitoring that most everyone has updated. this is what we're doing right now with XT.

i think it's really disingenuous for Greg to say so. yet another black mark in my checkbook for him.

even if the network is lucky enough to get to the "last minute" before losing all it's customers from unconf tx's, tell me how you know you're there? apparently it will be decided by core devs like Greg. the obvious question is then, "where is the last minute?" if anything the last few weeks of contentious debate has demonstrated is that we can't decide on what the last minute will be even if we agree to wait until the last minute.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

major dump going on. $DJI down -200

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: _mr_e on June 04, 2015, 11:23:55 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 04, 2015, 10:59:07 AM

Quote from: smooth on June 03, 2015, 08:33:50 PM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 03, 2015, 08:20:26 PM

The point is that coins aren't really done and on auto-pilot. They require ongoing upkeep from lead devs.

This is a good point, and part of why I consider all current crypto coins to be not ready for prime time. When something is truly on permanent auto-pilot then we can accept it is a working decentralized system.

MP's point about Bitcoin is, I think, that it should simply never be hard forked. If it fails, it fails, and perhaps is replaced by something better. But the idea of any developers having that kind of power is a fundamental failure of the concept. It's worth considering.

i doubt that any cryptocoin can ever be on auto pilot as the crypto evolves as computerization advances. what is secure today won't be secure tomorrow thus requiring continual updating.

the term hard fork is a bad one, imo. even after 6y, definitions amongst early adopters varies. in my mind, i think of them as necessary upgrades. they are in fact necessary over time as situations change and crypto cracking techniques mature. or even as the economic conditions change, like i think we are seeing now with the restrictions 1MB is causing.

the increasing block limit movement is Gavin responding to continued lobbying by the economic majority of Bitcoin users who are acting out of conditions in the real business world. the crypto-anarchists hate this. i get their point but as i've already said, if one's fundamental unit is the full node and not the user, i think you're doing it wrong. network work squaring effects will correlate with the user, not full nodes. we see this in all comparable models; Uber, AirBnB, Facebook, Twitter, etc. Full nodes are analogous to ACH or Swift which is simply the plumbing or transmission services for users.

small blocks are the ultimate in centralization. all you have to do is look at the system as it is today as a result of 1MB blocks; confined mainly to the 2 most regulated geographic regions of the world, the US & Europe. with usage still primarily by geeks. that's a recipe for heavy intervention by regualtion. who honestly thinks that Nasdaq will expand their trading systems while constrained to 3 tps? i think the Visa's and MC's are laughing at us while some of us fight hard to keep us constrained.

What will happen if companies like 21 inc litter the globe with their tech built into hardware devices? How could a hard fork ever work then?

Miners do what the nodes allow them to do.
Nodes are maintained by network users with an invested interest in preserving the value stored in the network.
The Network of users grows because Bitcoin does what it says on the can.
The many supporting Gavin are not the majority, the majority in Bitcoin is the economic majority and should be typical distributed over a typical bell curve.

The voters are the nodes, some developers want to keep centralized control over the majority of the nodes, some developers realize this is bad, - maintaining control its either explicit, subconscious, or subverted.

KNC just launched a chip that is 800% more efficient than there previous most efficient chip. Before 21 becomes a problem, KNC are going to become the new BTCGuild or GHash.io. they will also be eclipsed when inlet, AMD or someone Taiwanese breakaway chip manufacturer thinks there is an opportunity in Bitcoin.

So with the above in mind, i think that's a good idea so long as 21 are not cooperating with the Core developers who what to maintain centralized control, and if they are the problem is not 21, its centralized control of the code that runs the nodes.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Zangelbert Bingledack on June 04, 2015, 12:14:30 PM

Quote from: thezerg on June 04, 2015, 11:35:21 AM

On another subject, the anti-expansionists think that we could hard fork in an emergency in a month. Maybe we should challenge them to prove it. Let's hard fork to 2MB (the smallest reasonable increase) or 2MB + 10% a year if they'll agree within a month. If that works, maybe I'll believe that we can do it quickly when it counts

That would have the advantage of quieting the extremists, like Mircea Popescu and his following, who refuse any change at all. Once we have made an upward change, that horse has left the stable.

Plus, if tx volume doesn't simply increase to fill the space but rather miners self-limit, it will suggest that a 20MB (or 8MB) limit isn't going to mess anything up either. It will also be progressively harder to argue for the "well-connected miners torment poorly connected miners with big blocks" attack. In many ways this will be the camel's nose under the tent, as well as serving the purpose you mentioned, that Greg and Luke claim we can hotfix on the fly (if we can, great, let's do that, but if not...).

it's SO obvious you cannot fork at the last minute. it's simply b/c a huge portion of the network won't get the memo to upgrade immediately. merchants will keep processing tx's that get forked off the network. chaos and confusion will occur. this is why Satoshi talked about a slow progressive "versioning" update with the final features only being enabled after 8-12 mo or so when it's clear thru monitoring that most everyone has updated. this is what we're doing right now with XT.

i think it's really disingenuous for Greg to say so. yet another black mark in my checkbook for him.

Zangelbert Bingledack

legendary

Activity: 1036

Merit: 1000

Quote from: thezerg on June 04, 2015, 11:35:21 AM

On another subject, the anti-expansionists think that we could hard fork in an emergency in a month. Maybe we should challenge them to prove it. Let's hard fork to 2MB (the smallest reasonable increase) or 2MB + 10% a year if they'll agree within a month. If that works, maybe I'll believe that we can do it quickly when it counts

That would have the advantage of quieting the extremists, like Mircea Popescu and his following, who refuse any change at all. Once we have made an upward change, that horse has left the stable.

Plus, if tx volume doesn't simply increase to fill the space but rather miners self-limit, it will suggest that a 20MB (or 8MB) limit isn't going to mess anything up either. It will also be progressively harder to argue for the "well-connected miners torment poorly connected miners with big blocks" attack. In many ways this will be the camel's nose under the tent, as well as serving the purpose you mentioned, that Greg and Luke claim we can hotfix on the fly (if we can, great, let's do that, but if not...).

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: rocks on June 04, 2015, 10:54:36 AM

mixing does not have to be specified at the protocol level.

You apparently missed the upthread discussion about the intractable scaling problems in CoinJoin.

The mixing must be supported on chain otherwise it is not viable for a few reasons.

I don't want to repeat again. Search the thread for smooth's and my comments about CoinJoin.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Capitulating:

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 04, 2015, 05:03:14 AM

I don't agree with your apathy on whether cryptographers who invent anything that truly threatens TPTB will be made into examples.

Smooth I also don't think it is viable to murder dozens of open source programmers because it would be difficult to obscure on that scale and thus the hacker community would likely rise up and retaliate (and win!). But in terms of stopping an immediate threat or making an example out of a serious threat which can be done in an obfuscated manner so as to not wake up the entire community, I think it is a realistic consideration. Perhaps avoiding outcomes below is contingent on carefully accessing the situation the potential victim has placed himself into. For example, attack the Russian oligarchs and you will be overtly assassinated. Attack the CIA or NSA and they will weigh the cost of murdering versus the risk of waking up the sheeople.

If I felt the community wasn't so damn asleep, I wouldn't feel a need to be anonymous as a lead dev (of something that truly threatened TPTB).

Note I am concurring with smooth's stance up to the point of noting how the community abandoned Ross.

What they often do instead of murder you is send the IRS after you.

Strange Deaths Surrounding Wall Street

Teaching Encryption Could Soon to Be Illegal in Australia

Former kingpin Rick Ross talks Gary Webb’s death, C.I.A. complicity

Renowned investigative journalist Michael Hastings was working on story about CIA Chief John Brennan at the time of his mysterious death

WikiLeaks: Journalist Michael Hastings Under FBI Investigation Before Death

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/15929-journalist-probing-nsa-and-cia-abuses-dies-in-mysterious-crash

https://www.google.com/search?q=death+of+Gary+Webb

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Shane_Todd

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Politkovskaya#Murder.2C_investigation_and_trial

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexander_Litvinenko

"...Kondratieff was taken outside and then shot to death at the age of 46..."

Aaron Swartz – A Voice of Freedom Silenced

Who Killed Michael Hastings?

Mystery grows: Journalist died prepping Obama exposé

Ross Ulbricht's life sentence and the following drug syndicate execution of an investigative reporter are intentionally brutal public displays designed to discourage others who might serious threats to monopolies. Ross Ulbricht's Silk Road was a serious threat to the economic monopoly of the global elite.

"...having his hands, arms, and legs severed with a sword while still alive; and then had his body placed within tires, covered in gasoline and set on fire – a practice that traffickers have dubbed micro-ondas (allusion to the microwave oven..."

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 04, 2015, 04:27:24 AM

Quote from: hdbuck on June 04, 2015, 03:44:47 AM

and this is fun: NSA errwhere! Grin

> http://imgur.com/a/9CAfo <

how about that freedom^TM act? US people happy?

Sorry for the noise. I can't resist commenting that is simultaneously hilarious and sobering (or exciting depending...).

I hadn't scrolled down until you reposed, i just read the tweet on my phone and now scrolled down, this is crazy, after checking it out I cant but think with more conviction that the days of typical PR spin are so over, politicians look more like puppets with teleprompters than ever before, corner on of them as ask a few pertinent question on camera and they melt. - after this you don't even need real people you can just insert a stock photos, anyone can and there dog can play, this is crazy.

I think the level of insight and ideas expressed here is genuine on another level.

I think you all have expressed loads of insight, and the fact you don't seem to get alone when its a full moon keeps me on my toes.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

bond carnage. who can see the pattern, let alone the divergence with the $DJI?:

thezerg

legendary

Activity: 1246

Merit: 1010

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 04, 2015, 11:26:27 AM

Quote from: _mr_e on June 04, 2015, 11:23:55 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 04, 2015, 10:59:07 AM

Quote from: smooth on June 03, 2015, 08:33:50 PM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 03, 2015, 08:20:26 PM

The point is that coins aren't really done and on auto-pilot. They require ongoing upkeep from lead devs.

This is a good point, and part of why I consider all current crypto coins to be not ready for prime time. When something is truly on permanent auto-pilot then we can accept it is a working decentralized system.

MP's point about Bitcoin is, I think, that it should simply never be hard forked. If it fails, it fails, and perhaps is replaced by something better. But the idea of any developers having that kind of power is a fundamental failure of the concept. It's worth considering.

i doubt that any cryptocoin can ever be on auto pilot as the crypto evolves as computerization advances. what is secure today won't be secure tomorrow thus requiring continual updating.

the term hard fork is a bad one, imo. even after 6y, definitions amongst early adopters varies. in my mind, i think of them as necessary upgrades. they are in fact necessary over time as situations change and crypto cracking techniques mature. or even as the economic conditions change, like i think we are seeing now with the restrictions 1MB is causing.

the increasing block limit movement is Gavin responding to continued lobbying by the economic majority of Bitcoin users who are acting out of conditions in the real business world. the crypto-anarchists hate this. i get their point but as i've already said, if one's fundamental unit is the full node and not the user, i think you're doing it wrong. network work squaring effects will correlate with the user, not full nodes. we see this in all comparable models; Uber, AirBnB, Facebook, Twitter, etc. Full nodes are analogous to ACH or Swift which is simply the plumbing or transmission services for users.

small blocks are the ultimate in centralization. all you have to do is look at the system as it is today as a result of 1MB blocks; confined mainly to the 2 most regulated geographic regions of the world, the US & Europe. with usage still primarily by geeks. that's a recipe for heavy intervention by regualtion. who honestly thinks that Nasdaq will expand their trading systems while constrained to 3 tps? i think the Visa's and MC's are laughing at us while some of us fight hard to keep us constrained.

What will happen if companies like 21 inc litter the globe with their tech built into hardware devices? How could a hard fork ever work then?

those chips will work off sha256 initially simply as hashing units but then the good news is that everybody update their phones every 2 yr, or in my case every yr, and new chips can be built in as continual upgrades if we need to change to a diff hashing algo.

Nobody is going to put the protocol in hardware -- its not conducive to such.

On another subject, the anti-expansionists think that we could hard fork in an emergency in a month. Maybe we should challenge them to prove it. Let's hard fork to 2MB (the smallest reasonable increase) or 2MB + 10% a year if they'll agree within a month. If that works, maybe I'll believe that we can do it quickly when it counts

Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 284. (Read 2032266 times)