Author

Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 289. (Read 2032266 times)

legendary
Activity: 1153
Merit: 1000
June 03, 2015, 06:10:44 PM
from Jameson Lopp an hour ago:

https://i.imgur.com/kX1Ed19.png

That is scary. March 2016 is looking more and more that it might be too late.

But I'm sure the blockstream guys only see the emergence of fee pressure that will push people onto sidechains.

The whole blocksize debate has been theoretical so far. But once people's transactions start to backlog the discussion will take a very different turn. People want to be able to transaction directly with Bitcoin in an affordable manner. That is the entire ethos of the project.

tvbcof
marcus
iCE
kazuki


I'm afraid it is you who cannot comprehend that there are a big disadvantages with big blocks.

Brute force (increasing block size limit) is not a solution .. we need something smarter than  "The bigger stone the bigger hammer"

edit: 100 kg hammer is not practical :-)
edit2: we need jackhammer

No one is suggesting massive jackhammer blocks to put every coffee cup transaction on the planet into the blockchain.

Yes there is a balance between everything on the blockchain and something smarter.

But something smarter still requires much larger than 1MB blocks, and 20MB blocks is in no manner a dumb jackhammer that kicks people off the network. I have a crappy home network and will still be able to function fine with 20MB blocks.

Something smarter is also not available today. Options that do not exist and are ready today are not solutions to be discussed. 20MB blocks provides breathing room to find a smart balance. That balance BTW will very likely settle on even larger blocks.

Not creating that breathing room starves Bitcoin today of usage, usage that it needs to constantly grow.
legendary
Activity: 1153
Merit: 1000
June 03, 2015, 06:04:58 PM
bad smell all over xt ... note it is not even a faithful branch fork of the main bitcoin repo look https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt at the main link, if it was fork it would have a link beneath it to the git repo it was forked from. So what? you might ask, software forking with git trackinng is subtle ... what this means is there is no way to easily know what has and hasn't been left out of XT that was in Core ... why do that? Git is a system of hashing every commit so you can easily verify every commit back to the original source dump and know it hasn't been messed with, exactly like a block hash chain Wink ... XT has branched in such a way you will never really easily know how it is different from Core, except for, yes you guessed it, "just trust us".

On the front page you can tell things have been changed that have nothing to do with "only 3 major differences" there is a file called "pkg.m4"https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/blob/0.10.2A/pkg.m4 that was removed from Core because of erroneous behaviour that made every system it was built on to default to using it instead of the system pkg.m4 ... why put broken behaviour back in? Maybe some bad coding reasons but way too much fishy shit right on the front page of XT to trust in the slightest. Removed files put back in, and not a correct, verifiable fork of Core, it looks dodgy as all heck. If it was just some anonymous guy on the internet I would expect coins to go missing immediately if you ran this code.

The other reason is to simply get on the path of being a fully independent implementation that breaks ties with the Satoshi client. As per yesterday's discussion multiple independently developed implementations is a good thing. Sure with multiple implementations there is the risk that one or more are controlled by negative actors, but overall the risk of negative actors taking over is much less with several implementations than one dominate implementation.
hero member
Activity: 798
Merit: 1000
June 03, 2015, 05:50:17 PM
bad smell all over xt ... note it is not even a faithful branch fork of the main bitcoin repo look https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt at the main link, if it was fork it would have a link beneath it to the git repo it was forked from. So what? you might ask, software forking is subtle ... what this means is there is no way to easily know what has and hasn't been left out out of XT that was in Core ... why do that?

On the front page you can tell things have been changed that have nothing to do with "only 3 major difference" there is a file called "pkg.m4"https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/blob/0.10.2A/pkg.m4 that was removed from Core because of erroneous behaviour that made every system it was built on to default to using it instead of the system pkg.m4 ... why put broken behaviour back in? Maybe some bad coding reasons but way too much fishy shit right on the front page of XT to trust in the slightest. Removed files put back in, and not a correct, verifiable fork of Core, it looks dodgy as all heck. If it was just some anonymous guy on the internet I would expect coins to go missing immediately if you ran this code.



To me this seems like more fear-mongering from you  m_o_a
Just like when you told us that BitStamp would never come back after the hack as they were all crooks (I am not going to waste my time digging out your post, but you know what you said)
I don't know the truth of the matter, but I don't trust your judgement either. I have seen it to be negatively biased on more than one occasion, enough to make me think that you have your own (unspoken) agenda here

"just trust us" (your ninja edit) ... I don't trust you
legendary
Activity: 3920
Merit: 2349
Eadem mutata resurgo
June 03, 2015, 05:43:17 PM
bad smell all over xt ... note it is not even a faithful branch fork of the main bitcoin repo look https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt at the main link, if it was fork it would have a link beneath it to the git repo it was forked from. So what? you might ask, software forking with git trackinng is subtle ... what this means is there is no way to easily know what has and hasn't been left out of XT that was in Core ... why do that? Git is a system of hashing every commit so you can easily verify every commit back to the original source dump and know it hasn't been messed with, exactly like a block hash chain Wink ... XT has branched in such a way you will never really easily know how it is different from Core, except for, yes you guessed it, "just trust us".

On the front page you can tell things have been changed that have nothing to do with "only 3 major differences" there is a file called "pkg.m4"https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/blob/0.10.2A/pkg.m4 that was removed from Core because of erroneous behaviour that made every system it was built on to default to using it instead of the system pkg.m4 ... why put broken behaviour back in? Maybe some bad coding reasons but way too much fishy shit right on the front page of XT to trust in the slightest. Removed files put back in, and not a correct, verifiable fork of Core, it looks dodgy as all heck. If it was just some anonymous guy on the internet I would expect coins to go missing immediately if you ran this code.

legendary
Activity: 1414
Merit: 1000
June 03, 2015, 05:33:59 PM
Converted my first node to XT today.

Let's know how many 20M blocks will you mine. (I'll guess "no single ONE" :-) )

edit: Your are not Herkules and 100 kg hammer is too heavy
legendary
Activity: 817
Merit: 1000
June 03, 2015, 05:17:06 PM

If i remember correctly Hearn said on btc dev mailing list that in curr xt version user agent string is screwed up

edit: add source http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34155603/

Surprisingly I was able to pick my node off that list accidentally just by city and isp... Had to check my ip but sure enough it was me - and it's showing me as satoshi client even though I'm running XT.
legendary
Activity: 1414
Merit: 1000
June 03, 2015, 05:13:20 PM
from Jameson Lopp an hour ago:

https://i.imgur.com/kX1Ed19.png

That is scary. March 2016 is looking more and more that it might be too late.

But I'm sure the blockstream guys only see the emergence of fee pressure that will push people onto sidechains.

The whole blocksize debate has been theoretical so far. But once people's transactions start to backlog the discussion will take a very different turn. People want to be able to transaction directly with Bitcoin in an affordable manner. That is the entire ethos of the project.

tvbcof
marcus
iCE
kazuki



I'm afraid it is you who cannot comprehend that there are a big disadvantages with big blocks.

Brute force (increasing block size limit) is not a solution .. we need something smarter than  "The bigger stone the bigger hammer"

edit: 100 kg hammer is not practical :-)
edit2: we need jackhammer
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1008
June 03, 2015, 04:08:26 PM

If i remember correctly Hearn said on btc dev mailing list that in curr xt version user agent string is screwed up

edit: add source http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34155603/
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
June 03, 2015, 04:05:02 PM
This is the first video I've seen of Gregory Maxwell. This adds some confirmation for me of my upthread speculation about Greg seeing himself as critic and the smartest person in the room. He specifically states in this video that his role is more as a reviewer than a doer (even his stated goal is maximum impact with the least coding...which is a desirable goal but only if it is not the only one), right after admitting that he was wrong in 2004 about decentralized consensus being impossible. The audacity. Socrates taught us that recognizing that we are not omniscient is a primary attribute of cognition.

(Edit: in the "Selection Cryptography" portion of the video, he elaborates on why his role is appropriate — "Pragmatic has its place, but beware against biasing against competence")

No doubt this is a very smart guy with powerful crypto+math domain knowledge who can add considerable analysis and even new ideas. You'd definitely want him on your team (I would) if he can contain himself to a non-leadership role. But hand him the keys and you are likely to go too far down dead-end paths—e.g. CoinJoin—because my impression of him so far (limited interaction) is he is more of a narrow space thinker who doesn't pay as much attention to what is going on in the kitchen when he is in the basement (unless if he a lead on a very narrow space, orthogonally contained project domain such as an audio codec). And this is precisely what I told him the very first time he spanked me in public in these forums; I warned him that I am more of a pragmatic generalist and that we tend to paradigm shift around people like him (which is precisely what I am hoping to do accomplish this year). The first exposure I had to Greg was when I was very impressed by his forum post containing analysis of a proposed proof-of-work hash for something bytemaster was proposing (I forget the details).

I am taking a deeper look at Blockstream and side chains today for the first time. I will report back my findings shortly.

P.S. I am only 10 minutes into the linked video and it is particularly poignant so far. I highly recommend it. So far it appears to be making the case for Monero. It admits Tor is weak against the State, which is a concept I was promulgating since 2013 and was initially resisted (afair by Greg and many others). Good to see that my work in the forum in 2013 finally was accepted. I will say as AnonyMint, I was pushing hard for greater in anonymity starting in 2013 with some posts I made in the anoncoin thread.

The anti-"Eclipse" (Sybil attack mitigation) slide at the 11:45 minute mark is a very important point. An inherent weakness in PoW is the simultaneity requirement which makes network topology so critical (think orphan rates, selfish mining attacks, etc) and which is also difficult to anneal because of the self-referential relativity of the paradigm. This is one of the main fundamental flaws I want to address in crypto currency. I had referred to this recently as "anti-aliasing". Ironically where Greg says Satoshi's solution to decentralized consensus achieved something "not quite as strong" as that which he thought he had proved was impossible, the same applies to my solution to centralized consensus which implicitly resists centralization and scales to micropayment volume.

Another interesting point at 21 minutes, that multisig negatively impacts decentralization and scaling. This is another fundamental aspect my solution fixes. Schnorr as a potential solution to this problem for Bitcoin lacks optional accountability (or loses some of the scaling and decentralization advantages with Greg's TREE scheme) and has a simultaneity issue vaguely analogously related to the problem with CoinJoin.

Regarding Greg's redefinition of Cryptography at the 40+ minute mark, he is on the right track but I fundamentally disagree with his definition because it presumes we could both exist and information could be entirely free, i.e. it is vacuous because it presumes mutually incongruent assumptions. The generative essence is that the entropy of the universe is trending to maximum (i.e. not infinity) according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics (refer to the upthread philosophical discussion about existence and theoretic physics). I would instead define, "Cryptography is the art of structuring information such that hidden entropy doesn't collapse to 0 over known domains in time and computability".
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
June 03, 2015, 03:37:41 PM
from Jameson Lopp an hour ago:

https://i.imgur.com/kX1Ed19.png

now we need hodlers more than ewar

dont sell, and dont send also, just hodl Smiley

Right. And tell me what happens  to all the merchants dependent on TX's? And then when  merchants disappear, what happens  to users?  And once users disappear, what happens to hodlers?
legendary
Activity: 1153
Merit: 1000
June 03, 2015, 03:37:22 PM
from Jameson Lopp an hour ago:

https://i.imgur.com/kX1Ed19.png

now we need hodlers more than ewar

dont sell, and dont send also, just hodl Smiley

If only people stopped using their BTC and just held it and looked at it, then Bitcion would be as useful as gold is to Goldbugs (who don't seem to understand that gold will never be revalued as money unless the average person uses gold as money)
hero member
Activity: 530
Merit: 500
June 03, 2015, 03:33:04 PM
from Jameson Lopp an hour ago:

https://i.imgur.com/kX1Ed19.png

now we need hodlers more than ewar

dont sell, and dont send also, just hodl Smiley
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
June 03, 2015, 03:30:44 PM
from Jameson Lopp an hour ago:

https://i.imgur.com/kX1Ed19.png

That is scary. March 2016 is looking more and more that it might be too late.

But I'm sure the blockstream guys only see the emergence of fee pressure that will push people onto sidechains.

The whole blocksize debate has been theoretical so far. But once people's transactions start to backlog the discussion will take a very different turn. People want to be able to transaction directly with Bitcoin in an affordable manner. That is the entire ethos of the project.

tvbcof
marcus
iCE
kazuki

legendary
Activity: 1153
Merit: 1000
June 03, 2015, 03:21:14 PM
from Jameson Lopp an hour ago:

https://i.imgur.com/kX1Ed19.png

That is scary. March 2016 is looking more and more that it might be too late.

But I'm sure the blockstream guys only see the emergence of fee pressure that will push people onto sidechains.

The whole blocksize debate has been theoretical so far. But once people's transactions start to backlog the discussion will take a very different turn. People want to be able to transaction directly with Bitcoin in an affordable manner. That is the entire ethos of the project.
legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000
June 03, 2015, 03:19:06 PM

interesting note, just looking around the node distribution map the nodes seem to be evenly distributed in the "West" with the density increasing with population density, the notable exceptions are Africa, China and oddly enough Japan and Moscow with almost 50 at the city center monitored by ex. KGB.   
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
June 03, 2015, 03:08:47 PM
from Jameson Lopp an hour ago:

https://i.imgur.com/kX1Ed19.png
sr. member
Activity: 346
Merit: 250
June 03, 2015, 03:08:26 PM
Gavin's strength is his maturity and calm demeanor, imo.  he'll win if it comes down to a battle.

Nope.  Szatoshi will back Back and Maxwell.  The cypherpunks will stick together (or hang separately).

You should change your handle to 'FrappuccinoDoc.'   Grin

Bitcoin XT is a poison pill for all the newbs and unwary, certain bug fix commits that went into Core have already been omitted. Both Hearn and Andresen have been covertly anti-privacy from day zero, paying it only lip service when pressed. Don't trust it or them. Not to mention it is poorly maintained and totally untested. I can't believe I'm reading such a mad approach being championed on these pages ... it's like a twilight zone episode wtf are you people thinking !!! following Pied Pipers now?

I asked you once to support these serious allegations. Because you're calling Mike and Gavin liars otherwise.

You need to prove this now so that we can confirm or more likely dispense with you as a liar.

marcus, we're still waiting.

How do we get involved to improve the bitcoin xt?

Or is it like a invite only for now, for the core dev team?

contact Mike Hearn or Gavin.  they're looking for help. golden opportunity to get involved.


Or just knock @CIA #MIT
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
Jump to: