Pages:
Author

Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 3. (Read 2032252 times)

newbie
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
August 18, 2015, 08:50:02 AM
Incredible. I can't believe what I'm seeing. Really sad though.

ed: I used to know the url where mod actions log is reported, anybody has the link handy? I just want to know which mod actually moved the thread.

So this thread is called 'Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.' and if I remember correctly (I am not really too active here, because I find the organisation of this board too streneous and overloading for my mental bandwidth...) it has been about all kinds of things Bitcoin but not about the blocksize for most of its 1500+ pages of existence. Even when assuming the mod's twisted rules, how does moving this thread make sense?
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1008
August 18, 2015, 08:43:14 AM
I believe congratulations are in order.  We've been moved to the alt-coin section!

Incredible. I can't believe what I'm seeing. Really sad though.

ed: I used to know the url where mod actions log is reported, anybody has the link handy? I just want to know which mod actually moved the thread.
legendary
Activity: 3710
Merit: 5286
August 18, 2015, 07:46:36 AM

1/ It's just unbelievable
2/ that a company like twitter
3/ is worth 20 billion US$.
4/ Really a weird world
5/ that we live in.



With no net revenue and no ability to monetize, they're not worth it and never will be.  Just a matter of time before investors and traders get it, they're a little slow with all this 'techie' stuff.  Wink
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
Warning: Confrmed Gavinista
August 18, 2015, 07:38:05 AM
685 nodes and rising... (10.8%)

(actually, the figure is 737 lower down, but I cant explain the difference, so I wont quote it)

( Oops, looks like I did.  Kiss  )
legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1004
legendary
Activity: 1473
Merit: 1086
August 18, 2015, 07:21:23 AM
Its funny that litecoin has a maximum blocksize of 4MB per 10 minutes, dogecoin has a maximum of 10MB per 10 minutes. But for bitcoin a blocksize of 8MB means absolute destruction and centralisation.
Clone-and-tweak altcoins are being held up as examples of good design?
Nope, I wanted to show that blockchains and mining networks which have the possibility of carrying more than 1MB of data per 10 minutes don't just collapse.

Edit: Anyway, i guess we will find consensus with 8MB blocks in bitcoin.
legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
August 18, 2015, 06:53:18 AM
Its funny that litecoin has a maximum blocksize of 4MB per 10 minutes, dogecoin has a maximum of 10MB per 10 minutes. But for bitcoin a blocksize of 8MB means absolute destruction and centralisation.

Clone-and-tweak altcoins are being held up as examples of good design?
hero member
Activity: 686
Merit: 500
FUN > ROI
August 18, 2015, 06:51:16 AM
Will gavin and Mike visit each miner, put a gun to their head, and force them to switch to XT.  Explain what mechanism they will use to force miners and users to upgrade to XT against their will.

While not directly relevant to the mechanism in which XT plans to introduce itself, here's a snippet from earlier times (back when it was still '20MB or bust') that would still apply if miners ended up being dishonest (e.g. voting for larger blocks and kicking in the mechanism, but not actually processing them - let alone mining them).

Couture: I mean, if we extrapolate... if most companies that you've talked to are on board with this - with switching to Bitcoin XT - then what you're saying is essentially that this is gonna happen, this block size increase is gonna happen, no matter what.

Hearn: I think so.  The only question is: how long does it take for people to, y'know, opt in?  Do we really have the majority that we think we do?  I mean, you know, from polling, you know, going and talking to, you know, important players in the ecosystem we think we do, but there's nothing quite like measuring it for real.

Couture: Mm-hmm

Hearn: And then, the worst case scenario is: the majority of - the economic majority, that we call it - is in favor, but the hash power - mining - majority is not.  That would be a very messy situation for Bitcoin.

Crain: So, can you explain that?  How would that happen?  So you mean that, like, let's say Coinbase and the big companies and they're all in favor, but the mining, uhmm..

Hearn: Yeah, so let's say that, uhm, you know, so that those.. there's been some concerns raised by mining pools in China, for example, where there's a lot of mining going on that.. their connectivity is extremely poor, to the rest of the internet, for a bunch of reasons.  So if the needs of the wider global Bitcoin community start diverging from what, you know, miners in China want, then who wins?  The answer is: the economic majority wins, right, the wider community wins - but it would require a bit of, y'know, a bit of a technical mess to sort everything out in that case.

Crain: Because you somehow have to get, uhm, clients to ignore, potentially, the longest chain...

Hearn: Yeah

Crain: ...to only accept Bitcoin...

Hearn: Yeah.  So, people - again, merchants and exchanges sort of be running Bitcoin XT.  If we imagine this sort of worst case scenario happening, they would ignore the longest chain - doesn't matter that it's the longest - if it's, uhm, y'know, well, no let me rephrase that.

[concurrent]
Crain: They would, they would take the longest chain...
Hearn: They would be forced

Crain: ...with that specific version of the software, right?

Hearn: Yeah.  So let me rephrase that.  Right.  If miners deci...were building a longer chain than the 20 mega chain then, you know, the client would keep switching back to them and keep ending up with this bigger and bigger backlog.  Uhm, and at that point, what we would have to do is, like, checkpoint blocks into both the full nodes and the SPV wallets, so that's a much larger and more complicated upgrade, uhm, to force it onto the larger chain, right.  And in the worst case scenario, if the miners and the rest of the Bitcoin community end up in some kind of, like, full-fledged war, that would basically wreck Bitcoin.  So, we would hope that miners wouldn't do that.  Of course..

Crain: Yeah...

Hearn: ...it's not in their best interests to mess up Bitcoin for everyone.
legendary
Activity: 1473
Merit: 1086
August 18, 2015, 06:29:40 AM

1/ It's just unbelievable
2/ that a company like twitter
3/ is worth 20 billion US$.
4/ Really a weird world
5/ that we live in.

hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
Warning: Confrmed Gavinista
August 18, 2015, 06:27:13 AM

Part of my position is that I don't consider Bitcoin to be hobbled in anyway as it stands. Blocks are averaging at most half of the actual limit absent of spam attacks. I also happen to not trust Gavin or Hearn at all and consider their proposition as divisive and absolutely counter-productive.

But it is. Just because the house is not on fire today, doesn't mean you don't buy a fire extinguisher.  Bitcoin is hobbled, and blockstream and LN go to great lengths to point this out when setting out there business case.


Quote from: brg444
I would also disagree that the changes required to make sidechains operate within Bitcoin are "far reaching". I understand that merged-mining is a source of debate but the script code in itself is not the source of any potential harm to the system AFAIK.

If I had a satoshi for every time a developer said that....

The xt block limit change is considered trivial - replacing a #define with a configurable variable routine. ( there is a bit more, but its that in essence)

Getting scripts to work correctly is a far more complicated matter - the place holders exist (trivial implementation), but the functionality hasn't even been ring fenced yet.


legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002
August 18, 2015, 06:17:43 AM
Its funny that litecoin has a maximum blocksize of 4MB per 10 minutes, dogecoin has a maximum of 10MB per 10 minutes. But for bitcoin a blocksize of 8MB means absolute destruction and centralisation.

Yes, very funny that you would bring up this totally irrelevant and asinine comparison  Cheesy Cheesy

Lol yea im off bitcoin.  Gogo ripple!
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
August 18, 2015, 06:09:00 AM
Its funny that litecoin has a maximum blocksize of 4MB per 10 minutes, dogecoin has a maximum of 10MB per 10 minutes. But for bitcoin a blocksize of 8MB means absolute destruction and centralisation.

Yes, very funny that you would bring up this totally irrelevant and asinine comparison  Cheesy Cheesy
legendary
Activity: 1473
Merit: 1086
August 18, 2015, 06:04:42 AM
Its funny that litecoin has a maximum blocksize of 4MB per 10 minutes, dogecoin has a maximum of 10MB per 10 minutes. But for bitcoin a blocksize of 8MB means absolute destruction and centralisation.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
August 18, 2015, 05:57:29 AM
Like I said, it's about to get unbearable for larger miners:

https://m.facebook.com/MiningBitcoinCz/posts/846144602138294

Good morning doc!

Would you please do us the service to explain your hyperbole?

A pool with 2% of the hashrate will make it "unbearable" for who? how?
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
August 18, 2015, 05:50:06 AM
Like I said, it's about to get unbearable for larger miners:

https://m.facebook.com/MiningBitcoinCz/posts/846144602138294
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
August 18, 2015, 05:45:00 AM

 sidechains can achieve inter-operability between blockchains using units deriving scarcityvalue from main Bitcoin blockchain


ftfy. Finally you get it.

It is up to the user to decide on what to do with his bitcoins. If a sidechain succeeds at attracting trust out of the mainchain it will surely be because it offers a valuable service. I don't see what is wrong with this seeing as they intend to build these systems in the most secure and trustless way achievable.

Of course stupid people will do stupid things. Buyers beware and all that but ultimately it is my opinion that sidechains will do fantastic things for the ecosystem.

No disagreement from me on those points.

But I dont see the point of supporting the deliberate ongoing hobbling of bitcoin with an arbitrary limit, while at the same time advocating a different solution that itself will require a more far reaching change in bitcoin to work correctly.

Part of my position is that I don't consider Bitcoin to be hobbled in anyway as it stands. Blocks are averaging at most half of the actual limit absent of spam attacks. I also happen to not trust Gavin or Hearn at all and consider their proposition as divisive and absolutely counter-productive.

I would also disagree that the changes required to make sidechains operate within Bitcoin are "far reaching". I understand that merged-mining is a source of debate but the script code in itself is not the source of any potential harm to the system AFAIK.
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
Warning: Confrmed Gavinista
August 18, 2015, 05:37:08 AM

 sidechains can achieve inter-operability between blockchains using units deriving scarcityvalue from main Bitcoin blockchain


ftfy. Finally you get it.

It is up to the user to decide on what to do with his bitcoins. If a sidechain succeeds at attracting trust out of the mainchain it will surely be because it offers a valuable service. I don't see what is wrong with this seeing as they intend to build these systems in the most secure and trustless way achievable.

Of course stupid people will do stupid things. Buyers beware and all that but ultimately it is my opinion that sidechains will do fantastic things for the ecosystem.

No disagreement from me on those points.

But I dont see the point of supporting the deliberate ongoing hobbling of bitcoin with an arbitrary limit, while at the same time advocating a different solution that itself will require a more far reaching change in bitcoin to work correctly.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
August 18, 2015, 04:54:58 AM

 sidechains can achieve inter-operability between blockchains using units deriving scarcityvalue from main Bitcoin blockchain


ftfy. Finally you get it.

It is up to the user to decide on what to do with his bitcoins. If a sidechain succeeds at attracting trust out of the mainchain it will surely be because it offers a valuable service. I don't see what is wrong with this seeing as they intend to build these systems in the most secure and trustless way achievable.

Of course stupid people will do stupid things. Buyers beware and all that but ultimately it is my opinion that sidechains will do fantastic things for the ecosystem.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
August 18, 2015, 04:51:26 AM
Are you stating you don't have any?

Quote
More interestingly I happens that as it stands I know more about the potential conflict-of-interest of Blockstream developers than I know about Gavin's or Mike's.

How is that? You said Mike is on Circle's board (I don't know what else he does for work, I'm going to guess you probably do though). That's a pretty obvious affiliation and transparent potential COI. Gavin works for a non-profit research institution. You can read out of that whatever you like, but in any case it's not hidden at all.

 Cheesy

The often repeated suggestion here that I am somehow a company shill or industry insiders or w/e is so outrageously funny to me. I consider myself the exact opposite of someone you'd expect to be interested in cryptocurrency. I have no technical background, barely any formal economic education. None of my friends give a rats ass about it and there is absolutely no local community where I live. I've said before the closest ties you can stick on me about Blockstream is that I live about 2 hours away from their corporate office. Other than that I'm just any regular 25 year old college dropout, if you care to know  Grin

Anyway...Yes I'm stating I have no such thing as a conflict of interest. I am not professionally involved in anything resembling crypto and have never had contact with any industry person other than twitter, reddit and this forum.

As for your other question. The reason I stated we know more about Blockstream's potential conflict-of-interest is that the community pitchfork forced their hands into divulging non-negligible aspects of their financial remuneration and general contractual arrangements. I have no such details about Gavin & Mike's financial ties.

Pages:
Jump to: