Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 310. (Read 2032266 times)

I laughed on the first sentence, then you added this so I will respond.

I really didn't intend it to embarrass or cause hate because I assume it is obvious to everyone here that he is an XMR supporter. Does he really believe that constraining Bitcoin's onchain transaction growth is the best move for Bitcoin? Or how is it the best move for him other than creative destruction for XMR?

Trying to understand his (perhaps even subconscious) reasoning. I might learn something useful about the market.

Also this is somewhat different than bringing a friend into a gay group and then popping that question, because the person being asked was already asserting many bold claims and causing a ruckus (as am I also).

Saying this in bitcointalk is like walking to a group of gay people with your friend and say to him "Do you really dislike gay people?"

Its like, the stupidest and most transparent maneuver ever to move hate. The worst thing is, it almost always works.

Did I ever say I wouldn't release open source?

There is a logic difference between not giving away ideas before giving away the source code (a.k.a. promoting vaporware, which btw I detest) then giving away the ideas with the source code, versus "giving" away (arguably other people's) ideas without the source code (and arguably lying to yourself and the public that you were the first to think of such concepts...okay Veritaseum admits they have competitors but no problem because they have patents...thank the almighty for the IP moat protection of the centralized State that oppresses us).

Many people fail to reason through all the cases of logic on each issue they ponder.

Veritaseum name = obvious ripoff of Ethereum

I have no problem with that (and it is a better name IMO) if their tech is good, and they aren't just trying to marketing spin that they are were the innovators in this space. Talk is cheap, show me the code, if you want to claim in public marketing to be the technical innovators.

I am confident I speak for the open source community in terms of those points (not claiming their support of me in general or my work).

P.S. Hang onto to that name and reputation. You may be able to reuse after this proprietary effort fails. Assuming you learn.

Do you want Bitcoin to fail, because you want more attention to flow to Monero?

Referring to our upthread debate, I am trying to determine if you truly have an interest in Bitcoin being only a store-of-value (with more third party risk than gold and roughly the same limited avenues for exchange), instead of shooting for widespread unit-of-exchange (albeit losing the decentralized attribute in the process)?

Again I want all-of-the-above and decentralized in the same crypto-currency. And I think I know how to do it. No trade-offs.

Please be aware of this guy TPTB_need_war  - he's a real piece of work.

when talking about his own super-secret new-and-improved bitcoin-killer it's all about monetization, can't release the code for free, can't tell you about how his idea somehow "fixes" everything that's wrong with bitcoin...

When talking about anyone else's project, it's gotta be open-source or else.


I think he's very duplicitous and in general I'm very suspicious of his motives.

But that's just like, my opinion, man.

As I said, patent trolls (on slide 3).

To be destroyed by every means at our disposal. (Reggie it isn't personal and not even ideological. Rather it is about avoiding the economic abyss ahead)

You fixed the UXTO bloat?  That great!  Now show us the code so Wlad can test/pull it.

Oh wait, does your constraint require a hard fork?  If it does, good luck getting it past the neo-royalist reactionaries of #bitcoin-assets (aka MP personality cult).

So you are an old fart like cypher.  Big effing deal.  In 10 years, I'll have 30 years of experience in IT.  Drink an Ensure and change your Depends grandpa, because I'm not going to turn down my dubstep nor get off your lawn.  

Nobody cares how many floppies you formatted or copies of Windows you installed in the 80s.  You are new here, Mr. 2013 Registration Date.

You're not just calling me wrong, you're also second-guessing gmax, pwuille, petertodd, and jgarzik (among others):


I would ask how your "30 years in IT" stack (sorry for IT pun) up against their pedigrees/resumes, but I don't want to embarrass you any more than necessary.  

Waiting for >1 block to get a confirmation is not a "clusterfuck" unless you are (mis/mal)construing and (mis/mal)applying Bitcoin to be some kind of real-time POS system.

Bigger systems run slower; slow water runs deep.  That's why ACH and other "wire" transfers take days or weeks to settle.

We Knights of Satoshi will not comply with your histrionic 'faster please' demands to fix Bitcoin until it breaks.

This "clusterfuck" is entirely self-imposed by Gavin.  It is a manufactured crisis.  We will resist all efforts, whether internal or external, destroy Bitcoin in order to save it from some imaginary doom, no matter the source or how loud the deafening clamor of the peanut gallery.

We will not give in to your politics of fear and parade of hobgoblins.

We will not be stampeded into premature hard forks because the pointy-haired boss and his mob of Redditard sycophants demands Action Now.

Gavin's absurd call for <10 minute blocks indicates he has been (internally and/or externally) compromised.  You would do well to abandon that ship (and its fanboys) before it sinks...

If it is really just a protocol, then by definition there is nothing to stop someone from bypassing your client and writing directly to the protocol, cutting out the Middleton-man.

I am assuming there is some proprietary lockin somewhere in there, but without code and technical documentation, why should I (or other hackers/geeks/tech dudes) consume my (our) time trying to understand the system using inefficient means of trying to deobfuscate what you ostensibly (at least last time I looked) want to obfuscate. I will take a quick glance at the links above, but if they don't get direct to the technical points (as what I saw on your website before) then I will not expend more time.

P.S. some of us do understand both economics and programming. That is not to say I have any insider or real-world WallStreet experience (thank the almighty for that blessing).

Edit: I glanced at the links. Reggie we know already all about the virtues and design of decentralized exchanges. We understand the use of a mutually trusted "Facilitator" (Escrow agent). We understand the need for decentralized, consensus data feeds (which you apparently don't yet have in your system). We do not need to read all that shit over and over again. When we ask for technical documentation, we mean precisely that and none of this marketing overhead. Some of us are much more aware than you may think. We are also thinking about these sorts of designs and markets too (believe me you were not any where close to being the first).

I do not understand how to expect to gain traction. You can leverage your reputation and connections in the financial sphere, but afaics you do not know how to interface with the tech dudes who are the core of the Bitcoin sphere. IMO, if you want us on board, this has to be a collaborative effort and open source system. And so then how do you make your ROI on this? Does this project have its own coin (I think not). The world is not going to adopt Reggie-wallet. Sorry. You will need an open protocol and another way to make your ROI.

Perhaps there is some way to leverage your strengths and the open source community, but afaics you haven't partnered with the right CTO to get it done. I see more of a closed-source, proprietary, marketing spin philosophy thus far.

Also you appear to be building a specific protocol for trading options. Ethereum (and CounterParty?) is in the space of creating a programmable block chain wherein there can be a free market competition amongst protocols. I suggested last year that Ethereum can never scale and the only solution is merge-minded chains for programmable chains.

Some of us are thinking much bigger and more open than you. You should not assume you are the next Google. I highly doubt it.

P.S. your calls on Apple and Google were obvious to me also (before I found out about you on Zerohedge). I had written similar predictions on http://esr.ibiblio.org perhaps before you did. My point is your very boastful marketing spins are out of proportion to the technical acumen display openly thus far. Perhaps your team are technical wizards, but I don't know.

I agree.  Incentivizing transactions that reduce the total number of outputs would be helpful.  Gmaxwell has mentioned similar ideas in the past as well.

The more limiting factor is probably the transaction rate and the bandwidth of the connection.

An 8 Mbps connection only gets you to perhaps Visa-scale (at best[1]) and no where near the micropayments scale. Do you really think Visa-scale comprises all the transactions occurring daily in the world today (not even within an order-of-magnitude I bet!), not to mention the 100X growth that will occur with internet transactions in real-time (which will open huge new markets).

Even a 1 Gbps connection won't be enough in the current crypto-currency designs.

All current crypto-currency is fundamentally flawed. Can't scale. Checkmate.


[1] That assumes the overhead for P2P and anonymity networks is 0, which won't be the case.

It is probably impossible (short of reverse engineering or building an extensive test kit) to determine that it runs cleanly without seeing the source code, because for example how do we evaluate how it might work in extreme or panic market conditions, under DDoS or high-frequency trading attacks, etc..

A comment from chriswilmer got me thinking…

The UTXO set is actually bounded. The total amount of satoshis that will ever exists is

   (21x10^6) x (10^8) = 2.1 x 10^15 = 2.1 "peta-sats"

The UTXO set is maximized if every output is exactly 1 satoshi; in this case, the UTXO set consists of 2.1x10^15 outputs.  

For each output, let's assume we store the transaction hash (32 bytes), the value (8 bytes max), and the scriptpubkey (25 bytes for P2PkH), which is a total of 65 bytes.  So, a reasonable "worst case" upper bound on the size of the UTXO set is:

   (2.1x10^15) x (65 bytes) = 137 petabytes.  

How much memory is this?  A quick google search turned up 128 gigabyte microSD cards:



To store the worst-case UTXO set on an array of these cards would require about one million of them:

    (137 x 10^15) / (128 x 10^9) = 1.07 x 10^6.

This calculation shows that storing the worst case UTXO set is currently beyond the limits of a home user, but it's actually within the limits of large data centers such as the Prineville campus for Facebook that stores 1,000 petabytes of data...


...OK, now let's be reasonable!  Let's assume that 10 billion people on earth each control about 4 unspent outputs on average.  That's a total of 40 billion outputs, or

    (40 x 10^9) x (65 bytes) = 2.6 terabytes

With these assumptions, it now only takes about 20 of those SD cards to store the UTXO set:

    (2.6 x 10^12) / (128 x 10^9) = 20.3,

or, three 1-terrabyte SSDs, for a total cost of about $1,500.  

Of course, by the time there's a need to store this much data, we will likely have special-purpose hardware to do so quite efficiently.  

TLDR:
1. Large data centers could already store the UTXO set even if every satoshi was a unique unspent output.
2. Under more reasonable assumptions, power users and small businesses should be able to store the UTXO set even if 10 billion people each had 4 unspent outputs.

Wrong. We already know it will be a clusterfuck.

I venture my opinion from 30 years experience in IT, when it appears that you have zilch and should just speak to what you know about (Monero? Hashfast?)


I really think there is a fast and simple constraint on UTXO bloat which can be done:
Allowing the existing free transaction space to be used for tx which reduce UTXOs (i.e. negative delta) instead of being based upon the number of days destroyed, which was to encourage old coins being spent, something less important.

I compare it to blockchain.info in that users retain control of their keys while using the service but without running a full node themselves - it is much more convenient and less resource-intensive.  Of course it's not a Web client but they may have plans for that.

@Reggie Middleton
Do you have plans to develop a hosted Web interface for your product?

There is research available on how to create a more decentralized, consensus driven oracle. Apologies I will not google now for a citation.

Edit: perhaps it was on Ethereum's blog that I saw some mention of research.

90s Extropian/cyberpunk here.  I didn't miss money being born from the internet in the form of Bitcoin, I've was waiting and hoping for that to happen my entire early adult life.

Bitcoin has already "spread worldwide to all corners of the Earth."  Its_happening.gif was 2011.  We are now in the future we dreamed of.  

GavinCoin threatens to scour Bitcoin from those far flung corners, such as Lukejr's neighborhood in Florida where only 5mb DSL exits.

GavinCoin will also exile Bitcoin from TOR, etc, which are also critical far flung corners for users, full nodes, and miners to occupy for the sake of the system's self-preservation.

You keep selling this fear of 1mb Bitcoin dying alone and unloved except by her (cryptonerd) cats.  But all the non-Gavin core devs and I will not buy it.

We all agree the size should be raised "eventually" as Satoshi foretold.

But now (or Soon) is not the right time.  We need studies, simulations, and (most importantly) actual empirical feedback from persistent full blocks to best determine how and when to proceed with altering the 1mb parameter.

This nonsense of plucking magic numbers from the (Pointy-headed) CEO of Bitcoin's ass is not acceptable.

You, Hearn, and Gavin have succeeded in panicking the Redditards into a frenzy of "ZOMG BITCOIN IS GOING TO DIEEEE!!1!!  SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!!!1!!  QUICK DO IT NOW!!1!" hysteria.

That's why we've been advised by the incomparably redoubtable Nick Szabo to CALM. THE. FUCK. DOWN. AND. THINK. INSTEAD. OF. DRAMA. QUEENING:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/356twp/nick_szabo_zooko_pwuille_gavinandresen_infinity/

So why can't the protocol be tweaked to allow smaller blocks to propagate through the network of nodes faster than larger blocks. This is a market incentive for miners to regulate themselves. If it isn't working more like may not work, why not fix it.

This is how I always understood it to work, small blocks and maximum fees those who are not efficient will find themselves with a higher number of orphans, and those accepting fees too high will be circumvented, undercut by those doing high volume.

None of this comes into play for the next 6-10 years but I can't see how this market mechanism fails.