Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 380. (Read 2032266 times)

Quote from: justusranvier on May 07, 2015, 12:00:53 PM

Bitcoin needs to do an Uber and scoop up as many users as fast as possible round the world before gvts, regulators, and banks can stop it. we may already be there fortunately but we do have a ways to go and it's clear that 1MB is an artificial cap on growth.

That's the biggest concern I have.

Bank-based Bitcoin competitors are not stopping to take a break and study issues - they are actively working to hire developers and build systems that can grow faster than Bitcoin.

Meanwhile, the anti-scaling crowd is telling us we need more time to study the scaling issues even though they've been saying that since the first time this issue came up in 2012.

Apparently they are the only developers capable of making any change at all.

Wait they're not? So what exactly is stopping some developers from coding the fork and releasing it? Are people worried miners will attack and destroy it? That attack can't succeed in the long term. If the attack works once, you just fork again with a 1 line change to move the fork point forward. Miners are not going to keep wasting resources on that forever, once they see your fork isn't going away, they may see it as more profitable to mine on it honestly.

I'd run it, and I'd probably sell at least part of my stake in the 1mb fork.

problem with that is that it's tantamount to lack of advertising. if you don't get a consensus, you risk large swaths of the community not even knowing about your fork and others advocating against it. it would be ideal to get a consensus so that everyone knows and are all onboard to make the switch to the new code.

most ppl don't really understand how Bitcoin works or the anything about the whole process of consensus or open source. they'll get confused about what to do if there continues to be battling btwn information sources. so yes, it's best to get a consensus if possible.

Gavin's already started coding a possible fork, you're telling me he's not well known enough in the community to get any backing? He may not go that route for political reasons, but anyone could build his code and run it.

no, i didn't say that. he does have the credibility to obtain backing for his fork. that is what will probably happen. i just said that in the ideal situation, consensus would be achieved. i don't think it's too late for that b/c in my opinion, the Blockstream devs have already lost. if they persist in obstructionist behavior, they'll probably get replaced.

jmw74

full member

Activity: 236

Merit: 100

Quote from: justusranvier on May 07, 2015, 12:00:53 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on May 06, 2015, 11:13:27 AM

Bitcoin needs to do an Uber and scoop up as many users as fast as possible round the world before gvts, regulators, and banks can stop it. we may already be there fortunately but we do have a ways to go and it's clear that 1MB is an artificial cap on growth.

That's the biggest concern I have.

Bank-based Bitcoin competitors are not stopping to take a break and study issues - they are actively working to hire developers and build systems that can grow faster than Bitcoin.

Meanwhile, the anti-scaling crowd is telling us we need more time to study the scaling issues even though they've been saying that since the first time this issue came up in 2012.

Apparently they are the only developers capable of making any change at all.

Wait they're not? So what exactly is stopping some developers from coding the fork and releasing it? Are people worried miners will attack and destroy it? That attack can't succeed in the long term. If the attack works once, you just fork again with a 1 line change to move the fork point forward. Miners are not going to keep wasting resources on that forever, once they see your fork isn't going away, they may see it as more profitable to mine on it honestly.

I'd run it, and I'd probably sell at least part of my stake in the 1mb fork.

problem with that is that it's tantamount to lack of advertising. if you don't get a consensus, you risk large swaths of the community not even knowing about your fork and others advocating against it. it would be ideal to get a consensus so that everyone knows and are all onboard to make the switch to the new code.

most ppl don't really understand how Bitcoin works or the anything about the whole process of consensus or open source. they'll get confused about what to do if there continues to be battling btwn information sources. so yes, it's best to get a consensus if possible.

Gavin's already started coding a possible fork, you're telling me he's not well known enough in the community to get any backing? He may not go that route for political reasons, but anyone could build his code and run it.

justusranvier

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1013

but you have to back up around 2y to understand why he's doing this. my conspiratorial mind says this is when gmax first hatched the idea of Blockstream and started working on gathering up most of the other core devs into the scheme. since that time, nothing substantial has gotten done around the core protocol as solex pointed out above.

That would explain why they were so furious when btcd launched as a credible competitor to Bitcoin Core and forced them to actually start developing again in order to keep up.

Just try mentioning something positive about btcd and/or its developers on /r/bitcoin and pay attention to the amount of bile and venom that will suddenly be unleashed on you by random low post-count accounts you've never interacted with before.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: hdbuck on May 07, 2015, 01:01:38 PM

Quote from: justusranvier on May 07, 2015, 12:00:53 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on May 06, 2015, 11:13:27 AM

Bitcoin needs to do an Uber and scoop up as many users as fast as possible round the world before gvts, regulators, and banks can stop it. we may already be there fortunately but we do have a ways to go and it's clear that 1MB is an artificial cap on growth.

That's the biggest concern I have.

Bank-based Bitcoin competitors are not stopping to take a break and study issues - they are actively working to hire developers and build systems that can grow faster than Bitcoin.

Meanwhile, the anti-scaling crowd is telling us we need more time to study the scaling issues even though they've been saying that since the first time this issue came up in 2012.

Apparently they are the only developers capable of making any change at all.

Wait they're not? So what exactly is stopping some developers from coding the fork and releasing it? Are people worried miners will attack and destroy it? That attack can't succeed in the long term. If the attack works once, you just fork again with a 1 line change to move the fork point forward. Miners are not going to keep wasting resources on that forever, once they see your fork isn't going away, they may see it as more profitable to mine on it honestly.

I'd run it, and I'd probably sell at least part of my stake in the 1mb fork.

problem with that is that it's tantamount to lack of advertising. if you don't get a consensus, you risk large swaths of the community not even knowing about your fork and others advocating against it. it would be ideal to get a consensus so that everyone knows and are all onboard to make the switch to the new code.

most ppl don't really understand how Bitcoin works or the anything about the whole process of consensus or open source. they'll get confused about what to do if there continues to be battling btwn information sources. so yes, it's best to get a consensus if possible.

Problem is getting a decentralized consensus. Thank you Bitcoin. ^^

On a personal note, nullc & co may be biaised by their SC stuff, I dont see how these solutions would harm Bitcoin itself, on the contrary.
Otoh, Gavin being an MIT fellow now, I am more than ever concern that he may be biaised by the US Governement.
Besides i dont really appreciate his pushy attitude and I fail to agree with his arguments (ie. his childish blog points and "kudos"), which are anything but technical btw.
Not that i am an "anti" blocksize fork forever either.

Anyway im just a regular bitcoiner, hoping it all goes for the ~~best~~ greater good.

did you see my perspective on this?:

Quote from: Adrian-x on May 06, 2015, 10:59:48 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on May 06, 2015, 10:44:12 AM

more Gavin:

http://gavinandresen.ninja/big-blocks-and-tor

I haven't read all his bog posts but he is showing signs of understand when it comes to engaging the community.

I can only imagine all these posts were written by taking feedback from lengthy consultations and he planned the release to capture all the fragmented interests in the Bitcoin community one buy one. Leaving specific interests to fight fires as he moves into virgin territory to start a new blaze.

I take my hat off to him he is creative and that's his biggest assets.

i put this video up last month where Gavin clearly telegraphs what is happening now. he said he might have to throw his weight around which is what he is now doing. and he has the credibility to do so. but you have to back up around 2y to understand why he's doing this. my conspiratorial mind says this is when gmax first hatched the idea of Blockstream and started working on gathering up most of the other core devs into the scheme. since that time, nothing substantial has gotten done around the core protocol as solex pointed out above. i say it's b/c Blockstream stands to make billions if tx's are forced off MC to SC's. it's also the time when gmax started hitting Reddit and the forum about the SC idea. while Gavin has always been respectful and even slightly positive about SC's, i don't think he's fully on board with the idea and i've pointed out subtle examples of such. and for good reasons as i, and you, have tried to articulate in many settings. but my point is, this is the setting around which his blog posts are occurring; it's now time to open up Bitcoin to the masses.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIafZXRDH7w

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: molecular on May 07, 2015, 01:09:29 PM

good point, but: it's not just about the miners, is it? Nodes wont route double spends currently, right?

Right, but there is nothing that requires miners to get their transactions through the p2p, especially if the fee is unusually high.

Quote

In other words: why isn't double-spending unconfirmed transactions possible (easy) right now?

Because miners aren't hungry enough. They're mostly mining for block rewards.

molecular

donator

Activity: 2772

Merit: 1019

Quote from: cypherdoc on May 07, 2015, 01:17:44 PM

oh yes, nice ramp!

wow!

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

oh yes, nice ramp!

molecular

donator

Activity: 2772

Merit: 1019

Quote from: HeliKopterBen on May 07, 2015, 11:45:24 AM

Block size could reach the 1mb limit at any time with a massive influx of users and the chart for average block size looks like it could possibly have a sharp exponential rise hitting the limit within a short period of time, well before March 2016.

IMO, even Gavin may be to late. Most likely, if this increase in adoption happens, transactions will be pushed off-chain to Coinbase and other services until the limit can be increased. Anybody opposed to the block size increase doesn't even have a working solution for scale, so I don't see how their arguments can even fly.

The bolded part is what scares me. There's just no alternative currently.

It almost seems some people have an interest in hitting that wall of bad publicity, high fees and slow transactions. Why?

Let's just "kick the can down the road", I'm with Gavin.

molecular

donator

Activity: 2772

Merit: 1019

Quote from: smooth on May 07, 2015, 02:15:29 AM

Quote from: molecular on May 07, 2015, 12:49:10 AM

Quote from: smooth on May 06, 2015, 07:56:28 PM

Quote from: Erdogan on May 06, 2015, 07:43:29 PM

With fees, I see no problem with the market sorting it out. Except - when someone wants to minimize the fees of his own transactions, some transactions will suddenly take forever to confirm. So a possibility to raise the fee on a nonconfirmed transaction would be great. Has anyone suggested that, or is it unpossible technically?

Yes it is called replace by fee

I'm not sure. With replace by fee, you can change other things in the transactions (like outputs), no? This makes double-spending much easier. I'm not sure wether "increase fee" can even be done, since it also requires changes to the outputs (and maybe inputs).

I see replace-by-fee as a very bad idea currently.

First off, I think it's inevitable, as there is nothing that would make a miner want to not accept a higher fee.

good point, but: it's not just about the miners, is it? Nodes wont route double spends currently, right?

In other words: why isn't double-spending unconfirmed transactions possible (easy) right now?

Quote from: smooth on May 07, 2015, 02:15:29 AM

That said, you can make a restricted version that doesn't allow reducing any outputs. You would have to add an additional input to pay the higher fee.

Sounds sensible.

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: justusranvier on May 07, 2015, 12:00:53 PM