Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 381. (Read 2032266 times)
If there is one silver lining to the block size increase arguments, it is that it shows how difficult it is to get a majority of participants in a decentralized system to agree to anything. Overall this is a good thing, since the default is to keep bitcoin the way it is which makes it harder to push in regulatory changes that are against it's purpose.
I just put something together on Reddit with a goal of coming up with a constructive path forward to helping advance the blockchain debate.
I care more that constructive progress is made, than how it is done. So what you see is merely one suggested path forward. It might be rejected out of hand, or it may have some merit and after Refiners have a field day with it, we would have an exciting experiment to watch.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3573iy/a_proposal_to_safely_and_constructively_advance/
I care more that constructive progress is made, than how it is done. So what you see is merely one suggested path forward. It might be rejected out of hand, or it may have some merit and after Refiners have a field day with it, we would have an exciting experiment to watch.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3573iy/a_proposal_to_safely_and_constructively_advance/
Anything that reduces any of the outputs of a transaction already broadcast through the network is by definition a double spend. This would essentially invalidate instant acknowledgement by the P2P network, and force everyone to wait for a block confirmation, crippling many services in the process.
To increase the fee, you have to either reduce an output or add an input. Reducing an output is not an option, so you'd have to add an input, which at that point is essentially a new transaction replacing the earlier. That is a big change from today's bitcoin IMHO.
To increase the fee, you have to either reduce an output or add an input. Reducing an output is not an option, so you'd have to add an input, which at that point is essentially a new transaction replacing the earlier. That is a big change from today's bitcoin IMHO.
The version that that only allows adding additional outputs (and therefore inputs) has already been discussed for years and maybe implemented. So it is certainly possible (the original question).
Another possible approach is child-pays-for-parent. In this case you respend your change with a higher fee. The fee credit counts toward the entire tx chain, causing the parent be mined faster.
That there is the solution, and it does not require any changes to the protocol. It only requires that mining pools add in more inteligence to look at a chain of transactions to determine the total fee structure the chain offers.
This is easy to do. Miners probably have not implemented this because it is not commonly practiced. So it just needs to be something they add to their implementation.
As I said before though, I consider all of these inevitable as mining continues to become more competitive (especially after 1+ more block halving). If you are relying on zero confirm transactions, you better have a plan for what you're going to do when they break.
Zero confirm transactions are fine provided that the transaction is valid, all the inputs are already confirmed and it has propagated through the P2P network. Once that has happened it requires collusion with the miner who fines the next block to reverse. That is hard...
Apparently they are the only developers capable of making any change at all.
Don't forget also that none of their assertions require citation.http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34092810/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
furthermore, no one wants to use Coinbase to buy their cup of coffee p2p. they just won't do it.
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.
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.
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.
this is a big deal.
Benjamin M. Lawsky, Superintendent of Financial Services, today announced that the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) granted a charter under the New York Banking Law to itBit Trust Company, LLC – a commercial Bitcoin exchange. ItBit, which is based in New York City, is the first virtual currency company to receive a charter from NYDFS.
http://www.dfs.ny.gov/about/press2015/pr1505071.htm
accts also have $250K FDIC insurance.
Benjamin M. Lawsky, Superintendent of Financial Services, today announced that the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) granted a charter under the New York Banking Law to itBit Trust Company, LLC – a commercial Bitcoin exchange. ItBit, which is based in New York City, is the first virtual currency company to receive a charter from NYDFS.
http://www.dfs.ny.gov/about/press2015/pr1505071.htm
accts also have $250K FDIC insurance.
this is interesting:
ItBit avoided the need for a BitLicense by instead applying for a trust company charter, which appears to come with even stricter regulations. It is the first trust company to be created in New York since the financial crisis.
Many Bitcoin companies have been held back by the difficulty of opening accounts with banks, which have been hesitant to deal with the risks of virtual currencies. As a trust company, itBit will be able to be the custodian of customer funds by itself.
The focus at itBit will be on allowing customers to buy, sell and hold the digital tokens as an asset, like a sort of digital gold.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/08/business/dealbook/bitcoin-exchange-receives-first-license-in-new-york-state.html?_r=1
this is a big deal.
Benjamin M. Lawsky, Superintendent of Financial Services, today announced that the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) granted a charter under the New York Banking Law to itBit Trust Company, LLC – a commercial Bitcoin exchange. ItBit, which is based in New York City, is the first virtual currency company to receive a charter from NYDFS.
http://www.dfs.ny.gov/about/press2015/pr1505071.htm
accts also have $250K FDIC insurance.
Benjamin M. Lawsky, Superintendent of Financial Services, today announced that the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) granted a charter under the New York Banking Law to itBit Trust Company, LLC – a commercial Bitcoin exchange. ItBit, which is based in New York City, is the first virtual currency company to receive a charter from NYDFS.
http://www.dfs.ny.gov/about/press2015/pr1505071.htm
accts also have $250K FDIC insurance.
Gavin is spreading MIT/USG FUD.
why the hurry?
Especially when there is no consensus?
Bitcoin is certainly not going to dissapear anyway.. THAT is HIS FUD.
why the hurry?
Especially when there is no consensus?
Bitcoin is certainly not going to dissapear anyway.. THAT is HIS FUD.
how about this?
pwuillie, gmax, luke, and corrallo are spreading Blockstream SC FUD. what, they don't care if the protocol breaks at 1MB full blocks coming soon? what a bunch of communists.
The risk of the 20MB block irreparably damaging Bitcoin is smaller than the risk of damaging Bitcoin as we approaching the 1MB block.
The FUD is spread by the majority of Bitcoin developers arguing for a delay so they can push through a quick fix (one that's been in development for some time - aka SC) in the event there is a problem.
They are behaving more like gorilla operatives.
regulators gonna regulate. any company with a CEO or known founders could be a target and that includes companies like Blockstream and to be fair 21. this is why i say that if you're gonna invest in Bitcoin, buy the currency unit. it's the safest place to be with the highest likelihood of an extraordinary return:
http://www.coindesk.com/fincen-director-examiniation-digital-currency/
http://www.coindesk.com/fincen-director-examiniation-digital-currency/
I love how they bombard me with propaganda:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/354qbm/bitcoin_devs_do_not_have_consensus_on_blocksize/cr122wx
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/354qbm/bitcoin_devs_do_not_have_consensus_on_blocksize/cr122wx
everyone who disagrees within that thread gets bombarded. that thread is a coordinated planned event.
I love how they bombard me with propaganda:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/354qbm/bitcoin_devs_do_not_have_consensus_on_blocksize/cr122wx
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/354qbm/bitcoin_devs_do_not_have_consensus_on_blocksize/cr122wx
i'd like to know who is behind the "Bitcoin Expert" handle flair that you brought to my attention last night. it's been brought out specifically for that one thread.
First time I've seen it.
it's a shameful tactic. right up theymo's alley.
i'd like to know who is behind the "Bitcoin Expert" handle flair that you brought to my attention last night. it's been brought out specifically for that one thread.
First time I've seen it.
I'd like to know who is behind several of the sock puppet accounts on Reddit who are participating on the discussion.
Over the last year or so I've noticed some distinctive writing characteristics appear in threads about a few specific topics, and the distinctive characteristics are spread across multiple Reddit accounts.
Sometimes they accidentally give themselves away by using that distinctive style and then delete the post.
Fortunately I've taken to performing lots of screenshots so I catch most of them before they get deleted.
Over the last year or so I've noticed some distinctive writing characteristics appear in threads about a few specific topics, and the distinctive characteristics are spread across multiple Reddit accounts.
Sometimes they accidentally give themselves away by using that distinctive style and then delete the post.
Fortunately I've taken to performing lots of screenshots so I catch most of them before they get deleted.
i'd like to know who is behind the "Bitcoin Expert" handle flair that you brought to my attention last night. it's been brought out specifically for that one thread. since theymos is apparently against the block size increase and runs /rBitcoin, it probably is him:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/354qbm/bitcoin_devs_do_not_have_consensus_on_blocksize/
Gloves starting to come off already. Suppose it was inevitable.
Definitely: http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34090292/
the Blockstream devs seem to forget that pools consist of individual users who are willing to aggregate their hashing power together to the pool operator. any operator who abuses that privilege will get shafted; just look at how ghash has been punished down to a mere 3% of the network despite what guys like gmax have been raving about for years. attempting what i think is a stupid technical attack of bloated blocks makes no sense as it would be quite costly and risky. no, gvts won't walk in the doors of several of these pool and force them to conduct this attack. there already exists a legal basis for running mines which can be used by the operators to defend themselves from such blatant illegal collusion. plus, most of the operators are dedicated Bitcoin believers who want to get their hands on as many BTC as fast as possible before the next 10x ramp just like their users. they would more likely do a Ladar Levinson (Lavabit) that would embarrass any gvt as well as punish that same gvt thru legal action. think back to the 0.8.1 fork where miners, lead by Eleuthria, did the ultimate to save the network.
Jump to: