Pages:
Author

Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 47. (Read 2032266 times)

legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
August 12, 2015, 01:36:58 AM
You are also aware that lightning is an open source project right? Nobody is forcing you to use it.

Being an open source project says next to nothing about lock-ins that are achieved by network effects on related services.

You mean like how Red Hat has a lock-in on Linux related services, or Oracle with Java?

Oh wait...maybe you meant like MyMonero.com?   Cheesy
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
August 12, 2015, 01:28:23 AM
how did I not find this guy's medium blog before? full of gems

https://medium.com/@allenpiscitello

Quote
Why Votes Don’t Matter
Many of the proposals for the fork include a voting mechanism for miners to signal that they are upgraded. However, miners very easily can lie about their intentions. A miner may wish to trick other miners into mining the fork, then continue to mine the small block sizes in an attempt to have less competition by having miners waste efforts on a fork that will be orphaned. Votes will be extremely hard to trust.
legendary
Activity: 1036
Merit: 1000
August 12, 2015, 01:15:28 AM
Big middle finger to iCEBLOW, brg444, tvbcof, and MOA:



you still playing that game where you pretend any random thing that suits your delusions is confirmed true if price goes up  Huh

maybe you should move away from the keyboard forever then, we had a nice little rally that time you went camping or w/e

This level of price change is indeed just noise. Not a good strategy to try to tie conclusions to it, especially because insofar as you succeed you just set a precedent for the other side to do the same thing. Waste of time all around.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
August 12, 2015, 12:49:46 AM
Someone on reddit posted a limited proof of concept lightning like network, that lacks some functionality since bitcoin is missing the required op codes.

Here is the discussion on the fees, it sounds straight out of that blockstream business plan from earlier today.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gldfn/alpha_thundernetwork_a_lightning_network/ctzeppz

That's really what this is all about, creating new fee revenue streams that take fees from the main chain.

You mean the one that got thoroughly put to shame by mostly every sane poster on there?

You are also aware that lightning is an open source project right? Nobody is forcing you to use it.

Being an open source project says next to nothing about lock-ins that are achieved by network effects on related services.

Lock-ins like everyone is using fiat/CC so I should feel obliged to do the same? Honestly not sure what you're getting at?
legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
August 12, 2015, 12:46:29 AM
Someone on reddit posted a limited proof of concept lightning like network, that lacks some functionality since bitcoin is missing the required op codes.

Here is the discussion on the fees, it sounds straight out of that blockstream business plan from earlier today.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gldfn/alpha_thundernetwork_a_lightning_network/ctzeppz

That's really what this is all about, creating new fee revenue streams that take fees from the main chain.

You mean the one that got thoroughly put to shame by mostly every sane poster on there?

You are also aware that lightning is an open source project right? Nobody is forcing you to use it.

Being an open source project says next to nothing about lock-ins that are achieved by network effects on related services.


 
legendary
Activity: 1153
Merit: 1000
August 12, 2015, 12:34:30 AM
Someone on reddit posted a limited proof of concept lightning like network, that lacks some functionality since bitcoin is missing the required op codes.

Here is the discussion on the fees, it sounds straight out of that blockstream business plan from earlier today.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gldfn/alpha_thundernetwork_a_lightning_network/ctzeppz

That's really what this is all about, creating new fee revenue streams that take fees from the main chain.
legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
August 11, 2015, 11:55:57 PM
There's not too many things you can do in this country to piss people  off  more than violating their First Amendment rights.

Go theymos!

You don't have a 1A right to post off-topic stuff to the wrong sub forum.

You don't have a 1A right to post on privately owned sites, period.

TIL even some highly educated professionals conflate moderation and censorship.   Tongue
legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
August 11, 2015, 11:52:25 PM
I'm really disappointed. Theymos is going full retard and muddying the waters by linking the 21M with the 1MB.
Just because there were two very obscure early bugs in the maintenance of the 21M supply limit does not mean that the limit is or ever was uncertain. It was always set in stone.

And lets take the beast head on. The 21 million limit. Firstly Satoshi never actually encoded that limit in hard stone, it was added by devs just last year I think. Secondly, we have not even heard of any arguments in favour of it's increase. If say in 20 years it does appear that the fees are insufficient, and for the example let us suppose we are using lightning, considering that so many coins have already been lost irrevocably and may continue to be lost, what makes you think that you can today pass judgment on what may be a different situation?

I expect pro-Increase-the-Block-Limit people like me and maybe this whole thread to be banhammered any day. So if that happens I will be over on: https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/




Theymos has always been an extremely light-handed mod.  If he hasn't started banhammering you whining, exaggerating, self-pitying, Godwinning Gavinista SOBs by now, he not going to suddenly change that policy.
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
August 11, 2015, 11:47:36 PM
Mods moving XT threads into the altcoin sub forum to hide. Note iCEBLow in there demanding the banishment of competition:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12102884

Hide? The altcoin sub forum has more traffic.

Well I'LL be a rats ass!

TIL!
legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
August 11, 2015, 11:45:26 PM
Mods moving XT threads into the altcoin sub forum to hide. Note iCEBLow in there demanding the banishment of competition:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12102884

Hide? The altcoin sub forum has more traffic.
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
August 11, 2015, 11:39:39 PM
Mods moving XT threads into the altcoin sub forum to hide. Note iCEBLow in there demanding the banishment of competition:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12102884
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
August 11, 2015, 11:24:45 PM
I'm really disappointed. Theymos is going full retard and muddying the waters by linking the 21M with the 1MB.
Just because there were two very obscure early bugs in the maintenance of the 21M supply limit does not mean that the limit is or ever was uncertain. It was always set in stone.

And lets take the beast head on. The 21 million limit. Firstly Satoshi never actually encoded that limit in hard stone, it was added by devs just last year I think. Secondly, we have not even heard of any arguments in favour of it's increase. If say in 20 years it does appear that the fees are insufficient, and for the example let us suppose we are using lightning, considering that so many coins have already been lost irrevocably and may continue to be lost, what makes you think that you can today pass judgment on what may be a different situation?

I expect pro-Increase-the-Block-Limit people like me and maybe this whole thread to be banhammered any day. So if that happens I will be over on: https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/


There's not too many things you can do in this country to piss people  off  more than violating their First Amendment rights.

Go theymos!
legendary
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1013
August 11, 2015, 09:49:45 PM
I'm really disappointed. Theymos is going full retard and muddying the waters by linking the 21M with the 1MB.
Just because there were two very obscure early bugs in the maintenance of the 21M supply limit does not mean that the limit is or ever was uncertain. It was always set in stone.

And lets take the beast head on. The 21 million limit. Firstly Satoshi never actually encoded that limit in hard stone, it was added by devs just last year I think. Secondly, we have not even heard of any arguments in favour of it's increase. If say in 20 years it does appear that the fees are insufficient, and for the example let us suppose we are using lightning, considering that so many coins have already been lost irrevocably and may continue to be lost, what makes you think that you can today pass judgment on what may be a different situation?

This is an example of a black box understanding of Bitcoin. There is no principles or methodologies we can apply to the problem of understanding why Bitcoin works, so it's just magic and any potential change is scary because nobody knows how magic works.
legendary
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1006
100 satoshis -> ISO code
August 11, 2015, 08:58:53 PM
I'm really disappointed. Theymos is going full retard and muddying the waters by linking the 21M with the 1MB.
Just because there were two very obscure early bugs in the maintenance of the 21M supply limit does not mean that the limit is or ever was uncertain. It was always set in stone.

And lets take the beast head on. The 21 million limit. Firstly Satoshi never actually encoded that limit in hard stone, it was added by devs just last year I think. Secondly, we have not even heard of any arguments in favour of it's increase. If say in 20 years it does appear that the fees are insufficient, and for the example let us suppose we are using lightning, considering that so many coins have already been lost irrevocably and may continue to be lost, what makes you think that you can today pass judgment on what may be a different situation?

I expect pro-Increase-the-Block-Limit people like me and maybe this whole thread to be banhammered any day. So if that happens I will be over on: https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/
legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1895
August 11, 2015, 08:32:43 PM
...

Mengerian & Peter R

Yes, that does make sense.  When the amounts to be won from transactions are relatively higher, than I could certainly see:

"Fire that mother up, bitchez, pedal to the metal..."

As the reward amounts get bigger.  Kind of the way the PowerBall works, people really start buying when the jackpot reaches over $200,000,000.
legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1007
August 11, 2015, 08:13:47 PM
Quote
Anyways, to really understand what happens when R->0 I think we need to make a new model that takes into account what we just learned from your chart above (that miners won't necessarily be hashing all the time).

That seems to be an interesting point illustrating how the best interest of users and miners incentives could diverge.
For users, an empty block is always better than no block because it adds work to the chain and increases the security of the previous transactions.

Miners being financially motivated to shutdown for a period of time may not be an issue though.

Let's say that coinbase rewards are zero and miners live on fees only, and given a difficulty level it does not make sense to spend electricity until X number of fees/transactions are published.

In such a situation the difficulty will adjust/decrease until 10 minute blocks are restored. This might mean that after a block is found miners turn off for 5 minutes and only turn on after 5 minutes of fees are sent, but the difficulty will have adjusted so that miners are likely to find the next block 5 minutes after turning on. Yes this would also mean that if all miners keep running we would have 5 minute blocks, but they wouldn't be. And if they did then difficulty would adjust back up.

Since these issues develop slowly, I believe we would see that difficulty will continue to adjust to maintain 10 min blocks regardless of the financial incentives of the time.

Yeah, I was thinking about this too. Interesting to imagine a global network of bitcoin miners switching their hashing farms off and on as transactions build up.

Although we could expect the 10 minute block period to stay the same, it seems that the variance in the time between blocks should go down.

As you say, for the first few minutes after a block is published, very few miners would hash until a certain threshold of transaction fees could be reaped, so very few blocks would be found soon after the previous one. At the other end of the curve, the further beyond 10 minutes that a block is not found, we could expect miners to throw every last hash at the block, willing to burn lots of power to get the chance to collect the richer reward from blocks with more transactions than average. So the chances that a block takes much longer than 10 minutes would also decrease as miners frantically burn energy in the hopes of earning richer blocks full of fees.

Yes, I think you're right!  Very interesting.
legendary
Activity: 961
Merit: 1000
August 11, 2015, 07:05:31 PM
Have you guys seen this, a DAC gambling/prediction engine built on top of Ethereum

http://reason.com/blog/2015/08/11/augur-gambling-prediction-ethereum

I think this is the first example of a true DAC out in the wild that I've seen. Bitcoin still hasn't even gotten started yet.

Edit: the reason folks are solid libertarians but most of them still don't get bitcoin.

I've been following Augur for a while. I think the prediction markets and oracles have lots of potential.
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
August 11, 2015, 06:59:24 PM
The Fed Is Out Of Options, "QE Is All It Can Do Here" Art Cashin Predicts

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-11/fed-out-options-qe-all-it-can-do-here-art-cashin-predicts

newbie
Activity: 7
Merit: 0
August 11, 2015, 06:55:22 PM
Quote
Anyways, to really understand what happens when R->0 I think we need to make a new model that takes into account what we just learned from your chart above (that miners won't necessarily be hashing all the time).

That seems to be an interesting point illustrating how the best interest of users and miners incentives could diverge.
For users, an empty block is always better than no block because it adds work to the chain and increases the security of the previous transactions.

Miners being financially motivated to shutdown for a period of time may not be an issue though.

Let's say that coinbase rewards are zero and miners live on fees only, and given a difficulty level it does not make sense to spend electricity until X number of fees/transactions are published.

In such a situation the difficulty will adjust/decrease until 10 minute blocks are restored. This might mean that after a block is found miners turn off for 5 minutes and only turn on after 5 minutes of fees are sent, but the difficulty will have adjusted so that miners are likely to find the next block 5 minutes after turning on. Yes this would also mean that if all miners keep running we would have 5 minute blocks, but they wouldn't be. And if they did then difficulty would adjust back up.

Since these issues develop slowly, I believe we would see that difficulty will continue to adjust to maintain 10 min blocks regardless of the financial incentives of the time.

Yeah, I was thinking about this too. Interesting to imagine a global network of bitcoin miners switching their hashing farms off and on as transactions build up.

Although we could expect the 10 minute block period to stay the same, it seems that the variance in the time between blocks should go down.

As you say, for the first few minutes after a block is published, very few miners would hash until a certain threshold of transaction fees could be reaped, so very few blocks would be found soon after the previous one. At the other end of the curve, the further beyond 10 minutes that a block is not found, we could expect miners to throw every last hash at the block, willing to burn lots of power to get the chance to collect the richer reward from blocks with more transactions than average. So the chances that a block takes much longer than 10 minutes would also decrease as miners frantically burn energy in the hopes of earning richer blocks full of fees.
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
August 11, 2015, 06:52:54 PM
Chinese bourses now higher. Could it be that they expect lower renminbi in the future? I look forward to the day when the mainstreem looks to bitcoin pricing of the different currencies to decide their real value.


Nop, it's the new block size consensus making ripples!

I agree on that, but why has the spread changed from negative to positive?


brg444:  "aw, c'mon Erdy.  i just wanted to be a King".
Pages:
Jump to: