hang on. Dow futures -20.
I have a question...
Everything seems to be going down (except bitcoin, but I exclude it here because it's negligibly small).
Where's the money going?
US Dollar.
Because people believe Yellen will increase interest rates?
Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 88. (Read 2032272 times)
I have a question...
Everything seems to be going down (except bitcoin, but I exclude it here because it's negligibly small).
Where's the money going?
US Dollar.
Because people believe Yellen will increase interest rates?
hang on. Dow futures -20.
I have a question...
Everything seems to be going down (except bitcoin, but I exclude it here because it's negligibly small).
Where's the money going?
US Dollar.
yeah, i was gonna say. altho it's not perfectly correlated.
China seems to be dumping it into gold; knife catching
:
US Dollar.
Just make sure 1-5% of your NET WORTH (don't leverage yourself in a bad position) in BTC
hang on. Dow futures -20.
I have a question...
Everything seems to be going down (except bitcoin, but I exclude it here because it's negligibly small).
Where's the money going?
US Dollar.
hang on. Dow futures -20.
I have a question...
Everything seems to be going down (except bitcoin, but I exclude it here because it's negligibly small).
Where's the money going?
cash is king in times like these. Bitcoin will probably see some of that redistribution I imagine however
hang on. Dow futures -20.
I have a question...
Everything seems to be going down (except bitcoin, but I exclude it here because it's negligibly small).
Where's the money going?
i'd like to revisit that thought experiment i introduced last week.
an anonymous person hard forks the current Bitcoin code with the only change being a lifting of the limit. he provably destroys the commit key (a Bitcoin private key) over at github thru a op_return spend. the result being a Bitcoin source code with no core devs and thus no ability to change it going forward. would that be enough to carry Bitcoin forward for the next century?
This message is technically incohearent-- there is no such thing as a a "commit key", and "op_return spend" doesn't destroy information if there were; achieving what you suggest simply requires people stop upgrading (which is also part of the reason that we do not use automatic 'push' upgrades)---- but I certantly get the _intent_. and it's one I've forelorely expressed multiple time myself, going back years:an anonymous person hard forks the current Bitcoin code with the only change being a lifting of the limit. he provably destroys the commit key (a Bitcoin private key) over at github thru a op_return spend. the result being a Bitcoin source code with no core devs and thus no ability to change it going forward. would that be enough to carry Bitcoin forward for the next century?
That it would be philosophically ideal and achieve the highest security properites if the system were completely involatile, defined by it's own mechnical construction, and any change to it would simply be a different system which people could voluntarily move to by their own free choice. Through this the system would be immune to whilm, political control, or subterfuge in a much stronger sense.
Sadly, that result currently appears to be pratically be beyond the scope of human engineering abilities-- or at least beyond the efforts expended on any software system I'm aware of thus far.
A particular point that I couldn't disclose the time cypherdoc initially made the argument was that the software the network was running at that moment was vulnerable: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009697.html
We've had a pipeline of newly discovered non-public vulnerabilties in the Bitcoin protocol running almost all the time since 2012. I don't have a great answer to that hard questions, but sadly burying our heads in the sand cannot work-- it would just result in a regular series of potentially devistating "emergency" changes, rather than a orderly, planned, resolution.
lets be honest the main problem with LN right now is that it does not exist and to make that happen it first needs to be built and then every wallet and service will need to be retooled to use it.
But if the above was completed, its definitely worth using. But does that mean we should also not scale the mainchain? Absolutely not. We need multiple options here.
There are secondary problems with LN which we'll only really start to understand as LN starts being used.
1. Intermediary: If I understand it correctly, you open a payment channel with a LN node, and they open a payment channel with another LN node or with the ultimate destination. So LN is an intermediary -- but one of Bitcoin's greatest strengths is its "disintermediation" for the many reasons I won't rehash now. I've listened to well regarded entrepeneurs/technologists give speeches where this is one of their major talking points. I guess they'll no longer be interested.
2. Fees: IIRC, a LN payment requires the LN node contain as much working capital as outstanding payment channels. So a bitcoin payment of quantity A will "utilize" N*A actual bitcoins during the duration of the payment channel(s), where N is the # of hops through the LN network (minimum 2). LN nodes are GOING to charge a % for the privilege of using their $. Lately in fiat currencies it costs 1-3% to make a payment. It even costs that to get cash from an ATM and nowadays merchants just deposit that cash in the bank. What an awesome racket to get 1% of every single transaction! Bitcoin wiped away this scam because you could make a transfer for free or so close to free it did not matter (although you might have to wait). Not going to happen with the LN.
3. No "Blockchain" applications. Colored coins, etc won't work through LN (because you don't receive the exact coins that the sender sends into the network). I suppose you could post a txn to the LN with additional data, but you can only post ONE chunk (because your LN payment channel transaction is repeatedly overwritten). So I guess all the excitement right now around the blockchain as an immutable ledger (which TBH is the only exciting thing happening) will move to an altcoin...
But if the above was completed, its definitely worth using. But does that mean we should also not scale the mainchain? Absolutely not. We need multiple options here.
There are secondary problems with LN which we'll only really start to understand as LN starts being used.
1. Intermediary: If I understand it correctly, you open a payment channel with a LN node, and they open a payment channel with another LN node or with the ultimate destination. So LN is an intermediary -- but one of Bitcoin's greatest strengths is its "disintermediation" for the many reasons I won't rehash now. I've listened to well regarded entrepeneurs/technologists give speeches where this is one of their major talking points. I guess they'll no longer be interested.
2. Fees: IIRC, a LN payment requires the LN node contain as much working capital as outstanding payment channels. So a bitcoin payment of quantity A will "utilize" N*A actual bitcoins during the duration of the payment channel(s), where N is the # of hops through the LN network (minimum 2). LN nodes are GOING to charge a % for the privilege of using their $. Lately in fiat currencies it costs 1-3% to make a payment. It even costs that to get cash from an ATM and nowadays merchants just deposit that cash in the bank. What an awesome racket to get 1% of every single transaction! Bitcoin wiped away this scam because you could make a transfer for free or so close to free it did not matter (although you might have to wait). Not going to happen with the LN.
3. No "Blockchain" applications. Colored coins, etc won't work through LN (because you don't receive the exact coins that the sender sends into the network). I suppose you could post a txn to the LN with additional data, but you can only post ONE chunk (because your LN payment channel transaction is repeatedly overwritten). So I guess all the excitement right now around the blockchain as an immutable ledger (which TBH is the only exciting thing happening) will move to an altcoin...
no, no, no, nevermind your pretty little head. iCEBlow has got it all figured out with Team Core.
lets be honest the main problem with LN right now is that it does not exist and to make that happen it first needs to be built and then every wallet and service will need to be retooled to use it.
But if the above was completed, its definitely worth using. But does that mean we should also not scale the mainchain? Absolutely not. We need multiple options here.
There are secondary problems with LN which we'll only really start to understand as LN starts being used.
1. Intermediary: If I understand it correctly, you open a payment channel with a LN node, and they open a payment channel with another LN node or with the ultimate destination. So LN is an intermediary -- but one of Bitcoin's greatest strengths is its "disintermediation" for the many reasons I won't rehash now. I've listened to well regarded entrepeneurs/technologists give speeches where this is one of their major talking points. I guess they'll no longer be interested.
2. Fees: IIRC, a LN payment requires the LN node contain as much working capital as outstanding payment channels. So a bitcoin payment of quantity A will "utilize" N*A actual bitcoins during the duration of the payment channel(s), where N is the # of hops through the LN network (minimum 2). LN nodes are GOING to charge a % for the privilege of using their $. Lately in fiat currencies it costs 1-3% to make a payment. It even costs that to get cash from an ATM and nowadays merchants just deposit that cash in the bank. What an awesome racket to get 1% of every single transaction! Bitcoin wiped away this scam because you could make a transfer for free or so close to free it did not matter (although you might have to wait). Not going to happen with the LN.
3. No "Blockchain" applications. Colored coins, etc won't work through LN (because you don't receive the exact coins that the sender sends into the network). I suppose you could post a txn to the LN with additional data, but you can only post ONE chunk (because your LN payment channel transaction is repeatedly overwritten). So I guess all the excitement right now around the blockchain as an immutable ledger (which TBH is the only exciting thing happening) will move to an altcoin...
But if the above was completed, its definitely worth using. But does that mean we should also not scale the mainchain? Absolutely not. We need multiple options here.
There are secondary problems with LN which we'll only really start to understand as LN starts being used.
1. Intermediary: If I understand it correctly, you open a payment channel with a LN node, and they open a payment channel with another LN node or with the ultimate destination. So LN is an intermediary -- but one of Bitcoin's greatest strengths is its "disintermediation" for the many reasons I won't rehash now. I've listened to well regarded entrepeneurs/technologists give speeches where this is one of their major talking points. I guess they'll no longer be interested.
2. Fees: IIRC, a LN payment requires the LN node contain as much working capital as outstanding payment channels. So a bitcoin payment of quantity A will "utilize" N*A actual bitcoins during the duration of the payment channel(s), where N is the # of hops through the LN network (minimum 2). LN nodes are GOING to charge a % for the privilege of using their $. Lately in fiat currencies it costs 1-3% to make a payment. It even costs that to get cash from an ATM and nowadays merchants just deposit that cash in the bank. What an awesome racket to get 1% of every single transaction! Bitcoin wiped away this scam because you could make a transfer for free or so close to free it did not matter (although you might have to wait). Not going to happen with the LN.
3. No "Blockchain" applications. Colored coins, etc won't work through LN (because you don't receive the exact coins that the sender sends into the network). I suppose you could post a txn to the LN with additional data, but you can only post ONE chunk (because your LN payment channel transaction is repeatedly overwritten). So I guess all the excitement right now around the blockchain as an immutable ledger (which TBH is the only exciting thing happening) will move to an altcoin...
As Frappuccino purchases move off main chain and are consolidated by Layer 2 processes, each of Layer 1's 7 tps becomes increasingly valuable, demonstrating it is not the size of the block that matters, but how you use it.
I LOL'ed
LOL'ed - i love the word
good joke kinda reflects where his thinking is derived.
notice how stock mkts almost perfectly reflect consumer sentiment/confidence. or vice versa.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-07-28/us-economic-consumer-confidence-plunges-10-month-lows-hope-crashes
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-07-28/us-economic-consumer-confidence-plunges-10-month-lows-hope-crashes
As Frappuccino purchases move off main chain and are consolidated by Layer 2 processes, each of Layer 1's 7 tps becomes increasingly valuable, demonstrating it is not the size of the block that matters, but how you use it.
I LOL'ed
LOL'ed - i love the word
good joke
hang on. Dow futures -20.
Unfortunately for money to have store of value efficiency it must ultimately have value which with bitcoin rests again on its currency efficiency.
Miners could only store non dust UTXOs in easily accessible storage and ignore incoming txns that spend them unless the fee is worth the cost to look the UTXOs up. There are so many possibilities. Your problem is that you are a central planner even tho you dont know it -- you are forcing a particular solution (expensive limited txns) onto the network as a whole.
Miners could only store non dust UTXOs in easily accessible storage and ignore incoming txns that spend them unless the fee is worth the cost to look the UTXOs up. There are so many possibilities. Your problem is that you are a central planner even tho you dont know it -- you are forcing a particular solution (expensive limited txns) onto the network as a whole.
He refuses to understand where the speculative value of bitcoin lies, the decentralised cheap unlimited transactional nature of bitcoin coupled with first mover advantage and importantly the expectation of progressive adoptive waves of new users.
If bitcoin is crippled and day to day transactions are forced off chain then bitcoin ceases to maintain either it's attractiveness or advantages over competing usurper chains. It isn't hard to see a migration of new users to alternate chains or digital monetary media and a collapse in the exchange price of bitcoin if that scenario plays out.
Does the Core team really believe bitcoin will maintain it's speculative value if it continues to be a play thing for 10,000 people globally?
Quote
The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004
Oh yeah? So adding complicated stuff like sidechains and lightning network is making bitcoin code smaller?
To the extent those build on top of Bitcoin they aren't adding features to it or making the the core code bigger. If they require changes to the core code or adding new features to it, that's a different matter that needs to be considered carefully.
But if the claim is that sidechains are the 'solution' to the 'problem'. Then you are saying they are part of bitcoin [the ecosystem] whether they are part of core or not.
Increasing block size does not add features *and* it 'solves' the 'problem'. Without introducing any other layers of complexity, or attempting to artificially manipulate the fee economy that is growing organically just as it was always intended.
What frightens me is that the whole thing seems to have turned into a pissing contest.
The fee market isn't a problem right now, the block size is. So why are people trying to pre-emptively fix the fee market in an ass backwards way to address the block size problem.
Nobody is claiming to have predetermined that sidechains (or LN) are necessarily the ENTIRETY of the solution to the scaling problem, only that they are potentially part of it. Bitcoin is an ongoing bleeding-edge experiment, and we are working with intuition, educated guesses, hypotheses, and prototypes, not off-the-shelf kit in neat little boxes.
Increasing block size does add features (and/or bugs), in the form of higher tps and whatever concomitant other new auto/adaptive regulation mechanisms come along with the eventual solution. 100k max tx size is probably only the first such required adjustment.
And thus, the 100k max tx adjustment neatly destroys your claim that larger blocks do not introduce additional complexity. More is different; the dose makes the poison...
The Red Queen interpretation, whereby we must change Bitcoin ASAP for the sake of keeping it the same, is absurd. Moving the tx supply curve with the goal of controlling the range where it intersects that of demand is prima facie centralized market manipulation. As long as tx fees are absurdly underpriced, in terms of their cost and what users are willing to pay, the fee market is completely broken. Bitoin's 'free sample/loss leader' viral marketing campaign phase ended with the emergence of omnipresent 'cosmic background spam.'
The "pissing contest" which "frightens" your delicate sensibilities is exactly the "fight" to which Tannenbaum exhorts us, because the "adversarial process is valuable in assuring [features] do not compromise security or reliability."
Misrepresenting my position then arguing against that isn't going to cut it.
I said the problem is that the block size is too small, and that the solution is to make the block size bigger. That doing this requires no additional functionality. I contrasted this to the sidechain solution which does require additional functionality. As you rightly say nobody is claiming that is entirely the solution, but that is irrelevant, the point is that this or other solution(s) that require extra functionality are the very thing that your Tanenbaum quote warns against.
All that stuff you said about how we need to change TX size, thats some other thing. Either you are intentionally conflating the two, which is disingenuous or you really can't tell the difference, which I doubt is the case.
It looks to me like your emotional attachment to your position is causing your reasoning to become irrational. I don't think anyone's argument is absurd. I can see how enforcing higher fees benefits some parties, I think that misses the big picture which is that it *requires* additional functionality.
I'm not frightened of pissing contests, I think they are childish. You don't need to "fight" anything. As a smart human being we all need to listen, think and reason. Not inject hyperbole, and inflammatory language into posts to try and bully your opposition. Your argument should stand on its own merit and not the vehemence with which it is delivered.
If anything, we should get the blocksize to the largest rationally supportable size
This is exactly where reasonable people differ.
That is a key word right there "reasonable". I certainly haven't had any great epiphany as to how to choose the correct size or how to make it a reliably updated thing. Predictability and anything that removes human consensus making from an ongoing process is what I would favor.
The only way to remove human consensus from the ongoing process is to leave it exactly the way it is. No changes to the consensus rules ever (MP argument).
That is btw pretty much Wladimir's view. He's not going to back any change that doesn't have human consensus. So you either have human consensus or, removing it from the process, no changes at all.
i wonder what all those guys will say next year when the Blockstream guys want to change the code for SC's and LN if Gavin objects.
Sidechains can be done with a soft fork, which means all they need to do is sign up miners (and of course find customers who want to use the side chain). It doesn't require a global consensus.
But if SC, and also LN, needs a block size increase in any case (source, source2), doesn't this mean that introducing SC implies an hard-fork?
Increasing block size does add features (and/or bugs), in the form of higher tps and whatever concomitant other new auto/adaptive regulation mechanisms come along with the eventual solution. 100k max tx size is probably only the first such required adjustment.
In the very thread you linked gmaxwell said solution proposed by
gavin adopt an indirect and simplistic approach, to which gavin replied:
Quote from: Gavin Andresen http://bitcoin-development.narkive.com/wEdAXkTT/for-discussion-limit-transaction-size-to-mitigate-cve-2013-2292#selection:6.634.213
But I would REALLY hate myself if in ten years a future version of me was struggling to
get consensus to move away from some stupid 100,000 byte transaction size limit
I imposed to mitigate a potential DoS attack.
So I agree, a limit on sigops is the right way to go. And if that is being changed,
might as well accurately count exactly how many sigops a transaction actually
requires to be validated...
get consensus to move away from some stupid 100,000 byte transaction size limit
I imposed to mitigate a potential DoS attack.
So I agree, a limit on sigops is the right way to go. And if that is being changed,
might as well accurately count exactly how many sigops a transaction actually
requires to be validated...
the bolded part really makes me laugh, though.
that said it seems that there won't be any cap to tx size for the moment.
Unfortunately for money to have store of value efficiency it must ultimately have value which with bitcoin rests again on its currency efficiency.
Miners could only store non dust UTXOs in easily accessible storage and ignore incoming txns that spend them unless the fee is worth the cost to look the UTXOs up. There are so many possibilities. Your problem is that you are a central planner even tho you dont know it -- you are forcing a particular solution (expensive limited txns) onto the network as a whole.
Miners could only store non dust UTXOs in easily accessible storage and ignore incoming txns that spend them unless the fee is worth the cost to look the UTXOs up. There are so many possibilities. Your problem is that you are a central planner even tho you dont know it -- you are forcing a particular solution (expensive limited txns) onto the network as a whole.
If we are to think about Bitcoin in the long term, and given Bitcoin's reasonably critical economic mass of ~$5 bil, current temporary block subsidies can be discounted as we consider fundamental questions about how and when to change one of Satoshi's Holy Numbers.
To which holy number are you referring to?
One last question: what's your position on block size limit, never change it or change (in the way you like the most) in the future?
As Frappuccino purchases move off main chain and are consolidated by Layer 2 processes, each of Layer 1's 7 tps becomes increasingly valuable, demonstrating it is not the size of the block that matters, but how you use it.
I LOL'ed
Jump to: