Topic: The Real Problem isn&#039;t XT... - page 2. (Read 3734 times)

Quote from: meono on August 18, 2015, 12:23:59 PM

The economic incentives dictates noone want to shoot their own golden goose. Bitcoin wouldnt have worked if your scenario can happen.

Game theory 101

Btw, your scenario is exactly the "worst case" that Mike said in the video chat interview " technical mess" he said. To prevent such attacks, having checkpoints and ignoring the longest chain are the only viable defense mechanism.

Sadly, his words got twisted around and misunderstood by a bunch of idiots, who are also quickly against BitcoinXT and call him dictator.

In this case, you are not shooting your own golden goose, but the competitor's, and make your eggs sell better. It is strange that even Mike and Gavin know such kind of risk is high, they still go ahead with their plan to prepare a fork which brings high uncertainty

I don't know how long they have been fighting each other, but that kind of thing is a norm among a group of decision makers in large organizations. But since bitcoin is not a centralized organization, this traditional way of working is outdated

In fact this revealed one weakness of bitcoin is its centralization of the development, so maybe we should set one dynamic blocksize rule and forbid any future change in protocol to permanently remove this political risk. Gold never changed its property for thousands of years, that's the reason it can be trusted

75% of hash power would be a good indicator whos the winner.

You're assuming the rest of 25% decide to burn all their capital because .... they're not having it their ways. Right.

Businesses only care one thing : return on investment. Miners are simply rewarded for their services.

Even if XT gained 80% of hash power, bitcoin is going to crash, because more and more people will leave, as they understand this is just another version of USD with another group of dictators

It seems you are not a miner. Industry scale miners are essentially distributed central bank of bitcoin monetary system, they usually have the best possible knowledge and also the wealthiest in this whole ecosystem (It's impossible to design an ASIC miner if you don't know how bitcoin works under the hood), they of course participate in all kinds of political movements, and this is already a potential danger, so that in the future, government only need to control 5-10 guys to control the whole bitcoin network

How exactly it is a group of dictators?

By that logic, wouldnt that make bitcoin core dev group a group of dictator?

The economic majority (the ppl that give bitcoin economic value) seeks for features they want , and instead they got told what to have by a group of ppl?

Here we go again with your stupid perspective of industrial miners. If you didnt see this long time ago, it just showed your lack of economy understanding. And such you want a group of ppl (bitcoin core devs) to act as economic experts and control the "economy" by "policies"

johnyj

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1012

Beyond Imagination

Quote from: johnyj on August 18, 2015, 12:18:20 PM

Quote from: johnyj on August 18, 2015, 12:18:20 PM

The economic incentives dictates noone want to shoot their own golden goose. Bitcoin wouldnt have worked if your scenario can happen.

Game theory 101

Btw, your scenario is exactly the "worst case" that Mike said in the video chat interview " technical mess" he said. To prevent such attacks, having checkpoints and ignoring the longest chain are the only viable defense mechanism.

Sadly, his words got twisted around and misunderstood by a bunch of idiots, who are also quickly against BitcoinXT and call him dictator.

In this case, you are not shooting your own golden goose, but the competitor's, and make your eggs sell better. It is strange that even Mike and Gavin know such kind of risk is high, they still go ahead with their plan to prepare a fork which brings high uncertainty

I don't know how long they have been fighting each other, but that kind of thing is a norm among a group of decision makers in large organizations. But since bitcoin is not a centralized organization, this traditional way of working is outdated

In fact this revealed one weakness of bitcoin is its centralization of the development, so maybe we should set one dynamic blocksize rule and forbid any future change in protocol to permanently remove this political risk. Gold never changed its property for thousands of years, that's the reason it can be trusted

75% of hash power would be a good indicator whos the winner.

You're assuming the rest of 25% decide to burn all their capital because .... they're not having it their ways. Right.

Businesses only care one thing : return on investment. Miners are simply rewarded for their services.

Even if XT gained 80% of hash power, bitcoin is going to crash, because more and more people will leave, as they understand this is just another version of USD with another group of dictators

It seems you are not a miner. Industry scale miners are essentially distributed central bank of bitcoin monetary system, they usually have the best possible knowledge and also the wealthiest in this whole ecosystem (It's impossible to design an ASIC miner if you don't know how bitcoin works under the hood), they of course participate in all kinds of political movements, and this is already a potential danger, so that in the future, government only need to control 5-10 guys to control the whole bitcoin network

fenican

hero member

Activity: 1394

Merit: 505

There are reasonable arguments on both sides of the block size debate.

Given that the issue is not urgent, I think the core team has taken the right approach. Bitcoin eventually needs to scale to more than 7 transactions per second but there is no compelling reason to rush out a fix.

meono

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

The economic incentives dictates noone want to shoot their own golden goose. Bitcoin wouldnt have worked if your scenario can happen.

Game theory 101

Btw, your scenario is exactly the "worst case" that Mike said in the video chat interview " technical mess" he said. To prevent such attacks, having checkpoints and ignoring the longest chain are the only viable defense mechanism.

Sadly, his words got twisted around and misunderstood by a bunch of idiots, who are also quickly against BitcoinXT and call him dictator.

In this case, you are not shooting your own golden goose, but the competitor's, and make your eggs sell better. It is strange that even Mike and Gavin know such kind of risk is high, they still go ahead with their plan to prepare a fork which brings high uncertainty

I don't know how long they have been fighting each other, but that kind of thing is a norm among a group of decision makers in large organizations. But since bitcoin is not a centralized organization, this traditional way of working is outdated

In fact this revealed one weakness of bitcoin is its centralization of the development, so maybe we should set one dynamic blocksize rule and forbid any future change in protocol to permanently remove this political risk. Gold never changed its property for thousands of years, that's the reason it can be trusted

75% of hash power would be a good indicator whos the winner.

You're assuming the rest of 25% decide to burn all their capital because .... they're not having it their ways. Right.

Businesses only care one thing : return on investment. Miners are simply rewarded for their services.

johnyj

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1012

Beyond Imagination

Quote from: johnyj on August 18, 2015, 11:57:21 AM

The economic incentives dictates noone want to shoot their own golden goose. Bitcoin wouldnt have worked if your scenario can happen.

Game theory 101

Btw, your scenario is exactly the "worst case" that Mike said in the video chat interview " technical mess" he said. To prevent such attacks, having checkpoints and ignoring the longest chain are the only viable defense mechanism.

Sadly, his words got twisted around and misunderstood by a bunch of idiots, who are also quickly against BitcoinXT and call him dictator.

In this case, you are not shooting your own golden goose, but the competitor's, and make your eggs sell better. It is strange that even Mike and Gavin know such kind of risk is high, they still go ahead with their plan to prepare a fork which brings high uncertainty

I don't know how long they have been fighting each other, but that kind of thing is a norm among a group of decision makers in large organizations. But since bitcoin is not a centralized organization, this traditional way of working is outdated

In fact this revealed one weakness of bitcoin is its centralization of the development, so maybe we should set one dynamic blocksize rule and forbid any future change in protocol to permanently remove this political risk. Gold never changed its property for thousands of years, that's the reason it can be trusted

meono

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

Quote from: Mickeyb on August 18, 2015, 11:20:19 AM

Quote from: irfan01 on August 18, 2015, 05:40:23 AM

what it XT ??
whether it be very influential in bitcoin ??

it's the upcoming fork or an upgrade call it like you want, that will increase the already bad drama about bitcoin vs xt, it will be influent only if the fork it will actually occur, and for this to happen they need 75% of consensus, as far as i know, otherwise it's like XT never happened

In worst case, a fork double the amount of bitcoin in existence (core coin and XT coin, both 21 million, total 42 million), bitcoin price cut by half or more. And people will understand any fork is an inflation in bitcoin ecosystem and will reduce the long term credibility of this whole concept. Anyway, it is still better than FED creating 5x more money in a couple of years

if this can double the amount of coins in existence, what stop someone else, one day from bringing another fork with another new name GX or like that, and rising again the cap of bitcoin, isn't this an attempt to increase the cap in disguise, with the excuse to increase the transaction block limti as well?

Exactly this, this can open a Pandora box. If the division is to happen and we end up with 2 Bitcoins, then I think in 10 years, we could possibly have 10 different Bitcoins.

Division is the worst possible way for this to end and I hope it doesn't end like this. Either we will all be on the core in 6 months or we will all update to XT if they reach 75%, otherwise we will start something that will burn many people. That would be yet another Bitcoin drama that would hurt us all.

For a division to work, each coin must have its own complete ecosystem, e.g. enough hash power, enough merchant support, enough exchange support, wallet service provider etc... It is kind of situation like bitcoin and litecoin, but with a slight difference: Both chain use the same algorithm. This means, the chain that have larger hash power can easily double spend on the other chain, thus make it useless. However, even the smaller chain have less than 40% of total hash power, it is still larger than half of the larger chain, so it could easily fight back and cause same damage. So eventually it is a politics about gaining majority of the miner's support, which makes chinese miners a target for lobbying

The economic incentives dictates noone want to shoot their own golden goose. Bitcoin wouldnt have worked if your scenario can happen.

Game theory 101

Btw, your scenario is exactly the "worst case" that Mike said in the video chat interview " technical mess" he said. To prevent such attacks, having checkpoints and ignoring the longest chain are the only viable defense mechanism.

Sadly, his words got twisted around and misunderstood by a bunch of idiots, who are also quickly against BitcoinXT and call him dictator.

meono

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

Quote from: Mickeyb on August 18, 2015, 11:20:19 AM

if this can double the amount of coins in existence, what stop someone else, one day from bringing another fork with another new name GX or like that, and rising again the cap of bitcoin, isn't this an attempt to increase the cap in disguise, with the excuse to increase the transaction block limti as well?

Your logic is so flawed i'm stunt.

Go blame every single crypto project then, because you know what it takes away the capital which would have been into Bitcoin.

You might want to start with your sidechain supporters.

johnyj

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1012

Beyond Imagination

Quote from: irfan01 on August 18, 2015, 05:40:23 AM

what it XT ??
whether it be very influential in bitcoin ??

it's the upcoming fork or an upgrade call it like you want, that will increase the already bad drama about bitcoin vs xt, it will be influent only if the fork it will actually occur, and for this to happen they need 75% of consensus, as far as i know, otherwise it's like XT never happened

In worst case, a fork double the amount of bitcoin in existence (core coin and XT coin, both 21 million, total 42 million), bitcoin price cut by half or more. And people will understand any fork is an inflation in bitcoin ecosystem and will reduce the long term credibility of this whole concept. Anyway, it is still better than FED creating 5x more money in a couple of years

if this can double the amount of coins in existence, what stop someone else, one day from bringing another fork with another new name GX or like that, and rising again the cap of bitcoin, isn't this an attempt to increase the cap in disguise, with the excuse to increase the transaction block limti as well?

Exactly this, this can open a Pandora box. If the division is to happen and we end up with 2 Bitcoins, then I think in 10 years, we could possibly have 10 different Bitcoins.

Division is the worst possible way for this to end and I hope it doesn't end like this. Either we will all be on the core in 6 months or we will all update to XT if they reach 75%, otherwise we will start something that will burn many people. That would be yet another Bitcoin drama that would hurt us all.

For a division to work, each coin must have its own complete ecosystem, e.g. enough hash power, enough merchant support, enough exchange support, wallet service provider etc... It is kind of situation like bitcoin and litecoin, but with a slight difference: Both chain use the same algorithm. This means, the chain that have larger hash power can easily double spend on the other chain, thus make it useless. However, even the smaller chain have less than 40% of total hash power, it is still larger than half of the larger chain, so it could easily fight back and cause same damage. So eventually it is a politics about gaining majority of the miner's support, which makes chinese miners a target for lobbying

Again, you never need politics to decide the answer of 1+1, politics only becomes necessary when things has reached a very complex level. So far bitcoin is relatively simple, so it is important to keep it simple to not make it a victim of politicians

LiteCoinGuy

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1011

In Satoshi I Trust

or the core devs come back to reality and increase the blocksize to 4-5 MB (+25% increase p.a.) . i guess most people would stay with core in that case.

Mickeyb

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

Move On !!!!!!

Quote from: irfan01 on August 18, 2015, 05:40:23 AM

what it XT ??
whether it be very influential in bitcoin ??

it's the upcoming fork or an upgrade call it like you want, that will increase the already bad drama about bitcoin vs xt, it will be influent only if the fork it will actually occur, and for this to happen they need 75% of consensus, as far as i know, otherwise it's like XT never happened

Quote from: irfan01 on August 18, 2015, 05:40:23 AM

In worst case, a fork double the amount of bitcoin in existence (core coin and XT coin, both 21 million, total 42 million), bitcoin price cut by half or more. And people will understand any fork is an inflation in bitcoin ecosystem and will reduce the long term credibility of this whole concept. Anyway, it is still better than FED creating 5x more money in a couple of years

if this can double the amount of coins in existence, what stop someone else, one day from bringing another fork with another new name GX or like that, and rising again the cap of bitcoin, isn't this an attempt to increase the cap in disguise, with the excuse to increase the transaction block limti as well?

Exactly this, this can open a Pandora box. If the division is to happen and we end up with 2 Bitcoins, then I think in 10 years, we could possibly have 10 different Bitcoins.

Division is the worst possible way for this to end and I hope it doesn't end like this. Either we will all be on the core in 6 months or we will all update to XT if they reach 75%, otherwise we will start something that will burn many people. That would be yet another Bitcoin drama that would hurt us all.

TinEye

hero member

Activity: 639

Merit: 500

what it XT ??
whether it be very influential in bitcoin ??

it's the upcoming fork or an upgrade call it like you want, that will increase the already bad drama about bitcoin vs xt, it will be influent only if the fork it will actually occur, and for this to happen they need 75% of consensus, as far as i know, otherwise it's like XT never happened