Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 17555. (Read 26713425 times)
March 19, 2017, 06:46:13 PM
do not listen to r0ach he forked off to the silver chain weeks ago
March 19, 2017, 06:43:41 PM
Miners are not the majority, they follow the path (of all nodes).
Miners are supposed to represent the Nash equilibrium, so if you say you can't "trust" the miners, all you're really saying is that no nash equilibrium exists and bitcoin was a failed experiment that should not have value in the first place.
Hence my post:
Bitcoin was clearly designed with miners controlling the protocol and forks in mind. Instead of speaking the truth, that there's supposed to be such a large amount of individually acting miners that it's not possible for them all to collude forming a nash equilibrium, and that only win-win policies would be adopted in a non-zero game game, you instead have a failure of bitcoin decentralization where everyone who controls the entire coin can fit into one car.
ASICs and pools destroyed how bitcoin is supposed to function. It essentially died at that point and people just pretended it didn't ever since and now it's the Chinese Paypal. This doesn't mean "full nodes" now control bitcoin just because you don't want one car full of Chinamen to control it. That's not how it works. Miners will always control it or it's not actually bitcoin. The fact is, there was a breakdown in the decentralization and Nash equilibrium of bitcoin that has to be addressed.
Decentralization may even be an insoluble problem itself, making this thing a giant fugazi no matter what you do. I tend to believe that is the case until someone can prove me wrong. I imagine it would take something extreme like some cutting edge cryptography to let you create decentralized captchas for mining so that it takes active user input to solve blocks - human based mining. Using energy expenditure to find convergence was never that great of an idea in the first place when energy costs are not even close to uniform across the globe. It was designed to centralize even without ASICs.
Why do you think I like metals? Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme created by *some guy. Gold and silver are a Ponzi scheme created by *God.
ASICs and pools destroyed how bitcoin is supposed to function. It essentially died at that point and people just pretended it didn't ever since and now it's the Chinese Paypal. This doesn't mean "full nodes" now control bitcoin just because you don't want one car full of Chinamen to control it. That's not how it works. Miners will always control it or it's not actually bitcoin. The fact is, there was a breakdown in the decentralization and Nash equilibrium of bitcoin that has to be addressed.
Decentralization may even be an insoluble problem itself, making this thing a giant fugazi no matter what you do. I tend to believe that is the case until someone can prove me wrong. I imagine it would take something extreme like some cutting edge cryptography to let you create decentralized captchas for mining so that it takes active user input to solve blocks - human based mining. Using energy expenditure to find convergence was never that great of an idea in the first place when energy costs are not even close to uniform across the globe. It was designed to centralize even without ASICs.
Why do you think I like metals? Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme created by *some guy. Gold and silver are a Ponzi scheme created by *God.
March 19, 2017, 06:41:00 PM
March 19, 2017, 06:37:56 PM
use with complacency : http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/services.html
March 19, 2017, 06:36:10 PM
And 80,9% of the Bitcoin Network will reject this Bu Block over 1Mb size limit.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18256233
Bitcoin Nodes don't relay a more than 1Mb Block size, it's all.
Simple.
The majority win.
Miners are not the majority, they follow the path (of all nodes).
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18256233
Bitcoin Nodes don't relay a more than 1Mb Block size, it's all.
Simple.
The majority win.
Miners are not the majority, they follow the path (of all nodes).
Where can I get those stats? Thanks!
March 19, 2017, 06:35:21 PM
Quote
Quote from: satoshi on October 04, 2010, 07:48:40 PM
It can be phased in, like:
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
It can be phased in, like:
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
So how does BU propose to 'phase in" their new blocksize? Is it in "versions way ahead"?
No, instead it is a really, really bad (and dangerous) fork at ANY time from then on and forever more policy. Still cannot quite fathom how it is being taken seriously, maybe people really are stupider than you can think.
March 19, 2017, 06:35:13 PM
And 80,9% of the Bitcoin Network will reject this Bu Block over 1Mb size limit.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18256233
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18256233
its a civil attack!
I know I wouldn't be too civil if I wanted my own central bank!
March 19, 2017, 06:33:08 PM
And 80,9% of the Bitcoin Network will reject this Bu Block over 1Mb size limit.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18256233
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18256233
its a civil attack!
March 19, 2017, 06:31:38 PM
And 80,9% of the Bitcoin Network will reject this Bu Block over 1Mb size limit.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18256233
Bitcoin Nodes don't relay a more than 1Mb Block size, it's all.
Simple.
The majority win.
Miners are not the majority, they follow the path (of all nodes).
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18256233
Bitcoin Nodes don't relay a more than 1Mb Block size, it's all.
Simple.
The majority win.
Miners are not the majority, they follow the path (of all nodes).
March 19, 2017, 06:30:22 PM
72 370.84083865 BTC agree that:
Block size limit should be increased to 8 mb as soon as possible
Block size limit should be increased to 8 mb as soon as possible
March 19, 2017, 06:06:37 PM
Here's a new thought. If BU forks, then only segwit stays at ~100% hashpower and we get segwit with no more fight!!!!
Fork BU, I dare you to fork right now!!!!
Fork BU, I dare you to fork right now!!!!
decentralized amongst two miners
It's not the miners that matter.....
March 19, 2017, 05:39:45 PM
Welcome back in bitcoin 
Just made 0.2 btc profit by pumping ZEC, it could be 3 btc but my wallet crashed and it took much time to recover and while that happened bitcoin crawled back up and ZEC was sliding down lol. But i am learning every day Funny how everyone here is scared because of some FUD. Its always the same song: Bitcoin starts to move a little up: FOMO + whales + newbies = bubble. Then FUD appears and people start to believe it and and dump happens.
My point is: Bitcoin didnt crashed because of BU but because people were thinking that it would crash. Traders can controll the price with their minds.
Just made 0.2 btc profit by pumping ZEC, it could be 3 btc but my wallet crashed and it took much time to recover and while that happened bitcoin crawled back up and ZEC was sliding down lol. But i am learning every day Funny how everyone here is scared because of some FUD. Its always the same song: Bitcoin starts to move a little up: FOMO + whales + newbies = bubble. Then FUD appears and people start to believe it and and dump happens.My point is: Bitcoin didnt crashed because of BU but because people were thinking that it would crash. Traders can controll the price with their minds.
March 19, 2017, 05:27:32 PM
Quote from: satoshi - bitcoin.pdf
What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party.
If I have to rely on another person to provide me with the block chain data, that is clearly the need for a trusted third party.
If you run an SPV node that connects broadly to the network, only have to rely on the network being honest, not a particular node operator. SPV nodes are even described in the whitepaper (one click away in my sig).
March 19, 2017, 05:25:40 PM
an appeal to authority is not an argument.
No, but an appeal to genius is. And he is. In the real sense of the word.Don't consider the rest worth anything. Maybe others will.
March 19, 2017, 05:23:01 PM
Here's a new thought. If BU forks, then only segwit stays at ~100% hashpower and we get segwit with no more fight!!!!
Fork BU, I dare you to fork right now!!!!
Fork BU, I dare you to fork right now!!!!
decentralized amongst two miners
March 19, 2017, 05:22:24 PM
Besides, are you really going to argue with Satoshi?
Satoshi gave us something really fantastic and I appreciate that more than most...
...but an appeal to authority is not an argument.
Besides, no one is perfect (otherwise mining pools wouldn't exist and solo mining would be the only option).
He also said the following.
Quote from: satoshi - bitcoin.pdf
What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party.
If I have to rely on another person to provide me with the block chain data, that is clearly the need for a trusted third party.
March 19, 2017, 05:21:53 PM
Here's a new thought. If BU forks, then only segwit stays at ~100% hashpower and we get segwit with no more fight!!!!
Fork BU, I dare you to fork right now!!!!
Fork BU, I dare you to fork right now!!!!
March 19, 2017, 05:15:36 PM
The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users. The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be. Those few nodes will be big server farms. The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate.
In that case we have centralization. In that case, who guarantees that so few people won't come together to alter the issuance of bitcoin. The bitcoin issuance schedule and the decentralization to keep the schedule unchanged is why most of us are here in the first place?
Besides, are you really going to argue with Satoshi?
March 19, 2017, 05:13:34 PM
The answer is becoming increasingly obvious to me. We have people who want bitcoin to grow. This also means a much, much higher price, even if just as a side effect, and it involves orders of magnitudes more people than we currently have in the bitcoin ecosystem, which will require far higher transaction capability of the network.
And we have people that want bitcoin to die.
And we have people that want bitcoin to die.
March 19, 2017, 05:12:51 PM
The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users. The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be. Those few nodes will be big server farms. The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate.
In that case we have centralization. In that case, who guarantees that so few people won't come together to alter the issuance of bitcoin. The bitcoin issuance schedule and the decentralization to keep the schedule unchanged is why most of us are here in the first place.
Jump to: