Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
lunar
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,001
- 4,290
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/7epep5/a_full_node_was_born_today_serving_the_network_at/
Check this thread out. This is the myth that has been perpetuated. Somehow more nodes makes the network more secure. When in reality it's more like a fuzzy Sybil attack. Basically adding some latency in where there shouldn't be. Do you see any Core devs/mods telling people they are wrong? It's a lie that helps their narrative. - UASF
Even before the censoring, this argument was the very first one that tipped me off, I was being sold a lie. I couldn't reconcile how running my own node without mining was of any real help to the network.
All I was doing was monitoring and validating, but... if I can't effect the outcome of the next block or rewrite what's in a past block, what's the point? Surely that's the whole raison d'être of a blockchain, the eternal economic tug of war between competing miners keeps a neutral balance, and extends the immutable ledger?
As @Zangelbert Bingledack points out, these myths need to be busted. They are the sand foundation used to perpetuate all other fallacies.
molecular
Active Member
- Aug 31, 2015
- 372
- 1,391
Not that I know of. bitcoinabc and btcchat #electrum and #electron-cash channels are non-public and more about developing/testing. I've made a couple reddit "help" threads in the past when new version were released, but these are too short-lived. The fyookball/electrum github issues aren't suitable for this kind of discussion.
Maybe we could establish a thread here on bitco.in? If you want to do so, go ahead, I'll be happy to answer questions as far as my knowledge allows.
Norway
Well-Known Member
- Sep 29, 2015
- 2,424
- 6,410
@Justus Ranvier I really like that you acknowledge that paycodes are not privacy/fungibility solutions, while they improve it.
And that it's a user experience upgrade, which it certainly is.
This Stash-company thing has excellent people behind the levers.
And that it's a user experience upgrade, which it certainly is.
This Stash-company thing has excellent people behind the levers.
- Aug 29, 2015
- 536
- 2,597
Halong Mining "Dragon Mint" mining rig:
(https://twitter.com/halongmining)
Samson Mow "Dragons' Den" hat:
(https://twitter.com/halongmining)
Samson Mow "Dragons' Den" hat:
Norway
Well-Known Member
- Sep 29, 2015
- 2,424
- 6,410
@lunar Pasting in all the relevant comments from that thread showing what Core supporters think "full nodes" do:
^Ignores SPV
^Ignores that reorgs are a bigger concern than invalid blocks
^Ditto
^Ditto
^Various possible misconceptions
^Ignores SPV
^Ignores that reorgs are a bigger concern than invalid blocks
^Ditto
^Ditto
^Various possible misconceptions
Last edited:
^Seems to assume they thwart bad block propagation
^Sees them as relays in a network, implying many hops (perhaps there are indeed many hops in the listening node portion of network, a self-reinforcing trend)
^Sees them as relays in a network, implying many hops (perhaps there are indeed many hops in the listening node portion of network, a self-reinforcing trend)
Last edited:
^Ignores economics: you can always ensure your chain lives (though only guaranteed with a PoW change if minority), but who cares about this if no one else values it on the market? What meaning does "monetary sovereignty" have if your money loses most of its value? (Also ignores that you still can download code to access your coins in other branches anyway.) Also ignores mining incentives. Also implies you have a say in governance of the whole network (and equivocates on the term "network") by dint of your node, rather than your economic weight.
^Perhaps this commenter is saying SPV is secure but requires a lot of listening nodes to ensure all SPV wallets are served, but more likely, "Nodes need plenty of nodes to relay to all other nodes and keep things synced up" (many hops mesh-style network implied)
^Haven't read the links yet, but a quick glance shows a claim repeated several times: that "full nodes" can assure you a coin hasn't been doublespent. I think many people are taking this to mean "nodes are immune to doublespend attacks / reorgs, unlike SPV," so that may be a point to emphasize even more.
^Relays and Sybils (mesh network implied), extends this to confuse node consensus with Nakamoto consensus (perhaps an important link I hadn't noticed in the Core worldview, or is this just the UASF philosophy?)
^Relays (mesh), archiving function (in case we need to rollback?)
^Perhaps this commenter is saying SPV is secure but requires a lot of listening nodes to ensure all SPV wallets are served, but more likely, "Nodes need plenty of nodes to relay to all other nodes and keep things synced up" (many hops mesh-style network implied)
^Haven't read the links yet, but a quick glance shows a claim repeated several times: that "full nodes" can assure you a coin hasn't been doublespent. I think many people are taking this to mean "nodes are immune to doublespend attacks / reorgs, unlike SPV," so that may be a point to emphasize even more.
^Relays and Sybils (mesh network implied), extends this to confuse node consensus with Nakamoto consensus (perhaps an important link I hadn't noticed in the Core worldview, or is this just the UASF philosophy?)
^Relays (mesh), archiving function (in case we need to rollback?)
Last edited:
@Norway Inventing privacy technology first and retrofitting it with usability later has never worked even once in the history of computing. We're trying a different approach.
The credit for anything you like about our visuals belongs to @Jonathan Vaage
The credit for anything you like about our visuals belongs to @Jonathan Vaage
Richy_T
Well-Known Member
- Dec 27, 2015
- 1,085
- 2,741
Nokia bungled WAP so bad. I was developing a cinema ticketing app related to some stuff we were doing for UCI but it was painful all the way.
adamstgbit
Well-Known Member
- Mar 13, 2016
- 1,206
- 2,650
NewLiberty
Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 70
- 442
Yes, I honestly expect mining to be a billion dollar industry post-emission.
There is zero cost energy, (even without zero-point hoo ha things). It exists today. All producers of energy over-produce so that there is no blackout or brownout, because electricity is real-time.
It costs more to turn off energy production and turn it on again to meet demand variance.
Mining will, over time, gravitate to energy producers' facilities, and become the electricity buyer of last resort. What can not be sold to grid exchanges will be used to mine coin.
Electricity production is globally distributed, it is everywhere a local business.
Well before the end-game, we will see almost all mining done at energy producers and electricity distribution centers. It will also reduce the cost of electricity to consumers, and further reduce carbon footprint due to efficiency gains.
The mining fee market will be married to the electricity grid producer market, eventually the electricity grid exchanges will run on chain also, as a Distributed EXchange, (DEX).
The future is bright, we get there together. Don't ask "when", ask "how", then do.
When you are done, then you know "when".
@adamstgbit
Imagine 4 billion people making 1 transaction per day (on average) and paying $0.01 in fees. That is $40M per day, or $14.6B per year.
So, yes, I think mining will be a billion dollar industry post block subsidy. In fact, I suspect we'll have a lot more transactions per day per person, pushing us closer to a trillion dollar per year market.
Imagine 4 billion people making 1 transaction per day (on average) and paying $0.01 in fees. That is $40M per day, or $14.6B per year.
So, yes, I think mining will be a billion dollar industry post block subsidy. In fact, I suspect we'll have a lot more transactions per day per person, pushing us closer to a trillion dollar per year market.
adamstgbit
Well-Known Member
- Mar 13, 2016
- 1,206
- 2,650
@Peter R
these numbers are not realistic.... or at least, we should not be counting on these numbers. if it takes 4 billion poeple to make bitcoin self sustaining, then i am worried.
and why would they pay 1 cent went the can pay 0 and get the same service?
i think we might see alot of use cases where it makes sense to pay a 0.000001$ fee ( as low as possible ) because the app will be doing 10million TX a month and the devs wont want to pay 1000's of dollars in fees.
there is no question that a limitless blocksize will yield sub optimal amount of fees.
its like having a parking-lot business with limitless parking space competing with 10 other parking-lot businesses with limitless parking.
imposing a limitless blocksize is just as bad as imposing a 1MB limit. fortunately there is no way to enforce a limitless blocksize. miners will either set a reasonable limit that produces optimal fees, or they will be unprofitable.
[doublepost=1511422556,1511421612][/doublepost]oh shit look at the time
these numbers are not realistic.... or at least, we should not be counting on these numbers. if it takes 4 billion poeple to make bitcoin self sustaining, then i am worried.
and why would they pay 1 cent went the can pay 0 and get the same service?
i think we might see alot of use cases where it makes sense to pay a 0.000001$ fee ( as low as possible ) because the app will be doing 10million TX a month and the devs wont want to pay 1000's of dollars in fees.
there is no question that a limitless blocksize will yield sub optimal amount of fees.
its like having a parking-lot business with limitless parking space competing with 10 other parking-lot businesses with limitless parking.
imposing a limitless blocksize is just as bad as imposing a 1MB limit. fortunately there is no way to enforce a limitless blocksize. miners will either set a reasonable limit that produces optimal fees, or they will be unprofitable.
[doublepost=1511422556,1511421612][/doublepost]oh shit look at the time
Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
@adamstgbit: I love those folks that complain about the per-transaction energy use of Bitcoin (there was a thread on hackernews yesterday about it, evoking such things as the Fermi paradox) yet are keen on the 1MB limit.
And interestingly, all those hackers missed the transition from coin rewards to transaction fees, baked into the protocol and corollary of the emission schedule which would balance energy use in the long term with security and use of the network.
@Zangelbert Bingledack: All that looks like attempts to maneuver around the miners. The reality that the miners have a veto on all changes to BTC is something that still needs to sink in with the Core folks. I assume Greg and Adam know very well that they are inside the 'no changes anymore' trap now. But that likely also means that they won't try to push further changes to BTC from now on, as that would result in a loss of face on their side. Will they indirectly try to do another UASF, given how seemingly well it worked last time?
Will we see the exchanges that were keen on 'no changes' suddenly align with whatever Core (or a seemingly 'non-affiliated' group) wants to do as a 'UASF'? What will the customers say?
Will they spin such an extra group outside core trying to push a UASF as proof that "Bitcoin is decentralized"?
We have seen that the 'no changes, status quo' card is extremely effective and easy to play (ignoring the rhetorical change of the status quo from the WP to the Core code).
If someone goes ahead and implements Schnorr sigs on Cash (as I think @deadalnix wanted to do?) or similar improvements that Core proposed to do first - that will be the time when Core's reaction becomes interesting.
And interestingly, all those hackers missed the transition from coin rewards to transaction fees, baked into the protocol and corollary of the emission schedule which would balance energy use in the long term with security and use of the network.
@Zangelbert Bingledack: All that looks like attempts to maneuver around the miners. The reality that the miners have a veto on all changes to BTC is something that still needs to sink in with the Core folks. I assume Greg and Adam know very well that they are inside the 'no changes anymore' trap now. But that likely also means that they won't try to push further changes to BTC from now on, as that would result in a loss of face on their side. Will they indirectly try to do another UASF, given how seemingly well it worked last time?
Will we see the exchanges that were keen on 'no changes' suddenly align with whatever Core (or a seemingly 'non-affiliated' group) wants to do as a 'UASF'? What will the customers say?
Will they spin such an extra group outside core trying to push a UASF as proof that "Bitcoin is decentralized"?
We have seen that the 'no changes, status quo' card is extremely effective and easy to play (ignoring the rhetorical change of the status quo from the WP to the Core code).
If someone goes ahead and implements Schnorr sigs on Cash (as I think @deadalnix wanted to do?) or similar improvements that Core proposed to do first - that will be the time when Core's reaction becomes interesting.
Last edited:
Tinfoil hat time.
New dragon miner has a hard forked pow algorithm as a second algorithm. If there is a pow change by core these will be the only miners ready and "designed to" handle the new algo. Core representatives will control the vast majority of this new chains mining power.
New dragon miner has a hard forked pow algorithm as a second algorithm. If there is a pow change by core these will be the only miners ready and "designed to" handle the new algo. Core representatives will control the vast majority of this new chains mining power.
79b79aa8
Well-Known Member
- Sep 22, 2015
- 1,031
- 3,440
Latest threads
-
CRYPTOCURRENCY RECOVERY EXPERT; VISIT CYBER CONSTABLE INTELLIGENCE
- bealesanthony3
- 1 replies