let's just assume for a moment CSW and the Frenchman are equally bad. in BSV's case, CSW can't really do anything since it's stated policy is protocol lockdown. in BCH's case, the Frenchman can inflict his anger on the protocol every 6mo.
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
About the cause of the recent hash rate drop on BTC: https://coingeek.com/bitmain-might-be-about-to-decimate-btc-miners/ Allegedly, it's Bitmain trying to ruin less profitable miners.
A rumor fresh from the Coingeek propaganda channel
A rumor fresh from the Coingeek propaganda channel
the anger doesn't have to be by addition; it can be inflicted by omission. like, "I'm not gonna increase the blocksize until I get paid".
[doublepost=1569419523][/doublepost]or worse yet, it could be, "I'm not gonna increase the blocksize BECAUSE I'm getting paid, otherwise what else would there be to do?" the problem here is we don't know what's going on in the Frenchman's head, because AFAIK, there doesn't seem to be a plan, roadmap, deadline, or commitment to removing the limit whatsoever. and with q6mo hard forks, everything is always up in the air. if you're Fidelity, are you gonna commit to that?
Last edited:
- Dec 16, 2015
- 2,806
- 6,088
If you are SBI, are you gonna commit to 128MB blocks?
How about 256MB?
How about 2GB?
How about unconstrained blocks?
How about 256MB?
How about 2GB?
How about unconstrained blocks?
still here? I thought you "were done with me"? ah, I forgot, you've been assigned here.
As far as SBI is concerned, they'd prefer unlimited tx throughput capability so their business is free to grow.
As far as SBI is concerned, they'd prefer unlimited tx throughput capability so their business is free to grow.
Last edited:
Richy_T
Well-Known Member
- Dec 27, 2015
- 1,085
- 2,741
You don't think that replicating someone else's paper and adding a few extra (and in some cases, erroneous) tag-ons is blatant plagiarism?
Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
You do not believe Thomas Edison should be credited as the inventor of the light bulb?
Definitely not, and a lot of what I look at in the book is trying to show that invention is a very complex social process. He was in a very competitive race where he borrowed—some said stole—ideas from other inventors who were also working on an incandescent bulb. What made him ultimately successful was that he was not a lone inventor, a lone genius, but rather the assembler of the first research and development team at Menlo Park, N.J.
Why is he customarily credited with the invention?
Well, partly, Edison was himself a great promoter of his image, and it was important to claim to be the sole inventor in order to win the crucial patents that would determine which person got to control the market share. Also, I think that people wanted to believe in the idea of an inventive genius. Edison certainly was, by any stretch, an inventive genius, but people were very drawn to this idea that Edison was a wizard.
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2013/03/21/why-thomas-edison-isnt-the-inventor-of-the-light-bulb
The creation of a revolutionary product by assembling different inventions needs still a genius, even if he'll hide the inventors of the parts of his product.
Definitely not, and a lot of what I look at in the book is trying to show that invention is a very complex social process. He was in a very competitive race where he borrowed—some said stole—ideas from other inventors who were also working on an incandescent bulb. What made him ultimately successful was that he was not a lone inventor, a lone genius, but rather the assembler of the first research and development team at Menlo Park, N.J.
Why is he customarily credited with the invention?
Well, partly, Edison was himself a great promoter of his image, and it was important to claim to be the sole inventor in order to win the crucial patents that would determine which person got to control the market share. Also, I think that people wanted to believe in the idea of an inventive genius. Edison certainly was, by any stretch, an inventive genius, but people were very drawn to this idea that Edison was a wizard.
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2013/03/21/why-thomas-edison-isnt-the-inventor-of-the-light-bulb
The creation of a revolutionary product by assembling different inventions needs still a genius, even if he'll hide the inventors of the parts of his product.
Last edited:
The paper is a "proof" that bitcoin is Turing complete. Those opposed to CSW as an authority in Bitcoin argue bitcoin is not Turing complete.
The Joe Sixpack doesn't know WTF "Turing complete" is. What the ordinary people can see is XYZ is an exact copy of XYZ. So, therefore, it's a copy, and consequently, it's plagiarism. If people believe that paper is important and it's copied, then the author is a fake.
In reality, if the paper is not important, then no one cares if it was copied or not. FYI I've had tens of millions of an unimportant work of mine "illegally" copied, by millions and distributed by hundreds of people and no one gives a fuck. I'll wait forever for someone to use the injustice to prove those who copied my "unimportant" works are frauds. (why would they?)
I don't care for authorship; I only care that good ideas propagate and bad ideas fail.
It does not matter if CSW copied the math or body of work that proves whether or not Bitcoin is Turing complete. What matters is, is CSW's claim that bitcoin is Turing complete true or false.
Proving he copied existing works, does not prove he is wrong or a fraud. It's a sideshow a distraction for ordinary people, one they can understand.
The only relevant information is, is Bitcoin Turing complete or not? What's not talked about is, was CSW correct or incorrect, what is now talked about is, he's a plagiarising fraud.
Listening for signal requires you know what noise is.
Last edited:
Bitmain I suspect based on historical observations have crashed the price just before releasing new hardware, they sell a lot in Bitcoin, before releasing new hardware then earn back moreI I call that good business and understanding Bitcoin better than most. I'm not as doom and gloom as Coingeek, as I've designed a business to profit from this historic pattern, my business runs countercyclical to the SHA256 hashing industry trends.About the cause of the recent hash rate drop on BTC: https://coingeek.com/bitmain-might-be-about-to-decimate-btc-miners/ Allegedly, it's Bitmain trying to ruin less profitable miners.
A rumor fresh from the Coingeek propaganda channel
Of interest, here is a slide that shows Mining profitability relative to hashrate and ROI. This is an information-dense slide.
I've assumed a $10K BTC price and $0.10 /kWh.
So if you have $0.03/kwh, just multiply the energy breakeven by 0.3 and you have a minimum viable price needed to support X.
For the halving double the ROI and minimal price. (I pity those who still are stuck in the imperial mental shortcuts) with this slide, you can use it to estimate what other miners are going to do if you can estimate their energy cost and hardware.
Industry average could be about $0.05/kWh so those break-even prices can be assumed to be the minimum viable price at having time too.
Last edited:
cypherblock
Active Member
- Nov 18, 2015
- 163
- 182
Never said "they" will go against everything they've said, or that "their" actions are concerning me. Nor did I indicate anything in the way of "mass betrayal". Why would you think I said that unless you are just attempting to foster ill will?
I cited CSW as a risk. If his 'control' over BSV is limited by others to a large extent then of course that risk is also reduced, and one would hope that over the long run the 'market' would realize that (and I refer not only to the price market, but also to the market in general of people deciding what crypto to use/accept etc).
cypherblock
Active Member
- Nov 18, 2015
- 163
- 182
Plagiarism does not require verbatim copy.
Here's the definition from Merriam-Webster: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plagiarize
(lol wouldn't it be funny if I didn't cite the source for this word)
"plagiarize
verb
pla·gia·rize | \ ˈplā-jə-ˌrīz also -jē-ə- \
plagiarized; plagiarizing
Definition of plagiarize
transitive verb
: to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source
intransitive verb
: to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source"
I mean if you are going to argue he didn't plagiarize the work, then I would strongly disagree as I expect any rational person would. If you want to claim that plagiarism doesn't matter in this context, and there is nothing wrong with it, well that is your choice, but a simple demonstration would go much much further than any complex mathematical proof.
Can bitcoin script compute some different functions and leave a value temporarily on the stack of the nodes running the script, yeah. Interestingly this has little practical benefit that I can see.
I would be swayed somewhat if I had some practical examples of computation using bitcoin script that were non trivial. Although even trivial things seem difficult. For example, can you write a script that will evaluate whether the inputs add up to 4, yes. Can you add the inputs and output the result on chain? Or is it just left ephemerally on the stacks? What are some examples of this turing completeness?
Norway
Well-Known Member
- Sep 29, 2015
- 2,424
- 6,410
@cypherblock maybe b/c of this comment from you?
what risks are you certainly referring to that is likely having a negative effect on BSV price? what has CSW done or said that makes you so certain?
@cypherblock thanks for the lesson, I think it if anything it makes CSW a hypocrite.
When assessing ideas, he's the only one I've seen saying Bitcoin is Turing complete, the paper he copied just supports that claim, and to my point you'd rather argue over the semantics of plagiarism than challenge the idea. It's almost like you telling us what is important and where we should put attention.
Professional hint I already know
cypherblock
Active Member
- Nov 18, 2015
- 163
- 182
@Norway LOL, start there, oh thanks so much for pointing me to that.
Bitcoin script and the processing of it is interesting and has some similarities to Forth which is a turing complete language. What would make it interesting for bitcoin to be turing complete would at least be some way to make use of this computation in the existing framework that is bitcoin.
But even ignoring whether the output is useful or not, it would be great to see (and would go along way to proving the case) if we simply had some examples of bitcoin script computing some interesting functions (100th value of pi, etc). No doubt some examples are possible (even if they might be a huge number of opcodes).
Going back to usefulness (sorry), even if we assume that script, can compute any function and the result is briefly in memory on the processing node's stacks, how do we use that?
[doublepost=1569468859][/doublepost]>and to my point you'd rather argue over the semantics of plagiarism than challenge the idea.
Exactly the opposite @AdrianX . See above.
[doublepost=1569468972][/doublepost]
Ryan X Charles I felt did a better job towards some kind of turing completeness explanation by at least loosely describing how to "unroll the loop" or something like that although I don't recall any good examples.
Bitcoin script and the processing of it is interesting and has some similarities to Forth which is a turing complete language. What would make it interesting for bitcoin to be turing complete would at least be some way to make use of this computation in the existing framework that is bitcoin.
But even ignoring whether the output is useful or not, it would be great to see (and would go along way to proving the case) if we simply had some examples of bitcoin script computing some interesting functions (100th value of pi, etc). No doubt some examples are possible (even if they might be a huge number of opcodes).
Going back to usefulness (sorry), even if we assume that script, can compute any function and the result is briefly in memory on the processing node's stacks, how do we use that?
[doublepost=1569468859][/doublepost]>and to my point you'd rather argue over the semantics of plagiarism than challenge the idea.
Exactly the opposite @AdrianX . See above.
[doublepost=1569468972][/doublepost]
Clemens Ley also claimed this and attempted to show how his system works. I could not follow his explanation nor have I found anyone else that did. Although I think Clemens's idea was more of a sytstem of nodes working together to produce some useful output rather than a pure script execution on its own.
Ryan X Charles I felt did a better job towards some kind of turing completeness explanation by at least loosely describing how to "unroll the loop" or something like that although I don't recall any good examples.
Last edited:
cypherblock
Active Member
- Nov 18, 2015
- 163
- 182
For example this paper (which I think is from craig?) gets closer to what I would expect to see: https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:0981025b-60e3-4bb3-bd2b-c0d5241e181d although I haven't evaluated it myself for correctness yet.
Norway
Well-Known Member
- Sep 29, 2015
- 2,424
- 6,410
Last edited:
Bitcoin script clearly can compute any function if the script is allowed to be long enough. You can regard this as Turing completeness and it's true. In Craig's paper he's showing that rigorously. To someone with a computer science background, this is a very intuitive result. The operations in script clearly are enough for any general computation. You don't need much to achieve that. For example, in a C-like language, you merely need if and goto to immediately become Turing complete.
Bitcoin script is Turing complete in that sense but you can't make a smart contract from that. And I think this is what people mean when they deny that Bitcoin is Turing complete.
A smart contract scheme must be able to run through many transactions and not just one. It must be able to maintain state, take inputs and take actions as a result.
The litmus test for smart contracts is if you can have a chess game where the rules are enforced on-chain. BSV cannot do that. The various schemes for alleged Turing completeness always require some form of cooperation from the participants. But if people cooperate, there is no need to encode the rules on-chain at all. The parties can simply run a normal piece of software and maybe document the outcome in an OP_RETURN for immutability.
BCH has demonstrated an on-chain chess game. I understand how it works. It's truly a Turing complete on-chain smart contract. The technique generalizes.
The key trick is that thanks to OP_CHECKDATASIG it is possible to constrain the spending condition in the outputs of the *next* transaction. You can make sure that the rules of the smart contract are carried forward.
In BSV, there is no way to constrain how someone spends an output. If they can spend they can simply spend all money to a normal address and exit the smart contract.
Maybe BSV can engineer economic incentives to make a chess game work even between anonymous strangers?
Bitcoin script is Turing complete in that sense but you can't make a smart contract from that. And I think this is what people mean when they deny that Bitcoin is Turing complete.
A smart contract scheme must be able to run through many transactions and not just one. It must be able to maintain state, take inputs and take actions as a result.
The litmus test for smart contracts is if you can have a chess game where the rules are enforced on-chain. BSV cannot do that. The various schemes for alleged Turing completeness always require some form of cooperation from the participants. But if people cooperate, there is no need to encode the rules on-chain at all. The parties can simply run a normal piece of software and maybe document the outcome in an OP_RETURN for immutability.
BCH has demonstrated an on-chain chess game. I understand how it works. It's truly a Turing complete on-chain smart contract. The technique generalizes.
The key trick is that thanks to OP_CHECKDATASIG it is possible to constrain the spending condition in the outputs of the *next* transaction. You can make sure that the rules of the smart contract are carried forward.
In BSV, there is no way to constrain how someone spends an output. If they can spend they can simply spend all money to a normal address and exit the smart contract.
Maybe BSV can engineer economic incentives to make a chess game work even between anonymous strangers?
cypherblock
Active Member
- Nov 18, 2015
- 163
- 182
LOL, I'm looking at that paper more closely and it seems pretty wack. Has errors and inconsistent notation and makes little sense as far as I can tell.
Let's be clear, you cannot execute the same section of script over and over again, you can't copy non values to the stack or alt-stack. So you cannot for example have some section of code executed N number of times where N is the result of some previous calculation. You can do conditional execution, so you can have something later in your script depend on results earlier.
You can have a really long script where if you want something done 8 times you can have 8 sections of code do that, because you knew in advance you wanted it done 8 times, which is what he seems to show in that paper, with misleading/wrong comments like "Loop until Y = X ", and "end of loop/Start of next 6", when what is really happening is conditional execution of a section of code 1 time, and then repeated sections of code like that.
(edit: continuing on this line of thought)
To get something like looping behavior in bitcoin script you have to know your loop limit. For example, 'I want to be able to "loop" at most N times'. Then you can create a bitcoin script with N duplicate sections of code and an evaluation condition at the start of each block to determine if the block should execute (OP_IF for example). This I believe is what that paper (the one I referenced with the actual script examples), is perhaps attempting to show.
Here is a working example. Take an input X, and raise it to the 2^Y power. (e.g if X=3 and Y=5, I would compute 3^(2^5), but Y must be less than 10. The output will be left at the bottom of the stack (with 0 at the top):
3 5
OP_DUP
OP_IF
OP_1SUB
op_toaltstack
OP_DUP
OP_MUL
op_fromaltstack
OP_ENDIF
OP_DUP
OP_IF
OP_1SUB
op_toaltstack
OP_DUP
OP_MUL
op_fromaltstack
OP_ENDIF
OP_DUP
OP_IF
OP_1SUB
op_toaltstack
OP_DUP
OP_MUL
op_fromaltstack
OP_ENDIF
OP_DUP
OP_IF
OP_1SUB
op_toaltstack
OP_DUP
OP_MUL
op_fromaltstack
OP_ENDIF
OP_DUP
OP_IF
OP_1SUB
op_toaltstack
OP_DUP
OP_MUL
op_fromaltstack
OP_ENDIF
OP_DUP
OP_IF
OP_1SUB
op_toaltstack
OP_DUP
OP_MUL
op_fromaltstack
OP_ENDIF
OP_DUP
OP_IF
OP_1SUB
op_toaltstack
OP_DUP
OP_MUL
op_fromaltstack
OP_ENDIF
OP_DUP
OP_IF
OP_1SUB
op_toaltstack
OP_DUP
OP_MUL
op_fromaltstack
OP_ENDIF
OP_DUP
OP_IF
OP_1SUB
op_toaltstack
OP_DUP
OP_MUL
op_fromaltstack
OP_ENDIF
OP_DUP
OP_IF
OP_1SUB
op_toaltstack
OP_DUP
OP_MUL
op_fromaltstack
OP_ENDIF
Will produce 3^(2^5)=1853020188851841
edit: in case it wasn't clear that this is like a loop, here is how we might do this in javascript:
function squareAndRepeat(x,y) {
for(var i=0;i<x;i++) {
y = y*y;
}
return y;
}
Last edited: