Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

VeritasSapere

Active Member
Nov 16, 2015
511
1,266
blocksize limits and softforks are for pussies.

Is this bitcoin unlimited thing you guys made still a thing?

Hm, this? https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/?q=/BitcoinUnlimited:0.11.2/

3 nodes... hmm... Does it make sense to upgrade my node?
It has not been released yet, it is still being worked on, I am waiting for the official release myself before I switch over my own nodes. There is a Linux binary available that you can run now however, as cypherdoc is so graciously doing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: majamalu

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
if you just take a moment to think about what makes sense for the end game as a network topology, you realize that 100,000 full nodes with a few billion users makes infinitely more sense than 100,000 users and a few billion nodes. of course the #'s are just made up; the relative proportion is what matters.

but the latter is exactly what Core dev wants you to think.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
 
  • Like
Reactions: majamalu

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
the Chinese gvt buying all that gold has been a mistake, however. that is, if Bitcoin becomes what i think it will become.

i think that they are just beginning to realize that and are beginning to be thankful that they have the majority of mining and exchanges locally. i think the wisdom of the Chinese will be to realize that Bitcoin has to grow worldwide by attracting new users and diversifying mining outside of China, simply to maintain the value and confidence in Bitcoin the currency with their endgame to displace the USD as the world's reserve currency. if they can't have the Yuan replace the USD, it might as well be Bitcoin, a neutral currency.
 
  • Like
Reactions: majamalu

albin

Active Member
Nov 8, 2015
931
4,008
@lunarboy

That thread is entertaining. Eragmus is on at least his 3rd edited version of his original nervous breakdown "fuckfest" spazzing out on Gavin.
 

sickpig

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
926
2,541
Ray Dillineger (Bear) [1] on Cryptography mailing list @ metzworld.com
(bold is mine)

On 12/17/2015 04:05 AM, Jerry Leichter wrote:
> Ah. So you think owning Bitcoins is a bad idea, then?
At the moment, yes. I made some money on them, but I sold out.


Satoshi has enough that s/he has a huge target painted on his/her
butt, but even if you don't own enough for that to be an issue,
it's still a bad idea.

According to my math the protocol promotes mining consolidation,
and the winning tactic for a consolidated miner amounts to a
partial DDoS.


Once anyone has more than 1 - 1/Phi of the mining power, and
there is enough *actual* demand to fill more than half of each
block on average, then even if everybody else behaves optimally
(which they don't) that miner gets rich faster than all other
miners (at a higher rate of return on expense) by keeping the
blocks, on average, half full of transactions in order to force
up the fees other people pay. It will cost the consolidating
miner fees, of course, to prevent other miners from accepting
tx below that fee level - but he'll get whatever share of them
back that he's getting of the blocks, and he (and all other
miners too) makes more money on all the other tx.

In practice the tactic (durst call it an attack?) works even
better than that, for two reasons: first because doing it even
occasionally makes people reset their fees to "enough", and
then those settings stay high even when the miner isn't
inflating block chain traffic. Second because the consolidating
miner has a cost advantage in being set-up where expenses are
lower than average competition. Both factors dramatically
reduce the amount of mining power required to reach the
inflection point for consolidation and eventual monopoly.

In China bitcoin mining is essentially a way to launder stolen
tax money, (subsidized electricity is profligately used,
courtesy of the taxpayers, and then re-emerges as bitcoins
which the profligate users get to spend) so this stronger
centralization dynamic is definitely in effect.

Anyway, with the vast majority of bitcoin mining already being
done in China, and the entity whom I suspect is or soon will be
the consolidated miner present in that country masquerading as
multiple pools in order to prevent a panic, I think the Chinese
government is already in a position to allow or disallow pretty
much any transaction they care to. When the masqerade fails,
or when China exercises the coercion option, I expect bitcoin
values to drop precipitously.


Until then, it has become a sham. What Satoshi and Hal worked
so hard to bring about, has already failed, and it makes me sad.

[1] dillinger.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aquent

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
@sickpig

here's the obvious flaw in his argument:

"In practice the tactic (durst call it an attack?) works even
better than that, for two reasons: first because doing it even
occasionally makes people reset their fees to "enough", and
then those settings stay high
even when the miner isn't
inflating block chain traffic. Second because the consolidating
miner has a cost advantage in being set-up where expenses are
lower than average competition. Both factors dramatically
reduce the amount of mining power required to reach the
inflection point for consolidation and eventual monopoly."


of course he ignores the fact that ppl will just leave if they try that and crash the value of the attackers coins and hardware. and then he doesn't even mention the killer app; SOV.

ppl forget that most current participants in Bitcoin are newbies challenging the existing corrupt monetary order. i would even put the Chinese gvt in this category. b/c of Bitcoin's fixed monetary supply and neutral apolitical setting, newbie users (the above and all of us) have a GINORMOUS incentive to play according to the rules. Governing Dynamics according to John Nash i always say. why not, when history's greatest transfer of wealth is at stake.
 
  • Like
Reactions: majamalu

solex

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 22, 2015
1,558
4,693
Another in the regular stream of articles which suggests the Tylers are "all in"
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-19/how-dollar-gets-replaced

Some nice sound-bites (Chris via CapitalistExploits.at)
I’ve not even mentioned the fact that you can stand in the Sahara desert and transfer an asset to Hong Kong on your smart phone for free, in seconds, and far more securely than any transaction you’ve ever conducted. I’ve not mentioned that the functions of authentication, validation, escrow and delivery are handled seamlessly and for close to zero cost.
....
A world where money is decentralized means a world where nothing you’ve ever seen before will become the new norm and the new norm is unlikely to include a scrap of paper issued by a bankrupt government.
 

theZerg

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 28, 2015
1,012
2,327

Erdogan

Active Member
Aug 30, 2015
476
855
Bitcoin is free market, sound money. The fine workings of the free market have been suppressed for so long, nobody seems to believe in it any more. (It seems every concerned citizen is worried about OPEC not fixing the oil price).

What I like most of bitcoin is the fact that it is the center of a free market. The state, as always, wants to monopolize everything of value, in bitcoin it is the regulation creeping in on businesses in the periphery of bitcoin. But they can not come into the center. People will just say no. We have learnt a lot of the workings of money from bitcoin, we will also learn to trust the market.

The free market is resilient, antifragile. We have persevered attacks. Also this one, the grusome fraud and corruption of the core developers. One day, a miner will look for, and find a block larger than 1MB. Even if it is orphaned, it will make waves, really turn the whole discussion, creating new trust in the system.

We need these attacks, to enlighten everyone on the glory of bitcoin, and the glory of the market. I am not afraid, maybe my mother took good care of me while I was a baby. Have faith, keep your coins, buy and hold or hold and buy.
 
Last edited:

dwaltrip

New Member
Dec 19, 2015
21
57
Hey all, long time lurker of this thread, since bitcointalk days. I've been following bitcoin since 2012. I really appreciate all the effort that is coalescing here. I'm sure many other lurkers do as well.

The blocksize debate has been much thornier than I would have anticipated a few years ago... I haven't done enough research or deep investigation to be able to strongly and intelligently articulate one way or another. However, my naive intuition at this point is that not raising the limit is clearly the wrong move.

The general thrust of the arguments in this thread resonates well with me. The small blockers strike me as overly fearful, afraid of letting Bitcoin grow up and flourish, before they give it all their unnecessary finishing touches and implement their pet projects (which I'm not sure they will finish or launch and gain actual users). I also don't see the type of vision, open-mindedness, and forward thinking from them that I sense when reading many of the posts here.

Undoubtedly, there are many details to be hashed out, and I do think getting regular users comfortable with the notion of owning an asset that has many different versions running around at different prices could be very tricky. Perhaps there were will always be one dominant version that very rarely has any major leadership/direction changes. It's hard to say.

I'm rambling now, but the main thing I wanted to say was I'm really glad this thread has developed to the point where there is a great collection of sharp and well-informed minds posting regularly, during this pivotal moment in Bitcoin's history. Thank you for your contributions.

I do have one question -- what would it take to get an actual hard fork launched and supported that implements an increase in the simplest way possible, as described by Satoshi, so that people are actually forced to decide?

Something like:
Code:
if (current_block_num > some_block_X_months_in_the_future) {
   // new blocksize limit policy goes here
}
I'm sure it would need the backing of respected thought-leaders, as well as some large exchanges & miners. I think something like this happening in the next few months would be a huge move forward.
[doublepost=1450579936][/doublepost]Also.. this forum is quite nice! Props to the admin.
 
Last edited:

solex

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 22, 2015
1,558
4,693
@cypherdoc That Chris is from South Africa, but otherwise anonymous. Don't know what else he's written.
 

Zangelbert Bingledack

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2015
1,485
5,585
@sickpig

Peter Todd responds:
I think you've stumbled on a well known phenomenon(1), but you're incorrect on two details.

First of all miners don't have to pad their blocks with fee paying transactions, they can pad their blocks with txs that don't pay fees as well.

Secondly the blocksize limit puts a limit on how effective the attack can be, which is why it's a fundemental security parameter in the Bitcoin system that levels the playing field between small miner and large. Notably, this effect makes all block propagation optimisations that rely on miners pre-propagating block contents only work under non-adversarial conditions where miners cooperate. (and remember that this "cooperation" requires a significant amount of coordination) Unfortunately we're under heavy political pressure right now to raise the blocksize, or even remove the blocksize limit entirely. If this happens, the system risks being killed off through centralization as you suspect.

1) http://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg03200.html
Ray Dillinger (Cryddit on BCT I think, who has been in Bitcoin since 2009) replies:
12/19/2015 05:56 AM, Peter Todd wrote:

> I think you've stumbled on a well known phenomenon(1), but you're incorrect on two details. First of all miners don't have to pad their blocks with fee paying transactions, they can pad their blocks with txs that don't pay fees as well.

Well, sure, but what would be the point? If you do that, then other miners are still likely to accept tx with fees below the premium level you want to charge, so people who don't pay the premium will still have their tx go through and you won't effectively drive up the fee price.

> Unfortunately we're under heavy political pressure right now to raise the blocksize, or even remove the blocksize limit entirely. If this happens, the system risks being killed off through centralization as you suspect.

Heck, if it *doesn't* happen the partial-DOS works and the system centralizes anyway. Pick your poison. This isn't political pressure, this is math.
It's all in the math, huh? I haven't had time to think through it, but color me skeptical.
 
Last edited:

solex

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 22, 2015
1,558
4,693
Todd says:
> Unfortunately we're under heavy political pressure right now to raise the blocksize, or even remove the blocksize limit entirely.

FFS. Finally! Hallelujah! About time!

He needs to learn that this will guarantee decentralization in the medium/long term by growing the ecosystem and the price, and businesses who will run full nodes. His nervous Nellie approach is what will kill decentralization if Bitcoin gets left behind in the crypto-race and becomes synonymous with MySpace.
 

Windowly

Active Member
Dec 10, 2015
157
385
Wow so so nice to hear about the heavy political pressure. I don't want to be mean but I hope that pressure accomplishes something. @solex your cries of hallelujah are exactly how I feel.

A few days ago @Gavin Andresen mentioned on reddit that some actors had something up their sleeve or there was a solution in the works. . . does anyone know what the timeframe is for that? (I know it's not @Gavin Andresen's project and he can't say anything, but does anyone else know anything about that?) I've been so discouraged by this impass and the fact that we haven't got anything settled for almost a year no. . . . it would be nice to have some kind of breakthrough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VeritasSapere

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
@cypherdoc That Chris is from South Africa, but otherwise anonymous. Don't know what else he's written.
So he's not one of the Tylers? Whatever that even means. Are they brothers?