Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
@Zangelbert Bingledack : So it seems like the scenario you mentioned earlier of the users starting to become pissed because of transaction delays is slowly emerging...
Another thing you can do is to go to reddit's preferences and set the default sort order to be 'best' for all subs. Thermos changed the sort order in /r/bitcoin to 'controversial' and this will over ride that. It also is a relief to see which posts are at the top. I too was losing my faith in humanity for a time.
- Aug 28, 2015
- 517
- 1,679
Ok. Anyone heard from Gavin, Jeff or Mike?
1) it seems time for Satoshi to reemerge
2) we need BU backed by big guns and launched asap.
1) it seems time for Satoshi to reemerge
2) we need BU backed by big guns and launched asap.
What theymos/blockstream/core [who are they exactly?] does is even more insidious. Only *certain* threads are sorted by 'controversial' and the sorting also changes from time-to-time too. For example, this thread /u/eragmus created to troll me was originally sorted by "best." For the lols, I thought I'd use the attention to bring more exposure to subchains and so I posted a comment--which was then voted to the top spot--but now the thread is sorted by controversial!
FYI, BU is being launched today on Linux and Windows!
(Just waiting on another signer)
WRT big guns I'd always welcome someone with prior Bitcoin experience to the project, provided they agree with our Articles
(Just waiting on another signer)
WRT big guns I'd always welcome someone with prior Bitcoin experience to the project, provided they agree with our Articles
$DJI support level vigorously being defended. it's an important level after all. low volumes:
[doublepost=1450812748][/doublepost]
[doublepost=1450812748][/doublepost]
slime balls. truly.
- Aug 22, 2015
- 1,558
- 4,693
Oh the pain!
https://github.com/adam3us
Would his final legacy be (if unchecked) to force a "settlement layer" + off-chain model against the ecosystem requirements, and ride the Bitcoin price all the way back to zero?
https://github.com/adam3us
- Joined on Nov 27, 2013
Would his final legacy be (if unchecked) to force a "settlement layer" + off-chain model against the ecosystem requirements, and ride the Bitcoin price all the way back to zero?
Last edited:
cliff
Active Member
- Dec 15, 2015
- 345
- 854
Just a random thought not responsive to anyone: A few years back when I discovered bitcoin, the thing that really hooked me was the double-spending protection. My background is law, and I practice tons of real estate law as well as a lot of business law involving representing clients in the buying and selling companies and their assets. The blockchain's double-spending feature is very similar to a concept in real property law: race/notice or race-notice jurisdictions in real property conveyances*. Let me explain:
Basically, in a real estate transaction and the record thereof creates a title chain that operates like the blockchain. Property is transferred upon the excution of a deed transferring property from A to B. In race/notice jurisdictions, transfers are effective upon the execution of a deed by transferor (signing of the private key if you will), but its only perfected when its recorded in the real estate records (recorded in the blockchain).
The key piece of race/notice statutes is that a subsequent purchaser to B - say, C - can have a better claim to ownership of double-spent property if he/she also has a deed from A but records first/before B can record theirs. For example: C's deed from A and therefore C can have a better claim to the property previously transferred to B by A IF C can record its deed before B can record theirs. This situation is often referred to as a "race to the court house" b/c the first to record wins the claim to title.
To me, the blockchain was designed to vary the key piece of race-notice statutes referenced above by neutralizing the race to the court house via quick block propagation times - especially during the mining era b/c fast propagation is key to all parties being protected in retail-purchase environments (Satoshi was generalist, remember - he knows about property law and visa's scale, and he saw bitcoin as more than just cash - Hearn has explained this last point, Peter R the first point). The risk of double-spending is therefore checked back w/ bitcoin and there isn't a race to the court-house per se - there is a spend via signing of private key and then that's that.
Given all this, a fee-market only disrupts the double-spend solution Satoshi came up with. Small block folks have suggested settlement will occur infrequently in the future b/c of fees and thus bitcoin would only be used for big transactions like home purchases etc. (see Charlie Lee's recent medium blog post). Uh, no. Fee markets create a race to the court house and a proliferation of fee bids based on the need to win the race. This is kinda stupid. Security of the network therefore may turn on the network itself being based on speed and inclusiveness and not sidechains or protocols that will only allow the wealthy to perfect title to property in a timely way (that's worse than the status quo).
*See here for a definition and some alternatives:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recording_(real_estate)#Race_statutes (I'm referring to race/notice version at the bottom of this section).
Basically, in a real estate transaction and the record thereof creates a title chain that operates like the blockchain. Property is transferred upon the excution of a deed transferring property from A to B. In race/notice jurisdictions, transfers are effective upon the execution of a deed by transferor (signing of the private key if you will), but its only perfected when its recorded in the real estate records (recorded in the blockchain).
The key piece of race/notice statutes is that a subsequent purchaser to B - say, C - can have a better claim to ownership of double-spent property if he/she also has a deed from A but records first/before B can record theirs. For example: C's deed from A and therefore C can have a better claim to the property previously transferred to B by A IF C can record its deed before B can record theirs. This situation is often referred to as a "race to the court house" b/c the first to record wins the claim to title.
To me, the blockchain was designed to vary the key piece of race-notice statutes referenced above by neutralizing the race to the court house via quick block propagation times - especially during the mining era b/c fast propagation is key to all parties being protected in retail-purchase environments (Satoshi was generalist, remember - he knows about property law and visa's scale, and he saw bitcoin as more than just cash - Hearn has explained this last point, Peter R the first point). The risk of double-spending is therefore checked back w/ bitcoin and there isn't a race to the court-house per se - there is a spend via signing of private key and then that's that.
Given all this, a fee-market only disrupts the double-spend solution Satoshi came up with. Small block folks have suggested settlement will occur infrequently in the future b/c of fees and thus bitcoin would only be used for big transactions like home purchases etc. (see Charlie Lee's recent medium blog post). Uh, no. Fee markets create a race to the court house and a proliferation of fee bids based on the need to win the race. This is kinda stupid. Security of the network therefore may turn on the network itself being based on speed and inclusiveness and not sidechains or protocols that will only allow the wealthy to perfect title to property in a timely way (that's worse than the status quo).
*See here for a definition and some alternatives:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recording_(real_estate)#Race_statutes (I'm referring to race/notice version at the bottom of this section).
it's highly likely Adam has been whipsawed by the market and is deep in the red. can you imagine him being a facile trader? uh, no.
Why is it only a long-time Bitcoin skeptic who consistently points out the Lightning pumpers' inability/unwillingness to show their work?
@cliff
Double spend protection is the entire essence of Bitcoin. This is true for both the confirmation mechanism and the zero-config expected first seen safe behavior. The entire concept of bitcoin is the receiver has absolute control. RBF is a fundamental attack on Bitcoin because it provides clawback abilities to a sender.
To me the right analogy is the following
a) Zero-confirm transactions are equivalent to in person physical cash transactions.
b) Block-chain confirmations are equivalent to depositing cash into a bank.
a) Here acknowledgement in both a physical cash transfer and a zero-config transaction broadcast happen instantaneously. However there are slight risks to both. Cash transfers sometimes (but very rarely) are invalidated when counterfeit currency is used. Similarly, zero-config transactions are sometimes (but very rarely) invalidated through a successful double spend. In both cases the invalidation is very rare to the point that most merchants just accept the random loss from time to time, in trade off for an immediate transaction.
b) Here acknowledgement happens some time after the transfer. In the case of bank deposits it takes 60 days for the bank to verify the cash deposit was legal (I had a roommate who had a cash deposit declared counterfeit 40 days after the deposit). However in Bitcoin's case the verification takes 10-60 minutes depending on the level of protection you want. Here bitcoin is much faster.
So in case a) Bitcoin is the same speed as cash, with similar protection levels (not perfect but good enough), and in case b) Bitcoin is ~1 hour vs 60 days for the banking system.
RBF kills scenario a) and kills the very concept of Bitcoin which is a receiver has absolute control. What is next after RBF? The ability for the TSA to order certain confirmed transactions to be reversed? Because that is the direction being proposed. ...
[doublepost=1450815277][/doublepost]
Double spend protection is the entire essence of Bitcoin. This is true for both the confirmation mechanism and the zero-config expected first seen safe behavior. The entire concept of bitcoin is the receiver has absolute control. RBF is a fundamental attack on Bitcoin because it provides clawback abilities to a sender.
To me the right analogy is the following
a) Zero-confirm transactions are equivalent to in person physical cash transactions.
b) Block-chain confirmations are equivalent to depositing cash into a bank.
a) Here acknowledgement in both a physical cash transfer and a zero-config transaction broadcast happen instantaneously. However there are slight risks to both. Cash transfers sometimes (but very rarely) are invalidated when counterfeit currency is used. Similarly, zero-config transactions are sometimes (but very rarely) invalidated through a successful double spend. In both cases the invalidation is very rare to the point that most merchants just accept the random loss from time to time, in trade off for an immediate transaction.
b) Here acknowledgement happens some time after the transfer. In the case of bank deposits it takes 60 days for the bank to verify the cash deposit was legal (I had a roommate who had a cash deposit declared counterfeit 40 days after the deposit). However in Bitcoin's case the verification takes 10-60 minutes depending on the level of protection you want. Here bitcoin is much faster.
So in case a) Bitcoin is the same speed as cash, with similar protection levels (not perfect but good enough), and in case b) Bitcoin is ~1 hour vs 60 days for the banking system.
RBF kills scenario a) and kills the very concept of Bitcoin which is a receiver has absolute control. What is next after RBF? The ability for the TSA to order certain confirmed transactions to be reversed? Because that is the direction being proposed. ...
[doublepost=1450815277][/doublepost]
jstolfi has been amazing IMHO on reddit in pointing out the craziness of blockstream's position. He might be one of us by the time this is over. He definitely gets how it works now and clearly sees the absurdity of their position. Whether he converts over after this is all over, or he remains a high profile skeptic of the new Bitcoin remains to be seen.
Last edited:
If anyone ever needed more evidence that Bitcoin is currently trapped in some kind of Bizarro World, jstolfi as the voice of reason ought to be sufficient.
hey, jstolfi doesn't like SC's either so i gotta give him credit.
lunar
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,001
- 4,290
@Melbustus
So the principle components here are:
Electricity (raw commodity) perhaps it is even useful to consider this as form of analogue energy.
The Miner or ASIC chip, This is the transformer or converter.
ASIC inefficiency ( Surplus heat creation) - becomes a utility
Bitcoin, the Digital energy (basic SI unit - the satoshi).
Then examine the global trends, cost of electricity is trending towards (ever decreasing) installation cost, as renewables some online.(local infrastructure cost only).
Efficiency between each new iteration of ASIC chips is dropping. (long may it stay that way) We only really need these increases to drop to the point where a typical miner can have a productive lifespan similar to that of the integrated tech; say 5 years (a typical american already replaces their phone/laptop every 2-3 years). Embedded mining chips follow the 21inc model and can be used for a myriad of use cases paying for services as they go. (do you really consider the cost when you charge your phone? nope ! )
Quoting Loop's article for the long term perspective
"the miner will essentially be paying for some other sort of utility, but they will be doing so by “spending” electricity. That is, you can sidestep setting up a billing relationship with a new service provider and instead just add a slight bump to your electricity bill - this reduction in friction can be valuable. If a sufficient number of devices are mining a sufficient portion of the global hashrate at a net loss, this could put for-profit industrial scale miners out of business."
If this is long term then the short to mid term scenarios become important. If you agree electricity is a fixed cost (assuming your not going to move house), then the specifics of a mining chip can have a huge play here. Possibly room for custom designs? As electricity is converted into Bitcoin the chip inefficiency (waste heat) could be used to heat the house and water. Thus the chip efficiency J/GH becomes less important compared to peak TH/s output and a chip running hot 70-80C producing higher TH/s would actually be beneficial.
Electricity consumption (mining) can then be individually regulated and be used on demand only when heat is required. Satoshis (heating miles) can be earned as a bonus for efficient use of energy. Decentralised economies of scale using mining as a utility will eventually crush commercial miners that don't effectively utilise 'waste' heat.
With the improvements in 3D printing it might also be worth open sourcing ASIC and a heating elements 'heat sink' designs.
TL:R caeteris paribus: Miners should perhaps consider running their operations near locations that require vast quantities of hot water (community swimming pools, factories, offices or household heating systems) instead of doubly wasting energy on cooling fans and air conditioning.
Also don't fear huge centralized miners as long term they have a dead business model. As its a negative sum game ;-)
Yes great little summary, and pretty much inline with the concepts we've been discussing here. Namely the theory that Bitcoin is an energy currency. Once you hold to this way of thinking the future becomes a lot easier to speculate on.
So the principle components here are:
Electricity (raw commodity) perhaps it is even useful to consider this as form of analogue energy.
The Miner or ASIC chip, This is the transformer or converter.
ASIC inefficiency ( Surplus heat creation) - becomes a utility
Bitcoin, the Digital energy (basic SI unit - the satoshi).
Then examine the global trends, cost of electricity is trending towards (ever decreasing) installation cost, as renewables some online.(local infrastructure cost only).
Efficiency between each new iteration of ASIC chips is dropping. (long may it stay that way) We only really need these increases to drop to the point where a typical miner can have a productive lifespan similar to that of the integrated tech; say 5 years (a typical american already replaces their phone/laptop every 2-3 years). Embedded mining chips follow the 21inc model and can be used for a myriad of use cases paying for services as they go. (do you really consider the cost when you charge your phone? nope ! )
Quoting Loop's article for the long term perspective
"the miner will essentially be paying for some other sort of utility, but they will be doing so by “spending” electricity. That is, you can sidestep setting up a billing relationship with a new service provider and instead just add a slight bump to your electricity bill - this reduction in friction can be valuable. If a sufficient number of devices are mining a sufficient portion of the global hashrate at a net loss, this could put for-profit industrial scale miners out of business."
If this is long term then the short to mid term scenarios become important. If you agree electricity is a fixed cost (assuming your not going to move house), then the specifics of a mining chip can have a huge play here. Possibly room for custom designs? As electricity is converted into Bitcoin the chip inefficiency (waste heat) could be used to heat the house and water. Thus the chip efficiency J/GH becomes less important compared to peak TH/s output and a chip running hot 70-80C producing higher TH/s would actually be beneficial.
Electricity consumption (mining) can then be individually regulated and be used on demand only when heat is required. Satoshis (heating miles) can be earned as a bonus for efficient use of energy. Decentralised economies of scale using mining as a utility will eventually crush commercial miners that don't effectively utilise 'waste' heat.
With the improvements in 3D printing it might also be worth open sourcing ASIC and a heating elements 'heat sink' designs.
TL:
R caeteris paribus: Miners should perhaps consider running their operations near locations that require vast quantities of hot water (community swimming pools, factories, offices or household heating systems) instead of doubly wasting energy on cooling fans and air conditioning.Also don't fear huge centralized miners as long term they have a dead business model. As its a negative sum game ;-)
Last edited:
Miners have one job:
Resolve conflicts regarding to transaction ordering.
The only thing we should ever need to care about is that it's more expensive for a miner to make conflicting claims about ordering than to make a single claim.
As long as that condition is met, the system works.
if commercial miners do decide to utilize waste heat, who wins in the long term, industrial miners or small, individual miners who do the same?
[doublepost=1450817828][/doublepost]
i was also attracted to the irreversible nature of tx's and 0 confs.
albin
Active Member
- Nov 8, 2015
- 931
- 4,008
Stolfi is pretty on-point when it comes to understanding the fundamental design. The antagonism from this guy mainly seems to be that 1) he's against the hard money ideas and 2) he has this cherry-picked narrative that Bitcoin price appreciation is a giant coordinated scam which resulted in an unnaturally large mining industry, and selectively re-interprets everything Satoshi ever said to support the idea that this whole thing is just an experiment that shouldn't have any real economic value.
