load: "Someone suggested over dinner to pop in on this account. I will attempt to locate an old wallet file later. The current cold storage is inaccessible without taking a couple flights."
A couple flights. Wow. Loaded indeed.
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
A couple flights. Wow. Loaded indeed.
Great Bitcoin Classic update with lots of information.
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/41qdrt/bitcoin_classic_update_email_for_subscribers_tldr/
The most interesting to me was this
"The activation threshold % and earliest activation date are being discussed with the community and will be announced next week."
Definitely waiting to see what they choose. I'm still in the camp of setting activation closer to a majority or standard super majority in order to put pressure on lagging pools. One or two pools should not be able to hold back bitcoin. But we'll see.
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/41qdrt/bitcoin_classic_update_email_for_subscribers_tldr/
The most interesting to me was this
"The activation threshold % and earliest activation date are being discussed with the community and will be announced next week."
Definitely waiting to see what they choose. I'm still in the camp of setting activation closer to a majority or standard super majority in order to put pressure on lagging pools. One or two pools should not be able to hold back bitcoin. But we'll see.
@rocks that's definitely the very interesting point. I'd say it's hinging on one of the biggest inflection points in the history of Bitcoin.
I'm all in favor of using the same criteria as BIP101 and activating 101 as well.
I'm sensitive to those like theymos who believe this is a fundamental change and argue it breakfast the existing social contract. Leaving bitcoin somewhat out of control.
But it's a very important moment it's going to define bitcoin as a robust system protected by the decentralized network of users or a system protected by the will of a centralized authority in an ivory tower.
How we (they - Classic centralized controle) chose to move forward is important and must be much more swift than XT's proposal introduction of 101.
I'm all in favor of using the same criteria as BIP101 and activating 101 as well.
I'm sensitive to those like theymos who believe this is a fundamental change and argue it breakfast the existing social contract. Leaving bitcoin somewhat out of control.
But it's a very important moment it's going to define bitcoin as a robust system protected by the decentralized network of users or a system protected by the will of a centralized authority in an ivory tower.
How we (they - Classic centralized controle) chose to move forward is important and must be much more swift than XT's proposal introduction of 101.
YarkoL
Active Member
While a cheering crowd (all 2 of them) sing the praises of our enlightened Leadership who have once again thwarted the evil plans of centralizing enemies...
- Aug 29, 2015
- 536
- 2,597
"Bitcoin, as a creature of the market, should be hard forking on a regular basis, because a hard fork is the only time the market gets an opportunity to express its will in anything other than a binary YES/NO fashion." -ForkiusMaximus
Interesting, so in that light, the 2MB "can kick" approach of Classic could be considered preferable to the more long-term solution provided by BIP101. Also, having the Bitcoin ecosystem go through the experience of a hard fork will provide a valuable learning experience, increasing the likelihood that periodic hard forks can take place in future with less disruption.
I can't see how you would gain anything by changing the mining algorithm, miners always have it in their power to produce smaller blocks, and orphan large blocks if they choose.
Interesting, so in that light, the 2MB "can kick" approach of Classic could be considered preferable to the more long-term solution provided by BIP101. Also, having the Bitcoin ecosystem go through the experience of a hard fork will provide a valuable learning experience, increasing the likelihood that periodic hard forks can take place in future with less disruption.
I can see why a small-block chain would need to change mining algorithm defend their chain if they were in the minority, but I don't think the reverse is true. If big-block nodes were in the minority, they still accept smaller blocks, so they would just follow the longer chain of small blocks.
I can't see how you would gain anything by changing the mining algorithm, miners always have it in their power to produce smaller blocks, and orphan large blocks if they choose.
so they postpone the crash a day...we are now below the lowest low of the year in the futures:
[doublepost=1453267644][/doublepost]fucking brg444 can't get over himself:
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/41skqy/it_should_not_be_hard_to_inject_bugs_into_bitcoin/
[doublepost=1453267644][/doublepost]fucking brg444 can't get over himself:
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/41skqy/it_should_not_be_hard_to_inject_bugs_into_bitcoin/
Last edited:
@Mengerian
Yes it looks like the market, insofar as the miners are a proxy for the market, prefers the smaller jump to 2MB for now. As Mike said, the very fact that we can make the jump successfully shows we can do it again (up or down) as necessary.
Re: needing to change the PoW algo for bigger blocks if we're the minority, if we don't we can be 51%ed. As I understand it, as soon as a big block is mined, the resulting chain permanently diverges from the Core chain, so whatever small blocks they mine after that won't be relevant to our chain anyway.
To be clear, yes we could track the Core chain using BU without changing the algo, but if we actually want bigger blocks for Bitcoin we'll have to change the algo and do it ourselves, after which the two chains will be alien to one another. If we do it that way without changing the algo, Core miners would be wise to kill our chain just to make sure we don't rise later and 51% them back.
Yes it looks like the market, insofar as the miners are a proxy for the market, prefers the smaller jump to 2MB for now. As Mike said, the very fact that we can make the jump successfully shows we can do it again (up or down) as necessary.
Re: needing to change the PoW algo for bigger blocks if we're the minority, if we don't we can be 51%ed. As I understand it, as soon as a big block is mined, the resulting chain permanently diverges from the Core chain, so whatever small blocks they mine after that won't be relevant to our chain anyway.
To be clear, yes we could track the Core chain using BU without changing the algo, but if we actually want bigger blocks for Bitcoin we'll have to change the algo and do it ourselves, after which the two chains will be alien to one another. If we do it that way without changing the algo, Core miners would be wise to kill our chain just to make sure we don't rise later and 51% them back.
lunar
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,001
- 4,290
Having stayed out of this since xmas .... did I miss anything? 
It seems we've entered the period in bitcoin development where we find out the emperor has no clothes. Perhaps equivalent to the periods of inquisition and enlightenment. Opinions that were once disguised and reserved are being exposed in public for all to see. It's a fascinating study of social psychology, and will be a very hard lesson for those with deep seated misconceptions of the relatively simple laws of nakamoto consensus and the free market.
The irony that some people are willing to throw themselves onto the fire, rather than compromise on building a system designed to force compromise is incredible.
ps
I really don't like this talk of changing the PoW to me it seems like suicide, it's a nice to know there's an escape route, but you'd have to be bonkers to use it.
It seems we've entered the period in bitcoin development where we find out the emperor has no clothes. Perhaps equivalent to the periods of inquisition and enlightenment. Opinions that were once disguised and reserved are being exposed in public for all to see. It's a fascinating study of social psychology, and will be a very hard lesson for those with deep seated misconceptions of the relatively simple laws of nakamoto consensus and the free market.
The irony that some people are willing to throw themselves onto the fire, rather than compromise on building a system designed to force compromise is incredible.
ps
I really don't like this talk of changing the PoW to me it seems like suicide, it's a nice to know there's an escape route, but you'd have to be bonkers to use it.
Christoph Bergmann
Active Member
I'm no longer sure.
If Bitcoin Classic uses Core 0.11.2 you'll have the choice
1.) Core 0.11.2 + 2 MB
2.) Core 0.11.2 + Pruning + libsec256k1 + many more things
Also, in the event of a change of pow, it would be everything but unclear who wins:
1.) a coin with highly centralized mining by a few entities
2.) a coin which is minable by GPU and brings us back in the lucky home-mining-days of 2013
Every exchange and marketplace will be flooded with request by enthusiastic customers:
"Hey, I'd mined some core bitcoins, can I sell them on your marketplace?"
I remember back in late 2013 on bitcoin.de we had a lots of customers from bulgaria. I then talked with them and they said: "Here in bulgaria everybody and his mother is mining."
The protection of a coin depends on the avalability of hashing-power. The cost of a 51-attack is the sum of the cost of the needed hardware. If a coin is asic-resistant and has more hashpower than, let's they, the 50 fastests supercomputer of the world together, than you can say it's secure.
Changing the algo is plain absurd.
It is a kid using a PC paid for by daddy and electricity paid for by mommy without her knowing.
It is the Free Shit Army using Other People's Money.
Mining is right-sized and will continue to be.
It is a kid using a PC paid for by daddy and electricity paid for by mommy without her knowing.
It is the Free Shit Army using Other People's Money.
Mining is right-sized and will continue to be.
Forget about the technical aspects ... it's going to look like a power move by the 'losing' side desperate for control.
In other words I am about to be check-mated in Chess so I tip over the board and pretend I won.
In other words I am about to be check-mated in Chess so I tip over the board and pretend I won.
One thing that bothers me about Classic: the let-the-community-decide-about-everything approach.
"Democracy" should be reached through the means of multiple alternative and competing implementations.
Consider.it, even if used only for definition and approval of "policies", is way too fragile and could lead to the hijacking of the development process indefinitely.
Benevolent dictators or charismatic catalysts, if you will, is the way to go if you want to get a successful software project. At the end of the day someone has to be in charge and decide on controversial and even non controversial issues.
Then the market will judge which implementations would be valuable.
TL;DR The thing that will guarantee decentralization/democracy is the existence of multiple implementations, and not the internal decision making process of each single implementation.
"Democracy" should be reached through the means of multiple alternative and competing implementations.
Consider.it, even if used only for definition and approval of "policies", is way too fragile and could lead to the hijacking of the development process indefinitely.
Benevolent dictators or charismatic catalysts, if you will, is the way to go if you want to get a successful software project. At the end of the day someone has to be in charge and decide on controversial and even non controversial issues.
Then the market will judge which implementations would be valuable.
TL;DR The thing that will guarantee decentralization/democracy is the existence of multiple implementations, and not the internal decision making process of each single implementation.
macsga
New Member
- Sep 29, 2015
- 14
- 49
Democracy is indeed an overrated concept; and this is a Greek speaking . Pareto principle proves that we live in a society of "The vital few and trivial many" so in essence, if you want something good to happen, you should apply to those who can provide it. The only drawback is that we humans have greed embedded into our DNA, so in the case you want to do something for "the many" you "accidentally" start doing something for yourself...
. Pareto principle proves that we live in a society of "The vital few and trivial many" so in essence, if you want something good to happen, you should apply to those who can provide it. The only drawback is that we humans have greed embedded into our DNA, so in the case you want to do something for "the many" you "accidentally" start doing something for yourself...
Fatman3002
Active Member
- Sep 5, 2015
- 189
- 312
@sickpig I agree that there are weaknesses with applying community wide "democracy" in a software project, but the problem isn't Bitcoin Classic or BU, the problem is that XT lost their leader and Core are unappealing. Bitpay is an interesting candidate, but it has an obvious bias. There is still something missing among Bitcoin implementations.
@sickpig
Right, it looks like Michael Toomim is the SJW and democracy guy, whereas his brother Jonathan is more no-nonsense wants the democratic voting as just a suggestion. I guess they have this brotherly antipodal dynamic that they've managed to make work, rounding out each others' extremes. But right now they are coming off as contradictory, and people are taking both sides of it for FUDding purposes ("Oh no it's a democracy!" "Oh no it's a dictatorship!" - both sentiments upvoted in the very same thread)
Michael's response to Jonathan:
I almost responded with profanity to that, but I'm glad I didn't because it looks like he has a looser idea of it than I thought - and is generally a loose guy.
Fortunately, the initial release is just the blocksize bump, so it really doesn't matter what happens afterward since users are free to upgrade. It's just a FUD source they're latching onto over in /r/Bitcoin. It's pretty silly to watch all these people not used to the idea that every time they upgrade they will be making a choice, shopping around for the best client. The only way it makes sense to worry about Classic's governance process is if they're the only game in town, so this is tied to the idea that if Classic wins all the key Core devs quit, which seems unlikely.
They're grasping at whatever straws they can now, which suggests the end is nigh unless Core can pull off some eleventh-hour upset.
Right, it looks like Michael Toomim is the SJW and democracy guy, whereas his brother Jonathan is more no-nonsense wants the democratic voting as just a suggestion. I guess they have this brotherly antipodal dynamic that they've managed to make work, rounding out each others' extremes. But right now they are coming off as contradictory, and people are taking both sides of it for FUDding purposes ("Oh no it's a democracy!" "Oh no it's a dictatorship!" - both sentiments upvoted in the very same thread)
Michael's response to Jonathan:
I almost responded with profanity to that, but I'm glad I didn't because it looks like he has a looser idea of it than I thought - and is generally a loose guy.
Fortunately, the initial release is just the blocksize bump, so it really doesn't matter what happens afterward since users are free to upgrade. It's just a FUD source they're latching onto over in /r/Bitcoin. It's pretty silly to watch all these people not used to the idea that every time they upgrade they will be making a choice, shopping around for the best client. The only way it makes sense to worry about Classic's governance process is if they're the only game in town, so this is tied to the idea that if Classic wins all the key Core devs quit, which seems unlikely.
They're grasping at whatever straws they can now, which suggests the end is nigh unless Core can pull off some eleventh-hour upset.
Last edited:
Count Rampula!
brg444 called it, implied an agreement has been reached for consensus:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg13613151#msg13613151
EDIT: He's talking about this from Wang Chun of F2Pool? Of course this could just be a reversal from the dip; we'll see how far it goes.
brg444 called it, implied an agreement has been reached for consensus:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg13613151#msg13613151
EDIT: He's talking about this from Wang Chun of F2Pool? Of course this could just be a reversal from the dip; we'll see how far it goes.
Last edited:
Greed is no problem. Our most important defect in fact is the dual edged sword of the ability to envision. It can help us greatly, but it enables us also to see the consequence of a threat. So under threat, we submit to the dominators.
cliff
Active Member
- Dec 15, 2015
- 345
- 854
@Zangelbert Bingledack - I saw that last night, it's encouraging. Wangchun's proposal in that conversation sorta reminds me of that crazy fork-escrow idea that originated in this thread the other day.
