Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

I'm not saying I favor patents. What I am saying is that to assume they have no effect at_all in preventing black markets is clearly not true. If Chinese miners want to collude with core dev to capture Bitcoin (not saying they are at this point although suspicions are rising), then something like this could be what's needed to jump start Western mining to improve overall decentralization. If that's what's required, them I'm all for it.

The West has traditionally been the innovators; with Asia being the copy cats.
[doublepost=1462975897,1462975108][/doublepost]It's pretty clear to me that Todd's "we" is the HK consortium.

 

[cypherdoc]

as predicted, gvt officials will have to come around. there is no choice in the matter:

There is a huge opportunity that can be tapped into if U.S. government officials and industry thought-leaders establish an appropriate balance between basic consumer protection regulation and an openness which not only permits, but fosters and promotes, innovation. We did it with the internet — and we need to do it now with virtual currencies like bitcoin.

Commentary by Bart Chilton, former commissioner on the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. He is currently a senior policy advisor at the global law firm DLA Piper. He is also the author of "Ponzimonium: How Scam Artists Are Ripping Off America."

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/11/obama-needs-to-make-a-move-on-bitcoin-now-bart-chilton-commentary.html?utm_content=buffer9a22d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

[Inca]

@cypherdoc : whilst that seems insanely bullish it is worth watching their actions rather than words at this stage!

 

[cypherdoc]

i used to really respect this guy in the early days. now, i don't. esp after how he chastized junior core devs during that one Q&A session with him, gmax, Gavin, and one other by saying "you're WRONG". now, he's just another Blockstream shareholder who goes around saying he doesn't think Bitcoin works. note everyone trying to throw in their favorite "fixes" into any proposed HF since it is coming from them:

Yea, I think in any hardfork that we should be talking about, a part of
it should include 1) fix the version field so its a static constant, 2)
the merkle root becomes hash of the real block header 3) swap first 2
bytes of the merkle root with the timestamp's two high-order bits, 4)
swap the next 4 bytes of the merkle root with the difficulty field.

I believe this should be compatible with all existing ASICs, with the
exception, possibly, of some 21 Inc hardware. I believe this fixes
AsicBoost (without thinking about it tooo much, so please critique).

While this is somewhat nasty, the risks of AsicBoost and the precedent
that should be set necessitates a response, and it should be included in
any hardfork.

Matt

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-May/012654.html
[doublepost=1462990242][/doublepost]anyone get how an AsicBoost HF fix might break 21co?
[doublepost=1462990768,1462989990][/doublepost]i promise you, this is NOT good:

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

I don't know of any technical reason that prevents us from 10k tx/s.
The method for doing that already exists, it's called a Bitcoin transcation.

Honestly, what changed since the publishing of the Bitcoin whitepaper?

Yesterday I wanted to calculate to show you that bandwidth restricts that, but I didn't believed the results and was too lazy to dig further.

10k tx/s: if each tx has 0.25 kb, this are 10,000 * 0,250 kb = 2,5 mb / sec.
For download, that's not much.

But if you relay transactions to 10 peers, it are 25mb/sek. Right? That's much for upstream, I have 2mb, but possible at some german hotspots and maybe in whole japan and norway.

If you have a block, and relay it, it would be heavier: 25*60*10mb = 15 Gigabyte to relay a block to your friends. That's heavy. If you have an upstream of 25mb/s and want relay it to 10 peers you'd need 150.000mb/25mb = 6000 sek = 100 min.

That's way out of reality. You should not need more than one minute to relay the block, so maybe you can do 100 tx/s with highend-bandwith. Let it be 200 tx/s, when you serve less peers.

That's your maximum - if you use Bitcoin Core. )))

How's the rate with xthin? It cuts 90 percent of the blocksize, right?

So you could handle something like 1000tx/s, maybe 10.000tx/s or more, if at some day our internet-technology increases to give us an upstream of 1gb/s.

Is this correct?

Does anybody know more about cpu and space?

 

[cypherdoc]

just a follow up to my hacked "cypherdoc" BCT acct from last week.

i WILL NOT be buying the acct back. it was useless anyways with all the censorship. so expect all sorts of shenanigans or scams attempting to use it, unfortunately.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

So wait a minute:
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-May/012652.html

You are telling me all these smug assholes with their fucking HK agreement weren't just discussing how to stop Classic, they were also discussing how to prevent a certain technical improvement to come to effect by hardforking Bitcoin? To keep the existing mining monopoly?
Tell me, where is Bitcoin different from the FED these days?

FUCK THIS SHIT.

Really. WTF. How did Bitcoin become the experimental laboratory for fucking communists asshats like P. Todd?

Please give me a good reason to keep my coins these days...

Shit.

I forgot: they met in new york to discuss the hardfork. And this is what came out - offer the miner the favor to block a technical improvement with a hardfork. How ugly.

It's like building an airport and instructing the architect to make it impossible to smoke inside.

 

[cypherdoc]

“It is breaking my heart but I might have to start launching some things based on Ethereum for things on Bitcoin.com. Services that I wanted to launch on Bitcoin aren’t possible now because of the artificial suppression of the blocksize. So maybe I will be launching some things on Ethereum [. . .] It kind of saddens me that I have to do things on an altcoin rather than Bitcoin for projects hosted on Bitcoin.com”

http://coinjournal.net/roger-ver-paypal-acceptable-risk-bitcoin/
[doublepost=1462994438,1462993518][/doublepost]here's a few more retailers:

 

[Peter R]

...
10k tx/s: if each tx has 0.25 kb, this are 10,000 * 0,250 kb = 2,5 mb / sec. For download, that's not much. But if you relay transactions to 10 peers, it are 25mb/sek. Right? That's much for upstream, I have 2mb, but possible at some german hotspots and maybe in whole japan and norway...

But every peer needs to download each transaction exactly once. So, on average, would not each peer serve exactly as many transactions as it receives? [There will be a lot of INVs to determine which peers need which transactions, but that's different].

 

[cypherdoc]

lol, the red arrow is where the Fed raised interest rates a whopping 0.25%. and that's after all the bluster from earlier in 2015 where they promised they would embark on a long term raise. bullshit. deflation in full force:

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

[...]
So you could handle something like 1000tx/s, maybe 10.000tx/s or more, if at some day our internet-technology increases to give us an upstream of 1gb/s.

As @Peter R already pointed out your assumptions shouldn't be correct for a p2p participant.
But even if they were (and the magnitude might be ok):
I don't think a future where there are 1 or 2 datacenter bitcoin nodes in big cities only (for example Gothenburg and Stockholm in Sweden, Munich, Berlin, Hamburg and Cologne in Germany and so on..) is something to be afraid of, rather something to hope for long term. Because that's the point when Bitcoin became a success and grew without restrictions to it's full potential.
We just need good enough distribution worldwide in different jurisdictions to hinder censorship and surveillance.

The way to this point will take some time and we won't have 1000 tx/s tomorrow but I (still..) hope in a few months/years.
Imho that's the way how Bitcoin will become the most important currency and how one will prevent government issued full traceable E-cash. If we ever reach this point we are past the point of no return, that's when governments have to think how to keep Bitcoin in their country instead of how to prevent their people to use it.

Although I've always been more of a sceptic in regards to Bitcoin becoming the next world reserve currency etc. in comparison to other Bitcoiners, I miss the optimism and what Bitcoin really is about these days.
It's all about smart contracts, new fancy offchain solutions and blockchain technology (tm) today. Imho it foremost should be about Bitcoin as MONEY. And how it (still) has the potential to have a huge fucking impact on economies and how we look at money.
Not all this Silicon Valley start up smart solution crap.
Look where it went all the while people saw it as money, as transferable value: We've seen it go from zero to more than 1000 $ in a few years. All without lightning, all without thousands of extra fancy use cases.

*Disclaimer: I'm not against smart contracts (although overrated atm imho) or all the fancy stuff people build with Bitcoin, I think most of it is great.

Sorry for the rant but I really can't believe how pessimistic and narrow-minded Bitcoiners became. Really unbelievable what kind of damage just a few psychopaths can do.

 

[go1111111]

You are telling me all these smug assholes with their fucking HK agreement weren't just discussing how to stop Classic, they were also discussing how to prevent a certain technical improvement to come to effect by hardforking Bitcoin?

'Technical improvement' is kind of misleading. Sure, AsicBoost gives an advantage to miners who use it, but the mining situation as a whole does not improve, and it adds some risks.

The very rough measure of how secure Bitcoin is is "how much value in Bitcoins is up for grabs every block?" If blocks contain $10k worth of value, then the network spends about $10k worth of effort mining them and securing the network.

If the AsicBoost creators license their patent and require miners to pay them $1k per block, then miners in the jurisdiction of the patent will spend up to $9k per block on non-patent expenses, and $1k to license the patent. The AsicBoost creators will be capturing 10% of those mining rewards, but Bitcoin is not any more secure and mining as a whole is not improved in any practical way. However, the AsicBoost creators are now a centralized point of influence because they can decide which miners they allow to be profitable. Governments may be able to pressure them to revoke the license of certain mining operations that they don't like.

There is really no sense in which allowing one group to have a legal monopoly on profitable mining is helpful. The question is whether stopping it is worth the risk of a hard fork.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

@go1111111
I'm as much against the current patent system as the next guy but this is bullshit.
It's exactly the same situation for current ASIC developers who can produce the small structure sizes and sell them to other miners. x % of each block production cost goes to the seller as well.

If this is any concern we should be concerned about the different energy costs around the world as well. Maybe we should make a system where there can't be more than 5 blocks in a row from the same country? I should contact P. Todd, seems like an idea for him...

This debate is completely fucked. It's a symptom of centralized regulation. Once you start you can't stop and start to regulate every fucking detail.

 

[go1111111]

If some ASIC manufacturer was the only one who could produce profitable ASICs, that would also be bad. However it wouldn't be as bad as a widely enforceable patent because with a patent there is no legal way for competitors to catch up unless they can invent a different and superior technology. With ASIC efficiency they only need to be able to eventually figure out how to be 'as good' and can reverse engineer existing technology.

In general, anything that makes mining less of a commodity (special ASIC tech, patents, differing energy costs, etc) is harmful to decentralization. We can't do anything about differing energy costs. If some code change could make all energy costs the same, I'd be in favor of it.

Similarly, if it was possible to enforce a rule that each agent could only mine one out of ever N blocks, I'd be completely in favor of that. Why wouldn't we want to enforce that each person/group can only mine 1 in every 1000 blocks? The problem is that it's impossible because you can't tell whether one person is pretending to be multiple people or (in your example) pretending to mine from multiple countries.

"Once you start you can't stop" -- this fails to account for the new decentralized paradigm that Bitcoin has brought us. The economic majority will decide what gets adopted, and this can't be prevented by some central group. There is no incentive for the economic majority to go down a slippery slope like this.

 

[freetrader]

This is veering off-topic, but I'd like to see the global market regulate the Western "intellectual property" system.
The pendulum has swayed far beyond what's healthy for the public [1], and needs to swing back.
If ever there was a lack of consensus, it's on the utility of enforcing this patent regime in its current form on the world. I am fine with the rest of the world expressing their lack of consensus, that can only serve to hasten reforms.

At this point, the mining power situation in Bitcoin is likewise far unbalanced, and I'm pretty sure this little patent is not going to break the camel's back. If anything, the camel is already on its back sticking 3/4 legs up in the air. So if this patent situation draws more attention to this disbalance, it could even help Bitcoin in the long term as the need for further measures becomes more obvious.

[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/well-probably-never-free-mickey-thats-beside-point

 

[Norway]

 

[Richy_T]

But if you relay transactions to 10 peers, it are 25mb/sek. Right? That's much for upstream, I have 2mb, but possible at some german hotspots and maybe in whole japan and norway.

Every takeoff has a landing.

In an ideal web of nodes, every node on average will receive each transaction once and send it once. Each node will receive each block once and send it once (Without some kind of thin blocks, each of these blocks also contains many redundantly transmitted transactions). This will vary a bit in the real world with nodes close to the source sending more than they receive and those far away receiving more than they send.

With that said, there appears to be a lot of wasted chatter in the protocol to the degree that G Maxwell claims that even in its ideal case, x-thin blocks will only save 12% of bandwidth at most (in the idea situation, this would be closer to 50%. I would still like to see his claim validated and explored further). Of course, rather than suggest that this means there is room for improvement in the protocol, GMax just uses this to shit all over x-thin blocks.

But even though it's pretty wasteful, I believe there is some optimization so you shouldn't be seeing 10x the bandwidth for 10x the connections.

 

[tynwald]

So wait a minute:
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-May/012652.html

You are telling me all these smug assholes with their fucking HK agreement weren't just discussing how to stop Classic .... WTF. How did Bitcoin become the experimental laboratory for fucking communists asshats like P. Todd?
Please give me a good reason to keep my coins these days...

Consider this and other utterances from the likes of Adam and Luke are just ways of diverting attention from the failure to deliver a HF solution and SW on time. Nothing is ever what it seems with these folk ...

 

[Melbustus]

...

Please give me a good reason to keep my coins these days...

Because fiat is still even worse.

 

[johnyj]

Ethereum seems better to hedge the risk

It is enterprise product thus much higher quality R&D, and I think it will not face so many regulation trouble in future like bitcoin, it is fuel anyway, not hacker's private currency