Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

freetrader

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
2,806
6,088
Well, that's what code review is for. Good work by Peter Todd if that is an actual TM bug.

I do agree it's surreal, given the trumpeting about "final code", and also that a while ago they had a full meeting in Zurich to review the code, presumably followed by detailed individual reviews etc.
It looks like at least one more iteration of bug fixing and testing is needed. Would be nice if they fixed that O(n²) issue at the same time!

Better test it on Litecoin first!
 
Last edited:

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
A slight rephrasing of a concept I've pushed for a long time, but with an emphasis on "global participation by all". By not just users through bigger blocks but by miners, more nodes, and more devs :

 

satoshis_sockpuppet

Active Member
Feb 22, 2016
776
3,312
@freetrader
LOL
You must be fucking kidding me. The sig hashing + malleability were the two big selling points (apart from the non existing scaling).
They even lied that without the solution of O(n^2) bigger blocks weren't ok, which is of course total bullshit but nonetheless.

Afaik I heard from technically involved people that the O(n^2) problem in the hashing algorithm should be a pretty easy fix. And it has not too much to do with SW..

Can somebody tell me what these 1500 lines of code really are supposed to solve now?
 

sickpig

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
926
2,541
So we just discovered SegWit is not solving O(n^2) hashing problem, nor the txs malleability.

In the meantime the invisible hand managed to ditch another SegWit selling point: UTXOs compaction.

In fact the 75% discount applied to witness data was characterized by Adam Back precisely as a fix to one problem that affect the bitcoin's economic incentives, namely the UTXOs uncotrolled growth.

Now miners are showing that there's no need to fix anything, incentives are already in place it's just the BS representatives are blind to them:


p.s. sometime I wonder if all this BlockStream thing is nothing else than an elaborate prank to test our critical thinking. :censored:
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
Interesting dynamics. Midmagic answers days later on exchanges that I have with Greg, and this is a pattern now:


It looks like that guy is employed by Blockstream to 'always have the last word in the narrative' or something, and is being directed by Greg at posts to counter or simply has the job of looking through all threads he participated in, a day later or so.

Oh, and before I forget: @Zangelbert Bingledack , absolutely excellent post.

Lately, it looks like Luke-Jr is a PR front of BS. He's so stubborn nerd-dogmatic on issues, he has quite odd interests and views (geocentricity, tonal system, hard core Catholicism, 56k modem) that it is almost like I am having some kind of human sympathy for him, because he's eccentric enough to not be taken really serious.

However, I think you're right in your general assessment. I would say that he's in the end a real-life sockpuppet of Greg and he'll be dropped like a hot potato by Greg as soon as the time has come to do so.
i've had the same experience with midmagic/midnightmagic who comes in later to clean up Greg's mess. that clown also gave me a negative personal rating on BCT and had the audacity to make shit up in it like espousing a theory of "tunneling" of goods by HF to me. what a crock of nonsense and immorality. esp since those public allegations against me have been withdrawn.
[doublepost=1467129529][/doublepost]
*Off-chain scaling creates an entitlement when its premised on future/eventual on-chain settlement. The service offered will be contractual and therefore subject to failure, including the inability to pay high transaction fees. Imagine miner fees fluctuating wildly and w/o notice; being used to punish certain lightning hubs w/ higher fees; etc. to the point that hubs can't profit w/o passing on an unreasonable amount of fees to their customers (miner fee + hub fee)). Nonetheless, the off-chain service contract creates a right to on-chain settlement in the future. A large chunk of the user-base will become dependent on it.
this is good and is another way of stating what i said last week; smart contracts eliminate the finality of an inherently "push" technology or bearer cash. when you hand someone a dollar bill on the street for something, you don't expect to get it back. it's gone; finito. "suspending" BTC in a payment channel like LN or in a smart contract creates a "promise to pay" or an "expectation of payment" somewhere down the line in time. all sorts of things can change in the interim or the suspended tx can get hacked. that's not a currency or ecash system. all this offchain bullshit promoted by kore dev serves to dilute the purpose of Sound Money and even perverts it into something else. we need to continue to fight to preserve the greatest network effect of all with the most potential; sound money.
[doublepost=1467129711][/doublepost]
Has anyone ever read the sidechain paper in total? I did a few months ago. It is a very hard read, all though I think it was written to be hard to read on purpose. In the end, what is a sidechain? Essentially it is an asset that can be exchanged fr another asset without needing to go through a centralized exchange. The idea came out of an era when exchanges were dropping off like flies. ow that we have many exchanges that are ran properly, I don't think sidechains really matter any more. CounterParty has the ability to exchange one asset for another built right into it's protocol. It could be argued that CounterParty assets are sidechains of each other. It could also be argued that Shapeshift.io is an implementation of "sidechain" that makes altcoins sidechains of each other.
yes, many of us have read the entire paper and debated it in depth for 4 mo beginning Oct 14 when the paper came out to around Jan 15 in 200-300 pages in the old thread. as well as off and on again since. i think the entire concept is flawed and represents yet another perversion of Bitcoin.
 
Last edited:

cliff

Active Member
Dec 15, 2015
345
854

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
EDIT - Further, tinkering too much allows tx fees to be a tool of the wealthy - they can buy their way to the front of the line (the line of to-be-validated TXs) whether their TX was broadcast first or not. Seems highly unfair.
great post. you should have also mentioned it is a tool of the tinkerers to become middlemen for those elite who want to buy their way to the front of the line; think LN hubs owners.
 

Peter R

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,398
5,595
Interesting dynamics. Midmagic answers days later on exchanges that I have with Greg, and this is a pattern now:


It looks like that guy is employed by Blockstream to 'always have the last word in the narrative' or something, and is being directed by Greg at posts to counter or simply has the job of looking through all threads he participated in, a day later or so.

Oh, and before I forget: @Zangelbert Bingledack , absolutely excellent post.

Lately, it looks like Luke-Jr is a PR front of BS. He's so stubborn nerd-dogmatic on issues, he has quite odd interests and views (geocentricity, tonal system, hard core Catholicism, 56k modem) that it is almost like I am having some kind of human sympathy for him, because he's eccentric enough to not be taken really serious.

However, I think you're right in your general assessment. I would say that he's in the end a real-life sockpuppet of Greg and he'll be dropped like a hot potato by Greg as soon as the time has come to do so.
@awemany:

Your recent interactions with midmagic/mignightmagic match my own. For example, I was chatting about scaling in bitcoin-wizards when he randomly comes online and writes this out of left field:



I've also noticed that you-know-who quits bitcoin-wizards every time I come on.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
If fees become the main determiner of when rights can be perfected, rather than chronology of the broadcasting events, then I think many parties to bigger transactions will choose the fastest and most guaranteed route to perfection, which currently does not include navigating a block space fee market with possible time delays, given the current legal system.
yes, we've been seeing repeated examples of these delays for months now. and yet somehow, kore dev doesn't see this as a problem. ridiculous.
 

cliff

Active Member
Dec 15, 2015
345
854
First paragraph from Sipa's BIP 42 here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0042.mediawiki

"Although it is widely believed that Satoshi was an inflation-hating goldbug he never said this, and in fact programmed Bitcoin's money supply to grow indefinitely, forever. He modeled the monetary supply as 4 gold mines being discovered per mibillenium (1024 years), with equal intervals between them, each one being depleted over the course of 140 years."

How does he know the things in bold (bolding is mine, btw)? There is no reference in the whitepaper to 4 mines or the testing history or thought process - see section 6, for example. Likewise, I couldn't find anything here on that either: http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/ Anyone got a link?

Alternatively, perhaps Sipa [accidentally] outed himself as Satoshi a few years ago. It would explain supreme confidence of BS and Core.
[doublepost=1467134630,1467133630][/doublepost]
great post. you should have also mentioned it is a tool of the tinkerers to become middlemen for those elite who want to buy their way to the front of the line; think LN hubs owners.
I should have. I have too much rolling around in my head sometimes to get it all out. I have been spending the last few months teaching myself to code at night so that I can write more competently on these issues. I'll get there one day.
 
Last edited:

cypherdoc

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

"Although it is widely believed that Satoshi was an inflation-hating goldbug he never said this, and in fact programmed Bitcoin's money supply to grow indefinitely, forever. He modeled the monetary supply as 4 gold mines being discovered per mibillenium (1024 years), with equal intervals between them, each one being depleted over the course of 140 years."-sipa

geezuz, i've never seen that from someone like him. that's concerning.
 

lunar

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,001
4,290
Brilliant article by Roger Ver. I'd quote some but it's honestly best to have a read. Such a sensible and sound understanding of economics is rarely is ever displayed from the cryptographers within the BScore camp.


'There is nothing advantageous to artificially limiting the block size. It will simply cause potential Bitcoin users to use something else. It's time to let the cryptographers do cryptography, while the economists consider the economics.'
 
Last edited:

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
This is starting to get surreal: Peter Todd is just saying the SegWit, in the current form, is not fixing tx malleability and not even O(n^2) sign hashing problem.

see: https://petertodd.org/2016/segwit-consensus-critical-code-review#peer-to-peer-networking

this in particular deserved to be quoted:

Peter Todd (bold's mine) conclusions:
"
  1. Segwit has a number of non-ideal warts at the consensus protocol level, mostly stuff another few months of development time and review could have ironed out (or resulted in a lot of arguments about bikesheds).
  2. There’s a few “close calls” in the consensus-critical implementation that could lead to bugs later, but don’t appear to be actual issues right now.
  3. Having said that, there doesn’t seem to be anything seriously wrong with the current consensus implementation or protocol design; at worst we’ve added a bit of technical debt, in exchange for getting critically needed functionality out the door.
  4. There does appear to be a nuisance problem with the non-consensus transaction propagation part of the P2P protocol, though fixing it may require a rethink of how transaction invs work.
  5. We haven’t actually fixed the O(n²) signature hashing problem yet, although we’re fairly confident that we can, and there’s a open pull-req implementing the cache that we need.
"


and this https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8279

quoting (bold's mine):

"Basically it looks like an attacker may be able to send nodes transactions with malleated witness data, which we don't consistently mark as possibly corrupted in AcceptToMemoryPool(). Result would be those txids being added to recentRejects, messing up propagation."


edit: @freetrader you beat me to it
wow, that sounds kinda serious. you coders need to jump all over this.
 

VeritasSapere

Active Member
Nov 16, 2015
511
1,266
The political elite in the UK are closely tied to Brussels and the unelected growing EU power structures. They have been gradually moving away from what the people agreed to - a common trading bloc - towards a supranational state with free movement of labour. An EU army was planned. EU laws supersede British law decided in the parliament. Those laws were not decided by an electable body that our people could vote out at an election. EU courts overturned British judges in decisions taken by our courts of law frequently. The open borders policy has led to immigration levels being 10x what the government predicted into the UK, tacitly approved by government because it has slowed the aging of our population and helped to keep demand for housing high (and by extension maintain our sky high housing prices which are now unaffordable to average youngsters). Worse our generous welfare state attracts people from all over Europe. Rising numbers of workers creates poor working conditions for the average bloke, giving rise to zero hour contracts and falling wages in real terms.

The single currency has decimated economies of large swathes of the EU (spain, portugal, greece etc) whilst other countries have grown rich (Germany).

I voted leave for the primary reason of retaking our national sovereignty back and allowing our parliament to set our laws or repeal them. This was a vote from the average joe to stop uncontrolled immigration and retake control of our labour force, whilst halting the slide towards an unaccountable unelected United States of Europe.

I doubt we have created a Domino effect resulting in the dissolution of the EU, but if another major country such as France, Spain or even little Greece leave the single currency then the project is dead. There will be great resistance to further referenda in EU states after this shock :)

EDIT: One further macroconomic point. This may mark the beginning of the end of globalisation and destruction of the Western economies in terms of hollowing out the middle class and destruction entirely of the working class. Protectionism is coming. War may follow.
This is a great post, I had to bump it. You made some very good points, especially about the end of globalism, the move towards protectionism and the possibility of war. I think you are completely correct in this, my hope is that the cryptocurrency revolution will happen in time to take away the funding from the war machine. When these states can no longer print money in order to fund their wars it could help bring about the end to this type of state driven industrial scale warfare that we have seen in the twentieth century.
 

cypherdoc

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

Your recent interactions with midmagic/mignightmagic match my own. For example, I was chatting about scaling in bitcoin-wizards when he randomly comes online and writes this out of left field:



I've also noticed that you-know-who quits bitcoin-wizards every time I come on.
those types of venomous totally inaccurate accusations are typical for /u/midmagic. he just makes shit up. it's disgusting and guys like him need to go.
[doublepost=1467138483][/doublepost]o
@cypherdoc It was an April Fool's day joke.
oh yeah, now i remember that. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: awemany and Norway

VeritasSapere

Active Member
Nov 16, 2015
511
1,266
Where is the invisible hand? A libertarian market project turned in record time into a totalitarian one. "Free market" is an oximoron. Market is about domination, corruption, power and force - more or less, but never free.
For me the "Free Market" is not a oximoron exactly because the "Free Market" is reflected by this domination, corruption, power and force, at least having a more free market does allow for a more level playing field for these different aspects of human nature. The theory at least is that this is the best way to bring about the greater good for the whole civilization.

The real ruler of the markets is always the mafia: private mafia, state mafia or both in complicity. Just more or less. But that's civilization.

Civilizations are organized in densely populated settlements divided into hierarchical social classes with a ruling elite and subordinate urban and rural populations, which engage in intensive agriculture, mining, small-scale manufacture and trade. Civilization concentrates power, extending human control over the rest of nature, including over other human beings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization
I do think that we can change the nature of civilization, which for me this has become more possible through cryptocurrency. We can change the definitions of words, civilization is a concept that we should save. In this case, we just replace "hierarchical social classes" with "decentralized voluntary governance protocols" and "ruling elite and subordinate population" can be removed from the definition entirely. :)
 
Last edited: