Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[theZerg]

RE DAOs: bah Vitalik et al. are just turning an interesting concept into silly science fiction if not complete fantasy. Today and for the foreseeable future the main thing a DAO has to "hire" you for is the brains required to make the decision to hire yourself. The best way to accomplish that is as I was saying -- to capture the free market in a bottle and let ppl hire themselves on the promise of future returns.

 

[Zarathustra]

The state is organized exactly that way. Its minions are promised future returns on the organized violence they exercise on the society.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

RE DAOs: bah Vitalik et al. are just turning an interesting concept into silly science fiction if not complete fantasy. Today and for the foreseeable future the main thing a DAO has to "hire" you for is the brains required to make the decision to hire yourself. The best way to accomplish that is as I was saying -- to capture the free market in a bottle and let ppl hire themselves on the promise of future returns.

So what's the difference between a "distributed autonomous organization" and "better software tools for helping people create and operate their businesses?"

Is there one? If not, could we just use the latter description instead so that the field would attract fewer scifi believers and more entrepreneurs?

 

[theZerg]

The difference is that nobody or thing is "operating" the business. One individual may independently contribute. Another may hire N people and thereby reap the rewards of those workers output. But each contributor is his own boss -- adding whatever features or services s/he feels is most valuable. The tricky part is distribution of rewards. Read this very early formulation: http://effluviaofascatteredmind.blogspot.com/2009/03/thoughts-on-gpl-open-company-concept.html?m=1

Ideas have expanded since then but given the above you can see how an appcoin can be disbursed on every checkin and then used to determine payout addresses and quantities for revenue converted to bitcoin.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

Ideas have expanded since then but given the above you can see how an appcoin can be disbursed on every checkin and then used to determine payout addresses and quantities for revenue converted to bitcoin.

Why would any individual choose to work for an appcoin rather than for a venture that will pay them money?

How effectively will the DAO be able to compete with businesses?

 

[theZerg]

Why do people write ANY unpaid FOSS?

But you understood that I'm saying that the appcoin is basically stock and every quarter profits are paid in BTC to all appcoin addresses, right?

In the formulation I linked to above you might imagine a lot of ppl do it as part time work -- supplementary to a normal job.

Its also a means to monetize OSS or OSHW. It might even have a better return than a normal job... but ofc far more variation.

The project may be infrastructure, companies may produce product on top and the appcoin dividends a means of rewarding those companies that contribute most back to the infrastructure.

Ultimately its not really the job of the project to understand why people contribute except as a means to encourage more participation.

 

[rocks]

@rocks

Isn't that the exact situation we want? Miners won't risk significantly larger blocks until transaction demand makes it worth the risk.

But why add an extra dimension of risk in the first place? If miners know that all nodes will transmit blocks up to size X or are able to poll the network for node preferences, then there is one less dimension of risk towards building larger blocks.

We're already seeing conservative behavior from the pools, why encourage more of that

 

[Justus Ranvier]

Its also a means to monetize OSS or OSHW. It might even have a better return than a normal job... but ofc far more variation.

The project may be infrastructure, companies may produce product on top and the appcoin dividends a means of rewarding those companies that contribute most back to the infrastructure.

David Johnston and his cronies have been running that line for years, but all they've produced is a series of pump and dump scams that need to continually rebrand in order to draw in more suckers.

Adding a separate currency with a bad monetary policy to a product does not benefit the customer (in fact, it's a significant anti-feature), therefore it's not a sustainable business strategy.

Whatever ways may exist to finance open source software, they're not going to involve deliberately making the software work against the best interests of its customers.

 

[cypherdoc]

But why add an extra dimension of risk in the first place? If miners know that all nodes will transmit blocks up to size X or are able to poll the network for node preferences, then there is one less dimension of risk towards building larger blocks.

We're already seeing conservative behavior from the pools, why encourage more of that

Because the whole ethos behind BU and a readily accessible user/full node block size setting, as I understand it, is to return some degree of "voice" or control over the system to these users/full nodes.

Also, it is not entirely clear that the lack of this configurable setting could allow nodes to handle a repetitive f2pool like multi input single tx mega block attack without getting shut down. This setting can mitigate that.

If code ships with a default setting of unlimited, most won't bother to change it anyways and you should have your way. To me, it is about giving charitable node operators some sense of voice so that they don't get abused.

Where the heck is @awemany? We need him in this discussion.

 

[lunar]

I missed the part of this BU proposal that explained the intended consensus point at which it would hard fork from the network?
Is the idea to attain 75% network share before any blocks larger than 1MB can be made. Or has some other consensus level been chosen?
thx

 

[Peter R]

But why add an extra dimension of risk in the first place? If miners know that all nodes will transmit blocks up to size X or are able to poll the network for node preferences, then there is one less dimension of risk towards building larger blocks.

We're already seeing conservative behavior from the pools, why encourage more of that

I suspect miners will communicate what block sizes they accept by technical means (e.g., by writing a string in the coinbase TX of new blocks) and by social means (e.g., conferences and online discussions).

It should become very clear what the effective max block size is--but it will be set by a true market process rather than by software developers. Making it easy for miners and full node operators to participate in this market process is the first step IMO and this is a goal of Bitcoin Unlimited.

 

[theZerg]

David Johnston and his cronies have been running that line for years, but all they've produced is a series of pump and dump scams that need to continually rebrand in order to draw in more suckers.

Adding a separate currency with a bad monetary policy to a product does not benefit the customer (in fact, it's a significant anti-feature), therefore it's not a sustainable business strategy.

Whatever ways may exist to finance open source software, they're not going to involve deliberately making the software work against the best interests of its customers.

Im not talking about adding a superfluous coin to a product. I'm also not talking about raising money via an ICO of a coin associated with vaporware. I'm talking about simply giving contributors a valueless colored coin and if the OSS product ever gains a revenue stream you pay out to holders of that coin. Its basically just like stock options so its a well known model. Ofc losers try to peddle the stock of dying or nonexistent companies. The existence of these ppl do not invalidate the model.
[doublepost=1445104558][/doublepost]

I missed the part of this BU proposal that explained the intended consensus point at which it would hard fork from the network?
Is the idea to attain 75% network share before any blocks larger than 1MB can be made. Or has some other consensus level been chosen?
thx

BU does not fork. That is what is powerful about the idea. It simply accepts the longest chain. It does not INVALIDATE a chain based on block size. If enough ppl are running BU at some point a miner may choose to issue a &gt 1MB block. If the blocks mined below this block make it the longest chain then the 1MB crowd will have forked from the mining majority.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

Im not talking about adding a superfluous coin to a product. I'm also not talking about raising money via an ICO of a coin associated with vaporware.

Great. I'm glad we're on the same page there.

I'm talking about simply giving contributors a valueless colored coin and if the OSS product ever gains a revenue stream you pay out to holders of that coin.

Isn't that just a business though? Why does it need the term "DAO" to describe it?

It's a company that issues its stock as bearer certificates (an arrangement that has existed for centuries), and those certificates happen to be recorded as colored coins instead of on paper.

So what's the difference between a "distributed autonomous organization" and "better software tools for helping people create and operate their businesses?"

Is there one? If not, could we just use the latter description instead so that the field would attract fewer scifi believers and more entrepreneurs?

 

[theZerg]

Right. Did you read that link? It becomes a DAC when you figure out an algorithmic way to issue the coin.

Or to move beyond that post in the infrastructure case the downstream products actually make the $ but the ecosystem as a whole is a DAO. Linux is a DAO for example although Linus still has perhaps too much influence for it to strictly qualify. Maybe ARM linux is better example.

 

[Peter R]

Bitcoin Unlimited: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System for Planet Earth

A scalable Bitcoin

The vision for Bitcoin Unlimited is a system that could scale up to a worldwide payment network and a decentralized monetary system. Transactions are grouped into blocks and recorded on an unforgeable global ledger known as the Bitcoin blockchain. The Blockchain is accessible to anyone in the world, secured by cryptography, and maintained by the most powerful single-purpose computing network ever created.

Governed by the code we run

The guiding principle for Bitcoin Unlimited is that the evolution of the network should be decided by the code people freely choose to run. Consensus is then an emergent property, objectively represented by the longest proof-of-work chain.

What makes a valid block?

From the Bitcoin white paper, "nodes accept the block only if all transactions in it are valid and not already spent." A block cannot be invalid because of its size. Instead, excessively large blocks that would pose technical challenges to a node are dealt with in the transport layer, increasing the block's orphaning risk. Bitcoin Unlimited nodes can accept a chain with an excessive block, when needed, in order to track consensus.

Values and beliefs: adoption is paramount

- Bitcoin should freely scale with demand through a market-based process

- The user’s experience is important

- Low fees are desirable

- Instant (0-conf) transactions are useful

- Resistance to censorship and security against double spending improves with adoption

Technical: put the user in control

- Software fork of Bitcoin Core

- Bitcoin Unlimited can simultaneously flag support for multiple block size limit proposals (BIP100, BIP101, etc.)

- The block size limit is considered to be part of the transport layer rather than part of the consensus layer. The user can adjust his node's block size limit based on the technical limitations of his hardware, while still ensuring that his node follows the longest proof-of-work chain.

Politics: Bitcoin is interdisciplinary

The voices of scientists, developers, entrepreneurs, investors and users should all be heard and respected.

****************************************************

Critiques? I'm trying to come up with a simple "1 pager" that communicates the most important points.

 

[Inca]

needs something about scaling bitcoin in it Peter, for those who don't understand the technicals or deeper arguments of the blocksize debate and the need for bitcoin unlimited

 

[Peter R]

@Inca: thanks, I tend to miss the most obvious points.

I changed the first sub heading form "Satoshi's original vision" to "Satoshi's original vision--a scalable Bitcoin," and modified the first sentence. I also added the following point under "Values and Beliefs":

- Bitcoin should freely scale with demand through a market-based process

 

[Peter R]

Still not sure about the default block size limit being "unlimited." With an "8 MB" default, BU might be palatable to a greater number of people (e.g., the Chinese miners already gave their blessing for 8 MB) and deflect a lot of FUD (e.g., "zomg unlimited is totally reckless").

 

[Peter R]

Rusty responding to @solex :


To me it seems that Blockstream's vision for Bitcoin is for the block size limit to be a policy tool used to balance "fees" with "decentralization."

 

[rocks]

@cypherdoc @Peter R

We are in full agreement in enabling market based decisions and moving decisions from miners/users and away from developers. That said, I think full nodes (which download the blockchain) should operate in a manner that supports and follows miner preferences (miners are the source of security).

I think there are disadvantages to having nodes on the network that operate with preferences below miners. Such nodes are leechers and in P2P networks leechers cause significant negative effects.

For example, let's say miners start to build 100MB blocks. Most home users find their upload pipe fully saturated so they set their preference to not transmit blocks larger than 10MB so they can continue to run a full node. Such nodes become leechers, they download the blockchain but do not contributed to uploading to others. If lets say 50% (or more) nodes start to do this, this puts significant upload pressure on the remaining nodes. Bittorrent networks do not function with too many leechers, and neither will Bitcoin's I'd believe.

The simple fact is nodes which can not contribute to the valid chain built by miners, should switch to SPV clients. Otherwise they leech bandwidth from the network and do not contribute, such users would be better moved to SPV clients.

My view is it is best for BU to either:
1) accept unlimited blocks or
2) follow the BIP101 schedule or
3) follow BIP100 voting.
And not set their own limit below all of these, such users should move from full nodes to SPV clients.

This means preference should really be set by the miners with the blocks they mine being the sole source of votes. Nodes should follow whatever the miners vote for (provided they validate and agree with the transactions included). That is the security model of bitcoin IMHO.