Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[79b79aa8]

Gold up. Bitcoin Up.
maybe.

 

[freetrader]

I think the above illustrates what many mean by a "safe" or "dangerous" hardfork. "Safe" does not necessarily mean two chains cannot survive.

@jonny1000 : Thanks for sharing that perspective and what I view as a pretty useful taxonomy.
I don't agree with you on type 4 rolling windows "guaranteeing" a significant miner split, no more than voting windows can prevent one. However, it is in the realm of possibility, that much I accept.

The characteristic that people lose funds makes this method dangerous

I'm also of the opinion that it involves risk which could be mitigated by a cleaner fork (of type 3)

However the new chain can never wipe out the old chain.

I don't see this as a problem but an advantage - it is tolerant toward the old chain.
That is why I strongly favor a "type 3" which strives to separate the old and new cleanly.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

Bitcoin Up.
maybe.

Looks like it.

 

[jonny1000]

I don't see this as a problem but an advantage - it is tolerant toward the old chain.

I agree, it may be good the new chain cannot wipe out the old chain. What I am trying to emphasize is the asymmetric nature of this, the old chain can wipe out the new one. That is the problem.

Do you understand why the ability to wipe out another coin can be a very attractive proposition for investors/speculators? It becomes a self forfilling prophecy as positive price momentum builds.

Perhaps you understand this or not, either way, there is no advantage to allowing it.

Just set a flag and do a fork, maybe you will have 75% miner support, or maybe you will have 5% support. Either way the fork will finally be done and this "war" will be over. Then you can have your chain of massive blocks and the 1MB supporters can finally back up their hardisks with all the cheap replicated storage.

 

[_mr_e]

@jonny1000 It appears you did not read my previous post. BU does not fall into your 'unneccasrily dangerous' hard fork category because the incentives and economics simply do not align to make it so:

"This is how I visualized such a [BU]hard fork playing out. First the miners will begin signalling. Once there is enough hash power signalling 2mb, we would begin to see a number of large bitcoin companies (coinbase, bitpay, wallets, dark markets etc...) begin to promote that they are willing to accept bigger blocks. (This btw is the exact same effect that will prevent miners from unilaterally being able to control the blocksize.... the community must come with them or miners will fork themselves away from the economic majority.) We would also begin to see a number of community members writing blogs/threads/Reddit posts and sentiment would be gauged. After a miner then becomes sufficiently satisfied that the opportunity of mining a bigger block is > the risk of the network rejecting it, this brave miner will attempt a >~1.05mb block and we will see what happens. It's beautiful really."

The miners simply will not mine a bigger block until they feel safe that doing so would not lose them money. If they do mine a bigger block, it would mean that the network was ready for bigger blocks, which makes your fears completely irrelevant. This isn't Etheruem, as you say, Bitcoin is HARD TO FORK, therefore if it happens it will happen ONLY because the network is ready (unless a pow fork is created). Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?

 

[lunar]

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.



Conflict of interest being exposed for the obscenity it is.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/58ttsv/a_look_at_dcg_bitfurys_incestuous_ties_with_the/

This has a /u/ydtm feel to it

 

[awemany]

@lunar, this is kind of OT, but I found the earlier link on /r/btc today quite interesting:

https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiLeaks/comments/587lbg/i_have_been_looking_into_the_san_fransisco/

If you look further, there's all kinds of worries now on /r/Wikileaks that Assange isn't well and/or that the the project has been overtaken. And talk about mod censorship and so forth. Possible compromise of his data set. Garbled wikileaks tweets spelling out 'HELP ME' and the like.

I don't know what to make of it - it could simply be that /r/Wikileaks is overrun by people wanting to discuss U.S. politics. Or intel campaigns to divide their user base. But I couldn't help but note some similarity to /r/btc, /r/bitcoin.

Or it could be that JA is a marketing badass and knows how to drive traffic to his site

In any case, it is interesting that the same guy being at least peripherally involved with smear campaigns against WL (to put it mildly) is also involved in what is financing Blockstream.

And I feel pretty much like a tinfoil crackpot writing this - but it does in any case look like there's a quite tightly knit elite running the show in the U.S. now.

 

[lunar]

@awemany

I'm relatively convinced encryption,Wikileaks and bitcoin and are at the very centre in the fight for the internet and possibly even future world order. America and the Dollar have had monopoly on global finance and power for about 100 years, but unfortunately they have abused that privilege since the 70's (debatably longer).

If this statement is even partially true, then it stands to reason those who make profit from this abuse of power will throw every covert method in the books (virtually unlimited budget) into a multiprong attempt to prevent and derail the spread free speech information and free market currency.

Tinfoil hat or not? Owning bitcoin is a short on central banks and corrupted global governance. You'd have to be nuts to take that bet..... but here we are

Code is mightier than the military–industrial-banking complex? We shall see.

 

[Richy_T]

Help me out here...

My understanding of LN is not especially solid so I may be making a mistake here...

So to open a LN channel, I time-lock some number of Bitcoins. Then the LN nodes between me and the endpoint generate bitcoin transactions which incrementally increase the amount I am to pay the endpoint but this transaction is not published to the Bitcoin network. Both I and the endpoint receive this transaction (the endpoint uses this to meter services or whatever it is providing to me. Either of us can close the channel at any time by publishing this transaction to the Bitcoin network.

Is there any reason this whole thing couldn't be coordinated directly from my wallet software and a connection directly to the endpoint's accounting system? Why do I need these funky middlemen doing stuff in between?

Again, sure I'm missing something but I have a cold...

 

[albin]

A thought that occurred to me following some links in a ydtm post and thinking about it.

With respect to the Maxwell quote about "proving" that decentralized consensus is impossible, that got picked up by Coindesk and that has been a source of some contention: if you look at his comments on the /r/bitcoin love-fest/"appreciation"-thread that ydtm linked (from like a couple years ago when Maxwell left the Mozilla project), you see him elaborate along the lines that the guarantee Bitcoin provides is weaker, but practically-workable.

Is it possible that the aversion to orphaning as a mechanism to self-regulate the system comes from a desire for Bitcoin to provide stronger guarantees, by overloading the stability of what the chain tip is supposed to represent, contrary to the actual security model of Satoshi's consensus scheme?

 

[jonny1000]

"This is how I visualized such a [BU]hard fork playing out. First the miners will begin signalling. Once there is enough hash power signalling 2mb, we would begin to see a number of large bitcoin companies (coinbase, bitpay, wallets, dark markets etc...) begin to promote that they are willing to accept bigger blocks.

This has already happened. Everyone already wants larger blocks. The question is just how to do it in a safe way.

After a miner then becomes sufficiently satisfied that the opportunity of mining a bigger block is > the risk of the network rejecting it

Implement this in code. What is the disadvantage of implementing that in code?

This isn't Etheruem

Why not get rid of the asymmetric advantage to the original side, like Ethereum did? I appreciate you do not see the risk. However, what is the downside of removing the risk?

Please can you try to understand and appreciate the idea of addressing the concerns of the people who may switch to your side, such that the new larger block coin prospers. Especially when there is no disadvantage of doing so. Instead of this the sides are diverged further apart to more extreme positions.

 

[Nat-go]

Short question to the BU guys:
There was the call to translate the website to different languages (which is a good idea imho, a lot of people still read Bitcoin stuff in their native language), is there a coordination which languages are already done/being worked on?

Another idea: Imho it would be wise to have the tutorials/manuals about how to set up a node and use the json RPC on the website as well. As of today you can only get the info at bitcoin.org afaik. And I have seen a lot of new users to Bitcoin, who want to "help the ecosystem" to just run Bitcoin core because that's still the "current client" for them. Imho it is good to take away the advantages of bitcoin core in the "information warfare" from them. Make it easier for people to get into Bitcoin without getting in touch with core.

I could do a German translation if nobody else is crazy for doing that.

I read your Pull Request@github. Congratulations, good translation!
Just two things: You translated "main
tain" (a satoshi client) to develop (entwickeln in German). BU is already in use, only the beta-version of 12.1 is in development. I would prefer to translate maintain with "
betreiben" or a similar literally translation.

The translation of the BU´s "failsafe mode" is as ununderstandable as in the english original, with the exclusion of the term "failsafe mode". This maybe gets potential user even more confused.

I wasn´t crazy for doing a German translation, because i can´t explain the BU Client including the "failsafe mode" in one paragraph.

Maybe we should exclude the explanation of the failsafe mode from the text? Instead we could just write that a failsafe mode exists for the case of a chain spit. It justs discourage interested users to mention, that the user have to adjust a "block depth" to potentially follow another fork of the chain.

Bitcoin user get bombarded with term they only halfway understand. That works only for blogs and magazines, that can writes texts like these:
https://hacked.com/breathe-easy-bitcoiners-quantum-computing-no-match-for-sha-2-encryption/
I maybe hacked and hashed, but i could never decypt a hash function, with quantum computers or without...

 

[adamstgbit]

Help me out here...

My understanding of LN is not especially solid so I may be making a mistake here...

So to open a LN channel, I time-lock some number of Bitcoins. Then the LN nodes between me and the endpoint generate bitcoin transactions which incrementally increase the amount I am to pay the endpoint but this transaction is not published to the Bitcoin network. Both I and the endpoint receive this transaction (the endpoint uses this to meter services or whatever it is providing to me. Either of us can close the channel at any time by publishing this transaction to the Bitcoin network.

Is there any reason this whole thing couldn't be coordinated directly from my wallet software and a connection directly to the endpoint's accounting system? Why do I need these funky middlemen doing stuff in between?

Again, sure I'm missing something but I have a cold...

Richy thats not how lighting works...

A sends B some bitcoin then C watches, if C thinks B is going to Steal From A then C goes ahead and generates a new payment chancel which thereby stops B from being able to steal A's coins. HOWEVER, if B is smart he has 300ms to broadcast a flaming bag of poop at C to keep C distracted while he steals the time locked coins.

its all well documented right here

I forgot about D (Dave)

Dave can't do shit he's at the end of the chain Ofc...
[doublepost=1477205901,1477205012][/doublepost]

1MB supporter

 

[Richy_T]

OK Adam, I'll take a look at that vid. I think I might have known that stuff once but knowledge decays over the years and years that it takes them to implement anything. I have some other thoughts but I would probably go barking up the wrong tree again.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

I read your Pull Request@github. Congratulations, good translation!

Thanks for reviewing it!

Just two things: You translated "main
tain" (a satoshi client) to develop (entwickeln in German). BU is already in use, only the beta-version of 12.1 is in development. I would prefer to translate maintain with "
betreiben" or a similar literally translation.

Hehe, yeah I wasn't so sure about it, "betreiben" was the first word coming to mind but I thought it didn't sound great than. But now I think you're right, I'll fix it.

The translation of the BU´s "failsafe mode" is as ununderstandable as in the english original, with the exclusion of the term "failsafe mode". This maybe gets potential user even more confused.

I wasn´t crazy for doing a German translation, because i can´t explain the BU Client including the "failsafe mode" in one paragraph.

Maybe we should exclude the explanation of the failsafe mode from the text? Instead we could just write that a failsafe mode exists for the case of a chain spit. It justs discourage interested users to mention, that the user have to adjust a "block depth" to potentially follow another fork of the chain.

Yes, I think you can guess that I found the short text about how Unlimited works the hardest part to translate. I'm not sure about leaving it out completely though. Maybe you are right and it is good enough to write, that a failsafe mode exists on the front page instead of "explaining" it. On the other hand, users actually "have to" adjust the block depth..

 

[pekatete]

THIS!

 

[Dusty]

You should listen to this TED talk by Rachel Botsman:

https://www.ted.com/talks/rachel_botsman_we_ve_stopped_trusting_institutions_and_started_trusting_strangers

No, really, you have to listen her: she nails it.

 

[solex]

@Dusty
Thanks for sharing. That was an awesome talk, and we should grab a couple of those trust ladder slides for our website!

 

[AdrianX]

I just skimmed this propaganda post, what a lot of FUD attacking BU. It does look like there is a small army of trolls manipulating the narrative over there.

r/btc A Future Led by Bitcoin Unlimited is a Centralized Future
r/bitcoin A Future Led by Bitcoin Unlimited is a Centralized Future

(note: I use the np.reddit.com in the links to comply with the rules.)

@jonny1000 you understand how BU works and are one that's interested in the truth, why are you not in there correcting those lies? (you haven't been banned yet have you?)

 

[freetrader]

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/593p76/an_example_that_softfork_segwit_wont_be_activated/

Times have really changed and Chinese miners are speaking directly.

I feel this is good for Bitcoin.

Big blocks for Christmas?