Sidebar

Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

AdrianX

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
adamstgbit said:
I think its going to take a while for the "paradigm shift" to happen.

Uber is not good enough... its sadly a centralized trust based system....

their DB which hold ratings on drives and passengers is centralized.
when you choose to ride in a uber taxi you choose to trust that taxi driver.

sure you (the passenger) gets to pick and choose which uber-taxi you ride in based on individualized rating system, but that system is still centralized..

when the taxi driver gets a bad rating because he farted in his taxi, what does he do?

uber creates a web of shame, not a web of trust.


what if i told you we can build a COMPLETELY decentralized taxi system, which TOTALLY removes trust from the equation, AND does not rely on a web of shame to operate.

Uber done right: ( lets call it Bouber )

Bouber-Car and Bouber-passenger wants to make a deal: london to paris for 0.2BTC

problem, on one knowns or trusts each other..... what do we do?

Bouber-passenger creates a smart contract that says " once i'm in paris send 0.2BTC to the Bouber-Car "

Bouber-Car creates a smart contract that says " if Bouber-passenger smart contract does not complete within 24hours send 1BTC to Bouber-passenger"

KABOOM!

trustless taxi service.

Bouber-Car knows if he get the Bouber-passenger where he needs to go, he gets the 0.2BTC.
Bouber-passenger knows if Bouber-Car fails to deliver he'll get 1BTC

there's some technical details to work out.

like maybe we need Bouber-Cars/passenger to register there wallets on the blockchain. and figure out a reliable system to prove that Bouber-Cars/passenger's contacts completed successfully. etc etc

but its much better than a centralized web of shame, dictating who's who's.
Click to expand...
@adamstgbit the paradigm shift can happen way quicker then you think. That Ted talk hit on the one key factor, and that's personal reputation. Once a decentralized privacy centric identity system emerges we'll start to see a fundamental shift in human behavior and trusted services,

Uber could well survive we don't need to decentralize all the things although I think we need to decentralize as many as is practical. I think centralized services become just serves when we decentralize fully configurable identity systems.

Our reputations are our most valuable commodity and when we can transfer them and use them without over exposing ourselves we'll see a new economy built on trust.
 
  • Like
Reactions: adamstgbit, pekatete, Dusty and 1 other person
E

Erdogan

Active Member
Aug 30, 2015
476
856
adamstgbit said:
she said the word "trust" much to much...
I like the idea she puts forth but i think her way of going about explaining it is kinda wrong.
its not about trust, or redefining how we "build trust" or what ever..
its about Removing trust from the equation altogether!

when i get paid in cash-dollars i must Trust that that cash is not counterfeit.
when i get paid in bitcoin i do not have to trust anyone or anything ( other then the idea of bitcoin itself )...

building systems that eliminate or reduce the need for trust is the key to victory.

her trust ladder is 3 steps

1) trust the idea
2) trust the platform
3) trust in the individual users

Trust in Fiat:
1) i dont trust the idea, its a bonkers idea! i guess fiat makes a lot of sense if your a big gov or a bank...
2) if we define the platform as Cash money or Big banks leading ( aka creating ) " SQL DB money ". i have little faith it will work out in the long term, altho it does definitely work in the shorter term...
3) i have very little trust in individual users of fiat system. ( i mean who trusts that the FED will "tighten" when it says its going to "tighten", they make shit up all the time, and when shit don't work they flat out make up new bonkers rules, "negative interest" rates for "institutional lending" ...I dont even... )

Fiat works only because everyone (wrongfully) BELIEVES it works,


Trust in Bitcoin:
1) at its core, bitcoin is just messages being signed by pub/priv keys which can easily be verified, I understand the idea, i trust the idea.
2) if we define the platform as the BTC in and of themselves, yes i "trust" 1BTC is 1BTC no matter where it comes from or how it got to me.
3)does not apply at all, i'm not required to Trust that the users are using the system properly. the "proper use" of Bitcoin's blockchain is guaranteed by the system itself, any deviation from the expected behavior is an invalid TX, orphan block, or Fork!

Bitcoin works because no one is necessarily required to trust anyone else, only the idea itself must be trusted, but even then, trust in the idea kinda boils down to "do you trust the public/ private key encryption model" . and... well... yes, I do!
Click to expand...

I think she just did that - she removed the top rung of the ladder near the end of the talk - where she started discussing blockchains. Of course, the best example of this is bitcoin, which she only mentioned in the beginning, when she asked questions to the audience.
 
  • Like
Reactions: solex and pekatete
Roger_Murdock

Roger_Murdock

Active Member
Dec 17, 2015
223
1,453
/u/ydtm does a really nice job of making a point here that I don't think has been articulated enough. Key excerpts below:

Well, if there is going to be a cap (and by the way, some devs, most notably Gavin, have argued that Bitcoin would be fine without a cap at all - since miners themselves would set their own soft cap anyways, based on their calculations to avoid orphans) - but if there is going to be one, then someone has to set it.

Here you're worrying that users and miners might not be "technically competent enough" to make that decision.

Actually that's probably backwards - they're probably the ones who are most "technically competent" to make that decision - since they're basically dealing with that parameter all the time - and it directly impacts millions of dollars in income for them (collectively).

Meanwhile, you think that developers would be "technically competent enough" to make that decision. But they don't deal with this parameter all the time the way users do - and they're also not impacted by it the way users are - in terms of making or losing money. So even from a simple "MBA" perspective, one would expect the users to be more "technically competent" to decide this, rather than the devs.

...

You're totally right about the need for "thorough testing to ensure long-term sustainability" - and again, if you really think about it, the parties most likely and able to do that are not a tiny group of devs - but rather the much larger group of people who are operating nodes, and who want to optimize the parameters of those nodes in order to maximize their income and minimize any potential losses (due to orphaning).

This is all pretty obvious stuff from areas like studying feedback mechanisms, emergent phenomena, collective decision-making, "having skin in the game", etc. All these factors point towards letting the thousands of users running nodes decide dynamically - and away from letting a handful of devs decide statically.​
 
  • Like
Reactions: Norway, Dusty, majamalu and 5 others
AdrianX

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
@Roger_Murdock I'm not sure if I saw the summary of this experiment here but it's a relevant experiment when it comes to collective cooperation related to the block size limit in the absents of centralized instruction or well defined rules, it worth checking out it's truly amazing.


In fact I think most Core developers don't spend an hour a day watching TED videos on cooperation, social science or emerging trends out side there very narrow field of expertise which make them particularly unqualified to direct bitcoin's development.

[doublepost=1477466518][/doublepost]Here is another relevant video, this one I think was presented here some time back when I was quite skeptical and concerned about handing over the choice of block limit to the ignorant masses.

.

edit: our resident troll @jonny1000 needs to understand this as he's confusing himself with the chicken or the egg when it comes to maintaining the rules and increasing the block limit in a decentralized network.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Norway, Dusty, majamalu and 7 others
lunar

lunar

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,001
4,290
I really can't take much more of this infighting and hostility. The amount of irrational behaviour is astounding. Every time I think things must be coming to a head soon the momentum peters out o_O

Chief useful idiot, at work.


Can we alter the the poll soon? How about a sweepstake as to which pool adopts Unlimited next?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Norway, majamalu, Golarz Filip and 3 others
Richy_T

Richy_T

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2015
1,085
2,741
awemany said:
Note I am not opposed to having a full-blown LN in principle, but ViaBTC's stance makes me wonder whether we get something like that at all anytime soon (due to miner incentives) - and what we would 'miss' by not having an imagined, perfectly working Lightning Network.
Click to expand...
Hmm. What if miners decide that LN is taking too much in the way of fees from the blockchain and decide not to include such transactions on the network (or demand a higher fee)?

In theory, you could claim they shouldn't do this because it would damage Bitcoin but could it be that they see a greater benefit in beating down a competitor? Unexplored territory...
[doublepost=1477509816][/doublepost]
Dusty said:
I agree completely: the use of Bitcoin does not redefine the use of trust, but simply renders it not relevant any more: while she did not state it correctly in these terms I think that she expressed it correctly by crossing the last pole of the ladder.
Click to expand...
There are different kinds of trust. There is the trust of lending your druggy buddy your lawnmower and then there is the trust that the bridge you're driving over is not going to collapse. Fiat is like the former where Bitcoin is more akin to the latter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Norway, Dusty, awemany and 3 others
Richy_T

Richy_T

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2015
1,085
2,741
steffen said:
Might the true purpose of Segwit be to make future forks of the blockchain impossible without people loosing money? I.e the purpose is to create a centralization of power?
Click to expand...
I think it's just more like a shitty lifehack. Like "Did you know you can also use your butter-knife to clean dog crap off your shoes?"
[doublepost=1477510219][/doublepost]@Justus Ranvier , I made a comment about this on Reddit in the last couple of days. It's quite possible we'll see miners stop mining immediately after a block and bring more mining power online as more transactions build up in the block (especially if we can get rid of this stupid block size limit deal). This could actually lead to much more regular and predictable block times.

Kind of like when the lottery hasn't been won a few times in a row, a lot more people buy tickets.

Actually, thinking about it, it's less likely they'll switch off during that period and more likely they'll switch to alts which could be a big boost for SHA256 alts.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: steffen, majamalu and AdrianX
T

theZerg

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 28, 2015
1,012
2,327
I haven't had time to look. Do they address the tit-for-tat strategy and show that its inapplicable?
 
adamstgbit

adamstgbit

Well-Known Member
Mar 13, 2016
1,206
2,650
AdrianX said:
@adamstgbit the paradigm shift can happen way quicker then you think. That Ted talk hit on the one key factor, and that's personal reputation. Once a decentralized privacy centric identity system emerges we'll start to see a fundamental shift in human behavior and trusted services,

Uber could well survive we don't need to decentralize all the things although I think we need to decentralize as many as is practical. I think centralized services become just serves when we decentralize fully configurable identity systems.

Our reputations are our most valuable commodity and when we can transfer them and use them without over exposing ourselves we'll see a new economy built on trust.
Click to expand...
I think we need to separate "our" reputation and the reputation of the produce and/or service.
say i try to be an Uber-car for some extra cash, and I end up hating it, and in the process fail to make pick up, tell some bitch to STFU, and kick out one of the passengers because i can't stand their political views.
didnt work out...
should that epic failure be tied to me personally indefinitely??


I think you get that, you call it a "decentralized privacy centric identity system"

the tech to track and record our every move, spending habits, and thoughts!, is not really here yet, but it soon will be.
If you remove a person's identity from the equation and record everything else you get valuable data and no one's privacy is being compromised.
privacy, its nessary.... imagine you knew that everything you did would end up being recorded on some holly reputation D-DB?

"
But that makes people accountable for their actions and forces them to always do the right thing all the time.
", someone might say.

are we trying to build a world filled with freedom or slavery?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Norway, Golarz Filip and AdrianX
cliff

cliff

Active Member
Dec 15, 2015
345
854
-------------------------------------
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP!
-------------------------------------
BTC $685.22
Gemini Daily $652.98 | 1285.02935 BTC | Total $839,098.46 (Tue, 2016-10-25)
Gemini Daily $ 673.25 | 1293.18741771 BTC | Total $870,638.43 (Wed, 2016-10-26)
GBTC* $99.8
-------------------------------------
BTCswap(BFX - FFR) 0.0396% | BTCswap(Polo) 0.0262%
-------------------------------------
XAU (spot)* $1,267.1
COMEX CG1* $1,267.2
SPDR Gold Trust ETF* $121.09
-------------------------------------
HashRate 1.86 EH/s
MarketCap $10,886,678,633
BTC Dominance 82.1%
Exchange Volume (BTC) $106.07m
Exchange Volume (ALT) $39.88m
Exchange Volume [BTC] Dominance 72.7%
-------------------------------------
10YR Treas 1.77%
Copper* $214.25/lb
Crude (WTI)* $49.22/barrel

*Indicates price at market opening
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
 
  • Like
Reactions: Norway, sickpig, majamalu and 3 others
AdrianX

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
@adamstgbit looking at your example in the cases you turn out to be a disrespectful unsafe uber driver you'll have a bad rating with uber and a bad rating as a Taxi driver that identify is cryptographically links to you but it's relatively anonymous when you look at it next to your othe ratings. That won't affect you behavior rating at mud wrestling bar. But if you you consistently refuse to deliver on ebay that will affect your rating with ebay and online buying and selling.

It's controlled with you at the center. You only issue keys for the pertinent information required to link you and your reputation. People may have more than one identity who known I'd use a separate identity if I had to do business with a drug dealer and wanted a positive reputation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: majamalu and adamstgbit
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Latest threads

Members online

Total: 83 (members: 1, guests: 82)