molecular
Active Member
- Aug 31, 2015
- 372
- 1,391
I know I shouldn't quote "last 144 blocks" info because of variance, but 12.5% for BU+Classic is really quite low. Growing concerned...
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
albin
Active Member
- Nov 8, 2015
- 931
- 4,008
I was talking to a friend the other day just shooting the shit about the nuances of the climate change issue and possibly how the whole thing is not broken down accurately in the public discourse, and it reminded me again that there is an uber-rational methodology in existence for evaluating proposals that I applied regularly in my equally misspent pre-misspent-by-rock-and-roll youth as a hardcore policy debater.
If you're the person advocating that something should be done, this is what you do --
1. You have to demonstrate that there is some harm happening or that will happen. (Harms)
2. You have to demonstrate that the cause of this harm is some inherent feature of the status quo that you're identifying and proposing to change. (Inherency)
3. You have to demonstrate that the change that you're proposing will actually solve the harm that you've demonstrated is caused by that inherent feature of the status quo. (Solvency)
4. You have to demonstrate that your proposed change does not carry with it disadvantages that might outweigh the benefits of solving the problem in the first place plus any incidental advantages of implementing your change. (Disadvantages)
(The reason I only have 4 "stock issues" here instead of five is because Topicality is sort of a meta-rule for the purposes of a debate being a competition)
Honestly I simply don't see anything resembling this level of comprehension of methodology on the Core/wizards/smallblock side, but I routinely see evidence of that kind of thinking all over the place (even if not explicitly identified) in the alt-clients / non-centralized-economic-planning side.
If you're the person advocating that something should be done, this is what you do --
1. You have to demonstrate that there is some harm happening or that will happen. (Harms)
2. You have to demonstrate that the cause of this harm is some inherent feature of the status quo that you're identifying and proposing to change. (Inherency)
3. You have to demonstrate that the change that you're proposing will actually solve the harm that you've demonstrated is caused by that inherent feature of the status quo. (Solvency)
4. You have to demonstrate that your proposed change does not carry with it disadvantages that might outweigh the benefits of solving the problem in the first place plus any incidental advantages of implementing your change. (Disadvantages)
(The reason I only have 4 "stock issues" here instead of five is because Topicality is sort of a meta-rule for the purposes of a debate being a competition)
Honestly I simply don't see anything resembling this level of comprehension of methodology on the Core/wizards/smallblock side, but I routinely see evidence of that kind of thinking all over the place (even if not explicitly identified) in the alt-clients / non-centralized-economic-planning side.
adamstgbit
Well-Known Member
- Mar 13, 2016
- 1,206
- 2,650
@albin
they dont really offer Solvency, because their solution isn't a solution, its a new feature.
they sidestep any Disadvantages with the reasoning " so what if LN is limited by XYZ, its better to have LN then no LN "
I think they are right on all counts, except for ignoring the very real problem of capacity. they love to remind us how segwit helps out capacity, but we all know what a SCAM that is. They believe in pushing poeple to LN as a solution to the problem they refuse to acknowledge.
its really kind of annoying , we want core to be working on their blockstream project, its legitimately interesting, but its still a pipe dream FFS, poeple want real solutions, not some bullish about how "technically there is no problem", and "technically the problem is that we need to make sure ciliv attacks are always easy to pull off", and all that other BS core tries to use to justify putting all our hope into a pipe dream.
this is mostly because, there position is that there is no Harms with the status quo, and TECHNICALLY, they are right, there is nothing Inherency TECHNICALLY wrong with the status quo.
they dont really offer Solvency, because their solution isn't a solution, its a new feature.
they sidestep any Disadvantages with the reasoning " so what if LN is limited by XYZ, its better to have LN then no LN "
I think they are right on all counts, except for ignoring the very real problem of capacity. they love to remind us how segwit helps out capacity, but we all know what a SCAM that is. They believe in pushing poeple to LN as a solution to the problem they refuse to acknowledge.
its really kind of annoying , we want core to be working on their blockstream project, its legitimately interesting, but its still a pipe dream FFS, poeple want real solutions, not some bullish about how "technically there is no problem", and "technically the problem is that we need to make sure ciliv attacks are always easy to pull off", and all that other BS core tries to use to justify putting all our hope into a pipe dream.
albin
Active Member
- Nov 8, 2015
- 931
- 4,008
Maybe actually topicality is relevant here then, because we can't even agree about what the status quo that we're supposed to be debating even is.
The way they seem to skirt issues of presumption is by out of one side of the mouth framing the debate as the harm of centralization apocalypse, but then out of the other side of the mouth appealing to the other framing by repeating the bromide "well nobody is actually against increasing blocksize". In doing so they get to pick and choose whether they argue for and against two different status quos simultaineously.
The way they seem to skirt issues of presumption is by out of one side of the mouth framing the debate as the harm of centralization apocalypse, but then out of the other side of the mouth appealing to the other framing by repeating the bromide "well nobody is actually against increasing blocksize". In doing so they get to pick and choose whether they argue for and against two different status quos simultaineously.
- Aug 22, 2015
- 1,558
- 4,693
@albin
I think you hit the nail on the head. Resolving the capacity issue fails at first step because topicality is itself in a state of dispute.
We see this with the "limited capacity is good because settlement-layer" mantra. Most people in the real world have a gut feeling that "settlement-layer" alone won't fly, that Bitcoin needs a vast real-world user-base to sustain settlement activity. Settlement-layer by itself can only superficially work until some other crypto gains significant network effect and then the settlement-layer quality of Bitcoin will prove a mirage just like in the desert where a mirage has been seen for a while yet disappears when approached.
Only after major damage has been done will it be obvious to all what the basis of topicality should have been. Unfortunately, ivory tower crypto-geeks will still rationalise it away by looking out the window and declaring they were always right to say "Bitcoin was broken from the start".
I think you hit the nail on the head. Resolving the capacity issue fails at first step because topicality is itself in a state of dispute.
We see this with the "limited capacity is good because settlement-layer" mantra. Most people in the real world have a gut feeling that "settlement-layer" alone won't fly, that Bitcoin needs a vast real-world user-base to sustain settlement activity. Settlement-layer by itself can only superficially work until some other crypto gains significant network effect and then the settlement-layer quality of Bitcoin will prove a mirage just like in the desert where a mirage has been seen for a while yet disappears when approached.
Only after major damage has been done will it be obvious to all what the basis of topicality should have been. Unfortunately, ivory tower crypto-geeks will still rationalise it away by looking out the window and declaring they were always right to say "Bitcoin was broken from the start".
Last edited:
Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
The most accurate opinion in the public discourse has been expressed by Nassim Taleb:
Climate Change.
I am hyper-conservative ecologically (meaning super-Green). My position on the climate is to avoid releasing pollutants in the atmosphere, on the basis of ignorance, regardless of current expert opinion
.............
We have polluted for years, causing much damage to the environment, while the scientists currently making these complicated forecasting models were not sticking their necks out and trying to stop us from building these risks (they resemble those "risk experts" in the economic domain who fight the previous war) --these are the ones now trying to impose the solutions on us. But the skepticism about models that I propose does not lead to the same conclusions as the ones endorsed by anti-environmentalists, pro-market fundamentalists, quite the contrary: we need to be hyper-conservationists ecologically, super-Green, since we do not know what we are harming with now. That's the sound policy under ignorance and epistemic opacity. To those who say "we have no proof that we are harming nature", a sound response is "we have no proof that we are not harming nature either" --the burden of the proof is not on the ecological conservationist, but on someone disrupting an old system.
http://www.blackswanreport.com/blog/2010/01/opacity-3/
[doublepost=1488009357][/doublepost]When Mike Hearn predicted that the compromised Maxwell Church (the BSCore devaluators) will never compromise and that their HF promises are empty promises, I didn't believe it
But he was right. Unbelievable. He knew them (the dipshits and their idol) better than most of us.
But I still bet that his second prediction (that the community is not able to survive that attack) will not materialize. Anyway, N. Corean devaluator consensus is the greatest nonsensus ever. Disgusting religious and corrupt central planning, whether they'll 'success' or not.
One of those nonsensus supporters, 'moderator' and late adopter Ratcliff u/jratcliff63367 believes to know Bitcoin better than Gavin:
"Gavin is not helping. Listen to Antonopolous and Szabo." (sic!)
Besides the amazing fact that this chaotic censorship contributor and late adopter is not able to spell the name of the loudest Bitcoin promoter, he believes to know Bitcoin better than Gavin, who Satoshi thought to be the most helpful successor.
u/7bitsOk:
Gavin actually wrote a great deal of the Bitcoin code, those two names did not.
Only a talking head would think that 19B network should be designed by other talking heads over an actual coder with years of hands-on experience.
Great that u/jratcliff63367 is allowed to expose his downvoted BS theories to the voters of the open forums, and that he's even allowed to be a moderator of an open forum. We are stronger than those censorship contributors.
Unlimited vs BSCore; libertarians vs totalitarians. Only one side can win: That's us.
Last edited:
- Dec 16, 2015
- 2,806
- 6,088
Look, this thread is getting free promotion by a Core shill 
- Aug 29, 2015
- 536
- 2,597
Or alternatively: the burden of proof is not on the pro-market defender, but on someone proposing to forcefully impose their "solution", through government compulsion, disrupting the economic prosperity that protects Billions of human lives.
Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
@Mengerian
There is no such thing as a market without government. The homo sapiens who lives beyond and without a government is self-sufficient and does not need a market with enforced surplus production for the purpose to be taxed. "The market is a state bastard." (Dr. Paul C. Martin)
The homo sapiens lives in the community (anarchy); the homo oeconomicus (collectivist/citizen) lives in the society.(patriarchy).
Patriarchy created billions of citizens who are destroying lifes (flora and fauna). In an anarchist environment such grotesque overpopulation is not possible. Ruled by equilibrium, while the homo oeconomicus is ruled by organized violence.
There is no such thing as a market without government. The homo sapiens who lives beyond and without a government is self-sufficient and does not need a market with enforced surplus production for the purpose to be taxed. "The market is a state bastard." (Dr. Paul C. Martin)
The homo sapiens lives in the community (anarchy); the homo oeconomicus (collectivist/citizen) lives in the society.(patriarchy).
Patriarchy created billions of citizens who are destroying lifes (flora and fauna). In an anarchist environment such grotesque overpopulation is not possible. Ruled by equilibrium, while the homo oeconomicus is ruled by organized violence.
Last edited:
- Aug 29, 2015
- 536
- 2,597
Ha ha, back to the "no surplus without taxes" assertion. You really stick to that one.
I'm not trying to get into a debate about climate change, my main point is that I don't think Taleb's argument will be convincing.. except for those who already agree with him.
The global ecosystem, and the global economy are both very complex systems. So one could argue that it's dangerous to interfere with either one. Which one you are more concerned with will depend on your underlying philosophical framework.
So the debate inevitably gets kicked up to a philosophical/theoretical level: Do you value humans over nature? Are humans primarily creative or destructive? Is capitalism a force for human progress or an unsustainable model based on greed and ever-growing consumption? Can governments implement plans for the greater benefit of all, or do they inevitably get captured by special interests and end up serving power-hungry elites? etc.
I'm not trying to get into a debate about climate change, my main point is that I don't think Taleb's argument will be convincing.. except for those who already agree with him.
The global ecosystem, and the global economy are both very complex systems. So one could argue that it's dangerous to interfere with either one. Which one you are more concerned with will depend on your underlying philosophical framework.
So the debate inevitably gets kicked up to a philosophical/theoretical level: Do you value humans over nature? Are humans primarily creative or destructive? Is capitalism a force for human progress or an unsustainable model based on greed and ever-growing consumption? Can governments implement plans for the greater benefit of all, or do they inevitably get captured by special interests and end up serving power-hungry elites? etc.
lunar
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,001
- 4,290
In my BU node running on Ubuntu 16.10 the "Client version" is "v1.0.0.1-unk".
What does "unk" mean in this context?
What does "unk" mean in this context?
IDEA ABOUT MAKING OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE PRODUCTION MORE PROFITABLE
I would imagine most users would want to use open source software if the quality of the software was as good as the quality of proprietary software. But according to https://netmarketshare.com/ Linux only has about 2% of usage share.
Open Source software has a challenge with its business model. Open source software production doesn't generate much income to developers and therefore relatively little effort is put into the improvement of open source software.
I think this can be changed dramatically if bitcoin gets smart contracts and the popular bug reporting tools in the open source world are changed to take advantage of smart contracts.
I can imagine a situation where I can easily file a bug report and promise some bitcoin amount if the problem is solved within some specified time limit. I send the bitcoins to a smart contract which is controlled by what happens to the bug report. If the bug is marked as solved the amount promised by me (and other users who also want the bug solved) is automatically transferred to the developer who solved the bug.
With such a framework incentives change. Suddenly, it makes sense for users to donate to have "their" bugs fixed. And with the added donations more developers will participate. Open Source software will improve and more users are attracted. A virtuous circle has been created.
A similar thing could happen with new feature requests. It is not only bugs.
Looking forward to that improvement, Satoshi & friends
I would imagine most users would want to use open source software if the quality of the software was as good as the quality of proprietary software. But according to https://netmarketshare.com/ Linux only has about 2% of usage share.
Open Source software has a challenge with its business model. Open source software production doesn't generate much income to developers and therefore relatively little effort is put into the improvement of open source software.
I think this can be changed dramatically if bitcoin gets smart contracts and the popular bug reporting tools in the open source world are changed to take advantage of smart contracts.
I can imagine a situation where I can easily file a bug report and promise some bitcoin amount if the problem is solved within some specified time limit. I send the bitcoins to a smart contract which is controlled by what happens to the bug report. If the bug is marked as solved the amount promised by me (and other users who also want the bug solved) is automatically transferred to the developer who solved the bug.
With such a framework incentives change. Suddenly, it makes sense for users to donate to have "their" bugs fixed. And with the added donations more developers will participate. Open Source software will improve and more users are attracted. A virtuous circle has been created.
A similar thing could happen with new feature requests. It is not only bugs.
Looking forward to that improvement, Satoshi & friends
does anyone see weird disparities between mempool reporting websites?
https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions, showing 33000 tx, 40 MB
http://bitcointicker.co/networkstats/, showing a spike down to 0.
https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions, showing 33000 tx, 40 MB
http://bitcointicker.co/networkstats/, showing a spike down to 0.
@theZerg
Yes,
https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions, showing 31,000 tx, 40 MB
https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC, showing 37,000 tx, 50 MB
I thought I noticed a discrepancy the other day too.
Yes,
https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions, showing 31,000 tx, 40 MB
https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC, showing 37,000 tx, 50 MB
I thought I noticed a discrepancy the other day too.
could that spike not coincide with restarting the node (say the resent network wide drop) and the relaying of the qualifies transactions - blockchain.info being up longer and keeping more in memory but not necessarily relaying 0 fee or ultra low fee transactions?
- Dec 16, 2015
- 2,806
- 6,088
Interesting points, I'd like to raise two issuesIDEA ABOUT MAKING OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE PRODUCTION MORE PROFITABLE
I would imagine most users would want to use open source software if the quality of the software was as good as the quality of proprietary software. But according to https://netmarketshare.com/ Linux only has about 2% of usage share.
Open Source software has a challenge with its business model. Open source software production doesn't generate much income to developers and therefore relatively little effort is put into the improvement of open source software.
I think this can be changed dramatically if bitcoin gets smart contracts and the popular bug reporting tools in the open source world are changed to take advantage of smart contracts.
I can imagine a situation where I can easily file a bug report and promise some bitcoin amount if the problem is solved within some specified time limit. I send the bitcoins to a smart contract which is controlled by what happens to the bug report. If the bug is marked as solved the amount promised by me (and other users who also want the bug solved) is automatically transferred to the developer who solved the bug.
With such a framework incentives change. Suddenly, it makes sense for users to donate to have "their" bugs fixed. And with the added donations more developers will participate. Open Source software will improve and more users are attracted. A virtuous circle has been created.
A similar thing could happen with new feature requests. It is not only bugs.
Looking forward to that improvement, Satoshi & friends
1. saying that open source quality is not up to the same level of quality as proprietary software is certainly an oversimplification. Unfortunately most people get that idea because they are able to try a whole lot more open source software for free, and much of it is of course of "hobbyist" quality. However, don't let that fool you into believing this is anything but an overeager generalization - see e.g. [1] , a study about defect density in open source vs proprietary solutions. Of course, proprietary software vendors have a vested interest in promoting the impression that their solutions must be of higher quality, in part because what you describe in your post is a model of software development that would could disintermediate quite effectively in the software biz... and quite frankly a lot of people would prefer simpler, more robust (i.e. high quality) solutions rather than feature bloat / forced upgrade cycles which is what proprietary software vendors often use to generate turnover.
2. the old problem with selling software development online is that once you provide the solution, the "buyer" can take it and disappear without paying. In the case of your model, once the developer provides the solution, the bug reporter can refuse to acknowledge the fix but use it without paying up. So it's still a system requiring trust. It might work OK among a group of honorable people (probably at least with an honest supermajority). Still, it leaves a lot of room for arguments. And a lack of legal recourse if you don't require personal information, and if you don't it will be gameable eg. by sockpuppets. If you want to avoid those risks, you need to go the zero knowledge proof route as demonstrated practically by Greg Maxwell in [2]. Once these proofs are made easier using tools, it could revolutionize the way software is created and maintained - unless software devs are all in the financial grip of proverbial Evil Corp by then ;-)
[1] http://www.zdnet.com/article/coverity-finds-open-source-software-quality-better-than-proprietary-code/
[2] https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/02/26/zero-knowledge-contingent-payments-announcement/
[3] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Zero_Knowledge_Contingent_Payment
Richy_T
Well-Known Member
- Dec 27, 2015
- 1,085
- 2,741
This would probably be quite a good project (and perhaps profitable). I would imagine that developers could sign up to monitor projects they were interested in rather than try to appeal to the current owners of specific projects to sign on.
[doublepost=1488071212][/doublepost]
The mempool clears out when nodes are restarted and different nodes can have different rules about which transactions are accepted and when they are kicked out.
