I think the type of reasoning causes people to think it's a good idea to launch an altcoin is very closely related to the type that causes them to think that industrialized mining is an inherently bad idea.
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
albin
Active Member
- Nov 8, 2015
- 931
- 4,008
I feel like industrial mining has gotten a bad rap by conflating it with centralization. The existence of mining operations fascinates a lot of new users, and the implication is not lost on them that this Bitcoin thing must be for real if people are willing to setup shop like that. Also seriously how could anyone in their right mind not expect first week Intro to Micro level Riccardian theory not to take hold?
- Aug 22, 2015
- 1,558
- 4,695
Yes, agreed with both posts above.
One thing about industrial miners is that they have a lot of skin in the game to make sure the coin they mine keeps its value.
I just saw that Dash's "X11" uses a bunch of algorithms. Must be an extreme case of the anti-industrial viewpoint. It will be interesting to see how they do long term.
One thing about industrial miners is that they have a lot of skin in the game to make sure the coin they mine keeps its value.
I just saw that Dash's "X11" uses a bunch of algorithms. Must be an extreme case of the anti-industrial viewpoint. It will be interesting to see how they do long term.
If you read through this thread ( https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3s0uii/bip_101_has_activated_on_the_testnet_need_your/ ) you'll notice that certain vocal 1MB proponents whose names you should recognize (especially if you use RES tags to help track these things) have mastered the art of dishonest argument.
When Mike Hearn first announced the proposal that eventually became BIP101 this summer, every available stalling tactic was used to discourage discussion, debate, and especially testing and deployment of BIP101.
Their argument at the time was that if the block size limit really did cause severe difficulties for the network, we could all rush through a fix with no problems at all.
Now that the momentum built up enough to overcome that resistance and people are beginning to deploy BIP101 on testnet, look who's fulling the thread with disdain over the fact that BIP101 is only going to get a couple months of testing before its earliest possible activation time!
I have to admit admiring the audacity of someone who can act like hyperlinks, screenshots, and other forms of keeping track of what people said in the past don't exist in 2015.
When Mike Hearn first announced the proposal that eventually became BIP101 this summer, every available stalling tactic was used to discourage discussion, debate, and especially testing and deployment of BIP101.
Their argument at the time was that if the block size limit really did cause severe difficulties for the network, we could all rush through a fix with no problems at all.
Now that the momentum built up enough to overcome that resistance and people are beginning to deploy BIP101 on testnet, look who's fulling the thread with disdain over the fact that BIP101 is only going to get a couple months of testing before its earliest possible activation time!
I have to admit admiring the audacity of someone who can act like hyperlinks, screenshots, and other forms of keeping track of what people said in the past don't exist in 2015.
And I admire those who actually try to keep track of all the BS - because it is not at all a small effort..
That said, I feel the pro-BIP101/pro-BB-crowd might have used a lot of energy and lost a lot of time by fighting the trolls, shills, agents and so forth on /r/Bitcoin and BCT. I feel this forum and working on BU is a much more productive use of our collective time.
That reminds me that Gmax's main point earlier this year, when pressed, was that small block pressure was the only thing that could incentivize efficiency improvements to be implemented, and that if needed the raise could be put through in a few days/weeks.
If it really would be that quick and easy to raise the limit, both the need to raise it preemptively and the need to ensure it is plenty high largely fall away. Gmax as optimizer of code wants there to be more incentive for people to implement what he is good at, and of course for BS's projects, and he seems to want more recognition of how much the optimizers contribute.
Though those lines of argument may be disingenous, it would waste time to mistake the facile arguments of the forum gadfly true believers for those of the Core devs and the Blockstreamers, even though it is remarkably disappointing how little some of their arguments rise above that level, as they are not strictly the same.
If it really would be that quick and easy to raise the limit, both the need to raise it preemptively and the need to ensure it is plenty high largely fall away. Gmax as optimizer of code wants there to be more incentive for people to implement what he is good at, and of course for BS's projects, and he seems to want more recognition of how much the optimizers contribute.
Though those lines of argument may be disingenous, it would waste time to mistake the facile arguments of the forum gadfly true believers for those of the Core devs and the Blockstreamers, even though it is remarkably disappointing how little some of their arguments rise above that level, as they are not strictly the same.
albin
Active Member
- Nov 8, 2015
- 931
- 4,008
@sickpig
Peter Todd made the claim that such tests exist (with supposedly horrible results) on the last installment of Trace Mayer's podcast (Bitcoin Knowledge), while knee-deep in his fantasy-land QA/testing concern trolling (apparently steeped in the fact that he allegedly used to work somewhere where there were adults who knew about these things!).
I want to say I've heard this claim of internal Blockstream testing once before (maybe from Adam Back on a podcast?), but I can't really recall where.
Peter Todd made the claim that such tests exist (with supposedly horrible results) on the last installment of Trace Mayer's podcast (Bitcoin Knowledge), while knee-deep in his fantasy-land QA/testing concern trolling (apparently steeped in the fact that he allegedly used to work somewhere where there were adults who knew about these things!).
I want to say I've heard this claim of internal Blockstream testing once before (maybe from Adam Back on a podcast?), but I can't really recall where.
now this is more like it. go DXD:
note how these jaws should slam shut with a vengeance:
[doublepost=1447085864][/doublepost]or how the $DJI should catch down to the $DJT:
[doublepost=1447085980][/doublepost]
note how these jaws should slam shut with a vengeance:
[doublepost=1447085864][/doublepost]or how the $DJI should catch down to the $DJT:
[doublepost=1447085980][/doublepost]
well there was the testing that pwuille did with bigger blocks a couple of months ago which was very limited and unrealistic from what i remember.
Last edited:
albin
Active Member
- Nov 8, 2015
- 931
- 4,008
@cypherdoc Is this pwuille's block propagation simulation, or actual testing? What you're describing is almost certainly what Todd is talking about.
luigi1111
New Member
- Nov 9, 2015
- 13
- 7
Scrypt is way out of favor by now. I don't know where you're getting this info that a "sheer preponderance" are using it. I also don't know of documented cases where any have been 51% attacked. This is NOT to say that these coins are secure; in fact, many (not just Scrypt) have laughably bad security.
For your other comment about Dash: it was most likely not some coordinated anti-ASIC effort, but rather appears to be "hey look at all these algo's I chained together!" In reality it probably has much less ASIC resistance than something like Cryptonight (from the Cryptonote coins).
- Aug 28, 2015
- 517
- 1,679
It must be a wakeup call to hear coinbase openly discussing bip-101 implementation and advising users to leave /r/bitcoin for /r/btc.
What an insular bubble they must occupy if it takes such actions to remind them that bitcoin isn't their pet project to play around with. They were hoping that XT would simply fade away if Theymos prevented discussion of it (a pact no doubt to allow blockstream to bring to market an off chain private for profit solution). The prospect of being forked into immediate irrelevance by the financial muscle behind the scenes deciding (predictably) that whatever solution that implements scaling will become reference bitcoin client tends to concentrate the mind somewhat.
What an insular bubble they must occupy if it takes such actions to remind them that bitcoin isn't their pet project to play around with. They were hoping that XT would simply fade away if Theymos prevented discussion of it (a pact no doubt to allow blockstream to bring to market an off chain private for profit solution). The prospect of being forked into immediate irrelevance by the financial muscle behind the scenes deciding (predictably) that whatever solution that implements scaling will become reference bitcoin client tends to concentrate the mind somewhat.
albin
Active Member
- Nov 8, 2015
- 931
- 4,008
I would imagine the ASIC-resistance is more to do with indifference than necessarily any fundamental technical reason.
It's easier than you think, at least on Reddit.And I admire those who actually try to keep track of all the BS - because it is not at all a small effort..
Install Reddit Enhancement Suite. It lets you assign text labels to accounts - so just start taking notes.
Eventually you'll read a comment and then a note your past self left will cause you to notice that something's up.
@Justus Ranvier: Yes, thank you, I think it was you or Peter R. told me about it a couple month back on reddit, when the trolls where out in full force but no censorship was in effect. The good old times. And, yes, I am using it to tag people but I guess I need to use it more
Latest threads
-
-
TON Ecological Trading Zone Project Guide - How to Play with Notcoin
- TFExchange
- 0 replies
-
Members online
No members online now.