Bagatell
Active Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 728
- 1,191
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
Wonder why so many people* suddenly decide to run a Bitcoin core node...
https://coin.dance/nodes/core
*BS employees
Turns out that running a "node" is still cheaper than fighting hashpower.
https://coin.dance/nodes/core
*BS employees
Turns out that running a "node" is still cheaper than fighting hashpower.
molecular
Active Member
- Aug 31, 2015
- 372
- 1,391
yeah, they're pulling a sybil.
also notice the rethoric surrounding node count: "silent majority".
We all know node count is heavily skewed towards core when it comes to using it as a "BU vs. segwit" voting mechanism: There's people using core as a wallet and there's people just upgrading to whatever bitcoin.org gives them.
luke-jr recognizes and even publicly states this:
You have to give the guy one thing: he says what he believes, even if it hurts his agenda (IF he has one)
also notice the rethoric surrounding node count: "silent majority".
We all know node count is heavily skewed towards core when it comes to using it as a "BU vs. segwit" voting mechanism: There's people using core as a wallet and there's people just upgrading to whatever bitcoin.org gives them.
luke-jr recognizes and even publicly states this:
You have to give the guy one thing: he says what he believes, even if it hurts his agenda (IF he has one)
albin
Active Member
- Nov 8, 2015
- 931
- 4,008
I'm starting to think twitter might be the best platform. 144 characters or whatever sucks, but there's no great wall of Theymos, and it's shooting ducks in a barrel how inconceivably stupid some of these pro-Core public figures are.
@albin you can always add a wall of text in an image, or better a short video.
- Aug 22, 2015
- 1,558
- 4,693
Does anyone want to tackle a new graphic that we can tweet and spread around?
Basically, we need something that assumes the scenario of early SegWit activation e.g. April 1st
and then projects forward the next two years the block-space equivalent it will enable with 1x, 2x, 3x the historical adoption rate of P2SH.
Then project forward the block-space requirement for ecosystem usage based upon historical block-size trend up to May 2016, at which point the mempool became permanently backlogged. We might even be able to give a projected average fee for each of the SW adoption lines which IMHO will likely all underperform the block-space requirement at all future dates.
Basically, we need something that assumes the scenario of early SegWit activation e.g. April 1st
and then projects forward the next two years the block-space equivalent it will enable with 1x, 2x, 3x the historical adoption rate of P2SH.
Then project forward the block-space requirement for ecosystem usage based upon historical block-size trend up to May 2016, at which point the mempool became permanently backlogged. We might even be able to give a projected average fee for each of the SW adoption lines which IMHO will likely all underperform the block-space requirement at all future dates.
Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
Don't forget: We are not just the Inventors of Everything like Adam and Greg. We invented the Supertheory of Supereverything.
Acoustic version:
Immigraniada: "We comin' rougher every day". We are peer-to-peer. We immigrate into the world of settlement.
Acoustic version:
Immigraniada: "We comin' rougher every day". We are peer-to-peer. We immigrate into the world of settlement.
Last edited:
Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
Hi Adam! Of course you think that the idea of transforming Bitcoin (Nakamoto PoW Consensus) into BSCoin (BS PoN Nonsensus) is 'interesting'. But the laplacian demon already knows what you don't know: It will not work.Wonder why so many people* suddenly decide to run a Bitcoin core node...
https://coin.dance/nodes/core
*BS employees
Turns out that running a "node" is still cheaper than fighting hashpower.
Last edited:
Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
It seems that this blue dwarf, standing on a single thin leg, will soon fall onto his nose.
Further along the Bitcoin ~ Gold, LN ~ paper money/IOU line of thinking:
With Bitcoin, we have the unique situation in mankind's history that we now have a system that is easier to use and less complex than paper money.
In the non-Bitcoin world, it is the other way around and it has been the other way around forever:
A few light pieces of paper are easier to carry use, divide and so forth than heavy chunks of precious metal.
We should be thinking really hard about consequences before we tip this very unique balance back to the old way with 'malleability fixes' (or anything else).
With Bitcoin, we have the unique situation in mankind's history that we now have a system that is easier to use and less complex than paper money.
In the non-Bitcoin world, it is the other way around and it has been the other way around forever:
A few light pieces of paper are easier to carry use, divide and so forth than heavy chunks of precious metal.
We should be thinking really hard about consequences before we tip this very unique balance back to the old way with 'malleability fixes' (or anything else).
@awemany
if we really do think that 2nd layer solution will lead us to the same point where we are now (fractional reserve, IOUs, no sound money, centralization) this is what we need to do:
- push as fast as we can to increase the number of txn/s the main net could handle (sharding, nex more compact txn format etc etc)
- improve the security of SPV client (fraud proof, UTXO commitments, etc etc )
And when I said "increasing" network throughput what I meant is that our target should be at least 3 order of magnitude bigger that what we have now.
if we really do think that 2nd layer solution will lead us to the same point where we are now (fractional reserve, IOUs, no sound money, centralization) this is what we need to do:
- push as fast as we can to increase the number of txn/s the main net could handle (sharding, nex more compact txn format etc etc)
- improve the security of SPV client (fraud proof, UTXO commitments, etc etc )
And when I said "increasing" network throughput what I meant is that our target should be at least 3 order of magnitude bigger that what we have now.
- Dec 16, 2015
- 2,806
- 6,088
@Bloomie: Odd forum site behavior today:
I'm logged in through the main login page, but if I go to some other page (like https://www.bitco.in/forum/threads/tx-malleability.1859/) then it shows me logged out. Not sure how it got in this state, I haven't had this problem before.
I also explicitly logged out, and when I opened the site again it still showed me as logged in.
If I open the link above directly, I still get the 'not logged in' phenomenon on the resulting page.
If I navigate there through the forum structure, the thread page is OK.
I'm logged in through the main login page, but if I go to some other page (like https://www.bitco.in/forum/threads/tx-malleability.1859/) then it shows me logged out. Not sure how it got in this state, I haven't had this problem before.
I also explicitly logged out, and when I opened the site again it still showed me as logged in.
If I open the link above directly, I still get the 'not logged in' phenomenon on the resulting page.
If I navigate there through the forum structure, the thread page is OK.
Last edited:
Just fully realized how checkmated Core is if miner defection continues.
Excellent somewhat older post on 8btc that I seem to have missed.
Nicely echos my, @cypherdoc's and @AdrianX sentiment that LN can be used to suck Bitcoin dry with yet another banking system on top.
I really start to think Bitcoin is boom or bust. It needs to be highly on-chain capable in the long run, to not be solely the kick-starter for yet another, likely even more oppressive and evil banking system on top.
Nicely echos my, @cypherdoc's and @AdrianX sentiment that LN can be used to suck Bitcoin dry with yet another banking system on top.
I really start to think Bitcoin is boom or bust. It needs to be highly on-chain capable in the long run, to not be solely the kick-starter for yet another, likely even more oppressive and evil banking system on top.
@awemany
* LN will create a hub-and-spoke payment network, both because a P2P routing algorithm with acceptable performance does not exist and also because very large amounts of capital need to be locked up in order to make payment channels work.
* The hubs will be banks in function, or in name, or both.
* Payment channels can "fill up", rendering them unable to accept further flows of funds in a particular direction.
* When a payment channel fills up, the only way funds can continue to flow is to open a new channel.
* Opening a new payment channel requires a non-trivial amount of capital and also an on-chain transaction.
* The delay involved in opening new channels means that LN's user experience will have an unpredictable consistency. Sometimes it works perfectly, but sometimes your channel fills up and you can't receive any more funds until you can get a channel transaction into a block.
* Occasionally (every few years) it takes the network 2 hours to find block.
* There is no technical limitation preventing a LN client from working with a channel that's not actually confirmed in the blockchain yet.
* In order to solve the UX problem of unpredictable delays caused by channels filling up, banks will begin to offer enhanced wallets that work with unconfirmed channels.
* Most users will happily accept this performance improvement.
* Once LN clients start accepting unconfirmed channels, then banks will start asking themselves why channels with their customers ever need to confirm at all.
* Some banks will move all their customers to unconfirmed channels, only keeping enough real bitcoins on-chain to settle with other banks
* These banks will begin operating on fractional reserves and attracting customers away from full reserve banks via interest-bearing accounts.
* When all banks are operating on fractional reserves they can swap out bitcoin-based settlement system for any other ledger system.
* LN will create a hub-and-spoke payment network, both because a P2P routing algorithm with acceptable performance does not exist and also because very large amounts of capital need to be locked up in order to make payment channels work.
* The hubs will be banks in function, or in name, or both.
* Payment channels can "fill up", rendering them unable to accept further flows of funds in a particular direction.
* When a payment channel fills up, the only way funds can continue to flow is to open a new channel.
* Opening a new payment channel requires a non-trivial amount of capital and also an on-chain transaction.
* The delay involved in opening new channels means that LN's user experience will have an unpredictable consistency. Sometimes it works perfectly, but sometimes your channel fills up and you can't receive any more funds until you can get a channel transaction into a block.
* Occasionally (every few years) it takes the network 2 hours to find block.
* There is no technical limitation preventing a LN client from working with a channel that's not actually confirmed in the blockchain yet.
* In order to solve the UX problem of unpredictable delays caused by channels filling up, banks will begin to offer enhanced wallets that work with unconfirmed channels.
* Most users will happily accept this performance improvement.
* Once LN clients start accepting unconfirmed channels, then banks will start asking themselves why channels with their customers ever need to confirm at all.
* Some banks will move all their customers to unconfirmed channels, only keeping enough real bitcoins on-chain to settle with other banks
* These banks will begin operating on fractional reserves and attracting customers away from full reserve banks via interest-bearing accounts.
* When all banks are operating on fractional reserves they can swap out bitcoin-based settlement system for any other ledger system.
@Justus Ranvier : EXACTLY!
Thanks for making this a nice and detailed, well thought-out list. I was always arguing: 'gold dust -> local banks -> big banks -> central bank on gold standard -> no gold standard" as an analogy on reddit, but the above is a detailed and realistic overview of how Bitcoin could eventually whither and die.
And the LN guys are already on this: "Infinitely long open channels that never need to settle" is a thing that I heard, as well as "LN allows cross-chain settlements".
Thanks for making this a nice and detailed, well thought-out list. I was always arguing: 'gold dust -> local banks -> big banks -> central bank on gold standard -> no gold standard" as an analogy on reddit, but the above is a detailed and realistic overview of how Bitcoin could eventually whither and die.
And the LN guys are already on this: "Infinitely long open channels that never need to settle" is a thing that I heard, as well as "LN allows cross-chain settlements".
@Justus Ranvier The important point here is that your scenario is not a "what if" situation, it is the natural course for a LN type system and will satisfy most people. The only escape will be through on-chain transactions and thus the reason that they must be preserved.
albin
Active Member
- Nov 8, 2015
- 931
- 4,008
This is the kind of thing where in real life, if I'm talking to somebody and they say something like this, the conversation is over and I need to move on. Once somebody has stooped to the level of lawyering terms with Webster's, I'm out. He might as well be arguing that you can't make heavy metal music without the appropriate ore and a smelting operation.