557300+ entries in 0.343s
mircea_popescu: "This guy owns enough BTC
to crash
the price
to 0 on
the fork if it develops. Basically imagine launching an altcoin
that starts out with
the current blockchain as genesis.
Then imagine a huge holder acting
to destroy
this altcoin
to protect
the original Bitcoin."
mircea_popescu: ima ask
the sec
to give me 50k i apparently paid
them ?
mircea_popescu: then it sudden;y won't ever be a
topic mentioned again by
the ~500 or so fake reddit accounts working at creating "consensus" of "the community"
mircea_popescu: adlai yeah, all
this "satoshi
this satoshi
that" will be heard until
the 1mn hoard quietly splits one night.
mircea_popescu: "Dude
that runs Mpex is a crazy narcissist
that happened
to get rich (if he cashed out) from being an early adopter. I
think
the MPEX buy-in was 10k coins just for a seat at
the
table even after
the price hit $30. He also just consented
to a $50k fine from
the SEC for selling unregistered securities."
adlai: what if satoshi sells on
the original chain
mircea_popescu: "However, I also expect Bitcoin
to become a) more forgetful and
think
that b),
there could be a systems
that puts
the burden of validating a
transaction on
the sender of
the
transaction instead of
the network. So
that maybe, maybe, in
the more distant future, all
that needs
to be kept of
the decentralized blockchain are
the headers, which is less
than a CD-ROM full of data for 100years."
mircea_popescu: dude, reddit really likes being educated, provided
the "education" in question consists of
telling
them how great and important
they are.
mircea_popescu: ny how
they define "THE community" linking between blogs of handful of people.
mircea_popescu: Gavin educates, make his points and
tries convince community without antagonizing anyone. Popescu is probably
the biggest jerk in
the community, and his flock are such a dickheads
that I'd be happy
to see
them using separate chain just so
they can circlejerk and pretend
they are
the kings of
the crypto-word in
their own sandbox. Anything
they write is so repugnant,
that it's just impossible
to argue with
them. It's fun
mircea_popescu: the fake bitcoin foundation is going
to make it for
two years ? bwahahaha gimme a break.
mircea_popescu: "This is how
the max block size will be increased, hopefully with
the same 2-year delay. By
the
time
the change actually happens, everyone will be using a client with
the new rules because
that's
the only
type of client
that will have been advertised on bitcoin.org and elsewhere for 2+ years. You'd have
to go massively out of your way
to download a version without
the new rules."
mircea_popescu: davout if proof was needed
that
the 'teh-code-is-teh-spec' approach is fundamentally braindamaged, well, look no further <>< clearly. not
to mention
the recent ecdsa openssl debacle, which is pretty much exactly a replay of
the bdb stuff. "oh, we included code but we had no idea what it does" sort of approach
to code-is-spec specwork
mircea_popescu: what people knew about it was important
then, but is not really germane
mircea_popescu: <sgornick>
The (bdb) rule wasn't (widely) known before v0.8 caused
the fork, but it was coded into v0.8.1. << it is
technially correct
to say
that
the 8.1. version is in fact more restrictive
than
the pre 8.0 version.
artifexd: Have we already passed
the point of separation? Is it possible
that I have bitcoins
that are actually gavincoins?
mircea_popescu: inasmuch as
the old
thing is bitcoin, and
the new
thing some shit gavin made.
mircea_popescu: <sgornick> First, gotta get some vocabulary simplified. When we had
the unplanned hard-fork March 2013, we had
the protocol "pre-v0.8' and "v0.8" . What do we call
this protocol with
the hard fork implemented vs.
that without
the hard fork (i.e., unchanged? ) << bitcoin vs gavincoin.
davout: sgornick: an implementation detail in some older client does not count as a protocol rule in my book, if proof was needed
that
the 'teh-code-is-teh-spec' approach is fundamentally braindamaged, well, look no further
sgornick: The (bdb) rule wasn't (widely) known before v0.8 caused
the fork, but it was coded into v0.8.1.
davout: sgornick: it was a hard fork in
the sense
that not all implementations behaved
the same way, not in
the sense
that a rule was changed
adlai: and
there wasn't a well-defined set of nodes
that would prefer one block over another -
the pre-v0.8 side would nondeterministically reject certain valid blocks
sgornick: Sure was ... v0.8 changed
the rule in allowing more
than
the pre-v0.8 side did.
davout: sgornick: it wasn't a hard fork in
the sense
that no rule was changed
sgornick: First, gotta get some vocabulary simplified. When we had
the unplanned hard-fork March 2013, we had
the protocol "pre-v0.8' and "v0.8" . What do we call
this protocol with
the hard fork implemented vs.
that without
the hard fork (i.e., unchanged? )
sgornick: Oh, ... I
think I see -- you are saying I didn't go far enough? Not only are
trxs with post-fork
taint worthless, but
there could be
trxs with no
taint
that would confirm on one side but would be invalid as
they were already spent on
the other side?
sgornick: Why? 100% of
those will be rejected on
the side of
the fork from nodes without
the hard-fork implemented.
davout: since you would be able
to split coins, ie. even if your incoming
tx isn't
tainted with a post-fork coinbase you could receive funds
that aren't spendable on both chains
davout: sgornick: as danielpbarron points out "Yes,
that's why it will be so dangerous
to accept payments from anyone
that includes coins
tainted with post-fork coinbases." is not completely accurate
[\\\]: It'd just route
to North Korea anyway.
[\\\]: I had
to go back
to
the original and refresh
adlai: by not using
the proxy
[\\\]: "All readers are entitled
to five free articles each week." <-- How do I go about getting my five free articles?
benjamindees: as an asset, sure, assets are easy
to control with conventional means --
threats,
taxation,
theft, etc
assbot: Let's address some of
the more common pseudo-arguments raised by
the very stupid people
that like
the Gavin scamcoin proposal pe
Trilema - Un blog de Mircea Popescu. ... (
http://bit.ly/1w961XS )
davout: benjamindees: it's not really as if bitcoin was
taking banking
too seriously either
benjamindees: mircea_popescu, you understand
that
the next, "bigger"
too-big-to-fail entity is China, right? It's not Bitcoin... bankers don't
take non-inflationary currency seriously.
decimation: this phenomenon is demonstrated in obamacare, for instance.
the 40%
tax on "cadillac" health plans will start in 2018, presumably after a republican president
takes office
mircea_popescu: that's exactly it, in
the quest
to "we promise
to over-react, please re-elect us"
the socialist politicians are stuck moving
the goalposts in
the future.
their ideal pov is
to resolve problems for which no being alive can now hang
them
adlai: i like how
the idf doesn't put
the number in
the name (though
they are planned for five), calling
them just "multi-year plans", as
though resigned in advance
to
the inevitable delays
decimation: mircea_popescu:
the unborn make
the perfect socialist workers.
they never complain and always eager for
the next five year plan
hanbot: they come with a sanity
tax
tho', box waxes on unpoetic about how you
the buyer are a unique woman whose dreams become reality etc.
mircea_popescu: <davout>
trying
to solve other people's problems
that don't exist yet,
the recipe for success :D <<< kinda
the meat and potatoes of socialist government eh.
hanbot: davout lol, i don't know what
the hubub's about.
they're like
two bux a box'a 16.
davout: hanbot: so, how's
the
tampon market in bsas?
davout: trying
to solve other people's problems
that don't exist yet,
the recipe for success :D
decimation: at any rate,
this is a problem for actual miners
to solve in
the future, and
they will likely despise any actions
taken
today on
their behalf
☟︎ davout: my favourite pilot joke: "see
this baby?
that's a C-130. I fly a C-150"
decimation: the reason being,
the 'airline system' is running at capacity
decimation: in
the us, most airlines have done away with
that
mircea_popescu: there's a system where you only fly if
they have empty seats, costs bupkiss
davout: decimation:
they
totally would if
they had
to bear
the costs of flying empty airplanes anyway
mircea_popescu: kakobrekla
this is a point. all
the people derping about "economy" fail
to have read
that old mpoe-pr article about buffett and
textile industry on
the forum.
decimation: kakobrekla: by
that logic, airlines would fly a bum for five bux if
there were an empty seat
kakobrekla: "if im not picking
this cent up, next miner will in next block."
mircea_popescu: the slowly creeping usg-isation of bitcoin has
to be nipped in
the bud.
kakobrekla: decimation from miners perspective
they would include everything and
their mother if she has half a dime.
mircea_popescu: have
trouble understanding your proposal - ordinary users will be easily bamboozled by a government sponsored security update. Further, when
the crisis hits,
to disagree with
the line,
to doubt
that
the regulators are right, and
the problem is
the evil speculators, becomes political suicide, as it did in America in 2007, sometimes physical suicide, as in Weimar Germany."
mircea_popescu: er, more serious, and more disastrous, as with
the most recent one. Each attack is hugely successful, and after
the cataclysm
that
the attack causes
the attackers are hailed as saviors of
the poor,
the oppressed, and
the nation generally, and
the blame for
the
the bad consequences is dumped elsewhere, usually on Jews, greedy bankers, speculators, etc, because such attacks are difficult for ordinary people understand. I
mircea_popescu: "The big and easy government attacks on money
target a single central money issuer, as with
the first of
the modern political attacks,
the French Assignat of 1792, but in
the late nineteenth century political attacks on financial networks began, as for example
the Federal reserve act of 1913,
the goal always being
to wind up
the network into a single
too big
to fail entity, and
they have been getting progressively bigg
decimation: kakobrekla: if mining is costly,
the miners won't relay dust
mircea_popescu: <davout> would
transactions still propagated accross fork branches in
the event of a hard fork scenario? <>< hard
to
tell, but mostly yes.
decimation: well, if
the network is dead, no one cares. If bitcoin can be
traded for half a planet,
the implication is
that mining is costly
danielpbarron: davout, if you can probably beat
them
to it if it's your intention
to doublespend
adlai: double spends are easy
today,
they'll be far easier in such a situation
danielpbarron: "confirming blocks for just
the
transaction fee is a losing venture, but we intend
to make up for it in volume"
adlai: you can broadcast
transactions on both chains, miners could even be incentivized
to scan both chains for
transactions valid in
the chain
they're mining on - but p2p broadcast probably won't work on its own, once
the network has forked properly
benjamindees: Just consider
that, when Satoshi said "gain a new
territory of freedom for several years," he had a reason. Bitcoin is not
the end-all-be-all of systems. Mining may not be a long-term solution. But inflation is non-negotiable, regardless.
davout: adlai: yeah, but danielpbarron has a point,
there only needs
to be one node bridging
transactions for a double-spend
to be harder
to pull off, obviously not impossible, but it would be harder
than
trivial
kakobrekla: how do other envision
the future when reward goes
towards 0. either a btc is worth half a planet or
the fees amount per block go up a few orders of magnitude or network is dead
☟︎ adlai: i'm not certain if
they'd get disconnected right away, but a node sending invalid-to-you blocks won't last long in your node's connection list
davout: danielpbarron: yeah,
that's a good point
danielpbarron: all it
takes is anyone watching both chains and
telling each about
the other's
transactions; all
the ones
that aren't doublespends should get accepted by both chains
davout: trying
to figure out how easy/hard it would be
to actually split coins reliably accross forks
davout: would
transactions still propagated accross fork branches in
the event of a hard fork scenario?
adlai: if you
think mining is primarily a means of distribution, you should consider studying
the problems with systems
that preceeded bitcoin
benjamindees: davout, well,
the
thing is, by
the
time it even matters, mining may be irrelevant anyways. I wouldn't bank on having a mining oligopoly
twenty years from now. Mining is mostly a means of distribution.
adlai: if we
the people having
this discussion look at
the ... which we
the people cutting
the
taxes may wish
to...
davout: benjamindees: i may be
thick here, but i fail
to see how
this relates, as a miner i might not one someone forcing a scarce resource
that i sell, such as space in a block,
to be inflated away
mircea_popescu: "we" are not in charge of
things just because pelosi likes
to pretend so.
adlai: if we look at
the blocksize limit as a parameter of
the
tax system,
this isn't inflation, it's a
tax cut - which we may wish
to reverse in
the future
adlai: risperidone in
the stratosphere
mircea_popescu: <kakobrekla> but on
that i
think we are still way under limit. << and i
think women are overweight, by and large. what do we do ?
benjamindees: davout, no, it doesn't. Bitcoin isn't ultimately equivalent
to debt-issued currencies in
the way velocity is measured, or in
the way it impacts
the value. it just appears
to be at
the moment because inflation (issuance) is high.