The senatorial governance of Bitcoin: making (de)centralized money • Hacker News Board

Re: The senatorial governance of Bitcoin: making (de)centralized money

#171

Post by once_inc » Tue, Jan 07, 2020, 10:07 AM UTC

153791098c wrote: post #151

moneytide1 wrote: post #6

Once all 21 million coins are "produced" - what powered hardware will be required to manage transactions?

Nothing changes except for the missing block reward. At the moment mining a block on BTC will net you about $100K (block reward + fees). If BTC wants to keep the same (relative) security as it has now while having no block reward, the transaction fees have to cover the $100K. With the current 7tps (at most) limit that will have to amount to about $24 per transaction when the blocks are 100% full all the time. If peop…

> (...) the security of the BTC chain will plummet.

Nitpick here, but what will happen is that the cost of mining blocks will outweigh the revenue of selling its fees. This means that miners will at some point decide to stop mining bitcoin. If this happens abruptly, that would cripple the network for a while, since the difficulty adjustment function would not be able to adjust the difficulty in time. If the move is not sudden, but a progression over months/years/decades, that wouldn't cripple bitcoin.

If miners stop mining bitcoin, that doesn't immediately make bitcoin less secure. The hardware might be used to mine other chains, or could just be binned. If a single entity wanted to perform a 51% attack, she/he would need to buy up a lot of discarded hardware without notice.

A reduction of global hash power isn't a security issue per se; it is a multi-variable problem.

Re: The senatorial governance of Bitcoin: making (de)centralized money

#172

Post by nullc » Tue, Jan 07, 2020, 10:10 AM UTC

ddtaylor wrote: post #166

nullc wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Dark forces" like people commenting here with anonymous brand new created accounts, slandering people who were tirelessly supporting Bitcoin long before they ever heard of it? Come on.

> people commenting here with anonymous brand new created accounts I don't think those kinds of comments are warranted here. I don't see any increase in the number of green usernames in this thread compared to any other post. What kind of evidence do you have to support these claims?

This thread:

$ egrep 'class="hnuser">' 21978475 | wc -l

35

21977147 (top thread right now):

$ egrep 'class="hnuser">' 21977147 | wc -l

0

21974514 (second from top):

$ egrep 'class="hnuser">' 21974514 | wc -l

1

21974117 (third from top):

$ egrep 'class="hnuser">' 21974117 | wc -l

1

These threads have similar numbers of comments to this one.

21971545 (Next one down with a lot of comments, 2.5x this one):

$ egrep 'class="hnuser">' 21971545 | wc -l

1

Plus, there is a thread on reddit directing: https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/el5qqf/bitcoin_core_hav... But hey, maybe I'm paranoid.

Seems this thread is bizarro land. I guess you're going to just ignore the abusive conspiracy theory in the post that I was responding to and instead wag your finger at me for turning it around with a pretty obvious observation?

Re: The senatorial governance of Bitcoin: making (de)centralized money

#173

Post by im3w1l » Tue, Jan 07, 2020, 10:16 AM UTC

shilch wrote: post #170

nullc wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why add TCP to IP or HTTP to TCP? It's sound engineering. Like in other systems by composing layers you can achieve the advantages of each component while addressing their costs, without creating insurmountable complexity... "have your cake and eat it too". Particularly, the central Bitcoin system is a global broadcast medium-- necessarily for its security. Global broadcast is inherently somewhat limited in its scala…

TCP wasn't build on IP because it wasn't scalable. It was build on it because it was. But that aside, calling Lightning on BTC a second-layer is a bit misleading: Lightning data is not encapsulated in BTC data, more like the other way around; so Lightning is more like layer 0 and BTC layer 1 in that model. (That's also not entirely correct either but much closer)

> At the start, TCP handled both datagram transmission and routing, but as the protocol expanded, other researchers started to recommend that these two functions be split into layers.

> One of these researchers, Jonathan Postel of the University of California’s Information Sciences Institute and an editor for the Request of[sic] Comments (RFCs) which is a document series capturing the development of the Internet.

> Postel has stated:

> “We are screwing up in our design of Internet protocols by violating the principle of layering”

> Basically, the monolithic design of TCP would soon become inflexible and unable to scale efficiently. Therefore TCP was split into two protocols, TCP & the Internet Protocol (IP).

https://www.colocationamerica.com/blog/history-of-ip-address...

Re: The senatorial governance of Bitcoin: making (de)centralized money

#174

Post by nullc » Tue, Jan 07, 2020, 10:18 AM UTC

DrCraigWright wrote: post #154

nullc wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In one of his last messages in 2010 before going publically inactive, Bitcoin's creator wrote: > Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices. ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg28917#msg289... ) Hal Finney, one of the main developers of PGP and Bitcoin's first user wrote in 2010: > I believe this will be the ultim…

Don't worry Greg, we will get to you in due time. It's always interesting how you love to cherry pick and take things out of context. Then this was always your motive. The reference you like to quote about my wanting to limit the size of the blockchain is of course completely out of context. The creation of overlay networks allows bitcoin to act as a single reference source while also having different quorum systems…

I can't tell if it's the actual scammer or a parody of the scammer.

I know! you could post a digital signature to autenticate yourself.

Oh wait!

Re: The senatorial governance of Bitcoin: making (de)centralized money

#175

Post by perceptronas » Tue, Jan 07, 2020, 10:21 AM UTC

BigBubbler wrote: post #126

lawn wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do people call it BCash? Because it's part of a social engineering campaign to discredit Bitcoin Cash and to prevent people from learning about the idiocy of what Bitcoin is doing. https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/why-some-people-call-bit...

The "bcash" term is used to attack BCH. It makes many of the attackers (that are everywhere on social media) pretty easy to recognize. They attack BCH because it is the only Bitcoin still working to allow massive scaling. Dark forces captured BTC to stop it from becoming a real peer-to-peer electronic cash for the world's people. BCH is keeping that dream alive and the dark forces have been attacking BCH since before…

Amount of trolls/fake comments from BCash community is insane. BCash is just a shorthand for a pretty shady coin that it is.

Re: The senatorial governance of Bitcoin: making (de)centralized money

#176

Post by chris123 » Tue, Jan 07, 2020, 10:23 AM UTC

JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #36

I still hope that they listen to reason and increase bitcoin’s ability to scale. We are all held hostage by a tiny cabal of developers that think they know what is best and want bitcoin to have a perversely small block size and pitiful 7 transactions per second top speed.

No, the block size must remain small. I just don't transactions and speed won't be handled on a second layer solution. people who think they want a bigger block size can go with Bitcoin cash or Gavin or whatever consortium was the fork and go with that. Good luck.

Re: The senatorial governance of Bitcoin: making (de)centralized money

#177

Post by nullc » Tue, Jan 07, 2020, 10:29 AM UTC

askmike wrote: post #158

DrCraigWright wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't worry Greg, we will get to you in due time. It's always interesting how you love to cherry pick and take things out of context. Then this was always your motive. The reference you like to quote about my wanting to limit the size of the blockchain is of course completely out of context. The creation of overlay networks allows bitcoin to act as a single reference source while also having different quorum systems…

If you come to HN claiming to be Satoshi, better bring some technical proof that will actually convince the techies here.

You might be asking a bit much of him, this technology stuff isn't super easy for everyone.

In two easy steps:

$ ./bitcoin-cli signmessage 1GMaxweLLbo8mdXvnnC19Wt2wigiYUKgEB "Digital signatures are to scammers as garlic is to vampires. I am hn user nullc, but you are not Bitcoin's creator."

$ ./bitcoin-cli verifymessage 1GMaxweLLbo8mdXvnnC19Wt2wigiYUKgEB "HJ0VgbIY9BAud6MiZ4Qh0KSwhmA7gwkFm07tjPJeHsYNcj5oIAVlVR2JnKTF7EjqTWEaD9QbAPzk8QII8QJxW4s=" "Digital signatures are to scammers as garlic is to vampires. I am hn user nullc, but you are not Bitcoin's creator."

true

Re: The senatorial governance of Bitcoin: making (de)centralized money

#178

Post by chris123 » Tue, Jan 07, 2020, 10:30 AM UTC

lawn wrote: post #128

__s wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2nd layer avoids bloating the ledger. Once limits of 2nd layer are being explored, you can make adjustments to 1st layer with information about how that'll improve 2nd layer throughput. This is like arguing that we shouldn't have in-memory caches, we should just have faster disks Fees prevent spam

Once limits of 1st layer are explored (the Bitcoin developers have never even bothered to research where the limits are) you can augment it with 2nd layer solutions. Both should of course be done simultaneously, and never focus on one to the exclusion of the other. Even the Lightning Network whitepaper states it needs much larger blocks, and for it to work well you need to be able to settle quickly and cheaply on-cha…

Bitcoin don't need no stinkin" bigger blocks. Second layer FTW.

Re: The senatorial governance of Bitcoin: making (de)centralized money

#179

Post by ddtaylor » Tue, Jan 07, 2020, 10:31 AM UTC

nullc wrote: post #172

ddtaylor wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people commenting here with anonymous brand new created accounts I don't think those kinds of comments are warranted here. I don't see any increase in the number of green usernames in this thread compared to any other post. What kind of evidence do you have to support these claims?

This thread: $ egrep 'class="hnuser"> ' 21978475 | wc -l 35 21977147 (top thread right now): $ egrep 'class="hnuser"> ' 21977147 | wc -l 0 21974514 (second from top): $ egrep 'class="hnuser"> ' 21974514 | wc -l 1 21974117 (third from top): $ egrep 'class="hnuser"> ' 21974117 | wc -l 1 These threads have similar numbers of comments to this one. 21971545 (Next one down with a lot of comments, 2.5x this one): $ egrep 'c…

I browse both sites daily and see links between the two quite often. What is strange about one site linking to another?

Also I don't know if it's HN formatting but the commands you posted don't work. I think you're trying to point out there are N number of new users in this thread?

Re: The senatorial governance of Bitcoin: making (de)centralized money

#180

Post by nullc » Tue, Jan 07, 2020, 10:34 AM UTC

DrCraigWright wrote: post #159

sunshinerag wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lightning protocol addresses that. You can make millions of transactions per second [1]. Quite a lot of crypto sites are already supporting it and wallet support is increasing too [2]. [1] - https://lightning.network [2] - https://blog.bitrefill.com/top-11-lightning-network-wallets-...

Funny.... you seem to be exaggerating by a factor of 100,000x... And, that is before all the issues. Oh well... When Lightning comes to an end later this year, you will have a new boondoggle thing I guess?

> And, that is before all the issues. Oh well... When Lightning comes to an end later this year, you will have a new boondoggle thing I guess?

Everyone was holding their breath for your prior fraudulent manipulation ( https://i.redd.it/lktxhvvvmny31.jpg, https://i.redd.it/02oagc805u441.png ) has long since died from asphyxiation. I think you might need a new approach.