Live data from Hacker News

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

tandfonline.com

191–200 of 344 posts

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

#191
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. The split was also a taxable event (income) according to the IRS.

Selling coins from the fork is the taxable event, not the folk itself.

The IRS guidance appears to contradict you.

https://www.nysscpa.org/news/publications/the-trusted-profes...

If that is really their position, it's absurd and untenable... so I'm sure we'll see further clarifications in the future. Like how are you supposed to deal with forks that you do not know about or perhaps could not possibly have had any way of knowing about?

You can avoid uncertainty, however, by selling right away.

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

#194
post #99

tezos is attempting to solve this by incorporating on-chain governance - its dPoS and has a code deployment mechanism with a long voting process (multimonth). They have done 2? upgrades now and quorum seems to be ok so hopefully they can keep up voting % i still think the nano (formerly raiblocks) approach is cool - it scales by running parallel blockchains - each wallet is its own chain. tx's between chains are vote…

Because nano has free transactions, a big concern was indeed spamming the network because transanctions are free (as in you pay no nano). But since each wallet has to calculate their own blockchain, the prosessing power is purely on the client side and so not free in that sense, which limits the spamming to the processing power you have.

Recent spamming [1][2] has seen nano ledger size balloon by nearly 50%, negatively affecting full node Initial Block Download times as well as archive node disk space requirements. The PoW requirements go up with network congestion, but at this rate of 5-8 tps are quite minimal.

[1] https://nano-faucet.org/stats/

[2] https://nanocean.org/ (Click on Live Stream)

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

#196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hardly, because building LN on the 1MB base layer is like building a pyramid upside down, it's unstable and creates more problems than it was meant to solve. Lightning was supposed to make tx fees low right? Well it technically has, but it also introduced the following problems that Bitcoin never had: - LN requires that both sender and receiver be online at the same time to transact. This never existed on Bitcoin. -…

> LN requires that both sender and receiver be online at the same time to transact. This never existed on Bitcoin. Correct, but this is clearly stated in its whitepaper and is one of the tradeoffs to get massively more txs and privacy. > If you're an LN merchant accepting payments, you must periodically topoff your side of the channel...just so you can keep accepting money. This problem never existed on Bitcoin. I ca…

> Then, users will slowly stop their BCH full nodes because it becomes a bother to keep them online.

Why do you assume BTC/LN will improve scalability properties but not BCH? On-chain capacity can be optimized over time without increasing the average cost for running a node.

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

#197
post #193
post #192

[flagged]

I'm sure if he posts a digital signature from a well known Satoshi address, HN will unban him. I posted instructions below, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21978680 ... but I will not be holding my breath.

Thank you for explaining how censorship works; I hope you're not one of these cypherpunks who whine when censored. ;)

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

#198

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.

DrCraigWright has had his account blocked, he states (Why!?), so he asks this to be posted:

---

Yes, I know you love to run around going “Craig’s not Satoshi, don't listen to him”. However, all of that is irrelevant. The simple fact of the matter is that I've taken the original protocol that I designed and implemented it and it scales and it works. Not the way that people like James A. Donald desired (and yes, he is a child pornography and paedophile and that is part of why he wanted an anonymous coin, something I didn't realise in 2008). Rather, it is a micropayments system that changes the entire nature of the Internet. It allows companies like Google and Facebook, or rather the ones that will replace them to create systems that earn through micropayments and at the same time allow individuals to earn the money to pay for this. It's not the concept that people in the cryptocurrency space think about, but then the people in the cryptocurrency space are rarely those who will take this forward.

Don't worry, you can still play. I do know how to fix lightning; I have patents on it. Likewise, I have patents that would fix Ethereum but then I don't need to, bitcoin doesn't need Ethereum.

It surprises me how little people bother to learn. The entire cryptocurrency space is premised on ideas that have gone before. The only true innovation that I added to bitcoin was an economic system that linked to a traceable pseudonymous series of transactions. Proof of work-based Cryptocurrencies existed 20 years ago. Distributed Cryptocurrencies existed 20 years ago. The entire technical and corporate space 20 years ago was larger than the entire bitcoin space and in fact cryptocurrency space at the peak a couple years ago. But then, few bother to actually do the research. Few and then fewer even bother to understand that the concept of a blockchain, of hashing a block of information into next block was not new. It was published 25 years ago.

Yet none of you seem to have bothered to take the time to read the source documents. I shouldn't be surprised at this sort of attitude, I sought in students all the time. People are becoming lazy, not all of us but many.

It's interesting in a way that people believe that bitcoin acts outside of government and law. In the Whitepaper I stated that bitcoin nodes, miners enforce the rules. I didn't say that they create the rules. I said that the rules were set in stone. The incentive system allows miners to act in a manner that keeps them honest. You see, in law, the definitions of used in the Whitepaper have meaning. In particular, the term attacker has meaning.

Bitcoin is an economic system. Miners always end in data centres. It doesn't matter how you change the proof of work protocol. If an ASIC device was never created, it would still be more efficient for miners to end running many many computers in a data centre. In scale there is efficiency. The problem is that you guys think you can beat me. You don't even realise you've already lost. Then, commenting on information that I know when you don't and some of you will say this informational asymmetry is an unfair advantage. I'm sorry if you're a snowflake and I don't care.

This collectivist, socialist mindset that has infiltrated what people call libertarian thought is rather despicable. You seem to actually believe, surprising as that seems that you have a right and that I have an obligation to give you information. That when I'm not seeking anything from you, what am not asking you to help, where in fact I don't actually care two damns about your existence that I should do something to obtain your gratification or even some respect from you. I'm sorry, I don't care about the respect that some people seem to garnish and gather from social media sites to their pseudonymous identities. It is funny to watch however.

Enjoy. 2020 is going to be an interesting year and some of you are going to find out how interesting very shortly.

that you want to use the _Dread Pirate Roberts_ defense - I was only just handed these keys... But that will never be. It does not matter at all what you say. You shall learn just how far gone you are this year and just how many people see you as the fool.

Enjoy failure... It has been your life and it shall remain so.

- DrCraigWright

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

#199
post #193
post #192

[flagged]

I'm sure if he posts a digital signature from a well known Satoshi address, HN will unban him. I posted instructions below, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21978680 ... but I will not be holding my breath.

And, greetings again.

=============== @DrCraigWright ===============

Really... What well known address. Not one is PKI'd. There are addresses I have asserted are, ones that others have stated. There is nothing that proves it beyond reasonable doubt. Or, do people just assume as I created it that I must be the only miner? That may be, but it is not more than circumstantial evidence and is a long way from proof.

Signing with a pseudonymous key is no proof. We all know that you want to use the _Dread Pirate Roberts_ defense - I was only just handed these keys... But that will never be. It does not matter at all what you say. You shall learn just how far gone you are this year and just how many people see you as the fool.

Enjoy failure... It has been your life and it shall remain so.

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

#200
post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's saying at the time I commented there were 35 posts in this thread with green names (36 now), while there were 0, 1, 1, and 1 in the other threads respectively. If you want to go by the ratio of unique green names instead of posts this thread has 13 times more than those threads that had any at all.

There does seem to be a lot of variance in that though. The top post on HN right now is from a green user name. Also the number of comments in the two threads is vastly different.
Post reply on HN