The Unreasonable Fundamental Incertitudes Behind Bitcoin ...
Bitcoin - P2P Foundation
Frequently Asked Bitcoin Interview Questions - Interview 4 All
Previously, on CST, I had written about the 'forthcoming crypto trapdoor', in which the value of crypto would plummet, meaning that people investing dollars for crypto would lose their dollars after being lured to crypto as a kind of new, and very hot commodity or stock trade. Well, google and others are banning ads for it. There is a city in New York (sorry no source but it exists) that is banning mining because of outages caused by mining. Basically, people are having brownouts and blackouts because people are mining bitcoin Yet, because of the difficulty in mining, it's becoming unprofitable to mine except for someone with cheaper power and more advanced equipment--that's just how mining works. So they are overharvesting energy and it's causing real-life problems Because after all, who makes money when bitcoin prices go up, other than the bitcoin holders themselves? That's right: energy companies Bitcoin is a store of 3 things: technology, energy and time. Energy and time reduce to KW/h, and technology can simply be a prerequisite since even if you had more impressive equiment, the catalyst that is consumed in the equation to produce a bitcoin is still KW/h, more/bigger equipment, more kW/h are consumed. Thus, Bitcoin is ultimately a sunken cost store of energy (thanks Noelabelle) that people only believe has value because of their willingness to trade another currency for it. It is backed by sunken cost, but the data (complexity) behind it may be meaningless (solved puzzles) That means you know who is behind bitcoin: energy companies worldwide. It's really that simple. They've managed to make their energy much more valuable than simply the market cost But as the value of btc wavers, that fact has changed. It's now reached parity--because of mining difficulty, the cost of energy to produce a bitcoin is the same dollar value of btc, and that will fluctuate based on value Why BTC It could have been a hegelian ploy to enhance the energy security of all nations--to induce avg users to buy solar, but the upfront cost of both solar AND bitcoin has priced itself out of the middle class, thus this hegelian failed, and now they have the problem of the stick without any carrots, meaning they have city brownouts from people mining, and no solar So if there was a mindful, good-intended national security reason for bitcoin, it has signally failed So now we should look at it like its a crime. Not just to create a kind of money laundering platform for crime and contraband sales, but something far more insidious--a ploy to destroy economies to bring about a unipolar world where money both exists and does not exist--a 'functional illusion' if you will Parochialism I can assure you that people using and programming bitcoin are limited in their parochial point of view that it's a populist, democratic, 'free' technology that they themselves own and run, but they are incorrect. They are not looking at the bigger picture of what BTC means beyond the context of 'the medium is the message': they are maybe unwittingly or subconsciously avoiding answering uncomfortable questions about BTC, it's origins, who runs the exchanges, the context of AI bots, and who runs those bots, and who can afford a Dwave, and what a DWAVE means to bitcoin, and what quantum computers+AI ultimately means to blockchain based markets, or the context of gov control over alt currencies, esp wrt asset forfeitures and unpaid capital gains They refuse to answer these questions! Because they don't like the 'conspiracy theory' intimations that it poses. But I think that's very dishonest, and especially it's self-dishonest Why would they be so dishonest? Remember: pretty much everyone in news is a fake, regardles sof side. Therefore crypto news is also fake. John McAffee said he'd eat his own dick if BTC didn't go up to 1M or something like this. McAffee has been purported to be a CIA lifetime actor by people who have worked with him. Isn't that interesting So you have CIA NOCs that are pushing BTC. Why? Trapdoor What we are seeing is that trapdoor slowly opening. The energy companies and the people operating exchanges have effectively defunded the early adopters now that btc value is falling. Who else made out? Technology companies making video cards already got their money too; china got it's money; and whatever 'additional work' that the bitcoin miners were doing surreptitiously (cracking foreign encryption, rendering 3D animation, etc) was done on behalf of those in the backchannel corporate intellignece ingroup (think quantuminsert--i'm not ready to go down this rabbit hole at this time, but I will soon)...they all got their money as soon as enough people started doubting bitcoins future because of various governmental controls on crypto So like the murder of crows, they squawk and fly off. They already got your money, which funded their AI bots, which gaslighted you wrt BTC prices through hyperfast, intelligent trades with each other behind the exchanges. This worked as a confidence game. A LITERAL confidence game, you were conned by robots Sure some people will keep mining, just like the radical left they won't accept many facts. They've already bought the sunken cost fallacy of their own worldview, and no one ever told them it was an experiment that has ended. Trapdoor is opening.
[Serious game-theory question] If you're a miner and you see a bunch of RBF-tagged transactions in the mempool, won't this give you an incentive to NOT mine them (in the hopes that they'll later be resubmitted with a higher fee)?
I used to have some grudging respect for Peter Todd at least as a supposedly brilliant game-theory strategist, despite (or perhaps because of) his proclivity for finding exotic attack vectors which could be used to "vandalize" distributed online systems. Now, I'm not so sure anymore that he's even got game theory. This is a serious question about miner incentives. Under Peter Todd's proposed new "opt-in RBF", the sender will be able to optionally tag a transaction as being RBF - in other words, the sender is declaring in advance that he would be willing to pay a higher fee. Doesn't this break all kinds of rules about negotiating and making deals? People who are good at deal-making don't say stuff like "I'll pay you x dollars and not one cent more - but actually I will pay you more - all you have to do is reject my current offer!" But the worst part would be on the mining side of the equation. If you're a miner (with 9000 transactions backlogged on Black Friday due to the artificial 1 MB block size limit), then as a miner you're going to have an incentive to simply drop all the RBF-tagged transactions in the hopes of getting them to up their fees later. So what's the point of even introducing all this complexity with RBF? If you're willing to pay a higher fee, just pay it at the outset, using the existing Bitcoin system. And by the way, one of the fundamental functions of Bitcoin is to PREVENT DOUBLE SPENDING. On the other hand, RBF actually ENCOURAGES DOUBLE SPENDING. https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uixix/from_a_usability_communications_perspective_rbf/ This is the most radical change ever proposed to the Bitcoin protocol. Many of the devs are against it. https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uje8o/consensus_jgarzik_rbf_would_be_antisocial_on_the/ What urgent problem does RBF solve? Did anyone even request this kind of radical change? What gives Peter Todd the right to merge this kind of radical change into Bitcoin - with no debate and no consensus and no testing?? Something very strange is going on here. Why is Peter Todd allowed to implement this kind of weird complicated feature (without consensus) which goes against fundamental Bitcoin guarantees such as PREVENTING DOUBLE SPENDING - when meanwhile other much simpler and more urgent changes (such as increasing the block size limit) get stonewalled forever? Personally I think something fishy is going on.
u/jessquit to u/nullc "You're so fucking shameless, devoting your career to crippling one of the most disruptive inventions since the Internet to please your investment team. Watching you go down in flames will be one of the great moments in computer science. Your legacy will be a monument of shame" (214 points, 40 comments)
Suggestion for new terminology. Instead of saying "small blocks" vs "big blocks", we could say: "centrally planned blocksize" vs "market-based blocksize". This will make it clear that some solutions are based on markets and economics, and other solutions are based on central planning. (195 points, 64 comments)
Core/Blockstream is living in a fantasy world. In the real world everyone knows (1) our hardware can support 4-8 MB (even with the Great Firewall), and (2) hard forks are cleaner than soft forks. Core/Blockstream refuses to offer either of these things. Other implementations (eg: BU) can offer both. (180 points, 35 comments)
Letting FEES float without letting BLOCKSIZES float is NOT a "market". A market has 2 sides: One side provides a product/service (blockspace), the other side pays fees/money (BTC). An "efficient market" is when players compete and evolve on BOTH sides, approaching an ideal FEE/BLOCKSIZE EQUILIBRIUM. (153 points, 42 comments)
Previously, Greg Maxwell u/nullc (CTO of Blockstream), Adam Back u/adam3us (CEO of Blockstream), and u/theymos (owner of r\bitcoin) all said that bigger blocks would be fine. Now they prefer to risk splitting the community & the network, instead of upgrading to bigger blocks. What happened to them? (149 points, 66 comments)
"Negotiations have failed. BS/Core will never HF - except to fire the miners and create an altcoin. Malleability & quadratic verification time should be fixed - but not via SWSF political/economic trojan horse. CHANGES TO BITCOIN ECONOMICS MUST BE THRU FULL NODE REFERENDUM OF A HF." ~ u/TunaMelt (124 points, 80 comments)
u/Luke-Jr: "The best available here is currently 5Mb down + 512k up DSL." // u/TruthReasonOrLies: "You seem to want to hold back the network development and growth to support those who are the least likely to run full nodes or mining." (114 points, 45 comments)
The Bitcoin community is talking. Why isn't Core/Blockstream listening? "Yes, [SegWit] increases the blocksize but BU wants a literal blocksize increase." ~ u/lurker_derp ... "It's pretty clear that they [BU-ers] want Bitcoin, not a BTC fork, to have a bigger blocksize." ~ u/WellSpentTime (90 points, 41 comments)
Just because something is a "soft fork" doesn't mean it isn't a massive change. SegWit is an alt-coin. It would introduce radical and unpredictable changes in Bitcoin's economic parameters and incentives. Just read this thread. Nobody has any idea how the mainnet will react to SegWit in real life. (88 points, 26 comments)
the systematic censorship policy of r\bitcoin is one of the clearest proof of the technical inferiority of blockstream core prescribed solutions : if they were just better , there would be no need for such policy . (219 points, 74 comments)
Another successful hard fork by Ethereum occurred today. Protocol upgrades are possible. Don't listen to lies from entrenched interests that say otherwise. (202 points, 78 comments)
I think if it comes down to it, Core would rather remain in control, even if it means introducing a small blocksize increase, as opposed to losing control entirely. We should not lose sight of our larger goals no matter what carrots they throw our way: We need a new, un-corrupt dev team. (177 points, 65 comments)
Bitcoin Core Devs can't just say the price of Bitcoin should be stuck at $100 per coin. The market decides. Just like Core shouldn't say the size of a block is stuck at 1MB. The market should decide! Take centrally planned actors OUT of the equation. This is Bitcoin-- Not the Federal Reserve. (145 points, 39 comments)
Miner Jiang Zhou'er: "I can conclude with great confidence: SegWit will never ever be activated. Even in 75% or 51% scenarios it will not be alive. ..some people are destined to be nailed up on the pillar of humiliation." (95 points, 63 comments)
We need more exclusive content for /btc with watermarks stating against censorship in /bitcoin. The new content will be effective in spreading the word! (79 points, 32 comments)
No one (except the market) knows what the price of Bitcoin should be, just like no one (except the market) knows what the size of blocks should be. Bitcoin Unlimited allows a market-decided blocksize. Bitcoin Core allows a centrally planned blocksize. (74 points, 20 comments)
It is likely a Core-affiliated extremist will attack pools mining Bitcoin Unlimited blocks. I recommend Bitcoin.com Pool goes live ASAP, with over 10% hashrate, so we have multiple pools for redundancy. 10-12% hashrate is not enough in the face of attackers who try to artificially activate Segwit. (64 points, 52 comments)
nullc is actively trying to delete Satoshi from history. First he assigned all satoshi commits on github to himself, then he wanted to get rid of the whitepaper as it is and now notice how he never says "Satoshi", he says "Bitcoin's Creator". by blockstreamcoin (243 points, 243 comments)
Censorship test from Gavin: post two positive things one about BU and another about SW, and see what happens by chakrop (240 points, 69 comments)
206 points: ViaBTC's comment in I'm Haipo Yang, founder and CEO of ViaBTC, Ask Me Anything!
118 points: solex1's comment in Gavin Andresen on Twitter: "I'm happy to see Bitcoin Unlimited gaining popularity, and hope their decentralized market-based approach gets adopted."
Back in the world of Bitcoin, although much of the Bitcoin network’s hash power is concentrated with mining pool operators in practice, every individual miner can switch from one pool to another almost instantly, so if a coalition of mining pool operators decides to start violating the Bitcoin protocol miners can simply switch to any pool that remains honest, instantly depriving the ... Bitcoin, as we all know by now, involves using considerable computing power to solve complex equations, and once solved you are rewarded with an amount of Bitcoins. The equations you’re solving ... In his book Radical Technologies, the urban designer Adam Greenfield calls cryptocurrency and blockchain the first technology that’s “just fundamentally difficult for otherwise intelligent and highly capable people to understand.” I was relieved when I read this, because I have been pretending to understand cryptocurrencies—digital money based in code-breaking—for years. Bitcoin is ... Bitcoin mining is analogous to the mining of gold, but its digital form. The process involves specialized computers solving algorithmic equations or hash functions. These problems help miners to confirm blocks of transactions held within the network. Bitcoin mining provides a reward for miners by paying out in Bitcoin in turn the miners confirm ... The energy efficiency of bitcoin miners have already been improved by a factor of about 10,000, and we claim that further improvements are inevitable. Better technology is bound to be invented ...
Recorded with https://screencast-o-matic.com. This video is unavailable. Watch Queue Queue In this video I try to breakdown the "cryptographic problem" that people reference when they talk about bitcoin mining. This is a short video on solving equations with radicals and rational exponents. 2:18 As Bitcoin’s popularity skyrockets, more miners are being added to the network. Ultimately, this makes it difficult for individual users to solve the math equations. To get past this ... https://www.bitcoinofamerica.org When most people hear the term “mining”, they imagine coins being dug out of the ground, however Bitcoin mining is completel...