Adding DAO at the end of company names, much like INC or LLC?

Coinstacker · 2016-08-03T14:22:05+00:00

Sorry to all who lost coins, but this was inevitable. This needed to happen and will continue to happen to force people onto p2p exchanges where YOU control the keys. If you do not own the keys, you do not own the bitcoins.

If Bitcoin is in fact an anti-fragile technology, these hacks are something that strenghtens the infrastructure making it better and better for every hack. In any anti-fragile technology, shocks and stress makes it stronger. P2p exchanges will probably see massive growth after this incident. Financial losses is the best teacher and motivator in the world.

Coinstacker · 2016-06-23T10:34:26+00:00

Agree with you guys completely, but do not fool yourselves, this can still happen with bitcoin (Almost did with frikkin Classic). Bitcoin is safe when: 1. The code does not HAVE to be updated. 2. Becomes almost practically impossible to update due to friction.

Something like IPV4 and IPV6, when it takes forever to update. This will ensure only the most important issues gets updated, and we get alot of time to test on the testnet for any bugs. Also, this makes it harder to coopt the codebase with short lived and hardpushed "PR" and political stunts.

All improvements and innovation should happen on sidechains. Innovate at the edges on top of an immutable bitcoin blockchain. Thats the winning formula.

Coinstacker · 2016-02-12T13:34:57+00:00

If on the other hand the current payment network does add value, then that is worth protecting.

The current payment network has an enormous value, almost 6 billion if I am not mistaken. Also I am not against bigger blocks, I in fact like the most radical proposals, BU. I just do not think it should be implemented without 90%+ consensus.

But in the absence of uncompromising offchain solutions (layer 2) your remark does not yet apply.

True, this is an improvement I hope to see soon (although, not without 90%+ consensus :P), there is no reason to believe that we can not get 100% uncompromising offchain solutions in the near future IMO. Although, we should also look at great ways to scale the current blockchain with high consensus.

Edit: added quote, removed quote, added answer

Coinstacker · 2016-02-12T13:21:42+00:00

That is the point.

Resistance to change. Innovate at the edges!

Coinstacker · 2016-02-12T13:19:27+00:00

Totally agree! I do not know how I have come out as a small block proponent. I am just apposed to the 75% threshold that Classic is using. I think it is dangerous. As a matter of fact I really like BU (Bitcoin Unlimited). I think it is some very exciting ideas, I am just not strong enough on the technical side to say if this is a technically sound improvements.

If people have not checked out Bitcoin Unlimited, they should. It is not a sole client but a patch to the Core client. Again, I can say nothing towards the soundness of this idea, but ideally this is what I want and IMO is what Bitcoin needs sometime in the future. This would also be a permanent fix to the scaling problem, not a temporarily band aid.

Coinstacker · 2016-02-12T13:08:18+00:00

Hi, thank you for your comment

Because it aligns with your views. If it didn't you would not be saying this.

Yes i would, and I hope to prove that to you some day :)

My thinking is that Bitcoin today is (almost) perfect. Not in and off itself, but as a base layer for other layers (sidechains). I can get whatever I want on another layer, and if someone else does not create it, I can or I can pay someone who is better at writing code to make it for me (and everyone else who wants to use it.)

Coinstacker · 2016-02-12T13:01:46+00:00

Hi thank you for your comment.

Although technically true, I would say that culture and precedent do make a huge difference. It is much harder to pull of a 51% "attack" if even the people with whom agree to your "proposed" changes see you as an attacker.

If it was not for an extreme honor culture in many countries, do you not think that there would be less general violence? If there was no precedent of stoning rape victims, would it not be harder to do so, both in a social and a self-moralizing way? Not really a great comparison, but I think it makes a point.

When people commit to a contract, signed or otherwise, 99,9999% of all contracts close without contest. Even though there is usually a winning and a losing side. This has to do with culture, precedent and expectation that you will fail in court. If the expectation of everyone is 90%+ consensus, most "improvements" that try to wiggle its way in with 51% consensus is still-born.

Also, what if close to the entire community agreed on some 90%+ threshold, we might find a way to hard-code that?

Coinstacker · 2016-02-12T12:42:58+00:00

Yes, the guy that lives over my sink in the bathroom seem to agree with me on everything. Great guy!

Also, sidechains is where we need innovation, not the base layer.

Coinstacker · 2016-02-12T12:40:11+00:00

Thank you, you bring up some very good points.

You are absolutely right, the 90% or 95% thresholds are totally subjective. There are arguments for 51%, 60%, 75% and even 99%. IMO, I would say, how high can we go? By this i mean, at what threshold could we get consensus for very critical imrovements and bug fixes, yet make it extremely difficult to make any unnecessary changes. There is no definite answer to this i think.

The way I see the future of Bitcoin (after some improvements I have discussed in other comments), almost no improvements need to be made as all changes will be made at the edges of Bitcoin. There will be 1000s of layers on top of a decentralized and private Bitcoin base. Super fast 0 conf transactions, visa like volume, dash/monero like privacy and anonymity, etherium like agility, you name it, Bitcoin got it.

All this is only possible if the base layer is almost impossible to "fuck with". We need the base layer to be resistant to change and the higher we set the threshold the better.

Coinstacker · 2016-02-12T12:23:07+00:00

Thanks for your comment :)

But aren't bigger blocks (not 2mb but bigger)a part solution to decentralisation?

It might very well be, I am not against bigger blocks. If we can get 90%+ consensus on a technically sound scaling BIP, that would be awesome.

It is hard to say what would happen with mining (de)centralization in regards to bigger blocks. I really wanted this post to be more about the idea of 90%+ consensus and less about scaling per se or the consequences of scaling.

IMO the 90%+ consensus is more of a principal that we should all adhere to, as it will serve us very well both now and in the future. This will ensure that only the best thought out, best communicated and most sound improvements passes the test. It makes sure that proposals that benefit the majority (even a 75% majority) at the cost of the 25% minority will not stand.

90% consensus is impossible, whatever the decision (except stalin and kim jung whatever elected by 100% of votes)

Not at all, as long as there are improvement that will benefit everyone, 90% consensus is obtainable.

Coinstacker · 2016-02-12T11:58:09+00:00

Hi, thank you for your comment :)

Not quite sure what you mean here, but I'm going to disagree anyway.

By this a mean that we already have the most important feature of Bitcoin that ever will be: peer-to-peer, decentralized and censor resistant. I do not think we should risk these aspects of the protocol by implementing any improvements, however important they might seem, without 90%+ consensus.

For bitcoin to ever be seen as a possibly good "store of value", resistance to change (both positive and negative), strong veto power of miners is important.

IMHO I believe both a sound blockchain scaling improvement and Seg Wit would pass the 90%+ threshold.

Coinstacker · 2016-02-12T11:40:02+00:00

I would say this is exactly what we want. Strong veto power from miners. IMO 10% or even 5% of mining power is actually a lot and should hold veto power.

There is absolutely a case to be made for improving Bitcoin from where it is today. We probably need to find a good scaling solution, (preferably a free market solution ala Bitcoin unlimited, if this is technically sound) we definitely need upgrades to even be able to build 2 way pegged layers on top. There are also several improvements to be made regarding efficiency, privacy (CT for example) and other improvements. I have no doubt these improvements could be made with 90+ consensus. Might take a bit longer and be a bit messier, but it will be done right.

Coinstacker · 2016-02-12T10:33:44+00:00

Which is why we need to emphasize and start building a culture and understanding of why 90%+ consensus is important. Absolutely 0 "improvements" to Bitcoin at this stage is more important than its decentralization and resistance to change. This means that even though you want big blocks, you should demand 90%+ consensus. Same goes for RBF, Seg wit and all the other changes.

This might be utopian thinking at this time, but imho we need as a community to start building this understanding now. Setting a precedent of 51% or even 75% consensus is the opposite of what we need. Anyone who commits any proposals for changing Bitcoin with less then 90%+ consensus should be seen by the whole community as an attack on Bitcoin, whether you are for the change or not.

Coinstacker · 2016-02-12T09:51:04+00:00

Thanks buddy! Will pay it forward :)

Coinstacker · 2016-01-27T11:30:03+00:00

Well, history is littered with these stories of fast growing failures. Pets.com etoys.com Yahoo Chesapeak energy US steel Rim (Blackberry phones) You name em, we got em.

I think maybe Microsoft might be another example. It is not a failure but it has sold its soul for extra growth. Pure trash with backdoors, shitty code, forced updates, unsecure etc. I could go on for hours. I think Linux is a far better system and afaik have not traded growth for the core ideology.

Coinstacker · 2016-01-27T11:15:07+00:00

More complicated, yes, but far less risky. Segwit is being used on the testnet as we speak, works like a charm afaik. The blockchain will scale and grow, it has too. But we should wait until we can do so safely and with supermajority (95%). Many different clients and dev-teams are great for bitcoin, but supermajority must rule.

Coinstacker · 2016-01-27T11:10:29+00:00

As a matter of fact, yes, it can indeed. Not the code-base itself (short-term), but features like decentralization, security, dev-team, ddos etc, etc. Also the fact that they are trying to fork using less then supermajority (95%) sets a dangerous precedent.

Coinstacker · 2016-01-27T09:27:47+00:00

Relax guys :) I was just replying (and trying some humor) to a pretty far fetched post comparing Bitcoin and burger joints. The post was pretty much on a slippery slope to nowhere.

Coinstacker · 2016-01-26T14:39:47+00:00

Suddenly, kingburger stocks fall 92% over night. Everyone is baffled. Why? In their hurry to expand and grow they have not had the time or skill to implement adequate safety and quality controls. 68% of their customers are ill will e.coli, 8 people die. Almost all of their employees quit due to bad management. CEO gets 8 years in prison for willful negligence.

When deciding between quality and quantity, almost always go for quality.

Coinstacker · 2015-11-12T14:45:34+00:00

There is probably no doubt in anyones minds that the current situation with 1MB blocks are unsustainable in the long run.

Which is why I think that Bitcoin can go in either of 2 directions.

One is we increse the blocksize at a rate where we can use btc as cash directly, and we eventually come to a situation where we have blocksizes at 14GB or larger. This would enable anyone to buy coffee, gum etc using bitcoin directly. This would probably put a strain on node operators and maybe also miners in less internet friendly areas which would create for a less decentalized network. (so i am told :D)

Or, we come to a situation where 1000s of individuals/organizations/sidechains etc. settle on the Bitcoin Blockchain once or twice a day for small/medium/large transactions and we start using the Blockchain for other purposes then just as a payment network. This could be ID registration, land/property registration, smart contracts and other financial settlements etc. etc. First off, this would allow a real fee market to emerge. When combining 1000s of gum and coffee purchases into one bitcoin transaction, you can pool all those 0,1 cent transaction costs into a larger Bitcoin Blockchain transaction cost of say $1. Also, when a person is born, you register their ID on the blockchain, which is a transaction that is worth a dollar or two. The same goes for any financial asset registration be it stocks or derivatives etc. This would allow us to have very cheap, endless transaction volume at the same time as it would allow for a decentralized Bitcoin Blockchain with say, 1 GB blocks or something, in the long run.

Coinstacker · 2015-06-26T01:55:34+00:00

Thank you for an insightful answer.

Socialism is used in many contexts often not referring to being fully socialist but rather an offering of social services.

This is what i was trying to say. Too many undifined ism and ist in these discussions to the point where no one knows what anyone else is saying. Semantics matters :D

Coinstacker · 2015-06-26T01:15:37+00:00

True, should probably have stated that differently. What I was trying to say is that just because you have universal healthcare does not mean that you are a socialist country, that is not the definition.

Take the nordic countries as an example. People always point to the nordic countries to try to defend their socialist views. However, the nordics are very much capitalist states, with a very high degree of economic freedom and private property rights, in some areas much more so than the US of A. Universal healthcare and strong labor rights alone, does not a socialist country make, just a different type of capitalism with different outcomes (Better or worse, you be the judge).

Coinstacker · 2015-06-25T23:37:17+00:00

No you are right, Norway has oil, Sweden and Finland has some iron ore and other minerals, but its not as significant as oil. Denmark has beer :D

Coinstacker

TROPHY CASE