Bitcoin 2.0 aka "pass" the fork, please? [article]
Current time: 11-23-2017, 05:41 AM
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Author: eye2i2hear
Last Post: Andy
Replies: 10
Views: 7611

Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bitcoin 2.0 aka "pass" the fork, please? [article]
08-19-2015, 09:32 AM
Post: #1
Bitcoin 2.0 aka "pass" the fork, please? [article]
Investigating
someone @ WIRED.com Wrote:The Bitcoin Schism Shows The Genius Of Open Source
Cade Metz 08.19.15.
[Image: STORY-Bitcoin_Split-582x437.jpg]
Mike Hearn is one of the primary engineers behind bitcoin, the digital currency that aims to remake our financial system. Or at least he used to be. Over the weekend, Hearn told the world that he and a group of other coders were forking the bitcoin project, creating an alternate version of the software that underpins the digital currency.

“I feel sad that it’s come to this, but there is no other way,” Hearn wrote in an email to others working on the project. “The Bitcoin Core project has drifted so far from the principles myself and many others feel are important that a fork is the only way to fix things.”

Bitcoin, you see, runs on open source software, software that’s freely available to the world at large, software that anyone can not only use but change. A fork is the ultimate change, where someone makes a copy of the code and creates an entirely separate version of the project. This is quite common in the world of open source software—a world that now drives so much of the technology we use every day. Open source code is built on consensus, and sometimes, if coders feel a consensus can’t be reached, they fork.

Hearn’s fork could significantly change the direction of bitcoin. Known as Bitcoin XT, the fork is backed by another notable bitcoin engineer, Gavin Andresen, previously lead maintainer of the bitcoin project, and basically, it aims to modify the bitcoin software so that it can rapidly handle a much larger number of online transactions. This could be essential as bitcoin expands to an ever larger number of people and organizations—and as its underlying tech moves into stock trading and other financial markets. But other coders on the original bitcoin project, a.k.a. Bitcoin Core, believe there are better ways of accommodating more transactions. The dispute may ultimately decide whether the project succeeds or fails—especially if all this ends with no real consensus and the bitcoin project remains permanently split, the sum of the parts not quite as powerful as the whole.

At the same time, Bitcoin XT provides an unusually clear window onto the world of open source, an extreme example that demonstrates why, despite or even because of the current strife, this idea is so effective—why it’s so quickly changing the way our world works. Bitcoin XT exposes the extremely social—extremely democratic—underpinnings of the open source idea, an approach that makes open source so much more powerful than technology controlled by any one person or organization.

The Power of Consensus
A fork may seem like a divisive thing. And, at times, it is. But it can also provide a way of building consensus, a way of forcing the broader community to get behind one idea or another. Ultimately, that’s what open source is all about: building things with as many minds as possible. Yes, that old saw so often holds true. “Two minds are better one.” But that’s not all. If more people are building and using a project, it evolves faster. It’s capable of more. A bitcoin uses by many people is more powerful than a bitcoin used by few.

Sure, some people fork a project just because they want to tinker with the code or create something entirely new. But it’s also a way of resolving disputes within an existing community of coders. The majority may stay with the original project. It may move to the fork. Or it might force the two projects to resolve their differences and recombine. The fork forces an implicit vote on the ideas at hand. Witness io.js, a fork of the popular node.je project. It bought detente to a community split by disagreement.

“A fork can be a market mechanism,” says Jim Zemlin, the director of the Linux Foundation, the not-for-profit that oversees the Linux open source operating system and many other important open source projects. “It’s a forcing function to reach consensus.” Bitcoin XT is a prime example—though it goes even further than the norm.

The difference is that bitcoin isn’t just a piece of software code. It’s a piece of software code that runs a worldwide network of otherwise independent machines. Working in concert, these machines drive the bitcoin digital currency. They provide a way of storing money, sending it, and receiving it. So, in forking the core bitcoin code, Hearn and Andresen are also moving to fork the bitcoin network. And that’s where things get interesting.

Basically, Hearn and Andresen want to increase the size of the “blocks” that identify transactions on the network. Right now, the blocks are one megabyte in size; they want to raise this to eight megabytes. If you increase the block size, you can increase the number of transactions the network can process each second. Some think there are better options than raising the block size—“many people think this path is fraught with too many security vulnerabilities,” says longtime bitcoin coder Eric Lombrozo—but Hearn and Andresen disagree.

But they haven’t increased the block size just yet. They’ve said they will implement the increase only if 75 percent of the machines on the network adopt their fork. They haven’t just arranged for an implicit vote. They’ve established a very direct referendum. It’s open source in the extreme.

The Genius of the Blockchain
The particulars of this dispute may seem trivial. But the nature of bitcoin also ensures that those involved in the project will take all this deeply seriously. After all, money is at stake: the machines on the network store and even generate money. If the 75 percent majority is reached, the other 25 percent may even have good reason to adopt the change too. Otherwise, the value of their money—and their infrastructure—will change.

“In that way, it’s quite different from other projects because there’s that common economic interest,” says Angel Leon, a developer who works on the bitcoin software. “The genius of the blockchain consensus doesn’t just protect the blockchain from malicious attacks. It also ensures a democratic process in the evolution of the protocol.”

Certainly, the majority may choose the wrong path. They may choose the option that brings the system crashing down. The crowds aren’t always wise. “If the community is sharply and bitterly divided it could spell disaster if something does go wrong and people refuse to cooperate out of spite,” Lombrozo says. But in the world of open source, the democratic majority is often guided by individuals—individuals with more talent and skill and wherewithal than the rest.

The Linux operating system—the granddaddy of open source software, the code that runs everything from Google to Facebook to Twitter—is very much a democracy. But the project is still led by its creator, Linus Torvalds. People tend to follow what he says. He has the track record. “This is a social activity,” says one senior advisor to the Linux Foundation. “Everyone agrees that they can trust Linus.” In the bitcoin world, there are other leaders.

The Absent Leader
Many people will put their trust in Hearn and Andresen. Hearn is an ex-Googler with a long history on the project. Andresen is one of the earliest bitcoin coders. He served as lead maintainer for a time. And he’s still bitcoin’s official chief scientist, according to the Bitcoin Foundation, the not-for-profit that oversees the project, at least on some level. But the community will also look to another: Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous founder of the project.

The trouble is that no one knows who Satoshi is. And he has disappeared from the project. Certainly, his presence is still felt. His original bitcoin proposal remains. But he can’t say what he really wants.

At the moment, both sides of the argument say that they are acting in the true spirit of the project, that they are doing what Satoshi would have done. “Satoshi was very clear about what he wanted. My article quotes him to prove this,” Hearn tells WIRED. Meanwhile, someone pretending to be Satoshi has popped up to say the opposite. “The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth,” he wrote in an online post.

In a way, this faux Satoshi nicely demonstrates the open source idea. Leaders can guide the people. But ultimately, it’s the people who decide. Separate from what any one individual does or says, the majority will rule. That’s the power of open source. As the faux Satoshi put it: “Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto. Nearly everyone has to agree on a change.”
--support the source: www.WIRED.com

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-15-2016, 09:14 AM
Post: #2
The resolution of the Bitcoin experiment
Mike Hearn Wrote:

Quote:The resolution of the Bitcoin experiment

I’ve spent more than 5 years being a Bitcoin developer. The software I’ve written has been used by millions of users, hundreds of developers, and the talks I’ve given have led directly to the creation of several startups. I’ve talked about Bitcoin on Sky TV and BBC News. I have been repeatedly cited by the Economist as a Bitcoin expert and prominent developer. I have explained Bitcoin to the SEC, to bankers and to ordinary people I met at cafes.

From the start, I’ve always said the same thing: Bitcoin is an experiment and like all experiments, it can fail. So don’t invest what you can’t afford to lose. I’ve said this in interviews, on stage at conferences, and over email. So have other well known developers like Gavin Andresen and Jeff Garzik.

But despite knowing that Bitcoin could fail all along, the now inescapable conclusion that it has failed still saddens me greatly. The fundamentals are broken and whatever happens to the price in the short term, the long term trend should probably be downwards. I will no longer be taking part in Bitcoin development and have sold all my coins.

Read the rest here.

Can anybody delegate an authority they don't have?
Was anybody born with innate authority over anybody else?
Then how did authority nobody had get delegated to those who call themselves government?

Show me my personally signed contract wherein I consented to be governed.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-15-2016, 03:23 PM
Post: #3
RE: Bitcoin 2.0 aka "pass" the fork, please? [article]
WHAT BACKS A BITCOIN?????????????????????????????????????????????????
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-15-2016, 07:23 PM (This post was last modified: 01-15-2016 07:23 PM by gearheadmm.)
Post: #4
RE: Bitcoin 2.0 aka "pass" the fork, please? [article]
(01-15-2016 03:23 PM)gearheadmm Wrote:  WHAT BACKS A BITCOIN?????????????????????????????????????????????????

Non answer.
See Basel III
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-15-2016, 07:35 PM
Post: #5
RE: Bitcoin 2.0 aka "pass" the fork, please? [article]
The two clearest thinkers I've read with regards to money are E.C. Riegel: http://www.newapproachtofreedom.info/

And Paul Grignon:
Quote:
How to turn 9 trillion dollars of Impossible Bank Debt
payable only in money that does not exist

into
9 trillion dollars of New Funding
payable in goods and/or services ONLY


Money as Debt III - Evolution Beyond Money, parts 1, 3 & 4 have been online for four years. Part 2 was uploaded October 2015. It presents a proposed self-issued credit system of money.
Money as Debt III - Evolution Beyond Money - Part 2 of 4
"This third and final movie in the Money as Debt trilogy presents a comprehensive picture of how “money” could work in the future. It is a blueprint full of surprising specifics for creating a whole new system applied with technologies that exist right now."





--&e

What’s the difference between the government and the mafia?
The mafia doesn’t have a twelve year indoctrination system to convince you it’s not organized crime. ~ Brett Veinotte
Government public "education"/indoctrination is child abuse.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-16-2016, 01:46 PM
Post: #6
RE: Bitcoin 2.0 aka "pass" the fork, please? [article]
(01-15-2016 03:23 PM)gearheadmm Wrote:  WHAT BACKS A BITCOIN?????????????????????????????????????????????????

WHAT BACKS A BIT'O'GOLD?????????????????????????????????????????????????

Secret (hint: people's valuing of both!? one's just had a bit'o'more time than the other?)

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-16-2016, 03:11 PM
Post: #7
RE: Bitcoin 2.0 aka "pass" the fork, please? [article]
He who owns the gold, makes the rules. Back in the day it was the gold smith turned banker. He who issues the credit makes the rules, banksters. Self-issued credit rules. Essentially a voucher for something specific. A good or service that has limited supply valued according to the limited self issued credit.

--&e

What’s the difference between the government and the mafia?
The mafia doesn’t have a twelve year indoctrination system to convince you it’s not organized crime. ~ Brett Veinotte
Government public "education"/indoctrination is child abuse.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-16-2016, 05:45 PM (This post was last modified: 01-16-2016 05:48 PM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #8
RE: Bitcoin 2.0 aka "pass" the fork, please? [article]
(01-16-2016 03:11 PM)Andy Wrote:  He who owns the gold, makes the rules.

He who makes the quips, owns the rule.? Cool Angel

Put another way: He who owns the god, makes the rules. ?

Another: He who owns the gun, makes the rules. ?
(who held The Gun when it came to "dollars" being only gold & silver, George Cherry Tree Washington?)

Hypothesis formulation: if enough folks dropped their belief in "gold", where would the gold be?
My probability 2cents: on the tech & jewelry markets like other commodities?
And the (scarcity) power (aka the rules) would be.... where/what/how?

Which is not to wave away that belief in gold as having high value hasn't sustained, on average, age upon age (in Western Cults'ures at least).
Hell Heaven's no /snarcasm.
You know, like how superstition sustains age to age.? Stare
And belief in Authorities/Governments/States? Blush

Rather, merely to ask, how is it not purely subjective (see also speculative?), and thus dogma for gearheadmm¹, as any different from bitcoin as a value for another?

________________
fwiw, for my money [sic], i don't want a mere measly one or two items e.g. gold or/& silver-- as reliant upon their own market value --for it's "backing"; rather, make it 'backed' by redeemable in aka barter-able with at least 4, preferably 6 such valued commodities as an aggregate thereof, with rotatability of any of them as the market trends tend to do.? Certificates of Deposits anyone?
For example, why not make a pound dollar (as a specified weight for metal, like a gallon is for liquids) presently backed by the combined/averaged market value of 1.) bitcoin, 2.) wheat 3.) petroleum, 4.) platinum, 5.) gold and 6.) electricity.? Or if another institute preferred, they'd offer to rotate any one of those out for one or two of your choice on demand? Say make 6.) an iPhone? Or 2.) corn? Or 3.) whiskey (aye, "1791 Republic's Whiskey Tax rebels"!?)?
And if per chance one wants physical gold to be minted as their money, have gold as money value pinned to/bound with 4-6 other market commodities as well!?

What's "wrong" with paper-cloth money so long as it's backed by, aka redeemable in upon demand, such commodities? (silver certificates market value certificates anyone?

Was not the primary reason for making money in the past, literally out of silver and gold because of it's least-corrosive (sustaining) factors?
Why should that value not be transferable to any equally practical store of value?
bonus: when does a belief become a dogma? And a dogma to be preached? Say, when a value of being practical as less-corrosive (as a market factor) shifts to becoming an "intrinsic" value (as a religious/faith factor)?
[put banks back on the boardwalk market as a product but without the monopoly shoe thimble dog gun under the board!]

1. who wants to wager as to probability that the most persuasive factor with gearheadmm yammering on about "nothing" backing bitcoin, has to do with his religious/superstitious belief in "The Republic" and it's "Constitutional money" dogma...?
2. whether what one's money is barter-able with being at least 3 major food staples e.g. corn, beans, tomatoes, etc is a wiser establishment, well, count your capitatech blessings if you don't see the long term value in that? (remember when AM radios & tape players were another Day's iPhone?)

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-16-2016, 06:08 PM
Post: #9
RE: Bitcoin 2.0 aka "pass" the fork, please? [article]
Basel III bank regs require that something physical back all curencys.
Gold, silver, beer, race gas, dope, or what ever.
No backing makes a currency FIAT. SHIDT, WORTHLESS.


WHAT BACKS A BITCOIN???????????????
Tired of asking this question.

I'll sell you a bicoin mine?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-16-2016, 06:45 PM (This post was last modified: 01-16-2016 06:46 PM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #10
RE: Bitcoin 2.0 aka "pass" the fork, please? [article]
(01-16-2016 06:08 PM)gearheadmm Wrote:  Basel III bank regs require that something physical back all curencys.
Gold, silver, beer, race gas, dope, or what ever.
No backing makes a currency FIAT. SHIDT, WORTHLESS.

See the religious spiel?

gearheadmm declares it, thus IT IS SO!!!

Tunnel vision much?

Secret (see too, he didn't "cuss" or "swear" or use "profanity" caused he spelled it "SHIDT" *snicker*snickers*hee-hee-hee --that's how dogma and "Republics" and kindergarten playgrounds works apparently?)

Quote:WHAT BACKS A BITCOIN???????????????
Tired of asking this question.
Yawning Snooze

WHAT BACKS A BIT'o'GOLD???????????????
Tired2 of asking this question.

[look, his Gold IS FIAT, as FACT: it has NOTHING backing it!?! Stare /snarcasm]

Quote:I'll sell you a bicoin mine?

No thanks, i already have one!?
(you can have one too, of course; say, isn't that how gold minds aka tunnel visions work too?)

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-16-2016, 07:19 PM
Post: #11
RE: Bitcoin 2.0 aka "pass" the fork, please? [article]
I want to exchange my values, be it labor or business good and services for food, clothes, house, car, computer and etc. I don't want gold, bitcoins and certainly not fancy pieces of paper/fiat paper.

I'll take a widely circulated digital voucher/credit certificate for something specific that I do want/need. A basket of goods and services is a way to bootstrap a wide appeal "system" of self issued credit. More about that at the link in my earlier post above the video. The video explains why money as a thing in itself such as gold, silver, fiat paper and bitcoin has been problematic, historically. The primary problem/snafu has been twice (thrice or more) lent money increases the money supply absent a corollary value to backing it.

The way I see it, more than money, people want goods and services. With a widely used "system" self-issued credit, banking would at most, become a cottage "industry".

--&e

What’s the difference between the government and the mafia?
The mafia doesn’t have a twelve year indoctrination system to convince you it’s not organized crime. ~ Brett Veinotte
Government public "education"/indoctrination is child abuse.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)