Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:The simple Economics of it all: (Score 2) 185

>> The 1MB block, what does it store exactly? What happens when it fills up under the current implementation? Is Joe unable to send Jack the 0.0000001 bitcoin? Is it really laggy? Do the records of some old transactions get discarded?

Quantamann, Block size limitation and a vastly popular bitcoin will together mean that (1) Joe will either have to pony up a fair market fee, or (b) use lightning network add-on, or (c) find another off-chain way to send his minuscule transaction.

As an example, currently, the network is constantly spammed by bots sending 10-8 bitcoins around the world, because it is all-but-free to spam. But, Gavin is still "worried" about this capability disappearing.

The result of increasing block sizes too much will mean that only very few people will run full nodes. It will mean centralization. Already, a very small fraction runs full nodes any more. Like other developers say, THIS is what the main crisis is that the network is facing, and the integrity of the network is hanging by a thread.

Ironically and amusingly, Gavin argues that *not* increasing the blocksize will lead to centralization.
   

Comment The simple Economics of it all: (Score 5, Interesting) 185

The cost of you (a) sending a bitcoin is borne by: (b) miner, (c) users running nodes - who have to store and verify your transaction for all eternity.

The miner and sender arrive at a fair price in this free market. Neat, right?

But, you do see that that conclusion rests on (c) being negligible, right? And, that's where the block size debate comes in.

Already, people's hard drives (and backups) are filling up because Joe sent Jack some 0.0000001 bitcoin somewhere. Imagine your hard drive, and everyone's hard drive filling up every time one of the billion users sends another of the billion users one cent for a negligible cost (because cost above 0 is free extra money to the miner.)

If blocksizes are not limited, (a) and (b) together maximize their profit by externalizing their costs to (c) where the cost gets amplified manifold.

Mr. Gavin, who *drove* away Satoshi by going to CIA, and conveniently declared himself bitcoin's successor fails to understand both the economics and the technicalities.

The fact is that people like Maxwell (the real horses who do most of the bitcoin heavy lifting and who understand the technology and economics of bitcoin far better than Gavin) were dousing out fires even with the 1MB blocksize, even as Gavin was running a public campaign to increase the limit even further.

All the other developers know this ... that the (self-declared, in-name-only) emperor has no clothes. Gavin also knows very well that he has no power to unleash his silly idea on other developers, so he's decided to fork it.

His idea has barely any support among any person who's the who's who of bitcoin's technical world. Yet, he falsely declared to the public that he has, not just majority support, but vast consensus for his idea.

He used to publicly say that he believes in being very conservative, and that not breaking bitcoin is his first focus above all. This sudden change is weird and hard-to-believe.

But, public and all the noise aside, the miners and big nodes have real economic interests. So, they employ actual technical people. And, indeed, Gavin's idea has found very little support not just among developers, but among all the large economic entities in this world.

That's what this fork is, then. A lot of noise.

Gavin has always been mainly a PR person. And, it shows. It really shows. PR people are very good at declaring themselves in charge, even as other developers are quietly snickering at their stupid pronouncements.

With this fork, he's basically taken himself out of the loop. Win-win, I say.

 

Comment Re:Moon Zero? (Score 2) 147

You kidding me, right?

With a Mars colony, unlike with a moon colony, there's hope. Hope of creating a self-sustaining colony. A backup for the human race.

ALL the world's problems you worry about everyday pale in comparison to that one single problem. Poverty, Racism, republicans, democrats (yes, they're both problems, aren't they?), global warming, dictatorships, mass murder are all tiny, tiny, non-issues compared to this one problem: We, as a species, have no backup.

Comment In a way, we are already there. (Score 1) 503

As I heard an economist once say, almost all but the poorest in the poorest of countries have their basic needs taken care of. Very few starve, at least in the West.

Beyond that, all our efforts - for a bigger house, or for a BMW, for example - are really about status.

Whether it is about reputation or prestige or status, the much-vilified money is just a convenient measuring unit to keep track of said status.

Comment Post should have clarified: (Score 4, Informative) 179

Post should have clarified, lest it send the wrong message to those not familiar:

"This did not compromise the bitcoin protocol or network or anything like that."

The main gist of the story really is simply: Some who took (incorrect) shortcuts paid the price for it by foregoing some profits.

Comment Re:Old, old news (Score 2) 157

>> First off, does that even mean anything? What units is the "scale" of a universe expressed in?

Well, I had the same question, so I RTFA'd a bit ;-).

The zoom-factor of universe in the article is defined thusly, not too unreasonably, IMO:

The scale of observable universe divided by Plank Length (the smallest length, by some definitions.)

And, this is "only" 65 orders of magnitude. Whereas, they have zoomed in the Mandelbrot by some 200 orders, finding the same features and self-similarity even after so much zooming in.

Comment Just to keep things in perspective: (Score 5, Interesting) 356

While the Government of India may be trying to ban it and the some conservative rednecks of the country hold crazy views, it seems that the majority doesn't..

It is the same Indians that are mass-protesting in response to rapes, to corruption, and want safe streets for themselves and their women: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

It is the same Indians that are drawing attention to this problem in the first place, through documentaries like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

While its society and people have ways to go to catch up with the West, India is like an oasis in the fucked-up desert of a region it is surrounded by. A culture of male-dominance and women hiding their own rapes - in shame - is endemic pretty much everywhere outside of West. It is again nice to see this society trying to challenge and change it.

Problems like these exist and have always existed. The poorer the country, the more prevalent they are. It is actually nice to see the /people/ of India stand up, bring increased attention to these problems, and demand that something be done about this.

In other words, we can think of one monolithic India and take this time to mock their poor for lacking running water and shitting in the open... Or, instead, we can stand with and encourage those Indians that are trying to highlight these problems...

Especially outside of West, corruption is the /norm/. It is again somewhat encouraging that the middle class of India went crazy demonstrating against it and elected a local Government in the capital whose sole agenda is freedom from corruption.

Through all this, it is heartening how the people of India demand a secular, safe, corruption-free, democratic society and are, by and large, very "Westernized" in their views.

Crazee Edeee, his prices are INSANE!!!

Working...