Buying bitcoins

makeorbrake

Been trying to get up to speed on this whole forking thing ('forking' should possibly be spelt differently in this instance..).


The whole idea with BTC from the get go was decentralisation. Who are the dev's that have the power to effect change? i.e. implementation of a soft fork OR bringing about a hard fork?

I've been reading through an argument that suggests that it was always envisaged that BTC would hard fork every so often - and that the market would decide the outcome - that the market is great at correcting itself. That all sounds rosy but is it as simple as that?

The market - which I take to be those that have skin the game - could simply get it wrong. Are there not bugs in B.U.? Will the market be mindful of what this could mean if it is otherwise successfully implemented? i.e. too much power placed in the hands of too few - allowing big commercial miners to dictate things?

Otherwise, some seem to think that blocksize can be increased incrementally as we go forward whilst others think that will only kick the can down the road to the next forking crisis.


Anyone have the knowledge re. the above?

BrokenArrows

makeorbrake wrote: »

Been trying to get up to speed on this whole forking thing ('forking' should possibly be spelt differently in this instance..).


The whole idea with BTC from the get go was decentralisation. Who are the dev's that have the power to effect change? i.e. implementation of a soft fork OR bringing about a hard fork?

I've been reading through an argument that suggests that it was always envisaged that BTC would hard fork every so often - and that the market would decide the outcome - that the market is great at correcting itself. That all sounds rosy but is it as simple as that?

The market - which I take to be those that have skin the game - could simply get it wrong. Are there not bugs in B.U.? Will the market be mindful of what this could mean if it is otherwise successfully implemented? i.e. too much power placed in the hands of too few - allowing big commercial miners to dictate things?

Otherwise, some seem to think that blocksize can be increased incrementally as we go forward whilst others think that will only kick the can down the road to the next forking crisis.


Anyone have the knowledge re. the above?

The developers are everyone. Bitcoin is an open source project hosted on github and anyone can submit changes. If your changes are approved then it becomes part of the code. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin
There are some "core" developers who approve the changes but all changes are visible to everyone.

makeorbrake

BrokenArrows wrote: »

The developers are everyone. Bitcoin is an open source project hosted on github and anyone can submit changes. If your changes are approved then it becomes part of the code. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin
There are some "core" developers who approve the changes but all changes are visible to everyone.

Ok, but how do you become a 'core' developer? If one of us suggests SegWit and the other suggests B.U., is there a group that can decide which route forwards gets approved? Is there a group that decides that a hard fork is taken instead?

I get that it's origins are in open source. I just wonder if it still maintains that integrity in practice and even if it does, is this a major hindrance for the currency?

BrokenArrows

makeorbrake wrote: »

Ok, but how do you become a 'core' developer? If one of us suggests SegWit and the other suggests B.U., is there a group that can decide which route forwards gets approved? Is there a group that decides that a hard fork is taken instead?

I get that it's origins are in open source. I just wonder if it still maintains that integrity in practice and even if it does, is this a major hindrance for the currency?

The "core" developers are basically those who contribute the most and actively review the submitted changes.

The original creator handed control to Gavin Andresen because he made himself an active contributor.
Gavin then handed control to Wladimir J. van der Laan be he was an active member.

Other members have made themselves "core" developers by just developing. There is no official hiring process.

I believe there are some forms where discussions take place about big changes.
But other discussions ocurr on the pull requests on github.

So you submit your change, justify it and discuss whether is good or bad or whatever and the majority will decide what to do.

pro_gnostic_8

makeorbrake wrote: »

The whole idea with BTC from the get go was decentralisation. Who are the dev's that have the power to effect change? i.e. implementation of a soft fork OR bringing about a hard fork?

As said earlier by another poster, it is the network that decides. The consensus rule.
If a rule change is to be effected it requires near-unanimity -- requires a consensus of 95% of the hash power across the network. If the change is successful in gaining 95% of miners and full nodes support, then the particular change is incorporated into the protocol. A Soft Fork. A soft fork is reasonably gentle.
However if a change is made to the rules WITHOUT near-complete consensus across the network then Bitcoin splits into two separate blockchains each one of which is incompatible with the other. A Hard Fork. A hard fork is traumatic. This is what we will see if Bitcoin Unlimited proceeds to implementation. The B.U. mined coins cannot be validated by the full nodes still running the Core client. You will have two different Bitcoins ................. similar to the Ethereum hardfork split a year ago into ETH and ETC.

scamalert

the unknown part remains when it will happen i guess that's the question everyone's looking answer for,since from what i get its miners decision to indicate switch or fork,and theres 50/50 on what to do,since one scenario hurts them in fees,and another issue is if BTU comes into play btc will lose value,since youd swear most supporters on btc forum swear they wont use it,but imagine wouldn't be too far everyone jumping to opportunity in case it rises in price.

also interesting thing read about whole split and the question that was asked here how people would get say BU part of btc,and reply was if wallet supports new code then if split happens automatically people holding btc would get BU,if wallet doesnt support new code theres no BU added,and if using likes of coinbase or other wallet providers its up to them to decide.

alb

Some good answers there by BrokenArrows and pro_gnostic_8, but I want to elaborate a bit more and highlight some subtle aspects to how an open source project like this works. If you are speculating on bitcoin or any other crytpocurrency you should make sure understand everything I'm saying in this post.

Firstly bitcoin core is the current reference implementation, it is accepted that what the bitcoin core does defines how bitcoin works, so anyone who wants to write software like a wallet to interact with bitcoin must conform with exactly how bitcoin core works. There is no specification document with such a level of detail.

Secondly, and this is really important, core only has this level of importance or 'power' because the stakeholders in bitcoin have since bitcoin launched almost unanimously agreed to it. By stakeholders I mean miners, people running nodes, exchanges, bitcoin companies, wallets and USERS. They all DECIDE to run the software core releases, at any point they can decide not to.

As BrokenArrows said, the code for bitcoin core is at https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin
This is open source which means the following crucial points apply:
1) The code is public, core cannot 'sneak' code into bitcoin without it being visible.
2) Core just writes code and makes it available for execution, they cannot force any actor in the bitcoin network to run their code, or to accept new changes they make.
3) Core do not own the code. Anyone can trivially create a clone of bitcoin core on github and make their own code changes to create a modified release of the software. Here is Bitcoin Unlimited for example https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BitcoinUnlimited which began as a clone of Bitcoin Core.

What we are currently seeing with unlimited is the first time that any significant portion of the bitcoin actors disagreed with Core enough to work on a clone of Core that is incompatible with Core. This has always been possible, there was just never sufficient conflict for it to be a possibility. It is also a possibility with all of the other open source alt-coins,(in fact, as mentioned Ethereum already had two competing implementations which resulted in a fork)

The bottom line is that in the end the stakeholders as a collective control bitcoin. And it's not one vote per person, the more important the stakeholder the more influence they have. In effect the more skin you have in the game the greater your influence. Many of us see this as a very good thing.

pro_gnostic_8 wrote: »

As said earlier by another poster, it is the network that decides. The consensus rule.
If a rule change is to be effected it requires near-unanimity -- requires a consensus of 95% of the hash power across the network. If the change is successful in gaining 95% of miners and full nodes support, then the particular change is incorporated into the protocol. A Soft Fork. A soft fork is reasonably gentle.
However if a change is made to the rules WITHOUT near-complete consensus across the network then Bitcoin splits into two separate blockchains each one of which is incompatible with the other. A Hard Fork. A hard fork is traumatic. This is what we will see if Bitcoin Unlimited proceeds to implementation. The B.U. mined coins cannot be validated by the full nodes still running the Core client. You will have two different Bitcoins ................. similar to the Ethereum hardfork split a year ago into ETH and ETC.

I just want to add the the 95% of hash power threshold is an arbitrary number that Core decide to use when implementing the features, as they want to ensure that a super-majority of the network agrees with it and is running software that accepts the change before it activates. There is nothing inherent in Bitcoin forcing such a threshold though, they could equally change that to 75%, or indeed have no threshold and cause features to activate as soon as the software runs.

makeorbrake

Thanks to yourself, pro_gnostic_8 & BrokenArrows, I'm beginning to understand it a little better. However, it's like peeling back the layers of an onion - one question leads into another three..

alb wrote: »

The bottom line is that in the end the stakeholders as a collective control bitcoin. And it's not one vote per person, the more important the stakeholder the more influence they have. In effect the more skin you have in the game the greater your influence. Many of us see this as a very good thing.

Isn't it a case that this is just human nature at play and each stakeholder group is prejudiced and will always seek to maximise their own advantage? With that, either another group is going to suffer OR all will suffer as a result of damage to the overall currency generally?

At the moment, this seems to be a struggle of Dev's Vs. Miners. Dev's have had the leverage up until this point but with the suggestion of more hashing capacity being put online and most of the mining effort in the hands of a minority, there's a possibility that they can make B.U. relevant.

There's also talk of Core Dev's re-writing the code to make current mining hardware incompatible as a counter measure.
However, users may not react with whichever group appears to have gained the upper hand - they can still choose either/or Core/B.U.

I'd really hope they can sort out their differences - as otherwise, it's become a high stakes crap shoot....

alb

makeorbrake wrote: »

Isn't it a case that this is just human nature at play and each stakeholder group is prejudiced and will always seek to maximise their own advantage? With that, either another group is going to suffer OR all will suffer as a result of damage to the overall currency generally?

Yes it's just human nature, but Bitcoin was designed with careful consideration to game theory. the system is designed to work assuming that stakeholders are greedy, rational but without necessarily trusting each other. In general each type of stakeholder can act in their own self interest and that is still in the self interest of the system as a whole. All stakeholders win if bitcoin succeeds.

makeorbrake wrote: »

At the moment, this seems to be a struggle of Dev's Vs. Miners.

That's too much of a generalisation. There are miners that support Core, and there are devs who oppose Core and Segwit and work on Unlimited instead. Users (including holders, traders) fall into both camps too, with many (me included) not caring too much who 'wins' as long as bitcoin emerges better than before and capable of more transactions per block, one way or another.
Most businesses such as exchanges seem to be strongly in support of core, but not all.

makeorbrake wrote: »

There's also talk of Core Dev's re-writing the code to make current mining hardware incompatible as a counter measure.

This would be a very extreme measure, as it would mean all current miners can no longer mine bitcoin, leaving them likely ruined. There is not strong support for this, even among those who support core in general.

There is a lot of all politics and drama, but ultimately those with money at stake put their money where there mouth is when they choose which bitcoin software to run. My faith is that the majority of them will eventually settle on the best path forward one way or another, but the road leading to that may be messy. I'm willing to hold through it.

On another note, be very careful investing in alt-coins. We're almost certainly in an alt-coin bubble, perhaps even past the peak already. The drama in bitcoin is a great excuse to imagine that one of the alts is the next bitcoin, but we're very far from that.
In 2013 there was an alt coin bubble with the bitcoin bubble. Litecoin went to $50, people were stocking up on Namecoins, Feathercoins and Peercoins. They all crashed hard, much harder than bitcoin, and none have recovered. History may not repeat, but it rhymes, so be aware of the risks.

makeorbrake

alb wrote: »

All stakeholders win if bitcoin succeeds.

Is there an integrity issue going forward if B.U. was to succeed on the basis that it puts too much leverage in the hands of too few? IF it was a case that there is no risk in this respect, then would B.U. not be the better option - with much more wriggle room for scale going into the future (whereas it's said that SegWit would most likely only be a temporary solution)?


The miners feel that they can earn more transaction fees with B.U. in place. To achieve that, they want it to be attractive for small transactions as an actual currency. I stand open to correction, but my understanding of Bitcoin when I first heard about it was 1. Decentralisation and 2. competitive transaction fees - to gain traction as an actual day-to-day alternative to FIAT. However, it seems in more recent times, it's main use has been to act as a store of value - in a similar type of way that gold is used as a store of value.

This is how I use it right now - as I'm sure is the case for many here. I was always enthusiastic about the possibilities of BTC as an alternative currency for day-to-day spending but the frustration is that never transpired.

I suppose on this basis, which turn it takes here could be relevant as regards determining the reason people use BTC going forward. Leaving any other issues aside, does BTC stand any chance of ever becoming an actual currency for day-to-day spending or has the fact that it hasn't gained traction in this respect meant that this ship has sailed....?

alb wrote:

On another note, be very careful investing in alt-coins.

No intention of going anywhere near them. I need to have a complete understanding of BTC before I'd even consider investigating alt-coins any further than I have. From the reading I've done on bitcointalk and elsewhere, it's concerning that a lot of people seem to think they are 'diversifying' by selling off some btc and buying in to alt-coins. In the absence of some killer feature, then I don't think that's wise (in my uneducated view in any event). Perhaps there are inherent features to these crypto's that I have not identified - that will put them at a major advantage against btc - but most people seem to be unaware of same in most instances. The motivation seems to be to buy into them on the basis of what is happening on the btc stage i.e. they are not investing in them on their own merit.

alb

makeorbrake wrote: »

Is there an integrity issue going forward if B.U. was to succeed on the basis that it puts too much leverage in the hands of too few? IF it was a case that there is no risk in this respect, then would B.U. not be the better option - with much more wriggle room for scale going into the future (whereas it's said that SegWit would most likely only be a temporary solution)?

I don't see how it puts too much leverage in the hands of too few for two reasons 1) it won't happen unless it's supported by the economic majority, and 2) what is the leverage or 'power' anyway. They will have no more than core currently have, all they can do is release software and not force anyone to run it.

makeorbrake wrote: »

The miners feel that they can earn more transaction fees with B.U. in place. To achieve that, they want it to be attractive for small transactions as an actual currency.

I think that's too general a remark. Some miners believe that, some believe that keeping blocks small keeps bitcoin more decentralised and distributed and therefore more secure and they feel that in the long run bitcoin will be more valuable if it's more secure, and that off-chain scaling will happen anyway. I understand both points of view tbh.

makeorbrake wrote: »

I stand open to correction, but my understanding of Bitcoin when I first heard about it was 1. Decentralisation and 2. competitive transaction fees - to gain traction as an actual day-to-day alternative to FIAT. However, it seems in more recent times, it's main use has been to act as a store of value - in a similar type of way that gold is used as a store of value.

This is how I use it right now - as I'm sure is the case for many here. I was always enthusiastic about the possibilities of BTC as an alternative currency for day-to-day spending but the frustration is that never transpired.

I agree, and I followed a similar path, but I'm not frustrated. Bitcoin simply can't be a day-to-day currency with only onchain transactions. Blocks are already full with almost noboy using it and it makes no sense to preserve small transactions for coffee on the ledger forever.

Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't happen though. Off-chain scaling makes loads of sense, it's just a matter of getting it working. It's going to take time, years. In the mean time bitcoin can do fine as digital gold.

makeorbrake wrote: »

The motivation seems to be to buy into them on the basis of what is happening on the btc stage i.e. they are not investing in them on their own merit.

In general I agree with that, and everything else you said about the alts.

makeorbrake

alb wrote: »

I don't see how it puts too much leverage in the hands of too few for two reasons 1) it won't happen unless it's supported by the economic majority, and 2) what is the leverage or 'power' anyway. They will have no more than core currently have, all they can do is release software and not force anyone to run it.

I guess that was poorly expressed on my part - what I mean't was what you followed up with =>

alb wrote: »

some believe that keeping blocks small keeps bitcoin more decentralised and distributed and therefore more secure

i.e. rather than leverage or power being in the wrong hands, that the inherent nature of btc would be undermined in terms of a decentralised currency or a potential/perceived threat to the security of same.

alb wrote: »

Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't happen though. Off-chain scaling makes loads of sense, it's just a matter of getting it working. It's going to take time, years.

Presumably then, the proposal put forward in the form of the lightning network (for off-chain transactions) is not the finished article just yet?

alb

makeorbrake wrote: »

i.e. rather than leverage or power being in the wrong hands, that the inherent nature of btc would be undermined in terms of a decentralised currency or a potential/perceived threat to the security of same.

maybe bitcoin takes a wrong turn, maybe it fails to allow enough on-chain transactions soon enough and enough users move to an alt (or a combination of many) that bitcoin gets overtaken in terms of users and value. Maybe it takes a wrong turn in the other direction and bigger blocks create problems in terms of miner distribution or security, or messy forks. It's possible, I just don't think it's the most likely outcome that bitcoin sabotages itself in some way that isn't remedied in time for bitcoin to survive. This is something everyone has to speculate on themselves though, don't take my word for it.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Presumably then, the proposal put forward in the form of the lightning network (for off-chain transactions) is not the finished article just yet?

I'm not an expert on the lightning network, but last I heard there were still technical challenges to overcome at least in terms of routing. I've not seen enough proof yet to even be convinced it will work as currently imagined, but to be honest I haven't spent much time looking into it yet, I'll wait until it's more mature. My expectation is that some off-chain solution(s) will eventually develop, whether it's lightning or something else.

The Cuban

Quick question,
Have the Chinese been blocked from selling there Bitcoins?

makeorbrake

The Cuban wrote: »

Quick question,
Have the Chinese been blocked from selling there Bitcoins?

New regulations announced last week.


LINKY

pro_gnostic_8

alb wrote: »

people were stocking up on Namecoins, Feathercoins and Peercoins. They all crashed hard, much harder than bitcoin, and none have recovered.

Doesn't it always happen, as if in spite ..................
In the 4 hours since you posted above, Feathercoin price has jumped up by 75%.
https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/feathercoin/

cnocbui

I have been watching the progress of BTU and, in the last 24hrs, the hash rate actually fell from 41.27% to 40.61%.

jobless

cnocbui wrote: »

I have been watching the progress of BTU and, in the last 24hrs, the hash rate actually fell from 41.27% to 40.61%.

what does hash rate mean?...

cnocbui

jobless wrote: »

what does hash rate mean?...

It's the amount of computing power dedicated to processing blocks. It roughly translates to popularity or credibility.

jobless

cnocbui wrote: »

It's the amount of computing power dedicated to processing blocks. It roughly translates to popularity or credibility.

oh right, where do you find these stats?.... I thought BTU hadnt happened (the split) yet so why would there be blocks being processed ?

cnocbui

https://coin.dance/blocks

Blocks are being processed. I suppose sh it becomes real when there's more U than non U.

jobless

cnocbui wrote: »

https://coin.dance/blocks

Blocks are being processed. I suppose sh it becomes real when there's more U than non U.

so is it a case that BTU has x number of nodes already processing existing bitcoin blockchains (1mb) and then these will start processing the larger blockchains if the fork happens?..

trying to to get my head around how all this works.... !

cnocbui

I'm not sure myself.

alb

(I think) Bitcoin unlimited accepts bigger blocks but doesn't make them mandatory. It's up to miners do decide how big to make their blocks. If a miner does suddenly make a block bigger than the core 1MB limit, BU nodes (and miners running BU) will accept it, code nodes will reject it and we get a fork.

There's a BU FAQ here: https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/faq

scamalert

off topic but anyone know how long sepa transfer takes to process when dealing with http://www.belgacoin.com,did it yesterday eve.thx

cnocbui

It sometimes takes 30hrs or so, roughly. Sometimes it's same day. I think it mostly depends on when the Irish bank actually send the transfer, if the transfer is initiated in the afternoon, I think they won't send it till the next day. I think they have a set time each day when they send them in a batch.

jobless

what is the most painfree way to sell bitcoin btw?..

zulutango

jobless wrote: »

what is the most painfree way to sell bitcoin btw?..

Sell them to somebody you know in exchange for cash. I've done this quite a bit.

cnocbui

Selling them on Belgiacoin doesn't even involve getting off the couch.

pro_gnostic_8

jobless wrote: »

what is the most painfree way to sell bitcoin btw?..

I'll buy 'em from you via cash at 4% below Spot .............. if you're in County Cork.
I'll buy them at same rate via bank transfer or SEPA, but with escrow. (You pay escrow fee).