One can only suspect that they decided the papers to be presented when the workshop idea was incepted and then suggested some sort of cangaroo "process" for other presentations. I can't believe they do not have it all organised by this point with only one week to go.
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
Yes, apparently even Garzick does not know whether he will be "allowed" to present though, with just one week to go...
If he isn't allowed to present then no one else should in my opinion.
If he isn't allowed to present then no one else should in my opinion.
Since that was apparently an email that was sent to unknown parties, I'm not sure who he was actually inviting to vent, but since it's posted publicly I assume it's fine to vent in the comment section attached to that gist.
Also, I've noticed a bug in the page rendering that the last comment in a thread does not have a Quote button.
it's not a bug. Bloomie has eliminated that quote button purposely to limit quoting as supposedly it screws up google searches and is wasteful in some way.
i find it annoying and don't like it, but it's not my site.
this might help:
If it helps, this forum allows you to tag a user in your post by using the @ sign and the user's name, and the user will get a notification when he's tagged. So effectively it's the same as quoting, without the duplicate text.
i find it annoying and don't like it, but it's not my site.
this might help:
If it helps, this forum allows you to tag a user in your post by using the @ sign and the user's name, and the user will get a notification when he's tagged. So effectively it's the same as quoting, without the duplicate text.
- Aug 19, 2015
- 511
- 803
Yes, that's meant to discourage excessive quoting, especially (but not limited to) quoting the post right above yours.
Obviously you can hack your way around it, but overquoting really messes with readability for everybody else and is bad for SEO. Quoting was important in the early days of the Internet when message boards weren't linear and were hard to follow. Today quoting is still great when you're addressing a person's specific points, but not so great when you've quoted 3 paragraphs of text only to say "Yep, I agree."
And tagging with @ works great, please give it a try!
Obviously you can hack your way around it, but overquoting really messes with readability for everybody else and is bad for SEO. Quoting was important in the early days of the Internet when message boards weren't linear and were hard to follow. Today quoting is still great when you're addressing a person's specific points, but not so great when you've quoted 3 paragraphs of text only to say "Yep, I agree."
And tagging with @ works great, please give it a try!
why do Blockstream devs constantly complain about what can go wrong in Bitcoin? instead of what go can right? why do they seem to be pessimists instead of optimists?
it's b/c they don't understand money. most notably Sound Money which derives from Bitcoin's long term fixed supply. the incentives that go along with it are powerful and hard to understand. the world has only known fiat printing and bailouts for the last 4 decades. with Bitcoin, we have finally have the perfect liquid intangible money which cannot be devalued or seized. the Blockstream devs don't get this and how it incentivizes actors to do the right thing.
how many times have you ever heard them talk about the SOV function of Bitcoin? or Bitcoin as a digital gold equivalent? answer: never. these are the monetary principles i and many others haved talked about for years and, imo, have been central to Bitcoin's success. these guys are as bad as the Wall St guys who say that Bitcoin is only about the blockchain, not the bitcoin monetary unit. no wonder they think they can split off the unit from it's blockchain security. i'd bet that none of them has ever owned gold or silver. since they've never talked about it, don't let them claim otherwise now.
there is a reason my gold thread hit 1.5M views and had 35K replies before it got shutdown over on BCT by theymos and BadBear for talking about XT. there is an intense interest from ordinary citizens worldwide in Bitcoin's fixed monetary properties which has the potential to fix all of the world's financial problems. the only dissenters are gvts, banks, large corporations and guys like core dev who benefit from crony capitalism and who are frantically trying to develop their own blockchain products.
on the one hand, you can't blame the core devs given today's fiat currency mess. that's all they know. so it's understandable that they view Bitcoin merely as an ordinary monetary system with a fancy new tech. a blockchain upon which to build gateway hubs or sidechains for ordinary tx's and speculation. they only view Bitcoin as a platform whose main value unit can be siphoned off for more important things than money. otoh, they being core devs of the most promising of monies, should know better.
Bitcoin as Sound Money would serve it's greatest potential and ultimate purpose. the fact that all these ppl and institutions are attempting to subvert Bitcoin, the currency, is the greatest compliment they can give. don't let them do it.
it's b/c they don't understand money. most notably Sound Money which derives from Bitcoin's long term fixed supply. the incentives that go along with it are powerful and hard to understand. the world has only known fiat printing and bailouts for the last 4 decades. with Bitcoin, we have finally have the perfect liquid intangible money which cannot be devalued or seized. the Blockstream devs don't get this and how it incentivizes actors to do the right thing.
how many times have you ever heard them talk about the SOV function of Bitcoin? or Bitcoin as a digital gold equivalent? answer: never. these are the monetary principles i and many others haved talked about for years and, imo, have been central to Bitcoin's success. these guys are as bad as the Wall St guys who say that Bitcoin is only about the blockchain, not the bitcoin monetary unit. no wonder they think they can split off the unit from it's blockchain security. i'd bet that none of them has ever owned gold or silver. since they've never talked about it, don't let them claim otherwise now.
there is a reason my gold thread hit 1.5M views and had 35K replies before it got shutdown over on BCT by theymos and BadBear for talking about XT. there is an intense interest from ordinary citizens worldwide in Bitcoin's fixed monetary properties which has the potential to fix all of the world's financial problems. the only dissenters are gvts, banks, large corporations and guys like core dev who benefit from crony capitalism and who are frantically trying to develop their own blockchain products.
on the one hand, you can't blame the core devs given today's fiat currency mess. that's all they know. so it's understandable that they view Bitcoin merely as an ordinary monetary system with a fancy new tech. a blockchain upon which to build gateway hubs or sidechains for ordinary tx's and speculation. they only view Bitcoin as a platform whose main value unit can be siphoned off for more important things than money. otoh, they being core devs of the most promising of monies, should know better.
Bitcoin as Sound Money would serve it's greatest potential and ultimate purpose. the fact that all these ppl and institutions are attempting to subvert Bitcoin, the currency, is the greatest compliment they can give. don't let them do it.
Last edited:
darn it! ok Mr. Market, are you going to make me regret settling for a 31% gain on DZZ? (6-->8.06):
Two Types of Production Quotas (Block size limits)
I met over lunch with a Masters of Economics student from UBC to discuss Bitcoin. He brought up a great point about how the block size limit serves as a "production quota." He explained to me how we can use the supply and demand curves from my fee market paper to show that if the production quota is below the natural equilibrium block size (Q*), that economic theory suggests we suffer a "deadweight loss" of economic activity equal to the area shaded brown in the lower chart below.
I don't have an economics background, but my understanding is that a production quota that distorts the free market dynamics (lower chart) can only be of a net social good if it serves to reduce or eliminate some negative externality, and the net loss of economic activity is outweighed by the net gain from reducing that externality. (I suppose the small-blockers could argue that the negative externality is "centralization" or "insufficient hash power for security.")
Censored from /r/bitcoin, re-posted to /r/bitcoinxt:
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3jn0pg/illustration_for_two_types_of_production_quotas/
I met over lunch with a Masters of Economics student from UBC to discuss Bitcoin. He brought up a great point about how the block size limit serves as a "production quota." He explained to me how we can use the supply and demand curves from my fee market paper to show that if the production quota is below the natural equilibrium block size (Q*), that economic theory suggests we suffer a "deadweight loss" of economic activity equal to the area shaded brown in the lower chart below.
I don't have an economics background, but my understanding is that a production quota that distorts the free market dynamics (lower chart) can only be of a net social good if it serves to reduce or eliminate some negative externality, and the net loss of economic activity is outweighed by the net gain from reducing that externality. (I suppose the small-blockers could argue that the negative externality is "centralization" or "insufficient hash power for security.")
Censored from /r/bitcoin, re-posted to /r/bitcoinxt:
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3jn0pg/illustration_for_two_types_of_production_quotas/
Last edited:
Absolutely. But that's a very static way of thinking about it. Another way is that that grey area is unmet demand that an alt-coin will soon fill.
Last edited:
Latest threads
-
The Tale of Recovery: How Alpha Spy Nest Restored My Faith and Fortune
- ireneerika
- 0 replies
-
Acknowledging Safety and Ethical Standards in Research Chemical Use
- derikpatos
- 0 replies
