Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

Peter R

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,398
5,595
@Peter R

"I'm glad we agree that certain amount of centralization is necessary at current stage." -- author of paper

Am I misreading something or didn't you just paraphrase what they think is right?
Personally I heavily disagree with the sentiment of that sentence. The current stage can already be "free and unbound" for the protocol.
Yeah, I was just paraphrasing what I interpreted to be their perspective. I agreed to nothing of the sort. But it's interesting from a psychological perspective how he thinks I did. I believe what I said that made him think that was:

"One of our fights with the small blockers is because they don't acknowledge that in order to have rules prescribed, a certain amount of centralization in development (or who controls the source code) must exist in order to do that prescribing."

His main argument is that we need "prescribed rules" to preserve decentralization. I was trying to point out that his argument is circular because it means you need a centralized group with sufficient power to do the very prescribing you think is necessary to preserve decentralization. Apparently he didn't catch the circularity problem and confirmed that he believes some centralization in development is a good thing. He views that as a counter-balance to the centralization he assumes would occur if the group that did the "rule prescribing" didn't exist.

I am actually quite happy about that because he was debating honestly! Maxwell and Luke pretend like the rules come ordained from a higher power.
 

Zarathustra

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,439
3,797
It's understandable, that game theorists like to tear up Bitcoin, but so far they are living in a different galaxy. The miners do as Satoshi instinctivly foresaw. Economics is complex and not easy modelled. People fail to build mathematical models for much simpler economical environments. Honestly I think we could resolve the debate by using common sense.
[/USER]
Yes, that's why those people using common sense (Roger Ver and alikes) are the early adopters; not the academics and game terrorists.

Great post, @satoshis_sockpuppet!
[doublepost=1500712053,1500711320][/doublepost]Bitcoin Cash touched $10 billion market cap already. Incredible ...

https://www.viabtc.com/quot/realtime?currency=cny&dest=bcc&chart=simple
 
Last edited:

satoshis_sockpuppet

Active Member
Feb 22, 2016
776
3,312
I am actually quite happy about that because he was debating honestly! Maxwell and Luke pretend like the rules come ordained from a higher power.
Yep. That's one of the points that can drive you crazy whenever you are arguing with one of the hardcore core supporters. Somehow the consensus rules are supposed to be determined by a higher power. These researchers at least acknowledge, that in the /r/bitcoin / core / small blocks / Blockstream camp scenario you actually have to centralize control over Bitcoin for Bitcoin to work (in their theory). Imho that would mean, that Bitcoin's design is broken. They pretty clearly said, what Greg Maxwell always implicitly assumed but of course never said loud: "Without the control by us wizards, Bitcoin doesn't work."

In the end, for the real world, it will be interesting whether companies like Coinbase, Bitpay etc. see Bitcoin as "the longest SHA256-chain from Genesis block X" or as "the longest SHA256-chain following the rules set in the Github "Bitcoin core" repository".
What happens if v.d.Laan suddenly loses his mind and dares to change a 1 to a 2? Which rules are valid than? Can someone of the "centralized control for decentralization" guys answer that problem?

Or did Satoshis maybe find a way to determine decentralized consensus without a central authority over the rules.

Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism.
...

game terrorists.
:D

Bitcoin Cash touched $10 billion market cap already. Incredible ...
Interesting how that is going to play out. Huge thank you to
@deadalnix and @freetrader for working on this.
 

Norway

Well-Known Member
Sep 29, 2015
2,424
6,410
I think it's possible to make a killing right now at ViaBTC by buying Bitcoin Cash. But I don't want to give them my passport number. If anybody trading on ViaBTC could do some buying on my behalf, I would be grateful.

As this is a pure crypto/crypto-trade, I hope a good exchange without KYC would provide this kind of deal that ViaBTC offer.
 

molecular

Active Member
Aug 31, 2015
372
1,391
In the end, for the real world, it will be interesting whether companies like Coinbase, Bitpay etc. see Bitcoin as "the longest SHA256-chain from Genesis block X" or as "the longest SHA256-chain following the rules set in the Github "Bitcoin core" repository".
Yeah, I guess that's what it boils down to. Shouldn't that bolded part seem ridiculous to anyone even remotely understanding how Bitcoin works?

Some Exchange (I forget which one) said: we won't acknowledge BCC, but we'll observe and we'll always consider the longest chain to be Bitcoin. For me that begs the question: At what point in time are you going to make that call? Or is it going to be an ongoing process? If "ongoing", how the hell do you intend to implement that for your user's balances? I think such an approach, while correct on a naive level, just simply ignores some issues of implementation / practicality. The only sane approach for an exchange is to list/trade all relevant chain separately and keep user funds on all chains. Unless of course they favor one chain to begin with and assume it'll be the longest one and remain in that position.

Or did Satoshis maybe find a way to determine decentralized consensus without a central authority over the rules.

satoshi said:
Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism.
I think it's unfortunate that this sentence is so ambiguous. Core supporters will argue (I actually talked about this with nullc at one point) that incentives are merely enforced using PoW, but should not be changed using PoW. I on the other side put emphasis on the "any needed rules" part. This clearly points to a potential change of rules (something makes a change needed) that can be enforced by the consensus mechanism (no matter who proposes the change, PoW majority can either enforce it or veto it).

I think maybe core views the miners merely as some sort of "executive branch", responsible for ordering transactions and enforcing the rules given by the legislative (core repo "consensus" process). That's a bad system and not Bitcoin.
 

VeritasSapere

Active Member
Nov 16, 2015
511
1,266
I will give you my outlook on the situation. I think it is not looking that bright from my perspective in terms of BTC dominance. It has been a contracted cold war for years now, vying over power and influence, strategic positioning in terms of which side will split as the majority. It was going very well from our perspective, just a few weeks ago when it seemed like our victory was imminent as a majority split, much due to UASF.

However, the BTCC movement seemed to have flipped the tables, now it looks like we will split as a minority. Further dividing Bitcoin into three camps, BTCC, CORE, BTC2X. Which will most likely be reflected by three BTC derived chains in the future. This seems like a grand strategic mistake from our side, however I would also not be surprised if BTCC was started by an agent provocateur/false flag. However now that it has taken root it has taken on a life of its own much like UASF. I do respect this, that has been the solution all along, however it has taken too long and the fear of the split itself has hampered its adoption, a lack of understanding of the true governance of Bitcoin, this delay risks BTC dominance, the market can find the solution in alternative cryptocurrencies as well.

This brings me to my next point, I do not think that BTCC can be competitive compared to other alternative cryptocurrencies out there, not if it loses the name. Which is one of the only things Bitcoin really has going for it, as one of many judged on its own merit I do not think that it will do well unless it would be able to undergo rapid development.

It feels very much like we have lost this battle and we are losing the war. The other side is literally celebrating. I think we should keep in mind, what our objective really is here, to bring about change with the vision of Satoshi. I do not think it matters what form that takes, whether it be BTCC, BTC, ETH or DASH. I think that vision, that emancipation brought about by this technology is unstoppable, regardless. I agree that global transition would be easier through Bitcoin, and the disruption of Bitcoin that we have witnessed will most likely delay global adoption by at least a decade. Which is of historic significance, this is certainly a battle worth fighting and I will continue to fight the good fight, supporting both BTCC and BTC2X, dropping CORE as soon as it detaches.

Bottom line however seems to be that BTC will split, with BTCC as a minority chain. While BTC defined as the longest chain will continue to have a congested network, toxic, civil warring communities and stagnation in development. For three more long months before splitting again, creating three chains in total at that point. It would have been better to have just had a clean split august 1st, would have been better to have had a split a year ago of course as well. But we are all trying to steer this uncontrollable mass the best we can. The beautiful thing is that we all get to have the Bitcoin we want in the long run and we do not necessarily need crypto dominance for that, we just have to learn to love the fork.
 

Norway

Well-Known Member
Sep 29, 2015
2,424
6,410
@VeritasSapere
You assume BTCC will stay a minority chain. But I think BTCC will become bitcoin. Because it works and has low fees.

In the future, I think one crypto currency will be dominant. And I don't think that currency will be bitcoin with SegWit2x. It's a losing chain. We should have forked two years ago, but the next best moment for a fork is now.
 

bluemoon

Active Member
Jan 15, 2016
215
966
I am hopeful the current period will mark a watershed for the miners: confirming them in the more active role envisaged by Satoshi.

Independent miners jealous of their interests will safeguard bitcoin against predators like DCG and keep bitcoin focused on user needs, eventually to become the dominant money.

If this happens my impression is it will put bitcoin a step ahead of the governance of most cryptos, which typically still rely on their founders and development teams for their decision making.
 

Peter R

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,398
5,595
Greg Maxwell has proven several times that he doesn't know freshman calculus, but now I'm wondering if it's a disease with small-blockers in general:



If

P = M V,​

then

dP = dM V + M dV.​

Which is obvious if you imagine M = 100 and V = 100, and you ask how P changes if M and V both increase by 1. Clearly the answer is that P would change by 201:

ΔP = 101 x 101 - 100 x 100 = 201​

Paul's formula would give

dP = 1 x 1 = 1,​

which is not even close. The correct formula gives

dP = 1 x 100 + 100 x 1 = 200
Which is very close to the true change of 201 (and becomes exact if you consider infinitesimal changes rather than just "small" changes).
 

lunar

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,001
4,290
@VeritasSapere

Just to play devils advocate to your post. Lets say the BitcoinCash chain survives the first 24 hours without significant problems. ViaBTC is obviously in support, maybe Antpool and Bitcoin.com throw a few % hashpower it's way too. Now you have two chains. The (Bitcoin-Jr Coin / BitcoinCash Coin) pair will become tradable. All major exchanges, will be forced to list it, or face all sorts of lawsuits (It would be like a stock exchange deciding to take half the shares from of an asset when it had a stock split)

Fiduciary responsibility is a good term. ;-)

Then the market will have a real chance to vote, we will finally get to see this 'economic majority' in action. Its a term that has been slapped around everyones face for the last year or so, but finally it really matters. What if some of the big holders decide to lend support? Suddenly BCC price is rising and Segwitcoin is falling, and hashpower is switching sides. Now you have two chains one cheap to transact and no huge backlog, due to 8MB blocks and one limited to 1MB with everyone stacked up in the mempool.

Point being it's so crazy ......