Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Bloomie]

Happy New Year, all. What a year.

 

[torusJKL]

I find fees in the 1..5ct range per transaction to be quite reasonable.

I personally am fine with 1 cent tx fees too but it is dangerous to make this the new tx fee standard because for most of the people in the developing countries 1 cent is still allot of money for just fees.
[doublepost=1514791225][/doublepost]

It's more like that moment in Dr Strangelove when the other characters realize for the first time that General Jack D. Ripper is insane.

Do we know Bitcoin Cobra is sincere or just playing along to get a seat on the life boat while the Bitcoin ship is sinking?

And if he is just playing along how can we prevent that he will abuse his power again in future discussions?

 

[albin]

So I was listening to the Rusty Russell LTB interview from August 2015, going into extreme detail on lightning, and something pretty glaring crossed my mind....


The revocation method he describes that makes bidirectional channels possible involves trading private keys of the prior tx.

Isn't this an issue with the HD schemes that wallets use now? Like isn't it an attack vector that if somebody knows one of your private keys and your master pubkey, they can potentially brute force your master privkey?

 

[molecular]

[ripple secret key]

Did it have a default filename?

No, I don't think so. I assume it was just displayed on-page.
[doublepost=1514811663][/doublepost]

Isn't this an issue with the HD schemes that wallets use now? Like isn't it an attack vector that if somebody knows one of your private keys and your master pubkey, they can potentially brute force your master privkey?

Yes, there is this "surprising" attack vector. I remember researching it twice, because this is actually a pretty dangerous property of the scheme. It's not brute-force either, I think: you can directly calculate the xpvr.

Decided for myself to never share an xpub and more importantly not any private keys.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

@Christoph Bergmann : Good points.

Lately, I feel that the 'low to no fees' rhetoric on /r/btc is a bit over the top. I find fees in the 1..5ct range per transaction to be quite reasonable. And at some point, likely only a a decade or so out, miners need to get paid mainly through transactions.

I can see that there might always be free transactions also in the long term (especially with preconsensus schemes - which would mean basically (almost) no differential overhead for adding sufficiently aged transactions).

But the bulk won't be truly free. And I think we should refrain from overselling stuff.

I can see optimistic scenarios where the growth on BCH becomes quickly so large that current orphan risk rates (limited by the state of the art of propagation modes in the current implementations) might increase fees into the double-digit cent range again.

I agree. A portion of free transactions each block, maybe 10% of the space or so, should be ok, to have the option to wait to transaction for free, while the rest should have very little fees like 1-5 cent.

Miners can make a lot of money with confidential transactions, colored coins, op_return, maybe coinjoin and so on. There could be models in which normal transactions are basically free, while people pay miners for more privacy or for putting important data in the blockchain.

imho this is important and a major flaw in core's vision: notary functions (like putting government data, contracts etc. on the blockchain) will always overprice monetary transactions, at least up to 4 or 5 digits. The fee market of core will most likely result in bitcoin being no longer used as digital cash but as a notary chain.

Ah, and: Happy new year everybody!

 

[Justus Ranvier]

And if he is just playing along how can we prevent that he will abuse his power again in future discussions?

Do what should have been done along: evaluate every proposal independently of the reputation of the person proposing it, reason from first principles, and don't let anyone get away with logical fallacies or dishonest argumentation.

 

[torusJKL]

We can assume that everyone on this forum will do this.
I'm more concerned with all the people that are following a vocal leader without investigating the content.

 

[hodl]

I'm less sure of this than I was before.

I've been thinking more about whether a store of value (SoV) coin can be "stable" at a high valuation when SoV is its only use case. Now I think if the network effect gets enough of a head start, it might be stable (25% chance?).

Think about it like this: users of the iPhone are willing to pay a lot more money for just a small increase in polish and 'feel'. Suppose for wealthy people and organizations who want to store value, the brand of BTC, the fact that it's already established as a schelling point for SoV, and Core's extreme paranoia about centralization serves the same purpose as the iPhone's 2% advantage in "feel" over android. Maybe they're willing to pay high transaction fees for that.

Of course, a SoV that was also a medium of exchange would be even better because its network effects would synergize. But in the startup world they say that a new entrant will sometimes have to be 10x better than existing solutions to take over its market (likely this only applies to markets with some network effect).

Suppose the SoV network effect is strong. Is BCH 10x better than BTC as cash? Definitely. Is BCH 10x better than BTC as a SoV? Maybe not. Especially if BTC runs up to $100k. Its SoV network effect may be established enough to present that kind of "10x challenge" to BCH.

Of course, I also think there's a decent chance that in that scenario BTC would just slowly bleed SoV users to BCH. There's a lot of uncertainty because we don't know how strong these network effects are with cryptocurrencies.

i don't think we ever see >$20K

 

[awemany]

Happy new years, everyone!

Regarding colored coins: I must admit I didn't look too closely into all the variants that have been proposed yet.

Are there any potential scalability issues that might arise with certain colored coin implementations?

If so, I think that would be a major downside of that particular proposal. Fast, deflationary P2P ecash is what I personally put above all other requirements.

 

[Zarathustra]

i don't think we ever see >$20K

NO2X ! Since I'm grossly overweight in Bitcoin Cash, I'm supporting the hat movement of the Chief Strategy Officer.

 

[hodl]

i think they should UASF themselves to a new PoW algo since they distrust miners so much. but they won't b/c they want miners to secure their H0dl; or they don't, or they do, or they don't...

 

[solex]

i don't think we ever see >$20K

Agreed. You speak wise words while Slush enters the looking glass and finds Wonderland.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

With "coins" like Ripple pumping, anything can happen, even $100k BTC. However, I would say we won't see 1:6 again in the BCH:BTC ratio. I sense 1:3 coming soon.

BTC has been like a black hole that devours faith in anything ever being done to improve it. Actually, scratch that: part of what we knew as BTC before August 1 is now called BCH and the other part is now called BTC. Those are some slippery semantics.

 

[Tom Zander]

@Christoph Bergmann : Good points.

Lately, I feel that the 'low to no fees' rhetoric on /r/btc is a bit over the top. I find fees in the 1..5ct range per transaction to be quite reasonable. And at some point, likely only a a decade or so out, miners need to get paid mainly through transactions.

The concept of paying with fees is overloaded in mostly misunderstood. Fees as a way to get priority to get mined is a broken concept, it is a core reason why BTC is in the pain it is today. It is a good reason why we haven't see any UTXO consolidation transactions on BTC chain for ages. Paying more fees in order to get your transaction mined is a Core invention, it wasn't even the idea if you look at Satoshi's designs.
Please allow me to link to a more elaborate writing of mine on how i think prioritization can be done better on yours.org.

I'm still seeing people argue we need people to still pay fees in order to make it worth it for miners. I disagree with that in the pretty long term based on the balancing economics inherent in the base design from Satoshi.

1. First, its not something that programmers need to decide, the open market can because miners can create block scarcity (i.e. don't mine the full mempool every block) in order to get people that are in a hurry to pay more. Think about people buying a plane ticket for next week vs 4 months in advance. Same thing.
2. The difficulty adjustment concept means that removing a huge percentage of miners will not cause a problem for the coin. This is important to remember and we should keep in mind the fact that current Bitcoin (and BCH) mining difficulty are magnitudes above needed safety limits. Even a fraction of today's hashpower could keep the chain safe. So keep that in mind on what you think miners need to get paid.
3. The 4-year halving scenario means the price needs to double roughly once every 4 years in order to keep equilibrium. We are also magnitudes over this (which is directly related we have a surplus of hashpower, as described in 2).

The conclusion is thus that as long as the price is good for hashpower to mine, they will keep mining. And frankly its not really possible to make more conclusions about needs to get miners to mine.

Personally, I'd say that the need for fees is highly irrelevant if we would use the prioritization I described in my yours.org article. The true value of a miners profit comes from the worth of the coin (due to block-reward) which is directly correlated to the usability of the coin. I.e. the amount of merchants you can pay with it. The amount of employers that pay their employees with it.

sorry for rant...

 

[hodl]

Tom Harding just pointed out an impressive and important observation: UTXO set growth is decreasing for BCH. This clearly is due to cheap fees, imo:

 

[majamalu]

We can assume that everyone on this forum will do this.
I'm more concerned with all the people that are following a vocal leader without investigating the content.

Those will learn from painful experience.

 

[hodl]

Wow, looks like Cobra has been sincere. The infighting is real : https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/pull/2010

Otoh, Lopp is a little BCH.

 

[wrstuv31]

I don't buy Cobra's schtick for a second, and I don't think there's much loss in this mindset being wrong.

 

[albin]

I don't buy the idea that Cliff High's sentiment analysis can actually tell the future on the level that he's describing, but his latest report has some interesting stuff in it about BCH.

Admittedly to anyone paying attention, this is kind of a No Shit Sherlock assessment! --

Bitcoin Cash is separating more from the 'bitcoin' linguistics with every processing. The separating sub sets have, seemingly, more impact on the prices for BCH rather than the other 'bitcoin' associated coins, including BTC and BitcoinGold. The new sets that accrue to BCH as modelspace is moved through 2018 have several 'violent' shifts in the prices against the other 'bitcoins'. These sets gain their largest new growth first in late May, into June, 2018, and then later in 2018, moving into 2019. There are sets for BCH that are suggesting a 'catch up attitude' occurs as the separating linguistics diverge over January, and well into 2018. The 'catch up attitude' does not imply price parity with BTC, though that is a possibility, rather it is that an emotional 'pressure' is going to be building toward a price rise in an 'attempt to catch up'. The differentiation of the Bitcoin sets is providing a forecast for BCH of very 'exaggerated' and 'wild' swings of price to the extent that they will be described as 'making BTC look sedate' by comparison.

 

[Zarathustra]

Why does Nick Szabo regularly retweed the bullshit of the greatest idiots of the whole cryptocurrency space? Is there a plausible explanation for his sick behavior?