Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[79b79aa8]

"how an attempt to artificially restrict the supply of block space failed on Bitcoin" nah, that's a bit much for the MBA types. we're talking bunk conventional wisdom of the type "chevy nova" failed because "nova" means "no go" in spanish.

But right now, it looks like our resolve is being tested by the market

right now the market is begging you to short BTC and keep making absurd money on the way down.

 

[lunar]

IP law is broken and it looks like it is unworkable in a capitalist system, if you have IP and you want to defend it you need long pockets.

Unfamiliar territory here @AdrianX I think we might finally disagree on something.

IP as a concept is as archaic as the notion of slavery where people are property.

While I do agree the current system is broken beyond repair and utterly useless, for a global marketplace, comparing IP with slavery, is nonsense. The basics of liberty and freedom, are the rights to self determination and the autonomous governance of ones own body, mind and it's creations, within the confines of non aggression. Obviously slavery violates this, but more to the point, what we are really trying to define here is: Can thoughts, innovation and ideas can be owned? If so, where does the boundary between inspiration and publication of innovation reside? Can an scientist, artist or developer own their work once it's displayed publicly? I'd argue that if one agrees with personal property rights, (I do. To take something away from a person, against their will, is a violation of the non aggression principal.) then there is little fundamental difference between physical ownership and digital ownership.

The secondary is copying. This is a tricky one that i'm struggling to articulate. My argument for IP here is that; the direction of an idea and its implementation, is like the big bang or the genesis block of knowledge. Copying without changing and improving upon the original is theft (negative net value) and also wasted energy. IP should exist as a guide to whats fair, in a just society, in order to maximise the benefits of the creative and innovative people, thus encouraging more of them. Let's say, the cone of value derived from an innovation should flow towards it's creator and not diverted to a plagiarist.

I think you nailed it here.

because to have a civil society we all need to be judged by the same rules

In most civilised cultures around the world we play an extremely complex game. As we enter a blockchain governed global game, I'd argue some form of IP is necessary. Possibly this will take the form of colored coins? Perhaps IP can be issued with a set of defined rules governed by Nakamoto consensus?

 

[freetrader]

Copying without changing and improving upon the original is theft (negative net value) and also wasted energy.

I'll disagree on this. Look at animals copying some innovative behavior from each other. What is happening? An idea was had, it was expressed, and that expression was copied (maybe even understood). It could be a net positive or net negative for those animals to do it, it's certainly not possible to say it's purely negative (let animal = human).

Can thoughts, innovation and ideas can be owned?

I think there is a strong (perhaps even scientific) argument that can be made against that. Some other day.

I'd argue though, that to own something you have to hold it, and that's where the first difficulties emerge.

I once constructed a nice password to what I considered critical encrypted information (this was before the days of password managers). Years later, unfortunately no hope of recovery from my memory. Now, how did I lose my property and what can I make sure it never happens again? Fortunately someone came up with the idea of a password manager and did not create or enforce a patent

Some anecdotes from Michael Abrash which resonate with me.

 

[lunar]

This is an exceptionally well written article. I handy, one size fits all reference, to end all further discussion on the matter. Good job @Jonald Fyookball.

https://news.bitcoin.com/12-reasons-bitcoin-cash-real-bitcoin/

The best bit however is undoubtedly the screeching in the comments.

A thousand trolls cried out, with nothing to left to say but, VerrrBcash..Reeeeee
[doublepost=1517705054][/doublepost]@freetrader you're quite right.

This is certainly a discussion that will rage on for years to come. I would like to see some real science on what the optimal outcome should be.

 

[hodl]

@hodl was a bit early with his optimism.

true dat. i was one wave too early (assuming BCH has bottomed which i think is a good bet); but i did act on it! a few days ago i exchanged a bunch of BTC for BCH. but now it looks i was wrong on that one too in terms of trusting HitBtc, who has disabled withdrawals. could be a long con, so look the hell out. arghhhhhh.

 

[rocks]

I wonder if this partially explains why we got in this mess? The market leader 'Antpool' was too hesitant to act when others used a punishing strategy? It came eventually, but too late to avoid the split. Their optimal move would have been to announce in 2015 they were running code to mine on top of >1MB blocks no matter what the consequences. Theoretically as it was in the interests of everyones profit, others would have followed their lead?

One flaw to POW mining is it encourages miners to follow the least common denominator with respect to consensus rules since this is the lowest risk option (in the short term). For example, if the 'official' consensus rules are OP_RETURN allows 80 bytes but you start to believe some minors will reject blocks containing more than 40 bytes, then it becomes risky to add transactions with more than 40 bytes. And if all miners follow this behavior then very quickly 40 becomes the new limit.

Soft forks are simply a way to exploit this least common denominator behavior to not just limit but to lower functionality, by continuously reducing the least common denominator regarding consensus rules. I do not think this is the sole reason core was able to push through as much as they did, but it certainly was a significant contributing factor.

If you look at the behavior of Antpool, others miners and nodes through the block size wars, I believe this was a major driving factor for why no one acted forcefully for so long. Anyone who extended past the least common denominator would immediately lose (in the short term at least) and so no one acted.

The other issue of course is people who control the repository of consensus rules not acting in the interests of market participants. Hearn described the concept that open source software is controlled by an individual or small number of individuals well in his rage quit letter, and how these individuals were not acting in Bitcoin's interests.

A successful Bitcoin Cash fork would act as a significant counterweight to both of these issues. For developers it puts significant pressure to add functionality of interest, because if you do not there is nothing to stop another developer team from creating a fork, adding functionality and getting exchanges to accept it. If this functionality proves useful, users will slowly migrate chains and the old developer team loses control.

To prevent this, developers who control the repository of consensus rules are now highly motivated to expand consensus rules in useful ways, and this will function as a counter weight to POW mining favoring the lowest common denominator. When I look at the Bitcoin Cash roadmap as it develops, I think we are seeing this start to play out.

It may end up being that Core's subversion of the base layer, did not just force the issue on blocksize and scalability, but it will end up lighting a fire to usefully expand the base layer by generating competition among developer teams wanting to control the repo and showing that anyone, anywhere can take over at any time if their functionality is more useful to large number of people.

Although I am still furious over the whole core fiasco, for the first time am starting to think that it may have been the best thing for Bitcoin since they inadvertently started this. And given how inept Core has proven, what better team could there be to function a "trial fork" on, because let's face it if Bitcoin could not successfully fork from core, its governance model was broken.

The only risk now is if ETH is too far ahead...

 

[Mengerian]

So-called "intellectual property" is incompatible with real property rights. This is because "IP" can only be implemented by interfering with control that owners have over actual scarce resources.

For example, let's say I'm catching fish by hand, and I see my neighbor make a net. On my property, I have some sticks and string that I own, and I decide to fashion them into a net also. If my neighbor says "you can't do that, I have a patent on nets", that means he is interfering with my right to unfettered control over my legitimate property. The only way that his "IP" could be enforced is by initiating an aggressive trespass into my property.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

Apart from the good arguments against IP on a theoretical level..
Who would really say, that existing IP laws have a positive net impact on a) the society and b) the economy?

In the real world the system is broken in any case, even if you could make a good theoretical argument for IP laws.

And IP laws afaik are a pretty new idea that came up during the industrialisation to stop competition and slow down progress. They are an outgrowth of protectionism to create artificial monopolies and were never designed to protect the "genius inventor in his shack".

 

[Zarathustra]

New heights in monetary analysis by celebrated economist Nouriel Roubini:

"Cryptocurrencies have no intrinsic value, whereas fiat currencies certainly do, because they can be used to pay taxes."

In April 2013 at $200.-, he called Bitcoin a bubble ...

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

@Zarathustra The argument that money has value because state wants it for taxes is common in modern monetary theory and not free of merits. The focus on the state of this theory makes the state responsible for monetary issues, which is a good thing in fiat money, which comes from the state.

But BTC does not come from the state, and it has not its value from the states. Not recognizing the difference, but ending in claiming BTC has no value at all, makes him stubborn and shows a lack of fantasy, or some kind of capture in an one-dimensional worldview.

Some idea I weirdly enjoy is that like Fiat gets its value from the state taking taxes BTC gets its value from the hackers demanding exclusively BTC for ransom ...

 

[Justus Ranvier]

i guess i'll need to wait around half a day to feel safe my million dollar transfer will not be double spent.

You're hinting at the elephant in the room which the small block side does not address.

Bitcoin's security properties are much better suited to a large volume of low value payments than a small volume of high value payments.

 

[Norway]

Some idea I weirdly enjoy is that like Fiat gets its value from the state taking taxes BTC gets its value from the hackers demanding exclusively BTC for ransom ...

Great analogy, lol!
[doublepost=1517784607][/doublepost]I bet $1 USD worth of BCH on Eagles winning. Any takers?

 

[hodl]

FREE BITCOIN HERE NO JOKE!!!!! NO CREDIT CARD NEEDED JUST BTC WALLET UP TO 1BTC EVERY 2 DAYS>>>

why is this shit still allowed in this thread? some things never change.

 

[awemany]

@hodl: Reporting it as spam seems to help to make @Bloomie aware of this
[doublepost=1517812662][/doublepost]

So-called "intellectual property" is incompatible with real property rights. This is because "IP" can only be implemented by interfering with control that owners have over actual scarce resources.

For example, let's say I'm catching fish by hand, and I see my neighbor make a net. On my property, I have some sticks and string that I own, and I decide to fashion them into a net also. If my neighbor says "you can't do that, I have a patent on nets", that means he is interfering with my right to unfettered control over my legitimate property. The only way that his "IP" could be enforced is by initiating an aggressive trespass into my property.

Yes, a very valid complaint and I agree with it, especially when it comes to patents or the criminal side of copyright law. I also find this the most objectionable problem with "IP" right now.

But what if all copyright law would only deal with any trade you do with someone else?

I have no strong opinion either way on that.

 

[Zarathustra]

@Zarathustra The argument that money has value because state wants it for taxes is common in modern monetary theory and not free of merits. The focus on the state of this theory makes the state responsible for monetary issues, which is a good thing in fiat money, which comes from the state.

But BTC does not come from the state, and it has not its value from the states. Not recognizing the difference, but ending in claiming BTC has no value at all, makes him stubborn and shows a lack of fantasy, or some kind of capture in an one-dimensional worldview.

Some idea I weirdly enjoy is that like Fiat gets its value from the state taking taxes BTC gets its value from the hackers demanding exclusively BTC for ransom ...

But it is indeed true that there is no such thing as money and economy and socialism and capitalism and markets and all it's products without the state. Beyond the state there are self-sufficient communities who don't pay taxes and who don't need an economy. The homo sapiens transformed into a homo oeconomicus (=collectivist/tax slave) with organized violence (church and state). The homo oeconomicus is forced to produce surplus as a tribute and that's the reason why he began to produce and trade like crazy. The homo sapiens who lives beyond the state produces still the same amount of things as he did 10'000 years ago, because he doesn't need to produce surplus (taxes). The homo oeconomicus produces 1'000 times more than he did 1'000 years ago because he is forced to do so. That's the difference and that's what the Austrians don't want to hear. They dream of anarcho capitalism, but that's an oxy moron. There is no such thing.

 

[Dusty]

That's the difference and that's what the Austrians don't want to hear.

But Austrians tells also that without taxes you could choose to produce less, since overproduction is not needed anymore and one can choose to use his time for personal growth, leisure and so on.

 

[awemany]

@Zarathustra: In a strictly biologist view, the peacock produces surplus feathers to attract mates much as humans produce economic surplus to attract mates and/or move up the dominance hierarchy.

States and other forms of oppressive organizations are just a means to extract more resources from others by means of getting rent on the capital that is violence. Which is my hope with Bitcoin and Crypto: It will make violence as economic means a bit less viable, by at least making the inflation tax / tribute less viable.

Now the 1st order biological aspect might simplify things too much, but there's still enough truth in that to shoot enough holes into your return-to-primitive-anarchist-tribes utopia to sink it

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

@Zarathustra: In a strictly biologist view, the peacock produces surplus feathers to attract mates much as humans produce economic surplus to attract mates and/or move up the dominance hierarchy.

Which apparently does not happen (as much) in the stone-age like communities that still exist today. There are groups of people that live today like they lived 10'000 of years ago. No accumulation of wealth, no distinct dominance hierarchy and no violence. Different types of apes also have very different social structures, some of them very hierarchical and violent, some more of the "live and let live" type..

But the peaceful communities have been pushed aside by the more aggressive human beings. The ones, that created civilizations, dominance hierarchies and organized violence. But also developed science and technical progress and medicine for plagues..

No idea which world is the better.. But I also doubt, that the latter type of human beings could "return" to a non hierarchical utopia.. Definitely not with the amount of people that exist today.

 

[hodl]

haha, the despair: [doublepost=1517847686][/doublepost]BTC below the 200DMA. not good:

[doublepost=1517848009,1517847388][/doublepost]GBTC has now filled the gap from November, as i warned back then several times. the good news is several gaps have now been created on the way down from the top which should also fill on a bounce. overall, long term bearish. we'll see:

 

[freetrader]

I'm going to hop out of the philosophical discussion for a moment

I just listened to Jimmy Nguyen's talk about 'bCommerce', and he talked about the Terab project and how (some of?) it's outputs would be open source, free to use on the Bitcoin Cash network, and how nChain (presumably) would provide IP that could help them get there. That's all good.

But I did also detect a little proviso of 'on the Bitcoin Cash chain'.

The Bitcoin (Cash) ledger or derivatives of it (such as UTXO) are critical inputs of such software.
It is also, by common consensus, not the property of anyone, it is shared data (software if you will) that anyone can freely obtain. It is a digital commons, the freedom of which to enjoy is guarded by those who have a stake in it and are not asleep.

The conflicts of "you can only run it on the Bitcoin Cash network" with the definitions of both free and open source software have already been pointed out.

The beauty of the ledger is that anyone can entirely validate it without needing to pay a third party. The maths to do so is free. The tools needed to implement it into software are largely free. Particular implementations of node clients need not be free, but it would be best to drop all notion of limiting others' freedom to operate on the ledger according to freely shared rules.