Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

@sickpig

this is the main hindrance, imo:

That said I think they have a common view on the economic/political angle and that in general could hinder their work on the technical side.

[doublepost=1448037963][/doublepost]BTCC highlighting the crux of the problem as they see it. that's bad news for Blockstream:

"BlockPriority is a unique and innovative service available exclusively to BTCC users. It's also a means of mitigating potential impact to our customers from the lack of progress on blocksize increases."

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/bitcoin-giant-btcc-launches-priority-blockchain-transactions-its-customers-1529730

 

[sickpig]

Funny, isn'it:


Peter Todd is annoyed by this new service provided by BTCC aimed at prioritising bitcoin transaction confirmations.

What else could he have expected from the enforcing of 1MB max block size limit?

edit: grammar

 

[cypherdoc]

“God blessed us with a good amount of money this month”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/15/world/asia/cia-funds-found-their-way-into-al-qaeda-coffers.html?_r=0
[doublepost=1448038446][/doublepost]anybody have an idea why i can't see tweets or reddit comments pasted into posts? the only firefox extension i have installed in ubuntu is ublock origin and that doesn't seem to be the problem...

 

[theZerg]

The problem is also significantly about money. 21million carefully spent allows them to put 10 top salary engineers on the job for a decade (they won't burn like that but they *could*). How can part time engineers compete?

By leveraging their work and also inviting other companies to contribute money and manpower. ..


EDIT: I am on firefox and have no issues with embedded quotes

 

[sickpig]

@cypherdoc just to confirm that twitter quote didn't work on Firefox (ver 43, fwiw).

reddit quotes working somewhat better but it doesn't render the quote completely even if I click to expand it

no prob at all on chrome.

 

[cypherdoc]

@sickpig

i'm using v. 42 firefox in ubuntu. weird.

i'm not thrilled about using Chrome.

 

[Peter R]

Funny, isn'it:


Peter Todd is annoyed by this new service provided by BTCC aimed at prioritising bitcoin transaction confirmations.

What else could he have expected from the enforcing of 1MB max block size limit?

edit: grammar

Haha nice! A small block size limit is now a centralizing factor.

 

[sickpig]

@sickpig

i'm using v. 42 firefox in ubuntu. weird.

i'm not thrilled about using Chrome.

you're right not being eager to use it. you can't even imagine how many times a chrome instance phone back home while using it.

 

[albin]

The dev situation very strongly reminds me of a situation I've seen professionally time and time again, when lacking adequate oversight via project management, corporate IS goes rogue.

The typical scenario involves the fact that alot of project deployment in business is IT-centric as far as execution. You'll have a project manager that is either in over his head or overextended due to insufficient resources to properly-delegate a large project of potentially poorly-defined scope.

What starts happening in these scenarios is that IS stops communicating with the needs of all the stakeholders, and they retreat into bikeshedding or hiding behind bureaucratic procedures to avoid the maximum amount of workload that is not directly related to their own insular pet projects. For example, someone in operations might realize that creating a certain kind of fairly-trivial report would dramatically improve productivity. Because communication has broken down and the priority has shifted to merely ticking items off an action plan that upper management look at for all of thirty seconds just to make sure everything is checked off, the rogue IS department will browbeat operations with questions like "why do you need such a report?" and will stonewall by wasting time in endless email exchanges making irrelevant suggestion after irrelevant suggestion.

The end result is that the rogue IS department de facto dictates operational decisions. This forces operations to create ugly manual workarounds (for example, mining transactions as priority out-of-band), which IS spins to further undermine or humiliate operations (Peter Todd's tweet).

 

[sickpig]

@theZerg re Firefox issue

ms win or Linux?

Iike @cypherdoc I'm experiencing this prob on a Ubuntu system.

\cc @Bloomie

 

[cypherdoc]

 

[Impulse]

Haha nice! A small block size limit is now a centralizing factor.

It always was. I cannot understand how they don't see that, it is a bizarre blindspot.

 

[theZerg]

@theZerg re Firefox issue

ms win or Linux?

Iike @cypherdoc I'm experiencing this prob on a Ubuntu system.

\cc @Bloomie

I am fine on both windows and linux

EDITS:
You mean firefox version? 42

Not running ublock

Just installed ublock -- still seeing the embedded reddit and twits. But marketwatch.com hangs the browser.

 

[sickpig]

@theZerg so it's OS independent. which version are you running on?

 

[awemany]

[...]

Peter Todd is annoyed by this new service provided by BTCC aimed at prioritising bitcoin transaction confirmations.

What else could he have expected from the enforcing of 1MB max block size limit?

edit: grammar

I hope mining companies don't go from apparently being mostly uneducated on what they are actually doing towards killing Bitcoin by even more idiotic small block entrenchment.

With a narrow mind, they could think that they have a viable business model and investments (code, website, etc...) that needs protection (1MB staying in place).

It is unfortunately my impression that many miners have to be burned badly, by a seriously collapsing Bitcoin price, before they actually start to get a clue how that thing works that they are using.

 

[cypherdoc]

@theZerg so it's OS independent. which very are you running on?

Are you running Ublock?
[doublepost=1448048961,1448047841][/doublepost]Oil $39.39.

amazing.

 

[sickpig]

noscript/ghostery. but it seems unrelated cause it happens even I disabled them.

tomorrow I'll try with a pristine Firefox installation.

 

[AdrianX]

I hope mining companies don't go from apparently being mostly uneducated on what they are actually doing towards killing Bitcoin by even more idiotic small block entrenchment.

With a narrow mind, they could think that they have a viable business model and investments (code, website, etc...) that needs protection (1MB staying in place).

It is unfortunately my impression that many miners have to be burned badly, by a seriously collapsing Bitcoin price, before they actually start to get a clue how that thing works that they are using.

Small blocks are in the big miners best interests, it allows them to compete for higher fees more effectively than small miners. The only problem is network security is ~98% subsidized by block reward, and squeezing more profit out of that 2% by charging higher fees is going to impact bitcoin's growth potential significantly.

Understanding the economics of scale when it comes to profitability is the knowlage stooping centralization of mining. While fees don't have to be $0.05 and block side docent need to continue growing.

the only way to break up the centralized mining cartels is to allow those working against the cartel to reduce fees and make up for it in volume.

 

[cypherdoc]

Listen to this ridiculous giggle fest on the LN:

http://www.bitcoin.kn/2015/11/lightning-network-architects-dryja-poon-discuss-scaling-bitcoin/

Joseph Poon is a finance guy (snake oil salesman) with no vested interest in Bitcoin. Dryja sounds similar. Poon distortions:

1. "Bitcoin didn't work with ip payment addresses."
2." It takes 8 blocks to confirm a tx".
3." 5 cents is already getting too expensive for Bitcoin TX's, thus we need LN" - makes no sense because that ignores that 1MB is the cause. miniblockists also argue that with infinite blocks tx fees would go to zero. Well, if both of those are true that means that we should in fact increase block size to an equilibrium where fees would be between 5 cents and zero.
4. Towards the end Poon says that tx fees need to rise when rewards disappear. Thus he says we need small blocks to force a fee market. Yeah right. As if a few hundred thousand users will sustain the entire mining industry and avoid centralization.

This are just a few examples. Have a listen but listen carefully for the bullshit and ignorance.
[doublepost=1448050360][/doublepost]Dryja admits that "LN can take the load off Bitcoin at 1MB other than it would be otherwise be if not hobbled at 1MB ".
[doublepost=1448050414][/doublepost]The above are paraphrased

 

[albin]

Trace Mayer is becoming more and more pathetic. First it was trying to get every single guest to blame the accidental LevelDB hardfork on Mike Hearn, and now he's trying to invent some kind of political scandal out of BIP 101 testing on testnet3.