Eyes on the prize, boys.
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
Feminism is a conspiracy between wine growers and cat breeders to make women miserable.
It's also a political weapon used to exploit fracture points and recruit masses of the gullible into serving interests that are not their own.
The reason you think feminism is virtuous is the same reason you think fracking will end all life on the planet - rich and unscrupulous people paid someone a lot of money to tell you what to think.
http://dailysignal.com/2012/09/28/matt-damons-anti-fracking-movie-financed-by-oil-rich-arab-nation/
The vast majority of humans are incapable of independent thought and simply latch on to whoever pushes their emotional buttons and then blindly repeat whatever they say.
It's exactly what has happened in the last several years in Bitcoin and in the the world at large, and throughout history as long as humans have existed.
Don't be such a sexist!
Ok, between the discussions about feminism and the PMS of different developers there is a lot of interesting stuff in the last pages. To me, as a layman in terms of actual Bitcoin development, it looks like there is still a lot (!) of room for improvement in actual "scaling" aka making the transmission of the tx's and blocks more efficient.
I agree with jessquit and hodl, that BCH is about sound money. That's the killer app, the only thing that really needs to happen. I still think, that Bitcoin could have been a world currency without any scripting, smart contracts, etc.. Just blocks of signatures for transactions, nothing more. Maybe that would have been the better choice but we are where we are.
That being said, I am not concerned about carefully expanding the script set and allowing more smart contract stuff (still, 99% of the smart contract stuff is just bullshit and also relies on a trust..). If it helps for marketing, let them have their toys.
But removing the blocksize limit or finding a clear, definite blocksize limit schedule for the future should be priority number one. (And afaik thezerg did also work on that in the Gigablock initiative).
Whenever the bs limit is removed, the protocol can stay as it is as far as I am concerned.
As awemany and deadalnix debated, there is so much room for improvement on the client side. Enough stuff for developers to have their fun.
i have plenty of personal feedback that the money function of Bitcoin is it's primary function:
1. this thread's central theme (Gold's collapse) and Bitcoin's success (UP) having played out as envisioned (gold mired at a miserable $1330).
2. when i first started my newsletter April 2012, i had to make a conscious definitive decision; where to recommend to my subs to invest. either the coin itself, merchants, exchanges, mining, etc. without hesitation, my clear and sustained recommendation was to buy every dip in the coin as every other market participant would come and go except for the coin which would "always" be here in fixed and limited supply. @molecular, being one of my very first subs, can vouch for this. the price at the time was ~$4.
3. this thread's longevity, despite considerable obstacles (BCT banning) due to market participant's (us) interest in Sound Money. many of the things we predicted have played out; Blockstream's ongoing implosion due to flawed economic concepts (Greg, Matt, SilleyDilley, Gorlick, Martindale all gone), high fees from mempool congestion, SC's failure to come to fruition, LN as a centralized layer (still early and not a given), BCH as a big block alternative and coming into being via a hard fork not causing the Earth to plunge into the Sun.
4. when the price recovered to ~$700 after the long 2014 bear mkt, i made a pronouncement here in this thread that we'd already won as Bitcoin Maximalists; the "evidence" being that despite the resounding lack of success of most industry merchant player's, the price was continuing to advance as the market was sending the signal that it's interest in coin price was most important. this continued all the way thru to the top at ~$19K and is still relatively strong with BTC hanging out around $10K despite hardly any commerce occurring on BTC. this tells me that the SOV properties of Bitcoin are just as important as it's currency properties. how long this asymmetry in function (lack of commerce/tx's via the 1MB limit) can last is anyone's guess, but the point remains; investing in the coin is the place to be. and the conclusion to me is just as clear; the emphasis should be on making it the best money possible (smart contracting not so much with a big push towards p2p currency capabilities).
5. central banks, banks, and credit card companies (the money handlers) in general complaining loudly and making a new recent push to snuff out anything Bitcoin money related. this is really all TPTB are interested in preventing which is crystal clear to me. i don't hear Wall Street complaining nearly as much (the smart contracting boys via stocks, bonds, insurance).
6. i think all the talk about allowing competing currencies (XCP) to be embedded in the protocol resulted in the recent BCH price weakness. but i could just be seeing things as this is pure speculation as nobody knows for sure.
7. b/c of BTC's failure to scale, every altcoin/ICO playing off some crypto "currency" variant enjoying tremendous success.
of course, past success is no indicator of future success.
1. this thread's central theme (Gold's collapse) and Bitcoin's success (UP) having played out as envisioned (gold mired at a miserable $1330).
2. when i first started my newsletter April 2012, i had to make a conscious definitive decision; where to recommend to my subs to invest. either the coin itself, merchants, exchanges, mining, etc. without hesitation, my clear and sustained recommendation was to buy every dip in the coin as every other market participant would come and go except for the coin which would "always" be here in fixed and limited supply. @molecular, being one of my very first subs, can vouch for this. the price at the time was ~$4.
3. this thread's longevity, despite considerable obstacles (BCT banning) due to market participant's (us) interest in Sound Money. many of the things we predicted have played out; Blockstream's ongoing implosion due to flawed economic concepts (Greg, Matt, SilleyDilley, Gorlick, Martindale all gone), high fees from mempool congestion, SC's failure to come to fruition, LN as a centralized layer (still early and not a given), BCH as a big block alternative and coming into being via a hard fork not causing the Earth to plunge into the Sun.
4. when the price recovered to ~$700 after the long 2014 bear mkt, i made a pronouncement here in this thread that we'd already won as Bitcoin Maximalists; the "evidence" being that despite the resounding lack of success of most industry merchant player's, the price was continuing to advance as the market was sending the signal that it's interest in coin price was most important. this continued all the way thru to the top at ~$19K and is still relatively strong with BTC hanging out around $10K despite hardly any commerce occurring on BTC. this tells me that the SOV properties of Bitcoin are just as important as it's currency properties. how long this asymmetry in function (lack of commerce/tx's via the 1MB limit) can last is anyone's guess, but the point remains; investing in the coin is the place to be. and the conclusion to me is just as clear; the emphasis should be on making it the best money possible (smart contracting not so much with a big push towards p2p currency capabilities).
5. central banks, banks, and credit card companies (the money handlers) in general complaining loudly and making a new recent push to snuff out anything Bitcoin money related. this is really all TPTB are interested in preventing which is crystal clear to me. i don't hear Wall Street complaining nearly as much (the smart contracting boys via stocks, bonds, insurance).
6. i think all the talk about allowing competing currencies (XCP) to be embedded in the protocol resulted in the recent BCH price weakness. but i could just be seeing things as this is pure speculation as nobody knows for sure.
7. b/c of BTC's failure to scale, every altcoin/ICO playing off some crypto "currency" variant enjoying tremendous success.
of course, past success is no indicator of future success.
Last edited:
Exactly, the Bitcoin white paper only defines inter-block transaction ordering and makes no requirements for intra-block transaction ordering. Satoshi's SW implementation on the other hand added additional intra-block transaction ordering requirements where transactions must follow transactions they depend on.
My view is Bitcoin development can implement any intra-block transaction ordering scheme that is the most efficient. Each scheme will have pros and cons regarding blockchain size, block transmission speed, compute time and coding complexity.
Satoshi's choice was clearly done to reduce coding complexity, which was the obvious choice for initial 2009 development. But this choice should not constrain future design choices. If there are other ordering schemes that improve on blockchain size, block transmission speed or compute time, we are free to make these design choices as long as inter-block transaction ordering is maintained.
[doublepost=1519761015,1519760304][/doublepost]Regarding the OP_GROUP debate, I think this reddit post hits a key technical issue. OP_GROUP is not an operation as other script commands, it is a tag of sorts and is not an OP by any current definition. OP_GROUP would significantly change the nature of Bitcoin's script language. To me this is a disqualifying issue. When I first read about OP_GROUP I remember the back of my mind was thinking "what does OP_GROUP do?". This post explains why I did not find an answer to that question.
I understand effort was put into OP_GROUP and it was a worthwhile option to explore, but I believe in the end it does not pass and this approach should be abandoned.
Last edited:
majamalu
Active Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 144
- 775
I don't expect that. Why would I? What's so wrong about natural differences that we are supposed to "correct them" at any price? I don't know, ask a feminist.
Last edited:
Richy_T
Well-Known Member
- Dec 27, 2015
- 1,085
- 2,741
Arguably, if it hasn't been confirmed, you haven't received it. You're kiting a check with the redeeming factor being that you won't be able to send your balance negative.
Even still, how often has this been an issue for anyone?
As for CPFP, it wasn't even a thing in the Core client last I checked. They disabled it because "the best programmers in the world" found it difficult. It's possible it's since been re-enabled though.
bitsko
Active Member
- Aug 31, 2015
- 730
- 1,532
i don't get the question. today i can choose to opt-in to stocks, bonds thru my brokerage acct. or i can opt in to Ether, XRP, Dash, LTC, Doge, etc. the real question is why Counterparty feels the need to latch onto the BCH blockchain. the answer is simple; it needs it's mining security and cheap tx's. it's goal though is to drive the price of XCP.
i listened to the video twice, btw. it was good. it's very rudimentary at this point and it's timeline is very aggressive. 6-8 wks, really? POB for sure and *maybe* an ICO. how would that even work with XCP? and maybe a premine for the CPC foundation, he said, for all the usual reasons/excuses. he said Amaury has already endorsed CP. hmm, ok. that accounts for the OP CODE panoply we're about to get and maybe for the OP GROUP resistance; i don't know.
i get that "alot" of ppl (devs) supposedly want this stuff. the question is do they advance the BCH vision of becoming a world reserve currency just b/c BCH gets used in a proof of burn and later for tx fees to miners as these tokens get moved/traded? i really don't think so as they appear to just be placeholders for alternative assets and not used as money. will opening up all these new OP CODES create attack surfaces? i don't know that either but it should be a primary concern. does the market even want these options, as opposed to alot of vocal devs?
i listened to the video twice, btw. it was good. it's very rudimentary at this point and it's timeline is very aggressive. 6-8 wks, really? POB for sure and *maybe* an ICO. how would that even work with XCP? and maybe a premine for the CPC foundation, he said, for all the usual reasons/excuses. he said Amaury has already endorsed CP. hmm, ok. that accounts for the OP CODE panoply we're about to get and maybe for the OP GROUP resistance; i don't know.
i get that "alot" of ppl (devs) supposedly want this stuff. the question is do they advance the BCH vision of becoming a world reserve currency just b/c BCH gets used in a proof of burn and later for tx fees to miners as these tokens get moved/traded? i really don't think so as they appear to just be placeholders for alternative assets and not used as money. will opening up all these new OP CODES create attack surfaces? i don't know that either but it should be a primary concern. does the market even want these options, as opposed to alot of vocal devs?
Last edited:
It seems pretty clear the next major split will be over how much or how little to expand Bitcoin (Cash) with new functionality.
On this topic, I think it is important to remember Bitcoin still lacks key functionality to fully be sound money and requires additional functionality to achieve all of the properties that "money" should have, which gold and cash already have BTW.
One key property currently lacking is uniformity. Uniformity is partially lost because bitcoins have a transaction history and it is possible to track a bitcoin's prior history and where a given coin came from. One example here is governments creating the concept of white list vs. black list coins based on which are 'legitimate' and the result being each set is valued differently. Zero knowledge proofs is one functional expansion that would improve Bitcoin's uniformity. There are others.
So I think enhancements to Bitcoin that improve it's sound money properties or ability to be used as a currency are items that should be added or at least considered.
This BTW has been ETH's success. ETH is the unit of account for all of the ICOs. This drives both ETH's price and also it's transaction volume, and just look at the results. If Bitcoin is to successfully compete we need to successfully find a path here, but with a better balance than ETH's kitchen sink on the blockchain approach.
On this topic, I think it is important to remember Bitcoin still lacks key functionality to fully be sound money and requires additional functionality to achieve all of the properties that "money" should have, which gold and cash already have BTW.
One key property currently lacking is uniformity. Uniformity is partially lost because bitcoins have a transaction history and it is possible to track a bitcoin's prior history and where a given coin came from. One example here is governments creating the concept of white list vs. black list coins based on which are 'legitimate' and the result being each set is valued differently. Zero knowledge proofs is one functional expansion that would improve Bitcoin's uniformity. There are others.
So I think enhancements to Bitcoin that improve it's sound money properties or ability to be used as a currency are items that should be added or at least considered.
@hodl I think your phrasing here is a very good one and this is where it is much more gray. Bitcoin should not be all things, but our objective should be to tie financial products (stocks, bonds, etc) to BCH in a manner that makes BCH the unit of account for these financial products. So the blockchain functions as base money and the unit of account, but multiple financial derivatives are tied to it somehow.
This BTW has been ETH's success. ETH is the unit of account for all of the ICOs. This drives both ETH's price and also it's transaction volume, and just look at the results. If Bitcoin is to successfully compete we need to successfully find a path here, but with a better balance than ETH's kitchen sink on the blockchain approach.
Last edited:
Hi all, I just joined the forum here (have been posting on reddit recently) and saw all the talk about graphene in this thread. Funny, as someone who has spent countless hours making graphene samples and publishing papers about graphene electrons, that now I have to spend more time staring at it in the bitcoin world. ;-)
Richy_T
Well-Known Member
- Dec 27, 2015
- 1,085
- 2,741
If OP_GROUP is about tagging, what is the deal about being able to handle it with OP_RETURN? And if that's all it is, couldn't you also tag by using a specific address as an additional output (or even a pass-through)? I guess I should read more about it but colored coins were never something that excited me about Bitcoin (though it's possible I was just swayed by Core propaganda thinking about it).
OK, it's this:
Edit: It also seems to me that implementing OP_GROUP without validation with the prospect of adding validation later would be an option (Or an OP_GROUPV if colored coins proves amazingly successful). It seems to me that colored coin manipulation would tyically occur outside of normal Bitcoin wallets (I don't keep my car registration shoved in a pile of Benjamins) so consensus-rule validation is probably not that big an issue (at first anyway).
OK, it's this:
I think I'm not strongly against this but I don't think there is the urgency to implement this that some people seem to be pushing for. Another 6 months of community discussion would not be out of line, I think.
Edit: It also seems to me that implementing OP_GROUP without validation with the prospect of adding validation later would be an option (Or an OP_GROUPV if colored coins proves amazingly successful). It seems to me that colored coin manipulation would tyically occur outside of normal Bitcoin wallets (I don't keep my car registration shoved in a pile of Benjamins) so consensus-rule validation is probably not that big an issue (at first anyway).
Last edited:
Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
Yes, 90 percent of the humans believe that 90 percent of humans are incapable of independent thought and simply latch on to whoever pushes their emotional buttons and then blindly repeat whatever they say.
Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
Some representants of masculism expect woman to act like them. Claim that they also had 'the chance' to be like them: hunters, gamblers and risk takers, which in my opinion is ridiculous.I don't expect that. Why would I? What's so wrong about natural differences that we are supposed to "correct them" at any price? I don't know, ask a feminist.
@awemany
My favourite female fighter against all those pseudo feminists is Esther Vilar.
Most famous book: The Manipulated Man.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esther_Vilar
The result of patriarchy is the concept of the unnatural, dysfunctional monogamous pairing family.
The Man as a Wimp.
Here a legendary fight on German TV:
Pseudo feminism collapsing - real feminism up!
Last edited:
deadalnix
Active Member
- Sep 18, 2016
- 115
- 196
bitsko
Active Member
- Aug 31, 2015
- 730
- 1,532
Using satoshis to represent tokens is a hack, just like it would be a hack to take pennies and stamp a barcode onto them, turning them into car wash tokens.
Nobody would argue that this use case would make the USD a better form of exchange or unit of account.
Nobody would argue that this use case would make the USD a better form of exchange or unit of account.
Seems to me that OP_GROUP could be modified easily enough to not convert satoshis<->tokens.
To put it simply: during the minting/melting operations, allow tokens to be created/destroyed out of thin air.
Miners would always validate conservation of pure satoshis, and (except during minting/melting) also separately validate the conservation of tokens.
The only disadvantage is that this would have to be implemented as a hard fork -- old nodes would perceive these minting/melting operations as violations of satoshi conservation. Being a hard fork, it doesn't require representing tokens via an opcode, and they could alternatively be included with a new transaction version as Gavin suggests.
To put it simply: during the minting/melting operations, allow tokens to be created/destroyed out of thin air.
Miners would always validate conservation of pure satoshis, and (except during minting/melting) also separately validate the conservation of tokens.
The only disadvantage is that this would have to be implemented as a hard fork -- old nodes would perceive these minting/melting operations as violations of satoshi conservation. Being a hard fork, it doesn't require representing tokens via an opcode, and they could alternatively be included with a new transaction version as Gavin suggests.
