Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

theZerg

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 28, 2015
1,012
2,327
@freetrader, although your comments said the plan was suboptimal, that does not explain why you would agree to it and then do nothing.

And finally I clearly explained why it had to be this way in the final summary message. So basically the process HAD to be suboptimal to protect your choice of anonymity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Norway

freetrader

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
2,806
6,088
that does not explain why you would agree to it and then do nothing.
Someone already advised me this a while back, but now I see the wisdom behind it more clearly.
When you enter into some agreement, docproof it into the blockchain, and thank yourself later.
With Bitcoin Cash this will only cost a few satoshis. Don't be like me, and regret not doing this.

@theZerg : I disagree with your allegation that I did nothing. But you keep not answering my questions of previous posts, so I'm afraid this conversation isn't getting us anywhere.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: throwaway
Feb 27, 2018
30
94
OK, so in the spirit of things that used to be a thing but got disappeared in all that was going on, I started looking back at the history of green addresses. Karpeles and Hearn seemed to be for them, Luke-jr was predictably against. Now that we once again have low fees and plenty of capacity, is this now something that should be revisited or should it just stay in the grave?

Not to be confused with the "Greenaddress" company (what's up with that anyway?)
When I entered into this community I came out with a proposal for green addresses implemented with time locked contracts. However the general feeling I have gotten from responses is that this will never take off since this sort of user-end complication is unwanted -- totally understandable! Rather the focus is on making regular transactions more safe in 0-conf.
 

solex

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 22, 2015
1,558
4,695
This is a sad event which just shows how far the tentacles of vested interests in the fiat system have compromised Bitcoin BTC. Hopefully the rightful holder of @Bitcoin can recover his account.

 

wrstuv31

Member
Nov 26, 2017
76
208
and ppl wonder why i'm always so down on devs and the dev process. this is why i want to mostly just optimize the Bitcoin code around the simple concept of Sound Money. this would sideline most of the devs that can't help the tinkering that mostly destroys value while causing so much drama.
Conquering sound money alone would be a huge win. If building it is so easy that many altcoins get it right, then missing out on the extra features is a large loss. If building sound money is difficult, then avoiding extra features is a gain. If building sound money is extremely difficult/impossible then it's about community building primarily. What we do know, is that everyone in the world wants sound money as a feature.

If the above premise is true, it doesn't seem like a loss to focus solely on the sound money aspect.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,998
i don't think there is any question it's difficult and maybe next to impossible. that's why the only closest example we have in human history of sound money is gold going back several hundred years and we all agree that was imperfect b/c of it's tangibility limitations. @theZerg keeps claiming any altcoin can do it and, iirc, he said many have already done it. really? i don't see any other examples of altcoin sound money out there that have been successful in usurping any of BTC's network effect with the same PoW algo, same genesis block, and same ruleset. the only one i'm aware of that's rising up to the challenge is BCH. all the BTG, BTD variants are dying. given that, i think a great number of us BCH supporters are very threatened by the "devs gotta dev" syndrome that's threatening BCH. sure, from a technical standpoint, it's simple to code up a competing sound money chain. but from a market standpoint, ppl won't accept it b/c of the necessity of maintaining the established network effect for protection against state intervention. this is why it's so important to extend BCH's network effect worldwide to every person on the planet in an attempt to maximize decentralization of use that spans borders. this is the real decentralization and can only be achieved by leveraging the sound money aspect of BCH. no, it won't happen by emphasizing asset availability to the chain. MOST ppl worldwide and even in America don't care about concert tickets or stocks, bonds, insurance contracts: http://time.com/money/5054009/stock-ownership-10-percent-richest/ they only need a sound money so they can reliably pay for their next meal. it's annoying given BCH's initial success was predicated on simply changing the blocksize constant that proved highly successful while alleviating the huge stress point that had built up in Bitcoin in general over the last several years regarding a simple blocksize increase. now all of a sudden, and correlating with the long expected crypto bear market that was long overdue, certain BCH devs do a 180 degree turn and now are trying to tell us that we needed an Amazon/WoW all asset included platform all along to be successful as sound money. well, why didn't they start off in this direction last 8/1/17 if that was the thinking? and why, if they're so confident this should be the preferred BCH vision and direction, don't they release a HF to prove their point? answer: they won't b/c they aren't. this always happens during bears and i'd be way more worried if BTC and the stock mkt were taking off, which they aren't. KISS is highly counterintuitive and very hard to do given there's so much at stake.
 
Last edited:

jessquit

Member
Feb 24, 2018
71
312
I was really hoping that the quote below would have generated more discussion from this group but maybe it was lost in the text wall. Reposted here in case anyone wants to comment. Would sincerely appreciate insight. Thanks.

it's long been understood by economists that if your money has non-monetary use cases, that's bad. Gold makes for a poor unit of account precisely (in part) because so many industrial use cases exist. Tomorrow gold is found to cure cancer, by Wednesday bread costs half a penny. Then we learn that we were wrong, gold doesn't actually cure cancer it was just hype, and bread prices skyrocket. But guess what? Gold is an important metal for nuclear fusion! Boom! Bread prices plummet again.

If you're an economist looking for sound money, then that's bad.

On the other hand if what you're doing is mining and selling gold, then maybe you want all the use cases you can find.

Thoughts?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Norway and majamalu

_bc

Member
Mar 17, 2017
33
130
@jessquit: I appreciated your post. I thought it was particularly intellectually honest/thoughtful of you to ask if maxwell and szabo were right all along. I'll dig up the rest of that post of yours - no time right now.

Was gold really usurped because of industrial use cases? (asking) I've thought of it more related to portability. But fine, for your argument, that sounds valid in the abstract at least.

Bitcoin is volatile right now. And it's small. So, yes, right now its unit-of-account properties aren't stellar. But won't that come much later? isn't that to be expected anyway - until full-ish adoption? Wouldn't $100 trillion M1 dwarf concert ticket and ICO mania. Sure, right now it'll add spikes, but our YoY trend would remain up - I'd hope.

Also, mightn't the volatility of 10 use-cases (ICOs, IoT payments, etc) still have a bigger DC component (trend higher) and maybe even be smoother or steeper than just one use case? (not sure. asking)
[doublepost=1523308987][/doublepost]Regardless, I'm not decided. You, and Cypherdoc make good points. We're dealing with something that's never been possible before, though, so, I don't want to fall for any form of normalcy bias. I'd like to challenge all assumptions. It's hard.
 

solex

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 22, 2015
1,558
4,695
@jessquit
My view is that gold-money has never had a problem with industrial uses, which actually help underpin its store of value quality, but rather its difficulties performing in fundamental use-cases as money:

Gold's decline and eventual replacement by fiat money:

1) problem with divisibility. This was an early issue seen even before the time of the Roman Empire where the value of a standard gold coin exceeded most transactions, therefore requiring sub-unit coins made in base metals, especially copper, also by silver, which were convertible to gold at a problematic fixed or market rate. Coin-clipping was an early crime. Money had to be visibly standardized for common usage.

2) problem with portability. The bulkiness of gold meant that goldsmith bankers flourished in the 17th and 18th centuries issuing paper receipts which were I.O.U.s for gold. These paper claims, redeemable from the issuer led to private banknote issues by merchants, and joint stock / limited liability banks. Corporate banking was preferred as these institutions had more longevity than I.O.U issuing individuals.

3) problem with extreme portability. Invention of the telegraph and global rollout of undersea cables in the 2nd half of the 19th century meant that long-distance commerce became possible. Business deals could be struck by parties thousands of miles apart, but payment remained problematic. This includes the problem with velocity which also increased as money changed hands faster in advancing economies. The first currencies to be traded long-distance were the pound and dollar, hence this fx-rate is still nicknamed "cable".

4) problem with keeping fractional reserve banking honest. The latter being a perceived problem arising from irregular booms and busts which are part of natural economic cycles. Governments welcomed the concept of central banking as it provided control over money supply and interest rates. It also provides far more more for social welfare spending and warfare (made OK by renaming "Department of War" to "Department of Defence" in many countries).

Moving on to the present day...
Small booms and busts have been banished and the election cycle has moved to front focus. Fractional reserve banking hits systemic limits in 2007/8 and the plates are kept spinning by near-zero interest rates and central bank printing.

Now, the magic of historical co-incidence. Bitcoin is invented and launched in January 2009.

Yet, while Bitcoin perfectly solves gold's problems 1,2,3,4, it does not solve one other fundamental quality of gold, which is its natural scarcity. For the reason that Bitcoin is a subset of cryptocurrency and cryptocurrency is infinite, with a store of value bolstered only by real-world economic usage, also translated as inertia of the network effect where holders play an important role.
The key to a cryptocurrency successfully becoming "digital gold" can be summed up in a single word: adoption.
 
Last edited:

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,998
@solex great summary.

my only difference in opinion is that cryptocurrency is a subset of Bitcoin.
 
  • Like
Reactions: throwaway and solex

Mengerian

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 29, 2015
536
2,597
It seems that the longer Craig Wright campaigns against Selfish Mining, the more people come to realize that the result, though counter-intuitive, is correct.

Some recent examples:


https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8b2uah/i_built_a_selfish_mining_simulator_in_javascript/

https://www.yours.org/content/a-javascript-selfish-mining-simulator-4c123c97b8a3

https://www.yours.org/content/selfish-mining-for-the-laymen---part-ii-a33d56e4e61c

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8avoa3/psa_i_have_been_down_the_sm_rabbit_hole_for_weeks/ (This last example is from a formerly ardent critic of selfish mining, basically backing down in a face-saving manner).

I actually find this quite encouraging, it seems this episode is leading to many people investigating for themselves, looking into the math, building simulations, etc. It gives me some hope that with open and uncensored dialogue, the community may actually improve in understanding and knowledge of complex topics.
 
Last edited:

sickpig

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
926
2,541
Looks very nice and it's great to see a health number of BU nodes.
How often are the numbers updated?
~5 minutes

the crawler code is a fork of bitnodes.earn.com adapted to work on the Bitcoin Cash network (https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/cashnodes)

There is some issue with the column header.
When I select Agents it shows Country in the header.
When I select Country it shows Network.
When I select Network it shows User Agent.

thanks for the bug report, going to take care of it! (edit: PR opened https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/cashnodes-frontend/pull/22 will deploy the fix tomorrow)

if you find anything else please open an issue here:

https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/cashnodes-frontend/issues
 
Last edited:

Members online