- Aug 22, 2015
- 1,558
- 4,693
@Bloomie
Any hint about blockstream's long term plans? Is it LN for BTC or bust?
Any hint about blockstream's long term plans? Is it LN for BTC or bust?
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
as well, what a world when even snakes come to a similar conclusion:
- Aug 19, 2015
- 510
- 803
To be honest, I didn't care enough to stick around for their presentations, but LN and magic panda/pony shows took the main stage from what I saw. As you would expect, some of the informal conversation in the room revolved around "bcash is hijacking the name etc" but it wasn't the right place to debate them—entertaining to meet the trolls in real life though. Overall, their space felt kind of dorky and not a fun place to be compared to booths run by younger and more charismatic teams.
"Pay back will be a BCH"
There's a new T shirt for you .
There's a new T shirt for you .
i need to emphasize this point b/c i often see this suggestion that miners would be better off diversifying as LN hubs:
i don't think accumulated PoW as stated by @Peter R in the above Youtube video is correct in choosing the real Bitcoin, esp in light of what Jihan had to say this morning:
maybe there's something called PoR or Proof of Reason that will trump accumulated PoW that miners such as @Jihan are seeing in what i think is a slower than expected transition period from BTC to BCH. i say this b/c alot of ppl must be wondering why the sha256 miners of BTC don't mount an all out attack to destroy BCH as it continues to carve out more and more user, merchant, and value share. it would be simple to do. the reason must be PoR (my term) as outlined in this excellent article:
"Merchants Miners would see the value of Bitcoins as a money and agree to accept them in exchange for goods and services because of the inherent properties they have. The merchants miners would be speculating on the value of the coins at first until prices were established, but eventually if enough people recognize the inherent value of the coins, prices will be established for all products and services in terms of those coins."
http://www.libertariannews.org/2011/07/07/the-economics-of-bitcoin-challenging-mises-regression-theorem/
after all, we've had hundreds of years to Reason about what makes a good money. we've learned from gold, silver, cowry shells, beads, fiat, debt, derivatives, etc. you name it, the Internet now talks about it. money no longer has to prove itself as a commodity or have pre-existing utility. this is why the Regression Theorum is flat out wrong given today's information access. and everyone now has access to this information and is beginning to understand why central banks are the problem. many can even list out the attributes of a sound money. miners certainly know about this and can Reason about why BCH is superior to BTC/LN.
so why do they continue to mine BTC for the most part? short term profits and exit strategy. it's a well known fact on Wall St and inside any trading house that when you have a large position in something that you suddenly find out is the wrong position, don't sell it all at once, and certainly don't talk about it. if anything, do your best to keep the price stable while you slowly exit the position and take profits. otherwise you create panic and will end up having to sell at rock bottom prices, iow, at a significant loss. when the BCH fork came out of the blue on Aug 1, 2017, it was somewhat unexpected. thank you @deadalnix & @freetrader. if you were a miner, you might have done what Wang Chun did when he suddenly realized BCH was going to be a thing; buy $1M worth of BCH. but for the rest of them, and even Wang himself, i'm sure they are, or at least have to consider, slowly exiting their BTC positions esp as the price topped out at $20K in December. and they don't necessarily have to be converting that BTC to BCH. it would be enough to cash out in dollars. that further runup into December demonstrates how badly markets can be out of sync and ignore the coming reality sometimes. imo, we saw the BTC highs at $20K and it's downhill from here.
the fact that @Jihan is willing to brazenly make such a huge BCH price prediction now means, to me, he's probably finished his portfolio redistribution in preparation for the BCH bull run. i'm sure he tossed in the BTC price prediction so as not to anger BTC trolls.
eventually accumulated PoW will determine the winner of this race, but right now imo, it's PoR.
maybe there's something called PoR or Proof of Reason that will trump accumulated PoW that miners such as @Jihan are seeing in what i think is a slower than expected transition period from BTC to BCH. i say this b/c alot of ppl must be wondering why the sha256 miners of BTC don't mount an all out attack to destroy BCH as it continues to carve out more and more user, merchant, and value share. it would be simple to do. the reason must be PoR (my term) as outlined in this excellent article:
"
http://www.libertariannews.org/2011/07/07/the-economics-of-bitcoin-challenging-mises-regression-theorem/
after all, we've had hundreds of years to Reason about what makes a good money. we've learned from gold, silver, cowry shells, beads, fiat, debt, derivatives, etc. you name it, the Internet now talks about it. money no longer has to prove itself as a commodity or have pre-existing utility. this is why the Regression Theorum is flat out wrong given today's information access. and everyone now has access to this information and is beginning to understand why central banks are the problem. many can even list out the attributes of a sound money. miners certainly know about this and can Reason about why BCH is superior to BTC/LN.
so why do they continue to mine BTC for the most part? short term profits and exit strategy. it's a well known fact on Wall St and inside any trading house that when you have a large position in something that you suddenly find out is the wrong position, don't sell it all at once, and certainly don't talk about it. if anything, do your best to keep the price stable while you slowly exit the position and take profits. otherwise you create panic and will end up having to sell at rock bottom prices, iow, at a significant loss. when the BCH fork came out of the blue on Aug 1, 2017, it was somewhat unexpected. thank you @deadalnix & @freetrader. if you were a miner, you might have done what Wang Chun did when he suddenly realized BCH was going to be a thing; buy $1M worth of BCH. but for the rest of them, and even Wang himself, i'm sure they are, or at least have to consider, slowly exiting their BTC positions esp as the price topped out at $20K in December. and they don't necessarily have to be converting that BTC to BCH. it would be enough to cash out in dollars. that further runup into December demonstrates how badly markets can be out of sync and ignore the coming reality sometimes. imo, we saw the BTC highs at $20K and it's downhill from here.
the fact that @Jihan is willing to brazenly make such a huge BCH price prediction now means, to me, he's probably finished his portfolio redistribution in preparation for the BCH bull run. i'm sure he tossed in the BTC price prediction so as not to anger BTC trolls.
eventually accumulated PoW will determine the winner of this race, but right now imo, it's PoR.
@cypherdoc: I see it pretty much like Peter. But maybe it is simply a matter of time scales! Even in your picture, you'd expect "PoR" to be aligned with PoW eventually. And, like everyone else around, I am very confident that that will happen.
Though, yes, it might take another couple years.
That said, absolutely agreed with your analysis on the situation of the miners. I hope and am optimistic they see it in the same light
The enemies are quite clear now, and the hijacking (attempt) of BTC has been very prominent.
And this is, again, why I feel that Satoshi designed this into Bitcoin as a breaking point. Maybe he expected (at least I did) a more proactive approach against the usurpation. But hopefully, the routing-around works as well.
But the incentives to attempt to move away from the miners are very clear now, on part of the payment processors and banks and whoever else wants to take a cut on that what makes the world go round. You have to be blind to not see this now.
It always gets lost in the noise a bit, but the Lightning Network white paper directly talked about how it would be neat to simply avoid using Bitcoin!
The essence of Bitcoin is taking the idea of the global village to the final conclusion. And Bitcoin is simply directly the ledger of the global village.
Because we can do that now. Because technology has become powerful enough.
I think it was @Justus Ranvier who remarked once on some of us "feeling bad for getting rich with broken BTC", that we at least felt bad. I must say that I only recently felt what he alluded to.
But I actually think now that any path but BCH (or an Alt that would fill the same spot, though I cannot see that happening) will be a continuation of the old scheme on how to run money, and thus the world. I cannot see a crypto-backing scheme where the underlying coins would keep their value over time.
As a last, failing attempt, some central banks might try to do just that and buy truckloads of BTC and not BCH to try to force BCH into the ground enough so that they can declare victory of BTC (and thus of their usurpation and final burying of BTC).
Because for them, it is just other people's money, after all!
But I think such a thing will fail, due to the global nature of this. Any central bank doing so risks losing out BIG time against other central banks doing the right thing as a countermeasure.
And maybe, just maybe, the politicians in charge will feel as citizens of their nation for a moment and NOT sell out their own country by a futile attempt to stop this revolution. Maybe. We all have our doubts here, I guess
And just replacing the base unit was quite clearly never Satoshi's intent. Heck, the central banks have talked repeatedly about their own schemes for inventing a currency that they'd use as their "base".
I am also pretty sure it wasn't the intent of any but very few of the other early investors of Bitcoin either, even if they just bought it because well, they saw the value in a global village ledger.
Maybe you can have this funny view where you temporarily invest in Bitcoin even though you believe the central bankers will continue to run the show and where you think Bitcoin will eventually fail. "Invest in the blip", so to say.
But then Bitcoin would have been designed in a different way. Proof of stake, most likely.
I do think the incentive system of Bitcoin is fundamentally immune to being usurped in the old scheme once more (due to efficiency of running everything on a flat chain in the end), though the proof is in the eating of the pudding, or lets say, when we indeed all became RCH BCHes.
Bitcoin is designed to take out the middle men, not introduce new ones, especially not new ones that turn out to be the same as the old ones.
Though, yes, it might take another couple years.
That said, absolutely agreed with your analysis on the situation of the miners. I hope and am optimistic they see it in the same light
The enemies are quite clear now, and the hijacking (attempt) of BTC has been very prominent.
And this is, again, why I feel that Satoshi designed this into Bitcoin as a breaking point. Maybe he expected (at least I did) a more proactive approach against the usurpation. But hopefully, the routing-around works as well.
But the incentives to attempt to move away from the miners are very clear now, on part of the payment processors and banks and whoever else wants to take a cut on that what makes the world go round. You have to be blind to not see this now.
It always gets lost in the noise a bit, but the Lightning Network white paper directly talked about how it would be neat to simply avoid using Bitcoin!
The essence of Bitcoin is taking the idea of the global village to the final conclusion. And Bitcoin is simply directly the ledger of the global village.
Because we can do that now. Because technology has become powerful enough.
I think it was @Justus Ranvier who remarked once on some of us "feeling bad for getting rich with broken BTC", that we at least felt bad. I must say that I only recently felt what he alluded to.
But I actually think now that any path but BCH (or an Alt that would fill the same spot, though I cannot see that happening) will be a continuation of the old scheme on how to run money, and thus the world. I cannot see a crypto-backing scheme where the underlying coins would keep their value over time.
As a last, failing attempt, some central banks might try to do just that and buy truckloads of BTC and not BCH to try to force BCH into the ground enough so that they can declare victory of BTC (and thus of their usurpation and final burying of BTC).
Because for them, it is just other people's money, after all!
But I think such a thing will fail, due to the global nature of this. Any central bank doing so risks losing out BIG time against other central banks doing the right thing as a countermeasure.
And maybe, just maybe, the politicians in charge will feel as citizens of their nation for a moment and NOT sell out their own country by a futile attempt to stop this revolution. Maybe. We all have our doubts here, I guess
And just replacing the base unit was quite clearly never Satoshi's intent. Heck, the central banks have talked repeatedly about their own schemes for inventing a currency that they'd use as their "base".
I am also pretty sure it wasn't the intent of any but very few of the other early investors of Bitcoin either, even if they just bought it because well, they saw the value in a global village ledger.
Maybe you can have this funny view where you temporarily invest in Bitcoin even though you believe the central bankers will continue to run the show and where you think Bitcoin will eventually fail. "Invest in the blip", so to say.
But then Bitcoin would have been designed in a different way. Proof of stake, most likely.
I do think the incentive system of Bitcoin is fundamentally immune to being usurped in the old scheme once more (due to efficiency of running everything on a flat chain in the end), though the proof is in the eating of the pudding, or lets say, when we indeed all became RCH BCHes.
Bitcoin is designed to take out the middle men, not introduce new ones, especially not new ones that turn out to be the same as the old ones.
Last edited:
I had confused Michael Novogratz's intent to launch a Fund with this just a benchmark index which is not a fund but just an index. I suspect a hedge fund if pegging to this index would make BCH quite volatile and force the value of BTC and ETH up as BCH increased in value.looking at Mike's fund https://news.bitcoin.com/novogratz-benchmark-index-cryptocurrencies/
I'd say they are relatively bullish on BCH. The above allocation weighted on the market capitalization is 2.23 BCH for every 1 BTC at today's evaluation. So the capital going into the fund has acquired a relatively large proportion of BCH when looking at the current market capitalization. Bitcoin Core boycott astroturfers incoming.
Anyway, Mike is bringing new capital into the ecosystem,
cypherdoc old adage resonates at the though.None the less I do think he is wrong about the value in crypto being digital commodity ie digital gold. I agree with awmany and cypherdoc money is evolving into a value exchange ledger for a global village, and BCH is the most viable contender.
Last edited:
lunar
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,001
- 4,290
Finally miners waking up to their responsibility as stewards of protocol development and direction.
https://bitsonline.com/miners-bitcoin-cash-reward-funding/
Perhaps something like this could be tied into a futures market, so collectively the miners could get feedback from the economic actors, who have skin in the game?
https://bitsonline.com/miners-bitcoin-cash-reward-funding/
Not perfect, but it's a good start.
Perhaps something like this could be tied into a futures market, so collectively the miners could get feedback from the economic actors, who have skin in the game?
majamalu
Active Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 144
- 775
I hope they are not planning to mess with the basic structure of incentives. Otherwise, they would be getting dangerously close to the model proposed by the charlatans of Dash and the like, and I would hate to go through another schism in order to avoid it.
If you are a miner who want to give money to a developer, just do it out of your own pocket!
If you are a miner who want to give money to a developer, just do it out of your own pocket!
Last edited:
From what I've seen, so take it with a grain of salt, it's pretty much impossible to talk to people who work in finance as if Bitcoin Cash can work as a currency. They just don't want to hear it from people they don't trust. it could be that he knows this and is saying what he needs to, to get their money.
imaginary_username
Active Member
- Aug 19, 2015
- 101
- 174
I've been thinking about this for a while - aside from the two extremes (doing it entirely via gentleman's agreement donations vs. changing protocol dash-style to "tax" via consensus), it alsos seem possible to do it a third way: form a P2Pool alliance that incorporates a small (say, 0.5%) "tax" as a rule of said pool. You are free to not join, just suffer higher variance.
Perhaps it can even incorporate a way to anonymously vote by hashpower where the money goes. I need to think more about this.
79b79aa8
Well-Known Member
- Sep 22, 2015
- 1,031
- 3,440
there is a simpler way: miners can have in-house programmers paid from their R&D budget. straightforward for solo outfits, but pools can do it too.
if that should happen, then reciprocally, implementations will need to devote some R&D budget to hashing, and thereby in the loop about what code the miners are agreeing to run, or risk being bypassed completely.
if that should happen, then reciprocally, implementations will need to devote some R&D budget to hashing, and thereby in the loop about what code the miners are agreeing to run, or risk being bypassed completely.
@lunar Good to see miners take matters into their hands.
But imho that's a much to complicated approach. Write a few emails, get together and pay for the feature you want to see in BCH.
I don't like these "development tax" ideas.
And in the best case, we don't need to much protocol development for the next years.
But imho that's a much to complicated approach. Write a few emails, get together and pay for the feature you want to see in BCH.
I don't like these "development tax" ideas.
And in the best case, we don't need to much protocol development for the next years.
Was whitepaper essentially silent on this issue? It seems this might have been something foreseen, or if it doesn't seem to be covered, does it really exist?
this article /u/keymone is referring to above really brings in some tricky game theory and technicals from both Bitcoin related CS and economics so don't just skim it. it should be easy for you guys here but i'm amazed at how many other ppl can't get it. what's more amazing is how many ppl can't thoroughly read an entire article, esp footnotes.
the implications, imo, are pretty profound in contrasting BTC vs BCH. please take the time to dig in.
the implications, imo, are pretty profound in contrasting BTC vs BCH. please take the time to dig in.
Last edited:
more PoR on display here by Daniel Krawicz. i hadn't seen this particularly good one:
LN hubs jockeying for position. Already :
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/8kt31o/coingate_is_launching_bitcoin_lightning_network/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/8kt31o/coingate_is_launching_bitcoin_lightning_network/
Last edited:
imaginary_username
Active Member
- Aug 19, 2015
- 101
- 174
Ahaha "Bitpay is fucked". these guys don't know what they are talking about.
That said, apparently P2Pool is resurrected (again!)
Please help jtoomim out, I'm way overjoyed, hopefully it lasts this time.
That said, apparently P2Pool is resurrected (again!)
Please help jtoomim out, I'm way overjoyed, hopefully it lasts this time.
