Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.


Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2015
Slush is almost certainly onboard, but as cypherdoc points out most of the big miners will probably play their cards close until the december conference, or after the January XT start date.

The irony, or in my case irritation from all of this, is from looking again @Peter R 101 for planet earth, it's clear even with 101 it's not the last we'll see of this issue. I don't know about others, but I do feel a tide has turned, propaganda and hyperbolae flow faster than reason or truth. It's taken several years and the last 6 months of 'urgency' to force this issue.

To my mind BSCore are in a very fragile position right now. The scaling conference is 'their big day' if they don't pull out something special 'namely implement 101 into Core', then I think they may well see a full scale revolt on their hands. Effectively Coinbase, Bitpay and Bitstamp with others, are laying the cards down and calling team CoreDev out, 101 or bust.

It's a real shame it has to come to this, there has been an enormous amount of intellectual capital and reputation spent on this debate. There were better uses. Even now, I respect many of these people to the point I can't believe bad faith. The issue to me is, too much high brow, narrow thinking and arrogance.

Maybe? Just maybe, they are right? But if that is the case, why cant they explain their reasons in terms the rest of us can understand.
As for this idiot he can just F**k righ off
Greg and Adam are intelligent but not infallible. I have seen holes in their arguments. They're in a pretty obvious Machiavellian mode now, probably the investor in their back...

So I don't think there's some evil behind big bad blocks, it is all a smoke screen. Sure bigger blocks are potentially technologically more problematic in some sense, but it's nothing that a) cannot be solved by today's technology and optimizations and/or b) technological progress. And we're not going to 8GiB tomorrow.

We have to make a bet about the future either way.

BS are 'irrationally' pessimistic about scalability because it will help their own pockets. It took me a LONG while to realize this, but the anecdotes add to pretty solid data.
[doublepost=1448917356,1448916578][/doublepost]So I actually started to wonder: Why is there a BIP for all kinds of things but not for the opt-in full RBF? Or am I wrong and is there a BIP?


Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
Alrighty now. The momentum continues to build. Poor Greg:

"Speaking to Bitcoin Magazine, Slush Pool operator Marek Palatinus said: “We're strengthening our infrastructure and we plan to enable BIP 101 mining again.”"
At issue is an existential disagreement:

Does consensus in Bitcoin mean an agreement amongst self-appointed experts, or is it a market phenomenon?

The answer to that is easy if you're Blockstream; it depends.
  • Like
Reactions: majamalu


Active Member
Sep 24, 2015
So I actually started to wonder: Why is there a BIP for all kinds of things but not for the opt-in full RBF? Or am I wrong and is there a BIP?
This ^

I lost track of it but Peter was defending himself on Reddit after the pitchforks started to come out. In one thread someone kept asking where was the discussion on this and Peter finally provided some github links showing that it was discussed before.

To me this was a clear admission there was no public discussion. A real discussion happens around BIP proposals that everyone can comment on. Peter acknowledged (without saying it) that there was no pubic discourse, only private core dev discussion. The fact that discussion happened on publicly accessible mailing lists is not the issue.

The issue is there are mechanisms for public proposals on changes. RBF did not go through those mechanisms. Instead of the acknowledging that, the core devs take the stance that everyone in the world should track their many mailing lists if we want to know what is going on.

This is nonsense is completely against all governance structures in place.

Edit: so it seems peter deleted that response of his where he defended RBF as being discussed publicly, probably because it was so absurd.
Last edited:


Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2015
@rocks: Maybe it is because Greg doesn't follow bitcoin-dev anymore, as Peter R. drove him away?
So he's technically unable to assign BIPs, so the BIP process broke down and so it is all in the end @Peter R.'s fault? ;-)

EDIT: Typo.
Last edited:


Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
@awemany I am mining profitably myself, it depends on the electricity price and the cost, timing and efficiency of the equipment deployed.

Been running SP31's and S5's for the last year now and I have ROI'd. I even use the heat they generate to warm my home. :)
@awemany mining is very profitable, even buying off the shelf asic's today will ROI in about 6 months and stay re revenue positive for about 2 years. Big mining outfits (small in global economic terms) are likely orders of magnitude more profitable and are sure to invite competition.


Active Member
Nov 8, 2015
BIPs have become consensus theater. Does anybody really believe any of the BIPs they've disingenuously solicited have any chance of getting adopted?

Even worse, I think it's gross that they've co-opted BIPs for their own bureaucratic politics. BIPs are not about Core, they're about all of Bitcoin in general. There are plenty of BIPs that have nothing to do with a full node client at all, and attempt to propose best practices for wallets for example. BIPs are as much for Core as they are for btcd or any other software. It's a way that the community has developed to communicate proposed standards and best practices to each other, and not a political football for the likes of Adam Back to abuse in lecturing and scolding professionals who know more about projects and standards than he does.
Last edited:


Staff member
Aug 28, 2015
I see Theymos is making a complete fool of himself once again on /r/bitcoin. No matter how this resolves he has destroyed his online reputation irrevocably in my opinion.

@lunarboy there is no limit to paper claims vs physical gold. It is all smoke and mirrors and fully supported by our friendly central banks who can create fiat currency with the press of a button.

The big party will be at bitcoin : gold parity. With whispers of central banks now accumulating bitcoin we can probably expect the same attempts to rig the price as have been seen in the precious metals sectors for decades - but they have to accumulate first. What is interesting is that creating paper claims for a provably and verifiably scarce digital commodity isn't quite as straightforward with realtime reporting of reserves now possible.

My guess is that we bubble at some point between now and the halving. Possibly a price surge timed for a scaling solution announced by Core (designed to head off complete mutiny in the ecosystem for XT or BU in the coming weeks - or at least appease industry for a year or two until LN can be pushed onto new users).

If central banks were to start accumulating reserves in bitcoin then the wildly bullish charts we have all seen could possibly come true : )
  • Like
Reactions: majamalu

Justus Ranvier

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
It's a way that the community has developed to communicate proposed standards and best practices to each other, and not a political football for the likes of Adam Back to abuse in lecturing and scolding professionals who know more about projects and standards than he does.
If you're ever looking to add a bit of amusement to your day, dig up some of Luke-jr's arguments about why things like new transactions types that will be recognized by IsStandard()
should not have BIPs written for them, and then compare those arguments to the ones he makes about why the pope isn't a real pope.


Active Member
Sep 21, 2015

My feeling (not that a feeling is worth much) is that 8GB blocks will be enough. If we really do see that level of adoption (~1 billion transactions per day) there will be a lot of off-chain transactions as well.

In other words, the idea that 1 MB blocks (or 2 or 4 or 8) can be "enough" with layer-2 or offchain solutions is... unrealistic, but that layer-2 or offchain solutions can help Bitcoin get from 1 billion to 10 (or 100) billion transactions per day seems plausible to me.


Staff member
Aug 22, 2015

I agree, and even 32MB blocks will allow for 100 TPS on-chain, which is a lot of real-world business, and would support a very healthy BTC price. It is fully reasonable to expect off-chain solutions to take a lot of volume *eventually*. The strategic error is trying to force that outcome before off-chain solutions develop organically and take volume on their own merits.

Zangelbert Bingledack

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2015
It's fun to watch the antifragility play out. I know some are worried about it, and that worry is good as it drives people to action, but it is just this mechanism - coupled with Bitcoin being the first decentralized development project with strong baked in financial incentives to route around centralized control - that will ensure Bitcoin doesn't ossify and that power structures won't remain out of pure inertia for very long.

We are simply seeing a delay because...

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that [governance structures] long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience [has shown], that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

Delaying on blocksize, opt-in RBF, etc. are evils that are still sufferable.

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute [authoritarian control], it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such [governance system], and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of [the Bitcoin investors and other stakeholders]; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former [system of governance]. The history of the present [Core dev team] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over [Bitcoin]. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world... [List of Greivances with Core/BS]"

Eventually the train of abuses and usurpations gets too damn long. Fortunately, unlike going to war, forking away from tyranny is relatively easy.
Last edited:


Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
@chriswilmer @solex
My feeling (not that a feeling is worth much) is that 8GB blocks will be enough.
I fully agree. It's not the end result, so much as how we get there. Assuming BIP101, looking at Peter_R curve.
I'm wondering if spikes due to rapid high level of adoption will ignite this debate again in say 2017/8 or is everyone optimistic that lightning and other things will be able to take up the slack so soon?

Maybe that will be the point where Bitcoin Unlimited makes its début ?
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: awemany