Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[theZerg]

On another topic If BU members feel strongly that opt-in RBF sucks then someone should write a BUIP stating such, giving reasons why, and suggesting a solution. Presumably the basic solution in this case will be to simply disable the RBF txn generation code when we pull it from blockstream core, but should we drop or relay received RBF marked txns and why? And should the wallet/RPC behave differently when an RBF txn is received?

Post the BUIP over in this forum: https://bitco.in/forum/forums/bitcoin-unlimited-improvement-proposals.15/

 

[cypherdoc]

this is really not good; if you're a pm investor:

$DJT arching downwards trying to sneak out the door:

 

[Inca]

On another topic If BU members feel strongly that opt-in RBF sucks then someone should write a BUIP stating such, giving reasons why, and suggesting a solution. Presumably the basic solution in this case will be to simply disable the RBF txn generation code when we pull it from blockstream core, but should we drop or relay received RBF marked txns and why? And should the wallet/RPC behave differently when an RBF txn is received?

Post the BUIP over in this forum: https://bitco.in/forum/forums/bitcoin-unlimited-improvement-proposals.15/

I'll do this.

 

[cypherdoc]

 

[rocks]

They are getting closer to banning cash. This would do more towards creating wide spread public interest in BTC (and PMs) than anything the bitcoin community could do.

http://www.businessinsider.com/negative-interest-rates-in-switzerland-have-made-people-argue-whether-cash-should-be-abolished-2015-11

 

[cypherdoc]

@rocks

so would you hold cash or not?

 

[lunar]

@rocks same thing in Sweden from a month ago
http://www.businessinsider.com/sweden-cashless-society-negative-interest-rates-2015-10
Everywhere I look these days I see fences going up and gates shutting. It's almost like the worlds governments want people to switch to bitcoin .
It's a beautiful Trojan horse.

@cypherdoc

It's always wise to keep some i'd say. Can't see the Euro or Dollar going away any time soon. Small independent currencies will be the first to go. Looking at Scandinavia especially.

 

[cypherdoc]

here's the pace at which i'm mining satoshi's with an avg 50GH/s:

[doublepost=1449107348][/doublepost]a 21 status returns:

 

[Melbustus]

@cypherdoc - Nice. I think 21 is one of many quite positive developments lately:
1) 21
2) OpenBazaar
3) Increasing realization that bitcoin is the *only* chain really suited to being a global authoritative "anchor" timestamping/record system (https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/the-rediscovery-of-bitcoin-s-blockchain-the-world-s-most-powerful-anchor-1449084048)
4) The Central Bank of Barbados paper putting CB reserve-holding of Bitcoin on the table: http://www.coindesk.com/barbados-central-bank/

1 and 2 are the first realizations (after years of spec) of platforms that just weren't possible before Bitcoin.

And #4 is potentially the tip of the iceberg for bitcoin's holy-grail monetization scenario: CBs becoming incented to competitively hold Bitcoin. It would indeed most likely start with a tiny country.

Basically the only significant problem in the bitcoin ecosystem right now is blocksize and the stranglehold that 3 or 4 econo-engineer-programmers seem to have on development currently. It's pretty disgusting that these guys - with such a central-planning mentality - still have the influence that they have. Bitcoin has to prove that it can route around that sort of thing with a minimum of collateral damage. We're still in a cross-roads until that proof happens. But if/when it does, the sky's the limit.

 

[albin]

Reading some of the articles posted recently on the redditsphere, I had a thought as to why Bitcoin Unlimited might be a really beneficial project completely independently of the deployment of the actual codebase.

A scary amount of the Bitcoin journalism out there is unbelievably lazy, and there is a whole class of articles that simply regurgitate quotes from some company or entity in the space. Barring possible payola schemes, BU could be really important as a focal point for such article writers getting content, and thus could become a powerful way of potentially putting opinions out there to a broader audience.

 

[cypherdoc]

@albin

our very own @theZerg is set to do an AMA very soon over on forum.bitcoin.com

 

[awemany]

I'll do this.

Cool, thank you. Here's a couple suggestions, things I pondered about, I didn't fully think them through yet, pick or reject as you wish:
(1) To stay true to the BU brand, I think the opt-in FRBF should stay fully available on the 'plumbing level'
(2) An FRBF 0-conf txn should create a big red warning on the receiving side
(3) the UI should default to 'don't send as FRBF'
(4) People have criticized 0-conf for being 'dangerous'. I think that is to a large part FUD and manipulation. But maybe we can ease peoples worries here in a good way: I do see the danger only for 0-conf-receiving TXN of large value (House, Car, ..), not for a $5 coffee. One could have a default limit on transaction value above which any 0-conf TXN would generate a warning to wait for confirmations, similar to case (2)

EDIT: Clarified.
[doublepost=1449130933,1449130196][/doublepost]@cypherdoc , @21: I was quite sceptical with their release, but integrating a lot of these 'micropayment' type services (SMS, MP3, ...) into the system does make it a little bit more interesting.

Many have said that what 21 did can be redone with a RasPi + USB miner. As I am prone to technical tunnel vision, too I of course still agree that is the case.

However, I can now also see that what they're really trying to sell is the polished product and integration of all this onto a common platform. That might indeed make sense.

 

[cypherdoc]

 

[lunar]

Peter_R has his work cut out today.

http://danielwilczynski.com/2015/11/30/why-peter-rs-fee-market-wont-work/
Full of hyperbolae and circular argument, with no actual data or calculations.

Looks like complete troll FUD to me, also there's an r/bitcoin thread (need I say more)

(Ad hom. alert)... The fact that Peter Todd tipped this poster a beer highlights the incredible hypocritical duplicity he has. He's smart enough to see through these veiled weak attacks yet applauds them becasue they fit his agenda. His intellectual dishonesty no no bounds.

 

[cypherdoc]

That was such a terrible blog post, Peter_R has nothing to worry about.

 

[awemany]

Its the same old stuff. There is also a post on /r/btc.

The argument that nicely cuts through all the 'but but but, long term no block reward market bottom drops out all gonna fail horribly!1!!' - bullshit is Mike Hearn's idea of mining assurance contracts.

I have yet to see something that comes even remotely close to a successful attack on that one.

 

[albin]

(Ad hom. alert)... The fact that Peter Todd tipped this poster a beer highlights the incredible hypocritical duplicity he has. He's smart enough to see through these veiled weak attacks yet applauds them becasue they fit his agenda. His intellectual dishonesty no no bounds.

This exact same thought crossed my mind seeing the reddit thread.

This "roll your own" economics is exhausting. I'm scared that I'm going to turn into the Gmax of economics, because I desperately wish there were a sticky on /r/bitcoin with links to some kind of Introduction to Microeconomics syllabus. I feel like the level of what we're seeing there would be unrecognizably higher just with an injection of the 100-level stuff.

Even grosser I get the impression that some folks are doing a bait-and-switch, or more charitably just confusing Peter R's presentation in Montreal (which is a great, concise introduction to the topic that brings people up to speed very rapidly on Marshall's mode of supply/demand analysis without losing anybody in jargon or extraneous detail), versus the proper paper which is very mathematically-rigorous and really seems to conform astonishingly well to all the empirical data I've seen to date (that impedance concept alone seems to work very well in the wild).

 

[awemany]

@albin: I was actually positively surprised how well @Peter R.'s predictions held up in reality.

That's indeed something that's kind of buried in the paper and didn't yet reach 'mainstream thought'.

Oh, which gives me an idea: Maybe we should jokingly call our BU node 'Mainstream Core'
[doublepost=1449152878,1449152090][/doublepost]Ok, so I am pondering now, I think this has been discussed elsewhere but I can't find anything on google:

What if we all collaborate together to create one mega-big-fucking-transaction >1MB with a huge transaction fee, as an incentive for the miners?

The way I imagine this is to collect desired transaction inputs/outputs which are signed in a way that only proves you own the funds and you desire to put them into such a mega transaction, but with the signature not forming a valid bitcoin tx.

A website (on bitcoinunlimited?) could then collect all these input and outputs and form an unsigned megatransaction.

That transaction would then be send back to the users to sign. With the txn only being finally valid when ALL users signed, of course.

Are there limits that prevent this type of transaction right now in core?

And here's another idea: Maybe it would be good to have an opcode to check the Bitcoin version bits? That would allow to make a huge transaction with the condition 'pays out when BIP101 accepted'.

I can well imagine that such a transaction might collect some couple kBTC from people who want to go to big blocks.

 

[yrral86]

A mega transaction would be easy to DOS since there is no cost to pledging your inputs.

 

[awemany]

Then maybe make a BIP101a that includes an opcode that will allow crafting transactions that are only valid on a BIP101 blockchain?

Of course, Blockstream Core could include the same opcode, but that would be a very visible display of dishonesty.