Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

interestingly BIG move down in the dollar. remember my theory about how i'm predicting the dollar goes down with stocks in the next crisis?:

now note the continued rollover in both the $DJI and $DJT i've been following in detail. remember, the Primary Dow Theory Bear Trend Sell Signal is still in force:

[doublepost=1449158568][/doublepost]i guess even more interesting is today's move down in TLT which i am not expecting to happen in the next crisis. definitely something to keep an eye on:

 

[Mengerian]

Just had a quick browse of the Charlie/Bobby Lee Reddit AMA thread where Charlie states they are 'against' BIP101:
All these objections to BIP101 strike me as examples of the 'Nirvana Fallacy'. Basically BIP101 as a concrete, well defined, implemented, and tested proposal has to compete against whatever vague and nebulous ideas their imaginations can conjure up.

Seems to me the best way forward is to just continue working away building and testing alternatives. Eventually, when pressure for change becomes acute, it will be important to have viable options at the ready.

 

[cypherdoc]

Charlie Lee is the founder of Litecoin, you know, Bitcoin's silver to gold for transactional purposes. 101 doesn't fit that narrative.

and his brother, well, he's just another Chinese miner trying to protect his market share.

both views are entirely short sighted as 101 would greatly boost the value of their bitcoins even if their business models have to pivot.

 

[cypherdoc]

stocks accelerating their decline now.

note the short term redline price level and how the $DJT is definitely making a break for it; down. also note the divergence in the most recent up move in the $DJI vs $DJT; $DJT moved above the previous high whereas the $DJI failed to confirm:

 

[cypherdoc]

@cypherdoc

I think you are right. This is just before a multi-year structural change. The question is timing, and major market corrections in December are like hen's teeth. We are only four weeks from the New Year which is a key date because bankster bonuses are usually determined on performance results to Dec 31st. The Squid has its fiscal year end. Old Yeller will do everything to avoid ruining the Christmas party so a Fed rate rise (fig-leaf 25 bps) triggering a bear-market is most likely mid-January when the Hamptons are emptying out.

lemme just make one small excuse here.

i didn't follow my own rules. meaning that i was anticipating a top in stocks (b/c of a downturn and a triggering of some of my other indicators) w/o ever having gotten my Dow Theory Primary trend change confirmation over the last couple of years. that still is a mistake on my part for getting anxious and over anticipatory, but b/c we never got that DT signal, i never did act on it by going short. hence i've said many times over the last many years that i don't trade stocks anymore. i guess my mistake is simply talking about it everytime we seem to be rolling over. perhaps i shouldn't even comment until we get full confirmation. but oftentimes, that's too late and ppl seem to enjoy the short term banter.

but now we do have that DT primary trend change. and that is why i've gone short with DXD. let's see how the theory plays out.
[doublepost=1449165761,1449165006][/doublepost]remember i'm in @19.92, so back in the green. let's LAUNCH:

[doublepost=1449165938][/doublepost]don't forget, i think Bitcoin benefits from a financial crisis; afterall, it is supposed to be a new monetary system.

one that, imo, should be self contained with freely moving bitcoin on it's mainchain; and mainchain only.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=51590.0
[doublepost=1449166304][/doublepost]"We're also reworking Stratum mining protocol with DDoS mitigation in mind. Stratum v2 will implement quite unique solutions, making DDoS attacks nearly impossible. It sounds silly that we can fight attacks on application protocol level, but... stay tuned

."

that's great. slush is da man:

https://forum.bitcoin.com/ama-ask-me-anything/i-m-marek-palatinus-slush-creator-of-the-first-mining-pool-and-creator-of-trezor-ama-3rd-dec-t3359-10.html#p10656

 

[cypherdoc]

The important note is that pool operator does not own the hashrate. It has been proven many times that hashrate is liquid and if the pool acts badly and lose its reputation, hashrate moves elsewhere.

https://forum.bitcoin.com/ama-ask-me-anything/i-m-marek-palatinus-slush-creator-of-the-first-mining-pool-and-creator-of-trezor-ama-3rd-dec-t3359-20.html#p10667
[doublepost=1449167042][/doublepost]I'm mildly for BIP101 and I like the work which Gavin put into the project, but I think some other solutions will work, too. Although rising proposed in BIP101 may be a bit aggressive, it's just a limit - not the block size itself! Remember that Satoshi used the limit as a precaution of various DoS attacks to network for its first day of existence, talking about removing eventually. On the opposite, keeping the limit low in time of Bitcoin expansion limits the economy of blockchain and it may be dangerous for bitcoin adoption rate. I'm closely related in Paralelni Polis, the bitcoin-only space in Prague, and I see even today that small blocksize may affect real-world usage of Bitcoin.

 

[_mr_e]

Did my argument to Peter Todd make any sense here? I was trying to express some thoughts, not sure I made it as clear as I'd like.

 

[AdrianX]

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.

This is not an attack on @Peter R it's an attack on the incentives Satoshi designed into bitcoin. Peter has explained in a very clear and logical way how elegant Satoshi's design is.

One should not shoot the mesanger.

 

[awemany]

Did my argument to Peter Todd make any sense here? I was trying to express some thoughts, not sure I made it as clear as I'd like.

I think it does. You are in the wrong subreddit, though

And I am actually somewhat worried about miners being rational actors. They might only be rational after a severe beating in terms of price because of missing big block limit adoption.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

And I am actually somewhat worried about miners being rational actors. They might only be rational after a severe beating in terms of price because of missing big block limit adoption.

If you're worried about that, then keep some non-Bitcoin currency waiting on the exchanges so that you and benefit from the beating.

If the miners are wrong, they get to sell you their electricity below cost.

 

[cypherdoc]

I think it does. You are in the wrong subreddit, though

And I am actually somewhat worried about miners being rational actors. They might only be rational after a severe beating in terms of price because of missing big block limit adoption.

if that happens, there's a very high chance it will be the Chinese miners taking the beating (if they refuse to listen). that could actually be a very good thing since we are trying to further decentralize the mining network outside of China anyways.
[doublepost=1449170553,1449169947][/doublepost]i'm beginning to think the Chinese miners are actually acting in bad faith and may be a liability to the network esp after Wang Chun's accusations against Gavin being untrustworthy:

Slush:

SPV mining (mining based on blocks without full verification) is going against the purpose of mining itself - validating transactions and keeping blockchain healthy.

 

[cypherdoc]

oh my, -300 here we come!
[doublepost=1449172838,1449171781][/doublepost]good news from Jim Burton of Multibit:

“Philosophically, we think that Satoshi's vision of a peer-to-peer currency needs bigger blocks,” Burton told Bitcoin Magazine. We want people to be able to transact person-to-person 'on-chain'. We are starting to see large transaction backlogs, for instance recently on Black Friday, so the need for bigger blocks is clear.”

“As for the cost of running a full node, any company running a Bitcoin-based service will probably want to run at least one Bitcoin Core or XT node to ensure the data they are using is accurate,” Burton said. “And while bigger blocks need software engineering to improve propagation, this is the focus of the two 'Scaling Bitcoin' conferences."

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/multibit-s-jim-burton-satoshi-s-vision-of-a-peer-to-peer-currency-needs-bigger-blocks-1449168975
[doublepost=1449173179][/doublepost]small tidbit of note from slush:

"Side note to financing TREZOR project: Although we had offers, we don't like VC funding and we're very picky about investments into the company, because we want to have free hands with our strategy and product development. I had a chance to work for some VC-funded projects before and for me - "never ever". I want to do something useful for customers, not something attracting investors."

so tell me again how Eric Schmidt and Reid Hoffman are different to Blockstream than the VC's slush has worked with? investors who were skeptical with Bitcoin to begin with and never seemed to have gotten Bitcoin in terms of BTC buys? don't forget Schmidt was the guy who had plenty of opportunity via very early notice by Julian Assange way back in June 2011:

https://wikileaks.org/Transcript-Meeting-Assange-Schmidt.html

 

[Mengerian]

@cypherdoc Thanks for the updates on the slush AMA. That guy is great! He has created so much value in the Bitcoin ecosystem.

 

[cypherdoc]

@Mengerian

yes, and should be listened to!

oh my, this is not good:

[doublepost=1449177865,1449177138][/doublepost]ok, this is the kinda all-in put-your-money-where-your-mouth-is type of vested interest we need from a Bitcoin dev:

"Call me crazy, but I'm full in bitcoin. I just believe in what we're working on."

ask greg, adam, and Todd what they've got invested of their own money and my guess is it would be close to zero.

 

[_mr_e]

I know for a fact Peter owns very little. I actually met him in 2011 in Toronto back when the community was very small. He introduced himself as bitcoin developer... One who doesn't own any bitcoins because he believed it was broken. Its been very clear since then that he is nothing but a developer for hire who just follows the money. No doubt he would take it from blockstream.

 

[cypherdoc]

@_mr_e

just to be clear you're talking Peter Todd i presume? well then, yeah, we also know he sold what little he may have had back a coupla years ago b/c of the ghash incident or some such trivial event. this is a big deal and thanks for verifying what i've suspected all along; these idiots don't think Bitcoin is working or can work. the price rise and growth i'm sure has shocked the hell out of them and they are resentful as a result. now, they're trying to pervert the system so they can steal current value away from everyone else into their pet schemes such as Blockstream and Viacoin.

they're disgusting ppl at best and should be ostracised from the system.
[doublepost=1449179305][/doublepost]this is why i keep catching Todd contradicting himself with the "large miner, large block attack vs small miners". and now he acts so surprised when trying to access basic internet service while in China.

what an idiot.

 

[awemany]

Hey @Justus Ranvier ,

so I just read this post from you on reddit.

Regarding geographical centralization: Isn't the whole connectivity-big-block-advantage blocksize argument we get from gmax and his minions (in addition to being a practical non-issue as shown by gavin and pieter) also pretty incomplete in another way?

Transactions with value have to come from somewhere. Miners closer to transaction production will earn more. (They get the transactions earlier)

This is, by the way also where the term 'miner' clearly breaks down: A miner in the gold mine doesn't care for moving gold dust across merchant's tables...

I feel in all these recent discussions/attacks against big block ideas, it is always just the one half of the geographical effect that is presented.

 

[dill]

The old financial system's foundation is built on promises while the new one is based on proofs. Proofs > Promises. That's a powerful difference. It's only a matter of time before the OP title becomes actualized.


Enjoying lurking this thread!

 

[awemany]

Another thought:

Did anyone actually ever calculate today's computational cost for storing, verifying and transmitting a single transaction in the network?

As smallblockers often shout how they are ok with huge fees even for their 'digital, but useless gold', I think it would be great to simply have a summary what doing a single transaction will cost the whole network, excluding the miners.

Here's a start, please jump in if I miss an important variable:

If we assume we have 'sufficient decentralization' at a thousand full nodes worldwide, a TXN of 250bytes would need just 250kbytes of total data sent/stored/processed.


Storage: HDDs are at about 3.75e-11 $/byte ($300 for 8TB), so storage would be 9.4 u$
Network: Assuming $30 for a 20mbit uncapped up/down: About 5e-12 $/byte, so network would be 1.25u$ (assuming efficient propagation, else multiply by 2)
CPU/Electricity: 100W / Node, 1000 Nodes, $0.2/kWh electricity, assuming we're running at 4000txn/s as the current max speed of verification, that's then about 1.4u$

So a total of 9.4+1.25+1.4 == 12.05 Microdollars per Transaction

And that is with today's technology.

 

[lunar]

Enjoying lurking this thread!

@dill welcome aboard. It's hard to follow everyone's though trains sometimes, but the diverse and quality content makes the effort well worth it. I thank you all.

I wondered the other day how many lurkers there are out there? I posted a random unlinked imugr about a week ago, within 2 days later it had nearly 2000 hits.