Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[sickpig]

@albin I've reported you to @Bloomie for being too hilarious /sarcasm

 

[Melbustus]

@cypherdoc

Todd and Maxwell would refuse to sell you a beer and instead lecture you for upwards of an hour about how you don't actually want a beer because you don't understand what a beer is, but that you actually do want a beer, and the beer that you're going to get hasn't had its recipie thought out yet, and then they'll close the bar early in a tizzy because you had the audacity to ask them about beer in the first place.

Yeah. They're central-planners.

 

[awemany]

Disregard for the user side of things in the FRBF debacle tells me that they are starting to become arrogant enough to freely mess with whatever they want (we're the #bitcoin-wizards...).

I truly hope enough people can see that and will switch away.

Another thing that annoys me: When reading the ML and IRC logs and so forth, there's a huge amount of useless chaff, blathering and minor optimizations being discussed. I know I could follow BTC development a lot better when Gavin was still in control. I wonder whether that's their tactic, to create enough noise that their evil deeds can hide in it.

 

[Erdogan]

Has gold finally reversed?

 

[cypherdoc]

@Erdogan

probably. looks like i'm gonna get a short term buy signal for sure today. the Q remains as to how long will the counter trend bounce last?:

despite the huge bounce today in the $DJI, the $DJT is lagging badly and oil and the energy sector is down. remember that employment is a lagging indicator:

 

[bitsko]

Ver logged onto reddit. We shall see if he chooses to adress the bannings, or if he puts them under the rug by the linksharing...

 

[cypherdoc]

ok, just picked up more DXD @19.64
[doublepost=1449248072,1449246963][/doublepost]Employment figures lag the economy more than any other series.

http://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc151116.htm
[doublepost=1449248380][/doublepost]if anything, according to this graph, one should be worried about the drop from last month's figure.

and the apparent rollover of this repetitive, cyclical yr over yr change in employment:

[doublepost=1449248476][/doublepost]shucks. as a productive self employed member of society, why can't i be paid to participate in the blue line?:

 

[cypherdoc]

 

[cypherdoc]

i've been looking forward to this for a LONG time:

http://bitcoinx.io/news/articles/mycelium-is-close-to-launching-its-bitcoin-hardware-wallet/

 

[AdrianX]

Oh, and lets look at today's cost for a full node, too, assuming we have the state of @Peter R.'s 'A payment system for planet earth', BIP101 implemented and maxed out:

12 microdollars all full nodes -> 12 n$/txn per full node
8GB block -> about 32 Mtxn
32 Mtxn / 600 s -> 53ktxn/s
53 ktxn/s -> 640 u$/s

640u$/s -> $55.3 full node cost per day

This is obviously not something a single middle class person would be able to afford for any significant timespan, but it is easily within reach of a smaller organisation of some dozen people (like a hacker club).
And this is, IMO, quite sufficient as a decentralization goal. I am even fine with bigger nodes in data centers.

And this is using today's hardware and excludes all technological process.

If you think about the cost in an abstract way it is a security cost, even a big holder of coins could afford $55.3 per day to run a node. A node is the new Fort Knox, a fortified safe with integrity and protected by all other safes and you can transfer between them with almost 0 cost. If your safe is damaged you can restore it from the redundant backup on the network.

The elegant alignment of incentives allows others to benefit form your security. Some may call you altruistic for hosting a node, but in reality it's necessity if you want to ensure your value is secure and agreed by all who use the network.

In comparison the cost of keeping the flour clean in Fort Knox is more expensive let alone the necessary infrastructure and security cost to store the barbarous value relic.

The kicker is the money is stored in the safe, but you cant get it by stealing the safe you need the keys and they can be kept safe in a number of ways, and they unlock any safe not just your own.

Blockstream Core with there off chain addenda imo are the biggest threat to the integrity of the "safe" network.

 

[Erdogan]

Looking good -- the mycelium card.

 

[awemany]

@AdrianX:

Very good point.

IMO we should rub the blockstreamers collective noses in things like the above 12microdollars/txn calculation.
They always run away from concrete numbers, these are numbers they can try to attack, deconstruct, whatever.

I really fail to see how that cost/txn is not telling us to urgently scale up.

The problem is that they are frickin' evasive and return to their own censored base quickly.

 

[VeritasSapere]

I just discovered this article, I thought it was very interesting:

http://konradsgraf.com/blog1/tag/block-size-debate

"The block size limit has for the most part not ever been, and should not now be, used to determine the actual size of average blocks under normal network operating conditions. Real average block size ought to emerge from factors of supply and demand for what I will term “transaction-inclusion services.”

Beginning to use the protocol block size limit to restrict the provision of transaction-inclusion services would be a radical change to Bitcoin. The burden of proof is therefore on persons advocating using the protocol limit in this novel way."

"The protocol block size limit was added as a temporary anti-spam measure, not a technocratic market-manipulation measure."

 

[awemany]

@VeritasSapere :

Yes. Do you have any idea though how to get that into their thick, VC-money-shielded skulls?
I like to do that, too, but I also think that approach is somewhat hopeless and we have to eventually go and work on BU instead.

 

[cypherdoc]

@awemany

fiat investment money can create impenetrable skulls, unfortunately.
[doublepost=1449259773,1449259148][/doublepost]

 

[VeritasSapere]

@VeritasSapere :

Yes. Do you have any idea though how to get that into their thick, VC-money-shielded skulls?
I like to do that, too, but I also think that approach is somewhat hopeless and we have to eventually go and work on BU instead.

Cold hard reality and the economic majority clearly not being on their side. I have been having discussions with the small blockist for a while now, I suspect some of them will go down with the ship, the question is what the economic majority will do in response.

I will keep trying though, find new ways to express these ideas. It is also difficult to estimate how the masses are ideologically aligned since the people commentating on these forums often represent a small percentage of the total amount of people that are watching and reading these threads.

Everything considered at least we have some large businesses siding with the blocksize increase. I also suspect that many people might change their tune if or when the mining majority started to support BIP101. lol

 

[cypherdoc]

ok, last DXD tranche in @19.33
[doublepost=1449260464][/doublepost]@VeritasSapere

if you believe Bitcoin is destined to become a new worldwide reserve system, then all of the community can't possibly become the new financial elite as Bitcoin cannot possibly bring them all along. that's not how bull mkts work. so Bitcoin has to provide distractions all along the way. Blockstream and core are major distractions. most investing in cryptocurrency will lose money; probably >98% or more of them.

in that light, it's not surprising to see only a small % of ppl viewing this and other alternative threads. of course, this all assumes we're right of course. but i think when i look at the character and financial confliction of the most vocal of core devs and their extensively documented history of them handling a variety of events, i'm pretty sure we're going to be right in assessing that the economic majority will not tolerate a financially conflicted corporate entity to control what has now become a public good.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

@cypherdocTodd and Maxwell would refuse to sell you a beer and instead lecture you for upwards of an hour about how you don't actually want a beer because you don't understand what a beer is, but that you actually do want a beer, and the beer that you're going to get hasn't had its recipie thought out yet, and then they'll close the bar early in a tizzy because you had the audacity to ask them about beer in the first place.

Here's a real world example:

For years Bitcoin developers have been telling users, "there's no such thing as a from address in Bitcoin."

Every time the subject would come up, they patiently told people why they were wrong and told them to learn to live without it.

To the best of my knowledge, I was the first person to say, "Since people obviously want a from address in their transactions, why not find a way to give them one that doesn't compromise privacy or security?

This "spreading cryptography via a superior UX" approach seems to be working so far:

https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/freelancers-plight-or-how-payment-codes-will-take-the-awkward-out-of-bitcoin

 

[Inca]

Wife moaning about our wifi being slow whilst watching netflix and me downloading a torrent.

On my bog standard internet i can download >2mb a second.

Bring on bigger blocks.

 

[VeritasSapere]

ok, last DXD tranche in @19.33
[doublepost=1449260464][/doublepost]@VeritasSapere

if you believe Bitcoin is destined to become a new worldwide reserve system, then all of the community can't possibly become the new financial elite as Bitcoin cannot possibly bring them all along. that's not how bull mkts work. so Bitcoin has to provide distractions all along the way. Blockstream and core are major distractions. most investing in cryptocurrency will lose money; probably >98% or more of them.

in that light, it's not surprising to see only a small % of ppl viewing this and other alternative threads. of course, this all assumes we're right of course. but i think when i look at the character and financial confliction of the most vocal of core devs and their extensively documented history of them handling a variety of events, i'm pretty sure we're going to be right in assessing that the economic majority will not tolerate a financially conflicted corporate entity to control what has now become a public good.

This is also true, I would like to see as many people as possible come along for the ride, but if they choose to follow the small chain and sell off the coins to the big blockchain if it did come to that then they will indeed experience loss for doing so.

I also like to think that we are on the right side of history. It is indeed unlikely that the economic majority will continue to tolerate the demeanour and actions of Core. Even if they did over the long term I can not imagine this situation going on forever, especially as more powerful financial interests become involved in Bitcoin, I can say many bad things about these larger financial interests but at least they would not entertain such ludicrous ideas like "block scarcity".