Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

albin

Active Member
Nov 8, 2015
931
4,008
@Justus Ranvier

I think that reality is going to get even more apropos as the area of smart contracts gets explored, because I'm finding essentially none of these ideas make any sense divorced from the context of social arrangements.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Norway and majamalu

Justus Ranvier

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
875
3,746
Money itself is a tool whose purpose is to facilitate human cooperation:

http://nakamotoinstitute.org/reciprocal-altruism-in-the-theory-of-money/

Reciprocal altruism is a great first start as a theory of money because it so neatly undercuts a lot of the most common fallacies. First, what gives money value? An adherent of commodity money might say that it is the industrial uses of the money good, whereas an adherent of fiat money might say that it is the force of the government issuing it, and the loyalty people have toward their government. Neither of these answers is true. It is true that some system is required to keep track of who has money and who does not, but that is not what makes money valuable. The value of money is the value of cooperation. It is that simple. The value of money is not somehow in the monetary unit; it is in the whole of society and in peoples’ desire to cooperate.
A tool for creating money can never be more valuable than the tool which it creates. This value is measured in terms of how effectively it facilitates cooperation, and that value is judged by humans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: majamalu and albin

Erdogan

Active Member
Aug 30, 2015
476
855
I am still not convinced that sidechains are doable. On a technical point, there is probably no way to hide a secret from everybody, including the one that generated it (the key of the receiving address when you lock coins). But mostly the economical. The designers of sidechains have not understood the mechanics of pegging.
 

yrral86

Active Member
Sep 4, 2015
148
271
Side chains are certainly more complicated and it will be a while before we know if they are possible. I've been doing some reading lately on lightening and I believe that the layer 1 features needed are doable with some pretty minor changes. The lightning network itself I am still unclear on, but I have more reading left to go over. That said, I still support bitcoin unlimited and I feel that scaling layer 1 should be the highest priority.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
i'm listening to the Mining Panel video not once, but twice, to make sure i understand where they're coming from.

so far, the only miner who gets it is Sam Cole from KNC who understands that miners work for users and that bigger blocks will allow more tx's and Bitcoin growth. he also flat out states that miners are already free to choose which tx's go into blocks; IOW, they will exclude no fee tx's for the most part b/c they don't make any money on them. perfectly reasonable. he also flat out says they will filter what they think is spam. right there you see that the "spammer" FUD that miniblockists always throw around is a red herring attack that won't work.

the other interesting thing i gleaned from the panel is that Governing Dynamics is working at the miner level. they won't 51% attack b/c they are acutely aware that it will ruin Bitcoin, which is the last thing they want. otoh, it's very clear they want to hang onto as much power as they can get with 100.

i am somewhat surprised how relatively superficial they seem to understand Bitcoin from an economic and game theory standpoint, esp the Chinese miners. that last question at the end asking them if they've studied LN or other offchain proposals was met with silence and a statement from Bobby Lee that they are only concentrating on bitcoind right now. maybe that's why they have no clue what is going on with Blockstream machinations and appear to place great trust in core dev. someone needs to enlighten them.

finally, it's comforting to have heard absolutely nothing having been discussed that we here in this thread are not aware about. like i said above, it's just the opposite. i think the discussion we have here is way more advanced, complete, complex, and nuanced as to what Bitcoin is, how it functions, and what drives and motivates it's participants. sanity checks on what you don't know you don't know are always important.
 

solex

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 22, 2015
1,558
4,693
Bitcoin is actually protected by people instead of math.
This is a great point JR, and we could even say "Bitcoin is protected by the Wisdom of the Crowd - mathematically".

Individuals and small groups have been proven through history to be fallible and frequently even go full retard. Core Dev is no wiser about the direction of Bitcoin than the Fed's MPC is about the direction of the US currency and economy.

The view in this forum is instead is that the market (the economically involved crowd) is the best judge of future direction because only the sum of market participants has the best knowledge of the current state and expectations of future state. Our position is to give the market full rein and eliminate central planning,

An example is 0-conf. Central planners find it is flawed. The market finds it very useful and valuable, therefore it is reasonable to expect that alternative crypto will pick up 0-conf business in proportion to how much 0-conf is weakened or even eliminated in Bitcoin. Central planners can look back and say "oops, we didn't expect that", but the damage will be done, and likely irreversibly so.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
@Peter R

Wang Chun validated our suspicions about getblocktemplate taking too long (1s) with full 1MB blocks, in his opinion, as justification for spv mining. he gave an example of 10MB exacerbating this problem even more up to at minimum 2-3 sec, probably more. for those interested, my suspicions about this happening began back in July after the bip66 fork simply from watching blocks coming thru on different block explorers. it was pretty obvious that spv blocks with 0-1tx would come at increasing frequency during the stress tests taking avg block sizes up to 900kB+. Chinese miners were compensating.
[doublepost=1449432533][/doublepost]one of the Chinese miners said that block size increases has to be "controlled" so as to control the price. that is exactly wrong. that is no better than how the Fed tries to control the value of the dollar relative to other currencies. CB's all run a coordinated round robin currency devaluation to keep relative values close to the same whilst they all get the benefit of devaluing their currencies and creating inflation of assets, with which banks are loaded to the gills.
[doublepost=1449432769][/doublepost]price volatility can't be suppressed nor should it. Bitcoin can't go to 6 or more figures in a straight line. plus, speculators love volatility and we want them to keep piling into Bitcoin which helps it grow. a price that is controlled is uninteresting to them. the careening price slamming to new highs and deep lows also means only a few of us will make it to the finish line which is really how it has to be.
 
Last edited:

Justus Ranvier

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
875
3,746
This is a great point JR, and we could even say "Bitcoin is protected by the Wisdom of the Crowd - mathematically".
It's not quite the "wisdom of the crowd".

The people who are purchasing the security of the network right now by absorbing the 3600 new btc mined every day are the savers who accumulate bitcoins.

The composition of that group changes over time, but the members of it have certain identifiable qualities.

As a group they are sufficiently economically productive to have a positive savings rate. They don't live paycheck-to-paycheck. They have a lower time preference than average.

Bitcoin isn't a "one person, one vote" system, it's a "one dollar, one vote" system where "dollar" means a unit of productive capacity rather than a quantity of a specific currency.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
Sam Cole:

"mining is more decentralized than ever. 10's of thousands of locations."

what say you gmax?
[doublepost=1449434058][/doublepost]@Justus Ranvier

don't forget that miners themselves will hold back any number of mined BTC. personally, i never sold a coin from my mining days. as the price goes up, don't think the miners wish they'd held even more. i remember a panel member at Hasher's United last year polling the miners in the crowd for who sold all their mined coins. just a few held their hands up. but of course, if you're living on the edge with your costs, you'll need to sell a greater %.
 
  • Like
Reactions: majamalu

Justus Ranvier

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
875
3,746
Samourai Wallet developer sent the first known BIP-47 transaction:

https://blockchain.info/tx/9414f1681fb1255bd168a806254321a837008dd4480c02226063183deb100204?show_adv=true

It's a notification transaction that sends an encrypted payment code to the owner of address 1ChvUUvht2hUQufHBXF8NgLhW8SwE2ecGV

If the owner of that address makes their payment code public then we'll know they received this notification, but we'll never know(*) whose payment code was transmitted, since only the recipient can decrypt the payment code.

All future payments from the sender of this transaction to the owner of 1ChvUUvht2hUQufHBXF8NgLhW8SwE2ecGV will be completely normal transactions with no OP_RETURN or anything else in them that would connect them to this notification.



(*) actually, we do because the private keys are part of known test vectors. But in principle, we don't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davecgh

Zarathustra

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,439
3,797
The small block side already needs to censor itself:


Such friends don't need enemies.

Blockstream collapsing - Bitcoin up ...
 
  • Like
Reactions: bitsko

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
@Justus Ranvier

according to Wang Chun, most Chinese miners already have a bunch of full nodes outside of China, yet still have the issue with the GFC and propagation latency.
[doublepost=1449439010][/doublepost]gmax still wants smaller blocks:

 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
another nugget.

miners don't run their own implementations as often claimed. miners run default bitcoind b/c they can't afford to have buggy code that costs them rewards. this is why they seem to be so highly dependent and wedded to core dev. this is also why they are reluctant to upgrade to new versions if the previous version is working well. i remember the feeling well. you're in a constant state of semi-panic monitoring your units to make sure every second is spent mining at maximum capacity b/c it surely is a race to mine as much coin as you can as fast as you can all the while your hardware is degrading in capability. and this is b/c the stakes are so high; with a fixed supply currency, the price is highly likely to go up and lotsa money is to be made via appreciation on whatever coin you can scoop up now. this is on whatever you can save after expenses.
 
Last edited:

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
anyone else recognize that it was Corallo coordinating most of the end of panel questions from IRC and Reddit? based also on a reports on reddit about someone seeing the speaker applications in front of the Blockstream CEO at the conference indicates they are in control of Scaling Bitcoin.
 

rocks

Active Member
Sep 24, 2015
586
2,284
Middle of the scaling conference and Gmax is posting giant comments in random minor threads on the alternative subs. Also look at the content: he's been paying close attention to recently comments and criticisms such as Charlie Lee's litecoin holdings, twisting Satoshi's phrasing to make it look like it supports his position - generally a masterpiece of damage control:

But why?
Gmax's behavior, which you summarize, is evidence that the purpose of the scaling conference is not to create solutions that help Bitcoin scale, but to promote Blockstream's small-block agenda. If Gmax was engaging honestly he would be using the conference to try and grow Bitcoin. Instead he is apparently ignoring everyone else's presentations and spending the time promoting a pre-determined decision on social media.

These guys are just awful and have no idea what they are doing at this point.

But just as awful is the current participation of Bitcoin companies in Bitcoin's development. Coinbase, Bitpay, Gemini, Bitstamp, Slush, F2Pool, etc. etc. etc. should be contributing to Bitcoin's development by adding the scaling features they need (IBLT, thin blocks, weak blocks, etc.), but none of them are.

It is because of the vacuum they've created that a few otherwise un-notable coders have been able to wield the influence they have. It is time for real companies to step up and start to contribute towards development.
 

Zangelbert Bingledack

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2015
1,485
5,585
@cypherdoc

I suppose the reason most miners don't understand the game theory and economics is the same reason an investor who's never lost much money doesn't understand investing. There has to be a process of learning and weeding out. Ghash.io was weeded out. If Core keeps up their silliness and the economically viable faction forks away, there's going to be a Great Filter, where the clueless mining operations and pools will die off in droves, with only those who understand economics, game theory, and how Bitcoin can practically grow left standing.
[doublepost=1449442441][/doublepost]@rocks

Not being a coder myself I can't speak to the Core devs' competence on coding, though I did see Gmax chide XT over its recent issue, saying supporters of bigger blocks seem unable to release working code. I would love to see a candid assessment of their abilities in general, though I get a sense other coders are reluctant to do that for whatever reason because I hardly ever see it. I only recall Rusty Russell mentioned as an exceptionally talented coder.
 
Last edited:

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
ok. after digesting 2 views of the mining panel video, i feel perfectly equipped to tackle any obfuscation miniblockists can throw my way. i find it interesting though that almost all of the assumptions and theories i and others have had about the mining industry past and present in this thread have been spot on.
[doublepost=1449443729,1449442532][/doublepost]it's about time the Bitcoin 2.0 proponents are getting upset at gmax & core dev for artificially limiting MC access and cranking up artificial tx fees, a fact i brought up in this thread what a year and a half ago?:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3vpb0u/think_bitcoin_20_is_a_good_idea_had_dreams_of/
 
  • Like
Reactions: majamalu