Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Melbustus]

Well if you are both right and the big western banks have seen this coming - essentially sold all the gold to China, India and Russia then shorted the hell out of it, this is effectively the biggest bait and switch humanity has ever seen.

A flaw in this thinking; perhaps? If Western banks can see this, then so can Eastern governments. What happens if BRICS goes for a gold backed currency in retaliation?

Anyway I understand where your coming from now and see the risks. I don't hold gold but was considering hedging options if/when we see another BTC bubble?

My view at least is a longer-term one. I have no idea how gold plays out short-term.
[doublepost=1449513487][/doublepost]

...
esp in light of the fact that Bitcoin has absolutely no ornamental or industrial value.

Wences points out anthropological arguments that gold is primarily used as jewelry *because* it is valuable (as money), not the other way around... I'd say it's a little of both (gold's fundamental physical properties, plus the monetary value) that makes it desirable as an ornament.

With regard to industrial value, I consider all the "drop a hash into the bitcoin blockchain" uses to be bitcoin's direct industrial use value. Which itself could be huge, putting a high floor on the price.

 

[cypherdoc]

@Melbustus

With regard to industrial value, I consider all the "drop a hash into the bitcoin blockchain" uses to be bitcoin's direct industrial use value. Which itself could be huge, putting a high floor on the price.

we talked about this over a year ago. in my view, simply dropping hashes into the BC is at risk given the LukeJr, PeterTodd & gmax attitudes of BC bloat along with their neverending efforts to subvert this capability. if small block fee mkts are allowed to evolve the way they're going, dropping simple hashes into OP_RETURN is going to cost you $20 a pop very soon.

 

[Melbustus]

@cypherdoc - Right, which is yet another reason why the high-fee vision of Bitcoin can't be allowed to happen. It kills *both* the monetary vision, and the authoritative-record vision. What's left is basically R3.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

Do Fraud Proofs render UTXO commitments unnecessary, or are they orthogonal concepts?

Complementary concepts.

Committed UTXO sets without fraud proofs are dangerous, because you have to blindly trust the source of the committed set.

If you add in a mechanism via which a fraudulent UTXO set can be conclusively proven incorrect, the risk of relying on committed UTXO sets is vastly diminished.

 

[Mengerian]

First bullet point of the last section... What exactly is meant by: "Switch to a cost-based metric"?

Pretty sure that refers to the 'flex-cap' scheme, where miners can 'pay' for bigger blocks by giving up some of the block reward, according to some yet-to-be-determined formula.

 

[Melbustus]

@Mengerian - Ugh, that's awful. Complexity in any game-theoretic context should only be a last resort.

Edit: The Blockstream Core devs argue that we need to be extra careful and diligent before making any changes. I'd love to see that supposed care extend to being far LESS willing to introduce complexity into consensus code.

 

[theZerg]

It is important for facts like that to be documented in verifiable ways.

Even if they don't post in this thread, people see things like that, and it affects the decisions that they make.

Ok I added the links so you all can validate this claim...

 

[Zarathustra]

The Front National segment of Bitcoin claims victory:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1154636.msg13176375#msg13176375

 

[awemany]

Ok, so today and in the 'SFSW' thread, Greg and Adam are playing the being (relatively) nice part. I had this conversation with Greg:


Is it just me or was one element of the 1MB crowd always that only a since-genesis-validating node is a full node?
Am I misreading him, or did he actually move on this point?

 

[theZerg]

i still think you should be leaving any personal code out of BU for now. KISS. until it gets accepted and running. this isn't the last time you'll hear about that bug.

yes... I can see your perspective. BUT I feel that the traffic shaping code is very important for scalability. I mean, just because you have a 5, 25 or 50 MB connection doesn't mean that Bitcoin should be allowed to consume all of it.

Bitcoin is driving users away because Bitcoin Core does not play nice with other network uses like Netflix or Amazon video streaming. With traffic shaping on, you really just start it up and can completely forget that its even running.

You could head over to the BUIP discussion and make an argument; voting happens in a few days...

 

[cypherdoc]

The Front National segment of Bitcoin claims victory:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1154636.msg13176375#msg13176375

Lol, I don't know how you tolerate those idiots. You're doing yeoman's work.

 

[awemany]

> You could head over to the BUIP discussion and make an argument; voting happens in a few days...

@cypherdoc, @theZerg: I agree, that's the way we're going to solve these conflicts. Personally I am slightly in favor of @theZerg's approach regarding more changes than just blocksize, but I think there's not so much to discuss, pretty much a gut feeling, we're all informed what it is about. So I think this is the most important part, that we have a process in place to get to agreement.

 

[rocks]

Is it just me or was one element of the 1MB crowd always that only a since-genesis-validating node is a full node?
Am I misreading him, or did he actually move on this point?

You missed nothing, they have completely moved on this point.

Again they are not taking any clear vision for scaling bitcoin, instead they are just using whatever argument works for the moment on a case by case basis. Anything to keep the network capped and force LN. And it's working.

The 1MB cap is simply the biggest threat to Bitcoin right now. Take that away and it will scale as people are able to make it scale.

 

[Melbustus]

@rocks - so frustrating. I feel pretty darn good about almost everything happening in the bitcoin space right now, *except* the disaster that is this whole blocksize nonsense. Ask me 4 years ago whether I thought raising the blocksize would be any sort of controversy, and I would've thought the question itself was just nuts.

 

[cypherdoc]

yes... I can see your perspective. BUT I feel that the traffic shaping code is very important for scalability. I mean, just because you have a 5, 25 or 50 MB connection doesn't mean that Bitcoin should be allowed to consume all of it.

Bitcoin is driving users away because Bitcoin Core does not play nice with other network uses like Netflix or Amazon video streaming. With traffic shaping on, you really just start it up and can completely forget that its even running.

You could head over to the BUIP discussion and make an argument; voting happens in a few days...

It doesn't matter if it's helpful.

What matters is getting it accepted by the community. Imo, Core plus a cap removal is the most palatable change. That's already enough to swallow.
[doublepost=1449519062][/doublepost]Once again, Greg wants certainty. Well, you can't have it Greg and the sooner you realize Bitcoin utilizes probabilities, the better off you'll be:

 

[Melbustus]

Given the behavior of the mining community as shown at the conference, I'm beginning to think even more that we need the mining-pool component of Bitcoin Unlimited:


Article 4: The Bitcoin Unlimited Mining Pool
Increasingly, users who have a strong vested interest in the success of Bitcoin control proportionally little hash power. The Bitcoin Unlimited Mining Pool seeks to provide companies and users a transparently run, not-for-profit, high payout, mining pool which explicitly supports global bitcoin adoption through Bitcoin Unlimited block creation.

1. Operation
   
   
2. The Pool will be run by the Bitcoin Unlimited Pool Operator and other real-identity-known Bitcoin Unlimited members as designated by the Pool Operator, with operational and mission transparency as key priorities. The Bitcoin Unlimited Pool will run Bitcoin Unlimited full node software.
   
   
3. Donator Incentives
   
   Users, companies, and other ecosystem stakeholders will be incentivized to contribute to this pool as long as it supports their values. As has always been the case, hash power speaks loudest, and stakeholders ultimately exercise their vote via hashing.
   
   
4. User Incentives
   
   In the ideal case, donations will exceed operational cost, and therefore the Bitcoin Unlimited Pool will offer an overlay payout to participant miners, specifics to be decided by BUIP. This should build a strong base of hash power for the pool. Donations can be made for the specific purpose of supporting the Pool, as opposed to donations to the general Bitcoin Unlimited fund, and will be managed in a 2 of 3 (President, Secretary, Pool Operator) multi-sig account separate from Bitcoin Unlimited general purpose funds.
   
   
5. 51% Risk
   
   To alleviate real or perceived risk of this pool gaining more than 50% of total network hash power, if the pool's hash power exceeds an average of 30% for more than 30 consecutive days, it must disband into two completely separate entities with no personnel overlap.

http://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/articlesOfFederation


If Coinbase and others become donators, it could work. Brian Armstrong's pre-conference comments are encouraging.

 

[awemany]

@rocks: Do you remember where or when Greg expressed a different view what a full node is?

I really think he changed his opinion, too, but I'd like to see that change explicitly by looking at an old post.
[doublepost=1449519666][/doublepost]Further pondering about Bitcoin stakeholder voting:

Did we ever have a BIP or BIP-draft that proposed stakeholder voting for blocksize?

I imagine the following:
1. Voter uses address with balance to sign a single, specially formatted statement (as a transaction) that some other key is the proxy voter for the balance in this address (to avoid signing too much and exposing oneself to private key leakage)
2. Voter submits specially formatted voting transaction using voting key to blockchain, containing desired uint64_t maxblocksize value
3. At beginning of year, all full nodes take the voting transactions from last year and the balance-weighted median of all is the new blocksize until next year

Votes older than a year are discarded.

Similar to configurable blocksize, which, as @Peter R. said, has this inevitable element to it, it also seems like a solution which is hard to avoid - the stakeholders saying what is best for Bitcoin.

Thoughts?

 

[theZerg]

@Melbustus I agree and think that these companies really ought to invest in mining as a strategic move to help ensure their vision happens. And its not like its even a losing proposition -- they could band together and situate a co-mining space near a hydro dam in Canada or northern USA.

WRT BU, we could put redundant relay nodes just outside of the GFC and work with Chinese miners to solve whatever connectivity problems they are having, even if it means communicating blocks via skype or something.

 

[cypherdoc]

@awemany

I don't think pos stakeholder voting has a chance in hell. I for one would never pull out all my cold wallets simply to vote. It's too risky from a security standpoint. Some people have wallets all over the world so I doubt you'd even get an accurate picture due to lack of participation.
[doublepost=1449520480][/doublepost]Anyone else notice how many people are hanging around this forum today reading this thread?

Be on your best behavior

 

[cypherdoc]

Looks like Charlie Lee really doesn't believe in Bitcoin:

"The most fundamental of the changes we have made are based on proposals for hybridized PoW/PoS (proof-of-stake) systems, such as MC2 and proof-of-activity (PoA) by Iddo Bentov, Charles Lee, Alex Mizrahi and Meni Rosenfeld."

https://blog.companyzero.com/2015/12/iterating-bitcoin/

So why should we listen to his opinion on block size?
[doublepost=1449522177,1449521449][/doublepost]

Massive move today