Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[awemany]

WRT=just gets filled in some how

I thought WRT means 'with regards to'?
[doublepost=1449820167][/doublepost]

[...]
this is probably as good a reason as any as to why stakeholder voting won't fly:

edit: Also a signed message reveals the pubkey in much the same way spending does.

Yes, well, that's why I was thinking about optionally attaching some data to transactions to vote for blocksize. Weight with either the inputs (a gentleman's agreement that would somewhat gracefully degrade if too many people have too strong opinions to weighting with the transaction fee) or simply straightforward with the transaction fee.

 

[cypherdoc]

Boom

 

[cypherdoc]

We got a date with gold, boys.

Maybe next year.

 

[sickpig]

Looney, sure.

I don't think he's never been a "major supporter" of the Bitcoin Core developers:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=152027.msg1617246#msg1617246

They went looney a long time ago. If you're interested to get a glimpse of their world just look at this fantastic site:

http://thebitcoin.foundation

 

[sickpig]

Boom

even network hashrate is skyrocketing:

 

[lunar]

@theZerg a visualisation would certainly help.

You could set it to 8 instead of 4 and then your BU node would "resist" excessive blocks for longer

I understood that bit, but once a block has been built on say 4 deep, surely the chances of a reorg become tiny. At this point, as a single node, what's the point in resisting the large block any longer? Especially if you have no idea what the other nodes are doing.

The more look into this though, the more I think the BU method is fantastic. It brings democracy back to the network. 'One node one vote'. Also it appears to begin to measure the capacity of the network. I'm visualising some sort of blockometer that tracks the average node limits for accepted blocks, maybe by monitoring the speed of a block propagating through the network?

BU - 'On track for an Unlimited future'

 

[theZerg]

I'm doing some interesting work on network capacity right now...

 

[cypherdoc]

oh noes. coming up on the little red line. someone wake Janet the hell up:

[doublepost=1449847572][/doublepost]i mean seriously, unless you trade the overnight futures, you never had a chance. the left arrow represents the close of the Dow futures yesterday. even for the brief few minutes of closure then, you see a small gap down that you can't react to. overnight note the even bigger drop, with the right arrow indicating this morning's open. the futures were reacting to what happened in China overnight so you end up being a sitting duck at the open:

here's what it looks like if you're not a futures trader. open-->surprise! big gap down!:

[doublepost=1449847676][/doublepost]that's what i love about trading Bitcoin. 24/7 mkts!
[doublepost=1449847820,1449847098][/doublepost]GBTC up again 6.03%. yawn:

[doublepost=1449847964][/doublepost]here's a bad harbinger of things to come. the Russell has broken below it's little red line:

[doublepost=1449848379][/doublepost]so i'll admit it. i've been cheating on predicting what the $DJI is gonna do; i've been using those same 2 red lines on the $DJT to predict what is gonna happen. but you already knew that as i've been highlighting the increasing divergences btwn the 2 for months since the beginning of the year. but what's really a bad sign is how the $DJT has now broken below not one previous daily low (the first little red line), but now two (the 2nd red line), as charted. that's a really bad sign of things to come:

[doublepost=1449848449][/doublepost]but of course, as usual, i could be wrong.
[doublepost=1449848597][/doublepost]launching:

[doublepost=1449848786][/doublepost]that sweet smell of deflation just won't go away:

[doublepost=1449848866][/doublepost]launching, launching. everything's launching; VIX, DXD, BTC:

[doublepost=1449849631][/doublepost]Bitcoin and UST's to the Moon! (said with more than a little trepidation towards the latter)
[doublepost=1449850456][/doublepost]man, that looks good!:

[doublepost=1449850670][/doublepost]you hear that?

Bitcoin is starting to exhibit that sucking sound we've all been talking about for years now.

 

[cypherdoc]

 

[lunar]

perhaps we can crowdfund some lessons in free market economics for some of the more under educated Devs.

 

[luigi1111]

The way around this is to right-click on any quote button and copy the link to the clipboard. Then hover over the comment number of the last post (just above the Like button) and look at the end of the url for a "#post-xxxx" value. Paste the link you copied earlier and change its "#post-" value to the one matching the comment you want to quote.

Hmm, well would it be possible to configure the "Quote" button at the bottom to stay hidden, but enable the select-and-quote functionality?

I still don't understand the point.

 

[cypherdoc]

retail sales report weak again. continuing the drop:

[doublepost=1449853188][/doublepost]GBTC continuing to rise, now up 7.78%

 

[albin]

@lunarboy

I don't know how to exactly describe it, but that kind of psychology in the luke-jr post ("Note that buying and/or holding bitcoins is not an investment") seems to be pervasive. I think it's some kind of narcissistic coping strategy, to pedantically correct other people based on definitions and concepts that they themselves created. Trace Mayer is a huge purveyor of this kind of approach, as practically everything he says in conducting interviews has to be shoehorned on the fly into under the purview of his own framework (that whole 6 or 7 network effects thing, "why hire bitcoin", "please tell me why Mike Hearn is responsible for the fork", "please tell me Adam Back is Gandalf", etc.).

 

[theZerg]

Give some people a microphone and they'll hang themselves with it... luke jr and mpex today.

 

[Mengerian]

For what it's worth, F2Pool has stopped flagging support for BIP100 in its blocks for the past 24 hours or so. The change happened right around the same time the most recent two BIP101 blocks were mined.

I recently watched the mining panel from Scaling Hong Kong. The miners were pretty much unanimous that they want to increase block sizes in a way that is simple, predictable, and well tested. BIP101 is the only proposal that fills these criteria so far. They also said they felt that BIP101 increased blocksize limit "too fast". But they weren't happy with BIP100 either, saying that it is too complicated and they don't really want to be in a position to decide on the limit. My general impression was they they seem open to changing their minds about BIP101, they just don't want to go out on a limb, or do anything that is perceived as risky.

 

[cypherdoc]

largest mine in the world continuing to go off the cliff:

commodity producer Canada going off the cliff:

[doublepost=1449854397][/doublepost]

For what it's worth, F2Pool has stopped flagging support for BIP100 in its blocks for the past 24 hours or so. The change happened right around the same time the most recent two BIP101 blocks were mined.

I recently watched the mining panel from Scaling Hong Kong. The miners were pretty much unanimous that they want to increase block sizes in a way that is simple, predictable, and well tested. BIP101 is the only proposal that fills these criteria so far. They also said they felt that BIP101 increased blocksize limit "too fast". But they weren't happy with BIP100 either, saying that it is too complicated and they don't really want to be in a position to decide on the limit. My general impression was they they seem open to changing their minds about BIP101, they just don't want to go out on a limb, or do anything that is perceived as risky.

that is great news. can you provide a link to demonstrate this?

what? risky to piss off core dev? pffft.

i'm convinced that the chinese miners, for the most part, are smart motivated ppl who want Bitcoin to succeed. it's a language problem. no chinese core devs and no depth of discussion about the nuances of Bitcoin b/c everything done in core dev is in english.

 

[albin]

It's becoming more and more apparent as the days go by without any progress, that BIP 101 is actually the safe and conservative solution. I don't think there's any predicting the kind of regulatory risks that we would be exposed to if the Core devs actually go through with a transaction price-fixing scheme. I don't have legal qualifications to definitively speak to this, but it seems like the claim Peter Todd levied against Gavin on twitter months ago about making himself appear to be the operator of Bitcoin is something that Todd et al may actually get exposed to in the near future.

 

[cypherdoc]

almost there. hang on:

[doublepost=1449854935][/doublepost]

It's becoming more and more apparent as the days go by without any progress, that BIP 101 is actually the safe and conservative solution. I don't think there's any predicting the kind of regulatory risks that we would be exposed to if the Core devs actually go through with a transaction price-fixing scheme. I don't have legal qualifications to definitively speak to this, but it seems like the claim Peter Todd levied against Gavin on twitter months ago about making himself appear to be the operator of Bitcoin is something that Todd et al may actually get exposed to in the near future.

someone seriously needs to slap that Samson Mow upside the head for that comment he made in that article. how does someone in his position not understand that the scaling targets in 101 simply represent *limits* and not immediate equilibrium blocksizes?

 

[Melbustus]

Making it about people...


Edit: Example how toxic XT is. If @Gavin Andresen embraces an alternate client, I hope it's *not* XT, as that's just an uphill battle for no good reason.

 

[Mengerian]

that is great news. can you provide a link to demonstrate this?

Sure, I just look at the blocks here: https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC

Support flagged for BIP100 has gone from around 60% over the last few weeks to under 40% in the last 24 hours.

Scaling Hong Kong mining panel is here: