Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

We have a LOT of catching up to do to get the price in line with actual conditions, almost no matter what happens in terms of those actual conditions. That's why I think we will trend much higher over the coming months or year even if Core stalls as hard as it possibly can on blocksize. We might get some intense knifedowns on bad news on that front, but overall I think the trend will be massively up just because of how much irrational bearishness is still waiting to be shaken off (followed by a strong dose of irrational bullishness, taking us temporarily into the stratosphere).

If the BTC price were where it should be now, I'd be saying, "Prepare for a fall back down to the quadruple digits in case this Core BS continues." But we're still in the triple digits, so I see this as Core/BS being able to reduce the coming run-up from two orders of magnitude to just one. Boo hoo

 

[solex]

From the UK culture. Although anyone who has seen the musical Cats might recognize this phenomenon:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3x6sfg/macavity_the_mystery_cat_hes_not_there/

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

@chriswilmer

I'm starting to think @awemany many be right that Greg knows all the moves and all the counters in the intellectual-social game, like a seasoned chess player. A long history as a Wikipedia editor and being married to a lawyer (as I recall) would seem to contribute to such qualities as well.

A possible chink in the armor is that he may be one of those "flip over the table when you start losing" types, which is a fairly common trait among strategic masterminds who love to dominate in their favored domains.

 

[awemany]

We have a LOT of catching up to do to get the price in line with actual conditions, almost no matter what happens in terms of those actual conditions. That's why I think we will trend much higher over the coming months or year even if Core stalls as hard as it possibly can on blocksize. We might get some intense knifedowns on bad news on that front, but overall I think the trend will be massively up just because of how much irrational bearishness is still waiting to be shaken off (followed by a strong dose of irrational bullishness, taking us temporarily into the stratosphere).

If the BTC price were where it should be now, I'd be saying, "Prepare for a fall back down to the quadruple digits in case this Core BS continues." But we're still in the triple digits, so I see this as Core/BS being able to reduce the coming run-up from two orders of magnitude to just one. Boo hoo

I think that actually might be to some extend a problem - a rising price might make Core more entrenched by letting them say: "See, our approach is correct.".

 

[Peter R]

@Zangelbert Bingledack

OK, let's say I buy that theory. But then what is Greg's motivation? Does he genuinely believe that increasing the block size limit would irreparably harm Bitcoin? Does he want to hurt Bitcoin? Is he acting in a way that he thinks will benefit Blockstream? Or is it something else [pride, ego, etc.]?

 

[Erdogan]

interesting take by one of our Bitcoin luminaries:

Larry Summers Says the Fed Is Walking Into a Trap

http://fortune.com/2015/12/16/larry-summers-fed/

personally, i don't see how the stock mkt continues to ramp thru further rate rises. junk and other corporate bonds are going to get further killed by liquidity lock ups.
[doublepost=1450320826,1450319982][/doublepost]just heard back from Con Kolivas.

he said he would remove the 100 flag when he needs to restart the pool for other updates, but only then. who knows how long that will take. see, this is what i was talking about a coupla weeks ago regarding the "semi-panic" state of most miners. this is how badly miners feel they need to keep their pools up and running every_single_second. and if it ain't broke don't upgrade.

you begin to understand the high reliance on core dev given this situation. not that i agree with it, but.

(Larry Summers) Infighting in the keynesian camp.

 

[awemany]

@Peter R:

I think it is his blackhole-sized ego + an intelligent investor to BS who's selling him even more possible control and fame in the ecosystem. I also think that critically, yes, his ego is more important to him than whatever happens to Bitcoin. If it fails (because of him), he'll go and tell everyone and say "I told you so, it won't work". Compare Gavin, who (I think) is more along the lines of: Sure, I take pride in working on something that could change the world, but that means I am interested in its success for its own sake, first and foremost.

TPTB_need_war, who was usually mostly long-time trolling the old GCBU thread on BCT, actually had a very nice and insightful description along similar lines in a reply to @Zangelbert Bingledack .

And, yes, I do also think that Greg does not trust the idea that market forces could actually work out in Bitcoin's favor.

That all said, I think the only way forward now is to take Greg away from all positions of influence. I really like to see a BIP101 revolution now, and I am not afraid of the temporary upheaval it might cause.

 

[awemany]

From the UK culture. Although anyone who has seen the musical Cats might recognize this phenomenon:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3x6sfg/macavity_the_mystery_cat_hes_not_there/

Never saw the musical. You mean, our beloved 'Sauron' isn't appearing in that list?

 

[Zarathustra]

@cypherdoc

Here's hoping

The market is slowly but steadily pricing in the crushing defeat of Todd and Maxwell.
[doublepost=1450343077][/doublepost]

@Zangelbert Bingledack

OK, let's say I buy that theory. But then what is Greg's motivation? Does he genuinely believe that increasing the block size limit would irreparably harm Bitcoin? Does he want to hurt Bitcoin? Is he acting in a way that he thinks will benefit Blockstream? Or is it something else [pride, ego, etc.]?

I think he still works for his employer's business model to enforce an artificial fee market.
In the meantime he should have realized that this won't happen, but he is afraid to tell to his investors the truth.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

@Peter R

I think it's just all the things we've talked about here. Pride, Blockstream investment, desire for power, genuine belief he is right, lack of understanding outside his narrow field and especially in terms of economics and real-world adoption, friendly relationship with Adam Back who seems to want a way into the space after coming late to the party, bearishness on Bitcoin as part of that "brooding intellectual" identity that laments how screwed up everything would be without his expert stewardship, and a basic love of winning at strategic endeavors. (All guesses, if you're listening, Greg, but consensus is gelling within my internal committee of mind that these are more or less correct)

 

[awemany]

Interesting observation by /u/ydtm on reddit:

 

[Inca]

Maxwell, Back et al. have been attempting a coup d'etat but I think they will fail.

Hearing Jeff Garzik coming out against the small block crowd leaves Maxwell lonely in vetoing any proposed blocksize increases as an active proponent of keeping the blocksize fixed. SW was a calculated distraction which has failed. Pressure will continue to intensify as transaction volume approaches the blocksize limit. Rising fees and failed transactions will not encourage support of technical solutions from the Core developers as the 'fee market' develops, instead it will extinguish any vestiges of remaining support.

Next comes the inevitable glomming together of all other parties until Maxwell isolated entirely. His strategy of hiding behind those who claim no opinion like Wladimir or Pieter to keep the status quo is will no longer be tenable.

I predict we see a new alliance of Core developers with a new implementation of bitcoin which is openly supported by exchanges, payment processors and miners. A rapid uptake of this implementation by nodes and miners would signal the end of this fiasco and force Maxwell out of bitcoin entirely or eat humble pie and hopefully still develop beneficial layers like lightning which will have a place in the future - just not yet.

I wonder if resolution of this manufactured crisis which is destroying reputations (Maxwell and other blockstream employees by COI, Theymos by ridiculous censorship) will result in a massive rally.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

@Inca

Nice. I actually think this crisis *is* the resolution.

Before, we never really knew what would happen if some powerful devs tried to co-opt the system or got crazy ideas about some aspect of Bitcoin and rallied enough establishment people to push through their agenda. We never knew if there would really be vigorous pushback, although we theorized there should be. However, now we are seeing it play out like clockwork. This makes me more bullish on Bitcoin than ever before, even as some weak hands are selling their coins due to lack of understanding. "We saw everything coming, but not this!"

The current situation is to me yet another test seemingly in the process of being passed with flying colors, even though we lose sight of all the progress that has been made in undermining the establishment structures that might have grown into existential threats. Theymos's rep and forums are hemorrhaging users and goodwill, Maxwell's and generally Core's rep hangs in the balance due to their overreaching and is contingent on just what it should be contingent on, investors are mobilizing from all quarters...every kind of disruption is happening just as it should. It gets a little scary, but what could we expect? Mr. Bitcoin demands iron stomachs.

 

[cypherdoc]

Peeps finally catching on:

 

[awemany]

@cypherdoc: Olivier Janssens funded quite a few bounties, among them development of Lighthouse, correct?

He is also described as a 'Bitcoin millionaire' and judging from his twitter feed, he's living a matching lifestyle. I am neither praising nor criticizing that, the point is that rather that he's visibly Bitcoin rich.

Now someone, who is publicly known to have a pile of Bitcoins is saying loud and clear:

No limits please.

I think this is a first, isn't it?
[doublepost=1450356945][/doublepost]@Inca, @Zangelbert Bingledack : Yes, we are seeing the immune response, but the immune response started years ago. I am hopeful but not yet so strongly optimistic and sure that Bitcoin can indeed fend off the infection. Taking the analogy further, the small-block virus has features of HIV, damaging the immune response itself by forced destruction of online communities.

 

[lunar]

@awemany Ironically, he just stood down recently. Too stressful and hostile environment.

also I think if you want to pursue that greg analogy you mean Saruman? Started out good but became corrupted by staring into the Palantir too long? Dwellers in Ivory towers

 

[Inca]

Maxwell changed his bitcoin github commit status?

Bad info, thrown his toys out of the pram or last ditch effort to stop Core being forked into irrelevence?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3x7mrr/gmaxwell_unullc_no_longer_a_bitcoin_committer_on/?ref=share&ref_source=link

 

[cliff]

@cypherdoc: Olivier Janssens funded quite a few bounties, among them development of Lighthouse, correct?

He is also described as a 'Bitcoin millionaire' and judging from his twitter feed, he's living a matching lifestyle. I am neither praising nor criticizing that, the point is that rather that he's visibly Bitcoin rich.

Now someone, who is publicly known to have a pile of Bitcoins is saying loud and clear:

No limits please.

I think this is a first, isn't it?
[doublepost=1450356945][/doublepost]@Inca, @Zangelbert Bingledack : Yes, we are seeing the immune response, but the immune response started years ago. I am hopeful but not yet so strongly optimistic and sure that Bitcoin can indeed fend off the infection. Taking the analogy further, the small-block virus has features of HIV, damaging the immune response itself by forced destruction of online communities.

Additionally, a legit satoshi candidate (zooko) doesn't understand what's happening w/ core, proceeds to clown them (and core doesn't get it) - http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/2015/12/17

 

[cypherdoc]

@cliff
jgarzik:

The typical open source method is forking the project to fire the developers. That is key to the health of typical open source projects. Bitcoin is not a typical open source project for obvious consensus reasons. "
[doublepost=1450364148][/doublepost]Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

Poor metal just can't catch a break.

 

[lunar]

Apart from the 'Core Problem' I see this as the biggest current threat to bitcoin dominance.

They essentially have unlimited funds, powerful government connections and an acute understanding of what's at stake. I know the old arguments of 'permissioned blockchains' but what if they developed a system where bank branches ran nodes, central banks ran mining farms (copyrighted hashing algorithm) and users were given free range to interact with the blockchain on a SPV level?

Admittedly it would probably take years to get up and running and face jurisdictional hurdles, but there's nothing like facing extinction to sharpen the mind. (quick amendments to TPP and TTIP anyone?)

http://www.coindesk.com/twelve-banks-blockchain-consortium-r3/

Twelve additional banks have joined the blockchain consortium led by startup R3CEV.

The consortium’s membership has grown since the first nine members were announced in the fall. In the past few months, 33 more banks have joined the initiative. With the new entrants, the total number of banks involved with the consortium rises to 42.