It would be great to get more exposure for Bitcoin Unlimited right now. I think it will resonate with a lot of people (including Olivier).
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
@Peter R
[doublepost=1450370906][/doublepost]
[doublepost=1450370951][/doublepost]Fear continues to slowly rise until The Event:
[doublepost=1450371737,1450370827][/doublepost]good question. why are rates falling today if the Fed is going to raise them? deeflation?
here's the yield curve over last 24 hours:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-17/thats-not-supposed-happen-yield-curve-slumps-flattest-9-months
[doublepost=1450370906][/doublepost]
it's never a good idea to isolate yourself away from more info. you just need to be able to put that info in the right perspective.@sickpig: Well it is probably a sign to become more detached from this whole thing
I guess the right approach is: Work more (on BU etc.) & talk less (yes, that applies to me) and wait for others ) to come and join. Tthey will come eventually, but probably only when all hell breaks loose.
[doublepost=1450370951][/doublepost]Fear continues to slowly rise until The Event:
[doublepost=1450371737,1450370827][/doublepost]good question. why are rates falling today if the Fed is going to raise them? deeflation?
here's the yield curve over last 24 hours:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-17/thats-not-supposed-happen-yield-curve-slumps-flattest-9-months
@awemany
Good to peer into the abyss every once in a while, but you can't let the ones who have no idea what they're talking about - and are hissy about it - get you down. If Bitcoin were easy to understand, such people wouldn't exist. It will never be that way until the concepts are proven by actual application.
I read the whole chat log you posted. I liked a lot of Zooko and Jeff's comments. Luke was weird with his insistence that adoption will be excruciatingly slow, but I think most people just ignore that and/or selectively refrain from disputing it when it happens to be convenient for beating down big block supporters; and kanzure was...well you get the idea.
Not everyone is going to understand Bitcoin and all the ancillary factors necessary to get the big picture. It's just too much to expect. I simply trust that the smart people who do get it are ignoring or temporarily tolerating those who don't. When it comes down to the wire, people will think for themselves and stand up because they are forced to. See SouperNerd's posted log of mod conversation with btcdrak (linked in the "You guys deserve better" sticky on /r/btc) for an example of this aspect of human nature.
Also, if I were a small block adherent, the fact that Greg feels the need for Hail Mary maneuvers would be quite a red flag.
Good to peer into the abyss every once in a while, but you can't let the ones who have no idea what they're talking about - and are hissy about it - get you down. If Bitcoin were easy to understand, such people wouldn't exist. It will never be that way until the concepts are proven by actual application.
I read the whole chat log you posted. I liked a lot of Zooko and Jeff's comments. Luke was weird with his insistence that adoption will be excruciatingly slow, but I think most people just ignore that and/or selectively refrain from disputing it when it happens to be convenient for beating down big block supporters; and kanzure was...well you get the idea.
Not everyone is going to understand Bitcoin and all the ancillary factors necessary to get the big picture. It's just too much to expect. I simply trust that the smart people who do get it are ignoring or temporarily tolerating those who don't. When it comes down to the wire, people will think for themselves and stand up because they are forced to. See SouperNerd's posted log of mod conversation with btcdrak (linked in the "You guys deserve better" sticky on /r/btc) for an example of this aspect of human nature.
Also, if I were a small block adherent, the fact that Greg feels the need for Hail Mary maneuvers would be quite a red flag.
dunno, really.
it could be anything, from mere strategic moves to a bruised ego.
time will tell, I suppose.
Last edited:
Regarding the current community split, I see a lot of parallels between what is happening today in Bitcoin and what happened in the US post revolution. During and immediately after the revolution the founding fathers and other leaders saw themselves as united on a single direction and in near full agreement with each other.
But fairly soon afterwards huge ideological differences emerged which were irrevocable and split them. In the end they HATED each other, Burr and Hamilton went to kill each other with pistols at dawn, at least 5 other sets did the same. They also refused to see the others side and insisted their views were right. There was a case where Madison (I think it was him) argued in front of the supreme court on what a section of the constitution that he wrote meant, but the supreme court disagreed and said "you are wrong, what you wrote means something else". (Similar to what Greg and Peter are doing with Satoshi's writings today)
The thing that kept this hatred and irrevocable differences from spilling out of control was the democratic process they started (maybe not even fully understanding it), which forced an election and decision point every few years on a new direction. This process forced revolutions to be peaceful events that then most people accepted.
We see Bitcoin as a democratic entity that everyone can influence and set direction. And this was Satoshi's vision with distributed mining, P2P nodes, etc.
The problem is there is no set decision point built into Bitcoin that enables voting. Yes everyone can mine and accept or reject blocks, but without a set date to decide as an election does, it is near impossible to bring everyone together at the same time to change direction. For example if I decide to run a miner and mine 2MB blocks today, I would be kicked out and ignored. So I won't do this unless I know that at least 51% other miners are going to start doing the same thing at the same time. Without a set date for a decision point the current direction will be taken until it breaks.
If the major exchanges, merchants, etc. announce a BIP101 hard fork, it becomes an election and forces a set date to have that election. It will in effect be the first election Bitcoin has had. The problem I think XT had is it tried to do this but it had no date set and no decision point to rally around.
What is interesting about Bitcoin is post election both sides can continue on their own, the system can not force you to join the majority (unlike democracies). Greg and Luke can continue working on a 1MB by themselves if they want.
So:
1) We shouldn't be too worried that everyone is fucking mad (and it seams everyone on all sides are getting there). That is a part of a democratic decision making process (which Greg is trying to stop). The fact that so many people are so mad is a good thing, it means that many people today want Bitcoin to work. That is winning IMHO.
2) I believe we need to think about how Bitcoin can make the election processes easier. This is going to be the first time so there are no mechanisms for it. After it's done it should be made easier for the next time.
But fairly soon afterwards huge ideological differences emerged which were irrevocable and split them. In the end they HATED each other, Burr and Hamilton went to kill each other with pistols at dawn, at least 5 other sets did the same. They also refused to see the others side and insisted their views were right. There was a case where Madison (I think it was him) argued in front of the supreme court on what a section of the constitution that he wrote meant, but the supreme court disagreed and said "you are wrong, what you wrote means something else". (Similar to what Greg and Peter are doing with Satoshi's writings today)
The thing that kept this hatred and irrevocable differences from spilling out of control was the democratic process they started (maybe not even fully understanding it), which forced an election and decision point every few years on a new direction. This process forced revolutions to be peaceful events that then most people accepted.
We see Bitcoin as a democratic entity that everyone can influence and set direction. And this was Satoshi's vision with distributed mining, P2P nodes, etc.
The problem is there is no set decision point built into Bitcoin that enables voting. Yes everyone can mine and accept or reject blocks, but without a set date to decide as an election does, it is near impossible to bring everyone together at the same time to change direction. For example if I decide to run a miner and mine 2MB blocks today, I would be kicked out and ignored. So I won't do this unless I know that at least 51% other miners are going to start doing the same thing at the same time. Without a set date for a decision point the current direction will be taken until it breaks.
If the major exchanges, merchants, etc. announce a BIP101 hard fork, it becomes an election and forces a set date to have that election. It will in effect be the first election Bitcoin has had. The problem I think XT had is it tried to do this but it had no date set and no decision point to rally around.
What is interesting about Bitcoin is post election both sides can continue on their own, the system can not force you to join the majority (unlike democracies). Greg and Luke can continue working on a 1MB by themselves if they want.
So:
1) We shouldn't be too worried that everyone is fucking mad (and it seams everyone on all sides are getting there). That is a part of a democratic decision making process (which Greg is trying to stop). The fact that so many people are so mad is a good thing, it means that many people today want Bitcoin to work. That is winning IMHO.
2) I believe we need to think about how Bitcoin can make the election processes easier. This is going to be the first time so there are no mechanisms for it. After it's done it should be made easier for the next time.
[doublepost=1450375308,1450374438][/doublepost]
remember that London fintech podcast i put up a coupla weeks ago about the race btwn a challenger and an incumbent to scoop up the userbase? that is what is going on with R3; they are trying to scoop up Bitcoin's userbase by offering a coinless version of our tech, the blockchain. if we don't get this scaling problem solved soon, before we know it, The Blockchain will become a reality and Bitcoin will have lost it's opportunity, at least in the short to intermediate term.
Exactly. You've explained well why I've been so insistent that the situation could easily have to go very close to the brink before blocksize is raised, and that this shouldn't be overly alarming. Mr. Bitcoin needed just such a situation to familiarize his friends with "voting" or market decision-making (Satoshi style via "CPU power" or through fork arbitrage, or possibly spinoff tech). The more pressure builds, the more focused people will get, until eventually we have a clear mechanism.
- Aug 29, 2015
- 536
- 2,597
That's fine, the truth is the only thing that really matters.
In a battle against unjust Power, Truth is the ultimate weapon.
Yes. Mr. Bitcoin is putting us through this crisis for a reason. He wants us to learn how to deal with contentious issues. He wants us to build resilience to deal with future crises. He wants to show the world that he can overcome obstacles and grow stronger.
That wasn't me that was @cliff, I think.
Yes. There must be some mechanism in place so that people eventually get it - or Bitcoin is doomed, don't you think? And I am appalled by looking at some of the consensified forums. You are right, though, it is looking into the abyss - and a skewed picture.
Yes, I agree, this is a very positive thing for the bigblock side. I don't think he's going to pull too many people on his side with that, and so the whole action will look ridiculous. It will allow people attacking him for being unprofessional - and they wouldn't even be wrong.
Many people said that Greg is the current technical leader of Core. Him stepping down by waiving commit rights could thus be seen as Core being decapitated - and thus success of the revolution.
He might hide now behind 'laanwj is the repo boss', but this will add to the ridiculousness.
Maybe this action, after the one on the mailing list involving @Peter R. (where he seemed to have pulled a similar stunt, did he ever actually explain it?) this is actually the start of the descent of Greg in the Bitcoin space.
Hard to tell. I am not optimistic yet.
lunar
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,001
- 4,290
Very interesting the timing of this and yesterdays great post by Jeff.
'Personal reasons' could mean many things. (hopefully nothing sinister). He is clearly of strongly held beliefs, so perhaps this is a simple case of finally realising there are more dimensions than he was willing to admit to himself. With luck stepping out of the path of the tornado for a spot of quiet reflection will give him some peace.
I try to adhere to a philosophy of assuming good faith, so It would be a shame to loose such talent due to an unwillingness to publicly admit error, and an army of hateful trolls.
/my2cents
jgarzik pounding the concept of soft forks. i agree. they degrade security:
"On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 1:46 PM, jl2012 <jl2012@xbt.hk> wrote:
This is not correct.
As only about 1/3 of nodes support BIP65 now, would you consider CLTV tx are less secure than others? I don't think so. Since one invalid CLTV tx will make the whole block invalid. Having more nodes to fully validate non-CLTV txs won't make them any safer. The same logic also applies to SW softfork.
Yes - the logic applies to all soft forks. Each soft fork degrades the security of non-upgraded nodes.
The core design of bitcoin is that trustless nodes validate the work of miners, not trust them.
Soft forks move in the opposite direction. Each new soft-forked feature leans very heavily on miner trust rather than P2P network validation."
"On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 1:46 PM, jl2012 <jl2012@xbt.hk> wrote:
This is not correct.
As only about 1/3 of nodes support BIP65 now, would you consider CLTV tx are less secure than others? I don't think so. Since one invalid CLTV tx will make the whole block invalid. Having more nodes to fully validate non-CLTV txs won't make them any safer. The same logic also applies to SW softfork.
Yes - the logic applies to all soft forks. Each soft fork degrades the security of non-upgraded nodes.
The core design of bitcoin is that trustless nodes validate the work of miners, not trust them.
Soft forks move in the opposite direction. Each new soft-forked feature leans very heavily on miner trust rather than P2P network validation."
albin
Active Member
- Nov 8, 2015
- 931
- 4,008
The received plan from on high is starting to take shape bolder and bolder, with Flexcap as a foregone conclusion in this post by Adam Back: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011993.html
- Aug 22, 2015
- 1,558
- 4,693
Ah. What a wonderful day, blue skies and blue sea of the South Pacific, palm trees waving in the breeze, and having coffee, waking up to the news that Maxwell has dropped his commit access to Bitcoin Core.
For the first time in a long while I am really optimistic about the medium-term future of Bitcoin. Without the dead hand of suffocating negativity the dev mailing list is already springing into life with some really constructive problem-solving, pros-and-cons analysis. Hat tip to jl2012 and Tier Nolan, who are brilliant Bitcoin technical geniuses now guiding the block limit drama to resolution and putting SW onto a sensible implementation path.
I didn't think I would be amending the Architects list so soon, but it now looks refreshingly better:
Bitcoin Chief Architects
Satoshi Nakamoto: 2008 (whitepaper) - Dec 2010
Gavin Andresen: Dec 2010 - April 2014
Wladimir van der Laan: April 2014 - Dec 2015
Jeff Garzik: Dec 2015 - ?
For the first time in a long while I am really optimistic about the medium-term future of Bitcoin. Without the dead hand of suffocating negativity the dev mailing list is already springing into life with some really constructive problem-solving, pros-and-cons analysis. Hat tip to jl2012 and Tier Nolan, who are brilliant Bitcoin technical geniuses now guiding the block limit drama to resolution and putting SW onto a sensible implementation path.
I didn't think I would be amending the Architects list so soon, but it now looks refreshingly better:
Bitcoin Chief Architects
Satoshi Nakamoto: 2008 (whitepaper) - Dec 2010
Gavin Andresen: Dec 2010 - April 2014
Wladimir van der Laan: April 2014 - Dec 2015
Jeff Garzik: Dec 2015 - ?
Agreed @ not sinister.
Well, I have interacted with characters like him. Only when he actually admits defeat and actively resigns from any role of power will I believe anything here.
The further I ponder about this, the further I actually think that this is indeed a positive sign.
But until Greg has given a clear explanation of his defeat and change of mind will I not be willing to see any change on his part. So far, I assume he is doing a play.
VeritasSapere
Active Member
- Nov 16, 2015
- 511
- 1,266
I guess talking is kinda my thing, since I am not a coder, would not know how to contribute otherwise. lol@sickpig: Well it is probably a sign to become more detached from this whole thing
I guess the right approach is: Work more (on BU etc.) & talk less (yes, that applies to me) and wait for others ) to come and join. Tthey will come eventually, but probably only when all hell breaks loose.
[doublepost=1450381260][/doublepost]
I think the reduced oil prices could also have a lot to do with the increase in oil production due to fracking.
@VeritasSapere : I thought they stopped fracking months ago already?
It is interesting how few attention Greg resigning his commit privileges gets. Almost as if everyone expects such a move from him?
It is interesting how few attention Greg resigning his commit privileges gets. Almost as if everyone expects such a move from him?
@cypherdoc: Maxwell is only gone when he made a statement saying so and that he from now on refrains from steering anything regarding blocksize. So far, this is only drama and I consider it just another chess move from him. We shouldn't call victory too early.
@ Peter R.'s post, I didn't even see that yet. Gotta look on that old dusty subreddit
@ Peter R.'s post, I didn't even see that yet. Gotta look on that old dusty subreddit
