Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

Bitcoin recovering

 

[cypherdoc]

i guarantee you, no one likes this volatility in stocks. in times like these, they will seek oversold viable alternatives or safe havens. gold still doing poorly-->nack. dollar set to be debased again-->nack. UST's maybe-->at end of 30 yr bull mkt. Bitcoin-->ack, 90% pullback & with huge promise & at end of >1.5yr bear.

 

[Aquent]

It is easy to appeal to authority when one shouldn't and blame others for the "fallacy" of appealing to authority when doing so is appropriate.

Adam Back created Hashcash, a component of bitcoin, which is indeed noteworthy, but grants him no authority in the bigger picture unless his words/acts suggest it does.

With satoshi, in my opinion, it is somewhat different. When people invoke his name, for example, it is not simply because satoshi knows better, but because he has shown himself, by his acts, and his words, that what he says and codes is right and the words used in support stand on their own.

With Adam Back and Gregory Maxwell, we have a pure appeal to authority, the kind whereby simply because they did x means they know y.

 

[Ivanhoe]

$DJI making a run for it:

Looks like a bearflag to me

 

[cypherdoc]

great answer by Mike this AM concerning the Cripplecoiner argument that no limit will cause "infinite demand":

And anyway, the underlying logic is flawed. As the desktop Linux guys know, you can give something away for free and still not get popular. Bitcoin transactions have all kinds of costs other than miner fees, like the cost of exchanging them, the cost of learning to use the software, the cost of keeping them secure and the cost of the actual purchase itself. The only people who might generate infinite demand given zero costs are DoS attackers, and we have better ways to deal with them.

 

[Mengerian]

Thanks for posting, Mengerian. I was hoping to see you here.

Thanks! Good to be here!

I've just been catching up on the last few weeks of Bitcoin drama. The thing that jumps to my mind is how this whole block size brouhaha has revealed two weak points in the Bitcoin ecosystem: centralization of control of software development, and of communication channels (Reddit Bitcoin, Bitcointalk).

And we can see these vulnerabilities being addressed already after only a short amount of time. It's kind of ironic that the "small block" proponents, with their worries about hypothetical future node centralization have actually revealed a far worse "centralization" problem that exist right now, that is just now starting to be addressed.

In future, having several node implementations each with their own development teams and processes, would make the Bitcoin network vastly more resilient than it has been in the past. And if that ends up being the main result of this block size brouhaha, then I think it will have been worth it regardless of how the block size issue is actually resolved.

 

[cypherdoc]

the Cripplecoiner's are no longer trying to hide the fact that they need more time to develop offchain solutions so as to make the block size debate go away. IOW, they in fact do want to divert all fee tx's offchain which coincidentally helps their biz model. their assumptions are, of course, SC's and LN are going to be better. however, i think we've highlighted enough concerns to show that this might not be correct:

http://coinjournal.net/if-sidechains-existed-the-block-size-debate-would-be-irrelevant/

 

[Justus Ranvier]

their assumptions are, of course, SC's and LN are going to be better.

LN transactions are as good as, and as if they were written directly to the blockchain as is.

This is an amazing claim, which surprisingly is allowed to stand unquestioned.

 

[cypherdoc]

@Justus Ranvier

btcdrak is quite the troll

 

[cypherdoc]

Dow Theory primary trend reversal in full force.

 

[cypherdoc]

-235

ouch

 

[Justus Ranvier]

@Justus Ranvier

btcdrak is quite the troll

And a developer for a presale-funded altcoin whose justification for existence is "preventing blockchain bloat"

http://blog.viacoin.org/2014/07/11/the-story-of-viacoin.html

 

[cypherdoc]

@Justus Ranvier

him too? Peter Todd is a consultant for them! no wonder!

 

[lunar]

paper gold collapsing.

'the dilution ratio between physical gold and paper gold has hit a new all-time low of just 0.48%"

 

[solex]

An interesting snippet here. Ross Nicoll reports on the equivalent of 5MB per 10 minutes on the Dogecoin testnet and it went very well.

http://digiconomist.net/interview-ross-nicoll

• Lastly, do you think Dogecoin might experience its own block size debate?

I think there’s a risk of it, yes, but so far no-one seems to be leading an anti-increase group, so I’d not anticipate problems. We use 1MB blocks, but every minute instead of 10 minutes, giving us effectively 10 times the throughput of Bitcoin, which reduces pressure for a change to be made soon. The recent stress test of Dogecoin on the testnet up to around 500kB blocks (so 5MB equivalent for Bitcoin) went far better than expected, which is extremely encouraging about our ability to scale. I’m going to write up a proposal once Dogecoin Core 1.10 is out, and that will most likely involve moving to parity with the BIP 101 block size increments.

Independent tests like this shows that Bitcoin Core Dev are more influenced by political, financial and ideological considerations than any technical concern about changing the current limit.

 

[cypherdoc]

@solex

You forgot financial considerations although I know you meant it.

 

[solex]

Added it now. I was trying to avoid overtly implying a conspiracy, but giving them the benefit of this doubt is wearing paper thin.

 

[cypherdoc]

stress test on

 

[lunar]

great little article from mike on fee markets developing around mempool filtering.

https://medium.com/@octskyward/mempool-size-limiting-a3f604b72a4a

 

[sickpig]

15 minutes seems to be the average talk time. It's actually a good length to cover all the main ideas and implications of the fee market paper. I just can't get too deep into the math. But PowerPoint presentations aren't very good for that anyways (blackboard lectures are better).

You're run right 15 min is enough for this kind of talks, plus the schedule is fully packed so I think that they've reserved you a fair slot. Mine was more a joke than a proper observation.

That said I'm eager to see the results in terms of consensus of this conference.

One last point, I've just discovered that the talks will be streamed live on youtube, see:

https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCmwaDulmQtX-H8FOSQTKqMg