Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[dwaltrip]

Did they change the policy in r/bitcoin? I'm seeing scores of posts after 12 hours. And praise Satoshi, it is such a relief to see the numbers. I no longer feel like I may be going crazy. That policy was an extremely effective disinformation/confusion tactic.

 

[awemany]

@Zangelbert Bingledack : So it seems like the scenario you mentioned earlier of the users starting to become pissed because of transaction delays is slowly emerging...

 

[rocks]

Did they change the policy in r/bitcoin? I'm seeing scores of posts after 12 hours. And praise Satoshi, it is such a relief to see the numbers. I no longer feel like I may be going crazy. That policy was an extremely effective disinformation/confusion tactic.

Another thing you can do is to go to reddit's preferences and set the default sort order to be 'best' for all subs. Thermos changed the sort order in /r/bitcoin to 'controversial' and this will over ride that. It also is a relief to see which posts are at the top. I too was losing my faith in humanity for a time.

 

[Inca]

Ok. Anyone heard from Gavin, Jeff or Mike?

1) it seems time for Satoshi to reemerge

2) we need BU backed by big guns and launched asap.

 

[cypherdoc]

<rant>
I think SW is a good idea, *for the things it's good at* (malleability, etc). However, it's being sold as a (very near term, no less!) scaling solution, which is a dubious assertion at best. The only scaling-related thing it does at all (that I can see, beyond "lightning!") is allow new nodes to sync old SW transactions sans signatures, which is a nice little touch, but certainly nothing "borderline revolutionary" (as it's being sold). It also of course only has impact going forward for syncing; nothing about the previous 6 years of syncing will change (or the future syncing of non-SW txs). So due to these "amazing properties" of SW, it "just makes sense" to count the SW data at 1/4th of its nominal size, which theoretically could allow something like 1.75x rate for a "normal" P2PKH transaction. However, it only makes a difference at all (for either initial sync or TPS) if people actually use SW transactions! If (for example) we get the soft fork in by this June, and 50% (seems high to me) uptake of SW transactions by the end of 2016, we'll then be at a *massive* ~1.4MB effective max block size cap. Wow! That's a huge improvement! Wait, no, no it's not.

Meanwhile, "hard forks are extremely hard to pull of and take a year+ of planning". Since that is apparently the case, the appropriate course of action is *clearly* to not ever even attempt to get the ball rolling on one. "Of course everyone wants the 1 MB block size raised, *eventually*, just not now. We and the network are not ready yet." It's really, really handwavy. In the meantime, let's frame the movement to increase max block size as the negatively connotative "kick-the-can" solution, "scaling without scalability", etc. Let's (eragmus) parade around jtoomin's work that suggests that 3MB is all Chinese miner nodes inside the GFW can handle, but ignore that the testing was done sans relay network (which Bitcoin is "totally broken" without even at 1MB anyway)! Let's refuse to consider at all any value for the hard limit other than what we're absolutely sure the network can handle *right now*, today, because soft caps never existed before on the ride from 0-1MB; miners will "undoubtedly" stuff the blocks to the brim with spam transactions immediately. Let's make sure we have a much better transmission protocol in effect before we allow any capacity increases, but ignore that there's little motivation to improve transmission for 1MB blocks because it's working ok enough right now. Let's turn the anti-spam limit (which, logically, should be somewhere in the range of 2-10x+ the current actively level) into an economic limit, because "Bitcoin needs a functioning fee market when the subsidy declines to zero", never mind that we'll probably be dead by the time it's of importance. Let's put out a "capacity increases" letter on *our* plans, but "developers don't/can't decide consensus on these issues". Let's be careful to not disenfranchise genuine 1MB-forever-ers, who claim they won't be able to run a node if the block size increases any amount at all, never mind that they almost certainly won't be able to use Bitcoin if tx fees are $5+ (which is about what they need to be to match current subsidy value). Let's not care at all about disenfranchising users/use cases that don't want to "pay their own way for using our holy blockchain" (for some arbitrary definition of "pay"); these people are socialists, leaches on our glorious system! They want US to pay for their transactions! Let's ignore that the the block subsidy is *literally* named "subsidy", which implies that it might, I don't know, *subsidize* transactions during this (long) bootstrapping phase. Let's ignore that a hard-capped supply makes essentially *zero* sense from a free market perspective. Let's unequivocally reject BIP101, because it's too aggressive and once deployed "we're locked in forever with no way to change it", ignoring that the very act of deploying it shows that we're *not* locked in (and decreasing is a soft fork anyway). Let's follow up with "but miners won't agree to lowering the block size, because they want to stuff junk in there" (or attack the network, basically), ignoring that miners already agreed once before to implement the 1MB limit in the first place. Let's pretend our take on game theory represents reality. Let's talk and talk and talk and talk, then settle on non-or-at-best-partial-solutions (but soft fork!) as the solution.

What the heck is going on? Why is Mike "blacklist" Hearn the one talking sense? Refusing to start planning/pushing for a needed hard fork because "hard forks are hard to pull off" and require lots of lead time seems like the height of stupidity and illogic. If hard forks are indeed "hard", then we should be planning for them long before they occur, rather than continually putting them off until some undetermined future date.
</rant>

Probably some strawmen in there, oh well.

that pretty well sums it up.

 

[Peter R]

Another thing you can do is to go to reddit's preferences and set the default sort order to be 'best' for all subs. Thermos changed the sort order in /r/bitcoin to 'controversial' and this will over ride that. It also is a relief to see which posts are at the top. I too was losing my faith in humanity for a time.

What theymos/blockstream/core [who are they exactly?] does is even more insidious. Only *certain* threads are sorted by 'controversial' and the sorting also changes from time-to-time too. For example, this thread /u/eragmus created to troll me was originally sorted by "best." For the lols, I thought I'd use the attention to bring more exposure to subchains and so I posted a comment--which was then voted to the top spot--but now the thread is sorted by controversial!

 

[theZerg]

FYI, BU is being launched today on Linux and Windows!

(Just waiting on another signer)

WRT big guns I'd always welcome someone with prior Bitcoin experience to the project, provided they agree with our Articles

 

[cypherdoc]

$DJI support level vigorously being defended. it's an important level after all. low volumes:

[doublepost=1450812748][/doublepost]

What theymos/blockstream/core [who are they exactly?] does is even more insidious. Only *certain* threads are sorted by 'controversial' and the sorting also changes from time-to-time too. For example, this thread /u/eragmus created to troll me was originally sorted by "best." For the lols, I thought I'd use the attention to bring more exposure to subchains and so I posted a comment--which was then voted to the top spot--but now the thread is sorted by controversial!

slime balls. truly.

 

[solex]

Oh the pain!

https://github.com/adam3us

• Joined on Nov 27, 2013

Within 48 hours of the Bitcoin all-time-high ($1160 Bitstamp, $1240 MtGox). Did he really sit and watch Bitcoin for nearly 5 years going from zero to four figures before throwing in the towel, abandoning his skepticism, and buying in as well?

Would his final legacy be (if unchecked) to force a "settlement layer" + off-chain model against the ecosystem requirements, and ride the Bitcoin price all the way back to zero?

 

[cliff]

Just a random thought not responsive to anyone: A few years back when I discovered bitcoin, the thing that really hooked me was the double-spending protection. My background is law, and I practice tons of real estate law as well as a lot of business law involving representing clients in the buying and selling companies and their assets. The blockchain's double-spending feature is very similar to a concept in real property law: race/notice or race-notice jurisdictions in real property conveyances*. Let me explain:

Basically, in a real estate transaction and the record thereof creates a title chain that operates like the blockchain. Property is transferred upon the excution of a deed transferring property from A to B. In race/notice jurisdictions, transfers are effective upon the execution of a deed by transferor (signing of the private key if you will), but its only perfected when its recorded in the real estate records (recorded in the blockchain).

The key piece of race/notice statutes is that a subsequent purchaser to B - say, C - can have a better claim to ownership of double-spent property if he/she also has a deed from A but records first/before B can record theirs. For example: C's deed from A and therefore C can have a better claim to the property previously transferred to B by A IF C can record its deed before B can record theirs. This situation is often referred to as a "race to the court house" b/c the first to record wins the claim to title.

To me, the blockchain was designed to vary the key piece of race-notice statutes referenced above by neutralizing the race to the court house via quick block propagation times - especially during the mining era b/c fast propagation is key to all parties being protected in retail-purchase environments (Satoshi was generalist, remember - he knows about property law and visa's scale, and he saw bitcoin as more than just cash - Hearn has explained this last point, Peter R the first point). The risk of double-spending is therefore checked back w/ bitcoin and there isn't a race to the court-house per se - there is a spend via signing of private key and then that's that.

Given all this, a fee-market only disrupts the double-spend solution Satoshi came up with. Small block folks have suggested settlement will occur infrequently in the future b/c of fees and thus bitcoin would only be used for big transactions like home purchases etc. (see Charlie Lee's recent medium blog post). Uh, no. Fee markets create a race to the court house and a proliferation of fee bids based on the need to win the race. This is kinda stupid. Security of the network therefore may turn on the network itself being based on speed and inclusiveness and not sidechains or protocols that will only allow the wealthy to perfect title to property in a timely way (that's worse than the status quo).

*See here for a definition and some alternatives:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recording_(real_estate)#Race_statutes (I'm referring to race/notice version at the bottom of this section).

 

[cypherdoc]

Oh the pain!

https://github.com/adam3us

• Joined on Nov 27, 2013

Within 48 hours of the Bitcoin all-time-high ($1160 Bitstamp, $1220 MtGox). Did he really sit and watch Bitcoin for nearly 5 years going from zero to four figures before throwing in the towel, abandoning his skepticism, and buying in as well?

Would his final legacy be (if unchecked) to force a "settlement layer" + off-chain model against the ecosystem requirements, and ride the Bitcoin price all the way back to zero?

it's highly likely Adam has been whipsawed by the market and is deep in the red. can you imagine him being a facile trader? uh, no.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

Why is it only a long-time Bitcoin skeptic who consistently points out the Lightning pumpers' inability/unwillingness to show their work?

 

[rocks]

@cliff
Double spend protection is the entire essence of Bitcoin. This is true for both the confirmation mechanism and the zero-config expected first seen safe behavior. The entire concept of bitcoin is the receiver has absolute control. RBF is a fundamental attack on Bitcoin because it provides clawback abilities to a sender.

To me the right analogy is the following

a) Zero-confirm transactions are equivalent to in person physical cash transactions.
b) Block-chain confirmations are equivalent to depositing cash into a bank.

a) Here acknowledgement in both a physical cash transfer and a zero-config transaction broadcast happen instantaneously. However there are slight risks to both. Cash transfers sometimes (but very rarely) are invalidated when counterfeit currency is used. Similarly, zero-config transactions are sometimes (but very rarely) invalidated through a successful double spend. In both cases the invalidation is very rare to the point that most merchants just accept the random loss from time to time, in trade off for an immediate transaction.

b) Here acknowledgement happens some time after the transfer. In the case of bank deposits it takes 60 days for the bank to verify the cash deposit was legal (I had a roommate who had a cash deposit declared counterfeit 40 days after the deposit). However in Bitcoin's case the verification takes 10-60 minutes depending on the level of protection you want. Here bitcoin is much faster.

So in case a) Bitcoin is the same speed as cash, with similar protection levels (not perfect but good enough), and in case b) Bitcoin is ~1 hour vs 60 days for the banking system.

RBF kills scenario a) and kills the very concept of Bitcoin which is a receiver has absolute control. What is next after RBF? The ability for the TSA to order certain confirmed transactions to be reversed? Because that is the direction being proposed. ...
[doublepost=1450815277][/doublepost]

Why is it only a long-time Bitcoin skeptic who consistently points out the Lightning pumpers' inability/unwillingness to show their work?

jstolfi has been amazing IMHO on reddit in pointing out the craziness of blockstream's position. He might be one of us by the time this is over. He definitely gets how it works now and clearly sees the absurdity of their position. Whether he converts over after this is all over, or he remains a high profile skeptic of the new Bitcoin remains to be seen.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

If anyone ever needed more evidence that Bitcoin is currently trapped in some kind of Bizarro World, jstolfi as the voice of reason ought to be sufficient.

 

[cypherdoc]

hey, jstolfi doesn't like SC's either so i gotta give him credit.

 

[lunar]

@Melbustus

Back on the mining/energy topic, Lopp's "The Future of Bitcoin Mining" is a good read: https://medium.com/@lopp/the-future-of-bitcoin-mining-ac9c3dc39c60

Yes great little summary, and pretty much inline with the concepts we've been discussing here. Namely the theory that Bitcoin is an energy currency. Once you hold to this way of thinking the future becomes a lot easier to speculate on.

So the principle components here are:
Electricity (raw commodity) perhaps it is even useful to consider this as form of analogue energy.
The Miner or ASIC chip, This is the transformer or converter.
ASIC inefficiency ( Surplus heat creation) - becomes a utility
Bitcoin, the Digital energy (basic SI unit - the satoshi).

Then examine the global trends, cost of electricity is trending towards (ever decreasing) installation cost, as renewables some online.(local infrastructure cost only).
Efficiency between each new iteration of ASIC chips is dropping. (long may it stay that way) We only really need these increases to drop to the point where a typical miner can have a productive lifespan similar to that of the integrated tech; say 5 years (a typical american already replaces their phone/laptop every 2-3 years). Embedded mining chips follow the 21inc model and can be used for a myriad of use cases paying for services as they go. (do you really consider the cost when you charge your phone? nope ! )

Quoting Loop's article for the long term perspective
"the miner will essentially be paying for some other sort of utility, but they will be doing so by “spending” electricity. That is, you can sidestep setting up a billing relationship with a new service provider and instead just add a slight bump to your electricity bill - this reduction in friction can be valuable. If a sufficient number of devices are mining a sufficient portion of the global hashrate at a net loss, this could put for-profit industrial scale miners out of business."

If this is long term then the short to mid term scenarios become important. If you agree electricity is a fixed cost (assuming your not going to move house), then the specifics of a mining chip can have a huge play here. Possibly room for custom designs? As electricity is converted into Bitcoin the chip inefficiency (waste heat) could be used to heat the house and water. Thus the chip efficiency J/GH becomes less important compared to peak TH/s output and a chip running hot 70-80C producing higher TH/s would actually be beneficial.

Electricity consumption (mining) can then be individually regulated and be used on demand only when heat is required. Satoshis (heating miles) can be earned as a bonus for efficient use of energy. Decentralised economies of scale using mining as a utility will eventually crush commercial miners that don't effectively utilise 'waste' heat.

With the improvements in 3D printing it might also be worth open sourcing ASIC and a heating elements 'heat sink' designs.

TL:R caeteris paribus: Miners should perhaps consider running their operations near locations that require vast quantities of hot water (community swimming pools, factories, offices or household heating systems) instead of doubly wasting energy on cooling fans and air conditioning.

Also don't fear huge centralized miners as long term they have a dead business model. As its a negative sum game ;-)

 

[Justus Ranvier]

Also don't fear huge centralized miners

Miners have one job:

Resolve conflicts regarding to transaction ordering.

The only thing we should ever need to care about is that it's more expensive for a miner to make conflicting claims about ordering than to make a single claim.

As long as that condition is met, the system works.

 

[cliff]

Why is it only a long-time Bitcoin skeptic who consistently points out the Lightning pumpers' inability/unwillingness to show their work?

@rocks - I don't necessarily disagree. Actually, I think we're saying the same thing from our respective knowledge-bases and experiences (which is a great way to confirm/check the general position we seem to share).

 

[cypherdoc]

Decentralised economies of scale using mining as a utility will eventually crush commercial miners that don't effectively utilise 'waste' heat.

if commercial miners do decide to utilize waste heat, who wins in the long term, industrial miners or small, individual miners who do the same?
[doublepost=1450817828][/doublepost]

@rocks - I don't necessarily disagree. Actually, I think we're saying the same thing from our respective knowledge-bases and experiences (which is a great way to confirm/check the general position we seem to share).

i was also attracted to the irreversible nature of tx's and 0 confs.

 

[albin]

Stolfi is pretty on-point when it comes to understanding the fundamental design. The antagonism from this guy mainly seems to be that 1) he's against the hard money ideas and 2) he has this cherry-picked narrative that Bitcoin price appreciation is a giant coordinated scam which resulted in an unnaturally large mining industry, and selectively re-interprets everything Satoshi ever said to support the idea that this whole thing is just an experiment that shouldn't have any real economic value.