Oh jeez, I didn't realize the timing of Adam's entry was that embarrassing. Did the inventor of Hashcash really have so little insight as to only come on with the very last wave of clueless price-chasers? Not only embarrassing but also speaking volumes about his motivations. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being in it for the money - most of us are. But such a spectacularly telling fail makes it very hard to interpret the founding of Blockstream as anything other than *sour grapes* with regard to main-chain scaling.
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
Konrad Graf knocked this one out of the park. Familiar points, but articulated with rare clarity.
Thank you.
Maybe this might get Matonis to shut up on this issue
lunar
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,001
- 4,290
keeping an eye on the contrarian opinion. This from well respected James D'Angelo on LTB network. Talking about decentralisation and scaling. Starts @ 34:15
He's a small block fan, claims he'd like to decrease the block size .(surprising since he's normally so on point) Thinks the block size debate is actually about the type of centralisation occurring. (Seems like partial false equivalency to me but well worth a listen)
Main points he fears centralisation through anonymous mining. Important measure of decentralisation is 'noses not nodes' without a method of identity recognition we can't measure decentralisation.
'we could have been 51% attacked for a year now and not know it'
He's a small block fan, claims he'd like to decrease the block size .(surprising since he's normally so on point) Thinks the block size debate is actually about the type of centralisation occurring. (Seems like partial false equivalency to me but well worth a listen)
Main points he fears centralisation through anonymous mining. Important measure of decentralisation is 'noses not nodes' without a method of identity recognition we can't measure decentralisation.
'we could have been 51% attacked for a year now and not know it'
One countertactic to "sort by controversial" is to hijack the top comment as sorted, and if that is crowded, hijack the top reply to the top comment. Usually frowned upon, but in this case how could it be?
This is most effective if done right after the sorting is changed. Have to credibly make it a plausible reply to the comment, though.
This is most effective if done right after the sorting is changed. Have to credibly make it a plausible reply to the comment, though.
Wow, just wow. There it is. All in its plain ugly glory. He hates the fixed supply! And I never knew Mark was the author of Freiccoin. Remember last year when I was ragging on Blockstream for dedicating a section on their WP about Freiccoin and it's shitty principles? No wonder they have it so so wrong. And Mark is a central and pivotal member of their team. No wonder investors like Eric Schmidt are willing to back BS.
Reading that exchange reminded me of the vicious theoretical debates about money and defending the fixed supply I used to have at BCT back in 2011 with geeks. I thought that was all over after 3 versions of my separate gold threads and 4.5 years of discussion. Especially after some of those idiots using terms like settlement layer.
This fight over basic first principles about what Bitcoin is is far and away not over. Blockstream needs to be killed.
Last edited:
He was one of the people declaring that if the block size limit was raised, the issuance formula would be next.
Perhaps this meme was designed as a feint and keeping the block size limit in place is what will actually lead to tampering with the block reward.
Once Blockstream is finished replacing Bitcoin with Lightning Network, it's not likely that fees could rise to the levels they claim.
Perhaps they know this. Maybe the plan is to create a situation where it's not possible to generate enough fee revenue to sustain mining, so the only option will be to raise the block reward and keep it permanently inflationary.
That would make the Freicoiners in Blockstream happy, wouldn't it?
I've listened to him twice now on this, once on LTB and the other on Epicenter Bitcoin but never got around to comment . He's way off the rails. Another normally cogent Bitcoiner probably losing money.
Here's the huge error. "identifiable miners like Andreas". Is he nuts? How much more risky do you want to make signing blocks? Who else do you choose? Maxwell? and what about the gvt co opting them?
The key principle he doesn't understand is that bigger blocks will lead to greater mining decentralization by facilitating Western mining. He's missing the huge economic incentive for that to happen as Bitcoin would spread worldwide allowing the price to ramp
BldSwtTrs
Active Member
- Sep 10, 2015
- 196
- 583
I remember the first time I heard about Sidechains it was in an interview of Adam Back - sometimes in Q1-Q2 2014 - who were explaining that sidechains would be useful to protect the value stored within Bitcoin in case of the rise of a better altcoin. He said the principle of digital scarcity would be compromise if an altcoin would dethrone Bitcoin, and that Sidechains were a solution to this problem. I found the argument good because at that time it was not obvious how small a threat the altcoins were to Bitcoin .
Now that it is obvious that Bitcoin will not be replaced by an altcoin, it seems he and his Blockstream friends manage to switch their narrative for continuing to vindicate their parasitism. They are basically from the same species as politicians (they lie by framing themselves as essential, while defrauding everybody in order to increase their wealth and status).
Of course, they are here for the good of Bitcoin...
Last edited:
_mr_e
Active Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 159
- 266
Holy shit! Now they are completely mudding the waters and discussing building lightning directly into bitcoin core such that you don't even know your using it!
[doublepost=1450877990][/doublepost]
[doublepost=1450877990][/doublepost]
@cypherdoc
Another Blockstreamer, Jorge Timón, co-founded Freicoin with Mark. In addition, they actually trumpet this on the Team page on the Blockstream website, so whoever makes decisions on PR is also not clued in.
I wonder how many of the 30 signers yesterday are involved in altcoins?
Another Blockstreamer, Jorge Timón, co-founded Freicoin with Mark. In addition, they actually trumpet this on the Team page on the Blockstream website, so whoever makes decisions on PR is also not clued in.
I wonder how many of the 30 signers yesterday are involved in altcoins?
Fucking Blockstream and Mark don't understand Bitcoin's killer app; its fixed supply.
It's a deflationary currency. I hate that term but I'll use it now for its imagery, ie, the sucking sound. Which you pretty much hear everyday now.
It's that sucking sound you hear as Bitcoin sucks value away from corrupt fiat markets of all types but mainly from Forex. That is what is driving all this.
Screw those guys.
It's a deflationary currency. I hate that term but I'll use it now for its imagery, ie, the sucking sound. Which you pretty much hear everyday now.
It's that sucking sound you hear as Bitcoin sucks value away from corrupt fiat markets of all types but mainly from Forex. That is what is driving all this.
Screw those guys.
Last edited:
A piece of art:
A perfect paraphrase of @Peter R'sKonrad S Graf said:
@Peter R - A Transaction Fee Market Exists Without a Block Size Limit said:
Last edited:
Damn. Somehow I forgot about him too. That conflict should be emphasized more because Freicoin directly violates bitcoin first principles. Not to mention the financial COI it creates. That shit is in their WP too.
.
Last edited:
So wait a second, is there anyone on the Blockstream team for whom a strong case can NOT be made that they likely missed the Bitcoin investment boat?
We know Greg has long been a bear, even if a Bitcoin maximalist vs. altcoins, so however many bitcoins he holds now he surely didn't invest anywhere near what he would have if he weren't a bear. It takes balls of steel to hold through the volatility of the past few years with the amounts he would have - tens of millions of dollars worth, at least, even counting profit-taking at typical 17% rake per price doubling - if he made a decent-sized investment when he first joined. You don't get balls of steel by being bearish.
Adam's case is the most blatant, as mentioned above.
Mark is Freicoin dev.
Jorge is Freicoin dev.
Warren is Litecoin lead dev.
Who else? Certainly Austin Hill and Eric Schmidt as investors must qualify for this, and Austin is also on the team as Chief Instigator.
Pieter I can't find fault with, though I don't know his whole history in the space.
We know Greg has long been a bear, even if a Bitcoin maximalist vs. altcoins, so however many bitcoins he holds now he surely didn't invest anywhere near what he would have if he weren't a bear. It takes balls of steel to hold through the volatility of the past few years with the amounts he would have - tens of millions of dollars worth, at least, even counting profit-taking at typical 17% rake per price doubling - if he made a decent-sized investment when he first joined. You don't get balls of steel by being bearish.
Adam's case is the most blatant, as mentioned above.
Mark is Freicoin dev.
Jorge is Freicoin dev.
Warren is Litecoin lead dev.
Who else? Certainly Austin Hill and Eric Schmidt as investors must qualify for this, and Austin is also on the team as Chief Instigator.
Pieter I can't find fault with, though I don't know his whole history in the space.
SW should not be adopted merely because of the fact that it allows permanent soft forking in of new op codes by core dev that radically change Bitcoin into whatever they want it to be.
And as we've now determined, that won't be anything related to SOV even if supply stays fixed. LN and SC's introduce inflationary (by welcoming altchains) and destructively complex dynamics (by siphoning miner fees to LN hub owners) .
Freidenbach just told us Bitcoiner's will be disappointed. Unless he is allowed to save us.
And as we've now determined, that won't be anything related to SOV even if supply stays fixed. LN and SC's introduce inflationary (by welcoming altchains) and destructively complex dynamics (by siphoning miner fees to LN hub owners) .
Freidenbach just told us Bitcoiner's will be disappointed. Unless he is allowed to save us.
Last edited:
@cypherdoc: They themselves put up a high barrier: 95% for softforks. It just needs a single mid-size miner to block this.
That said, Bitcoin can be soft-/hard-/whateverforked with 51% of HP by censoring out the minority. That's pretty independent of SW.
The Chinese miners are hypnotized by Core and seemingly do whatever Core wants. Which means we have a lot of centralized power...
That is the problem. Chinese Miners are sleepwalking into trouble, taking Bitcoin with it.
Today I thought that maybe the strong stance of BitFury against big blocks is something that they might actually try to sell the exchanges? As in 'we're holding Bitcoin hostage until you give us some money to pay for the BIP101 flag...'.
Of course, these plays all break apart at some point. Hopefully at least a little bit before Bitcoin breaks.
That said, Bitcoin can be soft-/hard-/whateverforked with 51% of HP by censoring out the minority. That's pretty independent of SW.
The Chinese miners are hypnotized by Core and seemingly do whatever Core wants. Which means we have a lot of centralized power...
That is the problem. Chinese Miners are sleepwalking into trouble, taking Bitcoin with it.
Today I thought that maybe the strong stance of BitFury against big blocks is something that they might actually try to sell the exchanges? As in 'we're holding Bitcoin hostage until you give us some money to pay for the BIP101 flag...'.
Of course, these plays all break apart at some point. Hopefully at least a little bit before Bitcoin breaks.
kyuupichan
Member
- Oct 3, 2015
- 95
- 348
maaku and other freicoiners can be immediately dismissed for their complete non-comprehension of economics and what makes bitcoin valuable. I could never understand what those guys were thinking, and evolution has only proven that they weren't.
Don't forget that even though they want segwit as a soft fork, they still need miner support. It will be interesting to see where they set the threshold. I suspect getting 95% won't happen, what with KNC and others wanting bigger blocks, so they will low-ball with 75%. Can they even manage that? Will the Chinese wake up?
It's no surprise these guys are trying to force in all the steps they need to implement their sidechain diversions. There is no free market demand for it so they want to channel the real market demand for more blockspace into forcing the infrastructure changes that they need for a solution no one wants.
Don't forget that even though they want segwit as a soft fork, they still need miner support. It will be interesting to see where they set the threshold. I suspect getting 95% won't happen, what with KNC and others wanting bigger blocks, so they will low-ball with 75%. Can they even manage that? Will the Chinese wake up?
It's no surprise these guys are trying to force in all the steps they need to implement their sidechain diversions. There is no free market demand for it so they want to channel the real market demand for more blockspace into forcing the infrastructure changes that they need for a solution no one wants.
