Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
@theZerg
@bracek interesting. Are u behind a home router?
yes
If so, Did you explicitly open the port in the router cfg?
no, I never touch that stuff
After u wake up and b4 restart can u go to bitnodes.21.co and type In your IP to see if u are reachable?
this part was interesting,
after a wakeup I did see myself there on the list, but , only while my client was reaching for the 8 active connections,
so I saw myself at the time I had 3, 4 and 5 active connections,
there I let it be, stopped checking the status,
so, for a while , client was sitting at 8 active connections and not increasing (it just stops, otherwise, after restart, I saw it climb to 23)
so, when it stayed at 8 for a while, I checked the list on the bitnodes, I was no longer there
when I checked my ip address there I got the green message
88.207.43.61:8333 /BitcoinUnlimited:0.11.2/
@bracek interesting. Are u behind a home router?
yes
If so, Did you explicitly open the port in the router cfg?
no, I never touch that stuff
After u wake up and b4 restart can u go to bitnodes.21.co and type In your IP to see if u are reachable?
this part was interesting,
after a wakeup I did see myself there on the list, but , only while my client was reaching for the 8 active connections,
so I saw myself at the time I had 3, 4 and 5 active connections,
there I let it be, stopped checking the status,
so, for a while , client was sitting at 8 active connections and not increasing (it just stops, otherwise, after restart, I saw it climb to 23)
so, when it stayed at 8 for a while, I checked the list on the bitnodes, I was no longer there
when I checked my ip address there I got the green message
88.207.43.61:8333 /BitcoinUnlimited:0.11.2/
Lightning Network co-designer Thaddeus Dryja still bamboozled by an elementary fallacy. And this guy is Core's pick to design the main transaction platform for Bitcoin? 
Tx fees tend toward zero != Tx revenue tends toward zero
In fact, most likely massively the opposite would happen. How many times does this simple error have to be pointed out? Do we have to draw them a picture? Japanese even has a word for this: 薄利多売 (hakuri-tabai, "low profit margin but many sales" (quintessential way to make a lot of money in business)).
And this is the *fundamental* problem, according to Dryja. Don't tell me the whole rush to LN is fundamentally based on a fallacy that any first-year business student would catch.
(Not that LN couldn't be good, but it's vaporware for now and Core shouldn't be breaking stuff to make room for it.)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10792093
Tx fees tend toward zero != Tx revenue tends toward zero
In fact, most likely massively the opposite would happen. How many times does this simple error have to be pointed out? Do we have to draw them a picture? Japanese even has a word for this: 薄利多売 (hakuri-tabai, "low profit margin but many sales" (quintessential way to make a lot of money in business)).
And this is the *fundamental* problem, according to Dryja. Don't tell me the whole rush to LN is fundamentally based on a fallacy that any first-year business student would catch.
(Not that LN couldn't be good, but it's vaporware for now and Core shouldn't be breaking stuff to make room for it.)
Last edited:
Looks like someone posted the "Subchain" and "Weak Blocks" animation to North Korea:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3y7j9b/an_illustrated_version_of_subchains_and_weak/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3y7j9b/an_illustrated_version_of_subchains_and_weak/
Taking his fallacy to the next step then, LN hub owners can also be expected to let their tx fees drop to zero in a TOC scenario and similarly go out of business thus destabilizing the network. Therefore, let us not waste time, code complexity, and resources going there.Lightning Network co-designer Thaddeus Dryja still bamboozled by an elementary fallacy. And this guy is Core's pick to design the main transaction platform for Bitcoin?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10792093
Tx fees tend toward zero != Tx revenue tends toward zero
In fact, most likely massively the opposite would happen. How many times does this simple error have to be pointed out? Do we have to draw them a picture? Japanese even has a word for this: 薄利多売 (hakuri-tabai, "low profit margin but many sales" (quintessential way to make a lot of money in business)).
And this is the *fundamental* problem, according to Dryja. Don't tell me the whole move to LN is fundamentally based on a fallacy that any first-year business student would catch.
[doublepost=1451076996][/doublepost]
Both Dryja & Poon have no vested interest in Bitcoin, no doubt, and are economic illiterates.Lightning Network co-designer Thaddeus Dryja still bamboozled by an elementary fallacy. And this guy is Core's pick to design the main transaction platform for Bitcoin?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10792093
Tx fees tend toward zero != Tx revenue tends toward zero
In fact, most likely massively the opposite would happen. How many times does this simple error have to be pointed out? Do we have to draw them a picture? Japanese even has a word for this: 薄利多売 (hakuri-tabai, "low profit margin but many sales" (quintessential way to make a lot of money in business)).
And this is the *fundamental* problem, according to Dryja. Don't tell me the whole rush to LN is fundamentally based on a fallacy that any first-year business student would catch.
(Not that LN couldn't be good, but it's vaporware for now and Core shouldn't be breaking stuff to make room for it.)
Last edited:
@Peter R
I think /u/Vaultoro is of https://www.vaultoro.com/
[doublepost=1451077586][/doublepost]The power of visuals is low Time To Epiphany (TTE), an all-important factor for changing minds because of course if you graphed the rate of conversions versus TTE you'd get some shockingly precipitous falling curve, especially when trying to change the mind of someone with an entrenched position, since people are very uncomfortable waiting for a conclusion while potentially being shown to have been wrong, and that discomfort is proportional to how strongly they hold their view. Way to go!
I think /u/Vaultoro is of https://www.vaultoro.com/
[doublepost=1451077586][/doublepost]The power of visuals is low Time To Epiphany (TTE), an all-important factor for changing minds because of course if you graphed the rate of conversions versus TTE you'd get some shockingly precipitous falling curve, especially when trying to change the mind of someone with an entrenched position, since people are very uncomfortable waiting for a conclusion while potentially being shown to have been wrong, and that discomfort is proportional to how strongly they hold their view. Way to go!
Last edited:
VeritasSapere
Active Member
- Nov 16, 2015
- 511
- 1,266
Bitcoin does not need leadership, this can be a difficult thing to understand. Which might be why so many people still look towards Core as if it is an authority, a group of people they can trust. This is understandable considering that most people are only used to centralized systems of command and control. Bitcoin achieves "trust" without centralized authority, this type of governance mechanism is unprecedented in history.
Fortunately if our theories on Bitcoin governance are correct, people do not need to understand the governance of Bitcoin and its incentive mechanisms in order for it to have its desired effect. This is what I think, we will fork Bitcoin and increase blocksize before 2017, with or without Core. If this does not happen I will consider the governance mechanism within Bitcoin itself to be flawed, at that point I would be looking even closer at all of the alternative cryptocurrencies which will most likely already have solved this problem.
All that I am saying here is that if the opposite happened to what we expected then our theories on Bitcoin governance might have been wrong, we should accept the outcome of this experiment is all that I am saying here, even though I still think it is highly unlikely that the governance mechanism of Bitcoin would fail considering that all we would need to do is effectively hard fork, as long as our Bitcoin survives I would still consider the governance of Bitcoin a success, so this is not a particularly high bar in terms of testing the governance mechanism of Bitcoin and what we would consider a success. It is just that this is all still unprecedented, so nobody really knows how this is going to end. I am still confident however that our theories on Bitcoin governance are correct and that the original vision of Satoshi Nakamoto will triumph.
In regards to Bitcoin not needing leaders here is a great quote from a female figure from the civil rights movement of the nineteen sixties:
Ella Baker said:
Last edited:
First comment at bottom is from Matonis. Perhaps he'll finally get it.
What gives? First it was Marcus_of_Augustus talking about emergent consensus (in a good way like we do here) and now Patrick Strateman just gave me a compliment:
Is the spell of Saruman lifting?
Is the spell of Saruman lifting?
cliff
Active Member
- Dec 15, 2015
- 345
- 854
I think there is some middle ground here. A leader per se may not be needed for bitcoin, but keep in mind that bitcoin is politics and bitcoin is power. Bitcoin's value is established by virtue of its perceived power and political utility, which is measured, in part, by its infrastructure and speech properties. Individual initiatives/sojourner efforts in politics are prone to failure without solid relationships and coalitions being built along the way. To be a healthy ecosystem, imho, Bitcoin needs multiple credible and competing coalitions b/c a single coalition (or political party if you will) - with some fringe rebel groups sprinkled on the side - is centralization. In that regard, coalitions and coalition-building, but not bitcoin per se, would probably benefit from having a figurehead person/people or leader to execute and communicate the mission to the user base.
I had always had MoA pegged as an impressive, economically literate poster. I was puzzled why he was a small block advocate, though I notice a surprising number of anarcho-capitalists/anti-statists are. (Matonis even. Among libertarians I think it runs strongest in Rothbardians, less in Hayekians, Misesians, and - ahem - Mengerians ) I was also puzzled why MoA seemed to turn suddenly cantankerous at some point maybe last year.
I think it's got to be the belief that "big blocks = centralization," even though it seems the main espousers of that view are not ancaps themselves and generally not economically literate. MoA has some math thing as his BCT avatar, so I could imagine that he would be the type to find the coding expertise of people like Greg a bit dazzling, adding some extra authoritative "oomph" to his claims.
However, being an anarchist at heart, the dev centralization and central planning arguments must niggle in the back of his mind. @rocks' "point to keep banging them with" may be working.
The other technical dazzlement-based objection is, "Bitcoin is a consensus system, so there can only be one united dev team," but continual banging of those points should create a painful amount of cognitive dissonance in any ancap eventually (which could cause cantankerousness). At some point there become too many parallels to government to ignore, and they become amenable to a full re-examination of their position.
) I was also puzzled why MoA seemed to turn suddenly cantankerous at some point maybe last year.I think it's got to be the belief that "big blocks = centralization," even though it seems the main espousers of that view are not ancaps themselves and generally not economically literate. MoA has some math thing as his BCT avatar, so I could imagine that he would be the type to find the coding expertise of people like Greg a bit dazzling, adding some extra authoritative "oomph" to his claims.
However, being an anarchist at heart, the dev centralization and central planning arguments must niggle in the back of his mind. @rocks' "point to keep banging them with" may be working.
The other technical dazzlement-based objection is, "Bitcoin is a consensus system, so there can only be one united dev team," but continual banging of those points should create a painful amount of cognitive dissonance in any ancap eventually (which could cause cantankerousness
). At some point there become too many parallels to government to ignore, and they become amenable to a full re-examination of their position.
Last edited:
VeritasSapere
Active Member
- Nov 16, 2015
- 511
- 1,266
You are correct in saying this and there are people that have considerable more influence then most, Gavin and Andreas might be good examples of this, as well as companies like Bitpay and Coinbase. I did quote Ella Baker actually because of her particular understanding of leadership is actually more distributed, there certainly are leaders, intellectually, commercially, technically and so forth. So I did phrase this to strongly in my previous post, I suppose what I meant is that we do not need the old type of political leaders of the past which wielded authority. The leaders of Bitcoin should only wield influence because of the the respect they have gained by the merit of their words and actions.
A middle ground does indeed need to be found, however the middle ground between the centralized hierarchical control structures of today compared to a decentralized consensus mechanism for blockchain governance, are miles apart. This middle ground still represents a rather wide gulf of understanding for most people, which I think would still lead to many people putting to much faith in their leaders as opposed to the self evident truths of the Bitcoin blockchain. This is a problem that I suspect we will be dealing with for a lot longer regardless, it is a problem we should expect with such a radical change in understanding in terms of governance.
In conclusion, Bitcoin does not need a leader, it might require many leaders. People need to lead themselves more. This brings me back to Ella Baker:Ella Baker said:
Ella Baker said:
Ella Baker said:
Last edited:
Do you want the good news first, or the bad news first?
They are probably trying to encourage alternative implementations in the belief that inertia will keep them in centralised control. They forget that XT nodes reached 20% mere days after the announcement and continued rising with speed until, I suspect Peter Todd and btcdrak, started DDosing.
What I think is that as someone said above the signatories are not really a monolithic group and have various reasons for wanting some competitive pressure from the outside to curb some things they disagree with (Luke(?) about RBF, Peter Todd about Segwit, etc.) and maybe help break various types of gridlock and bikeshedding Core may be experiencing on other issues.
Also may be "buyer's remorse" after signing, with people looking back and thinking a bit, "What have I gotten myself into?" and grasping for some means of reining in this mandate in case Leviathan gets out of hand.
Finally it could be that there were many signatories who wanted to praise Peter R's work, actually thought BU was an interesting idea, did have some concerns about Blockstream CoI, thought some big blockist points did make sense, and were itching to speak out against censorship, but they had been holding back because they are still small block adherents on balance and they had no way of knowing how much support their side really had until the signing. After saying *whew* and wiping their brow, the first thought they have is, "Now I can safely say this stuff without endangering Core's roadmap."
Also may be "buyer's remorse" after signing, with people looking back and thinking a bit, "What have I gotten myself into?" and grasping for some means of reining in this mandate in case Leviathan gets out of hand.
Finally it could be that there were many signatories who wanted to praise Peter R's work, actually thought BU was an interesting idea, did have some concerns about Blockstream CoI, thought some big blockist points did make sense, and were itching to speak out against censorship, but they had been holding back because they are still small block adherents on balance and they had no way of knowing how much support their side really had until the signing. After saying *whew* and wiping their brow, the first thought they have is, "Now I can safely say this stuff without endangering Core's roadmap."
Last edited:
I just realized XT could make BIP101 an optional setting to "arm" or "disarm" at any time as the user chooses. If armed, it would signal support for BIP101 and adjust the blocksize cap upward once the 75% threshold for BIP101 blocks was reached, and if disarmed it would stop doing that.
In fact it could do the same with all the XT settings (if any other ones are now non-optional). It would basically be "BitcoinXT-U" in that it would give users the choice to toggle all the XT settings on the fly.
Likewise, to entice XT supports to use Bitcoin Unlimited, BU could have a BIP101 setting the user can toggle, which would turn BU into Core+BIP101. (Or even have an "XT" setting that effectively turns BU into XT with all the settings and options XT has.)
In fact it could do the same with all the XT settings (if any other ones are now non-optional). It would basically be "BitcoinXT-U" in that it would give users the choice to toggle all the XT settings on the fly.
Likewise, to entice XT supports to use Bitcoin Unlimited, BU could have a BIP101 setting the user can toggle, which would turn BU into Core+BIP101. (Or even have an "XT" setting that effectively turns BU into XT with all the settings and options XT has.)
Last edited: