Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[theZerg]

@bracek interesting. Are u behind a home router? If so, Did you explicitly open the port in the router cfg?

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?

 

[bracek]

@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/

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

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?

"Bitcoin Unlimited" has no maximum block size, hence the name.

There are many problems which arise from unbounded transaction rates in Bitcoin. The most fundamental is that long term the coinbase reward is zero, and transaction fees are the only reason to create new blocks. Without artificial scarcity of block space (artificial in the sense of beyond what hardware can support) transaction fees would tend to zero, and mining would no longer generate revenue.

LN is proposed to allow many users and many transactions (when nodes cooperate) while keeping the security properties of Bitcoin (when nodes don't).

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.)

 

[Peter R]

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/

 

[cypherdoc]

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.

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.
[doublepost=1451076996][/doublepost]

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.)

Both Dryja & Poon have no vested interest in Bitcoin, no doubt, and are economic illiterates.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

@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!

 

[VeritasSapere]

Told myself I'd stay away from forums for a while, but here I am.

Still feels like we're lacking leadership. Not that great things aren't being done (like Bitcoin Unlimited) or Roger's traffic redirecting efforts to Bitcoin.com. But it seems like we really need someone who is willing to be both a technical leader and a politician, who can be trusted to know what he's*** talking about and also ... actually talk to people frequently, writing blog posts, sharing thoughts on twitter, etc. Lots of the people here on the forum are candidates, but you have to communicate to the rest of us that you are committed to fighting this battle.

Gavin seems to fit the bill perfectly except that it's not clear if he wants to do this.

Balaji has clout, money, and access to possibly the world's best mining hardware (well, at least it ought to be competitive). I wish he would share his thoughts more on the governance issue.

*** with apologies to the awesome female Bitcoiners out there. A female leader stepping up to the plate for this cause would be awesome.

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:

People did not really need to be led; they needed to be given the skills, information, and opportunity to lead themselves.

 

[cypherdoc]

http://konradsgraf.com/blog1/2015/6/20/preview-the-market-for-bitcoin-transaction-inclusion-and-the.html

First comment at bottom is from Matonis. Perhaps he'll finally get it.

 

[Peter R]

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?

 

[cliff]

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:

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.

 

[cypherdoc]

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?

So no sign of him since his signature?

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

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.

 

[VeritasSapere]

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.

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.

I have always felt it was a handicap for oppressed people to depend so largely on a leader, because unfortunately in our culture, the charismatic leader usually becomes a leader because he has found a spot in the public limelight. It usually means that the media made him, and the media may undo him. There is also the danger in our culture that, because a person is called upon to give public statements and is acclaimed by the establishment, such a person gets to the point of believing that he is the movement. Such people get so involved with playing the game of being important that they exhaust themselves and their time and they don't do the work of actually organizing people.

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:

I have always thought that what is needed is the development of people who are interested not in being leaders as much as in developing leadership in others.

You didn't see me on television, you didn't see news stories about me. The kind of role that I tried to play was to pick up pieces or put together pieces out of which I hoped organization might come. My theory is, strong people don't need strong leaders.

 

[cypherdoc]

 

[Justus Ranvier]

Don't tell me the whole rush to LN is fundamentally based on a fallacy that any first-year business student would catch.

Do you want the good news first, or the bad news first?

 

[Aquent]

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?

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.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

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."

 

[solex]

I have a theory that Wladimir signed just to remain an "insider" at BS Core Dev and therefore able to be a strong voice of moderation if the settlement layer idea goes too far and starts choking ecosystem growth.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

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.)

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

What is wrong with this argument?