Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[NewLiberty]

I'm happy for Bitcoin XT, so long as it doesn't also kill Core. Bitcoin benefits with multiple codebases running the SAME protocol.
So, I'm not excited about pushing it as the hard fork, even if that is what is putting it on the map.
The politics of it are horribad, but I am hoping the result is something good.

 

[cypherdoc]

the way i look at it is that 200 is the new 2. and we've been going down for over a year and a half.

to me, it looks like we've formed a pretty classic double bottom and as long as the 200 DMA doesn't start turning down again (it's currently flat) we should be OK.

even if we did do another push down to a new low, buying here at these levels wouldn't be such a bad entry point. unless of course, you feel Bitcoin is going to fail, which i don't. not at all.

i believe that the community will converge onto one bigger block chain within the next 6 mo to Bitcoin's benefit.

 

[AdrianX]

and my only offense was to like XT.

but it's been stunning to watch the speed of other's deletions on r/bitcoin. faster than mine.

Hi and glad i have a one stop read again, looking forward to a new melting pot. (I Had to LOL cypher - you are a bit fundamental when it comes to alts, imo they are just competition and you dont need to bad mouth them for them to fail its just nice to understand why. - and now the Kicker - you get accused of pushing an alt, and get shut down because your offense according to the mods is pushing alts LOL)

 

[cypherdoc]

I'm happy for Bitcoin XT, so long as it doesn't also kill Core. Bitcoin benefits with multiple codebases running the SAME protocol.
So, I'm not excited about pushing it as the hard fork, even if that is what is putting it on the map.
The politics of it are horribad, but I am hoping the result is something good.

the way i understand that benefit though is that the different implementations would be running with the same protocol rules. Core and XT are different and incompatible in terms of the blocks. that would represent a division in the community, which wouldn't be a good thing.

mind you, i am in the mindset that a division like this wouldn't/couldn't last more than a week or so. could be wrong.


so that blue 200DMA is pretty important:

 

[cypherdoc]

i'm actually enjoying spending time on IRC #bitcoinxt

fast moving, conversational. good supplement to here.


here's a good argument that the fundamental long term growth of Bitcoin depends on users and not full nodes.

if you follow Benedict Evans, like i do, then you know that smartphone growth has leapfrogged PC growth in developing nations by orders of magnitude. we know smartphones will never be able to host a full node, so the only way to onboard those ppl into Bitcoin is to allow them to transact affordably and with reliability.

and that would be the way forward to maximum decentralization.

 

[_mr_e]

Congrats on the new thread. Maybe this thread can be the push we need to pull everyone over to a new forum!

 

[lunar]

Read this the other day, in the 're-released' nov 2013 john Dillon/Todd mails, and thought it was quite insightful. From JD

If I were the US Government and had co-opted the "core" Bitcoin dev team, you know what I'd do? I'd encourage ground-up alternate implementations knowing damn well that the kind of people dumb enough to work on them expecting to create a viable competitor anytime soon aren't going to succeed. Every time anyone tried mining with one, I'd use my knowledge of all the ways they are incompatible to fork them, making it clear they can't be trusted for mining. Then I'd go a step further and "for the good of Bitcoin" create a process by which regular soft-forks and hard-forks happened so that Bitcoin can be "improved" in various ways, maybe every six months.

Of course, I'd involve those alternate implementations in some IETF-like standards process for show, but all I would have to do to keep them marginalized and the majority of hashing power using the approved official implementation is slip the odd consensus bug into their code; remember how it was recently leaked that the NSA spends $250 million a year on efforts to insert flaws into encryption standards and commercial products. With changes every six months the alts will never keep up. Having accomplished political control, the next step is pushing the development of the Bitcoin core protocol in ways that further my goals, such as scalability solutions that at best allow for auditing, rather waiting until protocols are developed, tested, and accepted by the community that support fully decentralized mining.

full text https://archive.is/YDxhd#selection-9.70904-9.72381

 

[platinum_rhodium]

Long time lurker of the old thread. The most legitimate and important bitcoin thread there was, imo.
Good riddance to bitcointalk.

 

[NewLiberty]

I'd more or less left BitcoinTalk for Goat's CryptoCrypt.org about a year ago, but kept coming back for this thread. I'm pleased it is rebooting.

 

[Inca]

Excellent to see this revived.

Theymos has shot himself in the foot by confusing moderation with censorship.

 

[cypherdoc]

Read this the other day, in the 're-released' nov 2013 john Dillon/Todd mails, and thought it was quite insightful. From JD

full text https://archive.is/YDxhd#selection-9.70904-9.72381

The way it really becomes interesting is if you can equate Eric Schmidt, Reid Hoffman or Vinod Khosla et al as investors in Blockstream, with the gvt.

I've made the argument in the past that maybe you can given that these guys are billionaires who've gotten there by cooperating with gvt via information sharing and whose billions are denominated in dollars.

Not to mention the fact that for most of Bitcoin's history, they were Bitcoin Bears and not involved. I find it inconceivable that they have invested in Blockstream as a "public good". And as for that term, public good, I believe that I was the first to refer to Bitcoin in that way starting last year when I began criticizing Blockstream for potential financial conflict of interest starting in the summer. It was right here in this thread where I used the term repeatedly. What I find ironic is that LinkedIn article interview of Reid Hoffman in the following November where he refers to Bitcoin as a public good no less than 6x in an attempt to portray Blockstream's altruistic intentions. I'd swear he's been reading my high profile criticism, as he should, and counter with same said term, given his investment.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20141117154558-1213-the-future-of-the-bitcoin-ecosystem-and-trustless-trust-why-i-invested-in-blockstream?redirectFromSplash=true

People are paying attention to what we are saying here. I almost didn't bother to restart the thread out of laziness but I think our collaboration is too important, especially at this stage, to back away.


Facebook

 

[Kupsi]

Signed up to follow this thread. Thank you Cypher!

 

[theZerg]

Cypherdoc, Thanks for continuing your insightful economic commentary...

 

[cypherdoc]

you're welcome.

glad to see you here. you are a valuable contributor.


the sober view by Gavin Andresen:

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/540921/the-looming-problem-that-could-kill-bitcoin/


lotsa drama on Reddit today. my advice: ignore it.

watch the chart.

 

[solex]

the way i look at it is that 200 is the new 2. and we've been going down for over a year and a half.

to me, it looks like we've formed a pretty classic double bottom and as long as the 200 DMA doesn't start turning down again (it's currently flat) we should be OK.

even if we did do another push down to a new low, buying here at these levels wouldn't be such a bad entry point. unless of course, you feel Bitcoin is going to fail, which i don't. not at all.

i believe that the community will converge onto one bigger block chain within the next 6 mo to Bitcoin's benefit.

Yes. And furthermore, if 200 is the new 2 then 200 can ramp to 400 fairly easily where the next major resistance lies on the weekly chart.

The miner votes are now publicly available in lots of places, and tell the story that miners do want to be able to create larger blocks. They are not buyers of the "high tx fees / settlement layer" mantra.

https://data.bitcoinity.org/bitcoin/block_size_votes/24h?c=block_size_votes&r=hour&t=bar

Pressure on Core Dev is increasing by the day, not just from XT, but from Jeff's BIP100 paper.
BIP100 needs serious work as it allows for a 21% attack scenario, but Jeff will update it.

The next step for him is to create a pull request on both Core and XT. He needs to make it compatible with BIP101 (easily done, and a good idea because BIP100 allows for 32MB blocks after 1 year which is an even faster acceleration than BIP101).

The first of Core or XT to incorporate BIP100 will likely prevail and become the reference client. This event would also be the certainty the market wants causing an overdue epic price move from the 200s to the 400s.

 

[cypherdoc]

Is he planning on removing the 32MB cap?

 

[throwaway]

Congratulations and thanks for the new thread, cypher.
I'm so glad we can ditch the other forum now.

 

[solex]

The 32MB cap is a legitimate concern, and better solved now, but doesn't have to be.
I don't know whether that will get changed in BIP100. It is a very interesting question because the 32MB cap in BIP100 was at the recommendation of the Blockstream guys. Now, if the final BIP100 pull request has the 32MB limit removed then XT might be happier to take this patch, whereas Core would have the reverse opinion and want the 32MB.

In either case, I am not too worried about the 32MB because I think it can be solved with Tier Nolan / Adam Back extension blocks, which is a viable long term solution even if that limit proves more impossible to change than the 1MB.

Bitcoin's price will be well into the 4 figures by the time 32MB becomes a problem. It will be crushing the alt-crypto competition if it is handling 100 TPS. And there will be LN-type solutions up and running by then too probably doing 10x the volume or 1000 TPS.

 

[majamalu]

Hi guys, I'll be watching this thread and translating your insights into Spanish, as always.

Here's an example: http://elbitcoin.org/analfabetismo-economico-en-la-discusion-por-el-tamano-de-los-bloques/

By the way, many of you are already celebrities in the Spanish speaking world.

 

[solex]

Thanks for the vote of confidence, majamalu. Great to see you here, and your site!
I remain committed to calling out the high-level economic and technical situation for the benefit of Bitcoin's users and investors.