Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
aw c'mon. why so spikey?


looks like a flag pattern.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
that black hole sucking sound of death:

 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
getting close to the next roll:

 

BldSwtTrs

Active Member
Sep 10, 2015
196
583
this is one of the most interesting charts to me at the moment. if i'm right, this crisis the USD won't be so lucky:
I know you think that during the next crisis either the UST or the USD will fall and you think it will be the USD. Could you please elaborate a little on the reason why?

To me it's look like if one of the two has to fail it should be the UST because rates cannot go lower and the FED is talking about rising rates. Do you think the treasuries bubble will keep going?
And why don't you think the flight to quality will once again make the USD rise?
 

Justus Ranvier

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
875
3,746
this guy sure has strong opinions:
He thinks mining can be replaced with a system where humans manually choose the chains they want to follow.

Of course, in order to do this and keep the currency functioning effectively those humans will need to follow some kind of procedure that makes sure they all end up making the same decision...
 
  • Like
Reactions: AdrianX and awemany

sickpig

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
926
2,541
Although I'm confident the Bitcoin majority wants larger blocks, it still feels like people are uneasy about the idea of leaving Core behind and moving to a "multiple-implementation" future:

(snip reddit post)

We need to work on convincing people that the implementations all have a very strong incentive to remain fork-compatible. And that if they all fork from Core, that the concern for "bug-for-bug compatibility" is small.
I think that at least in the beginning to foster a blossom of independent compatible implementations a common libconsensus shared between all possible software forks should be desirable, if not necessary.
 

sickpig

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
926
2,541
He thinks mining can be replaced with a system where humans manually choose the chains they want to follow.

Of course, in order to do this and keep the currency functioning effectively those humans will need to follow some kind of procedure that makes sure they all end up making the same decision...
willd semiserious guess: free market inducing economical incentives upon the user base composed by rational human being?

in this scenario users will be helped by solution like the one recently proposed by @Peter R and @awemany.

that said I still didn't find the time to read all his article, still I find his approach quite interesting.
 

awemany

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2015
1,387
5,054
Of course, in order to do this and keep the currency functioning effectively those humans will need to follow some kind of procedure that makes sure they all end up making the same decision...
If only we had such a procedure, such an algorithm to arrive at consensus. I heard about this great idea of people exerting energy and the agreement forming on whoever exerted the most... ;-)
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
I predict that one day we will look back at the Scaling conference and realize that Peter_R's paper will have been the most important presented allowing a break through in Bitcoin fundamental understanding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AdrianX

Erdogan

Active Member
Aug 30, 2015
476
855
If only we had such a procedure, such an algorithm to arrive at consensus. I heard about this great idea of people exerting energy and the agreement forming on whoever exerted the most... ;-)
The best way for the market to decide the right block size, is out-of-band communication between miners. Conferences, blogs, meetings, even a cartel of miners (no authoritarian interference). The balance is the risk of orphaning and therefore less profit. The better understanding a miner has for what is really the consensus, the lower his risk and therefore the better his profit is.

Diverse voting protocols, including voting with the version (as in XT) will never be reliable anyway. And software is not a problem, they can easily set up the software as they like, we know they do when it comes to selecting which transactions to include.

Users (node operators, SPV wallet providers), will normally be best served by following the longest chain, regardless of size. The liquidity spread will take care of chain forks, should they materialize at all, just as the liquidity is what takes care of competition from altcoins.
 

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
This is a nice insight, but it just takes replacing the word "government" in what you say for "person", "region" -- or even "country" or "state" within the existing monetary unions -- and looking at the way people, regions and states have solved the problem of political competition in order to see it's fallacious. Governments have had international solutions to prevent widespread betrayal since World War II at least. If the Nash equilibrium does not take place in an "all against all" society, but cooperation and trust in a centralised monetary issuer, then why would it ultimately take place in a world scale?

All it takes is for them to learn the lesson of what happens when they do not cooperate enough at the level of money, for which Bitcoin is certainly invaluable. But after that it will simply be the end of Bitcoin's aspirations as world currency: http://moraluniversal.com/en/why-bitcoin-cannot-win/
Bitcoin offers a new social contract. What you say could be correct the game theory could manage governments or central banks. However those systems are designed to function in a paradigm of exponential growth. We know that's un-sustainable. Bitcoin can achieve the desired outcome in the new paradigm one that targets 0% inflation and allows economic activity without manipulation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: solex

Mengerian

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 29, 2015
536
2,597
@Peter R re: competing implementations

I think that what is more important than convincing people of the value of multiple implementations is producing software that will be useful to the individuals running it. If there are alternatives that are better suited to their specific needs, they will be more likely to support those alternatives. XT was originally created to provide features needed to support Mike Hearn's Lighthouse app, not for the larger purpose of increasing the diversity of Bitcoin implementations. This process should happen naturally over time, and implementations will specialize to support different classes of user. So it seems to me that a good strategy for XT, or any other implementation, is to focus on providing features that the users want. Things like bandwidth limiting and DDOS protection spring to mind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peter R

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
Trace Mayer doing a series of podcasts with Adam Back. they're good to listen to in understanding where the Cripplecoiner's are coming from.

but listening to this podcast on LN, you can easily understand that Back doesn't understand economics or human behavior:

http://www.bitcoin.kn/2015/09/dr-back-on-lightning/

just a couple of select points where he fails to understand, as a technician, that you can't push a single dynamic system variable to its extremes and not expect multiple other variables to start compensating b/c of the economic pressures:

1. he believes that in an unbounded system with no block size limt, there will be a Tragedy of the Commons and refers to a "reddit comment" where miners will crawl all over themselves to mine 0 fee tx's until the system implodes. TOC discussions have been going on over at BCT since 2011 when the price was under a dollar. first off, there are no 0 fees; Bitcoin has a minimum fee of 0.0001 BTC. also, at some pt there will be an equilibrium where enough miners who overmine at a loss will in fact implode and go out of biz. then, difficulty will decrease. as these miners fall out and difficulty drops, eventually new miners will step up to fill the void and take advantage of the lower difficulty. their motivation? the lower difficulty, improved efficiency, and the ongoing fixed currency supply whose value should continue to increase as more and more fiat gets printed. Bitcoin has already proven that the TOC is false.

2. he says, matter of factly, that bigger blocks yield less security. again, single variable simplistic thinking. a will cause b with no consideration of anything else. on the contrary, as more throughput is enabled by bigger blocks, more user growth and fee paying tx's will be put through the system. he never mentions the price reaction which we know should go up as more participants need the currency for their individual usages. we know this has been the historical case from Peter R's long term graphs. the price will also rise from speculators recognizing that the system can indeed grow. if the price rises to $2000, suddenly the minfee of 0.0001 will be worth $0.20 from the $0.02 it is worth now. this will cause an influx of new hashrate as miners are attracted into the higher value system that is now yielding more miner profits. most likely, most of this will come from outside of China where bandwidths are better and new miners will be encouraged to take mkt share from China.

3. he says that the current system needs to stay as is to keep Chinese miners happy. i say that's crazy. the last 6 yrs of Bitcoin history has favored the Chinese miners b/c of their cheap labor, subsidized electricity, and cheaper ASIC manufacturing. by catering to their desires to keep block sizes small, we're allowing Bitcoin mining to remain relatively centralized inside China and for them to keep their current market share. that's unwise, as we never know when the communist gvt might intervene in their mining. we should want to diversify mining outside of China. they need competition. the only way to do that is to allow the system to grow and allow ROW miners to take advantage of the one system variable advantage they have over the Chinese; bandwidth. the Chinese miners are suffering from an artificial constraint called the GFC. bigger blocks will allow miner growth outside of China leveraging that bandwidth advantage and contribute to more decentralization and security of mining away from their communist gvt. so the conclusion is the opposite from the one he derives; security will actually go up from bigger blocks, greater thoughput, user growth, and inc tx fees in aggregate.

there's plenty more in there but these were the top of mind objections i had on a first listen.
 
Last edited:

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
from time to time over the years, i talk about how the geeks fail to understand The Speculative Mind.

it never fails to amaze me just how sheltered these guys are. which is why i also ride them about how "the geeks fail to understand that which Satoshi hath created".

they don't understand how, due to the massive money printings, bailouts, repetitive QE's, and moral hazards perpetrated by gvts everywhere, there is a massive worldwide army of speculators that have been spawned over the decades that has literally tons of money looking for a return. this is how we get a $5T/day Forex mkt. these speculators are ruthless in their search for the next big thing as they know that their money is going to do nothing bu devalue.

so they hunt. hard. suddenly, out of nowhere, a fixed digital currency is born with all the monetary characteristics of physical gold and more. and it fits right into the rest of the Digital Age that is proving itself to be driving our society to unforeseen heights never before imaginable. the Fed can't control it, the gvt can't kill it, and the army can't nuke it. so what does that mean? well, from zero, we're now at 240 having passed thru 1200 daring to touch the face of gold. as long as it doesn't die, means it will grow. everyday that goes by that it doesn't die, it gets stronger.

any blind man that can't see the obvious swarming of Wall St financiers accelerating the pumping of money into Bitcoin start ups needs to come see me to get their eyes examined.

this Speculative MInd will cause Bitcoin to overcome any increased block size issues we might get b/c it wants to ensure a return on money invested. that means all the speculators investing in mining operations are not going to mine themselves into oblivion. no, they will regulate fees and tx's and spam attacks so that in aggregate they will profit. guys like Adam and gmax don't get this. they don't understand the level of motivation that Sound Money will drive. and that's b/c the sky is the limit when it comes to a Sound Money in comparison to fiat printing and devaluation.

we need to unload these guys and quick.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
still looking like shit:

 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
coming off the bottom:

 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
sick as hell:

 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
how can you not love this graph?

The Speculative Mind is on the hunt and it will overrun all pessimists (small blockists):