Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
BldSwtTrs
Active Member
- Sep 10, 2015
- 196
- 583
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?
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
- 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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
how can you not love this graph?
The Speculative Mind is on the hunt and it will overrun all pessimists (small blockists):
The Speculative Mind is on the hunt and it will overrun all pessimists (small blockists):
