Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Peter R]

bang bang:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3yod27/greg_maxwell_was_wrong_transaction_fees_can_pay/

 

[Justus Ranvier]

http://www.kristovatlas.com/rfc-tool-for-tracking-and-visualizing-bitcoin-address-reuse/

 

[theZerg]

Great! I'm glad that Aquent wants to run, and yes it would be good to have several candidates.

The positions cannot be held anonymously. When you are elected to a position, you will be entrusted with real-life authority and responsibility such as root access to the web server, ownership of the domain name, a 1 of N key to any donated funds, and ownership of the github repository in a system of checks and balances designed to ensure that a "rogue" person cannot derail this effort.

But if you go AWOL or deliberately steal these real-life assets, we need to know how to chase you down.

You do not need to fund your Bitcoin Unlimited membership address with any coins. It is for identity purposes only.

One more thing: I'm travelling during the voting :-( so either we postpone elections until the 21st or open them on the 15th and leave them open until the 21st. I think that the latter is fine... I was perhaps optimistic in the Articles when I specified 24 hour voting, especially this early in the BU effort.

And I am considering only considering the vote of members on record as of Dec 31. This will stop a bunch of sockpuppets and saboteurs from "joining" if these elections hit Reddit. What are your opinions on this?

 

[awemany]

One more thing: I'm travelling during the voting :-( so either we postpone elections until the 21st or open them on the 15th and leave them open until the 21st. I think that the latter is fine... I was perhaps optimistic in the Articles when I specified 24 hour voting, especially this early in the BU effort.

IMO, lets take some time with this! I am totally fine with you being dictator for another week or month
Also, we should make sure that the voting process is laid out clearly in advance, what counts (such as "yes"/"no" signed with Bitcoin address and nothing else). The BUIP voting you did showed some of the minor problems that occur when a bunch of people on a website are suddenly going to vote.

And I am considering only considering the vote of members on record as of Dec 31. This will stop a bunch of sockpuppets and saboteurs from "joining" if these elections hit Reddit. What are your opinions on this?

Yes, absolutely agreed here. At the risk of sounding/being exclusionary, I think it is good to really vet new members and be very sure that they are not trying to derail BU.

It seems that we have real attacks going on now from various sides. The troll-modding of btcdrak is just one example.

With the expected initial 20-30 people joining the effort, I think we have enough balance to hopefully avoid really bad decisions, yet all people involved are reasonably safe to be non-trolls and aligned with BU's goals.

And I also I think most reasonable but interested people would be fine being a non-voting member or such for a while. It is all happening here on the Internet, and anyone, including non-members, can of course continue to provide informal input to any decision.

I just don't want to see this being destroyed by the likes of btcdrak, theymos or similar.

 

[VeritasSapere]

I agree with theZerg's proposal as well, seems perfectly reasonable to me.

 

[solex]

@Peter R
Don't you even sleep anymore
Nice graphics in all your recent posts. Very interesting that the use of subchains makes the contribution of tx fees to blockchain security far more effective and it can be demonstrated so clearly.

 

[Peter R]

@solex

Haha thanks. I took two-weeks off over the holidays from my non-bitcoin work so that I could make some progress on our work here. I'll be back to spending less time on Bitcoin after January 4th.

 

[lunar]

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-economics-are-changing-1451315063
Some highlights, but best read the entire thing.

Bitcoin is Being Hot-Wired for Settlement

SW avoids an ecosystem-wide hard fork through ecosystem-wide upgrades to bitcoin transactions, blocks, addresses, scripts, full nodes, miners, wallets, explorers, libraries, and APIs. All to provide partial relief to core block pressure assuming users upgrade — 1.6M if 100% upgrade, based on current usage.

Rather than an automated software system, a fixed core block size puts an economic policy tool in the hands of humans. Humans are making subjective decisions about “healthy” fee levels, what miner income should look like, and the relative expense of bitcoin transactions, rather than the free market.

Bitcoin is not an academic science project. Stalling on hard questions produces tangible market changes. Few have the luxury to pause until a new payment layer is developed on top of bitcoin-1’s emerging settlement layer. Stuck-at-1M risks reversing bitcoin’s network effect by pricing users out of the core blockchain, forcing them onto centralized platforms.

And finally, to remove long term moral hazard, core block size limit should be made dynamic, put in the realm of software, outside of human hands.

Bitcoin deserves a roadmap that balances the needs of everybody who has worked hard over the last six years to grow the entire ecosystem.

—Jeff Garzik and Gavin Andresen

 

[theZerg]

TIL @Peter R 's idea of Christmas vacation is to work on Bitcoin!

 

[cypherdoc]

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-economics-are-changing-1451315063
Some highlights, but best read the entire thing.

the best part of that is to see both Garzik and @Gavin Andresen collaborating on this statement.

i'm glad to see this expound on the very principles that have been outlined in this thread for the last year and a half since the outting of Blockstream.

 

[Aquent]

And thus the war was won... https://medium.com/@jgarzik/bitcoin-is-being-hot-wired-for-settlement-a5beb1df223a#.18zwjnjp5

With Garzick on our side nothing can stand in our path.

The crystal clear articulation (the "Visible Hand"), cutting through issues like a hot knife through butter, gives me high hope.

Momentum is on our side guys. We have something utterly unique to back us - clear and crystal truth.

All stands in these very moments. Bring your papers, bring your essays, mobalise, for victory is in sight.

 

[Peter R]

I've been warned:

 

[theZerg]

@VeritasSapere It will be up to the new secretary to decide who can help him and what they do. Right now moderation load is 0... spammers keep missing the BU subforum

 

[Inca]

Hey @Peter R you are obviously becoming a VIP. I was just banned directly with no warning whatsoever!

Says a lot that the same post that got a ban on /r/bitcoin went to the top of /r/btc /r/bitcoinxt and /r/bitcoin_unlimited.

Encouraging noises from Jeff and Gavin. But we need more than noises to shift the deliberate inaction taking place at the heart of Core.

EDIT: up to 81 BU nodes (1.4%)..

 

[Zarathustra]

I've been warned:

I've been warned first with a 7 day ban, and now sanctioned with an unlimited one (banned unlimited), which is nothing less than an award for a Bitcoin Unlimited partisan.

 

[Inca]

On /r/bitcoin when it comes to bitcoin xt or BU:

 

[VeritasSapere]

@VeritasSapere It will be up to the new secretary to decide who can help him and what they do. Right now moderation load is 0... spammers keep missing the BU subforum

Sounds good, when there is more work to be done in terms of moderation the secretary can let me know, I would be happy to help. I love the freedom of speech, I might do a write up at some point clearly defining some principles of moderation.

 

[rocks]

Original chart (May 2015):

Current chart (Dec 2015):

Great to see the chart continue to track expectations. The history here really exposes the lie that there is no impending block size catastrophe coming.

We have been told by the core devs that hard forks are hard and take a minimum of 1-2 years to implement, and that is why they are not even bothering with hard fork options.

After we hit that 1MB limit soon, it is quite possible that everyone quickly agrees to a kick the can upgrade of 2MB or similar, and the hard fork is rolled out in a matter of days. I wonder what the core devs will say then? Probably deny coupled with mass post deletion...

 

[solex]

@rocks
Maxwell said this 7 months ago
We also have reason to believe, from the prior accidental quasi-hardfork, that the mining portion of the network can be updated within a day or two during an actual emergency.

 

[AdrianX]

Read this from u/jstolfi it outlined the Blockstream conflict of interest as best I've ever seen it.