Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[rocks]

More people done with the situation.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3zbxjs/openbazaar_wont_work_with_a_1mb_blocksize_if_btc/

If OpenBazaar and a few other similar high volume / low value per transaction services (paxful, gambling, backpage ads, etc) collectively decide to switch to an altcoin open to scaling, that becomes a real threat to a static bitcoin as a settlement layer. The barrier to switching is almost zero and value is derived from usage, if usage goes elsewhere so does value.

And since network effects drive people to use a single ledger in order to be able to transact with as many others as possible, a shift of high volume transactions to another ledger is a real blow to bitcoin.

If this happens, the people who understand what is happening and are paying attention stand to make early adopter level wealth from moving with that shift. I've always been very against altcoins having any value or posing a threat to bitcoin because network effects prevent any from gaining traction.

However, a bitcoin limited to 1MB will see network effects work in the opposite direction.

 

[Zarathustra]

Our pressure worked. Adam Back has moved the discussion from Bitcointalk to reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3zc6qg/review_of_shelling_point_protocol_selection_ideas/

Yes. And by doing so with some lame excuses, it's disgusting again that he tries to place the censored users ("egos") onto the same level as the so called moderators. But finally he got enforced to communicate on an uncensored forum.

 

[sickpig]

Fred Wilson is on our side: https://avc.com/2016/01/bitcoin-democracy-and-debate/

There are many reasons why Bitcoin is so interesting but for me the core reason is the decentralized nature of the technology and how it is designed to operate and evolve. Bitcoin is political in the sense that it has a belief system and that is that no one person or entity should control it.

What we are seeing right now is a test of that belief system and how Bitcoin answers this test will say a lot about its future. I happen to agree with Brian’s views on both topics and I am glad that Brian and Coinbase is stepping up and taking a vocal position on both.

disclosure: Coinbase belongs to Wilson's Union Square Ventures portfolio

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

Yes. And by doing so with some lame excuses, it's disgusting again that he tries to place the censored users ("egos") onto the same level as the so called moderators. But finally he got enforced to communicate on an uncensored forum.

Interesting that Adam Back starts to admit btctalk is no neutral place. Is he really agitating against censorship, or just realizing that theymos style of moderation does more harm to core than good?

This or that - walls are falling down.

Reading his and other critics I thought it would be a cool idea if you start a bitcoin unlimited mailing list.

I can't say anything if the critics are right or wrong. But I'm sure it's good they are raised, either they will help to make things better, or they will help to adress the right questions.

Edit: it seems Adam Back likes the idea to let the user decide. He doesn't seem to like the idea that unlimited and not core made it reality (if the reasons are good or bad). But this thread gives me hope that there is a future of cooperation and reunite instead of trolling, fighting and censoring.

 

[cypherdoc]

Happy New Year!

Bullshit;

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-04/china-halts-stock-trading-day-after-entire-market-crashes
[doublepost=1451899058][/doublepost]http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-03/dow-futures-dump-300-points-new-years-eve-highs-china-crashes

 

[Zarathustra]

Interesting that Adam Back starts to admit btctalk is no neutral place. Is he really agitating against censorship, or just realizing that theymos style of moderation does more harm to core than good?

This or that - walls are falling down.

Reading his and other critics I thought it would be a cool idea if you start a bitcoin unlimited mailing list.

I can't say anything if the critics are right or wrong. But I'm sure it's good they are raised, either they will help to make things better, or they will help to adress the right questions.

Edit: it seems Adam Back likes the idea to let the user decide. He doesn't seem to like the idea that unlimited and not core made it reality (if the reasons are good or bad). But this thread gives me hope that there is a future of cooperation and reunite instead of trolling, fighting and censoring.

@Christoph Bergmann
Fact is: neither him nor Maxwell ever engaged against the censorship in favor of the stream blockers.
They just whined about votes (downvotes).
I don't like the idea to reunite with the Thermoses and all those who are signing papers and road maps together with that person and march in fours with or behind that person. If Bitcoin needs them, good night Bitcoin!

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

@Zarathustra

it's strange, it's not possible to quote the latest post.

I fully understand the anger and the distrust that has been built by the censorship and the fact that noone of core stand up against censorship. For me this was a basic disappointment since it should be obvious that the leaders of a CENSOR-RESISTANCE currency stand up against every kind of censorship, even if it supports themselfes. More I understand the anger that trolls insulting you and other "big blockers" in the most disgustful kind have been allowed to act freely while even polite "big blockers" haven been banned and censored.

For me it's not a question the community should get rid of some places to discuss and I am happy to see that the governance of bitcoin is on its way to more decentralization.

But I think it's dangerous when you refuse to work with the people that signed the roadmap. They are technicians, no politicians, they are developers, no leaders, it's not their job to act against censorship in social media, but to improve a currency that resists censorship; for bitcoin to improve it is needed that people spent their own time to volunteer for this project, so I think it's a bad choice at all to reject their help to improve the project.

 

[Bagatell]

it's strange, it's not possible to quote the latest post.

bbcodeXtra

 

[freetrader]

@Zarathustra
But I think it's dangerous when you refuse to work with the people that signed the roadmap. They are technicians, no politicians, they are developers, no leaders, it's not their job to act against censorship in social media, but to improve a currency that resists censorship; for bitcoin to improve it is needed that people spent their own time to volunteer for this project, so I think it's a bad choice at all to reject their help to improve the project.

I agree that a blanket refusal would be bad.

But at the same time, we must not be naive - some of these people (e.g. Theymos) are political animals and not technicians. Many of them are leaders - of companies, other projects (altcoins) etc.
In parts they are backed by very deep monied interests. Some of their supporters have no scruples to resort to criminality (DDOS).

It is everyone's job, in a democratic society and even more so in a technical meritocracy, to act against censorship, because it corrodes the foundations of a healthy community.

We will see our political opponents ramping it up a notch by bringing the fight to us - to the uncensored subreddits and forums. We will see the dirty tricks we have come to know as sanctioned in their domains brought to ours, to disrupt our activities that threaten their positions of power or strategies for future profit.

In many ways, they will try to drag us down to their level. We must resist that.

 

[theZerg]

Lol at adam repeatedly misspelling Schelling. Its not that he didn't know what it was, its that he made authoritative statements about it beforehand.

 

[freetrader]

To be fair, I sometimes get the impression that spelling is subject to Schelling points.

 

[cypherdoc]

Dow -327

Bitcoin unaffected.

 

[theZerg]

...somehow my Android does not autocorrect it. Anyway, its the sort of thing you want to get right. I'm getting the sense that Adam just threw this out there but is uninterested in pursuing it himself -- just sort of creating a venue for the trolls to do what they do best (suck away time).

 

[cypherdoc]

no one could have possibly seen this coming:

[doublepost=1451926500][/doublepost]launching:

[doublepost=1451926752][/doublepost]i just love gapdowns. you had no chance:

RUT:

NDX:

Bed Bath & Beyond:

Nordstroms:

 

[cypherdoc]

these types of articles discourage me. esp when it's coming from someone who was supposed to understand our cause and appeared to be pushing forward with bigger blocks:

https://medium.com/@spair/miners-control-bitcoin-eea7a8479c9c#.v221q9oso

my view is that of my previously stated bucket theory; Bitcoin is in a bull mkt with all it's buckets contributing relatively equally to making a competitive ecosystem. the buckets being miners, merchants, payment processors, core devs, users, & the coin itself. speculators direct their fiat investment money to whatever bucket they feel is undervalued at any given time, all the while trying to maximize their returns in an overall bull mkt of a revolutionary new digital fixed supply monetary system that emphasizes freedom for all.

 

[Melbustus]

More people done with the situation.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3zbxjs/openbazaar_wont_work_with_a_1mb_blocksize_if_btc/

If OpenBazaar and a few other similar high volume / low value per transaction services (paxful, gambling, backpage ads, etc) collectively decide to switch to an altcoin open to scaling, that becomes a real threat to a static bitcoin as a settlement layer. The barrier to switching is almost zero and value is derived from usage, if usage goes elsewhere so does value.

And since network effects drive people to use a single ledger in order to be able to transact with as many others as possible, a shift of high volume transactions to another ledger is a real blow to bitcoin.

If this happens, the people who understand what is happening and are paying attention stand to make early adopter level wealth from moving with that shift. I've always been very against altcoins having any value or posing a threat to bitcoin because network effects prevent any from gaining traction.

However, a bitcoin limited to 1MB will see network effects work in the opposite direction.

Unfortunately I agree with this. I think it's critical that main-chain fees stay low long-term, or else bitcoin opens itself up to meaningful competition for the first time. I hate to admit it, but the thought to buy some litecoin crosses my mind whenever BS/Core puts out some roadmap or big statement. For those of you familiar with my multi-year opinion on alts in general, and litecoin in particular, this is no casual thought for me. Note that I *haven't* picked up any LTC (it still sucks even as a '2nd best' choice), but the fact that I even entertained the idea for a moment actually nauseates me a little (literally - no joke).

To be clear, I think Bitcoin users will win this in the end. Bitcoin is designed such that the economic majority should always win when things get sufficiently contentious, as governance itself in bitcoin is a free-market process. That said, this particular issue has lasted about 1.5yrs longer than I would've expected it to, so far.

I hope the solution is a real one like BU, or a decent compromise like BIP101. If it's one of the weak can-kicks (like 2/4/8), my hope is that it would show hard-forks work out in practice, thus making it easier to implement an actual solution in the future. But if fees start to rise and the community doesn't figure out how to change what clients they run, I'm gonna need some nausea medicine.

 

[cypherdoc]

the bull bucks awfully hard.

even to the point of nausea.

 

[Melbustus]

@cypherdoc - I was a little sick in Nov 2011, and also the night we dropped from ~$800 to ~$400 as Gox's insolvency sunk in. One does indeed have to get used to it riding 100+ baggers.

 

[cypherdoc]

great post yet again from a real worlder, PattayaPete.

money part:

"One overwhelming lesson this has taught me is that the vast majority of people are honest. I also believe that a majority could be dishonest if the right incentives are applied."

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3ze0sz/why_bitcoin_0_confirmation_transactions_are_safe/

another way of conceptualizing the blocksize debate, as i've said before, is "optimist vs pessimist". if you believe, as i do, that the monetary incentives of a fixed supply financial system result in more predictable and proper behavior according to Governing Dynamics, then you easily see why bigger blocks are important. if you are a pessimist, like most miniblockists, then you fear your own shadow and constantly emphasize adversarial scenarios even in your nightmares.

 

[chainstor]

@Zarathustra

it's strange, it's not possible to quote the latest post.

I fully understand the anger and the distrust that has been built by the censorship and the fact that noone of core stand up against censorship. For me this was a basic disappointment since it should be obvious that the leaders of a CENSOR-RESISTANCE currency stand up against every kind of censorship, even if it supports themselfes. More I understand the anger that trolls insulting you and other "big blockers" in the most disgustful kind have been allowed to act freely while even polite "big blockers" haven been banned and censored.

For me it's not a question the community should get rid of some places to discuss and I am happy to see that the governance of bitcoin is on its way to more decentralization.

But I think it's dangerous when you refuse to work with the people that signed the roadmap. They are technicians, no politicians, they are developers, no leaders, it's not their job to act against censorship in social media, but to improve a currency that resists censorship; for bitcoin to improve it is needed that people spent their own time to volunteer for this project, so I think it's a bad choice at all to reject their help to improve the project.

Well said. I think its best to simply recognise that this is the fetid atmosphere they have created for themselves, and that ultimately they will come off worse for it. The irony of censorship resistant bitcoin being run in this manner is not lost on intelligent and rational people. To simply 'close up' in such circumstances hands a certain victory to those who perpetrate it. Better to rise above it, and try and carefully phrase your posts so that at least some voice of reason can be heard.

But more importantly, it is critical that influential voices in the BU community ( eg Peter R) resolutely distance themselves from any actiity that can be seen as trolling, even 'trolling the trolls'. I've seen Adam use that excuse twice to disregard inputs by Peter. Never doubt that traps are being deliberately set to manipulate the narrative - just be sure not to fall into them.