Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[bitcartel]

@cypherdoc The funding cycle probably has a large impact on how a company reacts to a BIP. Every 12-18 months, start-ups have to raise funds and the result of that process is a new valuation. Existing investors and management will do whatever it takes to avoid a down round.

 

[YarkoL]

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.

I can think of one barrier: there aren't that many easy-to-use services
that allow you to convert fiat to altcoin X (without using btc as an
intermediatory). Also if OpenBazaar decides to switch
to an alt, that does not yet mean much until there are actual people
using it.

I've done some research on darknet marketplaces. I remember seeing
only one where you could also pay with an alt (Dash) but I don't think
that option was much used.

In a word, I don't see Bitcoin being displaced soon, despite the development
woes. And this is coming from someone who tends to be somewhat
more sympathetic towards altcoins than most of you are.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

The bottom line is that decision making relevancy is income-weighted.

The existence of net buyers (savers) of bitcoins is what keeps Bitcoin operating. One way or another, cryptocurrency is going to serve those net savers. Either because Bitcoin adapt to their perferences, or because Bitcoin doesn't and they switch to another one that will.

I'm pretty sure that the savers want a future that contains more potential buyers of their savings rather than fewer.

 

[cypherdoc]

if you find yourself confused or nauseated, just follow the chart.
[doublepost=1451931701][/doublepost]

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Speaking of altcoins, could it be that the BU idea of letting users make their own choices is catching on? From the Ethereum blog:

However, it is becoming increasingly understood that the specific kind of signature used by Bitcoin is far from optimal; ed25519 is increasingly recognized as a superior alternative particularly because of its simpler implementation, greater hardness against side-channel attacks and faster verification. And if quantum computers come around, we will likely have to move to Lamport signatures.

One suggestion that some of our security auditors, and others, have given us is to allow ed25519 signatures as an option in 1.1. But what if we can stay true to our spirit of abstraction and go a bit further: let people use whatever cryptographic verification algorithm that they want? Is that even possible to do securely?

Granted this isn't for a controversial consensus parameter, but I can't help but wonder if BU is causing some ripples, getting people thinking. "Perhaps we don't need to baby the node user so much."

 

[freetrader]

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.

I may not be quite as adverse to altcoins as yourself, but I haven't seen anything out of Litecoin that suggests to me that it's not simply a ride-on-the-coattails without significantly better governance or any other major improvements (yet).

Right now they are playing good cop to Core's bad cop, but I don't believe they have the political will to kick Bitcoin's legs out from under it by adopting a revolutionary governance policy or feature such as BU.

 

[cypherdoc]

remember a few weeks ago i was warning you of a yield curve flattening in UST's?. well, here's a great article that takes it one step further by dispelling the long term myth that it has to invert to signal a recession. but how can it when the short end is pinned to ZIRP? the curve flattens as investors flee to not only short term UST's but longer term UST's as the outlook for growth in the far future dims and causes them to buy the *safe haven* trade of long term gvt debt. also, since the demand for money is low, interest rates need to fall to entice those seeking loans. i know, i know, it's ludicrous, but the fact remains that your gvt can still tax the shit out of you in the end and the sophisitcated investor knows that. check out the chart of Japan below:

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2016/01/flattening-of-yield-curve-in-pictures.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed:+MishsGlobalEconomicTrendAnalysis+(Mish's+Global+Economic+Trend+Analysis)

 

[Bagatell]

@freetrader Coblee has been talking about privacy features recently.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Woo-hoo!

The Future of Bitcoin Governance is Unlimited (yes, that's a play on Bitcoin Unlimited)

For starters we as non-mining nodes have little to do in supporting a given feature set or consensus rule. But we can be given the ability to veto a vote by the miners. How? The first implementation of Bitcoin which embraces this ethos is Bitcoin Unlimited, it allows each node to set the block acceptance rules, so that it will be able to reject or accept blocks if it violates a given block limit.

 

[rocks]

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.

Agree that the economic majority should win, it is why many of us are here. However this hasn't been tested yet. There are two broad categories the economic majority can or should be able to influence Bitcoin in. One is to resist accepting changes that hurt Bitcoin's security or functionality, and the second is to change Bitcoin to better reflect the user base's needs.

Both are being tested now. RBF is a change that is being pushed in against the view of many. IMHO if the economic majority is unable to resist accepting the RBF change then that indicates a problem, if Peter Todd can do this what can a government do? The second is can the economic majority change bitcoin to remove the 1MB. I've always thought this should be possible, but as you said it's been 1.5 years now...

I mentioned this a while ago, I think a key problem is that there are no specific "election" decision points in Bitcoin. Even if a majority want to do X, it is hard to make X happen because everyone needs to agree on rule changes at the same time, however this coordination is hard to form organically.

One way or another we will find out in 2016 whether or not the economic majority has the influence we think it has or should have, both with RBF testing the ability to resist changes and block size testing the ability to change Bitcoin as needed.

 

[freetrader]

@freetrader Coblee has been talking about privacy features recently.

Surely he must be worried about alts that already have all of those implemented. If Bitcoin falters, they could quickly eat his lunch. What's so different about LTC after all.

I'll go with the metals: If Litecoin is silver to Bitcoin's gold, then I'd rather buy platinum

 

[rocks]

I can think of one barrier: there aren't that many easy-to-use services
that allow you to convert fiat to altcoin X (without using btc as an
intermediatory). Also if OpenBazaar decides to switch
to an alt, that does not yet mean much until there are actual people
using it.

I've done some research on darknet marketplaces. I remember seeing
only one where you could also pay with an alt (Dash) but I don't think
that option was much used.

In a word, I don't see Bitcoin being displaced soon, despite the development
woes. And this is coming from someone who tends to be somewhat
more sympathetic towards altcoins than most of you are.

No one offers altcoin services today because almost no one uses altcoins today.

However altcoin support is a trivial thing to add to existing Bitcoin services now that these services are already built.

It took a large amount of investment to start with nothing and build up the infrastructure we have today, but it will take almost no incremental investment to add altcoins to existing services.

And if some of these services are faced with either going out of business or offering a simple addition, I am 100% sure that they will add alts if forced to. I have always been very against altcoins, however if bitcoin is crippled to the point certain use cases that have already been built can no longer use Bitcoin, those use cases will not go away but find another similar ledger.

 

[lunar]

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.

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.

The settlement layer only nonsense economic suicide, pure and simple. It's laughable that this myth has perpetuated for as long as it has. The list of companies and developers that must be suffering and rethinking their business plans right now, is so damaging to the ecosystem, it scares me to think about it.

In a world where money is uncensorable data, and value is just a few hundred bytes, anyone who believes they can price up the use of one system and not immediately have that value freely flow to another system is either an economic dropout or captured by competing industry.

Settlement v's payment is so clearly a false dichotomy. I have no doubt we will eventually find a point where main chain scaling is impeded, due to bandwidth and storage, however these edges should be explored, with transactions as cheap as possible to encourage a million blooming flowers. Restricting the movement of the telescope before anyone has had a look at the stars is reminiscent of the medieval catholic church. I was led to believe this was the new age of enlightenment.

sorry, preaching to the choir but this insanity has to stop, it's amazing how many 'supposedly' libertarian free thinkers and idealists have been misled in this toxic debate.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

I think a key problem is that there are no specific "election" decision points in Bitcoin. Even if a majority want to do X, it is hard to make X happen because everyone needs to agree on rule changes at the same time, however this coordination is hard to form organically.

Yup, exactly where BU comes in. Not just the timing but also the granularity and "bundledness" of the decision points. Right now, people may be inclined to accept 1MB+Segwit and opt-in RBF because it's a package deal with the trusted coding Core provides. Switching to XT means trusting different people, plus there is upgrade inertia. Users will only do this if the pressure becomes great enough to outweigh the "leap into the unknown" that they think XT constitutes as far as dev trust. That's why it's been an issue for 1.5+ years, but also why it won't be an issue once the pressure is greater. Competition from altcoins ups the pressure even more, but fees rising and tx not confirming is where the real pressure happens.

Bitcoin Unlimited, and the concept in general which could be adopted by Core or XT, unbundles this package deal. Users can have the trusted code from their trusted devs but cut out the 1MB+Segwit and RBF noise. Core will either have to make these optional like in BU, or risk ceding power to XT (or BU, or whatever Jeff decides to do). As the pressure rises, this dynamic takes hold. BU and the BU approach show the basic futility of what Core is doing, as well as the basic paternalism it embodies. It should speed the process along considerably.

 

[cypherdoc]

the ludicrousy never stops:

Neel Kashkari took office as president and chief executive officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis on Jan. 1, 2016.

https://www.minneapolisfed.org/about/president

 

[rocks]

 

[cypherdoc]

the good thing about that is i'm not seeing any spv 0-1tx blocks.
[doublepost=1451937668][/doublepost]THIS is good:

 

[Bagatell]

 

[cypherdoc]

catching down baby, catching down:

 

[JVWVU]