Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[rocks]

@JVWVU
To get the bitcoin price you divide by the amount per.

$65 (current price) / 0.096 BTC per = $677 BTC

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

The BU approach of unlocking the blocksize settings is the only way for Core to maintain its dominance. Good thing we figured that out for them

 

[cypherdoc]

Yikes!

 

[Melbustus]

@cypherdoc - Remember all those bitcoin-critics last January saying there'd be a death-spiral in mining due to those couple hash-rate down-ticks on that chart? Are they apologizing now?

People who think linearly and fail to appreciate how self-balancing Bitcoin is have been attacking Bitcoin for years, from the outside. That's fine, and to be expected. It would be nice to not have to deal with that from within, too, but here we are with this whole blocksize/free-market vs BS/Core central control thing...sigh.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Wrote this in another thread:

Just note that there may be an unexpectedly large range for fees to climb before most people even notice (it may be that only the heaviest transacters will notice, and probably just curtail/consolidate their usage).

Despite the rightness of all the big blocksize cap arguments, this could still draw out for another year. Let's not set ourselves up for a smackdown on that point by claiming slightly higher fees ("slightly" from an average user pain perspective may be a lot from a percentage perspective, since they're so low now) are going to cause users to leave in droves and transactions to be stuck left and right. It may, but I see the main risk as being if we have a sudden adoption spike, or a price rally.

Beware the Peter Schiff syndrome of calling the disaster way too early because of not seeing all the little adjustments people can make to hold down the fort.

That's the thing about economies. It's always surprising how well they adjust to even very foolish market interventions. Of course there's a limit to it, but we as prognosticators really have no way of knowing how close we are to that limit, due to the very same Calculation Problem issues central planners faces.

 

[cypherdoc]

@Melbustus

TBH, i don't remember them. i also can't remember the name of that wacky Boston U professor who said we'd be @ $10 before the Spring after the NYDFS hearings.

at any rate, the dead list is too long to remember. we just had our 7th anniversary yesterday and i'd say that is pretty darn good. i used to read every last detail and event in the space but find myself not feeling the need or urge to know *everything* anymore. it's becoming much less urgent despite the blocksize debate.

if anything, the price chart is indicating that we'll get some sort of breakthrough in this issue in 2016.

 

[AdrianX]

Yikes!

Yikes! for sure, this signals the end of profitable mining for my 3rd generation ASICs. The last time this happened I was mining with GUPs, mining rewards had halved and out of the blue price started rising fast enough to keep GPU mining profitable for some time.

Remember all those bitcoin-critics last January saying there'd be a death-spiral in mining due to those couple hash-rate down-ticks on that chart? Are they apologizing now?

it was a great time to be mining with newish equipment. The exponential growth couldn't continue with the current efficiency in my mind it was totally predictable. It was an opportunity for almost 300% return on a bitcoin investment.

 

[Melbustus]

@Melbustus

TBH, i don't remember them. i also can't remember the name of that wacky Boston U professor who said we'd be @ $10 before the Spring after the NYDFS hearings.

at any rate, the dead list is too long to remember. we just had our 7th anniversary yesterday and i'd say that is pretty darn good. i used to read every last detail and event in the space but find myself not feeling the need or urge to know *everything* anymore. it's becoming much less urgent despite the blocksize debate.

if anything, the price chart is indicating that we'll get some sort of breakthrough in this issue in 2016.

Mark Williams, the infamous "Professor Bitcorn". Sorry, but it still bugs me that people can be so profoundly and arrogantly wrong in their quantifiable predictions, *in their supposed domain of expertise*, and yet suffer zero consequences (while Bitcoin *does* suffer from these ppl in the short term, however irrelevant they may be longterm).

But yes, longterm price is the ultimate scorecard, and there's plenty of solace to be had in "laughing all the way to the [non]bank."

 

[Justus Ranvier]

Sorry, but it still bugs me that people can be so profoundly and arrogantly wrong in their quantifiable predictions, *in their supposed domain of expertise*, and yet suffer zero consequences

Unfortunately, the people to which you refer suffer zero negative consequences because they are doing their job perfectly.

The job of a public intellectual is to support the ruling class by composing plausible-sounding justifications for the actions of that class so that the ruled class is less likely to revolt.

That the justifications are incorrect is precisely the point of creating them.

 

[Norway]

"laughing all the way to the [non]bank."

Or "Laughing all the way from the bank."

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Stefan Thomas proposed a user-adjustable blocksize cap back in June 2012. He made a lot of the same arguments, implicitly referring to Schelling points and Keynesian beauty contests (what block miners think other miners/nodes will find acceptable).

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2012-June/001551.html

 

[albin]

I don't really understand why BU needs to be debated as though it's some kind of proposal (which is how Back is framing it if I'm willing to be extremely charitable about his intentions), when what's really needed is just development contributions and eyeballs doing code review.

Anybody can already take any bitcoin full node codebase, change the code pertinent to blocksize and compile it. BU is just Bitcoin, where something that anybody can do anytime they want is made conveniently user-accessible.

 

[freetrader]

Stefan Thomas proposed a user-adjustable blocksize cap back in June 2012. He made a lot of the same arguments, implicitly referring to Schelling points and Keynesian beauty contests (what block miners think other miners/nodes will find acceptable).

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2012-June/001551.html

And he was clearly told off by Maxwell:

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2012-June/001550.html

By itself letting the [block size] size float has non-trivial existential risk. A Bitcoin with expensive transactions due to competition for space in blocks can be front-ended with fast payment systems and still provide the promised decentralized currency. Bitcoin with a very large blockchain and blocks does not.

 

[theZerg]

Wow, Amanda of the Daily Decrypt read the ENTIRE Articles of Federation in one sitting!

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

@albin Exactly. The fact that people are having a hard time wrapping their heads around it is a good sign. I believe @jtoomim had a similar misunderstanding. To be fair, this takes some time to grasp in its full implications and they are a lot busier than me recently
[doublepost=1451958005][/doublepost]@theZerg Holy shit! This really is an idea whose time has come.
[doublepost=1451958311][/doublepost]

And he was clearly told off by Maxwell:

By itself letting the [block size] size float has non-trivial existential risk. A Bitcoin with expensive transactions due to competition for space in blocks can be front-ended with fast payment systems and still provide the promised decentralized currency. Bitcoin with a very large blockchain and blocks does not.

Some things never change. This "float" misunderstanding keeps coming up. People theorize that miners would be adjusting the limit all over the place. What they should understand is they're theorizing about Bitcoin, not specifically BU. As @albin just said, BU just makes it more convenient. The ease of people adjusting their blocksize settings was inevitable; Core's stalling is just what motivated people to actually do it. They were never going to be able to lock it down. Most likely it would not move very often, but if it does in BU that then is the future Bitcoin must face in general soon enough.

This "anarchic homebrew" condition is inevitable, and BU then becomes a crucial research vessel for figuring out how to deal with that kind of thing when the convenience wall falls. BU effectively says, "Without me, you're shooting in the dark. Miners are already modding away your spoonfed parameters. We had better do a lot of testing with customizable settings and things like block acceptance depth. BU is the client for the Bitcoin world that is coming. There is no means of avoiding it anyway, so may as well embrace it and take the bull by the horns." And the controversy about blocksize means that world is coming soon. It already seems to be here.

 

[cypherdoc]

Stefan Thomas proposed a user-adjustable blocksize cap back in June 2012. He made a lot of the same arguments, implicitly referring to Schelling points and Keynesian beauty contests (what block miners think other miners/nodes will find acceptable).

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2012-June/001551.html

Nice find. I always respected him. Too bad be went off with Ripple.

 

[lunar]

catching down baby, catching down:

@cypherdoc you're not helping

I also can't help this increasing sense of urgency i'm feeling. 2016 begins with the world teetering on the brink of many sovereign debt crisis and emerging markets forced to hyperinflate their currencies. 2008 is going to look like a bun fight at grannies tea party, compared to the chaos of a domino scenario where collapsing debt based economies, government bonds and derivative markets all begin to fail. All this will be compounded by more global recession, unwanted commodities and a general paralysis of 'zero interest' central banks.
The vision was supposed to be of a bitcoin refuge, a safe haven when all else fails. Yet we're looking now at a situation where just when it's needed most, the swamp of new users will stall the system. All for the sake of a few stubborn computer scientists who can't, or are paid not to see the big picture and refuse to change a single variable.

What's it going to take to make this change happen faster? The world needs a glimmer of hope.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-04/angolas-currency-collapses-record-low-hyperinflation-monster-looms-over-africa

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-26/christmas-dead-hyperinflated-venezuelans-face-holiday-without-lights-food-hope

 

[cypherdoc]

the sharks are starting to circle the waters. they smell blood:

[doublepost=1451966208][/doublepost]

@cypherdoc you're not helping

hey, i've been trying to help by warning everybody all year.

btw, we are back into full on Dow Theory Primary Bear Trend mode.
[doublepost=1451966405][/doublepost]btw, if the Chinese are forced to devalue the Yuan like we all expect they will have to do, given the previous Bitcoin action in the face of that, what do you think will happen to the price when they really have to do it later this year?
[doublepost=1451966509][/doublepost]that sweet smell of Deeeflation.

 

[cypherdoc]

hey, well here you go!

maybe all those requests i've been making of BTCC to take down the BIP100 flag has finally paid off:

only KNC, Bitfury, & 21 still advertising. KNC is on record they don't like 100 and 21 has been notified. Bitfury afaik is the only staunch supporter. but we know Garzik has abandoned it.

 

[solex]

@cypherdoc

Don't take this the wrong way but if BIP100 is still liked by miners they will be welcome to use it in BU if BUIP002 gets passed and implemented. Now, there is a major difference, in BU it is opt-in, whereas it was proposed to be compulsory in Core. That makes it safe. And, because Jeff has withdrawn it then I am proposing the improvement of it working off the median vote instead of the small-blocker sop of 20th percentile.
If Bitfury wants to use BIP100 mining with BU then fantastic!