Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Melbustus]

@rocks - yeah, definitely agree companies should be part of it, and should be verified.

I think we can verify for individuals too, though. A few hundred signatories posting verification text (eg, some hash) to a social account would only take a few hours max to do manually (with a proper admin screen on the site). >>1000 and we have to automate.

 

[cypherdoc]

homebuilders continuing the plunge. that's not good:

if commercial RE cracks, it'll be game over:

[doublepost=1452192523][/doublepost]what? no one buying new diamonds?:

apparently not. nothing left to auction:

 

[solex]

When comparing bitcoins to cash and observing that cash is more confidential, it does not mean that Bitcoin is out of the woods because the amounts can be so much larger. Like that record tx worth $140 million which was pinned down to Bitstamp shuffling its cold wallet. That is way beyond the league of cash and completely anonymous tx of that size will always annoy governments.

 

[Melbustus]

The ideal situation in my view is to have bitcoin on one side (the good guy) and, preferably, zerocoin on the other (the bad guy). Zerocoin seems to be entangled somewhere though, prob some intervention somewhere, so that could be adapted to confidential transactions on the other side.

That would take a lot of heat from bitcoin, including pr statements like it's only used by criminals etc, as those arguments would move to CTcoin as well as provide bitcoin with a stick against any list suggestion as we can turn around and say, hey, we can just adopt zerocoin or confidential transactions in the protocol. A win-win situation.

Implementing CT into the protocol straight away I think would be a huge mistake because it may be just too much. And I don't think it is even needed. Bitcoin is pseudoanonymous and really with only a bit of effort one can use it fully anonymously. Moreover, technically, CT requires far too much space and according to gmax it uses even more homebrew algo than libsec. Making it a lose -lose situation in my view.

I said this a year and a half ago:

...I suspect that once things like Zerocoin emerge and start to gain traction, we're going to see aggressive moves by regulatory bodies against such coins. Sidenote: that'll be bullish for bitcoin; govs will choose their poison and will likely actively support bitcoin over alternatives that bake anonymity in for every transaction/user.

The beauty of bitcoin is that the level of anonymity is effectively user-selectable. With enough effort, you can remain pretty private. It's just not idiot proof... As noted, I think that plays a large role in why govs haven't been super aggressive towards it.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=652637.msg7335198#msg7335198

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

When comparing bitcoins to cash and observing that cash is more confidential, it does not mean that Bitcoin is out of the woods because the amounts can be so much larger. Like that record tx worth $140 million which was pinned down to Bitstamp shuffling its cold wallet. That is way beyond the league of cash and completely anonymous tx of that size will always annoy governments.

Sure, that's why I fear things like confidential transactions - maybe even their development - can kill the tolerance of governmens, especially in the bad envirenment after paris-terror.

 

[sickpig]

 

[Aquent]

Core is capitulating:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3zwgye/statement_from_bitcoin_core_20160107/

"We also expect that as the Bitcoin ecosystem grows, the number of alternative Bitcoin protocol implementations may increase, and it is inevitable that other software projects may release radically different software proposals for the ecosystem to consider. At the end of the day, the Bitcoin Core development team does not decide the Bitcoin consensus rules. Instead, users participate in Bitcoin by making their own choice of which Bitcoin software to run."

I find it disgusting that they are trying to use bitcoin.org as some sort of "official" communication channel to publish their diktats to the community in some authoritative manner.

Moreover, they are lying with a straight face. The title states, "Statement from Bitcoin Core". How can there be such a statement from "bitcoin core" without the approval of two of the most seniour bitcoin core developers, Gavin and Jeff.

They have, and we have played in their hands, gone on about Bitcoin Core devs - and now they pretend they make statements on its behalf. But there is no longer a core. Core is divided and really has become a was. No one can speak on its behalf when Gavin and Jeff do not back it.

This isn't a statement from Bitcoin Core - and they know it. This is a statement from some individuals who consciously or otherwise are trying to centralise control into their hands.

 

[theZerg]

re: Peter Todd tweet: hmm. I guess his formulation of treechains never worked then? I could never parse his doc to figure out what exactly he was talking about (and I read people who know a lot more about bitcoin than me joking about the same).

re: "statement"... I can even figure out what they are saying, why they are saying it, or in response to what. Its like fed-speak converted to Bitcoin, lol.

 

[cypherdoc]

I said this a year and a half ago:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=652637.msg7335198#msg7335198

so what you're saying is that Blockstream could be a target.

don't expect gvt to distinguish btwn open vs closed software in this regard. all they see is who's devving it.

 

[cypherdoc]

Market bears roar as $2.5 trillion gets wiped out


Short sellers today are happier than a grizzly that has spotted a slow, overweight hiker.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-why-market-bears-are-now-in-control-2016-01-07?mod=mw_share_twitter
[doublepost=1452196198][/doublepost]clearly written by a dev but that's ok:

 

[cypherdoc]

r/bitcoin mostly positive. except for you-know-who:

 

[Melbustus]

@cypherdoc - seriously what's wrong with that guy?

 

[cypherdoc]

@Melbustus

imo, there can really be only one good reason given how he popped up in my old gold thread precisely after the SC's WP October 2014 and shadow-trolled me every comment of the way for hundreds of pages:

he works for Blockstream.

 

[Norway]

@cypherdoc
That Core Dev Hitler clip cracked me up!

[doublepost=1452199520,1452198464][/doublepost]

Stephen Pair's recent blog seems to propose something super reasonable:

https://medium.com/@spair/a-simple-adaptive-block-size-limit-748f7cbcfb75#.70098pv5o

@theZerg
Maybe it would be a good idea to implement BitPay's "BIP" as an option in BU? What do you think guys?

 

[cypherdoc]

@Melbustus

imo, there can really be only one good reason given how he popped up in my old gold thread precisely after the SC's WP October 2014 and shadow-trolled me every comment of the way for hundreds of pages:

he works for Blockstream.

when you look at his proposed demographic, there is no way he can just be a young 23-ish yo unemployed internet kid with such strong pro-opinions about Blockstream, a company he claims he has no linkage to.

when he popped up in the old thread, he had way more knowledge and intuition than could be possible for an uninterested and newly informed kid about SC's. unless he had prior knowledge or insider information. and his obstinance, in the face of overwhelming arguments provided by me and others along with heavy downvotes reflects, to me at least, a vested entrenched position.

and he plays dirty. everytime i bring up something about core dev, he doxxes me or ad homs. prick.
[doublepost=1452200759][/doublepost]sounds to me like Marc Faber likes Bitcoin:

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/07/faber-stocks-to-fall-and-its-not-chinas-fault.html
[doublepost=1452201016,1452200237][/doublepost]i still don't see "it":

[doublepost=1452201228][/doublepost]financials cliff diving again. they should go lower than August lows:

and The Squid was indeed a harbinger:

and it couldn't happen to a bunch of nicer pricks:

 

[Norway]

If I go to Thailand this year, I will take a trip to Chiang Mai, make a local bitcoin meetup with local enthusiasts and invite Marc Faber! (But I will only go to Thailand if 1 BTC >= 3 000 USD because personal economics).

 

[cypherdoc]

they are one in the same. a walk back in time:

A Memo Found in the Street

http://www.barrons.com/articles/SB122246742997580395

 

[theZerg]

@Norway, @solex
I think it would be a lot better to implement BitPay's alg than to focus on some of the more "dead" proposals currently being considered under the purview of BUIP002... I think we should add a BUIP002 qualifier -- "...and the Developer can merge (as optional configuration) any other scaling proposals proposed by other entities"
[doublepost=1452204171,1452203545][/doublepost]...3.5 more hours until markets open in China... no circuit breakers
<cue popcorn gif>

 

[Norway]

Expecting three of these puppies in my mail by february. Has anybody else here ordered it?

 

[Justus Ranvier]

CT is good in that it blinds the amounts involved in a transaction, but that's all. Transactions are still composed of inputs and outputs, and still form a traceable chain back to the time in which each input was mined.

CT makes coin mixing far more effective, but it's not like you can just start using CT and magically your transactions are perfectly anonymous.