Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[sickpig]

@cypherdoc I just didn't want to bother them twice in case you've already told them about bitco.in/forum. I will do it for sure.

edit: done.

 

[bucktotal]

@cypherdoc

it really seemed like the bitfury speaker was unable to extrapolate in this multidimensional space where block reward increases in parallel with number of txs. some charts would have been nice to see.

However, if tx/s were increased 100x and btc price stayed the same,

then today:
3600*~250 = ~900k usd per day
+
~$0.05/tx * 5tx/s = ~20k usd per day
=
920k

and even in 20 yrs when block reward is ~100 btc per day, we're looking at something like:
100*~250 = ~25k usd per day
+
~$0.05/tx * 500tx/s = 2 million usd

so, its seems to work out. today the tx fees are a bonus. in 20 yrs, it should be the block reward that is the bonus.

 

[AdrianX]

@theZerg
...
To which the Core Dev might respond: "so you're admitting that your model is wrong?"

as @theZerg said it. The answer is an opportunity to show them up, the conversation could go on like like this - @Peter R: No the model is correct, I just said it isn't absolute. Are you trying to imply that goodwill and marketing or miners mining free TXs. somehow invalidates it?

 

[AdrianX]

regarding tx fees... and perhaps obvious, but a presentation from Bitfury implied that tx fees were absolutely meaningless and would be even at 100x the number of tx. The speaker said something to effect of "...Who cares about tx fees totaling 20-200 usd per month when you have an electric bill of 100k..."

...i suppose that suggests the system needs to 1000-10000x the number of tx to make the fees meaningful in the current environment.

They are meaningless atm. We Bitcoin users are subsiding them by accepting inflation that devalues our holdings. Fees are being subsidized to the tune of 97-99%, it is designed this way to help secure the network so it can grow.

The problem is developers seem to think the design is the code and it needs to be fixed.

 

[cypherdoc]

here's a miner from the Scaling Conference putting up a slide implying miners indeed don't have an incentive to cheat according to the Nash Equilibrium:

 

[cypherdoc]

here's that same miner saying Bitcoin can indeed scale to much greater levels. and he sees a transition from rewards to fees. and he says that investment will follow the expectation of price and volatility. in other words, they won't just mine spam attacks until they implode; they will adjust their supply according to their demand as long as it's profitable:


stop treating them as if they were idiots.

 

[cypherdoc]

whether any of us agree with the way the banks are experimenting with Bitcoin is not really the point at this time. what's important is that they are, which creates demand and a floor in the price, in and of itself:

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ubs-reveals-its-interest-sidechains-well-ethereum-1519706

 

[cypherdoc]

 

[cypherdoc]

Garzik and the Fidelity problem. totally ridiculous:

 

[lunar]

I think this scaling conference has been a great idea. There were a few naysayers before the event, but it seems to me it has been vital in gathering the Bitcoin development and research communities into a productive social environment. People generally express themselves better face to face, when complex ideas and subtle subjects are inclined to be discussed in a more open and respectful manner.

All to often online, slagging matches and keyboard head banging, seem to be the only option for making ones point heard, above the cacophony of trolls and uninformed, emotionally invested, laymen.

I really hope the idea takes off. It would be great to have a conference , where the best and brightest, developers, researchers, philosophers and economists, can gather to present their ideas without the constant screeching of the attention seeking trolls.

Here's hoping in the future we can hold a bi-annual, development and scaling symposium, at many of the worlds emerging Bitcoin hotspots.

 

[lunar]

they will adjust their supply according to their demand as long as it's profitable:

It's almost hilarious that this has to even be said out loud.

Prof. Coleman pointed out in her talk that Debian has a system of testing new core developers. I hope any similar tests for future Bitcoin devs include 'Free market economy 101 and some Austrian economics'.

There seems to be a massive gap in some peoples knowledge base.

 

[cypherdoc]

Garzik agrees that their is a natural equilibrium fee mkt with no limit:

 

[cypherdoc]

Garzik's overall presentation was excellent. he gets it (except maybe for miner voting). listen to the whole thing.

 

[solex]

@Jose Perez
Interesting article.
When I say Bitcoin tripping up, I mean evidence that decentralised development cannot successfully maintain the long-term growth of a network effect of a currency. In this case long enough for Bitcoin to obsolete some fiat currencies (let alone gold). This is a new phenomenon and we don't know how it will play out. Core Dev capture by Blockstream is the type of event that can derail the process of scaling. I suspect that if Bitcoin stalls then it will make the job much harder for another decentralised cryptocurrency to gain the same level of momentum because the worldwide business community will be more wary about the reliability of development. This opens the door for government run alternatives.

 

[solex]

@cypherdoc
The Fidelity Problem makes me think of how much damage has been done to ecosystem growth by the likes of Peter Todd. I recall from last year that he said he is frequently telling companies who want to use Bitcoin just how low the transaction throughput is. He pours cold water on their plans to run various kinds of business flows through the blockchain because it is not ready. He does the opposite of what any normal software salesman does: which is to attract business and let the devs at home figure out ways to handle the extra volume later on.

This is turing away business, no wonder companies are looking at their own private blockchains or other alts. They are being pushed away by small-blockers.

Nice to see from Jeff's presentation that he is thinking about all the angles, and is very pragmatic. He doesn't let the perfect become an enemy of the good.

 

[Inca]

I saw an accusation on reddit that Todd is a paid shill trying to gradually damage bitcoin from the inside.

At face value it is easy to see why. He doesn't even own bitcoin..

Jeff's talk was excellent. ('Hard fuck' lol)

 

[Bloomie]

Vitalik Buterin trying to question the authenticity of the transcript posted by @Aquent yesterday where theymos talked about having power over centralized sites and banning people with the intention to hurt XT.

 

[cypherdoc]

This is the transcript for Peter R's talk:

http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/peter-r/

where is the video?

 

[solex]

@cypherdoc
I was not able to watch Peter R's talk live, but I wasn't too worried because I knew the conference was being recorded. However, despite searching fairly thoroughly soon after all I found was the text transcript. Very disappointing. Often at conferences more than one person is recording the proceedings so there might be a private recording somewhere.

 

[AdrianX]

where is the video?

Censored for criticizing the censors I guess.