Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Erdogan]

Yes, the individuals will have to decide how much to spend, how much to save (in money), and how much to invest, creating a market balance, rightsizing the aggregate investments. Who else could make the choices for the individual, thus deciding what has more value? Mao, Stalin, Clinton, Soros, Bernanke, Krugmann? All of those have already proved failure. Nobody knows everything about creating value, not even everything about a simple thing like a pencil. Only the market can.

 

[79b79aa8]

Allow me to interrupt this thread to call attention to the Bitcoin Unlimited Mac effort (some of us can't wait to run BU on OSX). In case anyone reading this does not know about that initiative and can offer support over there:

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/bitcoin-unlimited-mac-effort.676/

Pardon the interruption. Please continue the discussion, you people are effing brilliant.

 

[cypherdoc]

great insight to the origins of Classic by @jtoomim :

http://pastebin.com/B8YQr5TQ
[doublepost=1453393861][/doublepost]

great insight to the origins of Classic by @jtoomim :

http://pastebin.com/B8YQr5TQ

this is actually why i think we see as many signatures from intimidated less significant core devs than we would otherwise. they don't want to jeopardize their positions just yet with the louder more domineering core devs like gmax:

"1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:46:18:and told me they didn't want to reply on the list because they were afraid of what would happen

 

[cypherdoc]

@jtoomim knows what he's talking about. quite a good vision and just so happens to match ours:

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:44:34:and that would be resolved through either an economic vote, or a hashrate vote, or both
1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:44:35:And then ?
1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:44:47:economic vote ?
1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:44:53:via futures markets

 

[steffen]

"Is not that a blacklisting?

Hmm, yes, something like that. A blacklisting banishes only nodes that misbehave. With 0.12 you can effectively ban nodes via the IP address."

Isn't this laying the foundation for turning bitcoin from a permissionless system to a permissioned? Anyone "misbehaving" can be thrown off. No future forks allowed.

 

[cypherdoc]

perfect:

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:50:03:but i like the idea of teaching users and miners that they can make decisions for themselves, and they don't have to blindly follow core

 

[Zarathustra]

I'm not sure I agree with this? It seems like the same argument that bitcoin is never going to be spent becasue it's deflationary?
Is debt the foundation of economy? His argument seems that debt was actually the earliest form of trade. I'm not however convinced that this can be true. For debt to exist something had to be there in the first place, value must exist first?

Yes. The causal sequence: Disease > organized violence > Debt > surplus production > Economy

Paul C. Martin:

Private property as de iure institution needs a foregoing state to come into existence. The state needs foregoing power and foregoing power needs armed force. The ultimate “foundation of the economy” thus is the weapon, where possession and property are identical because the possession of it guarantees property of it. Armed force starts additional production (surplus, tribute). The first taxes are contributions of material for the production of attack weapons (copper, tin). Thus non-circulating money begins. Taxes as “census” and money are the same.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-178#post-6388
http://www.miprox.de/Wirtschaft_allgemein/Martin-Symp.pdf

 

[cypherdoc]

anybody know what @jtoomim is talking about here?:

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:22:47:and try to get a version of segwit merged and activated, either hard or soft, but without the 4x adversarial condition and the subsidy for multisig

 

[steffen]

I don't think I have posted it here: http://bitcoinsteffen.com/the-bitcoin-community-can-learn-important-lessons-from-the-snowden-revelations/

 

[Inca]

It is getting hard to read /r/bitcoin now. There are about 10 sock puppets talking to one another on every single thread about Classic / hearn / blocksize issues. I cannot be the only person almost entirely turned off by the completely artificial nature of the conversation taking place there.

/u/beastmodebisky

We did it Reddit!

I'd like to thank:

Mike Toomim for getting blazed out of his mind and discrediting Bitcoin Classic.

Gavin Andresen for being honest and up front about his development intentions, and the fact that he had no plans to take up the lead role as he did in the past with Bitcoin.

Jtoomim for quickly and unilaterally closing Luke Jr.'s PoW algo pull request on the Classic Github repo. It appears that his action there resulted in what might be called a mini-Streisand effect, bringing attention to both the idea that the PoW could be changed if necessary, and the general lack of process that exists with Classic. Not that there are any plans to change the PoW. Just the idea that it's one defense that can always be used if absolutely necessary.

And everyone else who seemed to quickly see through the reality that this was just a foolhardy political power-play designed to oust the group that has been responsible for all of the recent innovations in Bitcoin.

Hopefully from now on people will stop to think before letting their emotions drive their decisions. And consider that the people who have dedicated their life's work to the topics surrounding the technology behind Bitcoin might just be worth listening to when it comes to highly technical topics with many variables.

This is my favourite 'black is white' troll /u/BillyHodson:

I don't think there's enough space on this page to list how stupid it would be to switch to classic. As you are a Classic Promoter then I rather doubt there is any point in us telling you what you already know. Sorry but I think that most of the people here have enough sense to not be fooled by posters pushing to destroy bitcoin.

Muppets.

 

[rezzme]

anybody know what @jtoomim is talking about here?:

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:22:47:and try to get a version of segwit merged and activated, either hard or soft, but without the 4x adversarial condition and the subsidy for multisig

@cypherdoc I believe this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/41lpir/segwit_economics/

 

[cypherdoc]

please vote in the new poll

 

[Richy_T]

That should be entirely unnecessary. Once Classic forks with 75% miners onboard, there should be plenty of non mining nodes in place as well. At that point it will be no different than we have now; half full blocks on average that occasionally spike up to full blocks. We'll just be reset higher at a doubled level.

Blocks are full right now.

 

[Peter R]

anybody know what @jtoomim is talking about here?:

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:22:47:and try to get a version of segwit merged and activated, either hard or soft, but without the 4x adversarial condition and the subsidy for multisig

The way the default fee policies and block size limit are coded in Core, "segwit block space" gets a 4X discount compared to "normal block space." For example, a really big transaction like the kind you might need to move coins back from a sidechain gets subsidized (at the expense of miners and those who consume non-segwit block space). This brings up a bunch of interesting game-theory questions. For example, will the miners agree to enforce this subsidy even though they would earn more profit (at least over the short term) by not doing so?

I'll paste my more detailed response about this topic from another thread:

Another thing that's interesting is that the segwit data would be "cheaper" for mostly artificial reasons. Assuming the new "effective" block size limit were above market demand, I don't see why the actual cost of producing "segwit block space" would be significantly different than the cost of producing "normal block space." Assuming that miners are rational short-term profit-maximizing agents, they shouldn't discount segwit transactions at all!

If blocks aren't full, expecting miners to enforce fee policies that discount the segwit data is the same as expecting them subsidize segwit users at the miner's own expense. For example, a rational miner should choose to include a 1kB normal TX paying $0.10 over a 2kB segwit TX paying $0.10 because the segwit TX increases his marginal orphaning risk more than the normal TX. However, according to the default fee policy (AFAIK) he would choose to include the less-profitable segwit TX. From a game-theory perspective, this means that all miners would have a "profitable deviation" by reducing the segwit subsidy.

I'm not suggesting the segwit subsidy is bound to fail. The fees are small anyways and miners might not be bothered to change their default settings. Furthermore, miners might think the subsidy is worthwhile if they believe it will help the network over the long term (in other words, real miners aren't "rational, short-term profit maximizing agents" like we often assume when making models).

But it is food for thought.

(The situation is different if blocks are persistently full, in which case segwit block space is actually less expensive to produce, but only assuming nodes can enforce (and want to enforce) the segwit subsidy against significant transactional pressure.)

 

[cypherdoc]

@Peter R

sigh. the more i think i understand about SW, the worse it gets.

so i was giving Pieter the benefit of the doubt that the term "discount" was referring to how SW counts "size in bytes" toward block space as opposed to what you're saying it is: a centralized core dev mandated "price" discount in terms of fees compared to normal tx's.

that is totally ridiculous. f*ck that.

 

[theZerg]

Hi everyone! I'm back from sunny and warm Florida!

I'd like to confirm and congratulate the new Bitcoin Unlimited officers:

Solex (Andrew Clifford) as President!
Aquent (Andrew Quentson) as Secretary!
thezerg (myself) as Developer!

Thanks to all who ran and who participated in the voting. Your participation is what will make Bitcoin Unlimited awesome.

 

[Peter R]

@cypherdoc

Yes, this is another example of Blockstream trying to "set the price of block space." The trouble is that if any group has the ability to do that, then they can pick winners and losers by adjusting that price.

I said exactly that in Montreal with respect to Adam's "flexcap" proposal. I see this as analogous to how the Fed "artificially sets the cost of borrowing money"--a situation where big- and small-blockers alike agree allows the elite to pick winners and losers.

EDIT: note, @cypherdoc, that the discount also applies to how it counts towards the block size cap.

 

[cypherdoc]

oh heavens. Guy Corem going off the rails:

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:53:49:One by one
1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:54:04:Hard forking every few months -
[doublepost=1453401959][/doublepost]

EDIT: note, @cypherdoc, that the discount also applies to how it counts towards the block size cap.

@Peter R
i know, that's why i was giving them the benefit of the doubt of not being stupid by trying to set prices. wrong.
[doublepost=1453402011][/doublepost]

Hi everyone! I'm back from sunny and warm Florida!

I'd like to confirm and congratulate the new Bitcoin Unlimited officers:

Solex (Andrew Clifford) as President!
Aquent (Andrew Quentson) as Secretary!
thezerg (myself) as Developer!

Thanks to all who ran and who participated in the voting. Your participation is what will make Bitcoin Unlimited awesome.

congrats @theZerg and welcome back!

 

[Peter R]

@cypherdoc:

I guess this means that Blockstream Core are the block space Keynesians, and we're the block space Hayekians. Unfortunately, the Keynesians have been winning for the last century...

 

[cypherdoc]

i love Bitcoin; for constantly stripping money away from even the bulls:

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:55:07:I'm total honest here.
1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:55:19:I think that Core can fix mining centralization, easily.
1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:55:28:And force a never ending GPU era.
[doublepost=1453402317][/doublepost]oh, and then he comes around!:

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:58:49:I want to thank you for lauching Classic and free us from a tyranny
[doublepost=1453402554][/doublepost]1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:58:55:But not Core teranny
1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:59:08:But Mining centralization.