Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

I don't know, all the miner posturing seems pretty

worthy. Gotta remember that no holder or miner really wants to see Bitcoin get screwed over in the way we worry it would by following the BS path (including altcoin encroachment). That means worst case we follow it until problems arise, the price tumbles, and we get our hard fork. The Fidelity Effect can delay the price rally, but that's about the extent of the damage.

Bottom line: we're all worried about a situation that, when and if it comes, is the very solution to the problem. The dynamics are such that a change will happen all at once when the time is ripe:

 

[awemany]

I am wondering whether I should do a 1MB-sarcasm month. As in: Only bring pro 1MB arguments everywhere to underline the ridiculousness of all this.

Maybe we should do a collective effort like this? We all go onto /r/Bitcoin and agree how great Kim Jung is and so forth?

It is tempting.

 

[albin]

@awemany

The trollmod is so paranoid and delusional that he'll ban you for trolling, because he feels he is able to read into your soul on the basis on a single sentence. He literally wrote me an insane multiparahraph message entirely composed of character assassination over modmail simply because of a comment hyperlinking to an imgur graphic. I had assumed it was retribution for previously schooling his ass hard on introductory microeconomic concepts that he was just making up in a brief exchange on /r/bitcoin, but he denied up and down having any recollection of any history with my username.

 

[cypherdoc]

I don't know, all the miner posturing seems pretty

worthy. Gotta remember that no holder or miner really wants to see Bitcoin get screwed over in the way we worry it would by following the BS path (including altcoin encroachment). That means worst case we follow it until problems arise, the price tumbles, and we get our hard fork. The Fidelity Effect can delay the price rally, but that's about the extent of the damage.

Bottom line: we're all worried about a situation that, when and if it comes, is the very solution to the problem. The dynamics are such that a change will happen all at once when the time is ripe:

the price action certainly supports that pic
[doublepost=1455207158][/doublepost]the sinkhole continues to swirl:

and oh yes, our beloved currency continues off the cliff, contrary to popular opinion. that, in and of itself and despite the current gold rally, bodes well for Bitcoin:

and hey, i'm glad i'm flat here on gold. it's gotta get some time in the Sun:

[doublepost=1455207502,1455206805][/doublepost][doublepost=1455207688][/doublepost]ok, mofos.

just bought a crapload of DZZ @6.05

 

[awemany]

I now wonder whether one should work on a fork that is something like this:

- Activates when blocksize of current chain < X MB at date Y
- Uses different hashing algorithm
- Will use UTXO set of current chain at that point in the future

And then let this be the Bitcoin Classic user fork?

There must be a curve of users supporting X MB blocksize until date Y from polls now. It should therefore be possible to select a pair (X, Y) such that we would get Z% consensus?

 

[albin]

What do you guys think is the pain threshold for miners to stop the Diva bullshit? Altcoins = 30% of Bitcoin market cap?

That would IMO be quite dangerous already, as in the 30%, there's inertia that isn't priced in.

I think that the most likely short- to medium- term prognosis is a game of chicken for a few months leading up to some very painful congestion, where the 95% to activate SF SW won't happen nor will the 75% to activate the hardfork.

Core 0.12 has some features that absolutely need to go into Classic from what I understand, such as the homebrew ECDSA library doing validation, so if this drags on Classic will probably have to become something a lot different than just a patchset on top of 0.11.2 to counter the Core propaganda that's blackmailing features in exchange for SF SW.

 

[lunar]

couldn't resist


Anything that doesn't fit the premise MUST be false. Cognitive dissonance much?

 

[Richy_T]

The dynamics are such that a change will happen all at once when the time is ripe:

Doubtless. My concern is that it may not be the change we hope to see.

 

[VeritasSapere]

I now wonder whether one should work on a fork that is something like this:

- Activates when blocksize of current chain < X MB at date Y
- Uses different hashing algorithm
- Will use UTXO set of current chain at that point in the future

And then let this be the Bitcoin Classic user fork?

There must be a curve of users supporting X MB blocksize until date Y from polls now. It should therefore be possible to select a pair (X, Y) such that we would get Z% consensus?

I am completely against switching the mining algorithm, if we do a minority hard fork in the event that the blocksize limit is not raised at all in the future. Then we should still use sha256, I think this is very important. The very idea of switching algorithms in my opinion should be considered sacrosanct.

Since it would not solve the fundamental problems of proof of work governance, either it works or it does not, this fundamental premise in the theory of Bitcoin is critical. If it does not work it would make more sense to adopt alternative cryptocurrencies instead. Giving up on sha256 I think is the equivalent of giving up on Bitcoin. What would be the point resetting the experiment if we will most likely just end up in the same situation again in the future.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

Since it would not solve the fundamental problems of proof of work governance, either it works or it does not, this fundamental premise in the theory of Bitcoin is critical. If it does not work it would make more sense to adopt alternative cryptocurrencies instead. Giving up on sha256 I think is the equivalent of giving up on Bitcoin. What would be the point resetting the experiment if we will most likely just end up in the same situation again in the future.

Bitcoin is not double SHA-256, it's the creation of a ledger which resolves double spending without a trusted third party acting as an arbiter.

If switching hashing algorithms is what it takes to keep the ledger operating, and if all the economic actors who whose behaviour makes the entries in the ledger have meaning follow the network to the new algorithm, then it's still Bitcoin.

 

[cypherdoc]

i think what @VeritasSapere is saying is that unless there is some readily identifiable outside existential force, like the NSA, about to break SHA256 to Bitcoin's detriment, then stick with it. i agree with this, as miners are the a major security force that has had the foresight/hutzpah to put money into hardware, a strongly depreciating asset.

 

[lunar]

If this turns into a drawn out affair, essentially Core 0.11.2./0.12 and classic 0.11.2 /0.12 competing as the the primary implementations. It seems to me the stalling tactics will have worked.

As most can see, if 5% can block a hard fork, so 5% can block a soft fork. We will end up stuck in limbo with no one upgrading - the ultimate tragedy of the commons. (to a certain extent you can already see this with the lack of Core 0.12 uptake)

To that end, how would you rather see Classic development play out? Simple Core +2MB forever. Or have classic start implementing real scaling solutions like weak blocks subchains, better relay, pruning etc??

@VeritasSapere

switching algorithms in my opinion should be considered sacrosanct.

if this debate has taught me anything, nothing should be considered sacrosanct, becasue in reality nothing is, when there is sufficient need for change.

 

[albin]

@lunar

I think Classic will only get the popular mandate to do original development once the stranglehold of Maxwell holding court is completely discredited.

 

[cypherdoc]

on the very positive news side:

After a two-year campaign from the FBI, U.S. intelligence officials, and powerful politicians calling for backdoor access into Americans’ encrypted data, a new Harvard study argues that encryption is a worldwide technology that the United States cannot regulate and control on its own.

http://www.dailydot.com/politics/worldwide-survey-of-encryption-products/
[doublepost=1455209883][/doublepost]

If this turns into a drawn out affair, essentially Core 0.11.2./0.12 and classic 0.11.2 /0.12 competing as the the primary implementations. It seems to me the stalling tactics will have worked.

As most can see, if 5% can block a hard fork, so 5% can block a soft fork. We will end up stuck in limbo with no one upgrading - the ultimate tragedy of the commons. (to a certain extent you can already see this with the lack of Core 0.12 uptake)

To that end, how would you rather see Classic development play out? Simple Core +2MB forever. Or have classic start implementing real scaling solutions like weak blocks subchains, better relay, pruning etc??

@VeritasSapere
if this debate has taught me anything, nothing should be considered sacrosanct, becasue in reality nothing is, when there is sufficient need for change.

i disagree according to my previous post this AM.

in a stalemate, the halvenings will force miners to accept bigger blocks to increase tx throughput for the fees to compensate for reward losses.
[doublepost=1455210143][/doublepost]haha. except for pwuille & Wlad (who doesn't seem to write anything) aren't mostly all Bitcoin Core devs American?:

Additionally, the seemingly endless stream of bugs and vulnerabilities in US encryption products demonstrates that American engineers are not better their foreign counterparts at writing secure encryption software.

 

[awemany]

I think that the most likely short- to medium- term prognosis is a game of chicken for a few months leading up to some very painful congestion, where the 95% to activate SF SW won't happen nor will the 75% to activate the hardfork.

Core 0.12 has some features that absolutely need to go into Classic from what I understand, such as the homebrew ECDSA library doing validation, so if this drags on Classic will probably have to become something a lot different than just a patchset on top of 0.11.2 to counter the Core propaganda that's blackmailing features in exchange for SF SW.

If it is the miners creating the contention to elevate themselves, they'll also not easily accept SF SW. If they truly worry about 'big changes' they'll also worry about SW.

And the problem for Core is that proposing changes is being in the defense. They were able to spin removing the 1MB as a change and let us fight uphill. But they'll have an uphill battle with SF SW as well.

And there are enough good, technical reasons to oppose SF SW.

So this looks like this is going to be a deadlock indeed.

The GOOD thing is that if this deadlock happens, it will become absolutely clear that, yes, the capacity limit is the problem and that, yes, our side has been right all along. I think power dynamics at that point will shift by quite a bit - towards Classic.

@Justus Ranvier : Indeed. If we can't change the hashing algorithm, Bitcoin isn't permissionless.

Maybe we should also pull out the good old idea of a divorce. Make two incompatible chains, Classic and Core.

 

[cypherdoc]

 

[VeritasSapere]

@Justus Ranvier I suppose I disagree, whether we consider it to be Bitcoin or not is just semantics. We theorize here that Bitcoin is governed by an emergent consensus voted on by proof of work in the interests of the economic majority. If this theory is proven false then in my opinion Bitcoin will have failed, a flawed cryptocurrency if you will. I will not say that the experiment was a failure I would consider it to have been a great success, leading the way for other cryptocurrencies to come after it.

@lunar I agree that nothing is ever truly a sacrosanct, maybe a poor choice of words. However the only scenario under which I can imagine justifying a algorithm change is when either the cryptography is broken or there is a very clear case where the miners go against the will of the economic majority, due to say an attack by governments? However that is not the scenario we are under now, if the blocksize is not raised then I will consider this test of Bitcoins governance mechanism to have failed.

Simply resetting the mining algorithm just resets this dynamic, it does not fundamentally fix the problem. Personally I would be looking very closely at projects like Dash and Bitshares, which have incentivized full nodes and a much more sophisticated governance mechanism. If Bitcoin is broken in these departments then these other projects have most likely solved these problems already. This is why I think it would be pointless resetting the mining algorithm without carrying out other wide ranging changes. Otherwise we will end up with the same problems when we grow up to this point again.

I think there is an old quote that applies here, it has been accredited to different people at different times so I wont dare to guess its true author.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

 

[awemany]

I agree that nothing is ever truly a sacrosanct, maybe a poor choice of words. However the only scenario under which I can imagine justifying a algorithm change is when either the cryptography is broken or there is a very clear case where the miners go against the will of the economic majority, due to say an attack by governments?

That would mostly be my personal threshold, too. Hints are slowly showing up that there is massive shenanigans going on with the miners, though. If that plot thickens, then what?

Another thing is: You might want to keep a credible threat of hash-algo change, to keep the miners in check. Is that part of the incentive system?

 

[cypherdoc]

@awemany

i highly doubt there are any payoffs going to mining pools on behalf of BS. that would be highly unethical even for them and an unlikely risk either would take. plus, investors look to basically follow the rules & wouldn't likely approve of such shenanigans. otoh, Maxwell & Back are in charge and i wouldn't put it past them individually. still i doubt it.

in better news:

again, more reason to believe Bitcoin is inevitable:

“We'll see where we go from here in the next 10, 15 years from a payments perspective, because countries still want to hold on to their monetary policy. But [it] sure would be nice to have bitcoin, in terms of a global currency, that you could use globally.”

http://www.coindesk.com/netflix-cfo-bitcoin-payments/?utm_content=buffer5b8d7&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

[Melbustus]

What do you guys think is the pain threshold for miners to stop the Diva bullshit? Altcoins = 30% of Bitcoin market cap?

That would IMO be quite dangerous already, as in the 30%, there's inertia that isn't priced in.

We're at Alts = 16% of Bitcoin's value right now. Alts are historically well under 10%. And the spike has been fast recently. Miners need to wake up.

We're at this dangerous adolescent point in Bitcoin's maturity curve where those in control of the mining hashpower seem largely irrational, or at least, pretty unsophisticated in terms of proactively acting in their own long-term self-interest.

That should work itself out in the end as the ecosystem matures, but it does seem like we're currently in a precarious position right now where mining hasn't sufficiently professionalized. It's quite unfortunate that this critical blocksize & governance issue is being determined in the current under-developed mining environment.

If miners were more sophisticated, it's pretty darn clear to me that they'd force larger blocks now. So frustrating. The entire thesis of Bitcoin rests on miners collectively acting in their own long-term self-interest. This needs to get resolved *now*.