Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[awemany]

@Norway: I suppose you also speak Swedish like all those Scandinavians? Any news on that murder story?

Today we had: Lawyers bullshitting. Greg misappropriating. And now miners stabbing each other.

Lately, I hardly remember the 'normal' days of Bitcoin. You know, those where the stories were like 'Store xyz now accepts Bitcoin'.
[doublepost=1455325178][/doublepost]I think I can fix @cypherdoc's link (I think the problem is that he linked as an image to the imgur page):

 

[Inca]

that's great, I'm still banned from posting or commenting in r/northkorea.

@Norway do you have a link?

Taking credit for the work of others and attempting to rewrite history in the process is utterly reprehensible. What a pathetic man he really is. I think what annoys me most about him is his incredible dishonesty. On one hand protesting we keep the blocksize limited because he must protect bitcoin from centralisation, but expecting the community to ignore his (rapidly growing) gigantic conflict of interest where he directly profits from that position.

What is fascinating is the level of despondency seeping into the various fora regarding bitcoin's future. People are selling off because of this. Not because of the potential of a hard fork, but because they view bitcoin as being captured by these crooks. What is heartening is the climbing node count (whilst 0.12 stagnates) but miners need to start showing support for Classic. Development urgently needs to decentralise and if bitcoin can make it through this intact and keep it's first mover advantage then it remains a fantastic asymmetrical bet to hold.

It is hard not to wonder if this whole Blockstream saga is engineered by the State or is a clandestine banking operation to derail and extinguish bitcoin whilst an alternative system is developed and released to global fanfare.

 

[Norway]

@awemany
Not much more to add to the KnC story. The young guy in his twenties survived the two stabs in his chest. The forty year old stabber was taken by the police. Lots of witnesses and security cams. And the jokes about a Core/Classic showdown are offcourse impossible to stop.

 

[awemany]

@Norway: Thanks for the update.

@Inca

Taking credit for the work of others and attempting to rewrite history in the process is utterly reprehensible. What a pathetic man he really is. I think what annoys me most about him is his incredible dishonesty. On one hand protesting we keep the blocksize limited because he must protect bitcoin from centralisation, but expecting the community to ignore his (rapidly growing) gigantic conflict of interest where he directly profits from that position.

One thing I notices in myself and also others:

It its not said anymore: Greg is destroying his reputation.
It is rather now: Greg has no more reputation left.

That is a qualitative difference. But it is accurate.

 

[cypherdoc]

after you get done listening to the Lombrozzo FUD about HF and financial urgency in his voice, listen here to Yamamushi Classic core dev in his LTB interview. tell me if you hear a difference in maturity, philosophy, and basic honesty:

https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/the-crypto-show-with-mr-mrs-yamamushi-david-robinson-and-lyn-ulbricht

 

[albin]

@cypherdoc

I felt exactly the same way, listened to both podcasts over the last couple days. Lombrozzo is so blah that the interviewers had to basically guide him by the hand to even hit all the SW sales pitch bullet points. It was absolutely amazing, the moment he's asked a remotely challenging question, he goes off into a stammering word salad that doesn't address the question at all in any meaningful way, and you can feel the palpable douchechills infecting the interviewers as they uncomfortably acknowledge that he said something and move on!

 

[cypherdoc]

Taking credit for the work of others and attempting to rewrite history in the process is utterly reprehensible. What a pathetic man he really is. I think what annoys me most about him is his incredible dishonesty. On one hand protesting we keep the blocksize limited because he must protect bitcoin from centralisation, but expecting the community to ignore his (rapidly growing) gigantic conflict of interest where he directly profits from that position.

What is fascinating is the level of despondency seeping into the various fora regarding bitcoin's future. People are selling off because of this. Not because of the potential of a hard fork, but because they view bitcoin as being captured by these crooks. What is heartening is the climbing node count (whilst 0.12 stagnates) but miners need to start showing support for Classic. Development urgently needs to decentralise and if bitcoin can make it through this intact and keep it's first mover advantage then it remains a fantastic asymmetrical bet to hold.

It is hard not to wonder if this whole Blockstream saga is engineered by the State or is a clandestine banking operation to derail and extinguish bitcoin whilst an alternative system is developed and released to global fanfare.

there's one other thing going up; the price.

and that is beautiful. imo, the mkt is seeing the solution that we believe is best right now; the 2MB HF. many things are going wrong now for Blockstream. the demise of Maxwell, the split in the SW camp, Adam's smackdown in the Princeton Book, the rising Classic node count, Armstrong forging foward with CB, Bitmain following us.

i like what i'm seeing, am bullish, and have no fear in the upcoming HF.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

Oh boy: http://8ch.net/pol/res/4958617.html#4960310

(warning: link goes to the Mos Eisley Cantina of the internet)

What if Bitcoin didn't have enough drama of it's own and started importing drama from other sources too?

 

[cypherdoc]

@Justus Ranvier

what is that link? my OpenDNS filtered that out

 

[Justus Ranvier]

@cypherdoc

Probably for the best. It's not a nice place.

There's some speculation that the KnC facility where the stabbing happened was located 10 minutes from a refugee camp and the perpetrator was not a native Swede.

Also looks like that speculation is false, but who knows how much extra drama will result from it?
[doublepost=1455329694,1455328803][/doublepost]On a completely unrelated note, "devs gonna dev" is not a problem exclusive to Bitcoin:

 

[cypherdoc]

It is rather now: Greg has no more reputation left.

i almost don't want to believe it, as that guy has been a thorn up my ass for years.

but i dare say, i think you're right.

 

[AdrianX]

You WILL like this!

I think Bitcoin is hard enough to grasp for the average Peterson to trust this pushes it too far.

 

[Erdogan]

Overall this sounds to me to be a centralized cabal of miners getting together and dictating direction. That in itself is bad, but the direction to scale is good.

I say that miners organizing, call it a cartel or call it a producer interest organization, call it a standards organization, is exactly the right thing to do.

We are all mostly holders here, and we can ride out a fork that results in two different coins (practically impossible, I think), we can ride out a serious value crash. But the miners are different, since they, in addition to being holders (by their business or in private) they have investments in equipment by the millions. The equipment is also a speculative investment, because in the case of a sudden appreciation, they can take out profits until the mining difficulty adjusts, that is when others see the profits, and invest to take part of it, which will take months. The crucial difference for a miner, is that they need stability. They need their eqipment to work all time, including the software, and they want as few surprises as possible in the daily operation. To keep the income flowing, and to be certain that income keeps flowing in the period where they have the advantage of having invested first.

This is, I think, the reason they are so slow to act, and why they would rather not break up the development community at large.

 

[smooth]

@cypherdoc can you elaborate on this: "Adam's smackdown in the Princeton Book"

I haven't been following the thread closely but clicked through he the last few pages and that caught my eye.

 

[Bagatell]

@smooth


https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/45121i/bitcoin_is_hashcash_extended_with_inflation/
[doublepost=1455357651][/doublepost]

 

[Erdogan]

You already said it, this could only happen when there are significant fundamental ideological differences. This would be a requirement for a more long term split.

Increasing the supply of Bitcoin might be an example of something that could cause a split. If hypothetically Bitcoin grows and more people come into the fold so do more mainstream theories on economics which would favor a more inflationary currency. I would side with not changing the supply schedule at all of course.

In the case of the blocksize debate I do not think there are enough people that truly hold the small blockists philosophy with conviction compared to the people that just want to see the limit increased, to cause such a split this time around.

We do need to test this "consensus" and we need to do it through proof of work, it really is the only way. This is in part why the small blockists are so scared of any hardfork block size increase, since it partially invalidates some of their theories.

You are correct in stating that only a fundamental change could cause a permanent split. The coin quantum is fundamental. The keynesians, who occupy the economist space for the time being, thinks, erroneously, that the money quantum needs to rise continuously.

You are also right that the transaction capacity of the system is not a fundamentally economic parameter. The reason is that the value of money comes from the holding, large or small amounts, for short or long time. The aggregate want, need, and act of holding. For that, transactions are fundamentally only necessary when someone wants to change their holding. Of course, the easier, the better, because with low transaction capacity, such as we have in gold now, someone has to plan some time in advance to adjust his holding. Because of the difficulty to transact, you have to be quite sure that you don't need the resources you can exchange the gold coins for, the next couple of months. So transaction capacity is not a fundamental economic property, but indirect, in that it enables holding more, for a shorter time, and thus enable use for a larger part of the public.

So @VeritasSapere, I do not understand why you have such a negative outlook.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

 

[kyuupichan]

Do any of the Blockstream employees hold a significant portion of the coinage?
I know that LukeJr does.

What is "significant"? How do you know what Luke holds?

 

[Inca]

Alts seem to be waking up.

As @cypherdoc says the price seems to be insensitive to the blocksize drama.

I hold a few btc worth of ETH and monero hoping for a litecoin x50 move.

Are we seeing the rumblings of a new pre-halving pump?

 

[kyuupichan]

What could people possibly be doing with Ethereum right now that meaningfully uses 8 tps? Just a cursory scan, but I've been perusing blocks randomly and I don't see any gas actually consumed. Presumably that means none of those blocks I'm looking at are executing contracts?

Perhaps the gas is being emitted and not consumed? It does get confusing.