Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[tynwald]

RANK USER AGENT NODES
1 /Satoshi:0.11.2/ 2596 (41.28%)
2 /Classic:0.11.2/ 999 (15.89%)

1K is almost here ... Woot!

 

[cypherdoc]

1001

 

[rocks]

u/jstolfi on fire, I hadn't thought about LN adoption like this. it relay is a horrible solution. He makes some great observations up thread too.

If I was new to bitcoin I would consider Jorge to be one of the best sources of information, especially on the historical record of what has happened. His communication is always clear, on target and he cuts through FUD to layout the situation as best as possible.

It seems all of the engagement with him on the old GCBU thread paid off and was worth the frustration. Crazy times.

 

[cypherdoc]

@rocks

indeed. in fact, i was trying to remember what his position was back then in GCBU. i'm sure bearish but i don't remember to what degree and the detailed specifics, esp with regards to Blockstream. w/o going back, can you recall what it was?

 

[rocks]

@cypherdoc
I mostly remember him being very against Bitcoin being able to work, sometimes it was for technical reasons and sometimes it was for governance reasons. Mostly it seemed that he was trying to build defensible arguments against Bitcoin and would try them out and see which arguments could be countered easily and which were harder to counter. It was frustrating because he kept changing the approach, if you shot one point down he would raise another.

I'm still not sure if he believes in Bitcoin today or remains skeptical, but does seem honest enough to be horrified at how Blockstream is twisting everything and feels compelled to push back. If we don't successfully fork then one of his arguments against Bitcoin will have become true.

BTW I like this analogy

 

[cypherdoc]

good memory. we were battling so many of them simultaneously at the time. TPTB_wants_war comes to mind.

 

[Richy_T]

so what's currently the fastest and least expensive way to put up a dozen or so legitimate nodes right now?

Probably AWS spot instances.

 

[Bagatell]

jstolfi started out as a crusader against ponzis and scams. I note that he has dropped that angle.

 

[Melbustus]

Jihan Wu=Antpool. Go Antpool!:

^ Your screengrab from Thursday.

Here's one from just now:

Edit: that's the 4-day chart, btw.

 

[Trolfi]

We chased Jorge out of the old thread pretty fast: at the time he was simply being contrarian, refusing to believe bitcoin could work, and shooting negative arguments in the dark. To his credit, he appeared to respect a space where serious discussion was flowering, and left it alone. In time, he came to see that, one by one, his deeply thought out objections could be met. Last time I interacted with him, not long ago, he remained skeptical -- as he should be, it would be nothing short of a miracle if this really took off -- but by now he clearly understands the space as few others do, and he has invested his contrarianism in the direction it should be directed: against Blockstream.

 

[Bagatell]

@Trolfi Not related to jstofli are you?

 

[Trolfi]

Certainly not, but I'd take a tiny bit of credit for helping him turn around.

Hint: it was not by abusing him, as my original inclination was, but by suggesting he allow the conclusions to his own arguments, not his pre-established mistrust of private money, be his guide.

 

[sgbett]

Remember the second stalling conference being the deadline?

An ultimatum that isn't followed by action isn't just worthless - it is worse, it is a joke on us.

I don't remember specifically the sentiment coming out of the Chinese miners at the time of scaling. It felt like they were still weighing the alternatives, and I got the impression there was less urgency. (Despite how guns ho some users might have been... XT was straight in my basket!)

The Chinese miners have a lot at stake, and so will naturally be more risk averse. So I think its conceivable that they would prefer a HF with core on board. To this extent I think that they want to give core every opportunity to deliver. However I think that as time has gone on, and core has repeatedly failed to commit, that the Chinese will eventually re-evaluate the situation.

I liken it to a business relationship where the client has a good understanding of the risks and costs of changing supplier (and a natural human tendency to resist change), and so will quite often afford the incumbent supplier the benefit of the doubt, far more so than one might reasonable expect, just to avoid switching. The incumbent can only push this so far. Eventually, the client will cut there losses. Interestingly at this point the pendulum swings strongly in the opposite direction and it doesn't matter what the ex-incumbant does there is very little chance of them winning the client back.

I think this 3 week deadline was possibly the last (or at least the penultimate deadline). If core are still flaky, or set a timescale too far out I think it will be over within a week. If core say "we'll do a HF in <a month or so>" the chines may accept it, if its not too far out. If core subsequently don't deliver on that I think that is when you will see the miners settle on a non-core HF. Classic or otherwise.

I also think that core is playing a very dangerous game, because if the Chinese are pushed that hard, then they *will* do it in house. Ask yourself, wouldn't you?

 

[Trolfi]

At this point, the technical alternatives on offer are no longer the main concern. We need multiple implementations in order to stop Blockstream from capturing bitcoin. The way they have been conducting the debate should be motivation enough.

 

[cypherdoc]

 

[Zarathustra]

^ Your screengrab from Thursday.

Here's one from just now:

Edit: that's the 4-day chart, btw.

On the 1-day chart BTCC down to 9 percent after Samson Mow tweeted their copulation with Blockstream Core.

 

[cypherdoc]

Probably AWS spot instances.

Those aren't legitimate, right?

 

[sgbett]

What's legitimate? Mine are all on AWS. They aren't miners, but they have been running for months (barring downtime switching versions ) and serving 100+ connections, so in some small way 'helping' the network.

Problem with spot instances is that they would be on and off depending on what you set the spot limit at so I guess they wouldnt be particularly useful to the network. They'd only be beneficial in 'node count' pimping
[doublepost=1455571839][/doublepost]Is he referring to segwit as a 2MB soft fork or have I missed something!?

 

[AdrianX]

@rocks

indeed. in fact, i was trying to remember what his position was back then in GCBU. i'm sure bearish but i don't remember to what degree and the detailed specifics, esp with regards to Blockstream. w/o going back, can you recall what it was?

He was agnostic at first when Blockstream released their SC paper. He has always discouraged direct investing in Bitcoin, and even claimed his goal it prevent people from lousing money in bitcoin. When he first started posting on the wall observer he was tracking trade volume in china he’s data made for great price predictions, and many didn't see him s a troll. He has a good scam radar, I believe he is more skeptical now than when he first started posting, having internalized some Keynesian dogmas.


I enjoin interacting with him as he is rationally skeptical. I tried to give him 1BTC to play with when on the old Wall Observer, so he could see how it worked. He refused ultimately referring to it like heroin a gateway drug.

 

[Norway]

"He refused ultimately referring to it like heroin a gateway drug."
LOL!