Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[bitcartel]

@kyuupichan If the starting point is to negotiate for half a loaf of bread, don't be surprised to go home with just a few crumbs!

Disclaimer: I am shamelessly stealing yesterday's #Brexit headline:

 

[Richy_T]

If that is the case it should cause core to lose more credibility with miners when 3 months go by and they release HF code that won't activate for years....

And meanwhile, three months go by.

It is the sad fate of the pessimist to see their predictions come to pass.
[doublepost=1456028905][/doublepost]

I'm a bit frustrated because I believe we had the right idea (as well as good momentum) with Unlimited in December prior to the launch of Classic.

BU *is* the right idea. Don't get disheartened, stay the course. Classic had to be tried (you often have to call a liar's bluff more than once) but ultimately, something like BU was and is the way to go for non-mining nodes (and works for miners too despite what Gavin says) .

The problem now is that there are over 1000 Classic nodes that will REJECT blocks > 1MB unless a certain activation sequence occurs.

We need to start communicating this at some point. Probably in the next couple of weeks once the three week deal is up and the shine has gone from Classic (note, I'm not anti-Classic by any means)

 

[kyuupichan]

I set up my BU node about 3 wks ago; I have no intent of changing. However I do intend to sell enough BTC to recover my initial investment. Hoping for a short-term relief pop; maybe it's already done.

 

[AdrianX]

This is a 21st Century game. Bitcoin has been co-opted but it's not losing it's value. Bitcoin may be transformed into some Frankenstein in relation to it's initial potential but it's only getting started.

Practically it's far from transformed there is nothing a few talking heads can say that directs Bitcoin's growth.

Realistically it's time the re-balance not sure if that means profit taking diversifying (alts included) or even growing ones position.

But I do know this landscape is not built on the foundation I thought it was.

We are all just Porn's in hind sight what's happening now will seem obvious. I don't have an opinion other that this is not the landscape I thought I was looking at.

 

[Peter R]

"We are all just Porn's..."

Did you mean "pawns"? Or did you mean that this is the scene in the movie where Blockstream attempts to fuck us all over?

 

[Richy_T]

The Relay Network needs to be upgraded to allow 2MB (or no limit blocks as it claims to relay not validate), or it needs to be made obsolete by miners using Xtreme thinblocks.

Aha. I wondered why phantomcircuit was so against the X-Thinblocks idea.

 

[solex]

@Richy_T
Yes. Maxwell, Back & Phantomcircuit have been like a tag team attacking this.
Seems like if you are not part of the "in-crowd" and not "on message" then you need a hide like a rhinoceros doing major enhancements for Bitcoin.

 

[Richy_T]

far fewer bitcoiners than I thought truly appreciate free-market dynamics.

That's only to be expected with increasing adoption. I had hoped we'd round the curve before it became a hobble on us, though.
[doublepost=1456034153][/doublepost]

I set up my BU node about 3 wks ago; I have no intent of changing. However I do intend to sell enough BTC to recover my initial investment. Hoping for a short-term relief pop; maybe it's already done.

Did that last week. My initial investment was not huge though

 

[rocks]

Bitcoin is captured and can now be safely nudged towards niche obscurity by Blockstream and their funding partners.

I agree with your sentiments entirely, Melbustus. It is taking a monumental effort to not drag my coins out of cold storage and dump the lot.

As someone who already lightened up a light bit recently, I also don't think now is the time to dump.

Only a small percentage of bitcoin's users are paying enough attention to understand what is happening. Probably 99% either don't care at this level of detail or simply see on the surface that a scaling plan was agreed.

SWSF does provide a little bit of headroom and we have the halving in a few months. 2016 I think has a good chance to be a big year and it is worth sticking around for that.

That said the way things have gone are a good reason to sell into an ATH ramp instead of holding on for the long haul.

 

[Richy_T]

Calls for full-fork making it out into the wild. Is this something we should start contemplating?

[doublepost=1456036724][/doublepost]

SWSF does provide a little bit of headroom and we have the halving in a few months. 2016 I think has a good chance to be a big year and it is worth sticking around for that.

2016 does have the halvening. Which many think will be a big cause for a rally but I think many will have their faith tested. I have a jumbo load of popcorn on order.
[doublepost=1456036930][/doublepost]This consensus meeting is everyone playing like they have a full-house but they all have eight-high. The halvening will bring many low.

 

[rocks]

@Richy_T
I believe a user led full fork is something to seriously consider at this point.

A major advantage a Bitcoin full fork has over alt coins is this, the coins are already distributed at the point of the fork. Not only is there no pre-mine potential, there are no early developers/users who capture a large number of cheap coins. Not only that but every single user of Bitcoin at the point of the fork automatically starts with a financial stake in the new full fork chain. The advantage this has over any altcoin can not be over stated. Sure many initially may not care, but if the full fork chain gains any value (and it will) then everyone will start off financially invested in the new chain.

Another advantage is it enables us to clean up the negative direction the current PoW mining went down. The problem with SHA hashing is variable costs (electricity cost) dominate as the main cost and greatly outstrips other costs. SHA mining is biased towards and provides an unfair advantage towards those with artificially cheap electricity. We are seeing the results of this today with a small number of miners who are in charge simply because they have access to cheap electricity. That is not a fair market.

With a full fork we have the ability to select a PoW algorithm that is capital intensive. This means the majority of costs are upfront equipment and not electricity based. The advantage a capital intensive algorithm has is it creates a fair market and creates a level playing field for mining. Everyone has equal access to equipment and there are no advantages provided to certain regions.

It is a different topic but there are ASIC and GPU resistant options. Litecoin made people think that ASIC resistant algorithms are not possible, this is false. The litecoin parameters where horribly selected but this is off topic here. The main point is to select a PoW that is capital intensive and not power intensive.

I originally proposed something like this last summer. Now might be a time to put it out as a real option. I personally like the name "Satoshi's Bitcoin" as the name claims that it is Bitcoin and also makes it clear that the branch follows Satoshi's WP (and by implication that core does not). The reddit was available and I created it.

If we look down a full fork path I think these are the main considerations, please let me know if there are other top level concerns.
1) Choice of PoW, there should be real peer review to vet the best options and select a capital intensive algorithm
2) Blocksize limit, this turned out to be the one internal limitation in bitcoin and potentially was it's downfall. BIP101, variable based on x% over the recent average and others are options
3) Fork date, when to activate

 

[Richy_T]

The only issue is that this seems the be the way Luke-jr wants to go. Which throws up about a dozen red flags immediately.


But it should still be discussed.

Not sure about POW. Perhaps allow blocks to be mined with both types of POW to begin with with a switchover schedule.

I'm not sure you can really get away from a power/energy intensive POW. Energy scarcity is one of the most fundamental factors that underlies life as we know it. Pretty much any workable scheme you can concoct will yield to someone with cheaper power.

WRT the blocksize, I think BU has a very workable scheme. It's not exactly what I would have chosen but TMTOWTDI.

 

[freetrader]

Aha. I wondered why phantomcircuit was so against the X-Thinblocks idea.

He is a knight of the NIH.

 

[Inca]

We are not far off an attempt on 500 again. I have been expecting a pre-halving second rally so this could be it.

Somewhat amusing to find myself falling out of love with the project at this point after waiting 2 years for a price surge...

EDIT: looking at bitfinex this move upwards seems to have been mainly on margin and so may not be quite as authentic as the Core narrative would suggest.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

I have a hard time supressing a yawn when I hear about BS machinations these days. It just doesn't matter what they do; miners want growth and price increases, and if BS fails to deliver there is no contract that can lock them in to staying the course. The most BS can do is get miners to give BS plans a bit more time, a bit more of a chance to redeem themselves.

It's all just stalling, and after two years I'm not too bothered by a few months' more stalling (no rocket upon halving will be undeniable message to miners; "2017" is a meaningless arbitrary date).

I believe we will one day look back and say, "Miners can always be counted on to do the right thing. After they have exhausted all other options."

We will not look back and say, "Bitcoin was broken." We will look back and say, "Bitcoin looked like it was going to be broken." Investors are naturally forward-looking. The problem is when people forget they are investors and start freaking out, imagining that future roadblocks are already here. Bitcoin bucks hard, my friends, but it's all just paper tigers. We always have the power to retain the ledger and system the way we want it, by hook or by crook.

Get so caught up in fighting BS that you panic and sell? That is the definition of being a weak hand. We all knew something like this was coming, did we not? Did we really expect the price to rise from single/double digits to quadruple digits and not see unbelievable new threats materialize? We are seeing the fruits of 2013. The bucking will continue to get exponentially harder. The bar for understanding Bitcoin's basic nature and antifragile, economic incentive driven structure will rise ever higher. No easy money for the casuals.

Blocks may never fill up. The demand for Bitcoin transactions may just stagnate because of the limit.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1865.msg116523#msg116523

In that case people will notice the obvious trend and react. All the wheeling and dealing by BS changes nothing about the basic fact that just about every stakeholder understands Bitcoin must continue growing and being usable and cheap, one way or another, for them to see the big payoff.

It seems many here are imagining some scenario where both (a) BS path gets followed drone-like and (b) it results in stagnation. This cannot happen because the people involved are not drones; if stagnation continues for long they will realize they've been had. They can entertain fanciful ideas and be swayed by promises and technical handwaving endlessly *until* the reality of stalled growth hits them in the face (and the halving more than doubles the pressure).

At the very latest, that is how long we have to put up with BS stalling. Either (a) or (b) has to give. If (a), BS is sidelined and we will be fine. If (b), we will be fine.

 

[Norway]

Good to see the price went back down. I hope it goes further down for a while. To punish the miners for their bad decisions. Maybe they will change their mind.

 

[theZerg]

It would be very valuable to get 1% of the blocks mining BU or Classic consistently, over a long time period. During the next go-around, this history would help convince large miners of the software's quality and dev's commitment.

EDIT: RE: "next go-around". I think its inevitable. I think that the concentration of mining in China is an outgrowth of ASIC availability, and the side effect of these rapid generations is a short term outlook and short ROI for miners. They don't care about bitcoin 5 years from now. They just need to keep it going for 1 more year. But if ASIC efficiencies calm down (and the semiconductor industry just officially gave up on moore's law), availability of competitive miners will be open to everybody so the mining landscape could look extremely different 1 year from now, precipitated by the halving and focusing on true surplus electricity and residual heat use. It'll be more like the purpose is heating and on the side we mine bitcoins.

 

[lunar]

I believe a user led full fork is something to seriously consider at this point.

Worthy of discussion, but I don't see any practical way to pull this off. You'd have to get all the exchanges wallets and payment processors on board. There are just too many differing opinions and people involved to get the sort of coordination required. The fight against Bitcoin's network effect is one I doubt any group or organisation could win. Not to mention the price collapse it would cause.

HOWEVER if there was some sort of coordination between these groups, where they all moved to classic first. (and it would definitely have to include ALL the big players) This would put enormous pressure on the mining community "We are Classic ready, why aren't you?"

we are already starting to see this as more people realise this 'Embrace, extend, and divert' attack vector. Coinbase xapo also Marc Andreessen have, I predict circle and bitpay will be next.

As always it's just the miners that need to be convinced that by following Core they are not looking far enough forward. At one point they must realise their future profits are solely from on chain transactions and anything that forces transactions offchain is a direct attack on their revenue stream?

Edit: interestingly I just noticed this Daniel Krawisz post on the subject,
http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/who-controls-bitcoin/#selection-91.103-91.949

 

[Justus Ranvier]

Edit: interestingly I just noticed this Daniel Krawisz post on the subject,
http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/who-controls-bitcoin/#selection-91.103-91.949

There's one minor error in his footnote:

Consequently, an individual person’s control over Bitcoin should is better characterized in terms of the amount he owns than in how many nodes he runs. This is why I say your control over Bitcoin is proportional to how much you own and why I say that it is the investors, not the network nodes, who control Bitcoin.

At least now while the inflation is so high, it's more accurate to say that control over Bitcoin is proportional to your Bitcoin saving rate rather than the number of Bitcoins you own.

 

[cypherdoc]

@Justus Ranvier

by that definition, i'd bet that the individuals following this thread over the years (based on their demonstrated economic knowledge and commitment to hodling) represent a significant fraction of the economic power in Bitcoin, whether we recognize it or not. as well, we have the power of ideas.