Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Christoph Bergmann]

I should have shut my mouth @Peter R seemed to have uncovered a gold seam and I pissed all over it.

But I couldn't help myself

WTF just happened:
[doublepost=1456383995][/doublepost]@Peter R that's got to be the craziest thing I've read during this debate.

Not only Is an increase OK, but Blockstream are paying $100's of thousands to have Chinese miners only use their code.

@Gavin Andresen is this type of behavior normal in the Core circle?

Another interesting point of the quote is that luke reveals the monthly income of a core developer ... it's 320k/8/2=40k* . Even for Silicon Valley devs that's a lot.

*he said later they'll need 8 devs two month in full time to prepare the hf

 

[dlareg]

In case you guys are interested, Adam Back wrote an apology to the community about the consensus signature SNAFU:


And additionally I wrote him a long-winded series of questions that I hope he will answer regarding the potential conflict of interest with Blockstream. I would love it if he would indulge me. He pumped his apology on Twitter so hoping he will.


I also further engaged our buddy Luke-Jr in the same thread discussed above with Peter R.


My apologies in advance if I screwed up the links!

 

[sickpig]

 

[yrral86]

7:07 Luke-Jr Lightsword: as long as they follow Core's peer review process, I doubt they can get a vuln in accidentally

That level of hubris is frightening. He seems to actually believe mistakes can't happen with their review process.

 

[cypherdoc]

OK, a couple huge red flags here.

First, Luke claims the Blockstream pay is not influencing work they were already going to do. Well, this goes to show you that I was right about core devs motivation to work on the open source code can indeed be voluntary because the ancillary incentives are so high since we're dealing with a new revolutionary monetary system. Thus, we are right to try and push any potential financial COI's out of core dev forever eliminating the excuse that core devs need to be funded by VC's to "eat".

Second, note his blythe reference to how all Bitcoiners may have to migrate to a SC one day. Dont forget that a SC can have ANY new financial rules whatsoever including inflation. How convenient for those early adopters who just might happen to be its core devs.

 

[Zarathustra]

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.

The probability is rising! Although there is no such thing as a probability acc. to Diodoros Kronos and me ;-)

 

[theZerg]

BU adopters... get ready to move your nodes up to 0.12.0 release candidate 1. Experimental release will happen just as soon as the web site is updated.

@solex can you work on an announcement covering the features?

 

[kyuupichan]

It's going to take time and pain to understand the truth that fees don't halve and will become more important than subsidies and depend on economies of scale.

Classic Unlimited XT are not going to solve Bitcoin issue if they are not available at the time of peek pain some time after halving.

I honestly don't think the halving is a big deal. Everyone, particularly miners, know about it and presumably (I'm presuming intelligence here!) have a plan. I don't care what that plan is, nor should anyone other than those making the investments.

Look at what happened mining-wise in November 2012. Difficulty pretty much stayed unchanged. It was a big "meh". Things just continued as if nothing had happened. This is how perfectly predictable markets "work".

The same thing happened with the Litecoin halving about 4-6 (?) months ago. Their difficulty continues to fluctuate essentially between 40-50k if you ignore variance, which for them is exacerbated by their 3-daily retargets. Difficulty 1 year ago (!) was essentially the same. It's as if nothing happened and nothing grew in the meantime either (too bad for LTC!).

I have no reason to believe the same will not happen with Bitcoin this time. In fact I'm even more confident it is the current reality. Miners are probably now mining, with full appreciation of current and future economics, on the basis that their current payouts are 160-180% of "long-term reality", with a view to those being 80-90% of post-halving reality. Sorry I can't find better wording, but I'm sure readers of this thread know what I'm saying. There is no way this is not inherent in current difficulty levels.

 

[sgbett]

BU adopters... get ready to move your nodes up to 0.12.0 release candidate 1. Experimental release will happen just as soon as the web site is updated.

@solex can you work on an announcement covering the features?

my gcc is primed and ready

 

[kyuupichan]

I think the dynamics of a full-fork favors keeping the same POW. Consider that if you fork with a new POW, existing SHA256 miners have little choice but to continue supporting the original Bitcoin.

If, however, you switch with the same POW, perhaps with, say, 5% mining support (note, this can be much lower than with a hard-fork as no one is being forced to fork), you now have a fairly secure Bitcoin-B which can, if it's successful, draw mining power away from Bitcoin-A and leave it to wither on the vine with its artificial scarcity, shitty hacks and half-baked parasite code.

Though I actually think it's probably worth doing both. Why not have a Bitcoin-C while we're about it?

The point is no-one on the new chain cares what miners of the old chain like or think. The whole idea is that those miners are violating those users' expectations, and that the market gets to decide where the real value lies.

Trying to fork with the same POW is clearly suicide. Look at the cat-vs-mouse games Luke-Jr played with silly altcoins 3 or 4 years ago, destroying them completely.
[doublepost=1456414502][/doublepost]

I don't know if this is just wishful thinking but I get the impression the Chinese miners have totally played this whole thing.

You may be right, but the pointless value destruction is continuing as this situation persists. Real businesses are deciding their future plans based on what is happening. This isn't a game, unlike what "Samson" Mow and others appear to think, in their childishness.

 

[cypherdoc]

BU adopters... get ready to move your nodes up to 0.12.0 release candidate 1. Experimental release will happen just as soon as the web site is updated.

@solex can you work on an announcement covering the features?

what's your view on being dragged along like this having to incorporate features like opt-in RBF? this can't be good long term can it?
[doublepost=1456415094][/doublepost]

The point is no-one on the new chain cares what miners of the old chain like or think. The whole idea is that those miners are violating those users' expectations, and that the market gets to decide where the real value lies.

Trying to fork with the same POW is clearly suicide. Look at the cat-vs-mouse games Luke-Jr played with silly altcoins 3 or 4 years ago, destroying them completely.
[doublepost=1456414502][/doublepost]
You may be right, but the pointless value destruction is continuing as this situation persists. Real businesses are deciding their future plans based on what is happening. This isn't a game, unlike what "Samson" Mow and others appear to think, in their childishness.

yes, forking to a same POW chain is suicide. it will be destroyed by the old chain out of economic greed. not only Luke, but BitcoinExpress was legendary for messing with alts.

yes, i've always gotten the impression that core devs & guys like Samson Mow don't fully realize the seriousness of what they view as a game right now. early on, it was. but times slowly have changed and they haven't fully transitioned since they are still the center of attention.
[doublepost=1456415506,1456414854][/doublepost]what an idiot:

 

[AdrianX]

I honestly don't think the halving is a big deal. Everyone, particularly miners, know about it and presumably (I'm presuming intelligence here!) have a plan. I don't care what that plan is, nor should anyone other than those making the investments.

Look at what happened mining-wise in November 2012. Difficulty pretty much stayed unchanged. It was a big "meh". Things just continued as if nothing had happened. This is how perfectly predictable markets "work".

The same thing happened with the Litecoin halving about 4-6 (?) months ago. Their difficulty continues to fluctuate essentially between 40-50k if you ignore variance, which for them is exacerbated by their 3-daily retargets. Difficulty 1 year ago (!) was essentially the same. It's as if nothing happened and nothing grew in the meantime either (too bad for LTC!).

I have no reason to believe the same will not happen with Bitcoin this time. In fact I'm even more confident it is the current reality. Miners are probably now mining, with full appreciation of current and future economics, on the basis that their current payouts are 160-180% of "long-term reality", with a view to those being 80-90% of post-halving reality. Sorry I can't find better wording, but I'm sure readers of this thread know what I'm saying. There is no way this is not inherent in current difficulty levels.

I totally agree most miners loose 50% in income but they'll still be very profitable. It's a "relative non event" given it's being planned for and priced in by the market it's still a shake up just not the end.

I was more referring to the timing needed for a hard fork from Core. Saying it's unlikely to happen before then. It's a defeatist attitude to think it's failed if the fork hasn't been achieved in the next 2 months.

 

[theZerg]

what's your view on being dragged along like this having to incorporate features like opt-in RBF? this can't be good long term can it?

My view is that you have to pick and choose your fights and if the community thinks that something is worth fighting over then they will pass a BUIP to tell us devs about it.

In particular, there is no RBF in BU 0.12 (BUIP004 IIRC).

 

[rocks]

what an idiot:

This might have put it over the edge for me, these guys are not engaging in a reasonable manner.

Nakamoto consensus takes on various forms. One form is POW mining to determine transaction ordering, it is probably time to explore the other forms related to rule making.

 

[Mengerian]

Block #400,000 has been mined 20,000 to go till halving.

Amid all the drama, the Blockchain marches relentlessly forward.

 

[Norway]

I have an off topic question:
Are there any good, working real world uses of "blockchain technology" except for money today?

 

[dlareg]

I don't like to speculate in this type of stuff, but things like this look professional PR to me:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/47j3ly/why_i_switched_back_and_support_core/

It's edited now but an earlier version said something about pushy people and mentioned Peter R and cypherdoc.

But it's a nice little study in weak arguments and fallacies all laid out concisely! The desperation intensifies.

 

[YarkoL]

@Norway
I think most of the blockchain tech solutions are in early PoC/prototype stage, but there is no doubt that we will see them arrive in this year.
For instance Guardtime has deployed a number of solutions across security-critical industries based on their keyless signature infrastructure, and blockchain plays a big role on their system. Other non-financial applications include managing of supply chain, and music industry property managemement (Ujo).

Things are moving in such fast pace that the entire cryptocurrency scene, Bitcoin included, stands in danger of becoming a curious geek ghetto or just a footnote in the relentless emergence and spread of the blockchain tech industry.

 

[Mengerian]

@Peter R
Interesting responses from Luke. If the development work is actually worth $320,000 to the miners, one would think it would make business sense for Blockstream to create a consulting contract and bill them directly. What do their investors think of them giving away this valuable work for free?

 

[freetrader]

Unverified:

"Jihan Wu on Weibo: After many considerations, AntPool will stick with the agreement signed in Hong Kong as moving forward. As Peter Todd said, both sides are not very satisfied with this agreement, but perhaps this is still our best result."

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/47jgah/jihan_wu_on_weibo_after_many_considerations/?ref=search_posts

I could not make sense of that mess of a page that came up when I followed the Weibo link.

@agilewalker: Do you rate this claim as true?