Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

@Bagatell @satoshis_sockpuppet
I can still see my comments about brg444 and Soluvox. Don't tell me I have been shaddow banned again?

I don't see you. But I do see a series of deleted posts.

 

[Norway]

@cypherdoc
And I don't see you anymore. We have both been shaddow banned. You are the only person in the world that can see your comments.

 

[cypherdoc]

Speaking of shadowbans, I wrote a long and detailed reply to Bitcoin Journalist Kyle Torpey on Reddit regarding the horrendous state of Bitcoin journalism, the censorship issue, and a call to action. I originally called him out on his shoddy journalism, and he respectfully took my criticisms so I responded in further detail.

It is my feeling that if the journalists really stepped up their game, they could start to penetrate these issues and hold people publicly accountable. Right now the Bitcoin journalists are nothing more than glorified Redditors getting $300 per post parroting some talking points.


The deafening silence on the censorship issue, all the while complaining about the "angry trolls" seems like utter hypocrisy. This is simple cause and effect at work. Enjoy!

Unfortunately, it is quite apparent that Torpey is highly biased in his Twitter posts towards core dev.
[doublepost=1456498358,1456497347][/doublepost]You can see how the core devs are chomping at the bit to employ SW so that they can leverage the wide open scripting function to create large multisigs that could change Bitcoin economics AND get a preferential discount AND force miners and full nodes to validate and relay all this garbage that distorts the basic money function of Bitcoin.

Pretty soon we'll get a+b/8<=1 with 8MB blocks and 87.5% discount for LN multisigs.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

Unfortunately, it is quite apparent that Torpey is highly biased in his Twitter posts towards core dev.

He's probably aiming for employment.

 

[freetrader]

@freetrader

In case I'm being a little too obtuse, I'll spell it out.

All three of the anon coins are there, as well as truth (factom) and trustless (truthcoin).

I'm hoping they aren't about to be made an offer they can't refuse.

Ok, now I get you. Who knows. I too hope not. For that they would hopefully be smarter and not invite them publicly to a big do.

 

[VeritasSapere]

Its official, more then a quarter of the nodes are now in support for two megabytes, Core is continuing to lose nodes to its competition, rejoice.

 

[cypherdoc]

Unfortunately, it is quite apparent that Torpey is highly biased in his Twitter posts towards core dev.
[doublepost=1456498358,1456497347][/doublepost]You can see how the core devs are chomping at the bit to employ SW so that they can leverage the wide open scripting function to create large multisigs that could change Bitcoin economics AND get a preferential discount AND force miners and full nodes to validate and relay all this garbage that distorts the basic money fiction of Bitcoin.

Pretty soon we'll get a+b/8<=1 with 8MB blocks and 87.5% discount for LN multisigs.

sorry, left out the link i was referring to:

[doublepost=1456501225][/doublepost]

@satoshis_sockpuppet
I bet his friends call him Samsung Mow.

more like Samson Wow
[doublepost=1456501350][/doublepost]

Mow, Maxwell, Dashjr, Todd, BTCDrac--these are some real class A lowlifes. They seem to attract like kind. It is amazing what levels they will stoop to and I suspect as the momentum continues to grow, we could see even more hostile, dangerous and dramatic behavior. These are the kinds of people that would rather try to implode Bitcoin before admitting they were wrong. Stay vigilant everyone!

this is really the crux of the matter.

i wouldn't trust these guys with a 10 ft pole with my money.

 

[freetrader]

> This pull-req is worth paying attention too (sic)

Inb4 new Github feature: pull-request with automatic funding address and "Fund-my-interest"-meter (TM).

 

[Justus Ranvier]

Whoever is paying this person to post is really scraping the bottom of the barrel:

https://www.reddit.com/user/on_the_shitr

 

[Norway]

I came up with an idea after reading this post:
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/47oyqm/each_bitcoin_development_team_needs_a_chinese/

So I wrote this letter to ChangeTip:

Dear Changetip,

This is an idea for you.
Make a simple crowdfunding function in Changetip. (Inspired by Lighthouse.)

Example:
1) A translator will translate an english document to chinese IF he receives $20.

2) He start a simple crowdfunding project with just two variables:
Minimum Funding = $20
Expiry Date = March 2, 2016 11:10 PM

3) He publish this simple crowfunding project in a reddit thread.

4) If he raise the $20 before March 2, 2016 11:10 PM, he get the money and translates the document.

5) If he doesn't raise $20 before March 2, 2016 11:10 PM, the bitcoins collected goes back to the people donating funds.

You could make it more advanced, but the default should be this simple. Step 2 and 3 could be done by writing a simple message on reddit (or on any of your other platforms.)

I hope you see the usefullness of this.

Regards,
Stein H. Ludvigsen
Organizer of Oslo Bitcoin Meetup

 

[cypherdoc]

Whoever is paying this person to post is really scraping the bottom of the barrel:

https://www.reddit.com/user/on_the_shitr

brg444 was the beginning of the bottom starting Oct 2014 with the SC's WP release.
[doublepost=1456502597][/doublepost]is Petrov angling for a change in the POW algo?:

 

[AdrianX]

@albin
Wow. So he has determined experimentally that real-time tx propagation is 88% of bandwidth usage and block propagation is 12%.

In which case the 2MB is needed immediately! Only another 12%. The flow of new transactions is independent of block-size and magnified if people try to re-submit with RBF in a bidding war for limited block space. Coming soon to a congested network: wallets with automatic RBF incrementing.

Of course what is missing is the data burst factor. The network has a lot of capacity for real-time tx, but block propagation is on the critical path for miners.

I think Maxwell's timeline is clear:
2004 Prove that inflation-controlled digital currency can't work.
2008 Proven wrong by Satoshi
2012 Begins spreading meme to Core Dev about how broken Bitcoin is
2016 Bitcoin finally gets broken and alts like Etherium are rampant
2020 Lightning Network ready to save the burnt-out shell of Bitcoin but Maxwell is proven right after all.

@solex bang on with Maxwell's thinking. That 88% is not just for text propagation.

If it's true that the majority of network bandwidth is actually spent downloading and hosting the blockchain not relaying blocks and transactions.

I was correct some time back for thinking the bandwidth to download the blockchain was a fixed ones off cost but it's not after reviewing the data it accounts for the majority of a nodes bandwidth.

So the network is consuming more bandwidth and resources making the blockchain available to new clients (nodes) than relaying transaction and new blocks.

Core 0.12 increase that demand by reducing storage cost and puts more demand on the faster nodes by allowing nodes to limit outgoing bandwidt. not all "p's" in this p2p network are net contributors most are net takers and Core 0.12 increase the net takers. The net takers will now be taxing the more efficient nodes further limiting performance.

So those numbers given by Maxwell are probably representative of all node bandwidth then real-time tx propagation is possibly only consuming less than 38% of total bandwidth.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

So the network is consuming more bandwidth and resources making the blockchain available to new clients (nodes) than relaying transaction and new blocks.

It's almost like nodes are performing an uncompensated service which, if they were capable of charging market rates for it, suddenly the Tragedy of the Commons situation would end and resource consumption would no longer be a problem but a profit opportunity.

But that's crazy talk.

 

[cypherdoc]

nice double bottom. let's get back to work:

 

[Richy_T]

Anyone have an idea of the reasoning here?

I just don't see how the agreement could be seen to give the miners any benefit. I mean, they have nothing now, and no choices available to them, that they did not have before they made the agreement. What did they gain?

If core devs "void it", what does that mean? What do they actually do?

Also, why would the miners and developers aims be at odds? Surely we should all be wanting Bitcoin to grow and succeed.

It's time the miners realized the Core/Blockstream are not their friends, they're lining up to be the miners' competitors and they control the tools the miners use.

 

[Richy_T]

All you silly kids trying to improve relay! This is all worthless when we can just make nodes less resource costly by completely abandoning tx relay!

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1377345.0

it must be opposites day in the "How to scale Bitcoin" office.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

brg444 was the beginning of the bottom starting Oct 2014 with the SC's WP release.
[doublepost=1456502597][/doublepost]is Petrov angling for a change in the POW algo?:

I'm sorry but I can't put these words together to make any sense. Could you translate that for me please?

 

[Richy_T]

Its official, more then a quarter of the nodes are now in support for two megabytes, Core is continuing to lose nodes to its competition, rejoice.

How does this look when run with "current release" nodes? Might want to wait a week or two though thinking about it.

 

[cypherdoc]

I'm sorry but I can't put these words together to make any sense. Could you translate that for me please?

it's hard to remember when the trolling really started heavily in this 4.5 year thread and elsewhere. iirc, it really picked up when brg444 entered this thread in Oct 2014 after the release of the SC's WP to counter my every anti SC comment. this was before the blocksize issue but clearly related. and it makes sense if you believe his employment at Soluvox could mean Blockstream shilling (altho it's not a necessary condition). as a result of his constant trolling, which extended to Reddit and then to the blocksize issue, he emboldened an entire legion of small blockists trollers which helped obfuscate this entire debate. maybe others have a different recollection of the events.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

@cypherdoc Uh, sorry I meant Petrov's tweet
brg444 and his trolling is well known to me, but thanks anyways I haven't actively participated so far but I've been following the "debates".