Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[freetrader]

https://thestack.com/security/2016/02/02/eu-proposes-end-of-anonymity-for-bitcoin-and-prepaid-card-users/

The ‘Bitcoin-ban’ will effectively prevent Bitcoin from being turned back into ‘real money’ within the EU, and the primary effect such legislation is likely to have will be in the area of illicit purchases from the ‘dark net’, where users can currently purchase drugs to be posted to an address of their choice from the various outlets that survived the fall of the Silk Road deep web narcotics websites.

France had asked for all this and more

Oh how far the noble have fallen.

Then again, if this should pass it will provide much mirth. Crypto Wars 3.0.

 

[cypherdoc]

Any dissenting voices have been silenced. I no longer post there. The actual number of people posting has fallen dramatically and the terrible reverse psychology trolling is really pathetic to behold.

How anyone expects to win an argument with censorship and dishonesty is the most surprising thing. As a professional in a field entirely removed from bitcoin and IT I can honestly say I wouldn't trust Theymos, Back or Maxwell in the slightest in real life with anything of actual consequence.

that "distance" from Bitcoin is our greatest asset.

 

[Zarathustra]

looking at that chat https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-378#post-13205 I'd say his identity is no secret and reding the context of the deleted posts you were provoked.

To the best of my observation you did not reveal anything that is not already public knowledge. a While back he brg444 connected his reddit username to his public name and indirectly, so its not like you are reveling public info just confirming the post is coming from a PR firm employee.

@cypherdoc I have no idea, but I do see there is a chummy circle there, every time I've been band it's been after I've responded to, theymos, brg444 of nullc.

I've been banned twice after commenting a post of termos' chef minion, brg444, before I got banned permanently. If that user gets paid for such disgusting PR, Blockstream would have to be even dumber than we ever could imagine.

 

[cypherdoc]

in an interesting twist of fate, brg444 could go down in history as our greatest asset!

 

[freetrader]

From the Satoshi Roundtable live thread:

Ok the capacity discussion is going to be done in smaller, randomly selected groups, and then we get back together as a larger group to feed back our discussions, and then we repeat that all over again

What was the RNG used ? (only half-joking, #openthecode)

 

[solex]

This is a nice site for easy visuals on historical trends:
https://www.btc.com/en/stats

and tx/block growth:
https://www.btc.com/en/stats/block-size

 

[cypherdoc]

There are more things we can do here. These were discovered while this solution was being thought of. One is, we're really adding a new script type, and this script gets encapsulated in a PUSH op now. We could say every script could begin with a version byte. The reason for doing so is making it easier to do soft-forks. Right now, any time we want to introduce new functionality to Bitcoin Script, really the only possibility is to redefine an OP_NULL. And the only redefinition we could do is make the OP_NULL do something special, if it fails make it fail, it must have absolutely no effect if it fails. Even if it returns true, someone could add a negation after it, which would make something that went from valid to invalid, go from invalid to valid, which would make it a hard-fork. So this is the reason why previous soft-forks in particular, like CSV (CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY) bip112 and CLTV (CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY) bip65, the only thing they do is redefine that OP_NULL. This is sad. There are way, way more nice improvements to Script that we could imagine. By adding a version byte with semantics like, whenever you see a version byte that you don't know, consider it ANYONECANSPEND. This allows us to make any change at all in the Script language, like introducing new signature types like Schnorr signatures, which increase scalability by reducing the size of multisig transactions dramatically, or other proposals like merklized abstract syntax trees which is a research topic mostly. But there really are a lot of ideas for potential improvement to Script that we cannot do right now. This would enable it for free by just adding one more byte to all Script scripts.

https://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/hong-kong/segregated-witness-and-its-impact-on-scalability/
[doublepost=1456602969][/doublepost]he's slowly losing credibility:

 

[freetrader]

Just Wow.

"Double-dipping is a nasty habit."

Perhaps he can translate his statement above to the Chinese Litecoin mining buddies who seem to infiltrate Bitcoin Core meetings. Blockstream's president and the altcoin Core devs should already be well aware.

Samson Mow : 一個非常兩面派的人

EDIT: trying to come up with a better name. altCore?

 

[VeritasSapere]

I like to many of your posts, the like button is starting to lose some of its meaning when I use it to much.

You guys are just to cool, I am very glad to be a part of this great community, if it was not for these forums I would most likely feel more out of touch with the Bitcoin community, which would have been a shame considering that most people involved in Bitcoin are good freedom minded people.

P.S. Bitcoin Unlimited is the best Bitcoin client presently in existence, thank you so much for giving us more freedom of choice.

 

[solex]

This allows us to make any change at all in the Script language, like introducing new signature types like Schnorr signatures, which increase scalability by reducing the size of multisig transactions dramatically, or other proposals like merklized abstract syntax trees which is a research topic mostly. But there really are a lot of ideas for potential improvement to Script that we cannot do right now. This would enable it for free by just adding one more byte to all Script scripts.

@cypherdoc This development is a double-edged sword. It makes old nodes blind about what many transactions are doing, yet having this capability may be necessary for Bitcoin to compete long-term with alternatives like Etherium. I know that it would be nice if Bitcoin only ever needs to be just a peer-to-peer currency system, but IMHO this is not enough, and all the non-financial uses will become very important as the world economy moves to cryptocurrency.

So, to be honest in our perspectives we should ask "Would we support the scripting change if it was coming from a team headed by someone like Gavin who had a primary focus on main-chain scaling?"

If "yes" then we are not liking the message because of the motives of the originators of it, but also because it introduces a trust requirement on the majority client devs, and we have lost trust in them because they have allowed a full-blocks situation to occur and are partially captured by single company with its own motives and off-chain profit incentives.

Ideally then, a powerful scripting change like this should be preceded by an environment where no single implementation has a majority of mining and non-mining nodes.

 

[freetrader]

Quoting fluffyponyza's commentary on the ongoing Roundtable 2 discussion:

A strong conversation coming out of this is that there have to be more discussions away from places like Reddit, Twitter, or Bitcointalk

We're officially still a free speech zone for

 

[Norway]

@freetrader
So far, it sounds to me that they are not adressing the elephant in the room. Just "we must communicate better" stuff.

 

[cypherdoc]

@solex

Yes, that is a fair characterization of where I am coming from. For not wanting to appear to be too critical of Blockstream, but not liking what they represent, I find myself poking holes in their proposed SW and the economic assumptions behind it. I keep waiting for a logical backlash to my arguments but haven't gotten any despite dropping them directly into tweet threads with Adam, Morcos & Todd. Strateman was given an opportunity to comment on my SW math post but declined too. Probably by this time most core devs have seen my posts on SW math incentives as I have been dropping them everywhere. They are either ignoring me or I'm right. i think the latter. If you'll recall, I said myself when SW first came out that there were some cool things that needed to be considered. But after Corallo proposed his compromise SWHF which almost equilibrates the proposals, I stated right here that it has now come down to a governance issue for me. And since I am coming from an admittedly extremist but pure hard money view of Bitcoin, what becomes important from this perspective, is to root out all potential COI from core dev which given their actions I believe is warranted. But you're right, there are some good things in SW that we should want to adopt w/o changing the economic incentives. But after the 2MB HF which will help clarify if SW is needed at all. Your perspective on SW may change once it's shown that HF's aren't the end of the world. I'm also willing to be proven wrong though and if the market sees Blockstream as no threat within core dev I am willing to accept that.

Time will tell.

 

[Bagatell]

@Norway

When one side is bound by client confidentiality that would be impossible.

 

[Bagatell]

The Roundtable is turning into Monty Python and The Holy Grail.

7 minutes ago

A lot of people don't realise that there are multiple Bitcoin implementations right now, eg. btcd, bitcoinj, Peter Todd's fork, Luke-Jr's fork

 

[Peter R]

I hope someone here does the interview with the Daily Decrypt:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/47wdpc/seeking_a_bitcoin_unlimited_representative_to/

@theZerg did an awesome job on the last podcast he did, so it would be great to get him talking to Amanda.

Also, everyone is pretty excited about Xthin, and I bet a lot of people would like to hear from the man behind it, @Peter Tschipper!

 

[cypherdoc]

there's no doubt @theZerg did a slam dunk job on LTB. he'd be my first choice. but if @Peter Tschipper can handle, he should too!

 

[YarkoL]

I hope someone here does the interview with the Daily Decrypt:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/47wdpc/seeking_a_bitcoin_unlimited_representative_to/

@theZerg did an awesome job on the last podcast he did, so it would be great to get him talking to Amanda.

Also, everyone is pretty excited about Xthin, and I bet a lot of people would like to hear from the man behind it, @Peter Tschipper!

Why not both (@theZerg and @Peter Tschipper) ?

Please keep us updated on this. Amanda is a gem.

 

[Peter R]

Check out the increase in Unlimited nodes after the release of V0.12 (experimental) on Thursday, Feb 25:

If you appeal to the users, you win more nodes.

 

[YarkoL]

@Peter R
To the moo.. oh wait, this is Unlimited, right? To INFINITY AND BEYOND!!!