Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Erdogan]

1MB is just a Schelling point. 2MB is another.

 

[albin]

It's crazy how far the goalposts have moved. That "8MB / BIP100" option looks amazing now in comparison!

 

[VeritasSapere]

Yes, I love this new slick interface by slush. The first real viable public pool giving people the option to vote for classic. Now the vote really begins. I was getting very impatient with slush even saying that I would leave if they did not implement it, but now that they have I could not be happier. Sometimes people forget that it is the miners who are in charge of the hashing power not the pools, sick of all the silly pool politics, let the miners vote. It is times like these that I am happy I am running a small mining operation, glad to vote for classic, everyone should do the same.

Classic already has a head start.

 

[solex]

@VeritasSapere
Agreed, and a further improvement is that all the "not voted" don't count automatically for Core.
Ideally the hash-power of the "not voted" and "don't care" could be split in a ratio corresponding to the three mining choices.

 

[Melbustus]

It's crazy how far the goalposts have moved. That "8MB / BIP100" option looks amazing now in comparison!
...

Infuriating. BIP101 *was* the compromise. #neverforget. Make the blocksize great again.

 

[cypherdoc]

been compiling nodes all day long in btwn my work. learn something new everyday.
[doublepost=1456896143,1456895408][/doublepost]

 

[rocks]

 

[sickpig]

@rocks straight to the source

 

[Erdogan]

@Norway

To have a strong blockchain, you need the money.

The bitcoin blockchain can be used to prove that a certain document existed back in time, unchanged. It's not money, but it can be done in the bitcoin blockchain, and it can not be prevented, as long as they supply the fee.
[doublepost=1456908855][/doublepost]

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)

How funny, the groups in minority will be political incorrect, then eliminated. This is democratic centralism from the cultural revolution in Mao's China. Probably just incidental, but funny.

 

[Erdogan]

Coming from a tinkerer and manipulator like Adam this makes me very nervous:

Adam Back ‎@adam3us
..@sysmannet stepped halving could be changed to smooth with a soft fork (if there was widespread agreement).

9:01 AM - 1 Mar 2016

This is absurd. Changing that is a hardfork that can never happen.
[doublepost=1456913745][/doublepost]

It's a shame that their mishandling of this block size issue is starting to poison the well of other useful changes.

Changing the block reward schedule so that it reduces a little bit each block rather than a large change every four years is a nice to have change, if it was done in a way that produced an identical currency supply.

Because it is so sensitive though, it'd have to be done very cleanly and transparently, instead of via the soft "we can silently take away the ability of your node to validate the blockchain at any time" fork process.

No. Stepping is OK. It is known in advance. With traders and speculation, it doesn't really make a difference. After the fact, it is impossible to say if any turbulence was due to the halving, wrong speculation of what other traders would do, or something entirely unrelated. Leave it, there will be no change in the coin creation plan.

 

[steffen]

The price staying the same while the altcoins slowly overtake Bitcoin would be a more worst case scenario

I have a worse scenario. Blockstream / Bilderberg succeeds undermining bitcoin with Segwit, RBF etc. They build free centralised "bitcoin" solutions on top. Users start using that system because it has no inflation. The old fiat systems gradually collapse. When bitcoin has become dominant Blockstream / Bilderberg gradually builds kyc, aml, fees/inflation into the system. Altcoins are attacked /criminalized. Welcome OWG - not.

 

[sickpig]

on slush support for classic:


so even if miners chose to vote for classic there's no actual hashing power dedicated to mine classic block.

 

[steffen]

I am playing with the idea of how to create a good unstoppable cryptocurrency. By unstoppable I mean that it can continue growing to the extent there is a growing demand for it among users, and miners willing to mine, and node-owners willing to run a node.

Wrt block size that probably means the software either should have no block size limit at all or alternatively a block size limit which dynamically increases as a result of block size growth.

Ideally pool owners / miners should have very limited or no control over the network rules. They should just verify transactions, and put some valid transactions into blocks.

To prevent evil forks it might be necessary with some system to detect whether the nodes and mining pools are running legitimate software. I have heard that Dash has an infrastructure incentive system which only pays participants who are running the latest piece of software. Maybe DASH' system for checking software version (or something similar to it) could be used to verify that the software used by participants is legitimate. If possible, such a system could prevent attacking software from joining the network.

DASH uses a tiered system with master nodes. I guess one could create a tiered system with a benevolent dictator master node or even better a self-supplementing group of people each running a master node. Each of these trusted individual would share a monetary vision like the original Satoshi vision. I am sure the people participating in this forum could find say 5 or 10 people we would trust as such master node owners much more than we trust the guys running bitcoin. All changes to this the rules would require a majority vote (or more) among the pre-determined leaders.

To prevent any eventual abuse by the pre-selected leaders it might be determined in advance that when the coin reaches a certain volume it must be strong enough to stand on its own and the rules of the network freeze and the system just continues with whatever rules it has at that time.

If those rules become inadequate a new currency can always be started.

Any thoughts?

 

[freetrader]

@steffen

Maybe DASH' system for checking software version (or something similar to it) could be used to verify that the software used by participants is legitimate

I'm pretty sure that truly verifying what software your counterpart was running is not possible without a post-mortem (assuming they don't give you superuser access).

Nevertheless, it might work fine (for now, for DASH) to just trust the reported versions.

But if you solve the general problem, I think we will all read that paper

 

[yrral86]

I am playing with the idea of how to create a good unstoppable cryptocurrency. By unstoppable I mean that it can continue growing to the extent there is a growing demand for it among users, and miners willing to mine, and node-owners willing to run a node.

Wrt block size that probably means the software either should have no block size limit at all or alternatively a block size limit which dynamically increases as a result of block size growth.

Ideally pool owners / miners should have very limited or no control over the network rules. They should just verify transactions, and put some valid transactions into blocks.

To prevent evil forks it might be necessary with some system to detect whether the nodes and mining pools are running legitimate software. I have heard that Dash has an infrastructure incentive system which only pays participants who are running the latest piece of software. Maybe DASH' system for checking software version (or something similar to it) could be used to verify that the software used by participants is legitimate. If possible, such a system could prevent attacking software from joining the network.

DASH uses a tiered system with master nodes. I guess one could create a tiered system with a benevolent dictator master node or even better a self-supplementing group of people each running a master node. Each of these trusted individual would share a monetary vision like the original Satoshi vision. I am sure the people participating in this forum could find say 5 or 10 people we would trust as such master node owners much more than we trust the guys running bitcoin. All changes to this the rules would require a majority vote (or more) among the pre-determined leaders.

To prevent any eventual abuse by the pre-selected leaders it might be determined in advance that when the coin reaches a certain volume it must be strong enough to stand on its own and the rules of the network freeze and the system just continues with whatever rules it has at that time.

If those rules become inadequate a new currency can always be started.

Any thoughts?

Trust and leaders leads to corruption and/or coercion of said leaders. All you would create is targets and failure points.

 

[Richy_T]

They can not only look at the current top and bottom line. All investments depend on speculation in different directions; future power prices, future difficulty, future operation quality, future interest rate, future bitcoin price. They have to speculate, it is the nature of investments. So have they taken into account the halving? Probably. Have they discounted larger blocks? Maybe. Hashrate can go down, we have seen that, but mass exodus from mining due to halving? No. Some leaving because they do not want to reinvest? Probably, they leave room for others. Nothing earth-shaking is in the line.

It is not about leaving permanently. It is the time between the halving and the next difficulty adjustment. This is a time of especially low profitability for miners. There is a good chance that mining will become temporarily unprofitable for many miners (it will become permanently unprofitable for several but them leaving permanently allows better profit for those who stay once the next difficulty adjustment occurs).
[doublepost=1456930085][/doublepost]

I have a worse scenario. Blockstream / Bilderberg succeeds undermining bitcoin with Segwit, RBF etc. They build free centralised "bitcoin" solutions on top. Users start using that system because it has no inflation. The old fiat systems gradually collapse. When bitcoin has become dominant Blockstream / Bilderberg gradually builds kyc, aml, fees/inflation into the system. Altcoins are attacked /criminalized. Welcome OWG - not.

Yes. Things like sidechains allow for inflation the same old way through promissory notes issued by the Lightning Network "bank". If it isn't LN itself, it sets the stage.

 

[cypherdoc]

 

[Inca]

I have been extremely busy with work last few weeks.

Money is pouring into Ethereum. Money which should be pouring into bitcoin.

Bitcoin needs to fork ASAP or it's first mover status will look in doubt.

 

[sickpig]

fwiw in market cap term today BTC * 0.1= ETH

yesterday it was BTC * 0.08

0.05 a few days ago.

it seems like a hell of trend if you ask me.

edit: I don't really understand miners behaviour, unless they shorted btc and went long on eth using a good leverage.

 

[bluemoon]

The flight from Bitcoin to Ethereum looks a bit like a bank run to me.

The saving grace, so far, is Bitcoin's $ price is holding up.

Maybe the Ethereum sellers are pleased to diversify and still value Bitcoin? Or maybe there are $$$s making their way to Ethereum via Bitcoin and that is sustaining the price?

I've been doubtful about Ethereum, but it's getting hard to argue with large market moves.