Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[bluemoon]

Maybe f2pool are finally going to produce some classic blocks?

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/48o3qh/f2pool_classic_port_running_at_171ths_point_your/

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

Just a thought: Are Core guys bringing the halving smoothing up just to create a new debate for more stalling? Is it just new bait for people to work on?

 

[VeritasSapere]

@Justus Ranvier : may I quote you on that? That's fantastically put.

Now I feel bad, I have been quoting lots of you guys all over the place, and I did not even ask, how rude. Class act @freetrader lol. Actually there is one quote in particular that I have been using a lot, I do give credit at least when I do.

Again, a fee market does not fix this, a fee market simply priorities who is able to use Bitcoin and who is not able to use Bitcoin. There are losers in a fee market that become priced out.

I would like to thank you for this one specifically @rocks. I have posted this quote all over Bitcointalk. It is concise, simple and very true. Very well said, cuts to the heart of the matter in a single sentence.

 

[Matthew Light]

Why ETH?

It seems Ethereum is not ready for public use. There does not seem to be any Android wallet, and the Windows GUI client is not ready for production use:

"We recommend small amounts only, and remind you that use of this software is at your own risk."

The command line client seems to be possible to use, but ETH is not money for the masses for quite some time. ETH does not seem like a bitcoin replacement any time soon.

Ethereum has far more potential, and better developers, than the alternatives.

It's not Ethereum's fault that Bitcoin has decided to kill itself before it moves out of beta (which will happen in about a week and a half, on Pi day). Ethereum has been stable since last August, shortly after go-live.

It is true that the tool and infrastructure support (such as coinbase) is less developed than Bitcoin's. That will follow the money though. I would be astonished if we don't see Circle and/or Coinbase announce support sometime in 2016.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

@VeritasSapere Not sure about anyone else, but I try not to say things in public that I'm unwilling to be quoted on, so feel free to quote away.

 

[VeritasSapere]

I like Ethereum, I am invested in the project among others as well. Though I do think that two of the most promising features that have the potential to solve these governance issues are missing from Ethereum. Incentivized full nodes and a self funding blockchain.

@Justus Ranvier That was my presumption, but I have to admire @freetrader for being such a class act.

 

[cypherdoc]

 

[AdrianX]

Now I feel bad, I have been quoting lots of you guys all over the place, and I did not even ask, how rude. Class act @freetrader lol. Actually there is one quote in particular that I have been using a lot, I do give credit at least when I do.


I would like to thank you for this one specifically @rocks. I have posted this quote all over Bitcointalk. It is concise, simple and very true. Very well said, cuts to the heart of the matter in a single sentence.

It's the ideas that are important, sometimes knowing who said it helps you categories the validity of the idea by prejudging the author. So I don't think it's all important, to always present an author unless you're sure the idea is original.

Likewise I don't claim my ideas to me my own but rather a reflection of my understanding of the ideas of others.

 

[Matthew Light]

All the institutions that Bitcoin stands to replace are very interested in proof of stake, because all they have to do is buy a large stake once and maintain their level of control over the network forever with no further effort on their part.

Proof of work, on the other hand, puts miners in constant competition with each other and incumbents are frequently replaces with more nimble competitors.

Proof of stake requires stakeholders to produce transactions that the rest of the network accepts or they lose their stake.

Proof of work requires going out and purchasing graphics cards or ASICs, or just bribing the people who own them (as we are now seeing wrt the Bitcoin Core "Consensus" meeting)

The kind of "control" you are referring to that would be problematic is censorship - that is, not including valid transactions into the blocks you are creating. Here are Vitalik's thoughts on that problem and potential solutions:

https://blog.ethereum.org/2015/06/06/the-problem-of-censorship/

 

[AdrianX]

Ethereum has far more potential, and better developers, than the alternatives.

It's not Ethereum's fault that Bitcoin has decided to kill itself before it moves out of beta (which will happen in about a week and a half, on Pi day). Ethereum has been stable since last August, shortly after go-live.

It is true that the tool and infrastructure support (such as coinbase) is less developed than Bitcoin's. That will follow the money though. I would be astonished if we don't see Circle and/or Coinbase announce support sometime in 2016.

Actually from my observation Ethereum Developers have been doing community engagement since launch. The local Bitcoin meetup often host an Ethereum developer probably just because they're willing to present and finding talkers is hard.

It's my view that the current Core developers who insist that block space be limited have drive investment away from bitcoin.

Blockstream Core are arguing to cripple Bitcoin to make their version viable and investors see this and realize that if that's the future other options are available mainly:

1 Ethereum is design as a scripting coin bitcoin has to be hacked and force into that box.
2 Ethereum is better suited to function as a settlement system
3 Core developers like Maxwell want to compete with Ethereum where it is strongest.
4 investors see Ethereum as a natural hedge given the back story and the years of outreach.

It's a phase if you ask me Bitcoin will become the dominant player if it does nothing else but be better money. The devs goto dev is killing bitcoin and fracturing the market.

 

[rocks]

Why ETH?

It seems Ethereum is not ready for public use. There does not seem to be any Android wallet, and the Windows GUI client is not ready for production use:

"We recommend small amounts only, and remind you that use of this software is at your own risk."

The command line client seems to be possible to use, but ETH is not money for the masses for quite some time. ETH does not seem like a bitcoin replacement any time soon.

Can someone explain how ETH mining works? My understanding is the final form is not fully decided in which case I can't understand how it is gaining so much traction. I tried to explain ETH to my wife and it was impossible, BTC was easy....

 

[cypherdoc]

my understanding is that they're still trying to decide btwn POS & POW. imagine that.

 

[Matthew Light]

Can someone explain how ETH mining works? My understanding is the final form is not fully decided in which case I can't understand how it is gaining so much traction. I tried to explain ETH to my wife and it was impossible, BTC was easy....

For right now, Ethereum runs on proof of work mining (like most cryptocurrencies). They didn't want to wait to launch until proof of stake was ready. The proof-of-work mining is very ASIC-resistant - best mining hash rate comes from a graphics card with at least 2GB RAM.

Proof of stake is under heavy design and POC development right now, and the plan is to launch it within Calendar 2016 under the "Serenity" hard fork. Under proof-of-stake, stakers will lock down ETH deposits for staking and earn transaction fees and possibly new issuance from that while building transaction blocks.

[doublepost=1456955820][/doublepost]

my understanding is that they're still trying to decide btwn POS & POW. imagine that.

They are currently running under proof of work, when proof-of-stake development and testing is completed they will release it under the "Serenity" hard fork.

 

[Melbustus]

Any accredited investors in this thread may want to look at this...new fund for investing in mining:

http://www.coindesk.com/new-fund-aims-to-bring-bitcoin-mining-profits-to-high-net-worth-investors/

This vehicle is via Genesis Mining. I know nothing about them, but obviously wanted to know their position on blocksize-limit and found this:

"These results speak for themselves. Miners support increasing the block size by an overwhelming majority, and we agree with that position. The future of Bitcoin is unclear, but we know that to become competitive as a global currency, we need to increase our ability to process transactions."
http://blog.genesis-mining.com/survey-results-increasing-the-blocksize


The only way to get Bitcoin back on track may be by bringing new limit-raising hashpower online.

 

[Peter R]

@Melbustus:

Two people from Genesis Mining signed the Hong Kong Round Table agreement:

I met Marco in Montreal and he seemed pretty up-to-speed on mining economics (cool guy too), so I was surprised to see his name on the HK agreement.

 

[Melbustus]

@Peter R - Ugh, thanks for the heads-up. That's disappointing.

Edit: But there's also this quote from Streng, from Jan 23rd this year:

"We’re supporting Bitcoin Classic because we feel it solves the current problem," Streng told the audience. "Bitcoin Classic is a proposal for increasing the block size without changing the rest."

http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-miners-bitcoin-classic-scaling-debate-evolves/

So my takeaway is that they want bigger blocks, but lack the conviction to take an aggressive stand.

 

[solex]

That HK agreement clearly descended into groupthink as the night wore on. Sticks were waved "loss of funds after fork" and carrots "planning for HF starts 2 months after SegWit".
All the non-BS people must have felt that so much effort had been put into it, and the meeting was last chance saloon, that they didn't want to be the ones to walk away even though that was the right action on so many levels.

Wikipedia nails it:

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints, by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.

The Genesis Mining reps are victims of this psychological phenomenon.
"outside influences" = anyone who could speak for Classic.

 

[Norway]

@solex
I think many people in the room thought bitcoin would go to the moon short term because they finally solved this long lasting conflict.

 

[VeritasSapere]

I pointed this wiki article out before as well, the amount of similarities with the current situation is scary.

Loyalty to the group requires individuals to avoid raising controversial issues or alternative solutions, and there is loss of individual creativity, uniqueness and independent thinking. The dysfunctional group dynamics of the "ingroup" produces an "illusion of invulnerability" (an inflated certainty that the right decision has been made). Thus the "ingroup" significantly overrates its own abilities in decision-making, and significantly underrates the abilities of its opponents (the "outgroup"). Furthermore, groupthink can produce dehumanizing actions against the "outgroup".

Symptons:

Type I: Overestimations of the group — its power and morality

1. Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.
2. Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.

Type II: Closed-mindedness

1. Rationalizing warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions.
2. Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, impotent, or stupid.

Type III: Pressures toward uniformity

1. Self-censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
2. Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.
3. Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of "disloyalty"
4. Mindguards— self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information

Causes:

1. High group cohesiveness
   • deindividuation: group cohesiveness becomes more important than individual freedom of expression
2. Structural faults:
   • insulation of the group
   • lack of impartial leadership
   • lack of norms requiring methodological procedures
   • homogeneity of members' social backgrounds and ideology
3. Situational context:
   • highly stressful external threats
   • recent failures
   • excessive difficulties on the decision-making task
   • moral dilemmas

Sound Familiar?

Sorry for the long post but this was to good not to point out in greater detail, the Bitcoin community is highly prone to this type of behavior in part because of its unique demographics and lack of leadership.

 

[solex]

@VeritasSapere
That is an awesome deconstruction of what we have been seeing for the last one or two years. Plus the symptoms are not improving.

Consider: Adam Back (co-leader of the in-group) tweets on 24 August last year "2MB now", yet they have all rationalised Classic, which is "Core + 2MB asap" as the enemy, an alt-coin. Now Luke has proposed a quick HF to change the difficulty calc yet this shatters the illusion of unanimity that HFs are unsafe and need a year to execute.