Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[AdrianX]

@SysMan Segregated Witness SW doesn't solve that or any of those problems, it just makes found blocks smaller.

Given how cheap block space is, ($300 per 6TB) and the fact you don't have to subsidise network block space the only practical risk of writing all those transactions to the blockchain is the risk of orphaning due to a large blocks propagating slowly.

 

[theZerg]

@theZerg, @SysMan, @cypherdoc

A similar study to BitFury's is this recent paper:

By measuring block propagation to nodes, the authors conclude that 90% of the network could keep up with with an average block size of 4.1 MB, while it would take 37 MB blocks (on average) to knock out half of the network. So the results are similar to @SysMan's, but a bit more ambitious too.

What is really great is that Xthin for Bitcoin Unlimited is designed to target exactly this bottleneck.

EDIT: @SysMan: just wanted to say that BitFury has been doing a great job at sharing its research with the community via the various papers that it writes! Please keep it up!!

Those numbers are much closer to what I found in my empty block analysis... at around 30mb it takes more than 10 min to validate a block
[doublepost=1457139320][/doublepost]@SysMan but absolutely there are a lot of other factors which is why I didn't make a strong claim. Do you detail the effect of these other factors in a paper I could read?

 

[Richy_T]

Get off the road, grandad.
[doublepost=1457139897][/doublepost]

Undeserving? Do you have any idea how hard it is to HODL through all the ups and downs in Bitcoin's history? See here to understand about power law distributions and the psychological difficulty of holding through million-percent growth, and here for why Bitcoin's mature ledger state is so important.



The ledger would only need to be started over if there were something wrong with the ledger, not merely something wrong with the protocol that maintains that ledger.

I think Matt will be quite happy if Eth does a big reset on holdings.

Not.
[doublepost=1457140028][/doublepost]

@johnyj

no one ever refuted my initial attack proposition back when SWSF was first proposed a few mo ago. that is, if a miner like BTCC with it's know +100 FN's around the world were ever to attack the network by first adopting SW but then later initiating a large spend attack against another exchange or large balance address by first mining a block with the fraudulent tx, then transmitting that fraudulent block thru it's FN's that have been changed back to old code thus relaying the fraud tx b/c of the ANYONECANSPEND.

I think you're somewhat backed up by Peter Todds reservations against Segwit as a SF. But I'm quite a ways into a bottle of merlot so...
[doublepost=1457140234][/doublepost]

Peter Todd lost all credibility with me when he posted this on the dev list, which you might care to comment on:


http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-March/012507.html

I'm done with this subject until you argue factually w.r.t. the points that were made already.

But he's right.

 

[theZerg]

@Richy_T why was this not a fear last halving? Because transactions would not backlog, they'd just confirm a bit slower. Not a big deal.

In other words, another solution to the difficulty drop is to increase the block size so that even if the block interval increases to 20min all the transactions are still committed to the blockchain. This breaks the vicious cycle of fewer miners -> bad user experience -> lower price -> fewer miners.

Core is again awkwardly avoiding the obvious solution.

 

[cypherdoc]

[doublepost=1457140234][/doublepost]
Peter Todd
But he's right.

But see, this is one of the reasons why we keep reminding people that
strictly speaking a hardfork *is* an altcoin, and the altcoin can change
any rule currently in Bitcoin.-PT

you gotta laugh when these guys say this. just look at the litany of rules that SWSF changes. even down to the basic economics of choosing the suddenly OK 4MB blocksize transmitted, down to the 75% centrally planned discount for LN multisigs. not to mention all of the other rule changes which put old nodes at risk like ANYONECANSPEND and the new strategy of encouraging the proliferation of partially validating SPV nodes secured by fraud proofs (not yet invented). imo, this whole false dichotomy btwn HF vs SF really comes down to the details of what you're trying to do and are you doing it for the good of the community or yourself?

 

[Melbustus]

Brian Armstrong's post gives me a lot more hope. What's been lacking all along is strong leadership from industry. This post really seems like Brian is fed up, and is finally ready to do what it takes to get Bitcoin back on track so we can keep it usable as peer-to-peer cash and grow this ecosystem for the longterm.

I had hoped and assumed that industry was going to get to this point many months prior to now, but better late than never. I think almost all companies in the ecosystem want a simple limit increase immediately, but are opting to remain "diplomatic" out of fading hopes that we can correctly resolve this without some public ugliness. I think people/companies are increasingly seeing that isn't realistic anymore due to Core's repeated failures to put forth a reasonable roadmap, and hopefully Brian's lead will cause industry and users to decisively and aggressively rally behind a near term limit increase regardless of what Core et al think.

 

[yrral86]

The one thing Brian's plan is missing is coinbase and other major stakeholders getting involved in mining. They don't have to operate the hardware, but if I were them I would get contracts with a certain percentage of hashpower so they can get some guarantees regarding conformation time for transactions to and from their service.

 

[freetrader]

[doublepost=1457140234][/doublepost]
But he's right.

Did I mention I thought he was technically correct? [1]

He lost credibility with me because the hypothetical course of action he was putting forward (albeit in the most CYA way possible) is irreconcilable with an responsible action by Core, for whom he is BIP editor - a position of some authority. It's not "perfectly reasonable" as he claims, for anyone with an interest in Bitcoin's integrity.

It'd be perfectly reasonable to create an altcoin with a 22-million-coin limit and an inflation schedule that had smooth, rather than abrupt, drops. It'd also be reasonable to make that altcoin start with the same
UTXO set as Bitcoin as a means of initial coin distribution.

If miners choose to start mining that altcoin en-mass on the halving, all the more power to them. It's our choice whether or not we buy those coins. We may choose not to, but if 95% of the hashing power decides to go mine something different we have to accept that under our current chosen rules confirmations might take a long time.

Of course, personally I agree with Gregory Maxwell: this is all fairly unlikely to happen, so the discussion is academic. But we'll see.

I gave him a little benefit of the doubt after his recent double-spend stunt, but publicly talking about inflating the currency by another 1M seems like something that should be done with utmost sensitivity and attention to context within greater ongoing debates.

I am sure none of the first paragraph are new insights for Mr Todd, leaving me to think that this sort of thing must cross his mind frequently.

[1] https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-392#post-13606

 

[Justus Ranvier]

Did I mention I thought he was technically correct?
(I think I did so in my initial post in this thread about it)

It's a lie by omission.

It is true that you can construe a hard fork as a new currency.

The lie is that a soft fork is any different whatsoever.

 

[Richy_T]

@SysMan you have to consider the risks of full blocks and the other risks. This isn't a black and white picture, that is, it isn't the case that one can say well 2mb or a hardfork is risky, so I'll just stick with 1mb. That is because 1mb or the segwit implementation of an increase has many risks. You need to consider the whole picture, you have to consider the tradeoffs, and come to a decision when considering all factors.

Segwit for example is not really aimed at increasing the blocksize. It is a full re-writing of some crucial parts of consensus code, with thousands of lines which necessarily contain bugs because we are humans, therefore should not in any way be rushed, lest it creates some crazy bug like bringing up 1 billion bitcoins out of thin air. Segwit is more focused on tx malleability and other features, with the blocksize beaing an afterthought. Rushing this work because of some blocksize can be existentially reckless in my view.

Now if you are fine with waiting you have to consider that full blocks mean people actually leave. People leaving means less profits for companies, so we have bankruptcy across the system, including perhaps bitpesa which relies on cheap money transfers, and that has huge risks.

So, don't just criticise one thing, asking for perfection. We humans, in an imperfect world. Sure, hardforks have risks, sure, we can't offer a perfect 100% safe upgrade, but the alternative has risks too and they can not offer anywhere near a 100% safe upgrade. Segwit's softfork can become a hardfork and many say it is actually a hardfork and if it is rushed it can have drastic consequences for the network and blocks are full right now, we have a media storm declaring that bitcoin is no longer usable.

You have to balance the tradeoffs and come to a decision on what is the best way forward, not just criticise looking for perfection, because the current path we are on is fully imperfect with huge costs for many use cases of bitcoin, for many bitcoin companies, for bitcoin users, and with high risks of an outright disaster.

I wanted to like this. But on sincere refection, the only way to reflect the truth of this is to quote it in-full.

 

[freetrader]

@Justus Ranvier :
Yes, I read the whole discussion as an thinly disguised attempt to discredit hardforks such as the one Bitcoin is currently confronting.

@Richy_T : I couldn't fully reflect my liking of your liking by quoting your post again, due to a natural aversion to recursion and endless loops

yes yes, i know i'm mortal ...

 

[Richy_T]

I cringed when I read this: Austin Hill advertised “watch your favourite television shows and earn $400-$600 dollars a week watching TV. Send a self-addressed envelope with your favourite television shows listed below.” then knowing full well he was lying, at dinners he would mock the “hall-of-fame letters” who responded.

I felt similarly to how I felt when I read "The four hour work week" by Tim Ferriss which had been recommended to me by many. The primary lesson seemed to be "strip down your fellow man for what he has and belay your integrity". Maybe I'm wrong but I'd rather crawl in the gutter before I resorted to that strategy.

Am I wrong?

 

[Melbustus]

The one thing Brian's plan is missing is coinbase and other major stakeholders getting involved in mining. They don't have to operate the hardware, but if I were them I would get contracts with a certain percentage of hashpower so they can get some guarantees regarding conformation time for transactions to and from their service.

Agreed. It's time to really get serious and have direct hashpower support. I would love to see Coinbase and others get behind something like the Bitcoin Unlimited Mining Pool proposal:
www.bitcoinunlimited.info/articles (scroll to bottom, Article 4)

 

[Richy_T]

Did I mention I thought he was technically correct? [1]

He lost credibility with me because the hypothetical course of action he was putting forward (albeit in the most CYA way possible) is irreconcilable with an responsible action by Core, for whom he is BIP editor - a position of some authority. It's not "perfectly reasonable" as he claims, for anyone with an interest in Bitcoin's integrity.


I gave him a little benefit of the doubt after his recent double-spend stunt, but publicly talking about inflating the currency by another 1M seems like something that should be done with utmost sensitivity and attention to context within greater ongoing debates.

I am sure none of the first paragraph are new insights for Mr Todd, leaving me to think that this sort of thing must cross his mind frequently.

[1] https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-392#post-13606

I am, in general in 100% agreement with you. However, I always come back to the idea that actors in the Bitcoin sphere should always be assumed to be acting in their own best interest, including the scummiest of the scummiest (who seem it have settled into BS as of now).

Todd lost credibility with me when he committed fraud to prove a point. Nonetheless, he is frequently "correct" which is why I often label him the most dangerous person in Bitcoin currently.
[doublepost=1457154762,1457153781][/doublepost]

Simply put, a good investor can predict the future better than other people can."

I feel this is a self-fullfilling prophecy. Survivor principle in action.
[doublepost=1457154975][/doublepost]

Hey

The chinese miners want the btc price to go up, and they seem to believe that the Core "roadmap" is the way to make it happen. What if we pool some btcs in order to prove them wrong with a simple bet?

*Very* important to bear in mind that the miners have not been steered wrong by Core yet and prices are at a local high. We stlll need to be feeling some pain before this ship turns around.
[doublepost=1457155262][/doublepost]

Nice, I predict we don't actually know but the likelihood of Ethereum overtaking bitcoin is still rather slim. I have to agree with @cypherdoc "most people in this space are going to lose money™" I think the ETH could still climb a lot as bitcoin gets #rekd by the Core developers, but I still think bitcoin is going to be the one to own at the end of the day.

There is little doubt in my mind that Eth is in a bubble right now. Now, it could be a bubble that bursts but lead to new highs but I'm not comfortable putting my money there right now (wish I had a couple of months ago though)
[doublepost=1457155516][/doublepost]

@Richy_T why was this not a fear last halving? Because transactions would not backlog, they'd just confirm a bit slower. Not a big deal.

In other words, another solution to the difficulty drop is to increase the block size so that even if the block interval increases to 20min all the transactions are still committed to the blockchain. This breaks the vicious cycle of fewer miners -> bad user experience -> lower price -> fewer miners.

Core is again awkwardly avoiding the obvious solution.

I agree 110%, if not moreso.

The next halving is palpably different from the upcoming one. But your statement applies more as the last one was backed by many more wild-eyed Bitcoin supporters and less blood-thirsty profit hounds (though arguable the latter are to be preferred)
[doublepost=1457155922][/doublepost]BTW, I note someone brought up assassination markets on one of the boards earlier today. Not sure quite what to make of that but there's a dark side of me that's intrigued.
[doublepost=1457156383][/doublepost]

But see, this is one of the reasons why we keep reminding people that
strictly speaking a hardfork *is* an altcoin, and the altcoin can change
any rule currently in Bitcoin.-PT

you gotta laugh when these guys say this. just look at the litany of rules that SWSF changes. even down to the basic economics of choosing the suddenly OK 4MB blocksize transmitted, down to the 75% centrally planned discount for LN multisigs. not to mention all of the other rule changes which put old nodes at risk like ANYONECANSPEND and the new strategy of encouraging the proliferation of partially validating SPV nodes secured by fraud proofs (not yet invented). imo, this whole false dichotomy btwn HF vs SF really comes down to the details of what you're trying to do and are you doing it for the good of the community or yourself?

Absolutely. But I think the thing to remember and the thing that Todd's comment alludes to is that there is no ruler, there is no power, there is no god here. The value goes where the value goes. I think Todd (and others) have done some despicable things here but the point is not to lose hope.

Or have hope.

Cause this ain't a place for hope.

 

[bluemoon]

Slush vote

Looks like the Core vote is catching up. Makes me wonder if Core supporters are moving there too?

Could be a race, with the prize of the unvoted.

[Edit: for clarity]

 

[BldSwtTrs]

Brian Armstrong's post gives me a lot more hope. What's been lacking all along is strong leadership from industry. This post really seems like Brian is fed up, and is finally ready to do what it takes to get Bitcoin back on track so we can keep it usable as peer-to-peer cash and grow this ecosystem for the longterm.

I had hoped and assumed that industry was going to get to this point many months prior to now, but better late than never. I think almost all companies in the ecosystem want a simple limit increase immediately, but are opting to remain "diplomatic" out of fading hopes that we can correctly resolve this without some public ugliness. I think people/companies are increasingly seeing that isn't realistic anymore due to Core's repeated failures to put forth a reasonable roadmap, and hopefully Brian's lead will cause industry and users to decisively and aggressively rally behind a near term limit increase regardless of what Core et al think.

Armstrong:
Long term, we need to form a new team to work on the bitcoin protocol. A team that is welcoming of new developers to the community, willing to make reasonable trade offs, and a team that will help the protocol continue to scale. You’ll be hearing more about this over the next month or two.

Finally they will finance a core dev team. I said it, doing what this Austin Hill motherfucker did is the solution.

 

[AdrianX]

*Very* important to bear in mind that the miners have not been steered wrong by Core yet and prices are at a local high. We stlll need to be feeling some pain before this ship turns around.

@Richy_T the miners actually realized real profit by implementing Core recommended changes. Most notably the relay network, which has eroded the bitcoin incentive design, it's like heroine once they've taken to it they're stuck.

They're now dependent on Code's recommendations or they will loose the benefits of the relay advantages.

The wrong has already been done the pain of quitting has yet to be felt. Most addicts would choose more if it's offered at no cost but for a distant uncertain future.

 

[BldSwtTrs]

The firt time I heard an interview of Adam Back, in early 2014 (only few months after he get into Bitcoin lol) he explained that he likes sidechains because he thought it would allow to protect digital scarity in case a better altcoin would appear. In that event, the value of BTCs would move to a sidechain with the same characteristics of the alctoin and the Bitcoin market cap wouldn't get lost.

Nowadays he is one of the main reason an altcoin threaten the lead position of Bitcoin, and doesn't seem to care about that anymore. Funny how people change.

 

[rocks]

U

Agreed. It's time to really get serious and have direct hashpower support. I would love to see Coinbase and others get behind something like the Bitcoin Unlimited Mining Pool proposal:
www.bitcoinunlimited.info/articles (scroll to bottom, Article 4)

Users do not need to mine in order to assert their preferences or to define the rules.

Imagine if all the exchanges and thousands of users started to run a client that only accepted blocks with the Classic version tag and rejected blocks without that version

 

[Norway]

Looks like we go below $400. Sounds crazy, but it's a good thing. Reasoning doesn't seem to convince miners. But the pain from low prices will.