Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[VeritasSapere]

It should be very obvious what is happening here. A flight away from Bitcoin towards the altcoins, I hope the miners figure this out before it is to late. I have been predicting this for over six months, maybe I did not want to be right. I can not deny profiting from the situation but it still makes me a bit sad.

 

[cypherdoc]

@Justus Ranvier

https://medium.com/@cypherdoc2/the-data-in-your-article-cuts-both-ways-5596ad4aa276#.c9y80k7nv

the data in your article cuts both ways.

imo, core dev looks at data anomalies like you’re presenting and concludes there is a problem with Bitcoin that needs “fixing”. b/c the system isn’t “perfect” in their eyes, they’ve decided to abandon it for offchain solutions, which coincidentally, happens to coincide with the objectives of a company they’ve founded to address these imperfections in Bitcoin. along the way, we all have to wonder why they’re enforcing the 1MB cap as if it’s a Magic Number. given the disruption that the 1MB cap is causing right now you’d think that a simple increase to 2MB wouldn’t be out of the question to show good faith. it’s a simple immediate fix. but apparently not, even tho several core devs have hedged their positions that 2MB is probably OK.

to conclude, i agree. ecosystem participants should continue to optimize their individual strategies while core devs should stick to the protocol and not over obsess about what they view as imperfections in Bitcoin. Gavin has the right approach to this: keep it simple by focusing on security and tx reliablity. everything else should work itself out.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

Not sure what exactly you mean by "guys", "serious" or "initiative" in this context...

Off the cuff, this entity, known locally as @largerblocks, seems intent on a PoW-based fork:

https://github.com/satoshisbitcoin/satoshisbitcoin

Thread in this forum:

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/announcement-bitcoin-project-to-full-fork-to-flexible-blocksizes.933/

Ha, Exactly what I was looking for. Thank You!

 

[freetrader]

@satoshis_sockpuppet :

I'm not tracking that project closely a.t.m. because I still think a PoW fork is premature.
But I like that somebody seems serious about preparing for the eventuality, even if it may never come.
Hold on, how goes the saying - in time all things come to pass?

Anyway, I would appreciate any updates you may be able to provide "here" on developments of interest "there".

 

[Justus Ranvier]

https://medium.com/@laurentmt/doing-nothing-is-a-choice-2c26376358a2#.cvpnmdh5l

 

[cypherdoc]

no need to panic. we're still in the large bull triangle:

 

[Justus Ranvier]

@cypherdoc

 

[cypherdoc]

the bull is bucking hard...
[doublepost=1457199493,1457198841][/doublepost]imo, investing in a platform that doesn't even have it's security mechanism well defined yet, let alone one considering POS (which has pretty well been debunked on a theoretical basis here and elsewhere) is highly risky. as i said the other day, getting money placed ahead of time, before these mechanisms get worked out, risks huge COI esp when the core dev team is identifiable, known, and a logical pressure point. and, iirc, ether has inflation built in (if i'm wrong on this let me know but still wouldn't change my point). also, if you'll recall, Vitalik is on record stating that Bitcoin's money issuance has been "unfair" in that it rewards early adopters. huh? unfair b/c those early adopters took on the most risk and had the most vision? by that metric, Steve Jobs should've never received any of stock options he received "merely" b/c he invented the Mac. how unfair!

in contrast, with Bitcoin, Satoshi was anonymous, released working code with known and strict parameters and fixed the currency supply. and then he got out, understandably. imo, this is what has attracted investors to Bitcoin over time; this fundamental fairness and perceived inability for Bitcoin to be co-opted over time. certainly, this assumption is being tested right now. but it by no means is over.

most ppl investing in cryptocurrencies are going to lose money.
[doublepost=1457199714][/doublepost]what could be quite ironic is that the gvt becomes Bitcoin's biggest ally one day. how? by going after Blockstream in some overly aggressive manner. Adam Back is on record stating that Classic is a coup. as @Justus Ranvier has stated, that's proof that he thinks he is ruler of Bitcoin code. well, maybe the gvt should believe him on that matter and step in and tell Adam and Blockstream to insert a backdoor of sorts into the sourcecode. look at the current Apple iPhone situation. maybe that will be what it takes to wake the community and miners up. could be the best thing that ever happened to Bitcoin.

 

[cypherdoc]

nice! Classic adds a PPA!:

https://launchpad.net/~yamamushi/+archive/ubuntu/bitcoinclassic

 

[SysMan]

Someone wrote: "The miners should know who pays their bills."
[doublepost=1457181029][/doublepost]@SysMan

Its pure economy - no payments fee, no miners.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

@_mr_e https://github.com/justusranvier/opentxs/commits/develop

OT development is slow right now with just two people working on it.

I'm not sure that "ethereum level smart contracts" are the most pressing use case though, even though smart contract functionality works in OT today.

didn't stashcrypto provide something like Lightning, but less complicated and possible? I always wonder why nobody talks about them.

 

[cypherdoc]

Its pure economy - no payments fee, no miners.

given that not only Adam, but core devs like Lombrozzo, gmax, Todd, & even you at various times has complained that Classic is a "coup, a change of governance, and an attempt at control", doesn't that prove that you think that core dev is centralized and controlled by a certain group of ppl? do you understand what open source is supposed to mean? do you understand the meaning of decentralized development?

 

[VeritasSapere]

Its pure economy - no payments fee, no miners.

It is good to keep in mind that the difference in vision, is one of a high volume low cost network vs a low volume high cost network. Over the long run the former and original vision of Bitcoin is more profitable for the miners, especially considering that if the blocksize is not increased Bitcoin will also simply just be out competed and obsolesced. I do think that Core's conception of this low volume high cost network is fundamentally flawed, it will not be able to compete.

Sticking to this arbitrary one megabyte limit, stimulating a "fee market" is far to early in Bitcoins development, the block subsidy was meant to bootstrap adoption, so that the Bitcoin network could remain reliable and low cost. Attracting greater adoption, which in turns brings more value and security, which brings about more adoption, a virtues cycle if you will.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

@SysMan

Usually I don't trade, but today I sold some Bitcoin

The situation is similar as in december 2013, when the "China bans bitcoin" panic began. At this moment it became clear, that bitcoin will not fulfill its potential in china, that the momentum was over and a bear market has began.

This time it is similar, but not just about China, but about everything. The potential, that made so many poeple believe and invest in bitcoin, is in serious risk.

Untill the end of the roundtable I was optimistic that there will be a solution, that there will come some magic moment, when everybody comes to his mind and you could say, ok, bitcoin can grow for the foreseeable future, core provides a scalable software, there is a worth in experimenting with bitcoin and accepting bitcoin as a mean of payment.

Now I'm pessimistic. We don't scale, growth is restricted, bitcoin has reached the limit of its capacity. Chances are high we enter a bearmarket. With luck for some month, with bad luck forever.

As long as the situation doesn't clear, I don't see a comeback of the bullmarket. Even if everything works right like Core says - SegWit provides enough capacity and a hardfork in Q2/2017 gives 2 MB blocks - the idea, most people bought in, that bitcoin has so much air to growth, as digital gold AND a payment system, is dead.

The world will not wait for a handfull of developers to get lightning ready into the wallets.

Unless classic / unlimited doesn't win, in any way, unless we follow the direction that core seems to want, the outlook is pessimistic.

Sorry for lamenting. But I think you should consider this economics / psychology with the same or more weight than the potential lost of 10-30 percent of the nodes.

 

[cypherdoc]

@VeritasSapere

i don't think @SysMan looks at the economics. i don't think he understands what is happening with this move in market share towards Ethereum and other altcoins. he's mired in the technicals of the blocksize debate.

in case everyone hadn't noticed, the fee mkt is causing chaos in the fee estimators and wallets. the organoforti analysis shows how inefficient they are with fees spiking all over the place and getting stuck in mempools as blocks have become full, whereas the spamming attacks are instantaneous off/on causing all sorts of whipsaw in fees as tx's with real world purpose get gamed into irrelevance.

 

[VeritasSapere]

@cypherdoc It is still worth trying, I hope that some of my reasoning still gets through. If Bitfury started mining Classic blocks it could still turn this whole situation around. You have the power Bitfury! You do not have to do what Core tells you to do!

The miners control Bitcoin, take charge and just increase the blocksize limit, that is what most people want and Core will have to go along with it. Otherwise the future of Bitcoin and Bitfury looks grim, which would be a shame. I was really looking forward to buying those chips of you in the future.

 

[freetrader]

I don't understand your insistence, @SysMan, that Classic, BU etc. are incompatible with the released Core versions in terms of their use of versionbits.

The only way I can see this be a problem is if one deploys BIP9 as-is, but that BIP hasn't even been accepted by Core yet.

If you're not doing that, you should be fine running Classic, BU or XT - as indeed proven by all the clients of that sort out there already processing all blocks just fine.

I'd really still like to hear your concerns in more detail.

P.S. Jonathan Toomim left an outline of his suggestion in Classic Slack #debate yesterday, and also submitted it to discussion here:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7561/files#r55114319

I recommend to look at that and voice your concerns in detail

 

[AdrianX]

@Justus Ranvier

https://medium.com/@cypherdoc2/the-data-in-your-article-cuts-both-ways-5596ad4aa276#.c9y80k7nv

the data in your article cuts both ways.

imo, core dev looks at data anomalies like you’re presenting and concludes there is a problem with Bitcoin that needs “fixing”. b/c the system isn’t “perfect” in their eyes, they’ve decided to abandon it for offchain solutions, which coincidentally, happens to coincide with the objectives of a company they’ve founded to address these imperfections in Bitcoin. along the way, we all have to wonder why they’re enforcing the 1MB cap as if it’s a Magic Number. given the disruption that the 1MB cap is causing right now you’d think that a simple increase to 2MB wouldn’t be out of the question to show good faith. it’s a simple immediate fix. but apparently not, even tho several core devs have hedged their positions that 2MB is probably OK.

to conclude, i agree. ecosystem participants should continue to optimize their individual strategies while core devs should stick to the protocol and not over obsess about what they view as imperfections in Bitcoin. Gavin has the right approach to this: keep it simple by focusing on security and tx reliablity. everything else should work itself out.

@cypherdoc Core can't implement the 2MB block limit, if it works as independent data and common sense would dictate, then it proves the data they FUDed to miners and other fundamentalist is incorrect. This also explains Maxwell position that Bitcoin is boring with a bigger block size.

 

[cypherdoc]

the miners like BF are not in control. otherwise, they would've jacked up the price by now.

and neither is Core, otherwise they would've done the same.

for those of us paying attention, yes, there is movement of capital towards altcoins and Ethereum. understandably, b/c major players in the system seem to be blind and aren't adhering to Satoshi's original principles. and this isn't a religion. it's not just Satoshi's vision. it's just basic reasoning; why would current fiat market participants trade in the Fed for a for-profit entity like Blockstream controlling core dev? answer: they wouldn't and they won't. particulary, a for-profit that doesn't listen to it's constituency namely users and merchants and who doesn't understand the basics of human decency like listening, compromising, reasoning, etc. instead we get stalling, lying, misattributions, ddos, support of censorship (implicit), FUD, etc.

they don't understand what makes a good sound money. they don't understand the economic concepts laid out years ago in this thread. they don't understand gold; what made it good money in the past but made it no good in the present. they don't understand what a settlement layer is supposed to be or how it won't work with Bitcoin. what we're seeing reflected in the price right now is this misunderstanding.

 

[Fatman3002]

How the blimmin blob can you guys be less convincing than this guy??:

http://forums3.armagetronad.net/viewtopic.php?p=203752&sid=5fa9c3b88a382cb9b5edb5ed2aea8286#p203752

I am struggling to keep it together. The pure stupidity of the Bitcoin community, miners and all, is getting to me!