Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[sgbett]

They may still be using the centralised Relay Network, and the Relay Network central authority may have moved the prioritising of their blocks until such time as they come back in line. But then that's very unlikely as a centralised authority would ever use its influence to remain dominant so I'm probably wrong.

I was starting to wonder then BAM

401607
401608
401609

 

[AdrianX]

@sgbett good news but a well run centralised relay network would just run a miner statistical impedance so as to remain undetectable. Still I'm projecting but I dont think thats reality is not feasible.

 

[Melbustus]

Soft forks of the consensus rules are just as capable of damaging Bitcoin and deserve similar consideration.

https://medium.com/@spair/what-i-learned-at-the-satoshi-roundtable-7f6ff19ac6c3#.uiginlt62

Aside from that note about consensus-changing soft-forks being just as much of a concern as consensus-changing hard-forks, I found Stephen's post pretty disappointing. He didn't mention his prior adaptive-limit suggestion at all, and even gave credence to the notion that 1MB may be too large.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

What about this - I accidently wrote it answering on r/bitcoin -

"I'm not excessively eager of enforcing some x megabyte by a hf on the price of splitting the community. But saying, officially, we're nearly peak blockspace, and have to use transactions with renewable blockspace, is a tough statement.

It's like as we had started industrialization with climate scientists in controll. It's a strong regulation and a paradigma shift."

Peak Blockspace - do you like that image?

--

Yeah, I have a good day --

"
... with "would" you are talking about when Lightning is here, right?

Lightning is not here. If it is here we can call bitcoin again the currency of the internet.

In its current form it has not the potencial to serve as a currency for something like "the internet". Saying this in the sidebar is a false promise.

In it's current design it is also not capable of processing enough payments that any acceptance at any kind of shop and for any kind of thing or any other service using bitcoin for any cool thing is simply not noteworthy because there is no transaction volume possible.

Never again on he blockchain. If we find the killer app between today and the arriving of lightning, it will not be worth a note, because the killer app can't use bitcoin. No matter what fee it pays - there is no space for a killer app."

 

[freetrader]

--- DIGITAL HISTORIANS NEEDED ---

Anyone with long memory here able to remember if Satoshi or those around him ever discussed adjustments in the hashing difficulty that would be necessary during a breakaway fork?

I am looking for any insightful historic discussion records not necessarily on bitcoin-dev - that I can search myself easily (although I gather the list was at some stage on SourceForge? - I have seen a broken link to that place and don't know if the records were carried over).

 

[cypherdoc]

@freetrader

@Justus Ranvier is really good at remembering threads back on BCT which might include those topics.

 

[Erdogan]

by definition, a settlement layer requires a monetary unit that needs to be accepted universally by everyone everywhere worldwide. examples incl gold and the $. along with every other fiat reserve currency that has ever existed in history.

now tell me idiots, is Bitcoin anywhere near this definition?

It is kind of absurd. A settlement layer or system would be where you actually move the coins that before settlement is mere promises. Like I, living in Venize, promise to pay some gold coins to you, living in Rotterdam. Someone else promise to pay a different amount the other way. Someone willing to take the risk, moves the difference between the two cities, riding on a horse. We don't need or want that, as long as we can move the coins directly for each transaction.

 

[VeritasSapere]

@Norway In vino veritas!

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

Aside from that note about consensus-changing soft-forks being just as much of a concern as consensus-changing hard-forks, I found Stephen's post pretty disappointing. He didn't mention his prior adaptive-limit suggestion at all, and even gave credence to the notion that 1MB may be too large.

I learned that some people believe that the Bitcoin network is already over capacity at 1mb. I’d like to see more concrete evidence that this is the case, but it’s an honest concern. Satoshi certainly didn’t do much (if any) analysis of the scaling limitations of Bitcoin.

Et tu, Brute?

Please tell me, which part of Bitcoin is scaling quadratic or worse. Come up with some fucking explanations, some hard data. They had years to find that evidence, Pair.

Honestly, before Classic came up I always waited for the moment Jeff had it with the rest of core. I always wondered why he didn't call the rest of the core devs out on their bullshitting and imho he is still too polite and careful. But I was very confident, that things will change once he "switched sides". When I heard, Gavin and Jeff worked together on a fork I thought I'd just wait for the fork to happen.
Because I thought even the dumbest Maxwell follower would start thinking if these two guys started working together on a fork of core.
I never thought there was such extreme stupidity in the Bitcoin space. Is Brian Armstrong really the only capable business leader in the whole space?

2 MB. It's a fucking joke. Bitcoiners gave in to BS for years. Gavin went from 20 to 8 to 2 MB. Just to keep it living somehow. And Bitpay still takes BS concerns seriously.

Just fork it and fuck those guys. They can have their 1 MB coin. They can be concerned 24 hours the day about their small, fragile blockchain. They can do "scaling" conferences two times a week, they can talk and talk and talk. And write articles where they are very concerned about other peoples concerns. And they can be soft forked by Adam Back day and night.

Sorry for the rant.

 

[freetrader]

Aaron v. Wirdum admitting stuck transactions shatter confidence in Bitcoin:


I am myself shattered by this admission!

 

[79b79aa8]

The biggest threat right now IMO is for Core to offer a clean fork to 2MB. Because everyone would agree to that, and we'd still be stuck with a compromised dev team.

Re: Armstrong's plan to fund development. Isn't it even more pressing to deliver a spec? Naturally, the spec itself can be contentious (especially if funded solely by, say, Coinbase). But if done well it could provide a useful reference point in the new ecosystem populated by many implementations. Of course, it could also be ignored by some dev team, but the more authoritative the spec, the more difficult to have a (possibly incompatible) implementation adopted.

 

[Erdogan]

@satoshis_sockpuppet Talking is over, now it is hammer time. I just want one fucking, juicy, make-my-day, largeblock.

This is still on:

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/badass-big-block-bounty-the-great-blocksize-war-of-2016-the-peoples-offensive-100001-season-i-fun.817/

 

[lunar]

@Aaron van Wirdum

everyone will know not to trust zeroconf (which they arguably shouldn't already).

Stage two is to convince the world that zeroconf is not dead. It never was. I really love the concepts of subchains and Xtreme thinblocks. Partial or fractional block validation could potentially remove all concerns over accepting zeroConf.

If for the present we can't scale up, perhaps optimisations on scaling fractionally downwards is the answer?

 

[sickpig]

this is big:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/49evtp/core_developer_sergio_lerner_added_to_the_classic/

Core Developer Sergio Lerner Added to the Classic Team! (self.btc)

Sergio has agreed to do a few hours a week on security audits for Classic.

update:


still big though

 

[Epilido]

RBF question.

Instead of RBF why not time to delete. A user would place a flag on a transaction that would state if not added to a block in x blocks then delete transaction from mempool and do not resend. This would allow users to have transactions that could sit with a low fee for a day or more with the possibility of being added to the blockchain, or have a short time out period that would allow the fee to be increased and give maximum flexibility. It would also let the reciever know that after x block height the transaction will be canceled. The sender and receiver could have some agreement for a resend.

This has probably been discussed but I don't remember it.

 

[cypherdoc]

https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic/releases/tag/v0.12.0cl1
[doublepost=1457393691][/doublepost]Oleg keeps getting further and further out there:

http://blog.oleganza.com/post/140636054858/why-i-think-hysteria-about-block-size-is-market

furthermore, as a side channel check, i thought i'd ask Rassah (whom i trust implicitly) what had happened to Oleg's involvement with Mycelium iOS and here's his response:

[doublepost=1457394032,1457393215][/doublepost]

this is big:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/49evtp/core_developer_sergio_lerner_added_to_the_classic/



update:


still big though

so his Classic Slack quote over a month ago about the 2000+ LOC warning over SWSF was no joke about his true views.
[doublepost=1457394231][/doublepost]why am i, as a non-coder, having to tell Oleg that libsecp256k1 has nothing to do with SWSF economics and math? he dropped out relatively quickly in this Twitter War after this:

[doublepost=1457394542][/doublepost]

this is big:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/49evtp/core_developer_sergio_lerner_added_to_the_classic/



update:


still big though

impressive creds:

 

[sickpig]

@cypherdoc

it's normal that he dropped that twitter battle, you don't have enough followers

 

[cypherdoc]

@sickpig

i was talking about Oleg, not Paul Sztorc. altho now that you mention him, he dropped even way before Oleg. Sztorc; merely an afterthought.

i only started with Twitter last year in any meaningful way despite having registered Jan 2014. never considered using it before. it's a shitty platform for any discussion and i still don't get why so many use it and even try to conduct intelligent discourse on it. oh well, sometimes you just have to go with the flow.

 

[Peter R]

This is mostly off-topic, but I thought I'd post here in search of good ideas.

I'm serving as moderator for a panel discussion at this workshop in Toronto on Monday about Blockchain regulation in Canada. The panel title is "Decentralized Ledger Technologies in Canada -- State of Play." The panelists are Anthony Di Lorio (from the TSX and Ethereum), Jillian Friedman (a lawyer at the National Bank of Canada) and Ian Wright from the Department of Finance Canada.

I will definitely try to bring some attention to the "blockchain without bitcoin" idea, and maybe I can make some convincing points that the currency unit is required in order for the blockchain to remain trustless. But what are some other interesting points to make, or topics to bring up for discussion with the panelists?

I'm also personally interested in the ownership vs control problem (e.g., a bitcoin transaction transfers the asset whereas other blockchain transactions transfer only legal title to the asset) and the legal / regulatory challenges associated with that.

I'd also love to somehow weave the whole Bitcoin governance debate in somehow, but that might be too specific for this panel.

Other ideas?

 

[freetrader]

@Peter R : I think it's legit - when considering regulation within a specific country - to emphasize the "competitiveness" aspect of regulation. Canada's place within the "international regulation competition", if you will - the market forces guiding national regulation - and perhaps try to discuss which possible futures various decisions could lead to. Perhaps with some case studies of past decisions.