Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Richy_T]

Not clear how interested she was in understanding why Satoshi called it mining.

Did Satoshi call it mining? I know it was originally referred to differently in the early days.

 

[bucktotal]

havent run a full node since 2013. but you guys got me all fired up and im running a classic 0.12. on my personal laptop again. much lighter than i remember. gooooo bitcoin

 

[cypherdoc]

step back a sec and realize that this rapid expansion of full node counts directly refutes the long standing & oft cited criticism by core dev that Bitcoin is inevitably undergoing centralization, the other arguably being miner centralization. it doesn't matter that it is from "manipulation" by economic actors jacking counts of their favorite implementation. what matters is that it's happening and is capable of happening (on both sides). Bitcoin is working as intended to route around damage caused by a centralized core dev by Blockstream. users and merchants are realizing that their only way of voicing a preference in the system visibly is by going back to their roots and running a full node, not just for convenience and security's sake, but to voice this opinion. we are laying the foundation for a hard fork. imagine what full nodes counts could rise to if the limit is lifted and more users/merchants/economic actors enter the system as intended? decreasing full node count fear was always a bullshit misunderstanding of how Bitcoin works and why it was happening.

and core dev should be made to eat this misunderstanding.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

Nodecounts: Classic 0.12.0 is currently higher than Satoshi 0.12.0 (Satoshi 0.11.2 is on top).

Where do you see that? On nodecounter Classic 0.12 seems to be behind Core 0.12.

 

[Erdogan]

https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/
[doublepost=1457805878][/doublepost]And: 44 of 1000 blocks are now classic blocks. A new big miner changing to classic?

http://nodecounter.com/

 

[cypherdoc]

 

[Erdogan]

Back to third, one less than satoshi 0.12.0.

 

[YarkoL]

And now for the heretical thought of this weekend!
Suppose 21co manages to make it feasible buying cups of coffee offchain while maintaining 1MB limit, should we then call this war quits?

 

[Richy_T]

Back to third, one less than satoshi 0.12.0.

Haha. No doubt there are some on the other side jumping on the cloud node thing too. Probably getting worried.

Classic is only within 110 nodes of being #1. Nobody is tempted I guess...

 

[Aquent]

Sorry, I know there are many early adopters here, and perhaps it is natural to resist, but the miners aint coming, for now anyway, they far too divided. A powfork is in my view, and I do apoligise for the strong language for I have huge respects for rocks, idiotic, at this time. Such fork would only work if it was proposed by someone "respectible", in these circumstances anyway. It sure may be different in another setting, but as far as current reality, a powfork is a distant third option unless it is actually driven by gavin or coinbase etc.

I have no alligence to bitcoin, the brand. I have no care for miners, or anything else at all really. I want to change the world and under that premise I can not stand but in disgust at the censroship and banning which goes far beyond r/bitcoin as you all know. I can not stand at seeing these enlightened dreams torn to pieces and I will not box myself and give up based on whatever.

I recommend, for the good of bitcoin and Satoshi's coin, an exodus. It is the only way, at this point, when voice is dead and exit left as the only option, to prove the underlying decentralised truth of bitcoin: https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4a4yxh/bitcoin_is_an_idea_not_a_brand/

Of course I'll still be contributing to bitcoin, etc, and do forgive my spelling, it's a speed v accuracy tradeoff, but I see this as decision time for fundamental principles which go beyond brand, and I hope we show to all what decentralisation truley means. The developers and miners have made their decision. Now it is for the users, the most decentralised layer of them all, to make their choice.

 

[freetrader]

An exodus to a PoS future is too unclear and risky for me personally. It seems like a land of milk and honey for those who can invest in a large stake, but I don't know about the rest of humanity. I prefer a model based on reward for work done.

If I were to exit, I would rather take my chances and attempt to exit to a better Bitcoin.
After all, what's to stop the powers that are inflicting this upon Bitcoin from moving to the next currency after achieving their aims?

If we can't defend Bitcoin, then how are we going to protect the runners-up in any meaningful way?

I don't see any evidence yet that Bitcoin's relative simplicity (e.g. lack of strong privacy, fungibility etc.) has been used against it in this battle. The skirmishes have been fought with much more primitive means, leading me to believe that those who view this simplicity as providing some advantage are not necessarily wrong.

And the beauty of a Bitcoin hard fork - from a holder POV - is that you can simultaneously put in your CPU vote, but are included in the outcome either way the market decides. Provided you don't act too rashly - you can always monitor how things develop and act accordingly. Supporting a fork does not preclude sufficient diversification across alts - why does it have to be all or nothing?

A complete exodus of enough people would be the destruction of Bitcoin without having provided a better alternative. It seems like a panicked reaction.

 

[Aquent]

The better alternative is the lesson itself. Bitcoin is not a brand, it's an idea. You caputure some developers, we, the 51% don't care. We can easily move by a click of the button. That's the real decentralisation.

If we are to keep voicing when we have no voice, then this is not decentralised at all. We have the choice, make yours. Either obey, and thus show to all that there is no decentralisation here at all, or emphasise our freedom and prove to all just what decentralisation means, as well as showing to the future their folly of even thinking of trying to control bitcoin.

If I had my say I'd shout of the top of the hill right now, exodussssssssssss

but I know I'm just a man and can be wrong, however, right now, in my view, the ideas of bitcoin are best served by moving. We need no permission, we need to ask no one. We just act based on our analysis and I hope that emotional nonsense attachments do not show that the solution to the byzentine problem of 51% is mute.

The real choice has now come. Each and everyone here now decides, based on all facts. Let the experiment rule the truth and speak to all whether any of this works at all, or not.

 

[rocks]

Sorry, I know there are many early adopters here, and perhaps it is natural to resist, but the miners aint coming, for now anyway, they far too divided. A powfork is in my view, and I do apoligise for the strong language for I have huge respects for rocks, idiotic, at this time. Such fork would only work if it was proposed by someone "respectible", in these circumstances anyway. It sure may be different in another setting, but as far as current reality, a powfork is a distant third option unless it is actually driven by gavin or coinbase etc.

I have no alligence to bitcoin, the brand. I have no care for miners, or anything else at all really. I want to change the world and under that premise I can not stand but in disgust at the censroship and banning which goes far beyond r/bitcoin as you all know. I can not stand at seeing these enlightened dreams torn to pieces and I will not box myself and give up based on whatever.

I recommend, for the good of bitcoin and Satoshi's coin, an exodus. It is the only way, at this point, when voice is dead and exit left as the only option, to prove the underlying decentralised truth of bitcoin: https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4a4yxh/bitcoin_is_an_idea_not_a_brand/

Of course I'll still be contributing to bitcoin, etc, and do forgive my spelling, it's a speed v accuracy tradeoff, but I see this as decision time for fundamental principles which go beyond brand, and I hope we show to all what decentralisation truley means. The developers and miners have made their decision. Now it is for the users, the most decentralised layer of them all, to make their choice.

I have a lot of respect for your posts over the years and am not offended, what I am proposing and doing is controversial. It will not start with majority support but only with a small minority who want to try.

I will just say two counter points.

1) There is no real difference between what I am proposing and the alt coins we have today. The only difference from this project and projects like Litecoin is the fork block.

Litecoin forked at the genesis block, while I am providing an option for people who want to fork later.

2) Bitcoin is an open data structure that is simple and easy to create. I personally think it is idiotic to be captured by a few miners who refuse to build the data structure you want. Instead of more begging it is time to build your own.

The code to do this is in place, I've already successfully forkedand started to build a better data structure twice. In a week the code and binaries will be available for others who also want to build a better data structure with me.

The time for begging and negotiating is over, it has done nothing because power in bitcoin has become centralized. Instead it is time to fully use bitcoins greatest strength which is its open nature.

 

[Aquent]

Yeah, don't get me wrong, I'll probably run the miners when they are released and I'm probably being far too pessimistic, don't want to dissuade you in any way, but there are some deeper undercurrents and one has to consider not only momentum, but a certain established culture in the btc space and in other spaces etc.

I'm moving more and more towards a sort of fresh start, with no strings, a sort of bitcoin 2.0. I was kind of querying it all the way back in 2014 when I saw what seemed stagnation and no efforts to actually move things forward, then sort of realised the rest, but, no one really knows what the right answer is right now and me thinking we should prove bitcoins decentralised nature by moving might be perfectly invalid and the answer might be something else, regardless of my opinion tonight.

What I find more important is that 51% of people, and they alone, solve the bysantine problem.

 

[solex]

... but the miners aint coming, for now anyway, they far too divided.

I'm looking at this metric:
In the last 24 hours (144 blocks), the Classic hashrate is an estimated 95.8 PH/s (8.3%) of the total Bitcoin network (1150 PH/s).
In the last 7 days (1000 blocks), the Classic hashrate is an estimated 50.6 PH/s (4.4%) of the total Bitcoin network (1150 PH/s). -
http://nodecounter.com/#block_explorer

While the 144 block hashrate exceeds the 1000 block hashrate then the miners are coming...

 

[Inca]

Bitcoin is not a guarantee of anything, I suppose it never was.

I used to believe that bitcoin simply had to continue to exist and it would garner support gradually from the grassroots level all over the globe, starting out in geeky pockets of IT workers and libertarians before spreading and accelerating via ubiquitous smartphone based wallets globally like wildfire.

If I were the powers that be, either the central bankers of the private banking cartels, an attack like Blockstream would be exactly what I would do. A 51% attack, or taking over the mining industry would be too obvious and just lead to the community unifying and starting again stronger with bitcoin 2.0 which would be much more difficult to kill.

No, far simpler to starve the network gradually and freeze transactional capacity for a few years instead. Keep bitcoin a niche market and box it in whilst conventional banks improve their clearing systems and play catch up.

The banks can throw a bit of money at the problem (75 million is nothing) and buy off a controlling stake in the developers to veto changes which are not desired. Talk about scaling bitcoin (hell, even host some conferences on the subject) but actually do nothing except gradually attack the network with unwanted changes like RBF, all the while following the script of stalling, stalling, stalling.

Pay off a few community figureheads and those in control of communication fora. Fund a handful of reddit, twitter and forum posters to shill the 'pro Core' position ad infinitum.

All they have to do is wait, safe in the knowledge that bitcoin will not scale if governance stays in the status quo. Those individuals who are compromised accept a fat cheque to ensure bitcoin does not become too popular and challenge the incumbent banking industry. Most of them knew bitcoin would never scale anyway!

But it turns out that whilst this works for a little while, it cannot be maintained forever. Other blockchains are gaining speculative value from bitcoin as the wider community comes to realise the charade that is being played out. Alternative network clients have suddenly become popular as true believers try to wrest control of the network out of the hands of those tasked in keeping it stunted.

All i know is that if Austin Hill and his second in command are now fighting in the /r/btc trenches then they have begun to consider the possibility that they may lose control of the code behind the dominant node on the network. If hashing power continues to drift towards Classic and a majority of the network start to use Classic nodes then the situation will suddenly look very rosy indeed.

Otherwise hopefully my modest sum of XMR will moon

 

[molecular]

Quoting Inca...

If hashing power continues to drift towards Classic and a majority of the network start to use Classic nodes then the situation will suddenly look very rosy indeed.

This is the preferred solution.

Until classic is triggered on the network however, I'm with rocks/largerblocks SatoshisBitcoin or whatever similar project may crystallize. I don't see another way.

Times of talking and hoping are over. We need to take our power back, it's a responsibility, really.

 

[Roger_Murdock]

Sorry, I know there are many early adopters here, and perhaps it is natural to resist, but the miners aint coming, for now anyway, they far too divided. A powfork is in my view, and I do apoligise for the strong language for I have huge respects for rocks, idiotic, at this time. Such fork would only work if it was proposed by someone "respectible", in these circumstances anyway. It sure may be different in another setting, but as far as current reality, a powfork is a distant third option unless it is actually driven by gavin or coinbase etc.

I have no alligence to bitcoin, the brand. I have no care for miners, or anything else at all really. I want to change the world and under that premise I can not stand but in disgust at the censroship and banning which goes far beyond r/bitcoin as you all know. I can not stand at seeing these enlightened dreams torn to pieces and I will not box myself and give up based on whatever.

I recommend, for the good of bitcoin and Satoshi's coin, an exodus. It is the only way, at this point, when voice is dead and exit left as the only option, to prove the underlying decentralised truth of bitcoin: https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4a4yxh/bitcoin_is_an_idea_not_a_brand/

Of course I'll still be contributing to bitcoin, etc, and do forgive my spelling, it's a speed v accuracy tradeoff, but I see this as decision time for fundamental principles which go beyond brand, and I hope we show to all what decentralisation truley means. The developers and miners have made their decision. Now it is for the users, the most decentralised layer of them all, to make their choice.

Well, from my perspective, "Bitcoin" isn't primarily an idea ("cryptocurrency" is an idea). "Bitcoin" is one implementation of that idea (the first and still-dominant implementation), and the most fundamental aspect of that implementation is the Bitcoin ledger. If the ledger survives, "Bitcoin" survives. So an "exodus" to an alt-ledger wouldn't be "for the good of bitcoin"; it would effectively mean the death of Bitcoin. And note that all Bitcoin holders can't take part in the kind of exodus you're describing without a good number of them losing their shirts. (When everyone is trying to sell, no one can.) Scrapping the ledger and starting over would also defeat the entire purpose of money, which is to facilitate real exchange by preserving a record of value given but not yet received. Of course, there is a way to achieve a kind of "exodus" without destroying the ledger. It's called a fork. That fork can either be one that preserves the current proof-of-work, or one that changes it. The latter option I see as primarily a kind of "Sword of Damocles." The fact that the economic majority could render the miners' hardware worthless means they're unlikely to ever have to. You seem to think that a fork is unlikely, but in my opinion your pessimism is extremely premature at this point. And I also think that the problem of an alt-ledger starting to seriously challenge Bitcoin as the leading crypto would, in a way, be its own solution. That scenario would apply serious pressure to miners and other Bitcoin stakeholders to correct the deficiencies in Bitcoin's protocol.

 

[cypherdoc]

#1
[doublepost=1457828922,1457828215][/doublepost]

[doublepost=1457829584][/doublepost]The People are sending a signal.

Miners, you gonna listen?

 

[Erdogan]

This deserves a price reaction.