Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[rocks]

Dave Scotese on btc dev ml rise interesting questions on soft-forks.

"Why are they called soft forks when they are really hidden forks? Isn't
the point of a soft fork to prevent old clients from rejecting what they
don't have the code to validate? That seems dangerous."

This ^^^

There is no such thing as a hard or a soft fork, they are all forks in that they change the functional behavior of Bitcoin. The only difference is whether or not the fork needs to be explicitly accepted by participants by upgrading to a newer version with the new functionality, or if the fork is ignored by a client. Soft forks are simply forks that happen without participants acceptance or even visibility. This is not Satoshi's vision.

Satoshi's vision was two fold. 1) That all participants have equal access to the system. This means that all individuals (no matter how small) can directly access the system, have symmetrical information, etc. (opposite of our banking system today) 2) That all participants have the ability to accept or reject elements of the system by having the ability to validate the system directly, and by doing so force there to be broad public consensus with acceptance by many (i.e. no small group can force behavior on others).

The current bitcoin core violates both of these. It limits blocksize which violates 1 above, and it accepts transactions that it does not validate which violates 2 above.

During my month off posting, I almost launched a new Bitcoin Core fork called "Satoshi's Promise" that would have simply changed bitcoind to accept any sized block (i.e. no limit) and to reject blocks with unknown opcodes. This is the default behavior that matches the paper I bought into and signed on for. And yes, the Blockstream crew should be forced to gain broad participate acceptance of their CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY opcode. Something tells me that without hidden forks there is not enough consensus to make the change.

 

[awemany]

@rocks: Yes, interesting to put this into the perspective of explicit agreement. I am indeed worried a bit that many new opcodes that are introduced as 'just small changes necessary for LN' will eventually make it harder to optimize Bitcoin for higher speeds and processing rates - because they might make transactions more intertwined and thus processing and validation harder to parallelize, for example.

This happens a lot easier if the 'experts' can hide behind 'non-controversial soft forks' to push their changes.

 

[sickpig]

also, Mike's explanation of LN was great. i very much doubt it has a chance. undoing all the years of hard work on SPV wallets for a theoretical system proposed by the likes of a wanker like Joseph Poon is wasteful and ridiculous.

to be fair Rusty Russell is working on LN implementation, and he sure knows a thing or two about mass market adoption.

 

[sickpig]

@cypherdoc
Nice little bulleted highlights from timepad
(strip reddit comment)

quoting this particular question:

Q: Please elaborate on blacklisting and redlisting


A: Blacklisting: some people claimed Bitcoin XT blacklists tor. This isn't true, and there is an FAQ in the site which describes what it does. Redlisting: That's a term I coined which describes how coins can be tracked through the blockchain. It was a debate that I started, I wasn't actually suggesting we do this, but since it can be done we should discuss it. The thing to realize is, this is already being done by exchanges and some startups; they're trying to prove that they're not making money through crime.

another interesting point in Mike's answer, even if it's not directly linked to *listing: as bitcoin user base will grow the block size limit will make the system unable to deal with the demand, hence "normal" people will move to alternatives, whereas "criminal" activity will remain on the blockchain, even if the fees will skyrocket, simply because they don't have alternatives to move to (monero lack the volume).

If proved true this would kill the 1MB pro "bitcoin-as-a-settlement-network" argument, imho.

That said, the more I think about coins marking/tracking/listing, the more I believe that bitcoin is in desperate need of solutions to increase its fungibility (be it confidential transactions (gmax), ring sigs (ala monero), some homomorphic magic, you name it).

 

[Erdogan]

Dave Scotese on btc dev ml rise interesting questions on soft-forks.

"Why are they called soft forks when they are really hidden forks? Isn't
the point of a soft fork to prevent old clients from rejecting what they
don't have the code to validate? That seems dangerous."

Yes. It was also the point in one of Mike Hearns posts.

 

[cypherdoc]

to be fair Rusty Russell is working on LN implementation, and he sure knows a thing or two about mass market adoption.

Just because one is a Linux kernel dev does that make one an expert on mass marketing of a new revolutionary digital money? Also , wasn't be assigned to work on LN by Blockstream?

another interesting point in Mike's answer, even if it's not directly linked to *listing: as bitcoin user base will grow the block size limit will make the system unable to deal with the demand, hence "normal" people will move to alternatives, whereas "criminal" activity will remain on the blockchain, even if the fees will skyrocket, simply because they don't have alternatives to move to (monero lack the volume).

If proved true this would kill the 1MB pro "bitcoin-as-a-settlement-network" argument, imho.

That said, the more I think about coins marking/tracking/listing, the more I believe that bitcoin is in desperate need of solutions to increase its fungibility (be it confidential transactions (gmax), ring sigs (ala monero), some homomorphic magic, you name it).

Understood, but another way to fungibility and anonymity is through mass adoption where ones small TX's get lost in the crowd of billions. It's also a more decentralized and secure approach.there's enough pseudonymity to get lost if you want.

 

[sickpig]

Just because one is a Linux kernel dev does that make one an expert on mass marketing of a new revolutionary digital money? Also , wasn't be assigned to work on LN by Blockstream?

the fact he is paid by Blockstream to develop LN is irrelevant to me.

back to the "mass adoption thing", if you sent the post I've just quoted through your mobile phone you're probably using a net stack to which Rusty have significantly contributed. Even if you're doing from you win workstation, because your adsl modem/router is probably governed by some sort of linux flavour.

Understood, but another way to fungibility and anonymity is through mass adoption where ones small TX's get lost in the crowd of billions. It's also a more decentralized and secure approach.there's enough pseudonymity to get lost if you want.

sure pseudonymity could somewhat mimic fungibility, to what degree? Frankly I don't know. Maybe with stealth address (afaic a technique you can use today) you should achieve a higher level of privacy, but still it don't help the case of company that doesn't want to let a client know how they are going to spend his money.

 

[cypherdoc]

the fact he is paid by Blockstream to develop LN is irrelevant to me.

that's still highly relevant for me. the financial COI has been shown to be quite significant, imo. i also think Rusty was hired to work on LN. i'm not knocking him; he's just an employee doing what he's been told to work on. from what i've read from him, he seems to be pretty level headed and his linux accomplishments are big no doubt. it's just that if you accept the fact that Bitcoin is money, esp Sound Money, then you shouldn't want any possible COI's creeping in at the core dev level and that is what i think has happened.

sure pseudonymity could somewhat mimic fungibility, to what degree?

it can be quite significant if we get up to worldwide adoption with billions of users and tx's. Kristov Atlas writes about this form of anonymity in his great book, Anonymous Bitcoin.

 

[cypherdoc]

my charts indicate a further bias to the downside so look out:


compounded by the fact that we are in the most dangerous period of time of the year

gold is in a short term sell signal as well:


geez, GG hits new low today having not been seen going all the way back to 2004. absolutely brutal for goldbugs;


guys, apparently the forum is on new rules whereby if you post a new reply within 30 min of your last post, it will just be appended onto your last post, as opposed to creating a new post.

 

[Melbustus]

guys, apparently the forum is on new rules whereby if you post a new reply within 30 min of your last post, it will just be appended onto your last post, as opposed to creating a new post.

Hmm. Don't think I like that. I often jump into threads after a day or two of absence and have a few things to respond to; thus, I end up making back to back posts that are often quite unrelated and therefore should indeed be distinct posts despite the timestamps.

 

[cypherdoc]

@Melbustus

i agree.

it's all part of Bloomie's drive to improve Google rankings; the replies, quoting, Imgur images, and forum links restrictions.

for instance, i'm still not sure what if i had posted this in response to your post but within the 30 min time period of my last post? would it have been appended to my post above your post?

Hmm. Don't think I like that. I often jump into threads after a day or two of absence and have a few things to respond to; thus, I end up making back to back posts that are often quite unrelated and therefore should indeed be distinct posts despite the timestamps.

specifically in your case, it takes time to go thru everyone's post and then respond in a distinct way. if several other ppl happen to post btwn the time period of your first response to your last response, your last few responses could get buried and not read.

i also don't understand if each appended post generates a New Post alert for the thread in the forum list. again putting your appended posts at risk of being not read.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

"drive to improve Google rankings"

There's a term for that: eating your seed corn.

 

[Melbustus]

@Melbustus
...
for instance, i'm still not sure what if i had posted this in response to your post but within the 30 min time period of my last post? would it have been appended to my post above your post?
...

That would be particularly undesirable.

Edit: And at least that's not happening, as this post tested.

 

[cypherdoc]

i'm feeling really good about this. 200 is the new 2. buy dips:

 

[Bloomie]

it's all part of Bloomie's drive to improve Google rankings; the replies, quoting, Imgur images, and forum links restrictions.

You are lumping 4 or 5 unrelated issues into one and are making incorrect assumptions at the same time, and almost none of this has to do with Google ranking.

The double-post merge, aka anti thread-bumping, is a common function in modern forums. It merges consecutive posts by the same user within a certain time period. If another user has replied before you bump the thread, the merging stops. Many forums will not allow you to respond to the same thread within an X number of minutes, period. Here, the post is simply merged with your previous post. If you are catching up and responding to three different people by quoting them, the quotes will separate your separate posts. If people prefer, we can implement a divider that will say "Post merged"--that's another common setting.

Imgur images have been discussed at length. If you you're using the wrong Imgur link out of convenience in order to save yourself an extra click at the expense of people's mobile browsers hanging and wasting their phones' battery lives, you're doing a disservice to your readers.

Forum link restrictions: there are no forum link restrictions, unless you're linking to a scam or illegal activity. There was one case when I asked a user not to link to someone who wasn't a complete gentleman (to put it mildly) in relation to our collective effort here. It was a request, and he was free not to comply.

for instance, i'm still not sure what if i had posted this in response to your post but within the 30 min time period of my last post? would it have been appended to my post above your post?

specifically in your case, it takes time to go thru everyone's post and then respond in a distinct way. if several other ppl happen to post btwn the time period of your first response to your last response, your last few responses could get buried and not read.

All of this is wrong. Test first, then complain, if necessary.

 

[cypherdoc]

Patera Capital-Bitcoin Governance Panel:

https://soundcloud.com/pantera-capital/bitcoin-governance-panel-bitcoin-pacifica-2015

 

[AdrianX]

@Melbustus

i agree.

it's all part of Bloomie's drive to improve Google rankings; the replies, quoting, Imgur images, and forum links restrictions.

for instance, i'm still not sure what if i had posted this in response to your post but within the 30 min time period of my last post? would it have been appended to my post above your post?


specifically in your case, it takes time to go thru everyone's post and then respond in a distinct way. if several other ppl happen to post btwn the time period of your first response to your last response, your last few responses could get buried and not read.

i also don't understand if each appended post generates a New Post alert for the thread in the forum list. again putting your appended posts at risk of being not read.

There are a fiew annoying things. But opportunities like this are good for brain development

I've only seen consecutive posts merged. It looks like if someone posts during your consecutive posting it's not merged.

I like this feature it look and reads cleaner to me.

The only downside I see is if there are say 3 distinct responses and I want to acknowledge only 1 with a like, all 3 get the credit.

 

[sickpig]

that's still highly relevant for me. the financial COI has been shown to be quite significant, imo. i also think Rusty was hired to work on LN. i'm not knocking him; he's just an employee doing what he's been told to work on. from what i've read from him, he seems to be pretty level headed and his linux accomplishments are big no doubt. it's just that if you accept the fact that Bitcoin is money, esp Sound Money, then you shouldn't want any possible COI's creeping in at the core dev level and that is what i think has happened.

sure COIs are not things to underestimate, especially if not explicitly stated by the involved part (BS in this case).

That said Rusty started to be engaged with bitcoin during his sabbatical from IBM, in this period he worked on petty coin project (tl;dr side chains like system). later on he discovered Poon's paper about LN and thought it is a brilliant thing (he published 4 posts on his blog explaining LN key concepts). Just before returning to IBM, BS offered to pay him to work on it, I daresay that it would have accepted the job independently from the employee.

it can be quite significant if we get up to worldwide adoption with billions of users and tx's. Kristov Atlas writes about this form of anonymity in his great book, Anonymous Bitcoin.

I will have a look at the book, still I think that some drawbacks are unavoidable at the current stage of development independently from how many users and txs the system is handling, e.g. payer could always track how payee will spend the found (mixing, coinjoin could help but they're costly, the former, and complicated the latter)

 

[cypherdoc]

@sickpig

i'm glad to hear those positive things about Rusty. i've always got a good impression from his blog posts more recently. hopefully he doesn't let the COI interfere too much with his thinking. i'm trying to keep an open mind about LN but when i hear smart ppl like Mike and Gavin talk more realistically about it's capabilities, i get concerned. and then there's my own concerns about centralization regarding hubs and their operational requirements. undoing years of hard work and investment monies that have reasonably gone into SPV wallet implementations need to be considered as well. turning off that capability via a coding change doesn't seem right to me and smacks of authoritarianism. i've never had a problem with any SPV wallets i've ever used. and many of these wallet providers are making a push towards true SPV and away from the server system. think Mycelium. lots of fantastic devs in this area have built up dependencies on this strategy and it works well and is consistent with bigger blocks going forward. this needs to be respected and maintained.

yes, it's true that we should be concerned with the recent announcements of coin tracking by Bitpay and CB. i've always felt that if given a choice, they wouldn't track coins, except for the fact that they have to stay compliant. i don't blame them for not wanting to go to jail. otoh, i've always wondered just how hard it is for a withdrawer from either of these institutions to either do a Coinjoin or more simply just move their coins a few hops down the line btwn their own addresses. the further away coins get from a known address the greater the uncertainty about just who owns them and the greater the plausible deniability. it's amazing to me that all the coins stolen from corrupt exchanges can't be tracked to specific owners to this day. it's not that easy unless you're moving extraordinary amounts and need to interface with the fiat system.

 

[cypherdoc]

More politicians climbing on board:

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/new-york-politicos-race-support-bitcoin/