Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

VeritasSapere

Active Member
Nov 16, 2015
511
1,266
I have not posted in Bitcointalk for a while, gave it another go, that place has become an echo chamber for small blockist, I suppose I can in part blame myself for not participating there as much anymore. Though any type of censorship does discourage me from posting there even though to be fair I have never been censored there myself. Hopefully having a rational opposing point of view might help some of the lurkers there.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1330553.msg14254907#msg14254907
VeritasSapere said:
Bitcoin can scale and if it does not scale then it will simply be out competed and obsolesced by alternative cryptocurrencies that can and are willing to scale. Since the security, value and utility of cryptocurrencies increase with scale, it is this virtuous cycle that was also the original vision for Bitcoin, this is the vision that Core is now diverging from.

The ad hominem attacks against the people behind the different implementations are irrelevant, what matters is what is in the code itself and Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited have all of the features that Core 0.12 has plus more, it is the nature of open source. The people behind Core might be great coders but I think their conception of the economics and governance of Bitcoin is wrong. Through the choice of multiple implementations the participants of the network get to choose which path Bitcoin takes. I would hope that the economic majority within Bitcoin will choose to scale the Bitcoin blockchain directly as was always intended, since otherwise I suspect Bitcoin might become the myspace of cryptocurrency.

I can take this further however, if the economic majority does want the blocksize to be increased and it is not increased then I would say that the governance mechanism within Bitcoin is fundamentally flawed, solutions for the problems Bitcoin is experiencing most likely already exists in alternative cryptocurrencies, innovations such as incentivized full nodes and self funding blockchains might be important in that regard.

It is still to early to tell whether this first real experiment in decentralized governance will function the way we hope it will. Bitcoin might be dying because of this existential crisis but I am confident that the more it dies so to speak, the more pressure will build for it to change. This is part of the game theory underpinning the governance of Bitcoin. I just hope more of us come to this realization before Bitcoin loses its position as the dominant cryptocurrency.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1399627.msg14254860#msg14254860
VeritasSapere said:
Bitcoin can be both a P2P Cash and a settlement layer, among many more things. Thinking that we must choose between these two is a false dichotomy. Though I do question what the point of a settlement layer even is when everyone can transact directly, cheaply, easily and quickly. It is almost as if the very idea of a settlement layer might even be antithetical to a world where cryptocurrency becomes the dominant form of currency, rendered obsolete like many of the other functions that banks carry out today.
 
Last edited:

tynwald

Member
Dec 8, 2015
69
176
That's a key point showing the utter cluelessness of the Blockstream & Core developers ... why do you ever need a settlement layer if you can settle directly?

And if you think that a settlement layer is needed because of technical limitations then why not solve those instead of inviting in VC money, traditional finance companies and 'old' money investors to profit from any possible limitations of the protocol.

It's as if some people never understood, or never read, the white paper which explains why Bitcoin was developed. To eliminate financial companies as middle men collecting fees and the associated corruption that results.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
that's the thing. Blockstream wants to become the new middle men of Bitcoin thru collecting tx fees and consulting fees at the expense of miners. maybe even front run a SC or two as early adopters of a new alt-sidechain. or maybe they just want to kill Bitcoin. then, at least their investors will stay the billionaires they are.
 

freetrader

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
2,806
6,088
Is this going to be a tasteless ambush like when they got the wrong Toomim brother and tried to pull all this insulting gotcha-type stuff that was pointless?
After watching the interview with Eric Lombrozo that resulted due to Jeff having to cancel, I am inclined to agree.

I held out some hope for these guys after the interviews they did at SatoshisRoundtable, but no more.
 

solex

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 22, 2015
1,558
4,693
So, I was sharing (several) bottles of fine shiraz with my neighbor opposite this evening. He is 80 and very much interested in the state of the world financial system. For some reason he thinks I know something about it. Anyway, he is a bit stressed that his $1m share portfolio is worth 18% less than a couple of years ago. A few glasses gets me going about the evils of fractional reserve banking and he is well attuned to the piratical nature of retail banks. I did explain BTC to him when it was $30 and he was all ready to buy, but frankly I didn't want to keep the private key for his holding. He would have simply lost it. So we let the idea drop, but he still asks how "internet money" is doing. He points out that its been going quite a few years now. (7.2 to be exact).

I explain that there is a crisis. "What!" he says, "Governments are trying to stop it?" No, some governments like it, many aren't bothered either way, some big companies like Microsoft are involved. "So, what is the problem?" he asks. The problem is from within, a group of technical people who know all about how it works, but have zero clues about economics and they think they can drive it in a certain direction. I say that they will drive it to ruin instead. "How many countries are backing you?" Well, we have two thousand out of six thousand nodes, but the power is not in the nodes its in the computing power to secure the transactions, and this is mostly in China. "How much is that? Isn't it in the States?" No. There is a huge warehouse full of computers in Washington State and it is hardly a blip on the radar of mining power.
"That much?"
Yeah we need the Chinese to understand what is in their best interests. We need to get the whole project back on track.
He said "Good luck. I know you guys will do it. Beat those fuckers."
 

Justus Ranvier

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
875
3,746
Imagine what could be done with segwit if it was proposed as a hard fork for technical debt reduction, instead of a rushed soft fork for "scalability":

It could start with a formal specification of the Bitcoin scripting language. The specification wouldn't need to be strictly bug-for-bug compatible with the existing behaviour since it would only apply to post-segwit outputs. At least one change would need to happen: remove the 256 opcode limit. Maybe encode opcodes as a varint rather than a fixed size integer so that we'll never run out.

Then you could make at least two independent script creation/validation libraries for the new spec. At a minimum, one in C++, and an another in Java to cover to two most important platforms.

Once the spec and the libraries were ready, define a new block version and a target block for the changeover, after which all transaction would be in the new segwit format and whose scripts would use the new specification. Give everyone a year to upgrade.

After that was done, clients would still need to keep the old validation code around to handle transactions which spend pre-segwit outputs, but at least the technical debt would stop accumulating since all new outputs would be created against the new specification.
 

Inca

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 28, 2015
517
1,679
Imagine what could be done with segwit if it was proposed as a hard fork for technical debt reduction, instead of a rushed soft fork for "scalability":

It could start with a formal specification of the Bitcoin scripting language. The specification wouldn't need to be strictly bug-for-bug compatible with the existing behaviour since it would only apply to post-segwit outputs. At least one change would need to happen: remove the 256 opcode limit. Maybe encode opcodes as a varint rather than a fixed size integer so that we'll never run out.

Then you could make at least two independent script creation/validation libraries for the new spec. At a minimum, one in C++, and an another in Java to cover to two most important platforms.

Once the spec and the libraries were ready, define a new block version and a target block for the changeover, after which all transaction would be in the new segwit format and whose scripts would use the new specification. Give everyone a year to upgrade.

After that was done, clients would still need to keep the old validation code around to handle transactions which spend pre-segwit outputs, but at least the technical debt would stop accumulating since all new outputs would be created against the new specification.
The opportunities are limitless.

The problem is that 'Core' are reacting rather than planning anything. All talk of a roadmap is nonsense - just an email from Maxwell. The reality is they know if they cannot provide a tangible capacity increase in the next few weeks that after all this stalling they will lose the network to clients that upgrade the blocksize directly such as Classic or BU.

The cat is out of the bag which will result in a sloppy 'hack' of segwit being released as a soft fork (in a last ditch attempt to prevent any further hard forks taking away/weakening their governance). Why does this remind me of Microsoft jumping through endless hoops and compromises trying to keep everything backwards compatible with previous versions? Bitcoin, if we are not careful is moving towards the antithesis of what we believe it should be. All the more ironic if you believe Maxwell et al. who allegedly want an ultra secure and decentralised base layer, free of compromise, upon which to build additional payment layers for the world. Yeah, right!

I have added a comment with an allegory to a transportation system run by Blockstream.
 
Last edited:

jl777

Active Member
Feb 26, 2016
279
345
Imagine what could be done with segwit if it was proposed as a hard fork for technical debt reduction, instead of a rushed soft fork for "scalability":

It could start with a formal specification of the Bitcoin scripting language. The specification wouldn't need to be strictly bug-for-bug compatible with the existing behaviour since it would only apply to post-segwit outputs. At least one change would need to happen: remove the 256 opcode limit. Maybe encode opcodes as a varint rather than a fixed size integer so that we'll never run out.

Then you could make at least two independent script creation/validation libraries for the new spec. At a minimum, one in C++, and an another in Java to cover to two most important platforms.

Once the spec and the libraries were ready, define a new block version and a target block for the changeover, after which all transaction would be in the new segwit format and whose scripts would use the new specification. Give everyone a year to upgrade.

After that was done, clients would still need to keep the old validation code around to handle transactions which spend pre-segwit outputs, but at least the technical debt would stop accumulating since all new outputs would be created against the new specification.
You are making too much sense.
If bitcoin started doing things rationally like this and had logical roadmaps to achieve scalability, increase miner revenues, enhanced features for users...
It would get used too much.

And that probably is against the interests of the existing powers.
Follow the money.
That usually finds the answer to the crimes...

Why would the govts have to destroy something they can just buy?
 

Inca

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 28, 2015
517
1,679
The ethereum bubble is fizzling. It is below where I sold my small stake for XMR which happily seems to be maintaining value.

I think the inability to perform a hard fork where required is a serious failing for bitcoin. Numerous other competing blockchains exist and some are technically stronger. Suggesting that hard forks are contentious or dangerous when actually they can easily be coordinated as a simple software upgrade (once blockheight = x, use new rules y, if version number < x @ block height x then disable client pending manual upgrade) is incredibly short sighted. Blockstream think they are being clever by and maintaining control of the codebase, but in the longer run they are damaging bitcoin massively IMO. If diehards like me have begun diversifying then the game is nearly up.

EDIT: banned from /r/bitcoin again. The bar is now very low for a ban indeed!
 
Last edited:

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
actually, it won't be over until diehards like me give up ;)

personally, no matter how bad the news is, technical trading experience has made me pause whenever i think i fundamentally know better. as long as we stay in the large bullish triangle we've been tracing out, i believe the next move is a major UP. it should be a big one too given how long this triangle has been playing out. and we will know soon enough, come mid April. volatility is damping down alot and the mkt is coiling.

as Classic continues to make significant gains and the mkt doesn't tank as a result, this makes me think that we're going to be on the right side of history and soon unshackle ourselves from the corrupt clowns at Blockstream. this will be glorious and free Bitcoin to scale onchain as it was always intended to do.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
The end of the large triangle suggests that it will be, as there is no other news that I can identify that comes in April.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bluemoon

albin

Active Member
Nov 8, 2015
931
4,008
Admittedly this is a very arguable point, but I personally lean toward the thinking that if Bitcoin doesn't succeed, then it probably will poison the well for future permissionless public cryptocurrency systems, because you can't exactly have confidence jumping from system to system constantly rebooting the store of value.

Granted the exact reason for the hypothetical failure mode would inform whether or not my bias there is justified, but I'm sure that if such an event came to pass, the narrative for any replacement leading cryptocurrency would have to be overwhelmingly compelling. The most likely beneficiary in my opinion of a failed Bitcoin would be a milquetoast digital currency run by nation states and/or banks, which would offer some value and convenience to the consumer to some degree for sure, but sadly it would put the revolution on hold.