Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

i've said that for a long time. if Bitcoin fails, then crypto fails for probably several decades or even a hundred years. hopping from crypto to crypto is NOT a SOV.

on a positive note:

 

[AdrianX]

@freetrader

Thanks.

Actually I saw Adam first reply to Jorge by calling him Jim, I didn't understand what was happening (maybe Adam Back was trolling in his own way. (Maybe I was being ignorant)

It'd be funny if u/jimstofli is a play on Adams troll..

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

What if node operation could be one of these services?

 

[VeritasSapere]

@albin @cypherdoc I suppose I have a more positive outlook, if you can call it that. If Bitcoin fails the alternative cryptocurrencies will rise in its place, though it might indeed delay mass adoption by at least a decade, that is my prediction.

 

[AdrianX]

I wonder if Segwit will go down as Blockstream's last hurrah. Like the Balrog falling off the bridge with one last lash to grab Gandalf as it sinks into the abyss.

it's a little more screwed up than one may think. Blockstream Devs could have attracted VC money for their vision if they were able to merge CheckLockTimeVerify (CLTV) into the protocol. It's a fundamental shift in philosophy.

Miners typically work to secure the network but with CLTV they do not just working to secure the network of money they're effectively (or indirectly) providing other services over and above securing the money supply.

CLTV may not look like a big deal but it opens the gateway to new application within bitcoin. The fundamental shift is getting work done free by hitching a ride on the work done by miners.

When I read this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1398994.msg14228320#msg14228320 and this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1398994.msg14236763#msg14236763

I get the feeling that the Blockstream developers have burned the boats and have no option to follow through with their master's plan.

 

[theZerg]

If we do carry the day, we should get all stakeholders to sign an intention to hard fork again on july 1 2017 (say). This will give impetus to medium to long term proposals that require a HF to implement.

 

[rocks]

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!

Bitcoin is about to fork, in about 15 blocks from now, it is just the public trial fork and so far only 6 people have spun up to try it out, a forked is being built. This was with almost zero promotion, no website, no pre-compiled binaries and a trial that stops after a bit. In a month with all of this addressed it is not unreasonable to think several dozen will try the fork, that is a start and it is how Nakomoto consensus is built...

 

[cypherdoc]

 

[albin]

@cypherdoc

That reddit comment I think strongly supports something that fundamentally worries me about how Lightning could play out in practice. I don't find any of the arguments against the inevitability of centralized hubs convincing, and once you have that kind of system in place, why even bother with Lightning to end-user? Lightning could just be a settlement network between hubs that are now de facto Bitcoin banks, and now we'll have opened the floodgates to fractional reserves, accounting fraud, etc. That turn of events coupled with a main network with fees prohibitive for individuals to transact on could easily destroy the end-user experience of Bitcoin as sound money. No amount of bromides like "Lightning transactions are just Bitcoin transactions" can protect us from these possibilities.

I'm obviously making somewhat of a slippery-slope argument, but there really aren't too many stops down this particular slope!

 

[cypherdoc]

@albin

look at Liquid. SC's were supposed to be spvp 2wp's for experimentation and backporting of optimizations for Bitcoin. lol. far from it. Blockstream went for the money and now we have a centralized regulated fee paying good 'ol boys club of exchanges. same will probably happen with LN hubs too. let's face it, these abstraction layers are just meant to get away from the perceived restrictions that Bitcoin places on core development. Sound Money has got to be the most boring of ideas they have ever heard of. don't get me wrong; i'm all for innovation onchain like @Peter Tschipper is doing with BU. but this offchain bullshit is another story esp coming from clowns like gmax, Todd, lukey, Adam Backtrack and Corallo. we need to be unshackled.

 

[freetrader]

The amount of anticipation for SegWit's opening-the-door-to-script-changes that Eric Lombrozo displayed in yesterday's Bitcoin Uncensored interview was more than a little unsettling.

No doubt that Blockstream / Core is salivating over the possibilities, and promulgating this as some sort of sine qua non for Bitcoin growth.

 

[cypherdoc]

The amount of anticipation for SegWit's opening-the-door-to-script-changes that Eric Lombrozo displayed in yesterday's Bitcoin Uncensored interview was more than a little unsettling.

i'll bet. i've been rolling my eyes ever since yesterday when i heard he replaced Jeff. what a shame.

 

[cypherdoc]

 

[yrral86]

Yep, service providers will start to arrange contracts with miners for blockspace. I've said that several times before.

 

[Cconvert2G36]

Always expected, at least from my perspective. Just not artificially foisted on the free market by the dev team.

 

[Zarathustra]

The Great Halving of Transaction Volume

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4bbqav/the_great_halving_of_transactions_the_first_great/

 

[lunar]

i'm liking the the look of this.
First real evidence that the overall Core node count is dropping. Steady decline since March 6th.

http://nodecounter.com/graphs.php#all_nodes,classic_012_vs_core_012,nodes_pie_graph

 

[cypherdoc]

theymos: "no problem, we can make the SF % anything we want" (paraphrase):

 

[cypherdoc]

These orders are so highly classified that simply acknowledging an order's existence is illegal, even a company's chief executive or members of the board may not be told. Only those who are necessary to execute the order would know, and would be subject to the same secrecy provisions.

http://www.zdnet.com/article/us-government-pushed-tech-firms-to-hand-over-source-code/

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

And here we see the whole mess of a small blockist's mind

If we took your "democratic" idea then I could just create 100 Bitcoin clones next week each with a different limit to the 21M one and suggest that we all vote upon which one to use - would that in any way be a good thing in your opinion?

Why do this small block people think bitcoin can only survive if we all follow a social contract that noone writes consens-breaking software? Does this CYAM guy think, he can destroy bitcoin by building clones?

I just don't get it. Do this people not undestand that all that bitcoin thing was about not needing a social contract?

That's maybe the "core" of the problem. The small blockist think, a "consensus protocoll" means that there should be a social agreement that nobody changes consens rules. While I / we / big blockers think, that a consens protocoll just means that all peers have to share the same rules.

This could explain the big "asshole"-quote in camp small block and the difficulty to argue with them without being insulted and accused. We are talking about improving software, they are talking about violating some social rules (that only exist in their heads).