Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

@Peter R I had the same thought as soon as people were talking about /r/bitcoin becoming more "friendly" the last weeks. They learned and maybe theymos got a warning from reddit so they moved to a bot army.

But I would say their bots need some fine tuning, >3000 votes was a bit too much.

 

[BldSwtTrs]

On one hand it is great new concepts are being developed on crypto currencies, on the other it is telling which way things are trending if the focus is not on the bitcoin chain.

Did your friend say which chains they are building proof of concepts on top of? An alt, their own internal chain? My understanding is no altcoin chain could handle 10,000 tps today.

He is under non disclosure agreement, so he didn't tell me something precise. But in the conversation, it went out that he likes NXT.

 

[cypherdoc]

https://www.bitcoinhk.org/bitcoin-lecture-series/episode-1-upgrading-bitcoin-segregated-witness

Ok which of you said this at 1:17:xx???

"It also assumes that blocks are almost full"

The assumption is there is an actual fight for space. If nobody is using bitcoin anymore that 50% [optimisation] will probably not be realised... because nobody will care!"

actually, this is a very good talk on SW. i haven't finished it yet and i've mostly been listening via audio but here are some inconsistencies i've already detected:

1. he keeps alternating btwn 50-75% discounts in his examples. granted this may be being negotiated by miners and core dev but when giving an educational talk you should be consistent with your number throughout so listeners don't get confused. or is it possible that Lau himself is the one confused?
2. someone asks Lau how the discount was arrived at. his answer was that the 75% discount was a result of the libsecp256k1 speed ups of sig verification. um, no. if you read my posts on SW math, you'd understand that it was derived from the blocksize that pwuille and gmax *really* believe can be transmitted across the network w/o any change in orphaning; and that number has magically changed from 1 to 4MB. nvm that this is b/c they'd like to see the miners and full nodes bear as much of the cost of BW transmission at the biggest discount possible so that core devs can continue to concoct as many of these complex multisig tx's going forward for all sorts of smart contracts for tx fee generation as well as facilitate LN.
3. apparently these SW tx's will start with a 3* much like the current p2sh tx's we currently use for multisigs. someone asks him what an un-upgraded wallet will see if an upgraded wallet sends him a SW tx. he answers that he will see an ANYONECANSPEND tx. but later on in the Q&A, the same Q gets asked and he says that the un-upgraded wallet won't see anything at all since it will be treated as an a non-std tx. only until a miner mines this SW tx into a block will it show up in an un-upgraded wallet. clear as mud.

that's what i heard so far. need to sit down and watch the whole thing. it will be worth it for all of you too.
[doublepost=1459036903][/doublepost]it's also apparent that unsurprisingly, SW will destroy 0 conf tx's. if you have an unupgraded wallet, apparently you won't be able to see a SW tx in your GUI client until it's mined into a block.

 

[cypherdoc]

this is where Lau keeps mixing up 50 & 75% discounts as if they are applied at the same time. no, this isn't right. he does it earlier in another slide too. he's asked a very clear Q about where the 50% discount is coming from in this slide. remember what i said about how the SW math flows initially from what maxblocksize you want to allow. the way i understand the SW math, if a 50% discount has been agreed to instead of a 75% discount, this means that the miners and core dev have arbitrarily decided to reduce the maximum blocksize they believe the network should be exposed to in a witness dominated single tx attack from 4MB down to 2MB. this would result in the formula a+b/2<=1MB. and this would make sense that they have done this recently given the complaints i have heard miners have levied against the initial 4MB/75% discount plan forcing them to transmit too much data for too much discount. listen to his gibberish answer which makes no sense after which he then goes on to give the libsecp256k1 speed up answer as justification for the 75% discount as i referred to above :


so basically, either the explanation AJTowns gave me for how the discount is calculated is wrong or Lau is wrong. i'll go with AJ.

 

[freetrader]

@Peter R They learned and maybe theymos got a warning from reddit so they moved to a bot army.

But I would say their bots need some fine tuning, >3000 votes was a bit too much.

When bot armies are deployed on the Bitcoin reddits, and the admins are unable to turn off such API's, then using Reddit as a place to discuss Bitcoin becomes futile.

 

[Norway]

+ 10% Classic the last 24 hours!
KnC have been very lucky or expanded. But still no sign of Slush...

 

[Lee Adams]

actually, this is a very good talk on SW

It's such a shame the audio is so bad, but it is bearable. I loved the presentation. The cheques make it easier to understand, but what makes it are the questions form a very knowledgeable audience. I would like to transcribe all the questions and add them to the segwit faq... unfortunately Lau's answers need a bit of work.

 

[Zarathustra]

It seems that Slush doesn't listen to its classic voters anymore and decided to commit suicide.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4c58qt/slush_not_listening_to_its_classic_voters_anymore/

 

[bluemoon]

@Zarathustra @Norway

Slush only managed 17 blocks since #403919, their last classic block: https://chain.btc.com/en/stats/pool/Slush (last Slush block is currently #404504)

Their classic vote is at 20%, so we'd expect 3.4 classics from 17 blocks.

Assuming a poisson distribution, given an expected 3.4, the chance x=0 is 3.3%.

So getting no classic blocks when you expect 3.4 could well just be unlucky.

More disappointing to me right now is that the F2Pool classic hashrate is down to 5.7 Phash/s.

 

[cypherdoc]

Don't expect any answers from slush. He's out for the Easter holiday.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

@Justus Ranvier - Blockstream fits this modus operandi only too perfectly given Eric Schmidt has a history of such diplomacy. The Google Talk - Gizmo5 squishing is the same as the Microsoft - Skype the fit is also uncanny. I can't believe the Nokia (Stephen Elop) trojan horse when thinking communication and Microsoft.

The most instructive example from that talk was the browser handling of self-signed certificates.

The "encryption without authentication" crowd was committing the same error we see in the small block crowd: ignoring the cost of attacks as if economics didn't matter.

The cost perform an active MITM on every HTTPS session in the world is higher than the cost to passively collect every HTTP session in the world, therefore HTTPS is better than HTTP even without authenticated certificates.

 

[cypherdoc]

[doublepost=1459090246][/doublepost]

I guess I finally made it to the ban list for this response to kyletorpey's claim of digital gold:

What makes you think Bitcoin is digital gold? I've run the longest running gold thread in Bitcoin going on almost 5y now consisting of most of the community's hard money folk who have experience and who actually own significant amounts of it and we've examined this angle every possible which way. The conclusion being that we're nowhere close to digital gold yet due to low penetration worldwide, poor education, censorship, lack of liquidity, severely capped TPS, and excessive governance.

You might consider getting some experience handling, moving, buying and selling, and storing physical gold before you start opining on it.
[doublepost=1459091170,1459090053][/doublepost]

The most instructive example from that talk was the browser handling of self-signed certificates.

The "encryption without authentication" crowd was committing the same error we see in the small block crowd: ignoring the cost of attacks as if economics didn't matter.

The cost perform an active MITM on every HTTPS session in the world is higher than the cost to passively collect every HTTP session in the world, therefore HTTPS is better than HTTP even without authenticated certificates.

the LetsEncrypt project has blown the doors off surpassing it's 1 miliionth cert after just a few months.

 

[cypherdoc]

Nice ramp

 

[Norway]

Not bad.
[doublepost=1459094825][/doublepost]But I think miners need to be more punished to get their act together

 

[Justus Ranvier]

the LetsEncrypt project has blown the doors off surpassing it's 1 miliionth cert after just a few months.

The other thing to keep in mind is picking good metric for measuring success.

In the case of browsers, the best metric to watch is HTTPS as a percentage of all web traffic. Right now that number seems to be somewhere between 10% and 20%, so TLS is about 10% to 20% successful.

If Let's Encrypt can move the needle on that, then it will at least stop the bleeding, but the damage done from years of delays can't be un-done.

Email encryption, by the way, is a total failure with a consistent 0% ± 1% of emails encrypted since the introduction of PGP.

 

[Norway]

Is this a realistic scenario?

Bitcoin rally (Started now) -> More attention -> More transactions -> Full blocks -> Stuck transactions -> Price take a dive -> Miners get desperate -> Fork to Classic -> Moon

 

[AdrianX]

actually, this is a very good talk on SW. i haven't finished it yet and i've mostly been listening via audio but here are some inconsistencies i've already detected:

1. he keeps alternating btwn 50-75% discounts in his examples. granted this may be being negotiated by miners and core dev but when giving an educational talk you should be consistent with your number throughout so listeners don't get confused. or is it possible that Lau himself is the one confused?
2. someone asks Lau how the discount was arrived at. his answer was that the 75% discount was a result of the libsecp256k1 speed ups of sig verification. um, no. if you read my posts on SW math, you'd understand that it was derived from the blocksize that pwuille and gmax *really* believe can be transmitted across the network w/o any change in orphaning; and that number has magically changed from 1 to 4MB. nvm that this is b/c they'd like to see the miners and full nodes bear as much of the cost of BW transmission at the biggest discount possible so that core devs can continue to concoct as many of these complex multisig tx's going forward for all sorts of smart contracts for tx fee generation as well as facilitate LN.
3. apparently these SW tx's will start with a 3* much like the current p2sh tx's we currently use for multisigs. someone asks him what an un-upgraded wallet will see if an upgraded wallet sends him a SW tx. he answers that he will see an ANYONECANSPEND tx. but later on in the Q&A, the same Q gets asked and he says that the un-upgraded wallet won't see anything at all since it will be treated as an a non-std tx. only until a miner mines this SW tx into a block will it show up in an un-upgraded wallet. clear as mud.

that's what i heard so far. need to sit down and watch the whole thing. it will be worth it for all of you too.
[doublepost=1459036903][/doublepost]it's also apparent that unsurprisingly, SW will destroy 0 conf tx's. if you have an unupgraded wallet, apparently you won't be able to see a SW tx in your GUI client until it's mined into a block.

@cypherdoc it's most likely that it's targeting the 4MB block as a network capacity. The shift between 50% and 75% reflects on weather or not we fork to a 2MB block. The fact they flip between the two is hopefully a reflection on the lack of control when it comes to 2MB blocks.

 

[cypherdoc]

The other thing to keep in mind is picking good metric for measuring success.

In the case of browsers, the best metric to watch is HTTPS as a percentage of all web traffic. Right now that number seems to be somewhere between 10% and 20%, so TLS is about 10% to 20% successful.

If Let's Encrypt can move the needle on that, then it will at least stop the bleeding, but the damage done from years of delays can't be un-done.

Email encryption, by the way, is a total failure with a consistent 0% ± 1% of emails encrypted since the introduction of PGP.

I just noticed the other day that gmail is offering encrypted secure webmail with its free service. It looks like it works off AES or a shared key. You have to share a password with the other party. It's a start.

 

[cypherdoc]

@cypherdoc it's most likely that it's targeting the 4MB block as a network capacity. The shift between 50% and 75% reflects on weather or not we fork to a 2MB block. The fact they flip between the two is hopefully a reflection on the lack of control when it comes to 2MB blocks.

I think he's confused and doesn't understand how the discount is calculated. The SW math has to be the way I've explained as it is clean and precise and follows how AJTowns has explained it. The only way you can decrease a 4MB attack block and fit it into a 1MB is to trim it down by 75%. likewise, the only way to have a 50% discount is to decide you're only going to allow a maxblocksize of 2MB and then trim it down by 50% to fit it into a 1MB block.
[doublepost=1459104236,1459103117][/doublepost]

Is this a realistic scenario?

Bitcoin rally (Started now) -> More attention -> More transactions -> Full blocks -> Stuck transactions -> Price take a dive -> Miners get desperate -> Fork to Classic -> Moon

it's a possible scenario. but one that i deem not likely.

i've said before that a stagnation of price right here is enough to hurt miners. i'll bet they are leveraged to the hilt, esp the large miners like BF who have built multiple large datacenters for mining. those are financed by defn. same goes for the Chinese large miners. a halving of income will hurt them substantially when it comes in July and they will have to make a move to compensate. we know that SW has been delayed at least until July if mably is to be believed. that's a failure in and of itself to miners and pushes back a 2MB HF that was promised by core dev correspondingly. i don't think the miners can afford to sit around waiting for those idiots to centrally plan this thing.

as well, the large bullish triangle is coming to an end and speculators are getting jittery. i believe in technicals more than i do fundamentals and have stated that the next big move should be UP as the triangle resolves. we'll see.
[doublepost=1459104702][/doublepost]additionally, the bad news has extended even deep into this thread; one of the more traditionally bullish in all of Bitcoin. i see that as a good sign for Bitcoin. "the bull bucks hardest for the bulls."

 

[SysMan]

Core is currently leading the miner vote at slushpool.

https://slushpool.com/stats/

Last 1000 blocks mined: 5.9% Classic (59 blks), 94.1% core (825 blks)

Classic nodes 30.87% (2243), Core 63.4% (4606)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CeeREr-WwAAAQu9.jpg

Real time stats here
https://coin.dance/blocks - blocks
https://coin.dance/nodes - nodes