Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[steffen]

If anyone has a non-scribd mirror of this PDF, a link would be most welcome. I don't feel like creating an account there.

I can send it to you on email. Just give me your email address in a PM.

 

[Norway]

@cypherdoc
Relax, don't lose faith. The last single point of failiure is the core devs. And that is changing with two great teams. And XT was a pioneer at this.

Miners will be forced to ditch core. Because the value of bitoin will drop when the system is full.

It's about the basics. It's open source. Control freaks with ugly beard will lose.

And you will be fucking rich in a new economy where it's impossible to print new money.

 

[cypherdoc]

No way. No time for relaxation here.

I killed a bunch of shorts back in 2011 with the "double ramp" which some of you might remember. Their was blood everywhere. It was beautiful. I sense another opportunity like that coming if small blockists continue down this path. and for cheap.
[doublepost=1459546759,1459546083][/doublepost]Hey, these are the same guys whose podcast I just listened to. That's interesting that Overstock invested. Hmm, that just increased the odds for me that the Barbadian central bank may indeed start buying some bitcoin as a hedge. Listen to the podcast! It's great:

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0WY5HI

 

[Aquent]

Good to see you around @awemany . I hope you know that some of your work has been highly significant, perhaps (and only history will tell) decisive.

I agree with your intuition that most of the arguments have at this point been laid out and in my view individual criticism at this point is best toned down with the shift moving towards the arguments. I think many people have shown colours and I further think tectonic plates are moving.

 

[Norway]

@cypherdoc
You must have killed it with 2011 investments.
Bitcoin is very cheap today, unless it fails. I did some simple maths, where I tried to describe how much money exist in the world one year ago.
I had to calculate the current exchange rate and multiply with the money supply (m2) for 200+ currencies to get my result.

It's this:

Over 10.000 people have looked at these graphs. And I just published the links to this on BCT, reddit and here
[doublepost=1459551983][/doublepost]PS: I should have made a red ring around the bitcoin part in the top left corner. It's important, but hard to see.

 

[cypherdoc]

and you're focused on the correct killer app; the money function that none of the small blockheads get. if these clowns just had the discipline to lay off and optimize Bitcoin onchain to improve its money function eventually Bitcoin would begin to take over the Forex market, the biggest in the world at $5T/day traded. that is precisely where the problem is in the world today as a result of unfettered CB printing that continuously balloons M1, M2, etc. it's not stocks, it's not bonds, it's not smart contracts, it's not micropayment channels, it's not SC's, it's not LN, it's not SW. it's a problem with corrupted money. only Bitcoin as money is a poison dart directed at the heart of this problem.
[doublepost=1459552763][/doublepost]coin bought back in the single digits will go a long way towards mucking up mempools for 3mo when enough value accumulates on LN.

all these offchain solns are just Bitcoin onchain wannabes that will be insecure and vulnerable.

 

[Norway]

It's no more tacky music than a guy rapping and a girl singing on top of some drums and a base.

But this is glued to my heart. I just love it:

 

[Inca]

and you're focused on the correct killer app; the money function that none of the small blockheads get. if these clowns just had the discipline to lay off and optimize Bitcoin onchain to improve its money function eventually Bitcoin would begin to take over the Forex market, the biggest in the world at $5T/day traded. that is precisely where the problem is in the world today as a result of unfettered CB printing that continuously balloons M1, M2, etc. it's not stocks, it's not bonds, it's not smart contracts, it's not micropayment channels, it's not SC's, it's not LN, it's not SW. it's a problem with corrupted money. only Bitcoin as money is a poison dart directed at the heart of this problem.

Your post distils the problem nicely. The killer app everyone keeps searching for regarding bitcoin is fact it's monetary properties. Bitcoin is only useful if growing numbers of people can access the network and have exposure to those properties as a store of value and frictionless medium of exchange. The small block arguments are a direct affront to this and therefore should be robustly fought off. As you correctly say bitcoin still has the possibility to soak up so much value it is almost unfathomable by being THE universal open payment ledger. With that unlimited potential I actually believe that growth trumps absurd attempts to maintain decentralisation for quite some distance into the future, even if that lead to decentralisation within data centres (is mining decentralised?). If bitcoin value continues to rise commensurate with usage then node count would probably increase in spite of increasing bandwidth and storage requirements, and of course these changes are gradual and problems can be addressed as they loom on the horizon.

Given the choice I would rather use bitcoin hosted in data centres globally and used by millions of people as a payment network and store of value, compared to bitcoin as a niche digital gold asset worth a few billion dollars. We should be aiming to become the currency of the internet. Detractors saying bitcoin cannot scale to VISA levels and therefore should be ossified now to 'protect decentralisation' are fools. The network should scale as far as possible technically, then when popular something like lightning can leverage bitcoin to the masses.

 

[Norway]

@cypherdoc
I'm so drunk, I could die right now.
But I want you to get this perspective:
Everything Blockstream does, is to create an API to bitcoin.
An API for "a second layer". That doesn't exist yet.
We don't need a change to the code to make these second layers. Because the deposit of coins to these systems are trivial.
Core should make LN. Not SW.
Aaaand they have a secret agenda to slow the bitcoin revolution down!

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Can't tell if satire or not (it is April Fools today after all):

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/blockstream-bloq-gem-itbit-thomson-reuters-and-others-join-the-linux-foundation-s-hyperledger-project-1459455103?#_=_

"The Linux Foundation, Hyperledger seems a radical alternative to the Bitcoin blockchain built by the banks, for the banks, which wants to retain the practical advantages of distributed ledger technology ‒ fast and cheap transactions permanently recorded in a tamper-proof ledger ‒ without the troublesome P2P openness and grassroots, anarchic nature of the the open, public Bitcoin blockchain."

Who is giving Linux and Bitcoin a bad name here?

Ok: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blythe_Masters

Just so I know for the future - a news site calling itself 'bitcoinmagazine' trashing Bitcoin in the worst possible way?

The sentence is worded oddly and hard to parse, but the "by banks, for banks" actually refers to Hyperledger, not Bitcoin.
[doublepost=1459565076][/doublepost]@go1111111

Ah you're right: fees can be paid in the sidechain without inflation. So then miners merge mine BTC and the sidechain to obtain BTC block rewards and fees as well as sidechain fees, and this "getting more money for no additional work" is because the sidechain creates extra value?

 

[johnyj]

Well the good news is that's not true currently as they need 95% uptake to activate it and Classic has a veto.

That's nothing to be happy about, they could just change the activation threshold to 90%. By colluding with mining pools you can control over 90% of hash power, it shows the current system is already in big trouble. A couple of phone call from Chinese government could shutdown bitcoin network immediately, and that is not a problem? Remember that their central bank already banned bitcoin as a currency

I'm not sure. I see it a bit like Direct Debit in the UK. I imagine that I might even use it.

21inc's LN has been published for at least a month, who has shown interest in it?

Now this is just wrong. Developers who (according to GitHub) generated more than 90% of all commits to Bitcoin Core in 2015 understand it and have signed off on it. @Gavin Andresen, Jeff Garzic and Andreas Antonopoulos understand it. Even I have a fairly good understanding of it now. It really isn't rocket science and the change is no more complex than bitcoin is anyway.

That's only a few guys, and these guys are very suspicious since from the beginning Pieter was unsatisfied with bitcoin design, he has been trying to modify bitcoin architecture for a long time, that's why he made so many changes, he want to "change every piece of software that has ever written for bitcoin" of course without community approval

Maybe you are thinking about libsecp256k1 and Greg? Too late.

Not too late if you stop all the changes now and implement change management process so that changes can only enter code after it is authorized by majority of users/miners (unlike segwit did)
[doublepost=1459574298,1459573288][/doublepost]

However I do feel that this forum is becoming an echo chamber given @johnyj clearly nonsense statement that 'only Pieter understands segwit' got so many likes. It's like the false notion that only 3 physicists understood Einstein's theories. Developers aren't stupid.... even core developers.

In fact I have never met anyone who really understand Einstein's relative theory, including a dozen of university professors and even a national academician. If you understand then I have some question for you (which all of them failed to answer)

Devs already proved their stupidity by causing current community split. There were so many right moves they didn't make, isn't that enough

 

[freetrader]

@johnyj :

That's nothing to be happy about, they could just change the activation threshold to 90%.

Theoretically maybe, but practically now that they've committed to using BIP9, they would have to introduce some really "special" condition for a particular soft-fork to deviate from the 95% rule.
Such code would be immediately spotted and criticized.

I'm not saying they can't do it, but it's not going to be easy to justify, because it would demonstrate clearly that they are not following their own accepted rules.

We still don't fully know what's going on between Blockstream and the "consensus" miners.
What worries me is that Adam Back is now travelling to discuss with pools (Slush) that allow Classic voting. It would not surprise me if Blockstream were trying to buy the remaining consensus it needs.

 

[bluemoon]

@freetrader: Adam Back to visit Slush? Thanks for pointing that out;
I agree it is a little worrying.

Seems Adam's going to a bitcoin meetup in Prague. Maybe he'll come in for a bit of stick?

https://slushpool.com/news/2016/04/01/adam-back-prague/

 

[freetrader]

@bluemoon: From the facebook event page:

Yahoo named Adam Back among 11 of the biggest players in Bitcoin and blockchain. Don't miss chance to meet him in person on April 5!
Bitcoin is partially based on a previous system called hashcash, an algorithm that cut down on email spam by requiring proof of work, an early form of what is now bitcoin “mining.”, which was created by Adam Back. Now the cryptographer, as president of blockchain startup Blockstream, has become one of the loudest voices in the debate over whether, and how, to increase the size limit of transaction blocks on the bitcoin blockchain. His experience as a consultant to Nokia and in distributed systems have made him a unique authority in the space. Reid Hoffman, the influential co-founder of LinkedIn, made a personal investment of $21 million in Blockstream, and the company has raised $76 million overall.

 

[bluemoon]

I guess if one or other is going to shift it will be Slush; Adam has shown only his intransigence so far.

 

[albin]

Is there literally anything at all that Adam Back is not looking to immediately stick his nose in?

 

[freetrader]

I'm collecting civil questions for Adam at the meetup on April 5. Slush has indicated that it might be recorded, although that's out of his personal scope.

I won't be attending, but someone else will be and has volunteered on Classic Slack to ask him questions, so I'll forward them.

Please respond in this thread:

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/collecting-questions-for-adam-back-in-prague.1066/

If you don't want your question disclosed publicly ahead of time, please PM me on here or on Classic slack, or send it to me by email.

 

[SysMan]

@SysMan I find it hard to understand why you would still support Core after reading all of the things we have discussed here.

It is not about Classic VS Core. It is about on chain scaling VS off chain scaling.

My IMHO its about Core vs "Bitcoin control" ...
Mike Harn... BitcoinXT, BIP101, Classic... continue by yourself.

BTW. SegWit4 released.
btcm.ag/segnet4
https://petertodd.org/2016/btcc-funding

 

[freetrader]

@SysMan:

Core vs "Bitcoin control"

Core does not control anything. No-one can even speak for Core, according to their own members.
But: does Blockstream control Core?

Who is going to pay Peter Todd for developing the hard fork that he promised to deliver to the Chinese miners? The one which allegedly will cost $320K for 2 months of development by himself and Corallo, Fields and Luke-Jr?

It would seem awfully generous (and frankly I wouldn't believe it) if they started working on it before someone had agreed to pay them...

continue by yourself

I'm afraid that looks like the only option if we want to get proper on-chain scaling in our lifetimes.

 

[albin]

@SysMan

With all due respect, it sounds to me like you've bought into a character assassination PR campaign lock, stock, and barrel.