Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Lee Adams]

P2SH is a normal transaction where the output scriptPub has this form:
<OP_HASH160> <redeemScriptHash> <OP_EQUAL>

 

[Dusty]

@Lee Adams You are right, I thought you was speaking about SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY.

Anyway, this explains well the problems of soft forks and why we should aim to do only hard forks.

 

[lunar]

It's not wise to underestimate the capabilities of the people who pursue the parasitical economic strategy - they are as skilled at producing deception and exploitation as the people who pursue the productive strategy are at creating economic value.

It's some conciliation that these 'people' function more like entities or organisations, and as such are made up of self serving individuals. Whilst the entity attempts to be parasitical on the system the individuals are selfishly trying to preserve their wealth. What better way than to store it as untraceable digital sound money?

Suppose that LN does in fact work out they way they intend, but there is hub centralization (which I still can't see not being extremely plausible), and suppose they even totally nail how the routing should work.

Seems to me the hub model will simply create a much smaller attack surface. Why attempt take down 10 000 Nodes when you can hit 200 Hubs? Expect these Hubs to become monitoring stations, with KYC/AML. or IP logging/Facebook Logins

 

[lunar]

This interview with Jeff Garzik does give me faith that Bitcoin will survive the Block Stream hack.

@AdrianX

This is a fantastic interview. Jeff is a great voice. I enjoyed the hostile host questions, Jeff skilfully puts to rest all of the Small block, Offchain, Core High priesthood arguments.
Highly recommended listen.

Paraphrased.
-Were not fans of the free market-
-Core Dev High priesthood should not have their fingers on the Moral Hazzard button that controls the block space commodity, That should be left to an algorithm that enforces the free market.-

Gandalf: "Don't tempt me Frodo! I dare not take it. Not even to keep it safe. Understand Frodo, I would use this Ring from a desire to do good. But through me, it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine."

The other great thing is that it seems Bloq will become yet another 'Browser' for the blockchain. BIPs will hopefully now become like network laws. Once a BIP has 75% Node support (regardless of implementation) and 75% Hash support it's activated for the entire network. This should lead to democratic development teams and a 'we'll implement your feature if you implement ours' culture.

I'd love to see one more team spring up with some of the Asian focused developers.

 

[cypherdoc]

$DJI turning down just in time. Intense deflation here we come:

[doublepost=1460042268][/doublepost]continued amazing uptake of blockchain tech. maybe we need to view this as a very good and necessary transition to a Bitcoin sound money economy:

http://www.coindesk.com/blockchain-credit-default-swaps-wall-street/
[doublepost=1460042415][/doublepost]just like i said, dollar has been dropping since December, not rising:

 

[albin]

Kind of maybe self-indulgent general philosophical thought here, but this whole layer 1 vs layer 2 framing wrt Bitcoin -> Lightning, isn't that possibly a little misleading? Like layer 2 solutions don't necessarily have to be completely different payment systems right? Things like Rootstock and Onename are also kinds of layer 2 solutions, in the sense that they provide additional functionality by using Bitcoin on the lower level that Bitcoin itself doesn't then necessarily have to provide?

 

[Norway]

@albin
I think you have the right perspective. We have to look at lightning from different angles.

Lightning should be able to stand on it's own feet. It only needs bitcoin to continue the current wealth distribution.

With this mindset, there are no reasons to change the current bitcoin code to upgrade to lightning. Bloodstream can just make a complete modified bitcoin/lightning combo, test it etc, and at the release date, just copy (and reformat?) the whole bitcoin ledger into the new, better system that everybody wants because it's better.

 

[Dusty]

Seems to me the hub model will simply create a much smaller attack surface. Why attempt take down 10 000 Nodes when you can hit 200 Hubs? Expect these Hubs to become monitoring stations, with KYC/AML. or IP logging/Facebook Logins

Well, as long as I can run my node I'm fine with it...
Also, better to have 10000+200 to attack than only 10000 ;-)

 

[Norway]

Quoting myself:

EDIT: @cypherdoc is quoting himself from other media all the time, so I'm not ashamed, lol

 

[Dusty]

One question to everybody who is willing to respond: were you as critical as now to add a new rule to the Bitcoin when they decided to soft-fork the network enabling P2SH ?

 

[cypherdoc]

@Dusty

not at all b/c multisig seemed to be a good thing at the time. plus, i know i didn't really understand the ANYONECANSPEND implications back then. IOW, alot has changed since then: more liberties have been taken to do what they want when they want (SF's for CSV, CLTV, RBF, SW, LN), this new wave of ANYONECANSPEND proposals not just for SW itself but for all the upcoming new op_codes, preferential discounts favoring LN tx's, the blocksize debate, Blockstream incorporation and takeover, censorship on all public forums backing the Blockstream vision, personal attacks, etc, etc.

this is a totally different situation.

 

[Norway]

@Dusty
I don't know what makes a fork soft. Is it like an auto update?

EDIT: Versus actively click a link to download and install new software.
Or is it all about forward versus backwards compability?

 

[AdrianX]

One question to everybody who is willing to respond: were you as critical as now to add a new rule to the Bitcoin when they decided to soft-fork the network enabling P2SH ?

No I was and still am ignorant to the impacts P2SH could have on Bitcoin. I'd probably be generally opposed to any new features, I'm pro simplifying Bitcoin to its functional elements making it a base kernel and even removing features that cant be practically defined as a direct function of money, I'd like to see a broader set of developers build on the kernel such and implement ideas on there own implementations - or forked implementations.

Soft forks shouldn't be dependant on a single implementation all these ideas should stand on there own merit not be added to the "kernel" by a central planing comity.

 

[Norway]

@cypherdoc
This quote from you is epic:
"(SF's for CSV, CLTV, RBF, SW, LN)"

PS: If you haven't figured it out yet, I'm drinking tonight. Not piña coladas this time, but pure vodka&CocaColaCompany. And writing a piece targeted at a norwegian finance media about how norwegian banks don't understand what "blockchain technology" is.

And NO. I'm not that stupid! I'm not mailing my article to this finance media while drunk. I have to read, censor like theymos and improve the text before I send tomorrow.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

Hm I don't want to be a nagging nancy but I don't like the plot of mined Classic blocks.
Looks too much like XT's development.
I hope I'm just to impatient.

But anyway I'm not out before there is a running PoW fork where I can take my coins..

 

[freetrader]

I'm not out before there is a running PoW fork where I can take my coins..

I really like to imagine that there's a supercomputer scheduling the timing of your comments for maximum induced sleeplessness in certain culprits

 

[Norway]

@satoshis_sockpuppet
Do you mean this plot?
http://nodecounter.com/#bitcoin_classic_blocks

Don't worry. The stagnation in growth is not very relevant. It's still very small. And it will continue to be small. As long as miners get their profit.

But the price of bitcoin has to take a dive. Because nobody wants to invest in "the future of money" as long as the transaction capacity of this system is allready or almost full.

I can't tell you exactly when, how fast and how deep the dive will be. Because I don't know the answers. That's why I don't trade actively, and don't short.

Just hodl. Long term. Buy cheap coinz. Hodl. Buy more. Wait. Patience. Tick Tock. Buy more. Hodl.

EDIT: I forgot your point, and the theme (Cheers!). Here we go: When miners start to bleed hard, they get desperate. The reason for the price dive will become more obvious (the lack of tx capcity). And miners will change their code to Classic. (And after a while, BU becomes the obvious implementation,)

 

[sickpig]

One question to everybody who is willing to respond: were you as critical as now to add a new rule to the Bitcoin when they decided to soft-fork the network enabling P2SH ?

Soft forks should never be used for changing consensus rules, independently from the proposed change.

A soft fork is a community accepted, in plain sight 51 95% attack.

Back then I was naive enough to not being able to grasp the perniciousness of this kind of deploy mechanism.

 

[albin]

One question to everybody who is willing to respond: were you as critical as now to add a new rule to the Bitcoin when they decided to soft-fork the network enabling P2SH ?

I think there's a very fundamental difference between softfork segwit and softfork P2SH.

P2SH was not intended to be an immediate fix to an emergency need the community had right then and there, and the community had essentially years to understand what it was all about and design UX and workflow around it. It truly was opt-in because there is essentially no systemic risk to introducing it.

Softfork Segwit is being advocated in order to bring about a capacity increase, and in order to serve that function it has to be ubiquitously adopted in the vast majority of user-facing software as fast as possible, and for it to be effective as many tx's have to be performed using it as possible. Not even considering the network partitioning risks or considering adequately studying the economic implications, this is not only opt-in in name only, it carries non-trivial systemic risks. I'm not saying this necessarily shouldn't be done on principle, but the idea of putting segwit out there as a soft fork on such a compressed timeframe motivated to alleviate tx capacity issues is irresponsible on a level that is simply lunatic. I can't help but think that the only reason this scheme has any acceptance at all is a weird cult of hero-worship surrounding Peter Wuille as an ueber-nerd.

 

[cypherdoc]

[doublepost=1460060887][/doublepost]Great Job Blockstream!:

Allaire even criticized the development of bitcoin for essentially stalling out in the last few years, and since falling into a nasty civil war. He had kind words for the newly launched Bitcoin competitor Ethereum, but said it wasn’t quite ready for primetime.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/matthewzeitlin/circles-future-looks-like-less-bitcoin-and-more-banking?utm_content=bufferd1001&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer#.nvmrDG5pb