Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Zarathustra]

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

He obviously knows what money is, and always has been: DEBT/CREDIT

“We don’t think charging for payments is a business model, we don’t think it will exist in five or ten years,” Allaire said. “It would be like charging for sending an international email.” What Circle is trying to do, he said, is “build a global model for this where value can be transmitted to anyone with a smartphone or internet device anywhere in the world irrespective of what currency they use.”

The real business, Allaire says, is lending. People in the category of “I don’t have money right now, but I’d like to have money right now,” he says, are a “fertile area” — although to be fair, lending has been a “fertile area” for literally thousands of years.

 

[albin]

A+++ for Jeff Garzik on that creepy confrontational podcast.

First Core dev I've ever heard that acknowledges that running a full node has economic utility for the node operator.

 

[cypherdoc]

@albin

First Core dev I've ever heard that acknowledges that running a full node has economic utility for the node operator.

not exactly.

you forget the big stink pwuille started last summer in the middle of the blocksize debate claiming that the main reason to run a full node was for it's operator to be able to verify his own tx's. meaning of course that it needs to be able to validate the tx and the blockchain entirely (no SPV) to be absolutely sure.

nvm the abrupt about face come December after his SW presentation.
[doublepost=1460128345,1460127601][/doublepost]interesting; thread views exploding.

getting close to maximum end of huge bullish triangle, as discussed several months ago. note smoothly rising 200DMA. should break up:

we're also almost into May; "sell in May and go away"?:

can gold continue upwards? i tend to doubt it. holding tight to DZZ:

it's intense deflation until proven otherwise.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

http://xtnodes.com/#bitcoin_classic_blocks
..
meh.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

It's never actually going to be possible to cryptographically prove the identity of Satoshi beyond all doubt.

The only authoritative key associated with Satoshi is the one included in the genesis block as the output of the first generation transaction.

Even that's not 100% certain, because including a public key in an output doesn't prove possession of the associated private key. He probably had the private key, but if for some strange reason if he was sending his mining rewards to someone else's keys we wouldn't be able to detect the difference.

Even if we assume that Satoshi had the private key when the block was mined, there's no way to prove that someone else didn't obtain that key somehow in the intervening time.

 

[cypherdoc]

@Justus Ranvier

Even if we assume that Satoshi had the private key when the block was mined, there's no way to prove that someone else didn't obtain that key somehow in the intervening time.

with that logic, isn't the entire concept of digital signing out the window?

 

[Justus Ranvier]

with that logic, isn't the entire concept of digital signing out the window?

It really depends on the stakes and I'm not sure why you'd describe it as if it's something optional or invented. It's a fact of reality that possession of a private key doesn't prove anything other than possession of a private key at the moment of the proof.

If somebody has a private key, then there's some probability less than 100% that they are the only one to have it, and some probability less than 100% that they've always had exclusive possession of it.

That's why concepts like multisig exist - exactly because of the recognition that 100% certainty is not achievable. When an application requires more certainty than a single signature can provide, you can require multiple independent signatures to reduce the risk to acceptable levels.

But the risk never does truly reach 0% no matter what you do.

 

[AdrianX]

It's never actually going to be possible to cryptographically prove the identity of Satoshi beyond all doubt.

The only authoritative key associated with Satoshi is the one included in the genesis block as the output of the first generation transaction.

Even that's not 100% certain, because including a public key in an output doesn't prove possession of the associated private key. He probably had the private key, but if for some strange reason if he was sending his mining rewards to someone else's keys we wouldn't be able to detect the difference.

Even if we assume that Satoshi had the private key when the block was mined, there's no way to prove that someone else didn't obtain that key somehow in the intervening time.

The question I'd ask is if it was possible what value would it have? If you knew you were talking to the actual Satoshi (or representative) and he said anything you disagreed with, knowing who he is is no going to change my mined. The proof just gets you an audience, disproving its him doesn't deny that but tries to belittle the message, which should be taken at face value anyway.

I see value in having him express the original Bitcoin design intent, and understanding "his" thought about introducing the limit on block size and how has his view on the issue have changed.

Being 100% certain I'm talking to the guy who could control 1M BTC is not so necessary, life is just a bunch of probabilities anyway, and that certainty be it at 25% or a 75% does little to provide any other certainties.

That's why concepts like multisig exist - exactly because of the recognition that 100% certainty is not achievable. When an application requires more certainty than a single signature can provide, you can require multiple independent signatures to reduce the risk to acceptable levels.

this point illustrates how multisig can reduces Fungibility and the Transferability of money when applied to bitcoin.

 

[Lee Adams]

The only authoritative key associated with Satoshi is the one included in the genesis block as the output of the first generation transaction.

This is not true as he put his pgp key on the initial web site. He just never used it. He mentions it on his forum postings a couple of times. Also: 'his (never used) PGP key was created just months prior to the date of the genesis block'

 

[lunar]

Bad news for Erik

Yesterday afternoon, we noticed several pieces of evidence indicating our server infrastructure was compromised and threatened. We made the decision to scrap that infrastructure, and rebuild in a wholly new and safe environment. This is what we are currently engaged in. While we hate having the service offline, it was the safer path.

https://www.reddit.com/r/shapeshiftio/comments/4dx6k4/shapeshift_update_april_7_security_breach/

 

[Justus Ranvier]

Being 100% certain I'm talking to the guy who could control 1M BTC is not so necessary, life is just a bunch of probabilities anyway

I agree. I think it is good to remember that there is always a non-zero possibility that anyone is not who they claim, even with cryptography involved.

This is not true as he put his pgp key on the initial web site.

How would one go about proving what the state of a web site was in 2008?

How easy is it to tamper with web site archives compared to tampering with the genesis block?

 

[Lee Adams]

@Justus Ranvier

OK try this then:

As a result, this transaction is generally believed to be the only message Satoshi has ever been known to sign cryptographically.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

As a result, this transaction is generally believed to be the only message Satoshi has ever been known to sign cryptographically.

That's almost as good as the genesis block output key.

I did notice that whoever wrote that Google doc is confused about something. There's no need for Satoshi to "reveal the key which hashes to the genesis address" because that key is already revealed.

Bitcoin addresses had not been invented at the time the genesis block was mined and the output scripts they used were just an (uncompressed) public key followed by OP_CHECKSIG.

You can represent this key as an address, but it's not stored in the blockchain as an address - the pubkey itself is what's stored.

 

[Inca]

Is it me or is /r/bitcoin now simply an echo chamber with very few posters who are new or not clear socks and on my troll list?

Whilst I share the wish for bitcoin to break out of this giant wedge higher @cypherdoc, and everyone seems to be expecting this, prepare for the opposite, a painful crash is also a distinct possibility.

Hopefully my old way of thinking, that a rising price will become a self reinforcing trend and bring in new money, will hold true.

Luke-jr again extolling his odd belief that raising the blocksize above 1mb is not an issue for years because spam. Spam of course being someone else's valid transaction. Woe betide usecases for bitcoin which require small transactions.

 

[8up]

@Inca - While it's very well possible, that we see ourselves confronted with a broken Bitcoin system in a few months after testing on-chain SegWit scaling and off-chain LN scaling - I don't see it now. Anyways we need a cause to pop the bubble.

Financial crisis >> block size crisis. (still valid)

In general - I think most uncertainty (regarding block size, halving,...) is already priced in (by the Bitcoin insiders/holders). Hence, when I look at sentiment (compare BCT Q1/13), fundamentals and TA the probability of an outbreak to the upside is bigger (3/4) than to the downside (1/4). Also represented in a strong bias longs vs. shorts. If it breaks down, I am quite sure it will happen in a September 2013 flash crash fashioned way. And the movement after that will be more severe (to the upside), because we got rid of the heavy weight longs.

So IMO there is (for the short to midterm)...

• option one - slowly creeping up because of longs; accelerating in the process (like in October 2015 and June 2012)

• option two - flash crash and immediate consolidation; after that severe price hike (like in September 2013)

PSA: if we talk about the longterm > 6 to 12 month - I currently have no expectation/clue

 

[Inca]

@8up: I think that's a fair assessment!

http://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=578

Rusty talking about changing address convention for segwit addresses and moving away from b58.

I personally have no problem with case sensitivity, though Gregory Maxwell apparently dislikes it (better get rid then)!

Luke-jr is of course instantly trolling the comments, first scolding Rusty for posting in the wrong place (how dare he post outside moderated areas!), next showing why new developers don't want to work on Core - 'we thought of this year's ago' - and finally the best bit, disagreeing with use of 'btc:' prepending new addresses. I wonder why!?

 

[cypherdoc]

why Bitcoin should continue to focus on it's money function first and foremost with no compromise:

Why are they fighting bitcoin?
Government’s power comes from controlling the monetary system. In particular the supply of new money; how much is created and who gets it. Governments also control what can and cannot be used as money in which types of transactions.

Governments guarantee demand for their currency by mandating that taxes can only be paid in that currency. This guaranteed demand is the only thing that ensures government currencies have value.

If people use bitcoin rather than a government currency then the demand for, and value of, that government currency falls. If enough people do this on mass it will result in hyperinflation causing the government currency becomes almost worthless.

Currency collapses make it impossible for the government to pay for things or repay debts that are denominated in other currencies. This has happened recently in Venezuela,Zimbabwe and Argentina. It has happened hundreds of times throughout history and it will happen to every government currency in use today, the only question is when.

Banks depend on being able to create new money, debt and credit. Other businesses such as Western Union and Visa depend on charging fees for things that bitcoin does for free. If people prefer bitcoin to government currency for some transactions both of these business models will be less profitable.

http://www.bitedge.co/blog/then-they-fight-you-how-the-financial-system-is-attacking-bitcoin/

 

[albin]

Luke-jr is of course instantly trolling the comments

The opportunity for bike-shedding pedantry of no consequence to the fundamental workings of the system is basically the Bat-signal for Luke-jr.

 

[cypherdoc]

New poll above.

archive poll:

 

[freetrader]

Meanwhile, Classic blocks has dropped to 49/1000 :-/

I wonder when Slush planned to hit that switch on the unvoted hash rate split ...

And what happened to the other pool that was talking about offering voting...