Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[8up]

For now this is true.

Bitcoin has a security valve (Classic/Unlimited) usable in case of emergency. In the meanwhile the decision (mainly by big and centralized miners/cartell) is keeping the status quo.

For the people who prefer on-chain growth it is indeed beneficial to grow the ecosystem as a whole, because it will bring in new participants - with new political thoughts and aspirations.

The voting mechanism every 10 minutes is great. It means change unlike in political systems can happen much faster (tipping points).

The freedom of choice to use the currency I like most is in the end the corrective factor and will become more important in the future (not now).

 

[cypherdoc]

Better to upvote this comment (I bet it's someone writing in this forum... ):

[edit] and this one:

note the deleted comment.
[doublepost=1460369591][/doublepost]

The latest meme seems to be let's get behind Core and band together, accept that LN/segwit first then possible hard fork later is acceptable because whilst it may not be what everyone wants we all want to scale bitcoin.

They are very careful on /r/bitcoin to keep saying possible with regards to hard fork. Such a bunch of dishonest f*ckers.

and /u/josephpoon doing nothing but talking hype with no detail.

 

[Zarathustra]

Adam again said in Prague that Segwit gives an aequivalent of about 2 MB, which is a lie, as we all know. Then he said, on top of this we'll have Schnorr Sig this year which results in an additional aequivalent of 1,5 - 2 MB. Is that true or another lie?

 

[sickpig]

@Zarathustra

I never actually verified but it seems that Schnorr sig is the best thing since sliced bread, cryptographically speaking.

Here http://ed25519.cr.yp.to/ you can find a lot info about most recent work done by Daniel J. Bernstein relate to Schnorr sig applied to Ellipctic Curve.

I think that, again, the main gain space wise will be obtained in case of multisig tx. Still, also normal txs will be smaller because current ECDSA signs size could be as small as 33 bytes and up to 75 bytes, whereas Schnorr span size go from 32 to 64 bytes.

The reason why multisig txs will be thinner when using Schnorr sigs is due to Schnorr math properties that make signers able to produce one single combined signature instead of having M distinct signs (in a typical M-of-N schema).

Other useful resource:

https://github.com/WebOfTrustInfo/rebooting-the-web-of-trust/blob/master/topics-and-advance-readings/Schnorr-Signatures--An-Overview.md
https://blockstream.com/2015/08/24/treesignatures/#h.9rugkxilwuyi
https://github.com/ElementsProject/elements/tree/1e20db4a79fc462439d9e92ddce1531d7be5a23e/src/secp256k1/src/modules/schnorr


edit: better english (maybe)

 

[Norway]

I'm spending some time in the trenches in North Korea:

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

It should be noted that anything that can be copied by another coin (SegWit, Schnorr) will be, so it doesn't address the fundamental scaling problem at all. The scaling problem is a problem of *competition.* Add all the bells and whistles you want, but if the ideal base blocksize is 50 MB and Core is still insisting on 1MB (with whatever multiplier), they are still going to be 50x below the optimal throughput. If they can get 4MB worth of throughput out of 1MB, a fork can get 200MB. If they come up with a new tech to drive it to 8MB, a fork can get 400MB. They will always be leaving 98% of the market share on the table for another coin, fork, or spinoff to take.

They can't win, because they don't address the fundamental problem: you cannot artificially handicap a system in an open source, unregulated environment and hope to maintain superiority.

You cannot maintain an arbitrarily large amount of conservatism about the basic blocksize, because any excess conservatism opens a commensurately sized hole for altcoins to crawl through, eventually motivating a fork away from Core if they don't step it up. And "step it up" doesn't mean Segwit, Schnorr, LN, even weak blocks or thin blocks...unless these things can allow for more transactions per seconds than the world could conceivably need, there will always be demand for more, hence always room for a non-handicapped version to draw away market share by copying all the compression methods while simply not artificially stunting the blocksize.

It reminds me of what I heard a kid say about how he would win a boxing match: pull out a bunch of ninja stars and throw them at the opponent before he could get close. "Well gee, if ninja stars were allowed in boxing matches, don't you think the other guy might have them, too?"

 

[cypherdoc]

the whole settlement layer idea is bunk.

let us review the 3 properties of Sound Money:

1. SOV
2. medium of exchange
3. unit of account

we've had the first 2 for years now. that's been fantastic. Bitcoin is struggling to get to first base as a unit of account. along comes Blockstream with it's vision of offchain tx's and relegating onchain to a settlement layer; when it's not yet a unit of account.

 

[cypherdoc]

long time troll /u/ciphera now touting what seems to be the new response to problems with pmt channel closure; "don't ever close them":

[doublepost=1460392108][/doublepost]i personally don't think offchain solutions should be implemented until Bitcoin gets accepted as a worldwide currency on the Forex.

 

[cypherdoc]

look at all the flailing around about the simple details in LN, like hubs and routing, for instance.

no one has a clue as to how this is supposed to work.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4ea1s8/how_are_paths_found_in_lightning_network/

 

[Justus Ranvier]

long time troll /u/ciphera now touting what seems to be the new response to problems with pmt channel closure; "don't ever close them":

Once Bitcoin use has been abolished and the blockchain has been turned into a settlement system between btc-denominated banks, those banks are going to start to wonder why the ever need to settle at all - why not ignore the blockchain and just keep the Lightning transaction going forever?

There are many advantages to never closing the channel. In particular, a channel that is never closed has no reason to strictly adhere to all the Bitcoin protocol's rules (especially concerning the supply of Bitcoins).

 

[Norway]

Lightning is so experimental that nobody should change the bitcoin code to fit LN until it's finished and tested.

Personally, I think LN is just vaporware used as a tool by Blockstream to choke bitcoin for as long as they can.

 

[cypherdoc]

@Justus Ranvier

the exact analogy is 1971, Nixon administration:

"uh, we've decided Mr. France, that gold Bitcoin settlement is not actually going to be honored anymore. let's just use the dollar the LN".

 

[8up]

in this case (like we did before, when we chose bitcoin as superior form of money) we will switch to a better crypto-currency (sound money). by then hardware should also be capable of huge/sufficient on-chain volume.

i am not afraid of the future.

 

[cypherdoc]

as much as i respect Fred Ehrsam, i think he misses the major point.

Bitcoin is not being adopted widely b/c it is not always cheap and it is not reliable; both side effects of full blocks:

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/coinbase-co-founder-fred-ehrsam-on-two-key-roadblocks-to-bitcoin-s-mainstream-moment-1459783632?utm_campaign=buffer&utm_content=buffer5fa10&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com
[doublepost=1460396349,1460395201][/doublepost]Lombrozzo continues to chomp at the bit. leave my money alone dude. these fuckers can't keep their hands off all our value.

and here's the bad news:

A final possible use case for the Lightning Network that may come as a surprise to some is decentralized exchanges of digital assets. During his talk, Eric Lombrozo noted:

“[With the Lightning Network], you could have peer-to-peer order books and atomic, cross-chain swaps.”

The idea of using something like the Lightning Network to create a decentralized exchange has also been discussed by Amiko Pay Developer C.J. Plooy. According to Plooy, Lightning Network channels have the ability to route payments between different blockchains. This means transfers and atomic exchanges between sidechains, which could contain different assets, can take place instantaneously.

Lombrozo ended this portion of his talk by adding:

“You can have a way of doing all this stuff with minimal cost, which makes it really, really effective.

https://www.coingecko.com/buzz/eric-lombrozo-7-use-cases-lightning-network
[doublepost=1460396972][/doublepost]/u/josephpoon is a snake. he changed his post after i submitted my reply. i can't remember his exact wording but he was AdamBackTracking on LN's ability to buy coffee and donuts:

 

[cypherdoc]

let me just quote this bullshit from Lombrozzo one more time in the context of what Wall Street does on a daily basis. and that is to create all sorts of fancy investment products (like CDO's) that most investors don't have a clue as to how they work. but since there's plenty of money to be made fooling sheep, it's routinely done. it's called speculation and is directly tied to inflation. and since we now know that core devs think it's perfectly ok for pmt channels to never have to close (depegging) with HTLC's and whatever trading indefinitely thru centralized LN hubs (who can be expected to fractionally reserve esp if not regulated), we can see inflation just around the corner. devs gotta dev:

A final possible use case for the Lightning Network that may come as a surprise to some is decentralized exchanges of digital assets. During his talk, Eric Lombrozo noted:

“[With the Lightning Network], you could have peer-to-peer order books and atomic, cross-chain swaps.”

The idea of using something like the Lightning Network to create a decentralized exchange has also been discussed by Amiko Pay Developer C.J. Plooy. According to Plooy, Lightning Network channels have the ability to route payments between different blockchains. This means transfers and atomic exchanges between sidechains, which could contain different assets, can take place instantaneously.

Lombrozo ended this portion of his talk by adding:

“You can have a way of doing all this stuff with minimal cost, which makes it really, really effective.
[doublepost=1460399231][/doublepost]let's talk about these LN hubs.

so, if there isn't a need to regulate them like many small blockists argue, then why wouldn't they take liberties like mtgox and fractionally reserve?

likewise, if they are regulated, then why aren't they centralized privacy violating entities that could be used to ban or spy on certain users?

 

[cypherdoc]

This is exactly the type of attitude that early adopters and those with significant BTC holdings have been hoping to avoid; the destruction of Bitcoins greatest strength, it's SOV, by offchain solutions:

 

[freetrader]

Talking about a final version of a thing which is still lacking a finalized specification and design, and is supposed to be released this summer. I can't quite take that talk seriously.

I remember the past few months everyone hyping LN was claiming it would be entirely P2P and by implication just as decentralized as Bitcoin.

The goalposts still seem to be shifting everytime it is discussed. I think it's taken on a life of its own, and quite what creature it will evolve into remains to be seen. I don't believe it will have much to do with sound money in my control, so I'll be focusing my attention on things that will provide that instead.

 

[cypherdoc]

[doublepost=1460402630,1460401958][/doublepost]

Talking about a final version of a thing which is still lacking a finalized specification and design, and is supposed to be released this summer. I can't quite take that talk seriously.

I remember the past few months everyone hyping LN was claiming it would be entirely P2P and by implication just as decentralized as Bitcoin.

The goalposts still seem to be shifting everytime it is discussed. I think it's taken on a life of its own, and quite what creature it will evolve into remains to be seen. I don't believe it will have much to do with sound money in my control, so I'll be focusing my attention on things that will provide that instead.

Kyle does one interview with Poonpump and suddenly he's an expert on LN.

What the heck kind of confidence is "Tor-like" supposed to engender?
Everybody knows that Tor is vulnerable, especially if you're trying to break the law like avoid taxes like many of these kids are dreaming of.
[doublepost=1460402958][/doublepost]Why do Lombrozzo's cross chain swaps sound suspiciously like credit default swaps?

 

[cypherdoc]

@johnyj

reading this, you can see why core devs are chomping at the bit.

revamping legal contracts in terms of "smart" will ensure a lifetime's worth of work. of course, as you say, there's no clear indication of the judicial branch being willing to enforce these types of new smart contracts. of course this could change but do we really want to get away from what Bitcoin does best and is the greatest source of future potential value, ie, the money function?

finally, this is part is just plain wrong if there is no POW nor decentralization involved:

Once the code of the contract is uploaded and recorded onto the blockchain, the parties can have confidence that the contract cannot be altered, and that it will perform as expected.

http://www.coindesk.com/blockchain-smarts-contracts-real-world-law/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+CoinDesk+(CoinDesk+-+The+Voice+of+Digital+Currency)

 

[Justus Ranvier]

LN proponents are now willing to stoop so low that they'll now assert that "LN transactions are exactly the same as Bitcoin transactions" merely means that the byte serialization is the same. (Motte-and-bailey tactic).

When they make this claim, they want you to interpret as meaning that the transactions are exactly the same in terms of fungability, time value of money, security, privacy, etc., but when pressed all they will defend is that the binary serialization of LN looks the same as Bitcoin transactions.