Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Zarathustra]

@Domrada. But still stocks (which is a company's debt to the shareholders) performed hundred fold better than gold and other metals.

 

[adamstgbit]

@Zarathustra
stocks are investments
gold is a store of value

its much better to be hodling stocks, unless you feel some kind of global economic crisis is looming

what's really neat about bitcoin is that its inherently like gold ( same kind of properties ), but since its early and unproven it's value is more like a stock. we seam to get the best of both worlds a store of value that is in price discovery stage.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

gold is a store of value

There's no such thing as a store of value.

Value is produced and consumed in real time - all you can store is evidence that you've produced more in the past than you consumed in the past, and hope that producers of value in the future will respect that by allowing you to consume more than you produce in the future.

 

[bluemoon]

One reason I hold bitcoin is that I hope others will value it in future when I wish to exchange my bitcoin for something else.

Is that not a (hoped for) store of value?

 

[cypherdoc]

@Zarathustra
stocks are investments
gold is a store of value

its much better to be hodling stocks, unless you feel some kind of global economic crisis is looming

what's really neat about bitcoin is that its inherently like gold ( same kind of properties ), but since its early and unproven it's value is more like a stock. we seam to get the best of both worlds a store of value that is in price discovery stage.

not only that but the liquidity and global reach of Bitcoin is extraordinary. i'm sure most of you have spent some BTC before. it's incredible that you can spend it immediately, unlike stocks, bonds, or pm's, or even wire transfers, yet it has that SOV quality and huge potential to appreciate. this is why we hodl.

this is also why i disagree with that Canadian central banker's conjectures about a Bitcoin Standard. i think it does have a chance to become a bonafide traded currency on the Forex, at least. and if global human equality turns out to be actually a thing in the future, then a Bitcoin Standard.
[doublepost=1460645290][/doublepost]

One reason I hold bitcoin is that I hope others will value it in future when I wish to exchange my bitcoin for something else.

Is that not a (hoped for) store of value?

the reason i hodl is that i hope Bitcoin will become a unit of account. then i won't need to "cash out". simply use it as my day to day currency. but for that to happen, it has to achieve global reach to all people's.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

One reason I hold bitcoin is that I hope others will value it in future when I wish to exchange my bitcoin for something else.

Is that not a (hoped for) store of value?

That's another way of describing the process I mentioned above, but it's not "storing value" because value isn't what's being stored.

http://nakamotoinstitute.org/reciprocal-altruism-in-the-theory-of-money/

Value is what you buy with money - not the money itself.

 

[freetrader]

global reach of Bitcoin is extraordinary

No kidding.
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4eqi57/im_currently_in_antarctica_and_thought_itd_be_fun/

 

[AdrianX]

There's no such thing as a store of value.

Value is produced and consumed in real time - all you can store is evidence that you've produced more in the past than you consumed in the past, and hope that producers of value in the future will respect that by allowing you to consume more than you produce in the future.

This is what's lacking in civilization today, a technical solution to this problem using modern technology. we'll never escape the need for faith and trust but at least we could have an unequivocal proof you weren't goofing off in the past.

That's the best store of value that exists. The system we today fiat and its dependants practically allow the unit of measure for productivity and optimization to be change with retrospection .

 

[cypherdoc]

No kidding.
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4eqi57/im_currently_in_antarctica_and_thought_itd_be_fun/

a few years ago, they had a yearly competition, where a bunch of Bitcoiner's geographically diversified around the world (about 6 of them iirc) would relay a bitcoin around the globe as fast as they could. of course, they depended on 0 conf tx's which today are taboo! the speed was astounding considering the number of hops they introduced.

 

[Richy_T]

Why are major Bitcoin miners successful today? Because they are the people who can build SHA256 ASICs, deploy warehouses full of them, obtain cheap rents, tech workers and electricity. That is their business niche and they excel at it. Today.

I think if you look at what certain Core devs have said in the past, it's pretty clear that they hate miners (or what mining has become). I wouldn't be surprised if their motivation was to minimize the role of miners as they currently are implemented and move transactions away from the blockchain and they are single minded about this to the degree that they are willing to ignore or dismiss the implications of doing this.

Miners are being incredibly short-sighted in supporting Blockstream in the direction they are heading. Blockstream is not a friend to them but a competitor wanting to take a share of their business. Miners are truly putting their head into the lion's mouth.
[doublepost=1460649217][/doublepost]Quick question: Was Eligius just a pool or was it also mining in its own right?

 

[cypherdoc]

Rusty is only now getting around to "re_architecting" his LN implementation to work with SW:

https://medium.com/@rusty_lightning/rearchitecting-for-segregated-witness-d67a54740e82#.rtqe7cgwd

 

[Richy_T]

That thread is like the epitome of what censorship produces: zero content vapid sycophantic cheerleading for the party line. There's no way they're going to be able to contain the blowback in the comments.

Somehow /r/btc "censors" by voting, yet on /r/btc whether you agree with the individual posts or not, you see people producing their own analysis and putting it out there, right or wrong.

/r/btc does downvote a lot of the same old crowd yet I frequently see well written comments on the small block side upvoted. I think we're just tired of the same old discredited talking points from the small blockers.
[doublepost=1460649786][/doublepost]

This made me smile (yes, ignoring the fact that it's a tumblr page)

http://classicprogrammerpaintings.tumblr.com/

Wish someone would do something similar for the Bitcoin holy wars

Aww. I was hoping that these would be Modern paintings in classical styles actually depicting computery stuff. The "serverless architecture" almost had me fooled. We need more like this.

 

[Dusty]

this comes at great cost given the multitude of changes to Bitcoin economics it forces namely 75% discount for LN multisigs (p2sh),

Actually they can't force the discount, that's up to the miners to accept their policy (it's a policy, not a consensus rule).
It's rational that all the miners will use a modified version of core that does not implement the discount rule .
[doublepost=1460651685][/doublepost]

informative post by Vitalik on LN:

Vitalin is considered a genius and in this very post you quoted he said that miners can soft fork rules to create more than 21M coins. And of course this is completely wrong.

It seems to me he does not understand the basics...

 

[Justus Ranvier]

This is what happens when you "save in one currency, and spend in another":

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-14/first-silver-now-gold-deutsche-bank-admits-it-also-rigged-gold-prices-legal-settleme

 

[sickpig]

For once Sanson Mow is half right (he usually is wrong).

Now he has just to realize that network/tech constraints are nothing more than a proxy for economic incentives (I.e. adding txs to a blk increase your orphan risk).

Then he will be ready to be hitted by the sudden realization that there's no need for a block size limit at all.



edit: grammar

 

[Peter R]

"this comes at great cost given the multitude of changes to Bitcoin economics it forces namely 75% discount for LN multisigs (p2sh)" --@cypherdoc

Actually they can't force the discount, that's up to the miners to accept their policy (it's a policy, not a consensus rule). It's rational that all the miners will use a modified version of core that does not implement the discount rule .

This point needs more nuance, as both @cypherdoc and @Dusty are correct.

If the block size is much smaller than the block size limit, then the market price of block space is governed by its marginal cost of production (e.g., orphaning risk). The 75% discount to segwit data is essentially an optional gift from the miners to those producing segwit transactions. If a miner honours the discount, he is merely selling block space for less than its market value (presumably for some greater good) and thus earning less profit than he would if he didn't honour the discount.

On the other hand, if the block size is equal to the block size limit, then the market price of block space may be significantly greater than its marginal cost of production. In such a case, orphaning risk is not a factor and a rational miner will simply maximize the total fees included in his block. Since 4 bytes of segwit data only count as 1 byte of standard data towards the size limit, a rational miner will indeed offer a discount. A miner is better off producing a 3 MB block that pays 1 BTC in fees (0.33 BTC / MB) than he is producing a 1 MB block that pays 0.5 BTC in fees (0.5 BTC / MB) [assuming that orphaning risk is negligible relative to the artificially-high fees due to the limit].

 

[cypherdoc]

Actually they can't force the discount, that's up to the miners to accept their policy (it's a policy, not a consensus rule).

but they are forcing it; onto old nodes. SF's are meant to allow core dev to speak on behalf of all full nodes w/o consulting them. then they get to just make it a game of convincing a few miners to go along with their central planning.

 

[Richy_T]

It's rational that all the miners will use a modified version of core that does not implement the discount rule .

Hopefully. Though the discount rule itself is essential for the scaling part of segwit. It is used both for blocksize calculation and for prioritization. Miners would have to add extra code to treat the prioritization differently to blocksize. Hopefully some kind soul(s) will help them out.
[doublepost=1460657464][/doublepost]

Vitalin is considered a genius and in this very post you quoted he said that miners can soft fork rules to create more than 21M coins. And of course this is completely wrong.

Well, you could but the new coins would not be spendable to old addresses or on old nodes. So not really Bitcoin but the rule for that seems to be "Whatever we say it is" these days.

 

[albin]

I'm gonna call it... they've achieved peak circlejerk:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4epwbm/10_random_true_facts_about_bitcoin_cores_pieter/

 

[Richy_T]

For once Sanson Mow is half right (he usually is wrong).

Now he have just to realize that network/tech constraints are nothing more than a proxy for economic incentives (I.e. adding txs to a blk increase your orphan risk).

Then he will be ready to be hitted by the sudden realization that there's no need for a block size limit at all.

If I had a twitter account, I would be tweeting "Welcome on board"