Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[freetrader]

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

That would be like staring into the void.

Give the man something to hold on, please.

I would suggest an aisle seat, not a window seat, on the moon rocket.

 

[Inca]

The idiocy has reached new highs. A thread on /r/bitcoin linking an article from some economic illiterate who suggests that 'blocks being full is good for bitcoin'.

r/bitcoin is like the Marie Celeste already and I am beginning to wonder who exactly they are expecting to entice into buying the next rally with stupidity reigning supreme.

Would any sound money advocate learning about bitcoin today be anything other than put off by the concept of the network running at or near the maximum transactional capacity?

 

[cypherdoc]

this is the kind of attitude that you millenials and your offspring need to worry about; old guys running up debts on your tab:

[doublepost=1460662288,1460661495][/doublepost]i gotta say, this sounds good. i wonder if it could be employed w/o SW?:

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/the-power-of-schnorr-the-signature-algorithm-to-increase-bitcoin-s-scale-and-privacy-1460642496

 

[Peter R]

"i gotta say, this sounds good. i wonder if it could be employed w/o SW?:"

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/article...crease-bitcoin-s-scale-and-privacy-1460642496

Is what the author claims with respect to Schnorr and CoinJoin correct (it would be cool if it was)? That multiple outputs each belonging to different people can be spent with a single aggregated signature? I understand that signatures for the same output can be aggregated with Schnorr (standard multisig) but this seems entirely different to me.

 

[cypherdoc]

i've heard that claim elsewhere as well.

 

[sickpig]

i gotta say, this sounds good. i wonder if it could be employed w/o SW?:

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/article...crease-bitcoin-s-scale-and-privacy-1460642496

hard fork

 

[Zarathustra]

this is the kind of attitude that you millenials and your offspring need to worry about; old guys running up debts on your tab:

That's not much compared to the Japanese.
How much money aka debt/credit (the balance is zero) should be in an economy?

 

[albin]

Isn't the benefit of Schnorr for multisig strictly n-of-n?

 

[Richy_T]

That's not much compared to the Japanese.
How much money aka debt/credit (the balance is zero) should be in an economy?

It's trivial while the world still accepts America's funny money.

"While"...

 

[yrral86]

"i gotta say, this sounds good. i wonder if it could be employed w/o SW?:"

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/article...crease-bitcoin-s-scale-and-privacy-1460642496

Is what the author claims with respect to Schnorr and CoinJoin correct (it would be cool if it was)? That multiple outputs each belonging to different people can be spent with a single aggregated signature? I understand that signatures for the same output can be aggregated with Schnorr (standard multisig) but this seems entirely different to me.

You sign the transaction, not the output.

 

[Zarathustra]

It's trivial while the world still accepts America's funny money.

"While"...

The world even accepts Japan's funny money, where the government debt is more than double as high.

 

[Dusty]

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.

If other clients does not accept those blocks it's not a soft fork -- by definition.

Is what the author claims with respect to Schnorr and CoinJoin correct (it would be cool if it was)? That multiple outputs each belonging to different people can be spent with a single aggregated signature? I understand that signatures for the same output can be aggregated with Schnorr (standard multisig) but this seems entirely different to me.

No: the Schnorr signatures is a cool way to save space for MofN transactions: instead of providing M signatures for each input you need to sign, you just provide one that combines them.

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.

Old, non upgraded node are not mining since by hypotesis segwit activates with a supermajority, so they are not relevant on the subject of fees.

 

[Richy_T]

If other clients does not accept those blocks it's not a soft fork -- by definition.

It would accept the parts of the blocks it was used to accepting, just like segwit. The inflation could be in an expansion block, just like segwit.

 

[lunar]

Somebody give @Gavin Andresen a magic wand and total power over bitcoin development for a one month only Golden pass.

 

[Peter R]

You sign the transaction, not the output.

Strictly speaking, for P2PkH you need one signature per output being spent, and the piece of data that gets signed is unique for each output. That is what I mean by sign each output.

For interested readers: for SIGHASH_ALL (most common), the scriptPubKey (i.e., the rules for spending the output) is inserted in the slot where the signature will eventually go (called the scriptSig) for the output being signed while the scriptSigs for the other outputs are nilled. The transaction in this "signature form" is hashed and the hash is then signed. This process is repeated for each output and when complete the signatures are inserted into the scriptSig slots in the transaction to create the fully-signed transaction.

No: the Schnorr signatures is a cool way to save space for MofN transactions: instead of providing M signatures for each input you need to sign, you just provide one that combines them.

Yes, this is the part I understand. But the article Cypherdoc linked referred to providing a single signature that combines signatures over multiple inputs to a transaction (which may be controlled by different people).

Anyways, I believe I can sort of see how this indeed would be possible if OP_CHECKSIG worked much differently (and presumably segwit would give us flexibility here).

 

[Justus Ranvier]

They keep talking about marginal improvements in the way the rationed block space can be used, but never once talk about the plan to eliminate the block size limit so that a self-appointed group of technocrats aren't in charge of rationing transaction capacity any more.

 

[cypherdoc]

@Justus Ranvier

who would ever have thought that a bunch of cypherpunks would be afraid of the free mkt?

 

[Richy_T]

I would. Radicals are often less about removing control than wanting to be the ones in control. It's a rare day that at least two of my friends aren't decrying the actions of the state then in the next breath propose that there be more of it to fix those actions.

 

[Dusty]

It would accept the parts of the blocks it was used to accepting, just like segwit. The inflation could be in an expansion block, just like segwit.

If you follow this path you are just creating another currency inside Bitcoin, but you would not be able to spend those new fake bitcoins with the older nodes.

This is not different from altcoins like MasterCoin: they work inside the blockchain, but they are not interoperable with regular bitcoins.

 

[Zarathustra]

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.

All commodities - liquid, illiquid, mobile or immobile ones - are valued in money, which is DEBT. Gold got its value by the 'ability' to pay your debt (tribute/tax) to TPTB (church and state), which is the first debt and the foundation of the so called economy, which has been invented by organized violence of the Organized Violence (sick people who became priests and war lords to build the church mafia/military mafia, aka the state). People became epidemically sick when they began to hold cattle within concentration camps. Now it's a globalized pandemic, still waiting to be defeated.

Gerhard Bott: 'The invention of the Gods'
http://gerhardbott.de/das-buch/summary-in-english.html

Charles Tilly: War Making and State Making as Organized Crime
https://de.scribd.com/doc/2846173/Tilly-War-Making-and-State-Making-as-Organized-Crime

Capitalism is not Barterism, it is Debitism (Dr. Paul C. Martin), from the very beginning, when anarchy has been replaced by patriarchy (the tragedy of the communities and its transformation into societies: collectivism), when the homo sapiens has been transformed into a cartoon of himself, the homo oeconomicus (debt slave).

http://www.miprox.de/Wirtschaft_allgemein/Martin-Symp.pdf
https://bitco.in/forum/search/26704/?q=martin-symp&o=date&c[user][0]=30