Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

interesting. dpinna retracts the conclusions of his work:

This simple theorem, suggested implicitly by Gmaxwell disproves any and all conclusions of my work. Most importantly, centralization pressures will always be present.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3iuz3r/on_the_nature_of_miner_advantages_in_uncapped/

 

[Peter R]

Which is strange because everyone already agreed that larger miners had an advantage (all other variables held constant). He originally claimed his paper showed that this advantage decreased as the the block rewards diminished or as the total fees increased (which may very well be true).

Here's how I responded on bitcoin-dev:

"I don't think there is any contention over the idea that miners that control a larger percentage of the hash rate, h / H, have a profitability advantage if you hold all the other variables of the miner's profit equation constant. I think this is important: it is a centralizing factor similar to other economies of scale."


It's funny: Gmax asked me several times to retract my paper.

 

[sickpig]

retract your paper submission to scalingbitcoin in Montreal? really?

all this start to be surreal. I've briefly looked at the "private" conversation between you and gmax and following exchange on btc dev ml.

I found two things very irritating: 1)in one occasion he blamed you for not having reply promptly to one of his email (you dare to post on reddit instead), 2) he was thinks that your paper caused dpinna to have wasted a lot of time because he built his work upon yours.

To that add forwarding your private emails without your permission.

I found those actions quite pernicious to say the least.

 

[solex]

interesting. dpinna retracts the conclusions of his work:

This simple theorem, suggested implicitly by Gmaxwell disproves any and all conclusions of my work. Most importantly, centralization pressures will always be present.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3iuz3r/on_the_nature_of_miner_advantages_in_uncapped/

This is a surprise, but perhaps a bigger surprise that dpinna didn't take more time seeking peer review. Did he give Greg a preview or not enough time for critical feedback?
Or is it simply team-play: Thermos suffocates discussion in the lay domain, while Greg tackles the learned domain.

 

[awemany]

As Peter said. I think these centralization effects are just what happens in other markets where bigger players have the advantage of economy of scale - for example, there's also just one uplink needed for a large and a small miner, and this uplink will cost the small miner proportionally more than the bigger miner.
All Greg found so far are these economy of scale arguments, but focussed on small, technological details, and he's good at blowing them out of proportion, as well as adding outright wrong statements (see the reddit discussion I linked above) to it.

If you think these effects will inevitably lead to a 51% mining monopoly, you have no reason to be interested in Bitcoin anyways.

And you are more than foolish when you think you can regulate or even 'legislate' this properly through code and a core dev committee. Are they planning on making official core dev certified nodes soon, and preventing anyone else from running any software they wish?

 

[sickpig]

Stumbled upon this nice graph about bandwidth growth across continents:

 

[cypherdoc]

you can see how, on this long term comparison chart btwn the $DJI & $DJT, the stock mkt is in deep trouble. the long rolling top first started with a Dow Theory non-confirmation when the $DJT crossed below it's SL (secondary low point) back in May and is when i really started screaming about this altho i had been screaming long before. having watched gold and silver top out in 2011, as well as general mining companies like BHP & FCX in early 2011, was the first indication that the global deflation had kicked in. this was followed downwards by the other commodities over the last few years. now that the $DJI itself has crossed below it's SL, we have a Dow Theory primary trend reversal CONFIRMATION, that is one of a number of indicators that tells me we are at a long term top. look the hell out:

 

[Ivanhoe]

I'm looking to a multiple year stock market correction. Got out in February already around s&p at 2000.

 

[cypherdoc]

for all of you out there who doubt the efficacy of technical analysis based trading, i submit to you this chart that i've shoved in your face for months now. note the SL red line which months before the plunge i had identified for you as critical to the long term health of the market. note how the market slowly edged down towards this support line and kept re-testing it for most of the year until finally, once crossed, it plunged.

to me that is evidence that much of the market hive mind is involved mostly in technical trading and triggered massive selling once crossed. in some ways, this makes it easy for you; you can ignore the news. i've made this pt many times before mocking the ppl who obsessively read every headline out there trying to determine what is going to happen to the price while pulling their hair out and screaming at every perceived major news event. first off, it's impossible to read all the news. second, even if you could, how can one predict what algorithmic decisions will be triggered by the thousands of bots out there whose reaction depends on the views of their owners? remember how i keep saying that code is simply a means of enforcing the views of it's coders as it applies to Bitcoin? by no means am i saying "ignore the news" b/c it is helpful to get a sense of what is happening out there. but if you do, make sure you have the right perspective on how to interpret that news. that's not easy, esp for geeks, who tend to live in their little sheltered worlds and lack real world experience.

another important point, long term charts. my shortest chart i analyze is the daily, followed by weekly, and finally monthly. as a "swing" trader (i rarely trade at all anymore except for gold and silver shorts) these are my preferred time frames. i only use shorter term analysis for entry pts. market turns are like steering the Titanic.


let me finish with a rant.

given that, to my mind, the global deflation began with gold rolling over in 2011, i find it a huge shame that fucking theymos and BadBear locked down my gold thread over on BCT. i think it represented a valuable 4y source of historical information for Bitcoin that has now gone to waste.

thanks to Bloomie for giving us an outlet.

 

[Ivanhoe]

Do you have a back-up somewhere? would be even more of a shame if it gets deleted.

 

[cypherdoc]

No

 

[Justus Ranvier]

to me that is evidence that much of the market hive mind is involved mostly in technical trading and triggered massive selling once crossed. in some ways, this makes it easy for you; you can ignore the news

The effect you mention is surely more useful in the short term than in the long term.

Taking a long term view, we know that in late 1970s a change in the tax code (401k) resulted in a large portion of the Baby Boomers' excess income being diverted into the stock market that was previously not being placed there.

While the population of working age Americans was growing in numbers and in income, more money flowed into the market. Supply exceeded demand so the price increased very predictably over the course of 2 decades.

In the early 2000s this trend should have run backwards, since the Boomers had fewer children than their parents and so the net flow of funds reversed as more old workers retired than young workers replaced them.

No amount of technical analysis can stop the money from running out if more of it is removed from the market than added back in.

Now the market can only maintain its current prices if the federal government can find more ways to force money back into it that otherwise doesn't want to be there, or if the fed prints new money to give to the banks to buy it back up.

tl,dr: the markets are a three decade long ponzi scheme the Fed is printing money to keep running

 

[Peter R]

retract your paper submission to scalingbitcoin in Montreal? really?

all this start to be surreal. I've briefly looked at the "private" conversation between you and gmax and following exchange on btc dev ml.

I found two things very irritating: 1)in one occasion he blamed you for not having reply promptly to one of his email (you dare to post on reddit instead), 2) he was thinks that your paper caused dpinna to have wasted a lot of time because he built his work upon yours.

To that add forwarding your private emails without your permission.

I found those actions quite pernicious to say the least.

By retract my paper, he meant make a public statement to (presumably) retract the paper's main claim that a "fee market exists without a block size limit." I would not do this, however, because that claim is true [1].

Despite the fact that the Fee Market paper has now been picked apart to death, I don't believe any errors have been found (there are two simplifying assumptions that I used, which I intend to clarify, however).

[1] Assuming that the network is not under 51% attack and that a non-zero amount of information about the transactions included in a block are transmitted as part of the block solutions (orphans exists).

 

[molecular]

I just realized how I missed this thread.

It's good to be back.

 

[Peter R]

I'm glad that you found the place! Welcome back!!

 

[cypherdoc]

By retract my paper, he meant make a public statement to (presumably) retract the paper's main claim that a "fee market exists without a block size limit." I would not do this, however, because that claim is true [1].

Despite the fact that the Fee Market paper has now been picked apart to death, I don't believe any errors have been found (there are two simplifying assumptions that I used, which I intend to clarify, however).

[1] Assuming that the network is not under 51% attack and that a non-zero amount of information about the transactions included in a block are transmitted as part of the block solutions (orphans exists).

You should get awemany to review it thoroughly. I believe he has the same mathematical skills you do.

 

[molecular]

I guess we have to thank cypherdoc for PMing people on btctalk. Thanks cypherdoc

EDIT: on a side-note I just remembered cryptocrypt, it has moved to cryptocrypt.net (used to be .org). Not sure how active it is. I think it was founded by goat back when he was banned (?) from btctalk for whatever reason.

 

[Peter R]

I'm working on V2 to clarify the two points of contention. I'd like to make it public sometime around the ScalingBitcoin conference (September 12).

Awemany: interested in reviewing V2 of the Fee Market paper?

 

[cypherdoc]

Also is dpinna totally offboard with the concept? It's awfully strange that he'd reverse so quickly after what appears to be a decent amount of work. Maybe he can still help you.

I guess we have to thank cypherdoc for PMing people on btctalk. Thanks cypherdoc

EDIT: on a side-note I just remembered cryptocrypt, it has moved to cryptocrypt.net (used to be .org). Not sure how active it is. I think it was founded by goat back when he was banned (?) from btctalk for whatever reason.

I'm glad it worked! Although I only did it for a handful of people. If you want to see anymore of your favorite posters here I'd suggest pm'ing them yourself as I probably didn't after giving up from frustration trying to use BCT's antiquated system.

 

[Peter R]

Also is dpinna totally offboard with the concept? It's awfully strange that he'd reverse so quickly after what appears to be a decent amount of work. Maybe he can still help you.

(For the record, I was never working with Dpinna, and I don't like the way he's been referring to equations as "ours." We did send a few emails back and forth, however.)

If you read his statement, he said he retracted his paper because miners who control a larger portion of the network hash rate, h/H, have a profitability advantage, all other variables held constant. But we already knew this. I thought the point of his paper was to show that this advantage decreased as either the block reward diminished or fees increased (which may be true…I never checked the math).

Tom Harding questioned him last night on bitcoin-dev:

"For centralization, doesn't this mean that centralization pressure exists at all hashrates, but gets less intense at higher hashrates?"