Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

I think we've been blessed with a real Bitcoin journalist in our midst: @Aquent. Not that kyletorpey BS:

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-and-blockchain-tech-are-fueling-a-fourth-industrial-revolution-1461599321

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

About Peter Todd & the MIT conspiracy: I thought it is bullshit, but read the preliminary paper todd uploaded. It explicitly mentions to use ChainAnchor as a regulatory overlay for Bitcoin and that they could pay miners to mine a permissioned block. That's whitelisting.

It's mentioned at the end of the paper. MITs answers to Todds "leak" have been remarkebly weak: "it's not about bitcoin, but about blockchains like r3 wants to build. In the old paper we mentioned bitcoin, but in the new one we don't mention it any more, so you see - there is nothing to fear."

Not that I'm used to agree with Peter Todd or don't think he is a drama whore - but with this he made a point and is on something

 

[Dusty]

Actually it's not important if the thing was exaggerated (or even completely made-up) by Todd: the only important thing is to understand if this can be a viable attack or not.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

Oh Todd is very smart in finding attack vectors in Bitcoin.
Strangely the all end up to be variations of a 51% attack...
Maybe he isn't the super smart cookie he thinks he is..

@Christoph Bergmann Whitelisting is always an option if you have enough money. It's not new and imho it's another smear campaign against Gavin (although v. d. Laan is working for MIT also..).

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

@Christoph Bergmann Whitelisting is always an option if you have enough money. It's not new and imho it's another smear campaign against Gavin (although v. d. Laan is working for MIT also..).

Yes, but there is a difference between "it's always an option" and "actively working on it". I mean, the project builds a instrument to do that kind of whitelisting and it plans to adopt it on bitcoin.

Another yes, without "but": todd seemed to know for some time from the project. His blogpost came a few days after Gavin publicly bullied Peter

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4egnvh/peter_todd_worried_about_those_willing_to_fork/

Shortly after that post of Gavin on r/bitcoin the small-block-troll-army startet to demand he should ragequiet. Peter Todds blogposts fits perfectly in this new anti-gavin narrative and while Todd didn't named anybody the troll-army immediately startet to accuse gavin.

So yes, while I think what Todd says is a real threat, I think he placed it strategically in an attempt to finally destroy classic and gavin.

 

[Zarathustra]

don't forget; every previous significant rally has been a 10x.

Yes, but without full blocks. Is 10x probable with full blocks?


If the dishonest were honest ....

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4ghp7y/scaling_roadmap_what_core_should_do/

 

[Inca]

I'm not believing this until we get a high volume spike higher to take out critical overhead resistance (the previous recent ATH in low 500's).

We are trained to be suspicious of all btc rises because the wait for a bubble has been so long this time. If i'm not mistaken the rest came as a bit of a surprise in the past. I'm not seeing FOMO and the price is almost a the top of the range.

 

[Melbustus]

@Inca - Yeah, I kind of agree. Everyone is *expecting* this rally. The charts look too good, there's a halving around the corner, etc... The setup is almost too perfect. On one hand, it mirrors the first half of 2012 very well (at 100x the price) <-- that's the bull case. On the other, in 2012, not even us perma-bulls were expecting >$1000 in 2013.....so the rally (at least the magnitude) was a total surprise to most. Compare to now where the *expectation* is an order-of-mag rally.

So I don't know, but I'm suspicious.

 

[cypherdoc]

In the current implementation of bitcoind (as of v. 0.12), nodes do not check if a block contains transactions using the same inputs as the ones used by another transaction in the mempool, so the initial low-fee transaction will remain in the pool, even though it can no longer be included in a new block. To prevent this, a replace-by-feeoption has been introduced in the v 0.12: a new transaction with higher fees can replace an already transmitted one. However, random checks on our node show that between 60 and 90% of our node's total transactions are outdated, suggesting that this feature is hardly used.

https://kaiko.com/analytics/post/an-in-depth-guide-into-how-the-mempool-works

 

[Richy_T]

Well duh. I'm going to spend money to cancel a transaction which will never confirm?

 

[albin]

My take on it now after listening to Todd on the Crypto Show podcast is that this is obviously all bullshit misdirection to draw attention away from the fact that Peter Todd is doing work for the only pool that openly in fact does base transaction selection on out-of-band authentication.

 

[cypherdoc]

be careful you don't get trapped similarly:

Something weird is happening with Bitcoin. The centralization wars have reached a fever pitch, and yet the price of Bitcoin has remained stable in the low/mid-$400s. Late night on March 19th, 2016, after binge-reading essayafter essay about the drama, I sold all my bitcoins, four years after I had bought it at $12. I simply asked myself, “If I didn’t already have this Bitcoin, would I buy it now?” But as I continued digging deeper, reading arguments for all sides, I put my money back in on March 27th. I took a 7% loss for my fear, as Bitcoin had gone up in that week, but in return, I now have a renewed understanding of why I’m in Bitcoin.

https://medium.com/@philipkd/how-bitcoin-will-prevail-the-centralization-wars-f0a136b74166#.ej0sl93to

 

[Melbustus]

@cypherdoc - The second half of that post is infuriating. It's basically just a pro-Core rant, arguing that Bitcoin should never change by hard-fork. It even ends admiringly with a gmax quote.

 

[Zarathustra]

be careful you don't get trapped similarly:

Something weird is happening with Bitcoin. The centralization wars have reached a fever pitch, and yet the price of Bitcoin has remained stable in the low/mid-$400s. Late night on March 19th, 2016, after binge-reading essayafter essay about the drama, I sold all my bitcoins, four years after I had bought it at $12. I simply asked myself, “If I didn’t already have this Bitcoin, would I buy it now?” But as I continued digging deeper, reading arguments for all sides, I put my money back in on March 27th. I took a 7% loss for my fear, as Bitcoin had gone up in that week, but in return, I now have a renewed understanding of why I’m in Bitcoin.

https://medium.com/@philipkd/how-bitcoin-will-prevail-the-centralization-wars-f0a136b74166#.ej0sl93to

The likely outcome then is either a watered-down version of Core’s proposal, one that only asks for blocksize changes, or it’s Bitcoin Classic, which is just a blocksize change. Any other code that introduces new concepts to Bitcoin, such as Core’s proposed Segregated Witness, which changes the way signatures are stored on the ledger, are too controversial to pass the beauty contest. Meanwhile, the miners are heavily incentivized not to act until the community is absolutely certain of what it wants.

That's the 1 million Bitcoin question: Will the miners support a contentious soft fork with 2'000 SegWit nodes?

 

[johnyj]

Price is the least concern, if a price rally would change one's view of things, then he is just a speculator, not a system designer

 

[molecular]

@Inca - Yeah, I kind of agree. Everyone is *expecting* this rally. The charts look too good, there's a halving around the corner, etc... The setup is almost too perfect. On one hand, it mirrors the first half of 2012 very well (at 100x the price) <-- that's the bull case. On the other, in 2012, not even us perma-bulls were expecting >$1000 in 2013.....so the rally (at least the magnitude) was a total surprise to most. Compare to now where the *expectation* is an order-of-mag rally.

Then maybe it'll be a two-order-of-mag rally, just to surprise everyone

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Actually I was expecting two, so maybe it'll be three

 

[Melbustus]

Then maybe it'll be a two-order-of-mag rally, just to surprise everyone

This would be the first rally I'm unhappy about. Despite the agreeable impact on my net-worth, it'd be pretty depressing for Bitcoin to rally substantially without resolving blocksize (more accurately, settlement-layer vs p2p cash) correctly. A giant rally while we're still under Core's sprint-to-settlement-layer status quo will re-enforce the "wisdom" of Core's path in people's mind, long-term be damned.

 

[Inca]

The larger bitcoin's market cap rises, the more difficult it is to repeat past bubble performance.
It is now at 7 billion, so rising to 70billion wouldn't be impossible, but 0.7 trillion is hard to conceive, although during a mania anything is possible briefly.

I can see it carrying a 50-150bn market cap in the next five years.

 

[Richy_T]

It's important to remember that market cap is pretty meaningless.