Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[freetrader]

tax troubles

Now that's something the common man can relate to. Keep it up, governments!

 

[Norway]

I suggest we all have a physical meetup at a cool place when 1 bitcoin > 100 000 USD. What do you say?

 

[cypherdoc]

https://news.bitcoin.com/konrad-graf-bitcoin-block-size-economy/

. By applying the theories of political economy to the issue, Graf argues that the 1 MB block size limit is economically most similar to a government mandated output ceiling.

 

[freetrader]

I'd say yes
http://www.icehotel.com/gallery/icehotel/

 

[Justus Ranvier]

@Norway Sounds like a perfect kidnapping/ransom honeypot.

 

[Melbustus]

https://news.bitcoin.com/konrad-graf-bitcoin-block-size-economy/

. By applying the theories of political economy to the issue, Graf argues that the 1 MB block size limit is economically most similar to a government mandated output ceiling.

This is excellent so far (I'm 1/3 through it):

If the limit restricts the maximum quantity of services that the mining industry can supply, this begins to operate as a market intervention. It doesn’t matter who is placing that restriction, or why. Intentions and identities do not change the economic effect of a policy. Motives are irrelevant. Market distortion happens due to the policy’s nature, regardless of how it got there or who put it there or who left it there. The more the limit comes to actuallylimit regular market volume, the more negative the consequences are likely to become.

 

[Norway]

@Justus Ranvier
Shit, you called my bluff!
EDIT: Btw, coercion is a very interesting topic to me. I think about it a lot, and work on a solution. It's relevant to bitcoin keys, and a solution could also be used at stuff like managing your own identity.

 

[Lee Adams]

I suggest we all have a physical meetup at a cool place when 1 bitcoin > 100 000 USD. What do you say?

Norway is pretty cool.

 

[cypherdoc]

This is excellent so far (I'm 1/3 through it):

Not only has Bitcoin demonstrated that some good things that many had considered impossible without government are indeed possible—namely the production of money—it is also threatening to show that some bad things some had considered impossible without government could indeed be possible—namely, successful imposition of a cartel-style industrywide output ceiling.

 

[Norway]

Norway is pretty cool.

Thank you, sir. (I assume of course that you talk about me, and not the country.)

 

[cypherdoc]

Not only has Bitcoin demonstrated that some good things that many had considered impossible without government are indeed possible—namely the production of money—it is also threatening to show that some bad things some had considered impossible without government could indeed be possible—namely, successful imposition of a cartel-style industrywide output ceiling.

The most conservative position is adjusting the limit to keep it well above the current average block size. A dynamic limit tracking somewhere well above current average volume could maintain this relationship indefinitely without any later code changes. A dynamic limit could still protect (to the extent it really is usefully protective; a technical topic) without intervening in the transaction-inclusion market. The limit could return to being just another obscure setting among others.
[doublepost=1462398018][/doublepost]

The most conservative position is adjusting the limit to keep it well above the current average block size. A dynamic limit tracking somewhere well above current average volume could maintain this relationship indefinitely without any later code changes. A dynamic limit could still protect (to the extent it really is usefully protective; a technical topic) without intervening in the transaction-inclusion market. The limit could return to being just another obscure setting among others.

BC: What do you think of the idea that the new coin reward is a subsidy propping up people transacting today at artificially low cost?

KSG: Part of the idea with this seems to be to accuse transaction senders of shameless freeloading when they use Bitcoin today to transact. Since these current parasitic users are all sponging off the “subsidy” anyway, this thinking seems to go, they already deserve to have the prices they pay for transacting increased through a restriction of available service supply across the industry.

I see this as—at best—a confusing misuse of the term subsidy.

so do i. screw you Core.

 

[Melbustus]

The Politburo-style discussion about whether morning coffees ought to be bought on or off chain is just the kind of ridiculous result that always comes from politicization of market factors.
...

Konrad is nailing every point in this post...

 

[cypherdoc]

on Lightning Network:

Building a network of payment channels, though, could easily add enough complexity that traders might also not treat those units as what are called “perfect substitutes,” in the monetary-theory sense, for on-chain bitcoin. That just has to be seen in practice. And even with real user uptake, latent systemic risks can still build.
[doublepost=1462398344][/doublepost]

on Lightning Network:

Building a network of payment channels, though, could easily add enough complexity that traders might also not treat those units as what are called “perfect substitutes,” in the monetary-theory sense, for on-chain bitcoin. That just has to be seen in practice. And even with real user uptake, latent systemic risks can still build.

The version here is, “if it was the same as on-chain bitcoin, it would be on-chain bitcoin.” As soon as it is not on-chain bitcoin, mental accounting costs, the possibility of additional delays, liquidity risks, narrowed flexibility of uses, systemic risks, security differences, and so on set up the possibility of those units being discounted relative to on-chain bitcoin (not trading at par). Just because software defines a technical peg, this does not also guarantee an economic par in the eyes of traders. It might happen or it might not; only real use can show that. Particular users have to come to see the benefits as more than outweighing the risks of use, plus they have to overcome decision and research costs, including whether to even bother to consider the matter at all.

 

[freetrader]

Appeals to logic and reason accompanied by calls to prove a negative.
If you're wondering whether this self-declared professional poker player (not wealthy) has stopped beating his dead horse...

 

[cypherdoc]

The contrasting pattern is providing lower quantities and qualities of service, more slowly, and for higher prices over time. That pattern is ordinarily only seen in highly politicized and long-distorted pseudo industries, such as “education” or “healthcare,” or indirectly state-run companies or agencies. But we are now seeing this pattern creep into on-chain Bitcoin service provision allegedly to prevent some projected catastrophes supposedly sure to follow if “the market is left to its own devices.” We need to act now to “save the industry from itself.” We have to prevent “cutthroat pricing” that will “drive out the small producer.” That is the ancient interventionist refrain, repeated so many times it is hard not to start singing along. What I call “the argument from repetition,” just saying the same thing over and over regardless of truth value, sadly remains one of the most powerful persuasive strategies.
[doublepost=1462399053][/doublepost]Likewise, we hear that there will be “too few” distinct miners and an “underproduction of security” for the network based on various models. Sometimes the goal seems to be to protect smaller miners, but then the next minute, it is suddenly to “protect” the largest miners of all (currently in China) because they happen to have slower internet connections! If one were interested in “decentralization,” it might not be wise to protect the existing market leaders in one of the only areas they currently have a competitive disadvantage.
[doublepost=1462399443,1462398752][/doublepost]fantastic article by Konrad Graf. must reading. you'd swear he's been reading this thread.

 

[Norway]

So fun to see Maxwell under preassure in his own, censored sub. It's falling apart


EDIT: I've posted this link before. The point is that Maxwell is challenged about his NDA with Blockstream further down.

 

[Norway]

EDIT: If you don't know, shludvigsen2 is me.

 

[cypherdoc]

Hmm, better go read this before it gets deleted:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4hxikp/prediction_craig_is_proven_to_be_satoshi_classic/

 

[Aquent]

@Norway I think you're misunderstanding what he is doing. He is moving the goal-post, saying that Wright might not be the genius but his friend really is so believe wright was part of a satoshi team and therefore has the bitcoins.

Considering the invalid signature that was his first introduction to the world, there is no reason for us to believe that he has any control over the coins and therefore any connection to Satoshi. He says he'll move some coins, so maybe that will change, but at this point there is no reason to believe he is satoshi and there is reason to believe he isn't if the facts here are correct https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4hxh64/according_to_the_mtgox_leaks_from_early_2014_our/

If he isn't satoshi, then there is a reasonable explanation. We know his affairs with ATO where in a transcript conversing with ATO he even says he was running bitcoin since 2009. If he had some brains, he would have used his invalid signature to convince them in private and maybe they would have bought that as proof as it would have been in private and as we saw in private he probably convinced Gavin, Matonis etc, by some magic, but perhaps invalid evidence. So why wouldn't he do just that?

Well, what appears to be Wright supporters and sort of new accounts, state that someone got hold of all these documents and leaked it to the press. They think it is some disgruntled employee, but for all we know it could have been the ATO itself since it contains a transcript with the ATO. So now he has to convince everyone, not just ATO, but he can't so he uses some magic and manages to convince 3 or 4 prominent members in private.

Why he thought publishing evidence to the whole world and specifically a crypto orientated community and it would not be shown to be fake is unclear, but then why he thought he could scam ato at a scale of 54 million is not clear either. He clearly failed in regards to the former and since ato opened an investigation earlier this year, he has failed in regards to the latter too.

I think this is the only thing that makes sense and explains this bizarre episode. Obviously he isn't satoshi. He can't spell. Maybe someone else wrote the paper/comment posts, but he is not factually correct either in regards to technical matters as mentioned earlier by Peter_R. While defending his degrees, he talks about not being able to finish his very first and likely genuine degree due to cancer - which apparently he overcame - or maybe is such an emotional thing to say that it should make us feel sorry for him and thus act as a distraction. Maybe the emotional story in regards to Keilman is a distraction too. There is no actual evidence the two had any connection.

Perhaps coins will move though, but until then there is no reason to believe he is Satoshi, and when there is no reason to believe so (and there are many good reasons to not believe it) he probably isn't.

That's a good thing in a way. Who wants a Satoshi with that sort of background. But, it is a bad thing too as he has now significantly affected the scalability debate.

 

[solex]

More popcorn material.
Interesting article about Dave Kleiman. and now his brother Ira Kleiman looking for a mysterious "Titanium" USB drive Dave used to carry around.
http://gizmodo.com/is-dave-kleiman-the-missing-link-in-craig-wrights-satos-1774519534

Ideal scenario: 1m BTC encrypted and permanently unrecoverable