Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

sickpig

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
926
2,541
Peter Todd at his best:


they want to do an HF to moot a still-not-granted patent. A patent for a technique that would increase ASIC efficiency by 20%. Is this for real?

If they are not living under a rock, they must be aware of the followings facts:

- in the last few 6 months net difficultly has raised by 500 245%

- China is the place where the majority of hashing power is located,

- coincidentally China provide very cheap subsided electricity

- coincidentally the majority of chip fabs producing ASIC chips are located in China

- the patent at hand would not be the first and not the last

So all that considered I wonder what are their goal and motives?
 
Last edited:
Peter Todd at his best:


they want to do an HF to moot a still-not-granted patent. A patent for a technique that would increase ASIC efficiency by 20%. Is this for real?

If they are not living under a rock, they must be aware of the followings facts:

- in the last few 6 months net difficultly has raised by 500 245%

- China is the place where the majority of hashing power is located,

- coincidentally China provide very cheap subsided electricity

- coincidentally the majority of chip fabs producing ASIC chips are located in China

- the patent at hand would not be the first and not the last

So all that considered I wonder what are their goal and motives?
And no one talks about the blocksize-increase the hardfork originally was planned for. I wonder if this is a move to make the hardfork controversial, so that they can do what they have promised without doing a hard fork.
 

satoshis_sockpuppet

Active Member
Feb 22, 2016
776
3,312
If some ASIC manufacturer was the only one who could produce profitable ASICs, that would also be bad. However it wouldn't be as bad as a widely enforceable patent because with a patent there is no legal way for competitors to catch up unless they can invent a different and superior technology. With ASIC efficiency they only need to be able to eventually figure out how to be 'as good' and can reverse engineer existing technology.
Development of new technology is one of the advantages the western world has over Asia. Why should one accept the advantages of China (cheap mass production, cheap energy, no protection of environment..) and refuse the advantages of the West?

In general, anything that makes mining less of a commodity (special ASIC tech, patents, differing energy costs, etc) is harmful to decentralization. We can't do anything about differing energy costs. If some code change could make all energy costs the same, I'd be in favor of it.
Maybe we could make the block reward to adapt to the country of the miner of the block to equalize the energy costs?

The current situation is that we have almost all mining power in China, controlled by incompetent idiots. If this patents gets some mining power back to the West I don't see how "decentralization" is hurt, in the current case it's quite the contrary as @cypherdoc already stated.

"Once you start you can't stop" -- this fails to account for the new decentralized paradigm that Bitcoin has brought us. The economic majority will decide what gets adopted, and this can't be prevented by some central group. There is no incentive for the economic majority to go down a slippery slope like this.
That's always true, for all idiotic things Core does.
But that's why one have to point out how Bitcoin degenerated to a centralized currency controlled by a handful of "Core developers"* and mining lobbyists.

*When did Peter Todd write the last line for Core btw.? And did he ever do something remarkable in any way, development wise?


It's pretty easy imho. Either it's just distraction like @tynwald said, or it's the outcome of a lobby of completely corrupted miners and devs.
Funny enough, the miners could be making millions of dollars more these days if they accepted Classic, even if they got some more competition. Instead they chose the "safe way" of having Core cripple Bitcoin and let them give the promise of preventing competition from the West. The safe way will kill them.
 

albin

Active Member
Nov 8, 2015
931
4,008
You remember how Peter Todd made himself the focal point of the defensive patent drama like a year+ ago over I think BitGo? (I might be misremembering but it was that class of company). This is becoming a pattern for him to jockey himself to front and center of patent issues he has nothing to do with.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
And no one talks about the blocksize-increase the hardfork originally was planned for. I wonder if this is a move to make the hardfork controversial, so that they can do what they have promised without doing a hard fork.
or the Chinese miners requesting it be added in. along with every other little core dev wish they've had for a long time.

all of a sudden, HF's don't sound so bad!
[doublepost=1463066758][/doublepost]if i'm right about the Sell in May and Go Away for stocks and pm's, look out Bitcoin!
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
the $DJT has gotten below it's 4/7/16 low. that's bad news for stocks:

 

sickpig

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
926
2,541
Peter Todd is devaluing the term "patent troll" by applying it willy-nilly to any patent here. It makes you wonder whether he actually has the opposite goal of disrupting legitimate conversation about abuse of the patent system.
he's not devaluating the term "patent troll", he's just using it wrongly on purpose.

A patent troll, especially in the realm of software patents, is someone who tried to patent an artifact/algorithm already widely used and then start to go after every one who's using it, e.g. a progress a bar or one-click purchasing.

The troll leverages the laziness of patent offices to get patents approved on such silly things.

From here Timo seems anything but a patent troll.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JVWVU and albin

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
big trouble looming ahead. several retailers breaking to new lows. scroll thru others on your own:

 

cryptodave84

New Member
May 12, 2016
1
5
setting up another bull flag:

Hi cypherdoc,

I have been lurking on both bitcointalk.org forum and this forum for a while now, and have now decided to come out of the shadows to participate in the discussions here. I have been closely following your posts since 2013, and you have been an inspiration to me in terms of your economics knowledge, uber TA skills, understanding of bitcoin as well as your consistent stand on things. It takes guts and courage to stick to your calls/predictions with unwavering conviction.

If you may indulge me, I have 3 TA-related questions to ask you (1 question is regarding the bull pennant as posted in the chart above):

1) How likely would this bull pennant resolve upwards? The reason I am asking is that the amount of BFX leverage longs does worry me a little, and I am thinking the Chinese community might pull some shenanigans to spike the price downwards by margin-calling these longs. According to this poster with the alias "r0ach" on bitcointalk.org forum, the Chinese community apparently has been duped into buying the scammy Ethereum tokens, and they are trying to drive Ethereum price upwards as much as possible to offload those tokens to unsuspecting bagholders. A quick look at the charts does indicate that ETH and BTC are negatively correlated, so they would want BTC price to dive downwards for ETH price to head upwards. Do you see a strong likelihood of the bull pennant resolving upwards? Historically, BFX leverage longs at such a high level does not augur well in the near future...

2) Some posters have been posting that Bitcoin price is currently moving within an Ascending Triangle dating back to Oct/Nov 2015, and it appears the ABCDE pattern has only recently been completed. Do you see the Ascending Triangle pattern as a valid pattern worth tracking?

3) A few pages back, you posted that we appear to be in a period that is similar to October 2013 where the Silk Road crash dropped the price by around 30% (or slightly less i think?), do you think we have just passed that phase when the price dipped by around $35-40 this month? I am just thinking some bearwhale may come along and try to sink the price downwards to sub-$400 price. Would like to hear your view on this. If the price sinks below the $400 price level, does this render the nascent bull trend invalid, and mean we are still trapped in a long-term bear trend?

Apologies if my questions sound noobish to you, i'm kinda new to TA trading techniques and am trying to hone my TA knowledge. Thanks for your attention/time in advance.
 

Zangelbert Bingledack

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2015
1,485
5,585
Welcome @cryptodave84!

@all
Re: the hard fork against ASICBoost, isn't this just Core/BS attempting to show Chinese miners that they've got their back? (Leaving aside the question of whether the hard fork is ill-advised.)

I don't think this shows that Bitcoin is centrally controlled. Rather it shows that whatever control Core/BS might have, it is so tenuous that they have to bend over backwards just to try to curry miners' favor in every way possible, quite a long time before miners would even have an urgent reason to deviate from Core due to blocksize capacity limitations.

Core/BS is trying to build a house of cards, yet they're exhausting every trick up their sleeves just to get the first few cards to stay up. And the forecast is for gale force winds.

 
Last edited:

Dusty

Active Member
Mar 14, 2016
362
1,172
Let's consider this: we know that BS goal is microtransactions using the LN.
We also know that another big corp has a similar goal, only with a very different implementation: 21 inc.

Now, if you read the mailing list, it seems that the only producer that may be using that ASIC optimisation is precisely 21 inc.

And thus BS wants to orchestrate an hard fork (a thing they absolutely were opposed to at all costs, just until a few days ago) to render this (little!) advantage useless, potentially destroying a lot of investments made by 21 inc, their competitor.

I can't understand why I'm thinking that these two things may be correlated...
 
Last edited:

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
1) How likely would this bull pennant resolve upwards?
more likely than not. who knows what the % odds are but that's the way the charts are positioned. this isn't an exact science and i certainly could be wrong. having said that, i think a more definitive break up from where we are now is going to require some news. what news, i can't say. but something on the order of allowing Bitcoin to scale and something that resolves the governance conundrum we appear to be caught in. right now i'm not worried about BFX longs or Chinese shenanigans with price manipulation; those always exist and nowadays can be quite hazardous to a trader's health. i'm simply relying on the bullish flags we have set up and the long term timing. i've already talked about this ad nauseum and i hesitate to have to repeat myself but it's all here in this thread going back. sorry if it's not condensed to your satisfaction but if you've been following the thread, you should already have a good handle on how i feel.

Ascending Triangle
i definitely don't see an ascending triangle anywhere. i've already drawn the large bullish flag traced out since October and the latest break up was timed perfectly as we reached the end of this flag in mid April. there is no ascending top half of an ascending triangle to be seen. it's descending and conforms to a triangle. as far as ABCDE, i don't use Elliot Wave anymore except perhaps for the more overall largish grand wave picture as i posted about a few weeks ago.
A few pages back, you posted that we appear to be in a period that is similar to October 2013 where the Silk Road crash dropped the price by around 30% (or slightly less i think?
yes, i think the head fake down from the CW revealing is now over.

I am just thinking some bearwhale may come along and try to sink the price downwards to sub-$400 price.
he's welcome to try but that would be a supremely stupid move imo. he could easily lose his shirt.
If the price sinks below the $400 price level, does this render the nascent bull trend invalid, and mean we are still trapped in a long-term bear trend?
yeah, i'd definitely have to reconsider b/c the pattern will have been broken.

sorry so brief but i get tired of analyzing this stuff sometimes.
[doublepost=1463082505][/doublepost]
Let's consider this: we know that BS is microtransactions using the LN.
We also know that another big corp has a similar goal, only with a very different implementation: 21 inc.

Now, if you read the mailing list, it seems that the only producer that may be using that ASIC optimisation is precisely 21 inc.

And thus BS wants to orchestrate an hard fork (a thing they absolutely were opposed to at all costs, just until a few days ago) to render this (little!) advantage useless, potentially destroying a lot of investments made by 21 inc, their competitor.

I can't understand why I'm thinking that these two things may be correlated...
so what's the latest rumor on who's licensing the AsicBoost? is it 21co or Bitmain?

forget BS and their faulty reasoning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: majamalu

satoshis_sockpuppet

Active Member
Feb 22, 2016
776
3,312
I kind of hope that's the case. One by one Core is alienating all the useful Bitcoin startups. Eventually these companies are going to realize they need to help develop alternatives to Core to protect their own interests.
Sadly these companies might turn (or already are turning) to Ethereum as an alternative instead of another Bitcoin implementation...
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
@satoshis_sockpuppet

i don't even see how that's possible or even reasonable. Ether is not a money, let alone a form of Sound Money. Ethereum is an entirely different project with different goals afaic.
 

Roger_Murdock

Active Member
Dec 17, 2015
223
1,453
From www.asicboost.com:
AsicBoost was invented by Timo Hanke in collaboration with Sergio Lerner and is patent pending.
When I search google patents for those names, this is the only result I get:
WO2015077378 titled "Block mining methods and apparatus." So I'm assuming that's it. Note that this is just a published application, not an issued patent (hence the "patent pending"). It could easily be a few years before this issues (assuming it ever issues at all).

EDIT: provided a better link to the publication which includes the International Search Report
 
Last edited:

Dusty

Active Member
Mar 14, 2016
362
1,172
@satoshis_sockpuppet
i don't even see how that's possible or even reasonable. Ether is not a money, let alone a form of Sound Money. Ethereum is an entirely different project with different goals afaic.
FIAT too, but it turns out a lot of people still uses it as money...

The problem is that the majority of people does not understand sound money, they just follow the leaders.