Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Tomothy]

So, HF & Scaling was a lie?

 

[cypherdoc]

@jonny1000

What do you think about gmax calling you a dipshit? Maybe you should be spending time trying to convince him to accept your 2MBHF agreement with the miners?

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

[sorry but can't resist, really]

Prominent members of Core team are still posting in thread like this one, and if you ask me using a tone that I find everything but appropriate. This is an example:



maybe his account has been hacked.

wtf?

Are they still playing good cop/bad cop or is this a sign of internal fights in the core camp?

Did he just publicly call the president of his co-founded company "dipshit"?
Did he already know Blockchain.info beat them in their home and lost his temper?

BTW: I think blockchain.info's Thunder should be hyped more. I would like to see Bitpay and Coinbase cooperating with them to build a Thunder network.
The miners obviously see themselves as the natural Lightning hubs. Time for the rest of the industry to show them that there is more to Bitcoin than mindlessly stuffing a shed with heating units.

Btw, apart from my bad feeling about Bitcoin earlier, are we already seeing the beginning of the halving panic?

 

[freetrader]

What idiot would want to reveal their public key?

Apparently those who Gmax is citing

 

[Epilido]

I have solo mined actually yes, I never found a block though...

So you never actually helped secure the network and have no proof that you were mining correctly....

 

[cypherdoc]

ok, back in the green on DZZ, but i was too early. i would be up more with a straight up short on gold but my rudimentary acct (b/c i overall have given up trading) doesn't allowing shorting, which is why i bought DZZ. shitty instrument for shorting though as this sideways chop causes this double leveraged short to "degrade". i knew this but took the chance that we'd get a more sustained downward movement in gold when i entered the trade. maybe we'll get that trending now. oh well, can't complain too much. otoh, the sale of my last 2 sleeves of gold @1292 is looking good right now:

 

[jonny1000]

So tell us @jonny1000, what did really happen in HK?

The HK “agreement” was a very long and difficult discussion about the blocksize that went on to around 5:00am. Tension was extremly high in the meeting. Many of the issues debated on the internet in public Bitcoin forums were discussed at the meeting.

Much of the discussion was around the wording of the commitment to a 2MB hardfork and how it would fit around SegWit. Jihan had quite a strong large block view whilst most others at the meeting were quite moderate. Adam Back had more of a neutral facilitator role, while most of the people actually involved in the development had more of a view against committing to a hardfork.

Nobody was happy with the outcome of the agreement, the small blockers and large blockers at the meeting were all extremely unhappy with the agreement. However most of the people present recognized that it was the most pragmatic way forward and a reasonable compromise between what each side wanted. Nobody liked the imperfect process. It was also accepted that those not present, on both sides of the argument, would also be unhappy and not accept the terms of the agreement. This was true in particular of the Core developers who were not present, who were extremely unhappy.

And what is your relationship with Bscore?

Id really like to know your relationship to BS too.

I have no relationship with Blockstream. My only contact with employees of Blockstream has been at Bitcoin conferences and events, as far as I remember.

For the sake of clarity, I attended the HK agreement as an uninvited observer. I found out about the meeting due to messages on /r/btc and then just turned up, since I happened to be in the area at the time.

t's always been suspicious to me how your presentation was used to replace @Peter R's at HK Scaling especially since I didn't consider it that good.

I agree that Peter R should have been allowed to present in HK in December, I made this point at the time. I thought his presentation in Montreal was interesting, although I mostly did not agree with the content. I also agree that the content in my presentation was poor as was the delivery.

I showed Peter my draft presentation before hand and modified it based on his feedback. I also tried to ensure it was more balanced as a result of him not speaking. After I gave the presentation Peter politely commented that it was "balanced and open-minded".

all the while still a newbie with no credibility

I accept this criticism of my character. I am happy to concede this point.

Prominent members of Core team are still posting in thread like this one, and if you ask me using a tone that I find everything but appropriate. This is an example:

What do you think about gmax calling you a dipshit? Maybe you should be spending time trying to convince him to accept your 2MBHF agreement with the miners?

I do not agree with the comments GMax made on that forum. I think calling people "dipshits" was inappropriate. If you read that thread you will see that I have spent time trying to convince him to accept the 2MB agreement and I criticized the use of the language (dipshits). I have constantly fought this battle on both sides for several years. I have tried to be as balanced, pragmatic and open minded as possible. Perhaps I have not been doing a good job.

Here are my comments on that dipshit issue in that forum:

Quote from: gmaxwell on May 13, 2016, 11:02:52 PM
"Over and over, the concrete evidence shows that the hardfork at all cost push comes largely from shills, conmen, and their victims."

It looks like Classic/XT may be defeated. However, let’s try to be as gracious and respectful as we can in our victory. At least some of the Classic/XT advocates did genuinely have Bitcoin’s best interests at heart, we just disagreed with their methods, we need to still respect them. Gaining this victory was vital, it demonstrated the rules of the system are resilient, but at the same time weaknesses were exposed in the process.

We need to recognize that the system is not perfect, it is not totally robust and there was (and still is) a genuine risk of a Classic victory. Therefore it is potentially possible to eliminate an existing protocol rule without strong consensus, in some circumstances. However, hopefully this whole saga has demonstrated that the rules are resilient enough for many practical circumstances. Recognizing this imperfection, I think we should, from a position of strength, be pragmatic, and as a sign of respect for those people who have hopefully been defeated, implement a change in the limit to 2MB, consistent with the HK agreement.

Quote from: gmaxwell on May 13, 2016, 07:55:18 AM
"It's just that a couple of well meaning dipshits went to China a few months back to learn and educate about the issues and managed to let themselves get locked in a room until 3-4 am until they would personally agree to propose some hardfork after segwit. They're now struggling to accomplish the seemingly impossible task of upholding their agreement (even though it was made under duress and even though f2pool immediately violated it) while obeying their personal convictions and without losing the respect of the technical community."

It is unfortunate that to some it appears as if the miners forced this agreement by duress. I was at the meeting and your criticism is fair in many respects. However, we must accept the reality that Bitcoin is not a perfect system and the agreement did occur, had this not happened then Classic may well have activated by now. I think we need to be pragmatic and to some extent accept the unfortunate reality that the actions of the "dipshits" were necessary.

Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1330553.msg14871421#msg14871421

 

[cypherdoc]

it does indeed look as if there is a split in core dev:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1330553.msg14834310#msg14834310
[doublepost=1463762455][/doublepost]Segwit, Bitcoin Core’s proposed capacity increase of the Bitcoin code, is a “bizarre accounting trick that doesn’t solve Bitcoin’s problem,” Hearn said.


https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/mike-hearn-bitcoin-democracy/

 

[Richy_T]

Worried about bitcoin. I'm hedged which just means I will do less well either way than I should really.

I think it's time to not watch the charts for a couple of weeks. Let's see how far I get

I'm getting ready to hedge. I think we're likely to see a bit of a rise before the halving and that will be a good time. However, in the last month, I think the catastrophic death spiral is going to get a bit more attention from those who have not been paying attention. I'm hoping that will be the catalyst for a change of governance but it will be too late to avoid the train-wreck completely barring an emergency hard-fork (which I'm not ruling out).

It's actually kind-of annoying though. I have been wanting to put some more $$$ into Bitcoin but my confidence has been destroyed over the past 10 months or so.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

Adam Back had more of a neutral facilitator role

Hard to believe after one saw the slides of the presentation he gave, don't lie so obviously.
We've seen the presentation he gave at Slush. G. Maxwell was right once: Adam Back is a dipshit.

. However most of the people present recognized that it was the most pragmatic way forward and a reasonable compromise between what each side wanted. Nobody liked the imperfect process.

Too bad that the market doesn't seem to think that the plan was in any way reasonable. Except if your plan was to push altcoins.
Where do we have the "effective 4 MB" SW blocks?
Up to date everything went exactly like Classic supporters predicted.

This was true in particular of the Core developers who were not present, who were extremely unhappy.

Makes you wonder what this fucking meeting was all about.
Isn't it funny that there were at least 3 Blockstream employees (Luke Jr. is a de facto Blockstream employee), including the president (as an individual ) and one "independent core dev" (haha) to "negotiate" for Bitcoin Core? Why would you even have to negotiate. Offer your fucking open source code and see if people use it. I've never met with Linus Torvalds to negotiate about the development of Linux.

 

[Richy_T]

It seems to me these are all non-coercive actions. No one is seizing control or disrupting the operation of other people's systems. People who want to keep enforcing the old rules are free to do so, so one forces them to accept the new fork. How can this be considered an attack?

Even the idea of an attack means that there is something to be attacked. I thought this was supposed to be a decentralized system?

 

[molecular]

asked about rocks and satoshisbitcoin...

@molecular
my guess is that he's totally sold all his coins and the POW fork he was advocating is stalling out. too bad, i miss him too.

last seen here April 26th



at some point we might have to revive his project

 

[Richy_T]

@sickpig

Looks authentic to me. And he's made a few posts since then. Thinks he is the bitcoin 'project' and battling 'attacks' and 'assaults'.

Looks like the old Wikipedia-Maxwell isn't as far in the past as many claim.
[doublepost=1463764502][/doublepost]

The cap was Satoshi's only mistake.

Nah, implementation as reference standard was a big one too.

 

[molecular]

So you never actually helped secure the network and have no proof that you were mining correctly....

It's a philosophical question, but I would say he helped, even if he didn't find a block.

 

[Inca]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4k8utg/why_the_crisis_surely_there_must_be_a_good_reason/

Socks complimenting socks.

Fools.

 

[molecular]

Remember its not 75% or more, which would be tolerable, but its locking in exactly 25% opposition at the time of activation, which a strong majority of the network regard as totally unacceptable and an unnecessary defeatist indication of weakness.

What do you mean by "locking in exactly 25%"? People can still join after activation, so it's "75% or more", no? I must be misunderstanding something.

 

[molecular]

Anyone know what is happening with @rocks ' fork? He's been away from the forum since early April.

the question is: what happened to rocks?

 

[freetrader]

[rocks] last seen here April 26th

Hmm, his profile on here says to me rocks was last seen Apr 13, 2016

Last word I had from him he was being kept busy with other work, and wanted to resume work on his fork. But it's strange that so much time has passed without him surfacing. He didn't strike me at all like someone who would just sell off his coins and cease work without informing. I hope he's alright.

In case he does not return, I plan to take Satoshisbitcoin's new POW algorithm and create a POW-change version of my fork which is still in development (originally planned as non-POW only, but the last few weeks have only added to my perceived value of a POW fork).

 

[cypherdoc]

What do you mean by "locking in exactly 25%"? People can still join after activation, so it's "75% or more", no? I must be misunderstanding something.

Yes, the idea is to stop one pool from vetoing everyone else. Once 75% activates, the other 25% will surely come along or else lose everything.

 

[Mengerian]

If somebody implements a change to 2MB, with reasonable parameters then it will be a three way battle:

• 2MB supporters vs Classic supporters vs all existing node operators/miners who not not upgrade + small block extremists

There is no telling what the outcome will be in this scenario, many old clients will upgrade but its not clear which upgrade choice they will make. This is why Classic should be defeated first. During these attacks the default policy is to defend the existing rules. Why else do you think we are still stuck at 1MB?

@jonny1000 , I would be interested to hear what you think about this idea:

Release a client implementing "BIP 95" which has the goal of increasing the block limit to 2MB, along with BIP 109 clients, but only once 95% of hash power agrees, and 6 month grace period. It would have the following behavior:

- Miners signal "BIP 95" support in blocks

- "BIP 95" clients monitor blocks flagging BIP 109 support in addition to those flagging BIP 95 support. Once BIP 95 + BIP 109 support exceeds 95%, and after a grace period of 6 months - 28 days, also signal BIP 109 support. (For example, blocks could be 20% BIP 109 and 75% BIP 95).

- At the end of the 6-month grace period, accept blocks up to 2 MB.

This way classic clients and BIP 95 clients can both "activate" a hard fork simultaneously, and both would accept the hard fork with larger blocks. If 25% or more of the hash power supports BIP 95, then they ensure that the hard fork does not happen until the higher 95% threshold is reached. This way you can avoid a three-way battle, and also avoid a "contentious" hard fork without having to worry about "defeating" Classic.