Norway
Well-Known Member
- Sep 29, 2015
- 2,424
- 6,410
Also, 400k bitcoin in mempool earlier today. A lot of angry money...
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
@Melbustus
Id bet both S3052 and Tuur both follow this thread, especially since Tuur was one of my long term subs. Then, if you count those 4 you listed plus me, that only makes 5 of us
seriously though, you can't let your own ideological "certainties" get in the way of your investing. Despite all the problems, I let my intuition and experience with technicals rule the day.
I'd even say what most ppl around here don't want to hear. Id be ok with a SWHF of a+b<=4MB. That way we get our block limit increase to 4MB, the HF, and free unsubsidized regular and SW tx's which could compete on a level playing field to see if LN really is what the market wants. SW has alot of nice features. So in that sense you have to question how militant we want to be here.
[doublepost=1464358789][/doublepost]Oh, and btw.
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
Id bet both S3052 and Tuur both follow this thread, especially since Tuur was one of my long term subs. Then, if you count those 4 you listed plus me, that only makes 5 of us
seriously though, you can't let your own ideological "certainties" get in the way of your investing. Despite all the problems, I let my intuition and experience with technicals rule the day.
I'd even say what most ppl around here don't want to hear. Id be ok with a SWHF of a+b<=4MB. That way we get our block limit increase to 4MB, the HF, and free unsubsidized regular and SW tx's which could compete on a level playing field to see if LN really is what the market wants. SW has alot of nice features. So in that sense you have to question how militant we want to be here.
[doublepost=1464358789][/doublepost]Oh, and btw.
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Dec 16, 2015
- 2,806
- 6,088
This argument has a certain appeal (re: timelocked txs):
albin
Active Member
- Nov 8, 2015
- 931
- 4,008
This nonsense argument about ntimelocks is only possible because of the persistent refusal to collaborate on a protocol specification.
The claim is that Bitcoin is magical and nobody can express it in words, yadda yadda yadda, but expressing precisely what Bitcoin intends to support for smart contracting is obviously something we can explain in English.
The claim is that Bitcoin is magical and nobody can express it in words, yadda yadda yadda, but expressing precisely what Bitcoin intends to support for smart contracting is obviously something we can explain in English.
Can anyone see anything wrong with my explanations here? I feel like I got it pinned pretty well now how people make errors when thinking about consensus, but I may be missing some technical nuances or edge cases.
As an aside, I wonder if this error might also be what caused Vitalik to end up thinking PoS "weak subjectivity" could work.
As an aside, I wonder if this error might also be what caused Vitalik to end up thinking PoS "weak subjectivity" could work.
VeritasSapere
Active Member
- Nov 16, 2015
- 511
- 1,266
@cliff You are correct that there is an inverse relationship with Bitcoin price and the price of the alternative cryptocurrencies, I think this has much to do with speculation and mass group psychology, there are a lot of weak hands out there. This is part of what makes the alternative cryptocurrencies a great hedge against Bitcoin, when Bitcoin goes up there tends to be great pressure for the altcoins to go down, however when Bitcoin goes down the alternative cryptocurrencies tend to go up.
That Antpool is refusing to run segwit is great news, and could be a sign that the incentives of Bitcoins governance mechanism might actually be working. It does give me much more hope for Bitcoin going into the future. However, the other comments are also still true, even if we have a blocksize increase to two megabytes it does not completely solve the problems that Bitcoin is currently going through. We will still most likely be left with a corrupt, manipulative and at times even delusional development team mostly in charge of the developmental trajectory of Bitcoin, combined with a rather toxic community supporting them.
It is also worth considering that Bitcoin is not as technologically sophisticated compared to certain alternative cryptocurrencies. Since the Core development team mainly focuses on off chain solutions, meaning that Core is unlikely to improve on chain capability significantly, which is what ultimately counts in terms of competing directly with other cryptocurrencies.
Furthermore, it could also still turn out that we will be left with a standoff, meaning that there will be no blocksize increase and no segwit. Depending on how long this standoff continues, it could well be long enough for Bitcoin to lose its network effect advantages, which truthfully is all it still has going for it. That and it being the first cryptocurrency, with a rather special mythology. I am confident that if we are correct on our theories on governance that the blocksize must be increased, this is inevitable because of the incentives in play, though it might take a completely different group of miners to make that happen, as the current group of miners cycles out and we end up with a new group of people having to make this same decision. The question I think is in terms of timing, will Bitcoin make it through this stand off before the alternative cryptocurrencies are able to take the lead and nullify the advantage of Bitcoins network effect.
That Antpool is refusing to run segwit is great news, and could be a sign that the incentives of Bitcoins governance mechanism might actually be working. It does give me much more hope for Bitcoin going into the future. However, the other comments are also still true, even if we have a blocksize increase to two megabytes it does not completely solve the problems that Bitcoin is currently going through. We will still most likely be left with a corrupt, manipulative and at times even delusional development team mostly in charge of the developmental trajectory of Bitcoin, combined with a rather toxic community supporting them.
It is also worth considering that Bitcoin is not as technologically sophisticated compared to certain alternative cryptocurrencies. Since the Core development team mainly focuses on off chain solutions, meaning that Core is unlikely to improve on chain capability significantly, which is what ultimately counts in terms of competing directly with other cryptocurrencies.
Furthermore, it could also still turn out that we will be left with a standoff, meaning that there will be no blocksize increase and no segwit. Depending on how long this standoff continues, it could well be long enough for Bitcoin to lose its network effect advantages, which truthfully is all it still has going for it. That and it being the first cryptocurrency, with a rather special mythology. I am confident that if we are correct on our theories on governance that the blocksize must be increased, this is inevitable because of the incentives in play, though it might take a completely different group of miners to make that happen, as the current group of miners cycles out and we end up with a new group of people having to make this same decision. The question I think is in terms of timing, will Bitcoin make it through this stand off before the alternative cryptocurrencies are able to take the lead and nullify the advantage of Bitcoins network effect.
Last edited:
Norway
Well-Known Member
- Sep 29, 2015
- 2,424
- 6,410
@Aquent
I would really like to see Peter Todd trying to pay for his beer with RBF-bitcoin tomorrow in Arnhem. Maybe he will be attacked by a mob of drunk, Dutch bitcoiners, lol!
http://www.arnhembitcoinstad.nl/event
I would really like to see Peter Todd trying to pay for his beer with RBF-bitcoin tomorrow in Arnhem. Maybe he will be attacked by a mob of drunk, Dutch bitcoiners, lol!
http://www.arnhembitcoinstad.nl/event
I think this is an important point to keep in mind with all the fork talk and offchain payments:
- Aug 29, 2015
- 536
- 2,597
Yup. And Bitcoin must go through pain to become stronger.
Thinking back to MtGox, it had been obvious for quite a while that exchange was dangerously centralized at MtGox. There had been many calls for people to diversify to other exchanges, especially as warning signs mounted. The problem was fairly obvious, but still, people did not take action. When it collapsed many prominent people like Erik Voorhees had money on the exchange, and countless smaller holders suffered devastating losses. It was unfortunate, people were hurt. But as a result we now have a much healthier exchange ecosystem.
For Bitcoin to be successful it must confront and overcome everything that could destroy it.
China getting ready to cross $500 probably for good:
[doublepost=1464365002][/doublepost]there we go: $500.32
[doublepost=1464365258][/doublepost]all Western exchanges solidly over the top of April's top of the small triangle. just a matter of time for catch up.
[doublepost=1464365002][/doublepost]there we go: $500.32
[doublepost=1464365258][/doublepost]all Western exchanges solidly over the top of April's top of the small triangle. just a matter of time for catch up.
Last edited:
Isn't it funny, Greg regarding ntimelocks:
- Large transactions are an attack vector due to long O(n^2) validation times.
- Large (unconfirmed, 0-conf!) transactions are of utmost importance for the justice and health of the Bitcoin system.
Which one is it, Greg? I know you're reading this...
- Large transactions are an attack vector due to long O(n^2) validation times.
- Large (unconfirmed, 0-conf!) transactions are of utmost importance for the justice and health of the Bitcoin system.
Which one is it, Greg? I know you're reading this...
the fiat boys are coming in with volume:
[doublepost=1464366827,1464366111][/doublepost]so we see that the idea that HF's "remove a rule" or "relax the rules" to be more permissive is not true. all part of the purposeful confusion around mystical SF vs HF. this is why i always say, it's not a matter of SF vs HF anymore. you have to look at what each specifically does to make informed conclusions on what is being changed:
[doublepost=1464366827,1464366111][/doublepost]so we see that the idea that HF's "remove a rule" or "relax the rules" to be more permissive is not true. all part of the purposeful confusion around mystical SF vs HF. this is why i always say, it's not a matter of SF vs HF anymore. you have to look at what each specifically does to make informed conclusions on what is being changed:
- Aug 28, 2015
- 517
- 1,679
Seems to be a massive spread between the Western exchanges and those in China.
When is that going to arbitrage away? ($500 China, $473 elsewhere..)
Good to see bitcoin rising. Ethereum getting hammered
When is that going to arbitrage away? ($500 China, $473 elsewhere..)
Good to see bitcoin rising. Ethereum getting hammered
Wow. super long post. TL;DR You can't impose ideology or your thoughts on people. You need to make them want to use your product, taking into account the lazy human nature and the many trade-offs they have to make in their busy lives. History clearly shows that there is no should in a free market where people have free choice, but only superior or inferior products, with benefits judged against disadvantages:
Yeah, I'm not sure about RBF. That's another sort of checkmate with just one move left. Blocks are clearly full at the moment with almost 200 million dollars stuck if - as you stated - 400k btc are in a backlog. That is a lot of stuck value. Some people say they were waiting for hours or even days. Re-sending the tx with a higher fee helps in those cases, then other txs get stuck, those ppl re-send with higher fees - a race to the top I guess - perhaps.
On the other hand, it fully kills bitcoin as a payment system while there is no bitcoin based alternative. Merchants won't be able to accept 0confs anymore and with rbf even 1conf aren't safe.
What confuses me is that Todd has been speaking about a "banking" settlement system for three years now if not more. We all know about his propaganda video, etc. I mean, fine, that's what he believes, that's his right, but why did he never produce Lightning or anything like that. Same applies to gmax. They've been arguing about 1mb forever since forever. Fine, I mean, it's what they believe and their right to believe, but why have they produced nothing in three years - just talk talk talk. You want a settlement system, great, where are the products?
Now, currently, we don't have a settlement system. What we have is only onchain txs. There is no LN alternative or any alternative save for you know other digital currencies.
Let us suppose we all get behind rbf as todd and gmax would like. What happens then? Well, bitcoin becomes slow, unpredictable, highly frustrating, unusable for payments without waiting for hours (my bank does them literally instantly), etc. which is the case already for merchants that demand 3 confirms or whatever but rbf forces all - despite whatever free decision they wish to make - to wait for at least 2 confirms - or around 20 mins/half an hour.
The solution, according to - presumably - their belief is this banking settlement network - but since this bank network is not here, on what logical basis can rbf be pushed at this point or inistance on keeping transactions, and by association price, capped?
Maybe if we look at their language we find an answer. They speak of Classic, which of course gives everyone a free choice - as "forcing" everyone. Since that is incorrect because Classic is simply some code everyone can freely choose to run or otherwise - it may be the case that by their language they betray their thoughts. That is, they wish to "force" everyone to accept rbf, accept the banking network, accept the non-usability of the public blockchain, by giving them no choice.
If we had LN we could judge it. I mean, we do have LN - thunder - but if LN is different and we had it, we could judge it, see whether it works or how it works, whether it is usable or non usable. But clearly they don't have any confidence in LN. If they did, they would have worked on it for the past three years, have it here already, rather than telling us we will have LN by June which is obviously not gone happen.
Same with segwit. Gmax himself stated that as tx backlog goes higher and fees increase, miners will have no choice but to adopt segwit. Of course, they could just change a 1 to 2, but, that didn't pass his mind.
I may of course be wrong, but I think both gmax and todd are smart guys. I think they know the bank network is inferior for usability and if it was left to the free market it "may" or perhaps it likely would not adopt it. So they engage in chess, making moves that seemingly gives the network no choice.
I don't really know much about gmax's or todd's philosophy. I can imagine however that they think they have a solution which protects freedom. That there must be absolute privacy or that everyone should be fully anonymous etc. The problem is of course that there are tradeoffs. Tor is pretty private, but dead slow and hardly usable (and when govs have wanted have cracked it - see SR). PGP is fully private and secure, but too complicated.
Privacy has value, especially in a free country, but I believe they are repeating the exact same mistakes made in the 90s. Just as then, now too, in their arrogant attitude of should, they tell users you must do this. Of course they "must" do nothing. They have full autonomy and freedom and can do whatever they wish regardless of anyone's opinion. Yes, it's good if everyone used PGP, but, people aren't robots and their time is incredibly valuable. They are not going to spend any effort unless it is dead easy.
You have to induce them. Apple for example inherently encrypting all communication - that is far more superior than pgp because it is easy, seamless and requires zero efforts.
People have many considerations and a busy life seeing as their time is very limited. They know what is nice - exercise - but only few engage in it - eating well - few do - studying, gaining knowledge - again few do - not smoking or drinking - yet plenty engage in them etc.
They miss the tradeoffs between time/convinience and privacy and think that if they changed the narrative or forced people then suddenly they will have full privacy, but history shows otherwise. They just don't use it.
Same can be said about the an-cap ideology which tries to impose itself upon bitcoin. They think that if their ideology can be stuck to this cool new thing - a genius invention by any measure - then all the sudden the masses will accept their opinions. As we are seeing, the opposite happens. The masses turn against the tool itself, because and only because of the ideology imposed on it.
Read Hacker News. They as good as hate bitcoin. Why? Because of attempts to dogmatically impose a certain ideology in the misguided thinking that if the two are linked then the ideology will be accepted. There are reasons why the ideology has been rejected by the masses and just because it leeches onto a cool new thing it doesn't necessarily make the ideology accepted.
Hacker News is libertarian and Silicon Valley has a great tradition of empowering people, but they are practical too, not dogmatic, they can use logic, rationality and thinking, taking into account potential problems, rather than rigidly abiding by some dogma. They don't dream of ordering people, only of pleasing people, under rational and logical thinking of making the world better for all.
So todd and gmax is wrong in my view, just as their elders were wrong in the 90s, in creating pretty good privacy for a niche no one cares about while leaving everyone else naked under full surveillance. They should learn from Steve Jobs, from Apple's easy use, experience, and the added benefit of inbuilt encryption. They should see the tradeoffs and turn their thinking from it should be thus to, ok, these are good things, but how do we make them want this stuff, how do we make it seamless, how do we make the masses actually use it rather than catering to only a tiny niche.
Now, of course, catering to a tiny niche is great too, but bitcoin is the largest coin, not a niche. If you wish to create a pgp version or tor version of bitcoin, great. But to think that pgp like or tor like inconvenience can be added to bitcoin and bitcoin still remain the most used or even relevant as far as the masses are concerned is not based on any logical thinking and is disproved by history.
Furthermore, it is highly interesting that no one is talking about sharded bitcoin if decentralization was a consideration.
Todd and Gmax should perhaps consider whether Finney was wrong and why whatever it was the three worked on failed miserably while Bitcoin has succeeded. They should recognize that, perhaps, they are wrong, and shift their view from a dogmatic position, to a consideration of why they failed and to a deeper understanding of bitcoin. Specifically, how it manages to both empower the masses while making the masses want it.
They can work on inbuilt encryption, etc, if it retains the desire of the masses to use it and only if it does so, because if no one wants to use it then for who is the inbuilt privacy which comes at the cost of, perhaps, slowness, inconvenience etc.
Gmax, Todd and Hal Finney, failed, and though I have not really looked at what they were working, I suspect they failed because they made the wrong trade-offs. If those same mistakes are repeated, then bitcoin too will fail, but not the genius invention... plenty of smart people gave Nakamoto the ear and took his statements at face value - look at Ethereum.
They should learn from their mistakes, rather than repeating them and, despite having badly failed, try to impose their will, instead of recognizing what made bitcoin successful while their previous work/thinking/dogma showed itself to be fully wrong.
Yeah, I'm not sure about RBF. That's another sort of checkmate with just one move left. Blocks are clearly full at the moment with almost 200 million dollars stuck if - as you stated - 400k btc are in a backlog. That is a lot of stuck value. Some people say they were waiting for hours or even days. Re-sending the tx with a higher fee helps in those cases, then other txs get stuck, those ppl re-send with higher fees - a race to the top I guess - perhaps.
On the other hand, it fully kills bitcoin as a payment system while there is no bitcoin based alternative. Merchants won't be able to accept 0confs anymore and with rbf even 1conf aren't safe.
What confuses me is that Todd has been speaking about a "banking" settlement system for three years now if not more. We all know about his propaganda video, etc. I mean, fine, that's what he believes, that's his right, but why did he never produce Lightning or anything like that. Same applies to gmax. They've been arguing about 1mb forever since forever. Fine, I mean, it's what they believe and their right to believe, but why have they produced nothing in three years - just talk talk talk. You want a settlement system, great, where are the products?
Now, currently, we don't have a settlement system. What we have is only onchain txs. There is no LN alternative or any alternative save for you know other digital currencies.
Let us suppose we all get behind rbf as todd and gmax would like. What happens then? Well, bitcoin becomes slow, unpredictable, highly frustrating, unusable for payments without waiting for hours (my bank does them literally instantly), etc. which is the case already for merchants that demand 3 confirms or whatever but rbf forces all - despite whatever free decision they wish to make - to wait for at least 2 confirms - or around 20 mins/half an hour.
The solution, according to - presumably - their belief is this banking settlement network - but since this bank network is not here, on what logical basis can rbf be pushed at this point or inistance on keeping transactions, and by association price, capped?
Maybe if we look at their language we find an answer. They speak of Classic, which of course gives everyone a free choice - as "forcing" everyone. Since that is incorrect because Classic is simply some code everyone can freely choose to run or otherwise - it may be the case that by their language they betray their thoughts. That is, they wish to "force" everyone to accept rbf, accept the banking network, accept the non-usability of the public blockchain, by giving them no choice.
If we had LN we could judge it. I mean, we do have LN - thunder - but if LN is different and we had it, we could judge it, see whether it works or how it works, whether it is usable or non usable. But clearly they don't have any confidence in LN. If they did, they would have worked on it for the past three years, have it here already, rather than telling us we will have LN by June which is obviously not gone happen.
Same with segwit. Gmax himself stated that as tx backlog goes higher and fees increase, miners will have no choice but to adopt segwit. Of course, they could just change a 1 to 2, but, that didn't pass his mind.
I may of course be wrong, but I think both gmax and todd are smart guys. I think they know the bank network is inferior for usability and if it was left to the free market it "may" or perhaps it likely would not adopt it. So they engage in chess, making moves that seemingly gives the network no choice.
I don't really know much about gmax's or todd's philosophy. I can imagine however that they think they have a solution which protects freedom. That there must be absolute privacy or that everyone should be fully anonymous etc. The problem is of course that there are tradeoffs. Tor is pretty private, but dead slow and hardly usable (and when govs have wanted have cracked it - see SR). PGP is fully private and secure, but too complicated.
Privacy has value, especially in a free country, but I believe they are repeating the exact same mistakes made in the 90s. Just as then, now too, in their arrogant attitude of should, they tell users you must do this. Of course they "must" do nothing. They have full autonomy and freedom and can do whatever they wish regardless of anyone's opinion. Yes, it's good if everyone used PGP, but, people aren't robots and their time is incredibly valuable. They are not going to spend any effort unless it is dead easy.
You have to induce them. Apple for example inherently encrypting all communication - that is far more superior than pgp because it is easy, seamless and requires zero efforts.
People have many considerations and a busy life seeing as their time is very limited. They know what is nice - exercise - but only few engage in it - eating well - few do - studying, gaining knowledge - again few do - not smoking or drinking - yet plenty engage in them etc.
They miss the tradeoffs between time/convinience and privacy and think that if they changed the narrative or forced people then suddenly they will have full privacy, but history shows otherwise. They just don't use it.
Same can be said about the an-cap ideology which tries to impose itself upon bitcoin. They think that if their ideology can be stuck to this cool new thing - a genius invention by any measure - then all the sudden the masses will accept their opinions. As we are seeing, the opposite happens. The masses turn against the tool itself, because and only because of the ideology imposed on it.
Read Hacker News. They as good as hate bitcoin. Why? Because of attempts to dogmatically impose a certain ideology in the misguided thinking that if the two are linked then the ideology will be accepted. There are reasons why the ideology has been rejected by the masses and just because it leeches onto a cool new thing it doesn't necessarily make the ideology accepted.
Hacker News is libertarian and Silicon Valley has a great tradition of empowering people, but they are practical too, not dogmatic, they can use logic, rationality and thinking, taking into account potential problems, rather than rigidly abiding by some dogma. They don't dream of ordering people, only of pleasing people, under rational and logical thinking of making the world better for all.
So todd and gmax is wrong in my view, just as their elders were wrong in the 90s, in creating pretty good privacy for a niche no one cares about while leaving everyone else naked under full surveillance. They should learn from Steve Jobs, from Apple's easy use, experience, and the added benefit of inbuilt encryption. They should see the tradeoffs and turn their thinking from it should be thus to, ok, these are good things, but how do we make them want this stuff, how do we make it seamless, how do we make the masses actually use it rather than catering to only a tiny niche.
Now, of course, catering to a tiny niche is great too, but bitcoin is the largest coin, not a niche. If you wish to create a pgp version or tor version of bitcoin, great. But to think that pgp like or tor like inconvenience can be added to bitcoin and bitcoin still remain the most used or even relevant as far as the masses are concerned is not based on any logical thinking and is disproved by history.
Furthermore, it is highly interesting that no one is talking about sharded bitcoin if decentralization was a consideration.
Todd and Gmax should perhaps consider whether Finney was wrong and why whatever it was the three worked on failed miserably while Bitcoin has succeeded. They should recognize that, perhaps, they are wrong, and shift their view from a dogmatic position, to a consideration of why they failed and to a deeper understanding of bitcoin. Specifically, how it manages to both empower the masses while making the masses want it.
They can work on inbuilt encryption, etc, if it retains the desire of the masses to use it and only if it does so, because if no one wants to use it then for who is the inbuilt privacy which comes at the cost of, perhaps, slowness, inconvenience etc.
Gmax, Todd and Hal Finney, failed, and though I have not really looked at what they were working, I suspect they failed because they made the wrong trade-offs. If those same mistakes are repeated, then bitcoin too will fail, but not the genius invention... plenty of smart people gave Nakamoto the ear and took his statements at face value - look at Ethereum.
They should learn from their mistakes, rather than repeating them and, despite having badly failed, try to impose their will, instead of recognizing what made bitcoin successful while their previous work/thinking/dogma showed itself to be fully wrong.
VeritasSapere
Active Member
- Nov 16, 2015
- 511
- 1,266
I am invested both in Bitcoin and the alternative cryptocurrencies. As prices jump up and down my portfolio overall stays relatively stable. I think this is the best way to be, I am relaxed. If it is Bitcoin up and altcoins down I do well, if it is Bitcoin down and altcoins up I also do well. So instead of cheering that Ethereum goes down I am somewhat neutral on the matter, my preference is that everything goes up and that everyone wins.
[doublepost=1464368808][/doublepost]2 of 3 Chinese exchanges over $500 now with BTCC soon to be dragged along. that's gonna put enormous pressure on the shorts of BFX and the other Western exchanges. meanwhile, Eth slaughter is deepening.
Bagatell
Active Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 728
- 1,191
well mine has jumped
[doublepost=1464369590][/doublepost]don't forget all; we have a date with gold.
[doublepost=1464369680][/doublepost]wow:
KNC MINER DECLARES BANKRUPTCY – CHINESE COMPETITION TOO TOUGH
http://swedishstartupspace.com/2016/05/27/knc-miner-declares-bankruptcy-chinese-competition-too-tough/
[doublepost=1464369590][/doublepost]don't forget all; we have a date with gold.
[doublepost=1464369680][/doublepost]wow:
KNC MINER DECLARES BANKRUPTCY – CHINESE COMPETITION TOO TOUGH
http://swedishstartupspace.com/2016/05/27/knc-miner-declares-bankruptcy-chinese-competition-too-tough/
Last edited:
Bagatell
Active Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 728
- 1,191
I meant my trading account. The cold wallet is healthy enough.
well, i think this is the start of something i've been saying all along. these large miners are leveraged to the hilt, so expect more BK's once the halving kicks in. i wonder how the breakout might have affected KNC's profits?