Chris and I are still the Managing Editors. I was going to do that interview with Chris, but couldn't and Richard volunteered to fill in, and I now the title is somewhat confusing.
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
The federal governement is backed by men with guns. As long as the society trusts the governement and its ability to organise violence and tribute, the liabilities are funded. An economy has never been something different than a 'state bastard'. Beyond the state is self-sufficiency; and that means: no economy.
But apart from that: the chart above shows 80 percent private debt.
here's a little nugget that i suspected has been going on for quite some time:
"The company also credits the Chinese government with being a supportive partner. “The government has been encouraging of Bitcoin mining companies because Bitcoin is a technology that combines elements of hardware and software. They have observed the benefits and profits it has produced and have been supportive of this.” Recently, Bitbank received a grant of 50,000 Yuan and office space in a new innovation and high-tech zone built in the city of Zhongshan, Guangdong province. The city plans on investing 67 million Yuan over the next 5 years on the initiative."
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/the-unknown-giant-a-first-look-inside-bw-one-of-china-s-oldest-and-largest-miners-1444675310
this is great news for the decentralization of Bitcoin in the long run by preventing entities like the US gvt from shutting down mining. like i've been saying; ROW countries outside the GFW should be leveraging their bandwidth advantages with larger blocks if they want to compete. Chinese miners should not fear this but encourage this competition. their gvt will do what it takes to maintain their advantage thus encouraging worldwide competition and thus a wider and more competitive mining industry all of which will grow Bitcoin and ramp the price.
"The company also credits the Chinese government with being a supportive partner. “The government has been encouraging of Bitcoin mining companies because Bitcoin is a technology that combines elements of hardware and software. They have observed the benefits and profits it has produced and have been supportive of this.” Recently, Bitbank received a grant of 50,000 Yuan and office space in a new innovation and high-tech zone built in the city of Zhongshan, Guangdong province. The city plans on investing 67 million Yuan over the next 5 years on the initiative."
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/the-unknown-giant-a-first-look-inside-bw-one-of-china-s-oldest-and-largest-miners-1444675310
this is great news for the decentralization of Bitcoin in the long run by preventing entities like the US gvt from shutting down mining. like i've been saying; ROW countries outside the GFW should be leveraging their bandwidth advantages with larger blocks if they want to compete. Chinese miners should not fear this but encourage this competition. their gvt will do what it takes to maintain their advantage thus encouraging worldwide competition and thus a wider and more competitive mining industry all of which will grow Bitcoin and ramp the price.
good news.
.
There are $100T in promises to voters that require real world services to fulfill and are unfunded. These services can not be printed and can not be created at the point of a gun. They require a functioning and productive society to fulfill.
Every failed socialist state is one that tried to provide promised services through force that its economy couldn't generate ( Cuba, Russia, etc etc). It never works.
Men with guns don't produce things. That is the difference.
There are $100T in promises to voters that require real world services to fulfill and are unfunded. These services can not be printed and can not be created at the point of a gun. They require a functioning and productive society to fulfill.
Every failed socialist state is one that tried to provide promised services through force that its economy couldn't generate ( Cuba, Russia, etc etc). It never works.
Yes, lookup could be made to be O(nlog(m)) where n is transaction count and m is UTXO size when talking about CPU (assuming a balanced tree). Storage (and the size of RAM caches) would scale O(mn).
UTXO checkpoints would reduce bandwidth for initial syncing, but every node still needs to see every transaction that makes it in a block to stay synced. That being said, I was wrong earlier when I suggested network demands exceeded O(n). If every node contributes equally and the network is well connected, each node can pass each new transaction to one neighbor who hasn't seen it and everybody will receive it. One receive and one send per transaction is 2n or O(n).
what needs to be done is to fork away from Blockstream Core dev.
*************************************************************
*************************************************************
I would really like the move to 8 and then follow PeterRs graph of needed as we move up in transactions at 75% of projected.
are the miners telegraphing a reversal?
trusty SLW:
GDX:
silver futures tonight:
personally, i'm waiting for another throw over thrust up to layer in the other half of my short. might not get the chance. but that's ok.
trusty SLW:
GDX:
silver futures tonight:
personally, i'm waiting for another throw over thrust up to layer in the other half of my short. might not get the chance. but that's ok.
Been saying this for awhile, the larger market of users and companies that have invested significant effort in building tools that directly interact with the mainchain, will not accept being pushed off chain and forced to redevelop everything for off chain solutions.
As we get closer to full blocks the resistance will come from more influential sources than reddit boards that thermos controls. These core devs are about to learn just how powerful they really are.
I agree with most of your post, though am still wondering about the O(m) for the UTXO.
I'd expect RAM cache doesn't need to be O(m), depending on the patterns in the UTXO set usage that can be predicted?
For example, I'd expect that a RAM cache that scales with O(n) and just keeps the last created UTXOs in memory would probably be a good first order approximation.
Resistance against bigger blocks or resistance against changing the social contract of bigger blocks?
Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
The society promises those trillions to itself.
Men with guns (government/society) enforce production (growth). Stateless communities don't produce surplus (growth), because they are not ruled by men with guns. That's the difference between the self-sufficient communities and the society. A society (collectivism / homo oeconomicus / organized violence) starts with debt and 'unfunded' promises (to the soldiers and minions). An economy (society) is a debt ponzi from the very beginning; growing rampant like mold:
http://megacancer.com/2015/10/10/megamold/
Last edited:
Guess I was right. Blockstream's business model is to create permissioned blockchains for which they get a monthly fee: http://www.coindesk.com/blockstream-commercial-sidechain-bitcoin-exchanges/
""Five major bitcoin startups – Bitfinex, BTCC, Kraken, Unocoin and Xapo – will operate the private sidechain, allowing partner exchanges to move funds between order books without the need to transfer funds on the bitcoin blockchain."
"The startups involved will participate in the operation of the sidechain, but at the same time will be customers of Blockstream, paying an undisclosed monthly subscription fee. "
They want to be the AOL of bitcoin, in the process taking away users from the open blockchain and taking away fees from miners as well as balkanizing the blockchain into walled gardens.
It now makes sense for them to be so against 0conf transactions because it makes their "only takes seconds" competitive (when the blockchain transactions are at speed of light and if the inbuilt script language is developed can be very safe) or being against spv wallets as they'd rather people use their more safer sidechain which is probably in the works or lightning and of course it makes much sense for them to oppose blocksize increase because if no space in the open chain you have no option but to pay some fee to use a walled garden.
I should think the miners are sufficiently smart to eventually realise that the fud about centralisation is no more than a smoke screen to curtail bitcoin's free capacity and replace it with a paid option and, eventually, I should think that miner's greed for fees and users will clear their mind to see that the scaled open blockchain is the best option for them, for bitcoin, and for the world.
""Five major bitcoin startups – Bitfinex, BTCC, Kraken, Unocoin and Xapo – will operate the private sidechain, allowing partner exchanges to move funds between order books without the need to transfer funds on the bitcoin blockchain."
"The startups involved will participate in the operation of the sidechain, but at the same time will be customers of Blockstream, paying an undisclosed monthly subscription fee. "
They want to be the AOL of bitcoin, in the process taking away users from the open blockchain and taking away fees from miners as well as balkanizing the blockchain into walled gardens.
It now makes sense for them to be so against 0conf transactions because it makes their "only takes seconds" competitive (when the blockchain transactions are at speed of light and if the inbuilt script language is developed can be very safe) or being against spv wallets as they'd rather people use their more safer sidechain which is probably in the works or lightning and of course it makes much sense for them to oppose blocksize increase because if no space in the open chain you have no option but to pay some fee to use a walled garden.
I should think the miners are sufficiently smart to eventually realise that the fud about centralisation is no more than a smoke screen to curtail bitcoin's free capacity and replace it with a paid option and, eventually, I should think that miner's greed for fees and users will clear their mind to see that the scaled open blockchain is the best option for them, for bitcoin, and for the world.
Well, from what I understand all that liquid does is allow the authorised exchanges to accept 0conf transactions between each other. As it stands now most exchanges require 2-3 confirmations before they can account for your btc taking some 30-60 minutes. Liquid, through using script, allegedly makes 0conf transactions completley safe (we do not know for sure as the code is not yet released). Therefore the previous onchain transactions from users transfering btc from one exchange to another are now to go through liquid and thus offchain replacing the fees paid to miners with a monthly fee to blockstream.
I am not sure how the system will work exactly to be honest. For example, how does bitfinex know that a user is transferring to kraken (an authorised participant) rather than say coinbase (an unathorised entity) unless they create two withdrawal systems and expect users to differentiate between authorised and unauthorised which is quite a lot to ask from a user who just wants to transfer his btc. Moreover, I do not understand how the transfer between the exchanges is managed. One way is the swift system through a centralised database which creates some sort of relationship during account creation. If that is the case then blockstream could be a huge target for hacking and if anything goes wrong, with 5 exchanges participating, it could be far worse than gox.
I am not sure how the system will work exactly to be honest. For example, how does bitfinex know that a user is transferring to kraken (an authorised participant) rather than say coinbase (an unathorised entity) unless they create two withdrawal systems and expect users to differentiate between authorised and unauthorised which is quite a lot to ask from a user who just wants to transfer his btc. Moreover, I do not understand how the transfer between the exchanges is managed. One way is the swift system through a centralised database which creates some sort of relationship during account creation. If that is the case then blockstream could be a huge target for hacking and if anything goes wrong, with 5 exchanges participating, it could be far worse than gox.
LOL, what a joke.
All they've done, it appears, is set up a federated server system that signs blocks that they've added to a block chain much like a proof of stake system.
What a huge target for gvt regulation. If it is like I understand it, they will get repetitively fined like Ripple, effectively forcing them to turn into a traditional audited financial system much like Ripple has become. Ripple doesn't even pretend anymore, if you read yesterday's article on them. Blockstream and their clients won't be able to either in the long run.
http://media.coindesk.com/2015/10/liquid-visual.png
A particular doom and gloom scenario. I am not so sure about that outcome - our gynocentric nature thankfully makes sure that as soon as societies become very economically prosperous, birth rate declines (which is the factor in all eventual resource use). Furthermore, I am pretty sure that even in a scenario of higher and higher contamination levels, some people will survive and or adapt. Maybe not as humans eventually but some technologically integrated intelligent slime balls or whatever, who knows
You can also summarize your article with 'life (of any form) large-scale grows like mold'...
Personally, I think there's about just one big really gloomy thing present, though: nukes. And that on the other hand can be seen as having probably kept many of us alive for the last ~70years.
Honestly, I feel it is really hard to predict long (>2100) or even mid-term (50years) future of humans or the planet already, even if thinking hard about all these issues.
From the image: "Using special, tamper-resistant hardware, [...]"
I think I remember Mike Hearn (on reddit) mentioning similar ideas of using hardware security modules in nodes and his argument being shot down as inviting governments to control Bitcoin eventually. I don't remember whether it was BS employees arguing that way, though.
Last edited:
@Aquent now I see, I completely misunderstood liquid actual purpose.
This is meant to be a system to let users of entities, who participate to liquid, to move btc form one party to another in a matter of seconds rather than hours.
I've just read last Hill's post on the subject but it's just marketing buzzwords, no real explanation. The same apply to CD article that goes a little bit deeper tech wise, but not enough to have a clear picture.
All in all I daresay the more we know about blockstreams profit sources the better.
This is meant to be a system to let users of entities, who participate to liquid, to move btc form one party to another in a matter of seconds rather than hours.
I've just read last Hill's post on the subject but it's just marketing buzzwords, no real explanation. The same apply to CD article that goes a little bit deeper tech wise, but not enough to have a clear picture.
All in all I daresay the more we know about blockstreams profit sources the better.
lunar
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,001
- 4,290
Private sidechains was the obvious business model, just wish It didn't come at the expense of Cockblocking the stream of work on blocksize and 0conf.
On the plus side it just hit 250 on stamp.
On the plus side it just hit 250 on stamp.
Maybe the market sees BS' announcement as them finally exposing their true intentions clearly enough so that there is now a new chance of their 1MB-dam finally being broken?
BS is taking about Moxi boxes, which to me, is neither here nor there.
It's the identifiability of all the actors involved which provide the gvt with a huge target. One they will want to punish because of Confidential Transactions. This is just another form of Ripple.
I also fail to see any potential benefit of back porting technology going on here. It's simply a money making scheme.
It's the identifiability of all the actors involved which provide the gvt with a huge target. One they will want to punish because of Confidential Transactions. This is just another form of Ripple.
I also fail to see any potential benefit of back porting technology going on here. It's simply a money making scheme.
