Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

oh_my_gaud:

[doublepost=1464967093][/doublepost]

I think I understand where you are coming from. You are so convinced that you are right and you feel the evidence supports your view on the scaling/capacity issue so much, that you find it very hard to believe others genuinely hold an opposing view. You therefore assume trolling, bad faith or a conflict of interest.

Please try to keep an open mind. I promise you, that almost all of those on the other side of the debate to you are acting in good faith and genuinely acting in what they consider to be the best interests of the system, whether rightly or wrongly, from a well thought out and carefully considered position.

N.B. My costs for Scaling 2 were paid by the conference sponsors, Blockstream was not the only sponsor. Companies listed as supporters on the Classic website were also listed as sponsors of the conference. For example KNC, OKCoin and Bitmain.

nah. just an honest mistake. at least i can apologize, unlike some others.

 

[jonny1000]

Fork futures trading ensures - well in advance of the split - that there is no dispute. In fact, if the market caps in futures trading were so near equal that there could be a dispute (from the typical bitcoiner's or general public's perspective), and the market deemed that a problem, the market would tip toward one or the other.

The mechanics of setting up this kind of trading is extremely complicated. For example:

1. The countless types of coins (Which btw will cause total chaos, in my view, another issue which seems to have been mostly overlooked by the Classic people):
   1. Coins valid on both chains,
      
   2. Coins valid on one and unspent on the other chain,
      
   3. Coins valid on one chain and double spent on the other,
      
   4. Coins with a Classic coinbase output in some of its inputs,
   5. Coins from transactions containing the same inputs and outputs in both chains, but in different blocks
   6. Coins containing the same inputs in both chains, but in different transactions
   7. Different coins, of the same value, sent to the same address on each chain
   8. The same inputs, sent to the same address on each chain, but to different types of outputs
      
   9. ect ect
2. How does the counterpart hedge these bets, there is significant counterparty risk
   
3. When do the futures settle and how do they settle
4. How would one profit if the fork never occurs? For example as a 1MB chain supporter I enter into a contract for the obligation to buy one 1MB coin for ten Classic coins, how do I make money if Classic coins never exist? Therefore the futures contract would need to be conditional on the fork occurring?

Nevertheless I agree in principle that this is a good idea and many of these issues can be partially worked around. I think both sides wanted this as both sides felt the strong majority was on their side. To some extent proxies for exactly this did happen:

• 99.48% of coin holders on this poll say "I believe that If non-Core hard fork wins, major holders will sell BTC, driving price into the ground" -
  http://bitcoinocracy.com/arguments/if-non-core-hard-fork-wins-major-holders-will-sell-btc-driving-price-into-the-ground
• Also around 85% of nodes support Core

Every vote or financial bet or any sybil resistant opinion mechanism of this kind that I say was against the hardfork. This is part of why the hardfork was (hopefully from my point of view) defeated.

 

[cypherdoc]

fiat boys continuing to scramble. "GMI!":

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Although I have a technical background, in mathematics and elliptical curves, which I am sure you will associate with my views on capacity and scaling, in a negative way. It may surprise you, but I am actually a professional investor, rather than a CS professional.

I wasn't assuming you had a CS background. I doubt most bitcoiners do, but most who care a lot try to learn the CS aspects and we can easily end up with some narrative that keeps us from noticing some of the crucial dynamics on the economic/investment level. The worst situation is when we take an argument from an authority as a just-so story and base too much around that, which can even be in an effort to compensate for a lack of background. I didn't mean to suggest anything about your background, just that your arguments in that part of the conversation seemed too focused on the CS aspects. My bad if it came off that way.

 

[cypherdoc]

The mechanics of setting up this kind of trading is extremely complicated. For example:

1. The countless types of coins, valid on both chain, valid on one and unspent on the other, double spent on the other, ect ect
2. How does the counterpart hedge these bets, there is significant counterparty risk
   
3. When do the futures settle and how do they settle
4. How would one profit if the fork never occurs? For example as a 1MB chain supporter I enter into a contract for the obligation to buy 1MB coin for 10 Classic coins, how do I make money if Classic coins never exist?

Nevertheless I agree in principle that this is a good idea and many of these issues can be partially worked around. I think both sides wanted this as both sides felt the strong majority was on their side. To some extent proxies for exactly this did happen:

• 99.48% of coin holders on this poll say "I believe that If non-Core hard fork wins, major holders will sell BTC, driving price into the ground" -
  http://bitcoinocracy.com/arguments/if-non-core-hard-fork-wins-major-holders-will-sell-btc-driving-price-into-the-ground
• Also around 85% of nodes support Core

Every vote or financial bet or any sybil resistant opinion mechanism of this kind that I say was against the hardfork. This is part of why the hardfork was (hopefully from my point of view) defeated.

why do you continue to hold up a site that a few stupid addresses have gone to the trouble of exposing their public keys to make a political statement? it's clear MOST large coin holders will never use that site.

 

[Richy_T]

Meanwhile, fees in the mempool continue to rise.

 

[cypherdoc]

the really nice thing about this move is that it's synchronous to China, implying sustainability, at least in the short run:

[doublepost=1464968272][/doublepost]

why do you continue to hold up a site that a few stupid addresses have gone to the trouble of exposing their public keys to make a political statement? it's clear MOST large coin holders will never use that site.

@freetrader

i keep making this pt, you keep liking this pt, but nobody addresses this pt.
[doublepost=1464968371][/doublepost]oh_my_gaud. did someone say "dead cat bounce"?:

 

[freetrader]

@cypherdoc : (re: bitcoinocracy) Yeah the point's been made - how do you expect it could be addressed further?

Shall we publish a list of all public keys of signatories on that site?

That might be an option, if one gives people enough warning ahead of time to remove their signatures from the site or risk exposure (it's only a token gesture anyway).

 

[Bagatell]

I think I understand where we are coming from. We are so convinced that we are right and we feel the evidence supports our view on the scaling/capacity issue so much, that we find it very hard to believe others genuinely hold an opposing view. We therefore assume trolling, bad faith or a conflict of interest.

FTFY

 

[jonny1000]

why do you continue to hold up a site that a few stupid addresses have gone to the trouble of exposing their public keys to make a political statement?

Because its all I can find... Do you have any other sybil resistant indications of support for either side? Like a futures market for example?

Also wouldn't you also need to expose you public keys for the collateral in this futures market?

Also I seem to remember most of these polls were started by Classic/XT people, had pro Classic biases in the questions and were linked to from /r/btc quite a lot. Then the investors found out about it and suddenly the Classic people complain about the site.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

The mechanics of setting up this kind of trading is extremely complicated. For example:

1. The countless types of coins, valid on both chain, valid on one and unspent on the other, double spent on the other, coins containing a Classic coinbase output in its input, ect ect
2. How does the counterpart hedge these bets, there is significant counterparty risk
   
3. When do the futures settle and how do they settle
4. How would one profit if the fork never occurs? For example as a 1MB chain supporter I enter into a contract for the obligation to buy 1MB coin for 10 Classic coins, how do I make money if Classic coins never exist?

Good questions. I was imagining the process just occurs on exchanges, with their own products that are off-chain, like all trading on exchanges is. That should address 1 and 2. If not, let me know. I think I already mentioned that PoW and signing would have to be tweaked if there is a persistent minority chain.

As for when they settle, the exchanges could decide but I'd imagine - perhaps naively - that there is a preset settlement date after which the exchange says, "OK, everyone is entitled to this many ClassicCoins and this many CoreCoins if and when the fork happens." If the fork never occurs, it seems that would either be handled by ClassicCoin (the non-incumbent) investors losing their shirts, or by all trades being unwound and returned (if you deposited 10 BTC to trade with, you get 10 BTC back). I'd of course prefer exchanges to adopt the later policy, and think that would attract more volume.

I may have messed up some of the terminology. My background for Bitcoin purposes is in economics not trading/investing itself, so I'm not up on all the technicals. In fact, the addition of the futures trading aspect was someone else's idea in this thread.

Nevertheless I agree in principle that this is a good idea and many of these issues can be partially worked around. I think both sides wanted this as both sides felt the strong majority was on their side.

That is great. Just what I wanted to hear. We both - from our points of view - will be the winners. It'd be wonderful to take this thing to the market so we can stop bickering and hating on the Gregs and Adams (and Gavins and Mikes) of the Bitcoin world.

To some extent proxies for exactly this did happen:

• 99.48% of coin holders on this poll say "I believe that If non-Core hard fork wins, major holders will sell BTC, driving price into the ground" -
  http://bitcoinocracy.com/arguments/if-non-core-hard-fork-wins-major-holders-will-sell-btc-driving-price-into-the-ground
• Also around 85% of nodes support Core

Every vote or financial bet or any sybil resistant opinion mechanism of this kind that I say was against the hardfork. This is part of why the hardfork was (hopefully from my point of view) defeated.

Although I think these are highly flawed metrics, they are a step in the right direction. Can we get away from some of the details and agree that, if in principle it were possible to just put the forking outcome to a prediction market, where CoreBTC and ClassicBTC each end up with a percentage of the total as their price ("CoreBTC $540, ClassicBTC $20" or whatever), that that would be an ideal way to settle the matter?

Note again I'm assuming if trading ever got to the above prices, ClassicBTC would almost certainly soon be trading at $0 anyway.

 

[cypherdoc]

@cypherdoc : (re: bitcoinocracy) Yeah the point's been made - how do you expect it could be addressed further?

Shall we publish a list of all public keys of signatories on that site?

That might be an option, if one gives people enough warning ahead of time to remove their signatures from the site or risk exposure (it's only a token gesture anyway).

actually, making a list of all public keys exposed on that site along with advice on how it is a stupid idea to be exposing public keys in light of quantum computing advances to date could scare them off. it would me, as such a public showing could actually encourage quantum computing researchers to focus on those addresses to try and crack them. why not? they'd probably never be found out for doing so and it would serve their R&D purposes as well. two birds with one stone; might as well profit while you're at it.
[doublepost=1464969247][/doublepost]

Because its all I can find... Do you have any other sybil resistant indications of support for either side? Like a futures market for example?

Also wouldn't you also need to expose you public keys for the collateral in this futures market?

Also I seem to remember most of these polls were started by Classic/XT people, had pro Classic biases in the questions and were linked to from /r/btc quite a lot. Then the investors found out about it and suddenly the Classic people complain about the site.

i haven't put much thought into exactly how the futures mkt would be setup, but why couldn't it all be based off of fiat?

 

[79b79aa8]

The mechanics of setting up this kind of trading is extremely complicated.

And so they are. But if you think that Bitcoin will be around for good, how do you expect the inevitable, permanent disputes and disagreements to be orderly settled? Surely not by non-representative voting schemes, cartel forming, gentleman's agreements, invited conferences, forum brigading, consensus pleading or any such method . . . Do you want to be at it forever? Forkius's point is that the market is going to have to settle it. The mechanisms will evolve, however complicated and difficult to figure out. Money is at stake.

 

[cypherdoc]

Because its all I can find...

this is actually not a sufficient excuse. if you can't find a suitable metric, then don't make unsubstantiated claims off of a flawed site.
[doublepost=1464969704][/doublepost]well, this isn't good. huge NFP miss:

The number was the lowest since September 2010!

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-03/payrolls-huge-miss-only-38000-jobs-added-may-worst-september-2010

[doublepost=1464969816][/doublepost] mining has lost 207,000 jobs

@jonny1000 didn't you say you were employed in the mining industry?

 

[jonny1000]

That should address 1 and 2. If not, let me know.

Well 1 is a huge problem, that goes well beyond this futures market idea in terms of challenges. For 2 I guess you would need to leave your coins on deposit at the exchange.

f the fork never occurs, it seems that would either be handled by ClassicCoin (the non-incumbent) investors losing their shirts, or by all trades being unwound and returned

I think the policy decision here is key, greatly advantaging or disadvantaging either side, I think.

Can we get away from some of the details and agree that, if in principle it were possible to just put the forking outcome to a prediction market, where CoreBTC and ClassicBTC each end up with a percentage of the total as their price ("CoreBTC $540, ClassicBTC $20" or whatever), that that would be an ideal way to settle the matter?

Yes, sure I would love a prediction market to be part of the process. But remember I would want the existing rules to win in the event of any significant dispute. I may be looking for a 20 to 1 ratio advantage (equivalent to 95%) to the non-incumbent coin, as a measure of support. Any less than 20 to 1, then I may see this as an indication to back the status quo. This at least reduces the chance of a dispute, since there is only a 45% range where we would interpret the results differently. Of course I would need to think about this more and it depends on the circumstances at the time. I will also of course judge, what the developers say, what nodes are doing, what miners are doing, ect ect.

The overriding principle, is that if there is any significant dispute over the rules, the existing rules must prevail.

 

[cypherdoc]

fiat boys slamming their feet on the accelerator. my, this is glorious:

 

[Melbustus]

Because its all I can find... Do you have any other sybil resistant indications of support for either side? Like a futures market for example?
...

I think unless miners credibly stated that they were going to go with the coin-vote determinations of a site like Bitcoinocracy, such sites are going to see very little usage relative to total coin supply and thus be pretty worthless in terms of realistically gauging people's aggregate holding-weighted opinions.

Just anecdotally, the largest vote there seems to be ~20k BTC or so, while folks like "loaded" and Roger Ver almost certainly have more than that and are known big-block supporters.

And in theory Coinbase could sign with the 2m coins (or whatever) they have under their control, and I don't think that'd be a vote for Core.

 

[cypherdoc]

oh, how i missed that little yellow flashing sign!:

look at the bid wall scramble.

[doublepost=1464970733][/doublepost]actually, the NFP miss means NOMO interest rate raises aka "gear up the printing presses!"
[doublepost=1464970853][/doublepost]looks to me like they're gonna break the foot board if they keep slammin the pedal like this:

[doublepost=1464970915][/doublepost]

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

I think I understand where you are coming from. You are so convinced that you are right and you feel the evidence supports your view on the scaling/capacity issue so much, that you find it very hard to believe others genuinely hold an opposing view. You therefore assume trolling, bad faith or a conflict of interest.

Please try to keep an open mind. I promise you, that almost all of those on the other side of the debate to you are acting in good faith and genuinely acting in what they consider to be the best interests of the system, whether rightly or wrongly, from a well thought out and carefully considered position.

The funny thing is, the above can be completely true and yet such people can be quite douchey, manipulative, etc. and have big conflicts of interest on the side nonetheless. It is complex. People are people. Debate can bring out the worst in all of us.

 

[cypherdoc]

GBTC now up 10.46% and climbing.
[doublepost=1464972443,1464971598][/doublepost]GBTC now up 12.05% and climbing.
[doublepost=1464973296][/doublepost]USD down. Kyle Bass must be eating it:

ah yes, that sweet smell of deflation:

[doublepost=1464973531][/doublepost]who doesn't love manipulation?:

The May Seasonal Adjustment Prevented A Negative Payroll Number

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-03/may-seasonal-adjustment-prevented-negative-payroll-number