Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

I'd say it's time to check the math. I can't do it since I'm not trained but certainly you and others should be able to.

 

[cypherdoc]

The Dow whipping all over like a stuck pig. And they told me only Bitcoin was volatile.


So for instance, the news surrounding Bitcoin is pretty horrific right now. Yet, the price is NOT plunging.

Every day that goes by that results in Bitcoin not dying is a day it gets stronger. The chart is telling you that.

 

[Stereotype]

Same goes for CL at the moment. Up 20-25% over last 3 trading days.

 

[cypherdoc]

What is CL?

 

[Ivanhoe]

Crude Oil

 

[Bagatell]

I guess we have to thank cypherdoc for PMing people on btctalk. Thanks cypherdoc

EDIT: on a side-note I just remembered cryptocrypt, it has moved to cryptocrypt.net (used to be .org). Not sure how active it is. I think it was founded by goat back when he was banned (?) from btctalk for whatever reason.

Goat last posted on July 4th this year, just before cryptocrypt.org stopped working and cryptocrypt.net went live. cryptocrypt.net lost a lot of the .org sites momentum and a lot of the old names stopped posting some time ago. PM me for an invite if you are curious.

 

[Bloomie]

@Bagatell, could you post an announcement there and let them know that a lot of us have migrated here (if it's not against the rules)?

 

[cypherdoc]

didn't someone in this thread come up with the term "the economic majority"? ZB?

 

[sgornick]

Meni Rosenfield

http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Economic_majority
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/8285

BTW, has Cypherdoc's favorite photo been posted in this thread yet?

 

[cypherdoc]

lol

 

[solex]

Stumbled upon this nice graph about bandwidth growth across continents:

Seemingly, stats like this contribute to the case for slower block limit growth, e.g. more like 10% per annum, which is even less than Pieter's draft BIP (17.5%).

These numbers seem pretty low and might be skewed by mobile broadband which is not important to Bitcoin nodes.
Rusty's recent investigations put the UK land-line broadband growth rate at 36% per annum.
http://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=551
Future block propagation improvements also contribute to headroom.

Edit: Further thoughts that this is measuring rollout rather speed...

 

[cypherdoc]

finally got most my nodes back up from that ddos attack. one more to go. what a PITA.

If you read his statement, he said he retracted his paper because miners who control a larger portion of the network hash rate, h/H, have a profitability advantage, all other variables held constant.

why is this again? is it simply a matter of assuming they can afford bigger pipes and thus have better connectivity?

b/c if it does, i disagree. many smaller pools can easily afford top tier connectivity and probably mostly do. it's not that expensive.

 

[cypherdoc]

sounds pretty positive:



53 Commonwealth States Urged To Explore Benefits And Regulate Bitcoin & Blockchain Technology


The Commonwealth of Nations is an intergovernmental organization composed of 53 Nations that are or used to be part of the extended British Empire. Nearly one-third of the Earth's population belongs to a Commonwealth nation, including the United Kingdom, India, Canada, Australia, Malaysia, and many African, Caribbean, and Pacific Islands nations. Although they work closely with the UN, the IMF, and the World Bank, the United States is not typically represented at Commonwealth meetings.

Quoting from the FATF Guide, experts explained during the conference that bitcoin could “provide solutions to economic inequality”. Interest was shown in Bitcoin’s ability to provide alternative banking solutions to a large percentage of the unbanked globally, whilst reducing transaction costs.
The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) also states, “Virtual currency may also facilitate international remittances and support financial inclusion in other ways, as new virtual currency-based products and services are developed that may potentially serve the under- and un-banked.”

The next meeting of the Commonwealth Virtual Currencies Working Group is scheduled for “early 2016.” With time and so much understanding from such a powerful organization, the promise of good things for digital currencies, including Bitcoin, seems assured.

http://bravenewcoin.com/news/53-commonwealth-states-urged-to-explore-benefits-and-regulate-bitcoin-and-blockchain-technology/

 

[Peter R]

why is this again? is it simply a matter of assuming they can afford bigger pipes and thus have better connectivity?

b/c if it does, i disagree. many smaller pools can easily afford top tier connectivity and probably mostly do. it's not that expensive.

Sometimes a miner will mine two blocks in a row. A large miner is more likely to do this than a small miner (just because they mine more blocks overall). In these cases, the miner had a slight head start because he knew the block header to mine on before the rest of the network did (it takes a finite amount of time to communicate the block header to the other miners).

Although this advantage exists in theory, in practice I suspect this effect is small. It is theoretically limited in part by the speed-of-light constraint (< 70ms anywhere on Earth).

 

[cypherdoc]

like you said, this has always been the case when block sizes were in the under 500kB range and even now, but it hasn't ever lead to any miner attacks that we know of. why would it be different if we remove the cap?

 

[cypherdoc]

Dow future down -255.

oops.

dollar dumping too

-280

i guess that daily swing high i talked about yesterday and that we got today triggered the next sell signal

 

[cypherdoc]

Do we really want to allow Chinese miners to control Bitcoin by restricting us all to small blocks especially under the gun of their gvt? I don't think so.

Similarly, do we want Bitcoin development to evolve towards SC's and LN controlled by Blockstream? I don't think so:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/08/speech-enables-speech-china-takes-aim-its-coders

 

[Peter R]

like you said, this has always been the case when block sizes were in the under 500kB range and even now, but it hasn't ever lead to any miner attacks that we know of. why would it be different if we remove the cap?

I don't think it would.

 

[cypherdoc]

[20:18] <wladston> This Peter R dude seems to be really a dick... I hate people that express their opinions using non-funny sarcasm
[20:25] <Cypherdoc> The core devs he argues against are bigger dicks
[20:27] <wladston> :O

 

[Peter R]

When was I being sarcastic?

I was serious when I said "Let's kill Bitcoin Core and allow the green shoots of a garden of new implementations to grow from its fertile ashes."