Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Norway]

Interestingly, the post was censored from /r/bitcoin and then later uncensored. The bad news is that it was never at the top of "New" and thus didn't have as much of a chance to receive upvotes (and it looks like it was significantly downvoted during the period where it was censored).

Looks like it's on the front page of /r/bitcoin now. Maybe it can climb to the top?

 

[Richy_T]

And I've read elsewhere that people thought Midnight Magic was an alias that Theymos used sometimes on IRC. One could imagine this to be true on the face of Theymos' real name.
Anyone who can confirm/deny the truth of (Midnight Magic == Theymos)?

I think there were some people doing some analysis of IP addresses on Bitcointalk before Theymos hid the images behind a proxy. They might have an insight.
[doublepost=1465229295,1465228191][/doublepost]Hey Jonny, from that whitepaper... (the Abstract, in fact)

As long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to
attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers.

Now, we need CPU -> ASIC, of course and we can handily label those trying to prevent the network from expanding to meet it's potential as attackers but, there you have it, straight from the horses mouth.
[doublepost=1465229739][/doublepost]This is what Satoshi considers an attacker. No one is attempting to create bigger blocks in order to steal back payments.

If a greedy attacker is able to assemble more CPU power than all the honest nodes, he would have to choose between using it to defraud people by stealing back his payments, or using it to generate new coins. He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules, such rules that favour him with more new coins than everyone else combined, than to undermine the system and the validity of his own wealth

 

[Norway]

@Peter R
Your presentation is now in the top 5 on /r/bitcoin. And the discursion is getting interesting. Desperate smallblockers are paging /u/nullc and /u/pwuille to come and help them, lol!

 

[cypherdoc]

Well my maths holds then...



Please can you actually think this through. Do you understand the massive difference with respect to 51% and a hardfork versus a double spend? This is a mathematical factual difference, not a political opinion.

For example look at section 11 of the Bitcoin whitepaper. It has calculations of an "attacker" trying to generate a longer chain than the "honest chain". It says:


Source: Bitcoin Whitepaper section 11

Now once again, the 1MB rule might be stupid, temporary, crippling Bitcoin or whatever negative you want to use. However, it is still an actual rule and you need to appreciate and understand how to remove it and that it is a fundamentally different process to a double spend with Nakamorto consensus.

The paper then goes on to give statistical examples, it says if an attacker has 30% of the hash-rate and is 10 blocks behind the honest chain, there is only 4.17% chance the attacker has of catching up.

These probabilities are entirely different before imposing rule changes, this maths does not apply. It is merely a different thing.



You keep framing this as a nefarious process. It is a market based process, which involves:

• Miners flagging support
• Nodes flagging support
• Coin votes
• And yes discussions and meetings

The large block side resoundingly lost in this dynamic market based mechanism. I agree it would be great if a futures market and prices could play more of a role and it was more market based.

Now instead of carrying on doing the same, lets look at why you keep being defeated. Why is Peter Todd consistently able to run circles around you? It is because you do not appear to understand these processes and how these work, you do not understand there is a natural bias in favor of the status quo and to overcome this you have to be pretty decisive and ruthless. The Core team on the other hand have a very strong knowledge of this process. It may not be easy for you to hear this, but its true.

There is a strong bias in favor of staying on one chain, that is how the system was designed. Therefore changing the rules is a higher bar than Nakamoto consensus, you need the nodes on your side, even with a the majority of miners it is statistically harder, miners have a natural fear of splitting the chain or losing as they do not want to lose money.

Each time you are defeated to Core their reputation and power increases and yours diminishes. Core has the momentum.

Once you understand that you need strong momentum, you need a resounding and decisive victory, you need to demonstrate strength to overcome the inherent designed bias in favor of the status quo. You can not have a narrow or marginal victory, the miners and economic majority will not let you. Once you learn this, you will win.

none of what you say is true b/c offering a HF w/o an activation threshold is merely an offering to the free market which has the ability to reject the offering if it wants. but if it accepts it then yes, kore has a problem. which i suspect is what you're really worried about.
[doublepost=1465230974,1465230079][/doublepost]

Please put forward a HF to 2MB which allows me to support you.

i keep telling you that you should put it forward within kore code. why won't you do this to retain power and demonstrate compromise? you're just stalling and trying to get Classic to do your compromising for you.
[doublepost=1465231574][/doublepost]

It is not arbitrary. One causes a chain split the other doesn't. If we treat these the same we will not get anywhere. For one set of rules everyone can do there own thing and still be on the same chain and use the same token with the same miners, for the other set of rules if people do their own thing they have a different token with different miners. Do you not see how this is fundamentally different?

For the "non consensus rules", diversity and experiment is great, and we can all still be on the same chain. For "consensus rules", if we are going to change them, or split into two or more, we should be very careful and realize we are not going to have one Bitcoin anymore.

well, maybe a chain split is what's necessary given the situation. either that or Maxwell and Blockstream going non profit or relinquishing their kore dev status. b/c under the existing situation, i believe the community considers him toxic, uncompromising, and a true danger to Bitcoin economics. if a chain split means leaving all that behind, it's worth it.

 

[awemany]

@awemany:

Couldn't find a screenshot or cached page now, but it had a nice single-page tabular overview of hard and soft-forks and their respective status (in progress, failed, succeeded etc.)[..]

They must be updating their layout. Making it wider, to accommodate up to 29 parallel soft forks ...

 

[Norway]

@Peter R
It's now the top post on /r/bitcoin!
YEAH!

​

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

Very important: With our lovely Softforks we have to make clear that miners don't vote!

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4mtx6k/voting_is_very_bad/


edit: @Peter R and the gang: Great work as always!

 

[cypherdoc]

Awemany: So, Core devs are making important protocol decisions based on personal enmity rather than technical considerations? Good to know.

/u/midmagic aka midnightmagic on BCT is the epitome of personal enmity.

 

[awemany]

@Peter Tschipper , @theZerg : A chance for you guys to ease the collision worries on /r/Bitcoin - if you like to dive into that cesspool

 

[cypherdoc]

Very important: With our lovely Softforks we have to make clear that miners don't vote!

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4mtx6k/voting_is_very_bad/


edit: @Peter R and the gang: Great work as always!

i think the signalling mechanism is broken. we know this b/c once anyone declares a position on a controversial issue, they immediately get subjected to either attacks, censorship, or intense lobbying in the miners case to sway opinion by the other entrenched side. this is undue pressure and would be considered illegal or coercive in any other situation.

 

[albin]

5-10k/block?? Please share your drugs Luke.

 

[Richy_T]

There appear to be several type of people who are participating in the Bitcoin Concensus. There are those, like most of us, who believe that consensus rule changes should be made with careful consideration and with the general agreement of the community. There are those that believe that the consensus rules should be changed only in exigent circumstances. There are those who believe the rules should not be changed under any circumstances. Then, of course, there are those who don't care at all.

Those in the third group appear to have taken the broad principle that the consensus mechanism would prevent the rules being changed to affect the network in a negative way and internalized that. The permanence or otherwise of the rules is no longer an item of rational discourse and discussion, it is an item of faith.

In short, we are facing a religion (as suggested by Peter R https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-568#post-20458). If you propose rule changes, you are a heretic. And this is where we have been making our mistake. No compromise with these people is possible. 30G, 8M, 4M, 2M? Not going anywhere ever.

It is instructive to read this post and in particular the responses to it.

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-March/012489.html

In this thread, Luke-jr proposes an emergency hard-fork to fix a potential issue which is brought about by Core's refusal to engage with meaningful capacity planning (fewer blocks could be compensated with bigger blocks). Note that the responses are of the quality of “We don't do hard forks” and Luke quickly produces an apology for going against dogma and “lapsing” into being open minded.

Note that I'm not sure how much of the core leadership are actually drinking the kool-aid. Certainly for Adam Back, GMax and Austin Hill, there are ulterior motives and these people are just useful as a blocking tool. I almost think that Luke-Jrs penchant for off-the-wall ideas has lead him to paint himself into a corner. Though with him, who knows?

But my point is not to bash these people. Bitcoin is a decentralized system after all and these people are also 'p's in the p2p. My point is to turn our gaze back on ourselves. We should be sure we do not buy into this bullshit version of consensus that they are trying to foist on us for reasons of convenience.

They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism.

This is the consensus by which Bitcoin works. Not committees, meetings all over the world, mailing lists or people with commit privileges. This is a collectivist, centralized mindset and Bitcoin is not that.

So when people like Jonny call for 95% agreement before proceeding, beware. It is a trap. Those who do not want rule change will not agree to rule change and you have handed the power of change over to a tiny minority who are not open to rational discussion about the need for changes. Bitcoin goes where it wants to go.

So, keep this in mind and if it needs to, Bitcoin can move on without these people.

 

[cypherdoc]

I've wondered a few times now if midmagic is a sock for midnightmagic?

this is true.

 

[Peter R]

The /r/bitcoin thread on Xthin was just switched to "default sorting by controversial."

 

[cypherdoc]

A soft-fork is just a way to shift decision power from the entire users base to the miners only.

yeah, but don't forget whose making those miners have to make a decision to begin with; kore dev with the changes to the code they wish to make.

 

[taxed4ever]

Another excellent presentation from you guys, thank you!

Keep this type of material coming, I will distribute it to as many people as possible!

 

[awemany]

I just had this funny idea regarding the repression on /r/Bitcoin:

Would it be possible and desirable to have some kind of a 'copy-and-extend'e subreddit of another subreddit?

I imagine one could make a bot that copies over everything from /r/Bitcoin to a neutral place. All the votes and so are carried over, however, commenters could add additional content, and additional votes.

The advantage would be that the content that is on /r/Bitcoin is a true subset of the content of that new site, and so there might be a shift towards the new site, to stay on top.
What would be needed is a sufficient fraction of /r/Bitcoin initially migrating.

Would something like this be possible with voat? Would it be legal (copyright)?

I find that idea interesting.

 

[cypherdoc]

more and more ppl/speculators/traders espousing the opinion of this thread. Bitcoin as digital gold with SOV & MOE:

[doublepost=1465237347][/doublepost]oh_my. fiat boys just piling in:

 

[Norway]

@awemany
Very cool idea.

 

[Inca]

@awemany

I think this could be done. All that is required is for a python bot to scrape the new topics and content from /r/bitcoin and post them into another new subreddit realtime. It would be an abstraction though, with conversations pasted in as they happened as if authored by the bot and thus a flawed copy. If people used that subreddit to also discuss things on the threads created by the bot then it could work.

At this stage I don't think there is much point tbh. There is an absence of intelligent conversation or honest debate there now. Just a handful of developers (mmejieri, gibbsampleplatter etc) and paid trolls (pbix etc) trotting out the party line ad infinausum.

This forum now contains the highest quality posters and bitcoin discussions to be found on the web (thanks @Bloomie et al).

--

Go bitcoin!