Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Inca]

Eth moving exactly counter to Bitcoin. who says Eth isn't benefiting from Bitcoin's problems?:

[doublepost=1465322730][/doublepost]lol, /u/ydtm killing it again. i swear, he must read this thread:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4mzm94/with_onchain_bitcoin_p2p_electronic_cash_the/

Which one of us is ydtm? Own up

 

[cypherdoc]

[doublepost=1465330960][/doublepost]small hint for the day. GBTC finishes UP:

 

[awemany]

@Peter R.: I am absolutely eager to see this. Gut feeling agrees, but yeah, just that gut feeling.

That said, I think Mike Hearn's assurance contract idea would be a free market solution working in that wide success endgame scenario already - and is my goto for countering the FUD along this dimension.
[doublepost=1465331223][/doublepost]

Which one of us is ydtm? Own up

My impression is that he's not on this forum. Could be wrong, though.

 

[jbreher]

• If you want to take the majority of the hashrate with you, do not complain when the majority of the miners decide not to come and do not complain when the existing Bitcoin people hold discussions with the miners.

That looks suspiciously like a statement to the effect that miners -- rather than non-mining nodes -- determine validity.

• Do not complain when Theymos says you are creating an altcoin, when that is exactly what you want to do

No. If the possibility is within the protocol, employing that possibility does not yield an alt. It is Bitcoin, as defined by Nakamoto Consensus.

 

[awemany]

@cypherdoc:

here's another of @awemany's great concepts that i'll share with you from a technical standpoint: all those tx's that get rolled off the over-stuffed mempools or that get replaced by RBF all create massive amounts of wasted processing power that full nodes had to go thru via transmitting, verifying, and storing, only to get "cancelled". that wouldn't happen if mempools were kept to a reasonable smaller size via more rapid "clearing" with bigger blocks. why is it that i never here kore dev talk about that waste and burden they're inflicting on those precious full nodes they claim to care so much about? as i sit here and look at my BW usage of my full nodes, i'm always shocked how little gets used.

I decline being the inventor of this concept (I think I just have been the one noticing the shenanigans done with this fact first on reddit).

However, I think you boiled it down to the essentials and framed it in a very palatable and clear way. This is the variant that should be used to counter smallblockism.

 

[Norway]

http://www.coindesk.com/crisis-halving-bitcoin-mining/

I just discovered this 3 day old article on Coindesk with several quotes from the mining industry regarding the halving.

Chandler Guo of BW (10% of hash power) describes a negative spiral scenario with congested network and falling prices due to bad user experience and trust, leading to an inevitable hardfork.

Guo:

“When the difficulty doesn’t change, but the hashing power shuts down immediately, there will be no next block. If, after the halving, the price does not go up, but the prices goes down, [there] will be heartache. It means no next block, no blockchain, all of the blockchain will be shut down immediately.”

I actually hope for this to happen, because I think it's needed to put Core/Blockstream on the sideline as quick as possible.

The only problem is that Guo may talk about a different kind of hardfork than I want. I'm not sure if the Coindesk reporter is interpreting this correct or what:

To get around this, Guo believes that there will need to be a hard fork to essentially reset the difficulty.

“Some mining pool, together, will change to another chain, to change the difficulty to another chain. [A] hard fork is coming, it’s bad news and the price will crash down again,” he said.

 

[freetrader]

 

[Erdogan]

EDIT: @Norway, the miners who spoke at coindesk:

This is way too negative.

We can handle the lower throughput for a short while. The fee market exists, and it seems the users are aware of it and adjust their fees properly. This is different from the time of the capacity tests.

Value can easily go up, maybe because potential users see that the system can handle it, and may be because the market (erroneously) believes that cost -> price (while the opposite is true, but markets do not have to be rational).

Just to prove the point, I used the minimal (of the possibilities in mycelium) fee for a transaction just today. I expected a late confirmation, as did the receiver, and the transaction finalized (entered the chain) two hours later, which was acceptable.

If there is a disruption, it is a valuable experience, urging us to have plenty of capacity for the third halving. Relax. The whole transformation of society that we are undertaking, is based on just holding some coins, leaning back and waiting for the market do its magic.

EDIT: All because of satoshi's wonderful invention.

 

[Bagatell]

@freetrader I wonder if he will sever his links with Bain Capital while he's at it.

 

[awemany]

This is gold, Greg and Blockstream caught in their own propaganda contradictions once more:

 

[Norway]

This is way too negative.

We can handle the lower throughput for a short while. The fee market exists, and it seems the users are aware of it and adjust their fees properly. This is different from the time of the capacity tests.

Value can easily go up, maybe because potential users see that the system can handle it, and may be because the market (erroneously) believes that cost -> price (while the opposite is true, but markets do not have to be rational).

Just to prove the point, I used the minimal (of the possibilities in mycelium) fee for a transaction just today. I expected a late confirmation, as did the receiver, and the transaction finalized (entered the chain) two hours later, which was acceptable.

If there is a disruption, it is a valuable experience, urging us to have plenty of capacity for the third halving. Relax. The whole transformation of society that we are undertaking, is based on just holding some coins, leaning back and waiting for the market do its magic.

EDIT: All because of satoshi's wonderful invention.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not negative!
I think a hard fork to Classic or Unlimited will be the best news in bitcoin for years, with a promise of on-chain scaling.

A healthy, temporary crash followed by a HF will just be graphic lines in a chart on my computer screen, lol. After that, we can page the Tothemoonguy

EDIT: Maybe I will even top up a little with cheap coinz...

 

[Erdogan]

Got it, I meant the miners that you (Norway) referred to. Caught by the missing quotability on the last post. Going back, editing...

 

[AdrianX]

Introducing the 1MB limit was a softfork, that is a fact. I genuinely do not understand what you are talking about.

Here @jonny1000 let me refresh your memory, here's the post we are discussing:
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-610#post-21738

I've illustrated with empirical evidence (a residue) from a past hard fork, as to how a hard fork can be deployed on the network, it's important to note that the total money supply was never in jeopardy prior to the deployment of the 1MB limit, and nor will it be when its removed, and I noted it was not deployed with the consensus agreement you are advocating but more inline with the general consensus on this forum as to how hard forks are deployed.

you replayed "it wasn't initially deployed as a hard fork but a soft fork", you provide no evident for that claim but aside form that, it's an irrelevant rebuttal as it doesn't negate the fact that it was at some point deployed as a hard fork and what's what we are talking about.

I'm not taking about weather or not it was deployed as a soft fork I hope you see that's irrelevant to the information being presented to you, it is a fact that is was deployed as a hard fork and it was just deployed, there was no need for a 95% political consensus.

 

[cypherdoc]

 

[xhiggy]

If a simple economic majority can impose arbitrary changes on the system, I consider Bitcoin totally useless.

They can't impose arbitrary rules, only useful ones that people want to adopt. Softforks prioritizing enabling lightning over all the other issues facing bitcoin, to me, are arbitrary changes.

 

[AdrianX]

I am trying to make sure your attempt is defeated. I am prepared to take all necessary measures to ensure you are defeated, even if it means the price falls to zero.

OMG you sound like the worst kind of fundamentalist that we could have in bitcoin. I recommend you digest this interview referenced below and decide which side you are on the makers or the takers.

Hey guys, I had a chance to join @Justus Ranvier in the Crypto Show studio last night for a discussion on a brilliant essay by Daniel Krawisz called Reciprocal Altruism in the Theory of Money.

The Crypto Show - Yoshi Goto of Bitmain Justus Ranvier of StashCrypto and Jon Vaage

(The first segment of the show is an interview with Yoshi Goto of Bitmain - our discussion begins at 42:22)

You can read the essay over at the Satoshi Nakamoto Institute or wait for the release of the audio narration I've begun working on. I can't recommend it highly enough!

 

[cypherdoc]

You are trying to capture the majority of the hashrate on your side, therefore there is only one winner and its a war in that sense. I am trying to make sure your attempt is defeated. I am prepared to take all necessary measures to ensure you are defeated, even if it means the price falls to zero.

no, it's possible for kore gang to abandon ship if a Classic HF takes off b/c their privkeys are spared/duplicated on the Classic chain. stop couching this as destructive behavior on Classic's behalf.

i'm sure you are prepared to engage in censorship, personal attacks, backdoor meetings, bribes, etc. maybe even assassination since you said "all necessary measure"? sounds like you certainly view this as a war.

 

[cypherdoc]

wait a minute. do kore devs actually make $480,000/yr?:

 

[xhiggy]

Yes, Bitcoin is not like other projects that came before it, its unique. That is why we are all here, right? Bitcoin is the first distributed consensus system, which makes is very different compared to other open source projects.

HUUUUUGE non-sequitur

 

[dwaltrip]

The 21M limit was completely arbitrary. It could have been 42m or 8m or anything. Or as you guys like to to put it, 21m was never mentioned in the whitepaper. The reason 21m is important is because it is the status quo. 21m is an existing rule and something people expect, although there is no fundamental reason it is better than any other number. This is almost what a Schelling point is and also also what the status quo is, they are interelated concepts

You do realize that Blockstream/core/small blocks etc, are fucking up the status quo by halting the growth of Bitcoin and its wider ecosystem?