Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
  • Like
Reactions: AdrianX

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
What would be great, although highly unlikely, is for Blockstream to have put a massive short on the BTC price ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Norway and AdrianX

albin

Active Member
Nov 8, 2015
931
4,008
Speaking of "shorts", I'm kind of starting to personally revel in the idea of holding bitcoin as a way as a westerner to bet against the yuan, which aligns with a long-term macro strategy that China really has no choice but to keep returning to in order to sustain exports.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Norway and AdrianX

sickpig

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
926
2,541
5 devs already committed to do this. It is very likely to get support as long as there are no significant threats, attacks or pressure to do it. It looks like Classic support is now approaching insignificant levels so we should be fine.
Now I see the light! The max block size is Classic fault, it's still there because of XT and will continue to stay in place until BU won't be retired. /sarcasm

bolded part is quintessential twisting words example.

Let me list a fee facts just for the sake of everyone menthal sanity:

- gmax, blockstream CTO, said that HK agreement is not binding for core devs especially for the part related to the July 2017 hard fork.

- gmax called the individuals/core devs who signed HK agreement and commit themselves to write the 2MB HF "dipshits".

- Luke Jr, among the ones that should have to write the 2MB HF, think that we should decrease max block size to 500KB.

- Peter Todd, original inventor of the "small block will keep the network decentralized" narrative, belongs to the group should have to write the 2MB HF. No more than 1 month ago I read on an interview that he thinks that "bitcoin can't scale" (on chain).
 
Last edited:

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
All the old timers I know favor bigger blocks. And I'm an old timer.


Essential listening from 27 minutes in to ~33.
(SegWit & soft/hard forks & code complexity & and priority for growth)

 

Zarathustra

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,439
3,797
We are now (2016!) at 50 percent of the 2013 high. Imagine the boom we would already have had into this halving without the maxwellian sado-maso church that capped adoption at 250'000 transactions.

Of course we don't need a law against that disgusting church, but if Nietzsche was right, and I indeed think he was right, one should be harsher with Jonny1000, Pieter Wuille, Adam Back et al. than with Luke and alikes:

"LAW AGAINST CHRISTIANITY [Maxwellianity etc. etc.]

Given on the Day of Salvation, on the first day of the Year I

(— 30th of September 1888 according to the false calendar)

WAR TO DEATH AGAINST VICE: THE VICE IS CHRISTIANITY.

Article. I. — Vicious is every sort of anti-nature. The most vicious sort of human is the priest: he teaches anti-nature. Priests are not to be reasoned with, they are to be engaoled.

Article II. — Any participation in church services is an attack on public decency. One should be harsher with Protestants than with Catholics, harsher with liberal Protestants than with orthodox ones. The criminality of being Christian increases with your proximity to science. The criminal of criminals is consequently the philosopher.

Article III. — The execrable location where Christianity brooded over its basilisk eggs should be razed to the ground and, being the depraved spot on earth, it should be the horror of all posterity. Poisonous snakes should be bred on top of it.

Article IV. — The preacher of chastity is a public incitement to anti-nature. Contempt for sexuality, making it soiled with the concept of ‘impurity’, these are the real sins against the holy spirit of life.

Article V. — Eating at the same table as a priest ostracizes: one is excommunicated from honest society by doing so. The priest is our Chandala, — he should be quarantined, starved, driven into every sort of desert.

Article VI. — The ‘holy’ History should be called by the name it deserves, the accursed history; the words ‘God’, ‘Savior’, ‘Redeemer’, ‘Saint’ should be used as terms of abuse, to qualify criminals.

Article VII. — The rest follows from this.
 
Last edited:

jbreher

Active Member
Dec 31, 2015
166
526
When you think through how miners could try to hardfork, your realise it is a very difficult process for mechincal reasons, therefore the "human"/political/market support needs to be very strong, to overcome the mechanical barriers. Any significant political/market weaknesses will ensure the desired outcome will preval.
(OK, I FTFY)

Dude - (or dudette - no offense intended) You are recurrently long on pronouncements, but always bereft of showing your work. We will not buy your assertions unless to show the line of reasoning from A to (seemingly unlikely) B.

Your vacuous statements hold no power here. You'll need to dig deeper to explain why you think your conclusions have any merit whatsoever.
 

Zangelbert Bingledack

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2015
1,485
5,585
Mechanically, a majority of miners alone can add a new rule for block validation (softfork), but they cannot eliminate an exisitng rule (hardfork).
This ignores the ability to fork the miners off if they abuse the softforking.

Since forking away from the current miners (changing the PoW) has a cost, once the cumulative damage from errant miner softforks and miner refusal to perform valuable hardforks exceeds the cost of PoW change, they get forked off. Likely long before that, they themselves get a clue and self-regulate.

Fork futures help them get a clue faster. Eventually the process should be seamless and there will be no issue of hard or soft forks. Bitcoin will just morph into whatever would make it the best sound-money ledger system, accepting no more or fewer changes than this requires.
 

freetrader

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
2,806
6,088
Interesting exchange between Gmax and Stolfi re: alternative TM fix and Greg brings up the subject of breaking timelocked transactions again:


The malleability fix sounds like something a HF could implement after a while, if it succeeds.
 
Last edited:

jbreher

Active Member
Dec 31, 2015
166
526
Just to be clear is everyone here in agreement on the definition of a softfork and hardfork?

  • Softfork - A change to the rules on block validity, such that if exisiting nodes do not upgrade, they will still regard the new blocks as valid
  • Hardfork - A change to the rules on block validity, such that if exisiting nodes do not upgrade, they will may not regard the new blocks as valid
You're digging your own grave here, buddy. Existing nodes do not recognize SegWit transactions as valid.