Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Inca]

@jonny1000 we've been talking about scaling bitcoin for years and fighting for over a year.

Not a single one of your 'capacity enhancements' you are trumpeting from core are even live on the bitcoin network, let alone activated. Classic and unlimited have been active for months with actual functioning code which simply scales the frigging network throughput bitcoin is capable of in a perfectly adequate fashion for the next year or two. Furthermore, Unlimited actually makes significant progress in terms of reducing nodal bandwidth requirements and reducing block latency with Xthin and has been live for months.

Words are just that.

Maxwell works for a company devoted to profiting through off chain bitcoin solutions (side chains, lightning) which are only viable if bitcoin transactions are artificially expensive (currently what, 20c and rising?). Every person here knows this and as such your arguments about all the great work 'core' developers are doing to scale bitcoin is transparently bogus. His conflict of interest alone should preclude his preferred roadmap being given the light of day over others of equal merit.

Where are the results to a software upgrade that could have been performed trivially 1 or even 2 years ago? If it isn't a trivial change where are the published data from Maxwell et al. demonstrating network load testing to assess the true impact upon decentralisation of network nodes with a rising blocksize? Why is it that developers are independently forming into alternative bitcoin development teams to create their own implementations of the bitcoin node software? Why are companies that have been in the bitcoin space since 2011 pivoting away to embrace other chains as future value stores? Wake up.

 

[jonny1000]

Unlimited actually makes significant progress in terms of reducing nodal bandwidth requirements and reducing block latency with Xthin and has been live for months

What has some apparent non consenus rule change got to do with it? Just run whatever non consensus stuff you like, you have no reason to complain.

Maxwell works for a company devoted to profiting through off chain bitcoin solutions (side chains, lightning)

What about the conflict of interests in the XT letter above? What about how Coinbase is the largest Bitcoin bank and has a financial incentive to make it more expensize to run nodes so that Coinbase runs all the nodes and users use the Coinbase bank? You overlook these also non existant conflicts and go after the even less plausible Blockstream ones, because you are biased.

currently what, 20c and rising?

Stop spreading FUD. I just sent a transaction with a 3.5 cent fee and it confimred in the next 3 blocks. I have never paid more than 5 cent and never had a problem. Sometimes miners are unlucky but that is the only issue I have faced.

The price has recently doubled, yet the fee market has worked amazingly well due to recent improvements, with bitcoin demoninated fees also falling c50%.


Many of the "large blocks at any cost, except consensus" people had the following argument:

1. Halvening
2. Price doubles
3. Transaction demand increases
4. "Fee event" and chaos
5. Price falls to low levels

Well the price has doubled and none of the above happened. It was all just FUD.

Why is it that developers are independently forming into alternative bitcoin development teams to create their own implementations of the bitcoin node software?

This is healthy, as long as all significant teams agree when doing a HF.

Why are companies that have been in the bitcoin space since 2011 pivoting away to embrace other chains as future value stores?

I have no problem with other chains. Some companies are doing this because they are managed by people in the irrational "large blocks at any cost, except consensus" crowd.

 

[Inca]

What about the conflict of interests in the XT letter above? What about how Coinbase is the largest Bitcoin bank and has a financial incentive to make it more expensize to run nodes so that Coinbase runs all the nodes and users use the Coinbase bank? You overlook these also non existant conflicts and go after the even less plausible Blockstream ones, because you are biased.

Contrary to what you suggest Coinbase is pivoting away from providing wallets for individual customers. Also if that was their intention then they would surely be advocating the small block position and selling centralised bitcoin wallets abstracted from the main chain.

Not that I have any problem with the network shedding nodes if we gain significantly increased transaction volume (and by extension an increased number of users). Decentralisation is not measured by counting nodes.

The point about Maxwell stands. He has a massive conflict on interest given his position. Worse he directly employs several other core developers. Finally, if your arguments held merit then the community wouldn't be riven, with censorship on the original bitcoin fora, companies pivoting away from bitcoin etc.

Let's see what happens after this blush of excitement with the price wears away after the Halving.

 

[Zarathustra]

Why are they totalitarians?

I don't know why. I don't know why someone becomes a censoring idiot, a notorious vandal or a sick catholicist with a desire to kill non-catholicist preachers. And I also don't know why someone supports such people. Ask yourself!

 

[cypherdoc]

@jonny1000

You are delusional calling big blockists attackers. It's quite the opposite. Let's list it out:

Large blockists:

1. We've criticized certain kore devs for their SF'ing policies. Yet they/you characterize this as an attack, nullc falsely claims his life is threatened.
2. Gavin makes utterances of talking to miners which I'm not sure he's ever done.
3. We've introduced a few HF initiatives,none of which have succeeded to date
4. We've released working Classic and BU code that stands ready to assist miners when they want

Small blockists:

1. Attacked Mike, Gavin, Jeff, Toomim relentlessly with personal attacks driving Mike out of the space and excommunicating Jeff and Gavin.
2. Engaged in ddos attacks of XT and Classic
3. Censored BCT (this very highly popular thread), N. Korea, Bitcoin.org
4. nullc leads a personal brigade attack against me along with his personal extortion attempt based on a complete childish and corrupt misunderstanding of how the law works in bankruptcy litigation.
5. Censors @Peter R's paper in HK and replaces with your awful presentation.
6. Blockstream employs 10 kore devs with salary, incentives, equity, etc in a massive financial COI for a monetary system that is supposed to be free of such.
7. Since you listed brigading in your post, I must do the same for N. Korea.
8. Engage in backdoor agreements with the dipshits.
9. Threatens miners with change in POW if they use different implementation.
10. Use SF'ing to make massive changes to Bitcoin economics and forever disenfranchise early adopters by taking away choice.

 

[sickpig]

Stop spreading FUD. I just sent a transaction with a 3.5 cent fee and it confimred in the next 3 blocks. I have never paid more than 5 cent and never had a problem. Sometimes miners are unlucky but that is the only issue I have faced.

FUD?

Currently if you want to be "sure" to be included in the next block you have to pay 61-70 satoshi per byte, if you're ok waiting 3 blocks you need to pay at least 40 satoshi per byte(*).

Luckily I have a few data to play with. The number of blocks for which I've the data available are 591. Data has been gathered from "2016-05-20 11:12:05" to "2016-05-23 13:30:32".

Based on blk size and # of txs the avg tx size is 591B, or 0.591KB.

So if I want to get my avg tx included in the next block I have to pay:

680 * 0.591 * 0.0006 = 0.24 USD

on the other case, 3 blks before inclusion, I need a little bit:

680 * 0.591 * 0.0004 = 0.16 USD


(*) source: http://bitcoinfees.21.co/

edit: fix a typo

 

[albin]

Censors @Peter R's paper in HK and replaces with your awful presentation.

Omg, you're so right, I'm reading the presentation slides right now and it's a total disaster. How come the standards when evaluating Peter R are so high, when this guy's presentation is riddled with inconsistencies and bush league mistakes?

 

[cypherdoc]

@albin Because he is sa self proclaimed mining expert (real mining) so that somehow translates into Bitcoin mining.

Plus, his way was paid to HK.

 

[Norway]

@albin
Who is @jonny1000 ?
Link to HK presentation?

 

[awemany]

@cypherdoc: It also appears to me as if quite a few smallblockers are relatively recent newcomers to Bitcoin (except the theymos/gmax crowd(*) - which was a clear minority in Bitcoin's early days, as it can be seen from what is left over of BCT, archive.org etc. ...).

I have seen news site profiles of people calling themselves 'Bitcoin experts' and openly admitting that they bought their first coins in 2013. I am 'in' since at least 2011 (and I believe I have some old keys somewhere from end of 2010) - and I still wouldn't call myself 'an expert'.

Many apparently didn't witness the censorship, the first gradual, than quite quick tightening of the screws on BCT and /r/Bitcoin, the mailing list, IRC. It is hard to believe that non trolls don't find this completely despicable. I guess the on-the-surface look of e.g. /r/Bitcoin is pretty enough that people don't bother to dig deeper - and from that superficial look, /r/btc recently had times where it looked like a bunch of angry trolls...

I also believe a lot of foreign language forums are not aware of what went down - and people there would have to actively look for info to get a better picture.

In a sense, history /has/ already been successfully rewritten by the Corium/Borgstream alliance.

(*) EDIT: And it should be added that theymos was quite open to large blocks before he became the censor helping to implement the Borgstreamification of Bitcoin. Wikipedia figured out soon enough that Greg means trouble - Bitcoin has not a lot of time left to do the same.

 

[albin]

@Norway


The "Issues With 'Using' Orphan Risk" slide... omg, I can't.

Did anybody at the conference actually review this crap?

 

[jonny1000]

5. Censors @Peter R's paper in HK and replaces with your awful presentation.

Great talk! I think it was the best one so far! I thought you were going to be a hell-bent small-blocker, but you gave a balanced and open-minded talk that I quite enjoyed. You also removed my biggest objection to BIP100 (the fact that voting was not based on a majority). Well done!

As I said before, I liked the content of Peter R's presentation in Scaling I and therefore modified mine based on his comments to try to make Scaling II more balanced. I think Peter R should have spoken at Scaling II and said it at the time. Many didnt like his "unblock the stream" part at Scaling I, which some incorrectly considerd too much trolling, in my view. Listen to the Q&A session, I said we should take some action is response to the people saying we need aggressive blocksize increases. I think the community should stick together. I am trying to help you get to larger blocks. That cannot happen with a 75% rolling threshold, the miners will not have it. Please listen to my advice.

[doublepost=1465921515][/doublepost]

this guy's presentation is riddled with inconsistencies and bush league mistakes?

Agreed, however please can you help find more mistakes by pointing them out.

[doublepost=1465921643][/doublepost]

@albin Because he is sa self proclaimed mining expert (real mining) so that somehow translates into Bitcoin mining.

I am not nor have I claimed to be an expert
[doublepost=1465921809][/doublepost]

Plus, his way was paid to HK.

Name your chairty on this website and I will forward the funds there:
https://proofofdonation.com/

 

[Norway]

@Norway


The "Issues With 'Using' Orphan Risk" slide... omg, I can't.

Did anybody at the conference actually review this crap?

@jonny1000 is this you at 1 hour, 30 seconds (after Peter Todd)?

 

[pekatete]

I have great news guys:
1. Classic miner support looks like it is falling to 3%
2. Nodes compatible with the exisiting rules are around 88%

Therefore it likes like we are entering conditions where a HF to 2MB can occur. If only SegWit activates without being used as blackmail, we should be ok...

Great news indeed. On a day where there seems to be bloodletting on the financial markets the price of bitcoin seems to be tracking in the same direction! There I was thinking bitcoin is the anti-thesis for fiat, but alas the core junta have done their best to align it with fiat.

There was a report earlier today on the BBC lunch-time news about German bonds entering zero returns for the first time ever and also about capital fleeing the financial markets but NOT going into the traditional flight channels of gold as it's price was also faltering. It certainly is not making its way into bitcoin today ..... Funny how the village troll chooses the same day to declare "great news".

 

[VeritasSapere]

It is becoming quite the effort to catch up on this thread, though very rewarding, I think this thread in particular really helps with understanding the theoretical underpinnings of cryptocurrency. I felt the need to read it all before I made my own posts thereby ensuring that I am not being redundant. Even though I am being a bit redundant now ironically.

I have built up a set of responses and critiques to the discourse here, which I will post now every so often, having finally caught up with the thread.

 

[Jihan]

1. Meeting in HK, with an agreement from miners to run only Core compatible code in a live enviroment

Therefore it likes like we are entering conditions where a HF to 2MB can occur. If only SegWit activates without being used as blackmail, we should be ok...

Jonny1000, what is your real name? You claimed that you were in February HK meeting.

Miners would be running Core compatible only in production environment in the foreseeable future.

Please bring a message to those Core individuals who have signed on the HK agreement that Antpool wants them to timely propose the 2MB HF code they have promised in the HK conference. Timely means in July. As free individuals they have the capability to write some code.

Block should not be too full to stop people using Bitcoin with good user experience. Men should be of their words. That is a part of "foreseeable".

Don't feel too safe when you are acting so manipulative. After you got the benefit of killing competition in the past months, but when you need to deliver your promise, you call your promise as being blackmailed. When about signing the HK agreement, miners had prepared very well in minds what if you guys would not deliver the promise in July, which is more and more likely to happen. That's fine, we have the patience. However, are you guys prepared to bear the potential consequence of breaching the HK agreement?

 

[VeritasSapere]

Welcome to the thread @Jihan, and thank you for doing what is best for Bitcoin. Your actions and words have given me much more confidence and hope for Bitcoin going into the future.

 

[AdrianX]

Many apparently didn't witness the censorship, the first gradual, than quite quick tightening of the screws on BCT and /r/Bitcoin, the mailing list, IRC. It is hard to believe that non trolls don't find this completely despicable.

You know, I assumed good faith always, and those complaining of censorship I felt some how deserved it and could learn a thing or two about interaction skills and maintaining a level of etiquette before launching into insult mode.

It wasn't until I experienced censorship for my self that I understood how bad it had become. I'm currently serving a 1 year censorship sentence on r/bitcoin for speaking out against censorship and support for on chain scaling, I'm sure my vocal opposition to SPV SideChains had a lot to do with it too, I've also witnessed my posts being deleted from BCT (bitcointalk.org)

I don't think many people realize to what extent censorship is affecting this debate.

 

[Jihan]

That is not true, Gavin put forward 20MB, the lead of Core then said he was "weakly against it for now", clearing the way for a moderate proposal like 4MB. Gavin could have eaily got 4MB then if he wanted to. Instead of that, the attacks locking in increases to 8GB started. Lets end the attacks and get increases with calm collaboration.



I agree, lets gather that consensus. It will not happen with threats.

Join us

Jonny1000, since Core is a community without any political structure, why you can predict that "Gavin could have eaily got 4MB then if he wanted to" based on a fact "the lead of Core...clearing the way for a moderate proposal like 4MB". Who is "the lead"? Why you can make such prediction right after when "the lead" say something? Just being curious.

 

[cypherdoc]

Oh my @jonny1000, now you'll have to accurately depict what went on during the HK dipshit agreement and perhaps even deliver on what you promised.

While you're at it, you should admit that Maxwell was the one who single handedly put the kabosh on your agreement which accounted for the sudden silence on the subject.