Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[AdrianX]

C'mon folks.

If you can't respond civilly to jonny1000 (or anyone else), then don't bother responding. As best as I can tell, s/he is here with good-natured intentions.

Insults (even subtle, clever ones) are not productive or beneficial.

@dwaltrip it's probably coincidence your request slipped in below what appears to be my heavy handed comments towards @jonny1000. No offensive was taken but on reflection you're comment does seem a little biased.

While there may be smart and subtle insulting going on, we do know he's not a she.

Still Jonny calling most people who've defended the right to petition and seek practical ways to move the block limit "immortal" is insulting. If he was genuine he'd at least address the counter arguments with why he objects. Instead he just repeats what he thinks.

If you pay attention you'll notice he's not contributing what you think he's contribution none the less he's guilty of insulting most people here by undermining our personal integrity when he uses empathy to state an opinion like "I understand that most people here think the logic of group two is immoral". Quoted in context below with a reference.

In my view there are basically two large groups of people:

1. People who want a 2MB HF
2. People who want a 2MB HF, but above that they want to ensure that a HF occurs without pressure, force and in a calm way

I understand that most people here think the logic of group two is immoral and technically flawed

 

[albin]

The characterization of Gavin's original 20MB advocacy, 8MB, and 2MB as some kind of attack is pure 100% propaganda bullshit.

If you go back and look at Gavin's interaction in fora, since early 2015 he's constantly encouraged people to voice various proposals and has been super encouraging to everyone just to have this conversation in the first place. For example, look at his reaction to Maxwell's first mentions of something that would become considered Flexcap back in spring of 2015 on the mailing list, and tell me with a straight face that Gavin is some kind of attacker.

If anybody has any specific allegations to make against Gavin concerning his advocacy of having the conversation about larger blocks that aren't in the public, now is the time to disclose that information, because otherwise the characterization as an attack is simply batshit crazy.

 

[Richy_T]

there are a lot of Bitcoin users opposed to any hardfork on principle, simply because they feel they're being pressured/forced to adopt it.

This must be the new talking point. All the other excuses have been demolished one by one.
[doublepost=1466004471][/doublepost]

Lol, you are claiming that if nobody asks for a 2mb HF then an HF can be scheduled, while if the HF is actively requested from the community then it must be ignored.

That's worse than usual doublespeak, the brainwashing you were submitted to is really powerful!

Brings to mind a saying that went around when I was a kid: "Ask, don't get. Don't ask, don't want, don't get."

 

[VeritasSapere]

You are right, 5 developers agreed to implement this code and I really hope and think that they all will. However what is important is getting other Core developers to agree. I hope you agree with this and want the HF to happen as smoothly as possible, in a strong and decisive way, the last thing we need is another HF attempt that loses. Therefore we want as many of the Core team to support the HF as possible.

Even if one of the Core developers disagrees, lets say Luke Jr, who does have veto power over the Core repository. Then I suppose the blocksize will not be able to be increased according to your logic. It blows my mind that you can justify this, that one person can indefinitely hold back the development of Bitcoin, pretty much guaranteeing that the grand vision of Bitcoin will fail. Furthermore you are placing this trust in a person who does not seem to be rational at all.

Luke Jr is a self professed geocentric which means that he thinks that the earth is at the center of the solar system. He considers the catholic church infallible and furthermore thinks that priests that are not catholic should be killed and that the state should make Catholicism mandatory as the one true religion. This guy is a nutcase, I am a pretty tolerant person but this is where my toleration ends, his views are straight up medieval. I draw the line at causing harm to other people, his views are harmful. Then to go on to insist that this individual has veto power over the Core depository and that this veto power should be binding across the entire protocol I would consider self destructive. While also being completely nonsensical as a viable governance mechanism for a decentralized protocol.

 

[cypherdoc]

@VeritasSapere Thank you for this. It really does represent what's wrong with the kore dev view and Lukey. I'm not sure why this is persisting for so long except that devs tend to be this anarchic, undisciplined bunch that tends to tolerate a degree of craziness and even corruption in the name of what they view as freedom at all costs; except that in some cases (like what we have now in kore) it is not freedom at all.
[doublepost=1466007634][/doublepost]Thanks. Yes, anyone paying attention to the evolution of this debate could not possibly view Gavin as an attacker. He has been the one to promote openness and dialog.

The characterization of Gavin's original 20MB advocacy, 8MB, and 2MB as some kind of attack is pure 100% propaganda bullshit.

If you go back and look at Gavin's interaction in fora, since early 2015 he's constantly encouraged people to voice various proposals and has been super encouraging to everyone just to have this conversation in the first place. For example, look at his reaction to Maxwell's first mentions of something that would become considered Flexcap back in spring of 2015 on the mailing list, and tell me with a straight face that Gavin is some kind of attacker.

If anybody has any specific allegations to make against Gavin concerning his advocacy of having the conversation about larger blocks that aren't in the public, now is the time to disclose that information, because otherwise the characterization as an attack is simply batshit crazy.

 

[jonny1000]

You still haven't properly justified the idea of "stop resisting, it'll go easier that way."

Ok, I will try again. I do not expect you to agree and I know you think it is stupid, but please try to understand how the other side think.

Many people think Bitcoin is more robust than traditional money, because the rules are harder to change. For example central banks can expand the level of bank deposits via quantitative easing which some think changes the rules of the money. The mandate of the central bank typically comes from a democratically elected government. The central bank is able to impose this change in the rules of money on a minority of people who hold the money but do not like the rule change.

Many were attracted to Bitcoin, like me, not necessarily because I thought it was better than this but because I thought Bitcoin was different. The majority is unable to change the rules, when there is a significant unhappy minority, because with Bitcoin strong consensus across the entire community is required to hardfork.

Therefore to many a hardfork is a sensitive issue and very different to other changes in the system. We believe that the proponents of a HF should make sure there is strong consensus across the community before trying to get it activated. Any attempt to activate a HF before consensus must be crushed. Any attempt to HF with proponents using language implying there is not consensus and they want to force there way must be stoped. The consensus must be in a collaborative non threatening way, so there is no unhappy minority.

I know some of you reading this argument will think it's being made up now as an excuse. I promise you many have held this view since 2011.

I am prepared to be pragmatic and do a 2MB HF, even with a lot of demands and threats, some others may not be, I am sure you know who these people are. Please try to make the situation easier by not making threats and let us reach consensus without demands or aggression.

 

[bluemoon]

@jonny1000

I am prepared to be pragmatic and do a 2MB HF, even with a lot of demands and threats, some others may not be, I am sure you know who these people are. Please try to make the situation easier by not making threats and let us reach consensus without demands or aggression.​

You may be correct in your observations about certain of the Core developers. It doesn't mean you should in any way support them or rationalise their actions.

It does none of us any good to be in thrall to a bunch of arrogant and prickly, vain and unpredictable prima donnas.

Worse, there may be darker forces hiding behind and manipulating this black comedic farce.

 

[pekatete]

I know some of you reading this argument will think it's being made up now as an excuse. I promise you many have held this view since 2011.

That you've held the view since 2011 simply means you made it up in 2011. Holding an opinion for any length of time should not in itself mean the opinion is correct.

I am prepared to be pragmatic and do a 2MB HF, even with a lot of demands and threats, some others may not be, I am sure you know who these people are.

Don't make me laugh. You cannot do diddly-scot! Best you could do is carry @Jihan 's message to the junta and pray they give you audience.

Please try to make the situation easier by not making threats and let us reach consensus without demands or aggression.

1. Is making threats distinct from making attacks and how exactly do you define either in bitcoin terms?
2. Where on earth has any consensus EVER been reached without demands?
3. As in 1 above, what exactly is aggression in bitcoin terms?

You (and your junta buddies) keep making up stuff as you go along. luke even suggested a PoS poll to determine whether the community wants a 2MB block-size increase (on the back of him saying 90% of the community don't know about the block-size issue!). I mean, I couldn't make it up if I tried, but somehow, you lot pull this off over and over again.

 

[freetrader]

@jonny1000

The majority is unable to change the rules, when there is a significant unhappy minority, because with Bitcoin strong consensus across the entire community is required to hardfork.

I'll fix that for you in a second, but I'll need to cordon off the area due to the released BS, here's some tape, c'mon lend a hand and get those who can still think clearly to safety.

Failure to ensure strong consensus across the entire community makes a hardfork inevitable.

There we go, that wasn't so forking hard. Now believe me when I say: your team (the "we" you refer to) has already lost the battle for strong consensus, by never committing to anything.
In doing so, ironically you are bringing about that which you claim to be impossible, or rather, that which you fear the most (and therefore seek to crush).

Any attempt to activate a HF before consensus must be crushed.

Best of luck. Hard forks are no threat at all when you can see clearly. You are always welcome to join in, your holdings will already be waiting for you on the other side.

some others may not be, I am sure you know who these people are

No, please enlighten us. These "others" seem to be too cowardly to come here to make veiled or unveiled threats.

 

[bluemoon]

Many people think Bitcoin is more robust than traditional money, because the rules are harder to change. For example central banks can expand the level of bank deposits via quantitative easing which some think changes the rules of the money. The mandate of the central bank typically comes from a democratically elected government. The central bank is able to impose this change in the rules of money on a minority of people who hold the money but do not like the rule change.

Many were attracted to Bitcoin, like me, not necessarily because I thought it was better than this but because I thought Bitcoin was different. The majority is unable to change the rules, when there is a significant unhappy minority, because with Bitcoin strong consensus across the entire community is required to hardfork.

Traditional money is gold.

Gold was the market's money. It was the money because that's what people found it best to use for the purpose and that gave it its value. For most of its history governments were unable to override the market and dislodge gold as the world money. Some managed to impose a local fiat currency for a relatively short time, but in the end these always collapsed because governments could not resist taking advantage of their power to print.

After WW1 the Great Powers colluded to suppress gold and by 1971, Nixon was able to sever gold's remaining link to the dollar.

Bitcoin has promise as an inflation free medium of exchange comparable to pre-WW1 gold because it cannot be controlled by governments. The mechanism for its issue and administration is distributed around the globe, or should be, and it is not within the power even of several governments to suppress.

The most important point is that the market is able to operate a money without being controlled by government. The valuation of money, and the formation of capital and interest rates are not disrupted by government subverting the money supply and corrupting the money. That was once the power of gold and it is now the promise of bitcoin.

Whether it is bitcoin or some other coin that ultimately succeeds depends which wins in competition with the other coins in the market.

It is no good building rigidity into bitcon's rules if that leaves bitcoin unable to rise to market challenges. That is what the 1MB rule appears to be doing.

As bitcoin adapts itself to market requirements it develops a natural strength, its value and adoption increases, and there is less incentive to tamper with it: that is how it becomes invulnerable, if that is what you seek.

Relying on formal rules and authority rather than an ability to adapt creates brittleness and is a recipe for bitcoin's eventual destruction.

 

[VeritasSapere]

I am in the business of investing in cryptocurrency, so I often need to transfer funds to the exchange. Today I did a transaction in BTC towards the exchange, after waiting for several hours I sent a second separate transaction with the maximum recommended fee using Bitcoin Classic. After several more hours of waiting and none of my transactions having been confirmed I ended up transferring ETH towards the exchange instead which confirmed in a matter of minutes. I am now finally able to make the buys I wanted to, which really where time sensitive.

With over thirty thousand unconfirmed transactions in the mempool it is no longer practical for me to use Bitcoin to transfer value to the exchange, I will start using ETH more instead, considering that it is cheaper and faster, furthermore direct trading pairs with the cryptocurrencies I want to buy and sell in already exist in ETH so I have no need to even touch BTC anymore for this purpose.

The reason why I am saying this is that this is a clear example where I am switching which cryptocurrency I am using purely for pragmatic reasons, not ideological.

When I saw the amount of unconfirmed transactions in the mempool today and that my maximum recommended fee under Bitcoin Classic was still not enough to have my transaction confirmed in a timely manner, I did realize that this is a dire situation for Bitcoin, for people that are new to this space and are weighing up the pros and cons between ETH and BTC, they are less likely to be as forgiving of BTC and more likely to see the benefit of using ETH instead, like I did today.

 

[Inca]

A bunch of 'transaction not confirmed for X hours' posts on /r/bitcoin frontpage during the first decent attempt at a rally for three years.

This makes me angry. The one sided cacophany of people declaring 'you didn't use a high enough fee duh!' makes me angry, too. Bitcoin should be effortless for new users. Three years ago it worked better than now. Unbelievably shortsighted.

It was predicted here by many that one outcome of Gregory Maxwell's intransigence over this issue would be a massive transaction backlog and then finally price collapse which forces miners to unilaterally act.

I bet they are watching the mempool and average transaction fees VERY closely indeed.

 

[jonny1000]

Relying on formal rules and authority rather than an ability to adapt creates brittleness and is a recipe for bitcoin's eventual destruction.

It is not formal rules and authority, but a principal backed by Bitcoin's design, "a HF cannot occur without strong consensus across the entire community." That is not a rule but a principal and hopefully a fact.

Remember, a HF is only a tiny narrow subset of the potential changes anyway, therefore the ability to adapt remains strong and Bitcoin is very flexible.

 

[Norway]

It was predicted here by many that one outcome of Gregory Maxwell's intransigence over this issue would be a massive transaction backlog and then finally price collapse which forces miners to unilaterally act.

Yes, this is my favourite theory. And the quicker it happens, the better.

 

[VeritasSapere]

It is not formal rules and authority, but a principal backed by Bitcoin's design, "a HF cannot occur without strong consensus across the entire community." That is not a rule but a principal and hopefully a fact.

It is a fact that a small minority can split Bitcoin, you can not stop me from hard forking and splitting the chain, we even did this on this forum and hardly anyone even noticed. This is a fact that clearly contradicts your principle. You are also revealing the weakness of your own argument here. When you say that strong consensus is a principle you have already revealed that it is based on ideology and not fact. Furthermore by saying that this principal is "hopefully" a fact of Bitcoins design it becomes all to clear what it is you are really saying here.

I have a background in building ideology from philosophy. If your principle can be so easily contradicted it is no longer a principle but a believe which is not even supported by reason.

You are tripping over your own contradictions here, I wonder why you can not see that for yourself.

 

[albin]

It was predicted here by many that one outcome of Gregory Maxwell's intransigence over this issue would be a massive transaction backlog and then finally price collapse which forces miners to unilaterally act.

I would even argue that due to subjective perception of relative value (a la hedonic treadmill - type theories), that significant sideways price action when miners have the expectation of price appreciation can serve the same function psychologically as a price collapse.

 

[jonny1000]

It is a fact that a small minority can split Bitcoin, you can not stop me from hard forking and splitting the chain, we even did this on this forum and hardly anyone even noticed.

Sorry, I meant successful HF, I.e. one regarded as Bitcoin

 

[VeritasSapere]

@jonny1000 You keep shifting the goal posts. "One regarded as Bitcoin" is completely subjective, just like your conception of "valid". When we split you can keep the name, I don't care about the title I just want financial sovereignty and freedom.

 

[AdrianX]

@VeritasSapere great observation, here is an interesting story, I'm located in Canada, and I've tested out many local bitcoin related services.

I started trading on CaVirtex within the first few week of it opening sometime in mid 2011. At first moving CAD in and out was easy, then the scammers started reversing fiat transactions and it became a little harder, but the biggest blow was Canadian banks denying CaVirtex basic banking service, so they resorted to Vogogo an obscure invoicing service. CaVirtex even asked if I wouldn't mind sending and withdraw to a bank in Europe, as the Canadian banks were denying them service. It's worth mentioning my bank also froze my accounts at one stage because of "suspicious activity".

Vogogo was eventually blocked too, nonetheless banking was one of CaVirtex's biggest headaches and Kraken has had their teething problems too, CAD withdraws being rather irregular.

More recently Mycelium also started offering Fiat withdrawals to Canadians using Glidera, I tested it both in and out and it seemed to work, one surprise was that they had chosen to use Vogogo to do the invoicing on the fiat side. None the less they lasted about a week before the Canadian banks denied them service putting an end to that.

Another exchange I've been following is Gemini, there seemed to be a lot of demand coming from Canada with the closure of Vault of Satoshi and CaVirtex.

Well that's the boring background, and circumstantial evidence that leads me to the conclusion that Canadian banks are very hostile to all on and off ramp into Bitcoin even customers of those services.

Here is the real kicker Gemini have opened up their exchange to Canadians, and the bombshell: I was sent an invitation to sign up to buy and sell XBT and the value proposition was the ability to withdraw ETH in Canada, but told one can't withdraw CAD at the moment.

When I was trading on Cryptsy, I also used alts to take advantage of BTC confirmation delays. Alas I don't care for alts much anymore since Cryptsy has run away with most of my stash.

The conclusion you draw is 100% bang on, we don't need a digital equivalent gold, it's just a matter of time before the network effect of some alt like ETH takes hold and people realise they don't even need to go in and out of Bitcoin "the digital gold" with similar limitations when it comes to taking delivery. I'm not betting on Etherium as the future of money they will inevitably encounter a centralised governance control problem just like Bitcoin, but worse as there are a bunch of ex-global bankers looking to cash out.

 

[Mengerian]

The miners, exchanges, and payment processors remind me of Jon Favreau in this scene from Swingers. They have the power to effect change through their own actions, but seem confused and unaware of what to do.


It’s like they have some sort of psychological barrier where they feel powerless, and are waiting for other to act.

Those of us who want bigger blocks should just take steps, through our own actions, that lead to the outcome we want. There is no need to wring our hands, or lament Core’s intransigence. Node operators can choose to stop enforcing the block limit today by running Bitcoin Unlimited. Exchanges can announce that they will follow a hard fork to bigger blocks, and could even offer fork arbitrage. Miners can signal support for bigger blocks in the blocks they mine.

The one (and only) thing we have control over is our own actions. So we may as well take actions that lead towards the outcomes we want.