Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Peter R]

@Peter Tschipper: Even theymos loves Xthin

"[Xthin] does significantly improve the biggest issue preventing the safe increase of the max block size, which is bandwidth. Once it is widespread and working well, a max block size of 4-8 MB looks pretty possible." -- theymos

"[Xthin] is still massively helpful for scaling because it not only halves the overall amount of data you need to download/upload, but it spreads it out in time." -- theymos

They're calling it Compact Blocks for some reason

 

[cypherdoc]

For bitcoin’s growth, even a slight interest in bitcoin on PayPal’s part would be a big win. PayPal has over 180 million customers and processed $1.4 billion in payments in the first quarter of 2016.

http://qz.com/713528/paypal-is-warming-up-to-bitcoin/

 

[jbreher]

@cypherdoc
"there is no such thing as a smart contract that can override or supercede common law if one party feels he was wronged."

I'm not sure I understand. As described, a Smart Contract is self executing. I understand and that courts may assert jurisdiction over such, but how could it be enforced? If there is true anonymity baked into the infrastructure, courts would seem to me to be powerless.

edit: s/unrest/understand/

 

[steffen]

XT Nodes (and Nodecounter.com) is wrong. KNC's last block was 416649. KNC blocks listed here: https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pool/kncminer

It seems that KNC flagging both CSV and BIP 109 support together has screwed up XT Nodes' detection algorithm somehow. BIP 109 support is not falling like their graph shows.

KNC is back on the chart.

 

[albin]

I'm starting to wonder if Proof-of-Stake actually functions to put an arbitrary floor on the perception of what the risk-free interest rate is (Dash with the masternodes system would essentially have the same property too). That could be really macroeconomically destructive in the long-term for a cryptocurrency that actually gets the kind of market share where it starts to be used as a unit of account for any kind of financial terms.

 

[cliff]

@albin - Interesting. Another problem w/ POS is that it may make a currency into a security. Staking basically creates "rights" to a dividend and therefore may constitute an investment contract. If so, then we're in SEC land. POW avoids that keeps a currency - at least a non-legal tender one like BTC - as property and within the realm of the permissive CFTC.

 

[cypherdoc]

@jbreher

i think i've been clear to make this point based on known parties. like pretty much every smart contract i've seen to date including the DAO.

but if you assume anonymity btwn counterparties, then my question becomes, who is dumb enough to engage in a high value smart contract with an unknown counterpart? i doubt there is demand for this.

 

[Inca]

Looks like I jumped back into BTC too soon.

ETH is going berzerk. I'll be staying away from that until the price returns back down to earth and something approaching a fair market price.

Working a lot at the moment and unable to give bitcoin the time it deserves. Oh well I hope we don't retrace too much further down.

 

[cypherdoc]

Brexit referendum tomorrow
[doublepost=1466620995][/doublepost]Arvind piling on:

 

[79b79aa8]

I'm not sure I understand. As described, a Smart Contract is self executing. I unrest and that courts may assert jurisdiction over such, but how could it be enforced? If there is true anonymity baked into the infrastructure, courts would seem to me to be powerless.

The Attacker may be uncovered or disclose himself and could be sued. The White Hat attackers are known and could be sued (so far their actions are identical to those of the Attacker). The Etherium Foundation could conceivably be sued.

 

[cypherdoc]

more techies are starting to get it. the problem is that coders are trying to define a new system that makes themselves relevant, in demand, if not in control (smart contracting within a common law system).

lotsa ppl are going to keep losing money in cryptocurrencies:

[doublepost=1466621637][/doublepost]

The Attacker may be uncovered or disclose himself and could be sued. The White Hat attackers are known and could be sued (so far their actions are identical to those of the Attacker). The Etherium Foundation could conceivably be sued.

imo, those lawsuits are only a matter of time. Griff Green's interview i posted above just goes to show the ignorance and naivete of these young coders. it's going to get exceedingly ugly.

 

[theZerg]

WRT lawyers, everyone on top of the mountain shouts I am king, without realizing that everyone has moved away.

Traditional law will always have technical jurisdiction over smart contracts. However, prosecution will be extremely difficult between participants living in different countries, who may be anonymous or at least hard to track down.

And if you do manage to get someone in a courtroom that claims jurisdiction, they'll just point to the smart contract and say "that was our agreement". So the burden of proof will be on you to somehow produce an alternative contract.
[doublepost=1466621809][/doublepost]IIRC 60% of early railroad truss bridges failed within a decade, sometimes catastrophically. But we use trusses for bridges and basically every large building from home depot to airports now.

 

[cypherdoc]

what i predict will happen is that much of this Whitehat eth being hoovered up is going to mysteriously disappear as well. what a shitfest.

 

[Peter R]

"Segwit is the thing that allows more transactions. This [Xthin] is one of the many efficiency gains people had expected to derisk the load increase from SW." -- Gmax

The back-tracking is fascinating to watch. So now Greg claims they were planning to implement efficient block relay (based on Xthin concepts) this whole time! And he says it like it was so obvious and in fact necessary to even allow for segwit.

We should dig up some good comments from when BS/Core was saying that Xthin was pointless "because Relay Network" and "because blocks-only mode."

Anyways, this is certainly a big win for Bitcoin Unlimited! We're forcing BS/Core to scale on-chain!!

 

[AdrianX]

for the lulz:



i.e. there's no such a thing as soft-fork for miners!

Core sure make it sound like a hard fork! I can see in the not too distant future my days of running nodes are numbered.

 

[79b79aa8]

And if you do manage to get someone in a courtroom that claims jurisdiction, they'll just point to the smart contract and say "that was our agreement". So the burden of proof will be on you to somehow produce an alternative contract.

Then the Etherium Foundation or whichever known actor attempts to damage control by soft or hard forking is liable to be sued by the Attacker, for stealing their contractually obtained funds.

And if there be no such known actors, who will want to contract using the platform?

 

[Tomothy]

"Segwit is the thing that allows more transactions. This [Xthin] is one of the many efficiency gains people had expected to derisk the load increase from SW." -- Gmax

I'm impressed with your ability to not get angry at these tactics. I'm furious looking at this. The hypocrisy and double speak have gotten to me.

 

[AdrianX]

"Segwit is the thing that allows more transactions. This [Xthin] is one of the many efficiency gains people had expected to derisk the load increase from SW." -- Gmax

The back-tracking is fascinating to watch. So now Greg claims they were planning to implement efficient block relay (based on Xthin concepts) this whole time! And he says it like it was so obvious and in fact necessary to even allow for segwit.

We should dig up some good comments from when BS/Core was saying that Xthin was pointless "because Relay Network" and "because blocks-only mode."

Anyways, this is certainly a big win for Bitcoin Unlimited! We're forcing BS/Core to scale on-chain!!

Thats progress congratulation to the Bitcoin Unlimited team. Now we just need to find ways to prevent this added "load increase from SW" Gmax refers too, and allow the benefits to go to regular users in the future who wish to preserve the ledger and access to the blockchain directly.

 

[cypherdoc]

once this Bitcoin pullback finishes, you should look out:

A Securities and Exchange Commission official on Monday pointed to last week’s $55 million hack of a digital-currency fund as an example of why regulators worry about the broader use of blockchain.

But blockchain’s hype took a hit Friday when the founders of DAO, a fund for Ethereum startups, said they had shut down the fund when roughly $55 million worth of the digital currency was hacked through replicating the startup’s code and moving the funds into another account.

http://commodity-market-news.com/sec-official-says-ethereum-hack-illustrates-blockchain-concerns.html

 

[sickpig]

Core sure make it sound like a hard fork! I can see in the not too distant future my days of running nodes are numbered.

I really did mean that full nodes used to mint blocks do not have the privilege to not update in case of a soft forks.

if they do not update they will be forked.

this what happened when BIP66 activation.

a minor pool solved the first block after new version was enforced by the network. due to the fact that the pool didn't update its nodes the block has been rejected by the rest of the network.

The problem has been exacerbated by a borked implementation of "headers first" mining applied on AntPool (?) miner nodes.

In fact a few blocks has been mined on top of the faulty one by AntPool, such chain had been forked by the rest of the network that was supported by the majority of the hash power.