Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

Norway

Well-Known Member
Sep 29, 2015
2,424
6,410
ha ha . . . source?


EDIT: that is some deep science, yo.
I think each dot represent a member of the FOMC and that person's expectation of the future interest rate. And I just discovered that it's 17 dots, but only 10 full members and 5 alternate members of the committee (https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomc.htm).

Janet Yellen could (and should) have a double vote, making it a total of 16 dots. But who is behind dot 17?

DOT 17: The mystery dot!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 79b79aa8

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
this should be fun. in 40 min:

Jim acknowledges Bitcoin is a form of Money in that interview!
[doublepost=1466712527][/doublepost]
I do not think it matters who the "Eth governors" are or what they think, I assume you are referring to the original Ethereum development team? I suppose this is a theoretical point of weakness in this governance model, just like Bitcoin.

Secondly I do not think it matters that the precedent does not exist in Bitcoin, However such a situation could not exist within Bitcoin, since this is all only possible through the existence of these smart contracts and the creation of such a DAO. This is why it is possible to return the DOA funds and not effect anyone else, that would not be possible in Bitcoin since it would require a rollback which could not be justified, importantly that is not the case with Ethereum now.
I can't help but see the parallels, the argument I just made about Bitcoin and Ethereum depending on game theory incentives and not social convention. Also seems very familiar with our discussions with @jonny1000 here.

I think part of the similarities simply lie in that there is a disagreement within the community that is resolved through a decentralized proof of work governance mechanism, we see some of the same patterns, and ideological divides being drawn up.
I would say that the same is probably true with Ethereum right now, we might disagree on the extend, but we are seeing the same results from using the same governance mechanism and it has not fully played out yet for either, this is why what is happening to Ethereum now could also be very instructive for Bitcoin itself.
There is always a chance that we are wrong, except for our own existence. I applaud your wisdom, I think I could be wrong on my theory of governance for Bitcoin, though if I am correct I expect to see that blocksize limit lifted and for Bitcoin to soar, along with its alternatives. :)
I do not think it matters who the "Eth governors" are or what they think, I assume you are referring to the original Ethereum development team? I suppose this is a theoretical point of weakness in this governance model, just like Bitcoin.

Secondly I do not think it matters that the precedent does not exist in Bitcoin, However such a situation could not exist within Bitcoin, since this is all only possible through the existence of these smart contracts and the creation of such a DAO. This is why it is possible to return the DOA funds and not effect anyone else, that would not be possible in Bitcoin since it would require a rollback which could not be justified, importantly that is not the case with Ethereum now.
I can't help but see the parallels, the argument I just made about Bitcoin and Ethereum depending on game theory incentives and not social convention. Also seems very familiar with our discussions with @jonny1000 here.

I think part of the similarities simply lie in that there is a disagreement within the community that is resolved through a decentralized proof of work governance mechanism, we see some of the same patterns, and ideological divides being drawn up.
I would say that the same is probably true with Ethereum right now, we might disagree on the extend, but we are seeing the same results from using the same governance mechanism and it has not fully played out yet for either, this is why what is happening to Ethereum now could also be very instructive for Bitcoin itself.
There is always a chance that we are wrong, except for our own existence. I applaud your wisdom, I think I could be wrong on my theory of governance for Bitcoin, though if I am correct I expect to see that blocksize limit lifted and for Bitcoin to soar, along with its alternatives. :)
oh noes!:

Ex-Ethereum CEO: Foundation Should Not Intervene to Save The DAO

http://www.coindesk.com/former-ethereum-ceo-foundation-not-gotten-involved-dao-crisis/
 

Zarathustra

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,439
3,797
"there is a chance our views on this blocksize limit could be wrong". there is. the more important point, far less likely to be wrong, is that for antifragility there need to be multiple implementations of the protocol (and ideally a spec).
We just don't know if we are right or wrong. But Diodoros Kronos proved that there is no such thing as a chance and a probability:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diodorus_Cronus#Master_Argument

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-0-585-37463-5_3#page-1
 

cliff

Active Member
Dec 15, 2015
345
854
@VeritasSapere & @cypherdoc - I'm enjoying your debate and discussion. Keep at it. Two points I want to make (perhaps they been made before):

1. BTC's governance model is really vastly different than Etheriums, IMHO. BTC's governance strikes me as being based on leveraging present roles and resources in an economy, including "work." Example1: if I'm mining bitcoin, I have a say on what transactions I process and do not process. Example2: if I'm a consumer or merchant, I have a say on which client software is acceptable to me and how many confirmations are appropriate for my commerce. Interfering w/ the ability of any particular person's ability to leverage their immediate resources and position is pretty difficult, which makes it empowering. Note, I'm not claiming BTC is devoid of trust; and on that note . . .

2. Ethereum and TheDAO's model may rely on trust to such a degree that its hard to compare it with BTC's governance even though the DAO situation does raise issues that feel and look very similar to some of the scaling debate issues and despite similarities w/ mining and so forth.

More specifically, a contract - if we can call their tools contracts - is based on rights, obligations, and expectations in the future. Example1 - DAO token entitles me to the right to vote on proposals as well as the underlying value of the token. Example 2 - A smart contract such as a multi-signature escrow arrangement means I'm entitled to something if specific conditions are met at some point subsequent to the agreement/acceptance of the escrow agreement. In both of these contract examples, the transaction sets up something in the future, which requires trust. It reminds me of marriage as well as extending credit on a promise to repay. With the latter, there's a present transaction where some value may be exchanged, but there's a chain of events that is supposed to follow. To the extent the event-chain doesn't follow as expected/promised, there is risk in getting rekt. Risk mitigation takes the form of evaluating the creditworthiness of the counterparty (you do this w/ finding a spouse in a way as well). The governance of ether and TheDAO is predicated on this creditworthiness evaluation in various degrees. For example, I have to trust that curators make good choices, don't steal, etc.(assuming I understand correctly). Whereas with BTC, I can influence the system with my own present resources or by merging them with aligned users and I don't have to give up any control etc. in the present - I can presume that counter-parties understand that I can drop them for any reason or no reason at any time (and the the counterparties can do that to me as well) (tbf, there is where BTC has some trust reliance, I assume that people are rational economic actors notwithstanding their moral or philosophical viewpoints). This may not make a ton of sense, a little distracted atm.
 

VeritasSapere

Active Member
Nov 16, 2015
511
1,266
1. BTC's governance model is really vastly different than Etheriums,
I think the governance model of Ethereum is presently exactly the same as Bitcoin, being that miners vote on any rule changes, in theory at least they are meant to follow the economic majority since that is what best aligns with their own self interest. It is the same in Ethereum, the environment, people, history and culture might be different but the governance model is essentially the same.
2. Ethereum and TheDAO's model may rely on trust to such a degree that its hard to compare it with BTC's governance even though the DAO situation does raise issues that feel and look very similar to some of the scaling debate issues and despite similarities w/ mining and so forth.
The way that I see it is that the question relating to the fork only really applies to Ethereum the protocol. The rules of that specific contract become irrelevant to a certain extend, because the governance mechanism can override any of the contracts rules through "consensus". Some people might see this as being very problematic, but it can be seen as a positive feature as well. This is why some people think it would be better if these contracts are build on layer two solutions, instead of having the contracts build directly onto the blockchain like Ethereum.
 

cliff

Active Member
Dec 15, 2015
345
854
I think the governance model of Ethereum is presently exactly the same as Bitcoin, being that miners vote on any rule changes, in theory at least they are meant to follow the economic majority since that is what best aligns with their own self interest. It is the same in Ethereum, the environment, people, history and culture might be different but the governance model is essentially the same.
The way that I see it is that the question relating to the fork only really applies to Ethereum the protocol. The rules of that specific contract become irrelevant to a certain extend, because the governance mechanism can override any of the contracts rules through "consensus". Some people might see this as being very problematic, but it can be seen as a positive feature as well. This is why some people think it would be better if these contracts are build on layer two solutions, instead of having the contracts build directly onto the blockchain like Ethereum.
I'm going to think on this one for a bit - I think there's an important distinction governance styles but I can't quite put my finger on it at the moment (you keep doing this to me while I'm at work, damnit. LOL).

Side note: This article seems loosely relevant to how smart contracts might evolve and make choices in the future: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/06/23/save-the-driver-or-save-the-crowd-scientists-wonder-how-driverless-cars-will-choose/
 
  • Like
Reactions: VeritasSapere

albin

Active Member
Nov 8, 2015
931
4,008
I can't help but think that this is the inevitable result of not having any kind of credible RFC process (despite Adam Back's ad nauseum lip service to the concept). Just a bunch of guys in chat channel and mailing lists shouting down and censoring dissenting opinions, instead of taking and formally filing documents.
 

Erdogan

Active Member
Aug 30, 2015
476
855
I do not think it is that unlikely that when new users experience the transaction delays and in some case even transaction failures for themselves. That they decide to sell, concluding that Bitcoin is not a viable technology. Waiting days for a transaction to confirm only to have it drop out certainly would not inspire confidence to a new user who does not understand the nuances of Bitcoin. This might in part help to explain the price drop and why the network is no longer congested.

I think the theory that we will never see the "fee market" that Core has envisioned has much merit. Whenever the network becomes congested, people leave. Leading to a situation where transaction demand never significantly exceeds the blocksize limit and never will as long this limit stays in place. An equilibrium is formed where Bitcoin can only support a certain number of users and new users are turned away either towards the alternative cryptocurrencies or even worse they return back to fiat solutions.
No that is the market. High price means consume one less (transaction) and produce one more. (Larger block). Low price means consume one more, and produce one less.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Norway and AdrianX

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
oh my, someone's gonna get hurt:


[doublepost=1466735153][/doublepost]Eth starting to fade:

 
  • Like
Reactions: Norway

majamalu

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
144
775
you still keep missing the following things:
4. finally, and i've never said this before, there is a chance our views on this blocksize limit could be wrong. i don't think so and i put a low probability on it, but it is possible.
I think it's important to remember that we are not arguing for bigger blocks (that's the way they -- the kore junta -- want to portray our position) but for a free market.

The block size shouldn't be and will not be determined by the kore devs, for the same reasons that the number of eggs a person was able to get under the soviet government shouldn't have been determined (and it didn't end up being determined) by the soviet government.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
lol, check this bullshit out; that's right, Dow futures DOWN -465. esp after that ramp into the close:


[doublepost=1466736258][/doublepost]yep. here's the daily futures chart. DOWN -520 now. and you never had a chance. no wonder Bitcoin is ramping:


[doublepost=1466736469][/doublepost]here the $DJI 1m chart during regular trading hours. note the huge ramp into the close. now look at the Dow futures charts above. lol. like someone wasn't manipulating the chart to whipsaw you come tomorrow morning:


[doublepost=1466736595][/doublepost]here's gold going batshit crazy after hours as a safe haven, just like Bitcoin. oh well, my DZZ is gonna take a hit tomorrow but more than offset by my BTC :p:

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Norway and majamalu

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
Russell futures getting gobsmacked. someone wake Janet the hell up:


[doublepost=1466737853][/doublepost]oh my, big trouble dead ahead:

[doublepost=1466737954][/doublepost]yes, Brexit could easily be the spark that takes Bitcoin up 10x
[doublepost=1466738040][/doublepost][doublepost=1466738405,1466737662][/doublepost]note this tweet by Mohammad El-Erian, Pimco Chief. note his emphasis on Forex #fx and the transmitted volatility. Bitcoin anyone?:

[doublepost=1466738898][/doublepost]oopsie:


[doublepost=1466739073][/doublepost]here's the 20 yr weekly GBP/USD chart. ALL TIME LOWS!: