Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

@Bagatell that's one ugly response @Jihan
[doublepost=1467056070][/doublepost]

@Bagatell: we couldn't hope for a better answer from the small-bollocks crowd. Thanks Luke-jr!

This confirms that they have no code anywhere near ready. IMO this immensely strengthens the alternatives - it wouldn't surprise me if we were to see much stronger support signals for Classic or Unlimited in the near future.
And it gives me confidence that we can put out decent hard forks way before them.

P.S. archived Luke-jr's post in case it "mutates" or "vanishes": http://archive.is/1zBL2

note, i am disappointed to be right (along with others) yet again regarding what kore dev would do regarding their supposed promises.

 

[theZerg]

I can't believe that the miners stick with these guys. The way that certain key Core developers behave is towards the Chinese miners is demeaning and disrespectful. And these devs set the tone of the entire Core project since the others do not speak up.

 

[cypherdoc]

lol, remember how iCEBREAKER used to troll the hell outta me about bigger blocks back on BCT? note the sig he carries around now for "adaptive blocksize" associated with Monero!:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=753252.msg13591572#msg13591572

i'll be honest. i bet if we were to meet outside of Bitcoin, i'd actually like that guy. but he brutally sticks to his guns and misconceptions!
[doublepost=1467056766][/doublepost]

I can't believe that the miners stick with these guys. The way that certain key Core developers behave is towards the Chinese miners is demeaning and disrespectful. And these devs set the tone of the entire Core project since the others do not speak up.

it has to do with the fact that miners of their size have significant amounts invested in hardware and are leveraged, no doubt. any delays or downtime means losing money. i've already described the mindset associated with mining based on my experience with it over 3y. it's a constant state of semi-panic trying to keep your machines up knowing they're depreciating by the hour. contrast that with a kore dev who i still claim don't have a significant amount of value vested interest in Bitcoin, other than maybe their nLocktime coins, if that. i'm sure they wouldn't be too concerned if Bitcoin failed as they'd take comfort in blaming Satoshi's vision ala that post above i linked to from /u/ferritinjapan.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

lol This is so absurd.

Miners want to see a hardfork ready (funny btw, why doesn't luke-jr just use the finished classic code ) in July and the dipshit says: "Yeah I try to do something, but as I already told you, Mr. Maxwell doesn't support it so it's not going to happen anyway."

Why the hell are miners still waiting for luke-jr's HF proposal when he states black on white, that it won't get merged?

edit: bad grammar

 

[pekatete]

I can't believe that the miners stick with these guys. The way that certain key Core developers behave is towards the Chinese miners is demeaning and disrespectful. And these devs set the tone of the entire Core project since the others do not speak up.

Following on from the deleted medium post (obviously triggered by Luke-Jr's rebuke in ... wait for it ... social media!), this is by all accounts a "come-and get-us" call from the miners. I think this is an opportune time to get Classic and BU work together and reach out to these miners with a client that offers an adaptive block-size starting at 2MB (possibly capped at 8MB). I honestly believe the end of the junta is nigh.

 

[albin]

@cypherdoc

That link to the Monero thread is baffling to me with respect to the presentation of a few days ago.

Looking over the "cryptonote penalty function", I don't see any variable that correlates in any way with CONOP.

I don't see any evidence there for anything other than some kind of function that artificially pushes against increasing blocksize. I can't conceive of any scenario where a scheme like that is ever going to be anything more than a roundabout way of targeting a crypto-denominated tx fee, even if it's Maxwell's "difficulty" penalty instead (which just thinly-obfuscates calculating the cost).
[doublepost=1467058798,1467058058][/doublepost]Ironically the BIP101 and BIP-SIPA (whatever number they finally assigned it) approaches are the only blocksize proposals I've ever seen that actually try to take CONOP into account, by at least making some kind of crude estimate of future technological capabilities of the hardware and telecom powering nodes.

 

[AdrianX]

Just WOW, the sooner the Bitcoin community circumnavigate this centralized authority that's griped control of development the better.

Just reading point 1, knowing that, they would have been no point to the meeting or to drawing any conclusions as the only representatives for for small blocks were invited, and the decentralized opinions of those who advocate for on chain scaling was not represented. Yet a binding commitment from miners was expected with no commitment from Core or Blockstream.

Ouch the miners just trying to do the right thing getting screwed hard, they need to wake the F*** up and fork.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Fork happens when

Pressure (to increase blocksize) > Friction (involved in forking)​

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

What I find really interesting and sad to observe in /r/bitcoin, and I don't think they are all lying, I think they believe what they say:
"Core" and "Core devs" are some kind of undefined entity for them. "It's important that you understand some people code on this on that, that doesn't mean 'core' is behind that" is a common saying there. But what does it even mean? I don't think they really think about it.
If I remember correctly, v.d. Laan is kind of the final authority about what goes into Bitcoin core and what not, as a manager of the core Git repo. (Of course you can argue that even the "official repo" isn't representing "core" but then nothing is Btc Core and everything is Btc Core.)

These people obviously never question, how Laan decides what gets merged and what not. It's some kind of unseizable process of consensus finding, they don't really look through. And I think, it gives them some perverse sense of security; they don't have the obvious dictator that decides and not the fragile process of democracy.
If they started to think about it they would see that it is as it always is in the world: Where there is a power vacuum somebody will take the power. And the opacity of the the decision making process makes it so much easier.

The current "organization" of core is like paradise for manipulation and in such structures it's even more about personalities than in the alternatives.

It would be healthier if the most important implementations of Bitcoin all had a transparent decision process and it doesn't matter what kind of process each implementation uses. If they declared Greg Maxwell to be the dictator of Core tomorrow I would find that much better than the current status. (And it would reflect the actual power relations)

 

[freetrader]

It's all fun and games while your implementation is still the one favored by the majority of miners. That brings a certain warm fuzzy feeling to developers, esp. since the majority are probably not in it for direct monetary compensation.

When that favored status turns, the silent mass of Core members will start to think about alternatives (perhaps a "Reformed Core" under new leadership?)

 

[cypherdoc]

What I find really interesting and sad to observe in /r/bitcoin, and I don't think they are all lying, I think they believe what they say:
"Core" and "Core devs" are some kind of undefined entity for them. "It's important that you understand some people code on this on that, that doesn't mean 'core' is behind that" is a common saying there. But what does it even mean? I don't think they really think about it.
If I remember correctly, v.d. Laan is kind of the final authority about what goes into Bitcoin core and what not, as a manager of the core Git repo. (Of course you can argue that even the "official repo" isn't representing "core" but then nothing is Btc Core and everything is Btc Core.)

These people obviously never question, how Laan decides what gets merged and what not. It's some kind of unseizable process of consensus finding, they don't really look through. And I think, it gives them some perverse sense of security; they don't have the obvious dictator that decides and not the fragile process of democracy.
If they started to think about it they would see that it is as it always is in the world: Where there is a power vacuum somebody will take the power. And the opacity of the the decision making process makes it so much easier.

The current "organization" of core is like paradise for manipulation and in such structures it's even more about personalities than in the alternatives.

It would be healthier if the most important implementations of Bitcoin all had a transparent decision process and it doesn't matter what kind of process each implementation uses. If they declared Greg Maxwell to be the dictator of Core tomorrow I would find that much better than the current status. (And it would reflect the actual power relations)

what's more amazing to me is that Laan has never had to show his face. it seems that nobody cares.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

@cypherdoc It's part of the nebulous process of development. The faceless "janitor".
I was very astonished when he wrote the blog post about Gavin.. Not his "style" normally...

@freetrader I think it would be great. Pieter Wuille for example really is a great Bitcoin dev. Sadly he is also consensified by Blockstream. Would be nice if somebody removed the mind control device from him.
edit:: oh and the money from blockstream certainly helps to think a certain way ..

 

[cypherdoc]

the paranoia is evident:

 

[freetrader]

This is the first I've heard of this being an item of interest for the Core HF:


Can someone explain in 1-2 sentences why this would be useful or why it should be a priority now? I'll even hazard an uninformed guess - sidechains?

 

[Norway]

the paranoia is evident:

luke-jr is really living in his own bubble...

 

[cypherdoc]

This is the first I've heard of this being an item of interest for the Core HF:


Can someone explain in 1-2 sentences why this would be useful or why it should be a priority now? I'll even hazard an uninformed guess - sidechains?

well, there's a new one. and yeah, for sure; Sidechains ftw!
[doublepost=1467067518,1467066897][/doublepost]

 

[AdrianX]

the paranoia is evident:

I'm not allowed to comment there, apparently my ideas - or spelling is inflammatory. but I'd have like to respond: to the contrary, the reason the inevitable HF to move the block limit is being delayed by Core is "to do other thing" and have those other things bundled with the HF as a sure way to have them implemented.
[doublepost=1467068359][/doublepost]

This is the first I've heard of this being an item of interest for the Core HF:


Can someone explain in 1-2 sentences why this would be useful or why it should be a priority now? I'll even hazard an uninformed guess - sidechains?

Yes sidechains, is the first idea that came to mind, it illustrated that there was no course correction with regards to BlockStream, it's another controle carrot, it gets dangled in front of a miner as extra revenue, but in reality it's not, it just moves demand for blockchain transactions to another chain, one with different rules one more likely to depend less on miners.

 

[cliff]

just now seeing the lukejr posts. lol, ffs. no words.

lets assume that clarification is reasonable - its not - but just assume: its a great time to make it, huh? why string folks along for such a long time? why let greg make the dipshits comments, etc. can you spell f.r.a.u.d.? the delay + knowingly letting folks - most importantly the miners - think a hardfork is coming/in the works (and folks definitely thought that) has no purpose other than intentional dishonesty and manipulation.

bitcoin is about preserving and communicating truth honestly, too bad some the kore devs aren't capable of the same.

edit - had an incomplete sentence in there.

 

[cypherdoc]

aw, poor babies. /u/nullc, Goldman, and JPM. they're all the same:

 

[cliff]

@cypherdoc (or anybody) - what do you think the possible outcomes are w/ the luke-fu? surely the miners will now react - they drew a line in the sand, it was crossed. i'm ignorant RE: chinese business practices and how this level of manipulation typically gets handled.