Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cliff]

Are you high?


I don't have any evidence that I'm not Satoshi!

Peter Todd and Greg Maxwell.
That's a good one.

No . . . ? Just taking a dip in that pool. I'll tell you who likes to be "high" - that guy who created a digital currency backed only by math out of thin air 8 years ago , he actually told people:

"It might make sense just to get some in case it catches on. If
enough people think the same way, that becomes a self fulfilling
prophecy."
​

http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/17/#selection-89.0-93.9

The first responses weren't terribly positive either.

@satoshis_sockpuppet - if you're not satoshi, you need a new handle here.

 

[priestc]

Is anyone following this BIP75 drama? Its so very bizarre. So many people (on both /r/btc and /r/bitcoin) are expressing a very strong opinion about this issue of which they know nothing about. As a rule of thumb, if Peter Todd says anything, assume he's full of shit (which he is in this case).

Saying BIP75 supports KYC/AML is like saying using car tires that can be filled with air is in supportive of a police state because police can use tire spikes to stop cars. BIP75 has nothing to do with the bitcoin protocol, its an optional system users and wallets can use to facilitate exchange between each other. Removing the BIP won't stop people from using such technology, all it will do is force individual wallets to build their own ad-hoc system that is not compatible with anyone else.

 

[Mengerian]

Pretty funny/disheartening reading the histrionics and collective freakout over at r/Bitcoin regarding BIP 75: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4qdqr0/peter_todd_recommends_boycotting_bip75_due_to/

Peter Todd criticized it, and now there's a huge knee-jerk response of bandwagon jumpers freaking out.

They are objecting to BIP 75 because it gives transacting parties the capability to validate their identities to each other. This is obviously a useful capability. There are many situations where individuals or businesses would want to keep track of who they are transacting with. BIP 75 just allows for this capability, it doesn't force anything. And the "identity" can be pseudonymous, it doesn't even need to be tied to real-world identity.

EDIT: @priestc, ha ha, agreed. Just saw your comment above after I posted, looks like we are thinking on the same wavelength.

 

[AdrianX]

On the good news front, this just popped up on the local news stand:

http://www.coindesk.com/winklevoss-twins-file-for-20m-ipo-of-bitcoin-trust-fund/

this could suck lots of coins out of the exchanges if it catches on, drying up liquidity amplified by the lack of new coins as a result of reduced block subsidy.

How relevant that, that Satoshi quote just popped up again.

 

[Peter R]

@priestc @Mengerian

I think some people mistakenly believe that BIP75 embeds identity information into the blockchain (which is not the case).

Whether one thinks BIP 75 is a good idea or not, I don't see how it's "stoppable" anyways; it exists at a level above the Bitcoin protocol (like BIP 70) and really doesn't have anything to do with Bitcoin Core. Wallets can choose to support it or not, irrespective of the base protocol.

Maybe non-protocol BIPs should be called something else?

Also, I wonder if this is an opportunity for Bitcoin Unlimited. I'm curious how our members would vote if it was proposed here.

 

[cypherdoc]

On the good news front, this just popped up on the local news stand:

http://www.coindesk.com/winklevoss-twins-file-for-20m-ipo-of-bitcoin-trust-fund/

this could suck lots of coins out of the exchanges if it catches on, drying up liquidity amplified by the lack of new coins as a result of reduced block subsidy.

How relevant that, that Satoshi quote just popped up again.

look at the date of that article.
[doublepost=1467244088][/doublepost]poll memorialized. vote in new poll:

[doublepost=1467244663,1467243901][/doublepost]wow, Daniel Krawicz absolutely obliterates Vitalik, the DAO, & Ethereum:

https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/the-crypto-show-brexit-the-dao-with-jeff-berwick-daniel-krawiz-brian-deery-and-christopher-david
[doublepost=1467245377][/doublepost]sorry, botched that poll.

pls revote.
[doublepost=1467245737][/doublepost]i'm sure kore dev doesn't give a shit about this and the negative perceptions it creates:

http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/06/29/484029238/episode-708-bitcoin-divided

 

[priestc]

@priestc @Mengerian

I think some people mistakenly believe that BIP75 embeds identity information into the blockchain (which is not the case).

Whether one thinks BIP 75 is a good idea or not, I don't see how it's "stoppable" anyways; it exists at a level above the Bitcoin protocol (like BIP 70) and really doesn't have anything to do with Bitcoin Core. Wallets can choose to support it or not, irrespective of the base protocol.

Maybe non-protocol BIPs should be called something else?

Also, I wonder if this is an opportunity for Bitcoin Unlimited. I'm curious how our members would vote if it was proposed here.

I think some people confuse the payment protocol with the bitcoin protocol. Non-technical people don't realize there is a difference, hence the confusion. That of course doesn't explain why Andreas is saying this is a "deterioration proposal". I really would like to hear him give an explanation of his stance.

 

[cypherdoc]

95 viewers; ok.
[doublepost=1467256181][/doublepost]nice diff:

http://published.github.io/sec.gov/ChangeDetection - Comparison of: Amendment No.6.html

 

[Roger_Murdock]

Anybody know much about the ETF application process? So they've now filed their sixth amendment to their application for an ETF. Can we assume that most of the changes are in direct response to (non-public???) feedback / requests for changes from the SEC? How is that feedback communicated and how frequently does it occur? (E.g., regular meetings between some review board and the attorney handling the application?) And why isn't it public? And can we assume that the SEC would let them know if they thought there was essentially no chance of this thing ever being approved? Or, just based on the fact that this thing is still active, can we hopefully assume that they're getting feedback more along the lines of "we think you can get there once issues x, y, and z are resolved to our satisfaction"?

 

[albin]

Peter Todd is exhausting on the last Bitcoin Uncensored. I can't believe how bad he is talking extemporaneously on his feet, and how he stalls at the beginning of every answer until he figures out how to frame his answer as contrary.

 

[albin]

The last Trace Mayer podcast was amazing:

http://www.bitcoin.kn/2016/06/financial-surivival-network-kerry-lutz/

He argues that the coming bull run is going to be because of transactional demand.

Cue Captain Picard facepalming memes!

 

[AdrianX]

look at the date of that article.

Oops, That what you get when you post as you rush out the door.

Here's the news not as bullish http://www.coindesk.com/winklevoss-bitcoin-trust-departs-nasdaq/

 

[cliff]

http://8btc.com/thread-35645-1-1.html - this page is in Chinese. If you use Chrome it should auto-translate to something that is readable.

 

[sickpig]

Maybe non-protocol BIPs should be called something else?

^ this ^

 

[solex]

@cliff Thanks

The intransigence of BS-Core has finally forced the Chinese miners to take action. For the avoidance of doubt, we at Bitcoin Unlimited fully support the miners. We believe, like they do, that on-chain scaling as a first priority is the best for them, the best for Bitcoin and for all its users.

The good work for fast block propagation, Xthin, is available and we invite them to make contact if they need help.

 

[freetrader]

Can someone help situate the 8btc discussion in some context?
Who is the poster? Is it a binding proposal formed by the miners, or coming from a single entity?

I'm having problems following the Google translation. It would be great if a Chinese native speaker could provide a brief summary of the proceedings!

If this is serious, it might explain why Peter Todd is so willing to cut corners on SegWit quality to get it deployed.

 

[awemany]

@freetrader: Indeed. Maybe it is a well known thing for those who know who's-who on 8btc - but so far I lack a good, reliable confirmation that this 'terminator plan' is indeed coming from the big miners who woke up.

 

[Zarathustra]

@cliff The intransigence of BS-Core has finally forced the Chinese miners to take action. For the avoidance of doubt, we at Bitcoin Unlimited fully support the miners.

The market supports the miners as well.

 

[cypherdoc]

Yeah , nullc was trying to argue yesterday, sarcastically as usual, that I I wasn't supporting bitcoin by not supporting his efforts to pay kore devs through Blockstrea. Nothing could be further from the truth I told him as i made it clear that all my efforts have been consistently to support the miners who absolutely need am increase in transactional volume to replace reward. The fact is we Americans who are early adopters and who want
bitcoin to succeed to is greatest potential (out of our own greed we fully admit, as well as for maximum freedom for ordinary users) can see through the corruption by our fellow Americans in kore dev. Evidence being that none of us that argue so hard for bigger blocks in this thread have a for profit company like Blockstream that stands
to benefit from offchain solution. Not even a small business, AFAIK. All we want is for the value of our coin to go up. But that can be said for all participants in the system.@jihan


.

@cliff Thanks

The intransigence of BS-Core has finally forced the Chinese miners to take action. For the avoidance of doubt, we at Bitcoin Unlimited fully support the miners. We believe, like they do, that on-chain scaling as a first priority is the best for them, the best for Bitcoin and for all its users.

The good work for fast block propagation, Xthin, is available and we invite them to make contact if they need help.

 

[Zarathustra]

r/NorthKore