Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

@Peter R what's this guy dts railing on about racism? I assume the accusation has to do with your simple squish man gif?

 

[kyuupichan]

I would personally pay more for a 2011 series 2 coin than for a series 1, but that's partly because I own one of the latter ones and none of the former.

What would your BTC bid be? Serious question; I have a handful.

 

[Zarathustra]

I was just reading another /u/nullc reinventing-the-wheel-on-production-quotas-and-price-fixing redux on the North Korea subreddit, and this observation occurred to me.

Doesn't perma-full blocks impose a pretty massive negative externality on the recipient of a payment?

With normal goods or services, a straightforward production quota will typically bid-up price in such a way that actually sends pretty actionable signals to the consumer. By that I mean that while total utility is undermined by deadweight loss, it doesn't necessarily directly create friction between buyers and sellers within the market that's unique vs the market equilibrium condition (This is a similar criticism to the fact that tx fee market can't have trading or market makers).

In the case of a Bitcoin tx, you make these business arrangements, for example communicating with another party that you intend to pay them. Now you submit the transaction praying that there isn't some surge of tx demand right after you submit but before you can get into a block, and that if there is, it doesn't extend past a time horizon that the recipient of your payment would find acceptable.

So here's where things get crazy: depending on how unpredictable confirmations become, recipients of Bitcoin payments might become inclined to demand a premium to reflect absorbing the economic dis-utility of getting paid in this unreliable and unpredictable way. A good common-sense example of this phenomenon is something many have experienced if you've been able to talk a car salesman down further by being willing to pay in cash right there.

This is not a road that I think anyone remotely sane is going to want to walk down. Even if you assume that layer 1 is supposed to be only bulk settlement, these issues are exactly the same as the simple payer-payee scenario, if not worse because failure to perform creates systemic risk and cascading failures, far beyond the guy on Craigslist being pissed that your payment for the furniture you're buying for example isn't clearing.

Gregiocy, Gregness, Gregidity ...
[doublepost=1467438693][/doublepost]I still fear that the mining administrators are wimps who just talk and will sign another agreement with the Mafia. If they actually propose that 90 percent strong consensus BS, nothing will happen and the stalemate continues. Strong consensus BS as an excuse for doing nothing and giving veto power to disgusting masochistic accomplices of the Kore Gang like Spamson Mao. I hope I am wrong and they act before Bitcoin domination gets blockstreamed further down to 50 percent. Since hope is a bad strategy, we will continue to expose the agitation of those people as what it is: vandalism, sabotage, betrayal and censorship; vulgo: Organized Violence.

 

[AdrianX]

@Peter R what's this guy dts railing on about racism? I assume the accusation has to do with your simple squish man gif?

LOL the stick figure was black and represented the keep the limit proponents, is that now insulting towards black people or small block proponents, I'm confused?

 

[Norway]

@Peter R what's this guy dts railing on about racism? I assume the accusation has to do with your simple squish man gif?

Are you talking about /u/MidMagic? He has accused me of being a racist completely out of the blue many times.

 

[jonny1000]

Jeez @jonny1000 , I didn't figure you would resort to outright lying and claim SegWit was released in April:

I asked at the agreement meeting what "released" meant and I was told it meant SegWit would be published and ready for review. After all, it cannot mean go live on the network or be merged into Core, since the signatories to the agreement had no power to do that. Therefore I do not think its fair to accuse me of lying in this respect.

The Bitcoin Core contributors present at the Bitcoin Roundtable will have an implementation of such a hard-fork available as a recommendation to Bitcoin Core within three months after the release of SegWit.

Since SegWit was "released" in April, this means the developers are committed to have an implementation of the HF ready by July. Although perhaps Luke thinks the meaning of the word "release" in the "agreement itself" is different to meaning in the "estimated timeline based on the agreement's terms".


I am afraid I have no explanation for this apparent discrepancy. There does seem to be some misunderstanding here, since much of the meeting focused on the idea that we would need data on SegWit usage on the network before deciding the parameters for the HF.

Please bare in mind the time-line in the agreement is only an estimate, so do not hold people strictly to it.

 

[freetrader]

@jonny1000 :

I asked at the agreement what "released" meant and I was told it meant SegWit would be published and ready for review. After all, it cannot mean go live on the network or be merged into Core, since the signatories to the agreement had no power to do that. Therefore I do not think its fair to accuse me of lying in this respect.

Thanks for clarifying your perspective.
Of course, whether you asked that question at the meeting and got the answer is unverifiable by independent parties. Or perhaps not - @Jihan , can you confirm that @jonny1000 's description of the agreed SegWit "release" definition is accurate?

SegWit would be published and ready for review

I've heard Greg Maxwell state that SegWit was up and running in 2015.
There's a contradiction here somewhere.
If we're talking about a software development process, there should be a quality gate that marks kick-off of a formal code review. I have not seen any evidence that such a gate was passed in April. Could you point me to the event that marked the start of the code review?

About the word "released":
There is a (global) consensus about what "released" means, and if not defined clearly in the wording of an agreement, that consensus applies, and not some ad-hoc redefinition.

What it means is to have completed the process of validation and undergone the ensuing formal release process that issues project deliverables (source code, executables if those are customary).
In the context of the Bitcoin Core project, "releases" are described by the lifecycle description here:
https://bitcoincore.org/en/lifecycle/
It states right at the top:

This document describes the life-cycle of the Bitcoin Core software package released by the Bitcoin Core project. It is in line with standard maintenance policy across commercial software.

So I'm afraid whether or not you consider it unfair for me or others to consider your statement a lie is irrelevant. Everyone can tell that there has not been a release which includes SegWit.
By now, we are all used to the constant redefinitions and excuses emanating from Core.
Personally, I am used to attributing a truth value of 0 to any of their statements about future events.

But when they try to redefine history, I call them liars.

"Ready by July" also technically means by 1st July, not 31st July. The miners are being extremely lenient if they extend that deadline.

I am afraid I have no explanation for this apparent discrepancy.

I do. Luke-jr is also a notorious twister of the truth.

After all, it cannot mean go live on the network or be merged into Core, since the signatories to the agreement had no power to do that.

Now you're just making Core look even more ridiculous. SegWit had been on their roadmap since way before the meeting. What you're saying is that Core has no power to release any of the items on their roadmap.

I would give you some general advice at this point: stop trying to make excuses for Core.
They have already dug themselves a deep hole, and keep on digging. Their strategy is to pile lies upon lies to cover up lies. We all know that ends up spinning out of control, and leads to bad outcomes. Public lies (and our discussions with Core are public) reflect badly on future careers.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

There does seem to be some misunderstanding here

Sure.
Certainly a suspicious amount of misunderstandings around Gregs group, don't you think?

since much of the meeting focused on the idea that we would need data on SegWit usage on the network before deciding the parameters for the HF.

I can give you statistics:
SW tx's up to today: 0,0000 %

Please bare in mind the time-line in the agreement is only an estimate, so d not hold people strictly to it.

Bwahaha.

 

[Erdogan]

why would those douchheads take down/censor an article like this?:

If EU Collapses, May Bitcoin Become Europe’s Common Currency?

http://cointelegraph.com/news/if-eu-collapses-may-bitcoin-become-europes-common-currency
[doublepost=1467299740][/doublepost]maybe it shows just how anti-Bitcoin the small blockists have become. they desperately want offchain solns so their native fiat currencies don't get killed?

No reason to censor of course, but the author did not understand:

The value of money is speculative and speculative only. If you have both, and you think euro will be worth less in the future, and bitcoin more in the future, you will use the euro to pay. And that you keep it, will support the value, not the payment. Therefore: Hyperbitcoinization.

 

[Norway]

The OnChain Scaling Conference is now on youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgw99sImtN_oAnF856-KUEA

 

[jonny1000]

Or perhaps not - @Jihan , can you confirm that @jonny1000 's description of the agreed SegWit "release" definition is accurate?

I do not know what was meant by released. I am sorry if my comment sounded like a lie. all the information is available. I guess Luke agrees it has not been released yet, therefore he still has over three months to implement the HF code.

But when they try to redefine history, I call them liars.

What have I tried to redefine?

"Ready by July" also technically means by 1st July, not 31st July. The miners are being extremely lenient if they extend that deadline.

This is a ";likley timeline" not deadline.

Certainly a suspicious amount of misunderstandings around Gregs group, don't you think?

Nope, Greg doesnt have much to do with the agreement as far as I can tell.

 

[Erdogan]

You're so full of it.

He is right, 75% is more than enough with cherry and sugar. But if someone can be appeased, I am ok with it. I think the avalanche comes before that, maybe at 20%.

 

[freetrader]

@jonny1000 : I have no time for a meaningless back-and-forth with you on this, until you answer this question with facts:

Could you point me to the event that marked the start of the code review?

"I do not know what was meant by released."

You are backpedalling faster than anyone at the Olympics:

I asked at the agreement what "released" meant and I was told it meant SegWit would be published and ready for review.

Thought for the day: Lies have expiry dates.

 

[jonny1000]

Could you point me to the event that marked the start of the code review?

I thought it was this (on 19 April 2016):

This is the complete code for segregated witness on top of master (implementing BIP141, BIP143, BIP144, BIP145)

Source: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7910

This is what I thought the release of SegWit was. But it doesn't solve the linear scaling of sighash operations problem, one of the main benefits of SegWit. Is that your concern?

If you mean merged into Core is what released means, then I guess the developers have 3 more months for their HF. I guess this is what Luke thinks at least. That being said I am happy to give the developers the benefit of the doubt and allow another three months.

[doublepost=1467452123][/doublepost]

The OnChain Scaling Conference is now on youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgw99sImtN_oAnF856-KUEA

@Peter R, Great video.

On one of the slides you have the following equation:

Risk = ZQ*(block reward)/10 minutes

Please could you try to think about this with the following additional parameter to the equation:

Risk = (1-Hs)*ZQ*(block reward)/10 minutes

Where Hs = the miners share of the global hashrate

This is one of the main concerns I have with respect to mining centralization and your talk did not address this point.

 

[Zarathustra]

@jonny1000 :

Thanks for clarifying your perspective.
Of course, whether you asked that question at the meeting and got the answer is unverifiable by independent parties. Or perhaps not - @Jihan , can you confirm that @jonny1000 's description of the agreed SegWit "release" definition is accurate?

I've heard Greg Maxwell state that SegWit was up and running in 2015.
There's a contradiction here somewhere.
If we're talking about a software development process, there should be a quality gate that marks kick-off of a formal code review. I have not seen any evidence that such a gate was passed in April. Could you point me to the event that marked the start of the code review?

About the word "released":
There is a (global) consensus about what "released" means, and if not defined clearly in the wording of an agreement, that consensus applies, and not some ad-hoc redefinition.

What it means is to have completed the process of validation and undergone the ensuing formal release process that issues project deliverables (source code, executables if those are customary).
In the context of the Bitcoin Core project, "releases" are described by the lifecycle description here:
https://bitcoincore.org/en/lifecycle/
It states right at the top:

So I'm afraid whether or not you consider it unfair for me or others to consider your statement a lie is irrelevant. Everyone can tell that there has not been a release which includes SegWit.
By now, we are all used to the constant redefinitions and excuses emanating from Core.
Personally, I am used to attributing a truth value of 0 to any of their statements about future events.

But when they try to redefine history, I call them liars.

"Ready by July" also technically means by 1st July, not 31st July. The miners are being extremely lenient if they extend that deadline.

I do. Luke-jr is also a notorious twister of the truth.


Now you're just making Core look even more ridiculous. SegWit had been on their roadmap since way before the meeting. What you're saying is that Core has no power to release any of the items on their roadmap.

I would give you some general advice at this point: stop trying to make excuses for Core.
They have already dug themselves a deep hole, and keep on digging. Their strategy is to pile lies upon lies to cover up lies. We all know that ends up spinning out of control, and leads to bad outcomes. Public lies (and our discussions with Core are public) reflect badly on future careers.

Great post @freetrader!

 

[freetrader]

Has SegWit been released? You decide.

Here on this forum: https://bitco.in/forum/threads/has-segwit-been-released-in-april-2016.1269/

Public survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/YZYDGYK

 

[freetrader]

I thought it was this (on 19 April 2016):

Source: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7910

This is what I thought the release of SegWit was. But it doesn't solve the linear scaling of sighash operations problem, one of the main benefits of SegWit. Is that your concern?

I'll grant you that sipa's PR meets your definition of release.

What I'm concerned about is your understanding of "release" does not match with the generally accepted definition, when it comes to projects, nor does it line up with Core's own publicly documented definition of a release.

It also concerns me that you were at the meeting, claim to have asked the question about what "release" means, and yet:
1. today you claim "I do not know what was meant by released"
2. neither you nor anyone else there bothered to make sure it was documented clearly in the agreement
3. no-one has produced minutes of the meeting (odd for an important meeting, don't you think?)

It's also concerning that you imply that the SegWit delivery agreed there could somehow not be upheld "since the signatories to the agreement had no power to do that".

You realize the signatories include the miners? Why should they not have the power to run software if it _were_ released?

I was told it meant [...]

Care to share who told you that, and why you believed them?

 

[Bagatell]

https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/issues/1325

I believe the paper (Satoshis white paper) was always designed to be a high level overview of the current reference implementation, and that we should update it now that the paper is outdated and the reference implementation has changed significantly from 2009.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

wtf

At least they are openly admitting now, that they don't share the original idea of Bitcoin (anymore).

Core is cancerous.
[doublepost=1467462978][/doublepost]

Nope, Greg doesnt have much to do with the agreement as far as I can tell.

If you honestly believe that anything will happen in Core without Gregs or Adams approval, you are even more misled than I thought..

 

[cypherdoc]

Who Is this dumbass Cobra Bitcoin? Don't tell me it's Lombrozzo.. .

https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/issues/1325