Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[freetrader]

@Norway. Basically correct AFAIK. Before, there were only nTimeLocked tx's.

Now there's a couple of other types of bullets that you can use to shoot yourself in the foot through various forms of time-locked transactions. Not in ways that you could exactly reproduce using the old feature, otherwise there'd be no need for the new features. They merely offer more fine-grained execution (of your toe).

The op codes used for these were not used for that purpose before, hence why it's a soft-fork.

Miners still running the old software will not recognize the new rules and would eventually produce blocks based on their "non-updated view of reality", blocks which would be rejected by the upgraded parts of the network (importantly, the majority of other miners).

I'm not going to go into more detail here right now.

I've merged the CSV code into my upcoming HF trial.

BU will also need to upgrade now if it wishes to stay relevant as a potential mining platform.

---

Too fucking funny:


@AdrianX makes some great economic arguments in that thread, it is a pity if they were to go unread. In the words of the thread OP, /u/bitusher:

high level discussion I would suggest is out of scope of this conversation

Probably because it would make people scratch their heads and possibly even start thinking about the supposed benefits of this package of changes.

 

[theZerg]

...working on it...

 

[priestc]

@freetrader

I think KYC/AML can only be forced on a company, not on software. L2 nodes are not necessarily companies. Today you can start your own L2 node by firing up a VPS instance, installing Classic, and Insight or Toshi (or any other open source blockexplorer). I'm not sure how a government can enforce KYC/AML on open source software.

In terms of XMR not being supported, that is because XMR is not as well documented as other currencies. This is also why ETH, NXT, and BitShares and the like are not supported. There are mountains of documentation available for BTC and it's clones, but not the same can be said for the "complete code rewrite" currencies. I'm trying to get one of the CryptoNote developers to help me get XMR supported, but none of the devs will respond to my messages, ditto for ETH.

 

[freetrader]

Seweso churning out great analysis posts on blocksize and fees in the last days.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4rcvv5/turbulence_warning/

---

Is it possible that Luke-jr's calculations are within 10Kb margin of error?

 

[AdrianX]

@freetrader just reading what follows is mind boggling.

If 650k blocks were implemented what improvements would we see?

Lower resource requirements for people to participate in Bitcoin.

OK, how does a 650k block limit help with network adoption.

- you see if we limit bitcoin transaction velocity more we could actual suppress the utility and price enough that more people could afford to participate in Bitcoin.

Yes good point /s so I see nodes are a function of low resource requirements not users, I can just see the thousands of people lining up to take advantage of that new feature and the more affordable price.

good job /s

 

[freetrader]

@AdrianX : I believe Luke-jr likes to exercise his trawling rights in his own fishing ground. But it's a bit like watching a fakir act, you know it's going to be extremely painful to watch as he does logical contortions to prove whatever position he set out to explain.

But this pb1x, he is too sneaky. Truly skillful trawling, comes into his element in international waters.


I put two and two together, and I think they're working on a new whitepaper already:

It's perhaps not surprising. The nature of the beast seems to be that many, if not all, of the possible futures of Bitcoin imagined at some point in time can and *will* be tried by those who believe strongly enough in them. And of course imagination is an incessant process. Evolutionary theory must intuitively extend beyond biological organisms - as we ourselves strive to grow beyond our physical limitations and extend our capabilities through technology, the law of 'survival of the fittest' accompanies all our creations. I ought to finish reading Voltaire's Candide before I muse on about how we should try to guard our moral / spiritual side on this journey. Are our emotions in any way a useful compass, having presumably evolved along with us?
[doublepost=1467745353,1467744163][/doublepost]Sometimes all the discussion about how to scale short term is extremely frustrating - it just seems so logical that the less the software interferes with the market in terms of block size, transaction fee floors etc., the freer the entire system is to find an optimum that satisfies what the market will want from it. Now and in the future. Argh, why don't we all run BU already?!

 

[xhiggy]

Lower resource requirements for people to participate in Bitcoin he says.

Yes, every resource except money and time.

 

[Erdogan]

Great, you can pay for coffee with 0.5 bitcoin in stead of 0.001 bitcoin! This is clearly an advantage for the poor!

Edit: Adding a /sarc tag, you never know.

 

[cypherdoc]

you forgot to add in the 0.5 bitcoin for the fee.

Luke's a clown.

 

[Roger_Murdock]

I'm pretty happy with my coining of the phrase "fractional-teller banking" as a pithy way to describe the Lightning Network and the risks it entails (if I do say so myself).


Right now, my comment in /r/NorthKorea is at +14 and the only "rebuttal" I've been offered is "I don't see a big deal here" because there are (unspecified) "technical solutions to get around this, to avoid everyone settling their payment channels at once."

And sorry if I'm beating a dead horse with this stuff, but I don't think I've explicitly made the point here that, not only is a LN transactions not a "Bitcoin transaction," it is in fact a Bitcoin IOU. Now it's a novel and potentially useful kind of IOU, an IOU with a different and potentially superior risk profile when compared to a traditional IOU, but, at the end of the day, still an IOU. To compare it to a traditional IOU, let's say you hand me an ounce of gold in exchange for a little piece of paper that says "Roger Murdock agrees to pay to bearer on demand 1 ounce of gold." One of the risks with this arrangement is obviously that when you show up with your IOU and ask for your gold back, I might not be able to give it to you because I simply don't have it anymore (e.g., maybe I lost it or traded it for booze or female companionship). "But hey, with the LN, the other party can't (easily) run away with your funds because they're locked up in the payment channel." Well, ok, great. The other risk with the traditional IOU is that even if I have the gold, I might refuse to hand it over when you present me with the IOU. "But hey, with the LN, the 'IOU' is an unbroadcast Bitcoin transaction. All you have to do to ensure that it's honored is broadcast it to the network and succeed in having it mined into a block in a timely manner." Well, ok, but there's the rub, right? There are no guarantees that you'll be able to do that.

 

[freetrader]

@Roger_Murdock : One solution proposed by Adam Back a while back to solve various such issues was to sell LN users (and hubs) some insurance. Perhaps AXA will work something out.

 

[cypherdoc]

yeah, right. sell insurance for a micropayment channel. sounds legit.

 

[AdrianX]

There are lots of economic potential risks with an IOU system like Lightning.

Just one example, and I bet we could come up with a dozen more credible ones, but what happens in a financial crises were the miners aren't earning enough fees to provide the necessary security, as a result the clearing layer starts to show signs of collapse as the layer 2 LN network is booming.

It would sound reasonable and we may even have 95% consensus on the severity of the threat. It's not farfetched to think that the existing centralized authority along with 95% consensus from miners decides it's best for the integrity of the bitcoin economy to deploy a soft fork (hard fork for those miners) to free all unused bitcoin from 2009 and reintroduce them as part of a mining reward to strengthen up the bitcoin clearing layer.

It turns out that great foresight or just by plane luck segwits happens to be well suited to this new mode of operation with a few tweaks this "soft fork" is implemented and as old nodes turn a blind eye as they don't relay segwit transactions, everything is fine.

Economists all agree that this pool of new coins doesn't dilute the 21M cap and its being injected at the source of the problem so its the best solution. Greg Mazwell is rewarded a Nobel prizes in economics for identifying why bitcoin can't scale and designing the tools needed to fix it.

These new coins won't ever be cashed out on the old bitcoin network so they stay in the segregated layer and LN layer 2 networks, the 2009 private keys are also blocked from all segwit nodes and miners, and everything moves along smoothly. Coincidentally this crises happens in 2019 just before CW "Tulip" trust is expected to release over 1 Million BTC, essentially depriving Satoshi of is big stash.

Rinse and repeat every few decades and after a while we won't even need to clear on the bitcoin blockchain layer anymore, just like central banks who a century earlier came to the same conclusion they don't need backing with gold.

 

[cypherdoc]

World Economic Forum. good discussion:

https://www.weforum.org/events/annual-meeting-of-the-new-champions-2016/sessions/fintech-fizz

 

[AdrianX]

@cypherdoc thanks for the link, just listening to the "bitcoin miner" answer the question What problem does Bitcoin Solve? (@21:30) leads me to understand why we have such a governance problem when it comes to scaling.

But in general just the fact that such discussion is taking place is extremely bullish.

 

[cypherdoc]

@AdrianX

the miner is actually quite intelligent on Bitcoin matters despite his language difficulties. my favorite part? "ppl die in revolutions".

 

[AdrianX]

yes he's got the vision, he's just not selling it very well.

 

[bucktotal]

@cypherdoc

thanks for the WEF link. my thoughts as i watch...

re the bitcoin miner guy - even if he's old school and gets it, he was a poor choice. he almost never answered the question being asked. someone more focused and clear would have been better.

the american women wouldnt use the word bitcoin. she was clearly talking about bitcoin and she said her fund owns some, but it was all "blockchain" all the time. i found it a bit odd/annoying. however, she seems to know whats up as well. i wanted to hear her answer to that guys question about whats going to disrupt the incumbents first, digital currency or non-currency use cases. but the miner wouldn't stop rambling about "the future."

the two guys who were implying there has been no use cases for bitcoin all these years have their eyes wide shut. they need to go back a few years and start reading some forums. Obviously, gambling and drugs are a massive use case (for ex, i bought in 2011 to play online poker again in the US), as is a global decentralized non-fiat store of value in places where its most needed. Its totally new tech that just like the internet, takes decades to become mainstream popular and really blow up. they should know all this. dudes came off as intelligent, yet ignorant sheep,

it was a good insight into the current state of things though. bullish.

 

[cypherdoc]

i still think the miners should just activate the 2MBHF w/o a signalling period with a 28d grace period. signalling is broken and just results in personal attacks, ddos, & flights to China to intimidate @Jihan et al. the community can upgrade fast enough.

 

[JVWVU]

@bucktotal -

the chinese guy is very smart his issue is using English. https://twitter.com/ChandlerGuo - Jihan Wu is just so much eloquent with English.

Catherine Wood, Chief Executive Officer of ARK Investment Management in the US. https://twitter.com/CathieDWood - https://ark-invest.com/ https://ark-funds.com/
She is selling ETFs not just an ETF like $Coin or $GBTC

Also looking at her Fund performance she better buy more Bitcoins and HODL.

The 10% who really understand it stands out to me. That means we have a lot of legacy money to add to the market cap . BULLISH
[doublepost=1467776023][/doublepost]

i still think the miners should just activate the 2MBHF w/o a signalling period with a 28d grace period. signalling is broken and just results in personal attacks, ddos, & flights to China to intimidate @Jihan et al. the community can upgrade fast enough.

JVP - is also advocating SegWit - so give them 2-3 months for SegWit with 2MB if not force their hand.