Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cliff]

@freetrader just reading what follows is mind boggling.



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

No real position w/ this response - just sharing a loosely relevant article since Adrian's comment reminded me of it:

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2016/06/will_public_transit_apps_create_customers_or_citizens.html

I say "loosely relevant" because, while its not about bitcoin, it is about how predictability with a network can increase network usage - even assuming when its running at capacity already.

Interesting quote from article:

I first pulled out my $29 Android smartphone along the T line on Third Street. The app produced by Muni, the local transit system, required that I give it my email and create a password. Even though I’d given up my anonymity, the app didn’t seem to know exactly where I was. So I walked toward where I thought the stop was, only to find a digital readout saying that the next trains were coming in 12 and 14 minutes. Aha! Poorly spaced trains are a problem no app can fix.

That problem is important. As nice as information is, what riders really want is service. Candace Brakewood, assistant professor of engineering at City University of New York, did research across three boroughs of New York from 2011 through 2013 and found that lines giving riders accurate information on arrival times increased ridership by as much as 2 percent on an average day.* “When you aggregate that across NYC it’s very significant,” she told me. But she also looked at the impact of the weather, the economy, service changes, and multiple other factors and found what really increased ridership was more-frequent buses and shorter trip times. This is hardly a Moneyball-type revelation from the crunching of Big Data. “Yeah. Common sense,” Brakewood said.​

EDIT

@Fatman3002 - "Is this where all the cool kids hang nowadays?"
Duh, where you been for the last 9 months.

 

[Fatman3002]

@cliff You don't want to know

 

[cypherdoc]

Duh, where you been for the last 9 months.

more like 5y

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=35956.msg443129#msg443129

 

[xhiggy]

What am I missing in this argument?

We need incentivized nodes to protect the network, more than we need a high number of nodes. If I run a node on my phone, for the sake of running a node, that is I don't use bitcoin to generate revenue in my enterprise, then I don't help secure the network because I am not able to spend time/money to fix a problem. A bunch of dummy nodes, nodes that don't rely on the the correct running of bitcoin would actually be an attack vector, as they can influence the network but don't really care that it is working.

 

[tynwald]

Xhiggy - zombie nodes, users that only hodl Bitcoin for getting rich ... neither are really helping to keep the network safe and user base growing.

 

[AdrianX]

@xhiggy that sounds about right. What's not quantified are the benefits of running a node.

We don't need additional incentives they already exist.

It's my opinion running a node will always have a positive cost benefit so long as we have a functional economy where competition exists.

The less you trust the competition the more value there is in running a node.

 

[cypherdoc]

What am I missing in this argument?

We need incentivized nodes to protect the network, more than we need a high number of nodes. If I run a node on my phone, for the sake of running a node, that is I don't use bitcoin to generate revenue in my enterprise, then I don't help secure the network because I am not able to spend time/money to fix a problem. A bunch of dummy nodes, nodes that don't rely on the the correct running of bitcoin would actually be an attack vector, as they can influence the network but don't really care that it is working.

if you, as a Bitcoin participant/advocate, believe that running a node helps secure the network as well as your own tx's, then you should run a node even if you're not getting paid to do it.
[doublepost=1467821968][/doublepost]i'm getting stuffed bad on DZZ. gold on a tear. i still believe in the fundamental tenet of this thread however. it's just a matter of time (& blocksize):

[doublepost=1467822377,1467821739][/doublepost]Eth testing support. my bet is down. also, listen to this LTB podcast at around 15:50 on the DAO part 2 where Andreas explains the "halting problem" as it relates to Turing completeness in Ethereum in general. not good:

 

[xhiggy]

@xhiggy that sounds about right. What's not quantified are the benefits of running a node.

We don't need additional incentives they already exist.

It's my opinion running a node will always have a positive cost benefit so long as we have a functional economy where competition exists.

The less you trust the competition the more value there is in running a node.

The incentives come from the fact that you need to be free from fraud for your application, so you pay to run a full node. I didn't mean to say that they should be given incentive by an external fund, but should be considered as a cost to running business using bitcoin, which for many applications should result in them getting more profit than using alternative systems to bitcoin.


One thing that zombie nodes do, is make it easier to survive a hard fork. Seeing as how one side of the fork will attack the other sides nodes...

 

[cliff]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-markets-idUSKCN0ZM021

 

[solex]

i'm getting stuffed bad on DZZ. gold on a tear. i still believe in the fundamental tenet of this thread however. it's just a matter of time (& blocksize):

@cypherdoc
I believe that this is part of the problem with expecting gold to decline any time soon. Historically it has been regarded as a zero-yield asset, but looks good compared to negative yield debt. Gold is still a refuge and with $7tn of it lying around the effect of crypto is a flea on an elephant, That flea will grow bigger fast, through, as you indicate, capacity constraints remain a concern.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

 

[freetrader]

also, listen to this LTB podcast at around 15:50 on the DAO part 2 where Andreas explains the "halting problem" as it relates to Turing completeness in Ethereum in general.

Ok, I must admit I didn't listen to the clip because the halting problem has been an intuitive aspect for me even before it was explained at university.

When I first saw the subject mentioned in your post however, I thought "Who'll be the first to claim they've solved the halting problem?", my next thought was "please don't let it be Andreas" and third came an idea for a must-have game show "Who wants to be a <insert fav altcoin> millionaire?" To be honest I've put seeing such a show on my bucket list. The questions would of course all be chosen from cryptocurrency lore. JVP could be host.

 

[cliff]

Others may know more about this type of thing than me, but it doesn't sound great for the state of the economy:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-reverserepos-idUSKCN0ZM22V
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repurchase_agreement#Reverse_repo

Also, edited the post above w/ the Slate article to highlight this sentence which I overlooked:
But she also looked at the impact of the weather, the economy, service changes, and multiple other factors and found what really increased ridership was more-frequent buses and shorter trip times. This is hardly a Moneyball-type revelation from the crunching of Big Data. “Yeah. Common sense,” Brakewood said.

 

[Zarathustra]

How does that apply to Bitcoin (or any other commodity money)?

Metals became money because the war lords demanded it from the people (tribute/tax) to produce weapons and because they promised it to the soldiers (IOU Gold).

As soon as the state (war lords/church) demands production (metal/grain) as a tax/tribute, the surplus production begins. Those who are not able to deliver at scheduled date are forced to lend gold (with interests, which enforces even more surplus production). Those debt papers then became money (Greaber "Debt - the first 5'000 years").

Graeber: “Say a king wishes to support a standing army of 50,000 men. Under ancient or medieval conditions, feeding such a force was an enormous problem… On the other hand, if one simply hands out coins to soldiers and then demands that every family in the kingdom was obliged to pay one of those coins back to you [to pay taxes], one would, in one blow, turn one’s entire national economy into a vast machine for the provisioning of soldiers, since now every family, in order to get their hands on the coins, must find some way to contribute to the general effort to provide soldiers with the things they want.”

 

[AdrianX]

One thing that zombie nodes do, is make it easier to survive a hard fork. Seeing as how one side of the fork will attack the other sides nodes...

I'm not sure when or at what point zombie nodes become part of a sybil attack, a centralized authority with an agenda could easily deploy such a schema.

on your former point, yes it's the cost of doing business and it's a relatively benign cost less than 1/10th of an entry level salary even with blocks an order of magnitude bigger than they are now.

I used the term social benefit tax a while back - and @Justus Ranvier didn't like it, but I see the cost of running a node kind of like a tax you pay to keep a verified backup of the global commerce ledger and validates every transaction before adding. it's a tax because you get the benefit and it's a social good because you share it, not out of altruism but because you want everyone else to have the same copy as you.

 

[freetrader]

@jonny1000

Since you didn't want to answer my "Who told you...?" question on this forum, I had to bring it up again (but you're aware since the comment was a reply to you):

 

[Roy Badami]

But I would characterize SW as a way to appease kore dev which i don't think is necessary right now if the miners are willing to do the 2MBHF.

But I thought the miners' plan was conditional on segwit being merged into Classic. Unless there's a new plan I missed?

 

[cypherdoc]

interesting:

http://www.silverdoctors.com/gold/gold-news/sweden-gold-and-silver-dealer-shut-down-banking-system/

 

[freetrader]

So, like Uber in Argentina, silver and gold dealers now have to turn to crypto?

Dis gunna be good.

Double-plus good because, hehe, *Argentina* .

Question to you goldbugs: why is there no country named after gold? Or is there? (I never paid much attention in geography)

 

[cypherdoc]

One of the bigger disappointments in the space was when Pieter Wuille defended 1MB blocks because otherwise there would be no incentive to work on offchain solutions. Well, duh.
[doublepost=1467838663][/doublepost]Have his posts been getting stranger and stranger over time?