Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
El-Erian goes on yet again about the fall of "expert opinion". sounds familiar, eh?:

[doublepost=1468629903,1468629213][/doublepost]
@solex


That's good news to hear. It can get a little disheartening sifting through all the shit posts on Reddit and incessant trolling. One group of developers should not be able to dictate the direction of the protocol at such a crucial stage in it's development. - I was led to believe this was OPEN source. and that stood for "collaboration" in the pure scientific sense, rather than it's more recently used 'prisoner of war' sense as Dr Back uttered it.

I tend to agree that an algorithmic method has the best chance for success here, as no limit requires an almost religious belief that a free market on block space will function effectively. Having watched this fuss with all of you for the past year, it's clear not many are ready for that kind of leap in understanding. Unlimited will be ready when they are ;-)

I will admit, having lived entirely in BTC for some time now, that over the last 6 months selling up had crossed my mind. If it were not for the wisdom held within this thread, and the many excellent articles from @Justus Ranvier @DanielKrawisz @KonradSGraf. + many more, I think the majority of logical leaps in understanding to get to this point would have escaped me. Bitcoin is quite simply the best form of money mankind has yet achieved. As such selling up is illogical. (medium - long term thinking). Perfect money is the language of the free market, it was born there, it will exist there, and it will adapt there until it is no longer required.

We've already established humanity has all the tools required to perfect free market money, the only question left to ask is how long it will take to get us there.

Ps if the gods of the free market are listening? Another order of magnitude in price would certainly help to speed things along.
@Justus Ranvier is doing a great job on his podcasts. now if only he'd tell those 2 interviewers to shut up and quit interrupting, maybe he could get out a sequence of thoughts and move things along. i know he's trying to stay low, but given the content of what he's saying, he might as well keep posting here. it'd be more efficient. :p
[doublepost=1468630810][/doublepost]as a Turk, you can forget about buying gold in these situations. it would get confiscated immediately or stolen off your person.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
Bitcoin grinding higher. there seems to be a never ending series of geopolitically diverse crises going on each week now. what's next? we are clearly in a bull flag extending the bull mkt since the bottom of September. looks good to me:

 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
oh yeah, this is brilliant. isn't this the Goldman guy who shit all over the financial crisis of 2008? he has no idea what he is saying:

Fed's Kashkari says dollar could lose reserve currency status

If the euro or China's yuan did become the world's reserve currency, said the 42-year-old Kashkari, it could be a positive development for the United States, whose currency strengthens during global crises, hurting U.S. exports and manufacturing.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/feds-kashkari-says-dollar-could-190629482.html
 

jonny1000

Active Member
Nov 11, 2015
380
101
@jonny1000 - Can you talk more about this? Was there a study done or something?
My comment was not based on a study no. To me it seems like common sense. In a massive oversimplification, lets say there are too possibilities for payment channels:

1. Users do not use them for whatever reason and they fail - No impact on on-chain transaction demand

2. Users gain advantages from payment channels and they succeed - Demand for space on the chain increases due to demand to open channels, close channels and settle disputes

Please can you explain your theory as to why payment channel technology would reduce demand for space on the blockchain? I really do not get it. Perhaps it is about diverting developer time from other ideas you may like, but developers need to be free to work on what they want, unless somebody pays them.
 

Inca

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 28, 2015
517
1,679

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
Gimme a break. This is exactly what I was complaining about yesterday night about you. You must be tone deaf. Those arguments that you don't understand and claim you've never heard have been advanced by bitcoin experts
time and again numerous times over the last year. Just about every argument has been repeated and refined to the point that they should be on your fingertips.

You argue disingenuously

My comment was not based on a study no. To me it seems like common sense. In a massive oversimplification, lets say there are too possibilities for payment channels:

1. Users do not use them for whatever reason and they fail - No impact on on-chain transaction demand

2. Users gain advantages from payment channels and they succeed - Demand for space on the chain increases due to demand to open channels, close channels and settle disputes

Please can you explain your theory as to why payment channel technology would reduce demand for space on the blockchain? I really do not get it. Perhaps it is about diverting developer time from other ideas you may like, but developers need to be free to work on what they want, unless somebody pays them.
 

jonny1000

Active Member
Nov 11, 2015
380
101
Gimme a break. This is exactly what I was complaining about yesterday night about you. You must be tone deaf. Those arguments that you don't understand and claim you've never heard have been advanced by bitcoin experts time and again numerous times over the last year. Just about every argument has been repeated and refined to the point that they should be on your fingertips.

You argue disingenuously

I am sorry you feel that way. In contrast, despite your tone, I think you are authentic.

Are any of you planning on attending the next scaling conference in Milan. I hope if we meet in person you will consider me more genuine.
 

jonny1000

Active Member
Nov 11, 2015
380
101
albin said:
Why does everything always have to be personal and about you?
I think its because some people do not have the patience or expertise to engage in technical debate then get frustrated and make it personal. This is a very unfortunate circumstance, which is holding Bitcoin back. For example comments like:
You must be tone deaf.
I strongly believe these types of comments would not be made face to face. I would guess the person who made these comments is nice in real life and is also authentic. People are just getting frustrated about the blocksize. However I would encourage everyone to try to remain calm, patient, polite and assume good faith.

Why do you think people make it personal?
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
There's common decency rule on the Internet that basically says you shouldn't make people have to repeat something if they've already explained themselves. Usually, i do just repeat myself when asked. But you're right, this debate has gone on long enough and in your case, i think you're being intentionally ignorant. The solution if you're being genuine? Simply go back and review my post history on why and how onchain tx's are being limited currently and especially when LN is in place. Your own buddies explain it well when they say "settlement layer", even though i think that's an illusion.

I think its because some people do not have the patience or expertise to engage in technical debate then get frustrated and make it personal. This is a very unfortunate circumstance, which is holding Bitcoin back. For example comments like:


I strongly believe these types of comments would not be made face to face. I would guess the person who made these comments is nice in real life and is also authentic. People are just getting frustrated about the blocksize. However I would encourage everyone to try to remain calm, patient, polite and assume good faith.

Why do you think people make it personal?
 

cliff

Active Member
Dec 15, 2015
345
854
My comment was not based on a study no. To me it seems like common sense. In a massive oversimplification, lets say there are too possibilities for payment channels:

1. Users do not use them for whatever reason and they fail - No impact on on-chain transaction demand

2. Users gain advantages from payment channels and they succeed - Demand for space on the chain increases due to demand to open channels, close channels and settle disputes

Please can you explain your theory as to why payment channel technology would reduce demand for space on the blockchain? I really do not get it. Perhaps it is about diverting developer time from other ideas you may like, but developers need to be free to work on what they want, unless somebody pays them.

@jonny1000 - I appreciate the answer here. IMHO - making an argument based on "common sense" is fine so long as said basis clear, open for discussion, and open to the possibility of being wrong/not exactly correct.

As far as my theory goes, I don't much have one - at least not regarding payment channel technology vis-a-vis block space demand. Others here would maybe tell you (hopefully?) that I like to try out all kinds of arguments - some of which are sympathetic to a big block size and some not. TBH, I'm more of a student of argument and rhetoric than anything (not IRL . . . anymore, grad school was long ago - now I'm just a lawyer who stumbled onto btc several years back and am still dumbfounded by how cool it is). That said, I deal w/ pro bullshitters all day long and am fairly good at pressing for additional information when people just assert things as fact/truth - can't do that in court, everything has to have a foundation. (y)

Anyway, here's how I think about demand for blockspace and capacity generally (I'll work on editing this post today w/ some citation - Saturday mornings at my house are crazy): in the short-term, demand out-strips supply for block space - this has nothing to do w/ devs, but totally with hype, speculation, and user word-of-mouth. However, there's a real risk of users turning away from BTC in the medium to long-term due to user needs being unfilled, on-chain settlement becoming too expensive and uncertain, and users generally feeling shat-upon by core and co. In short, guessing that demand for blockspace (and BTC) will continue or increase in the future due to lightening payment channels irresponsibly assumes way too much and is sorta arrogant as fuck - it assumes that people will want to wait around for you - they don't, nobody likes you guys enough at this point to wait around much longer; your motives and competence are now in question - 43 weeks and 6 days ago they were not (this is not necessarily my think, btw - I'm telling you what I see).

Let me elaborate and try and break out some specific thoughts (sorry this is gonna be long and rambly):

-BTC is nothing without its users and speculators.

-BTC has X capacity.

-User demand for block space exceeds X capacity often (i'll call it a "capacity gap" or "CG" for this discussion). Demand seems to be growing at rate faster than capacity (I concede segwit may increase capacity to some degree for some user groups) and the CG seems to be growing.

-BTC has demand because it solves a problem. BTC has value b/c a lot of folks (users and speculators) agree that that it solves a problem. The underlying premise of BTC - and coolest part - is a ledger of truth that rank-orders transactions based on time - just like how real estate records operate in race-notice jurisdictions and jurisdictions that have adopted Uniform Commercial Code-like laws (I've been writing about this for months here - go back to my December 2015 and Jan 2016 forum posts here, and I'm not the person who posted this same idea on /r/BTC yesterday - others are just now figuring it out on their own/getting vocal about it). RBF brakes the coolest part of bitcoin and goes against long-standing legal doctrine that pervades much of the world by allowing people to cut in line and thereby making settlement time unpredictable and uncertain. Lightning contributes to the breakage as well since onchain settlements are delayed; many transactions will require credit or insurance to mitigate the risk of a transaction not being final or recorded on-chain in time for whatever.

-BTC is open source and the current developers are not the only talented and competent folks out there that can work on cryptocurrency. Current developers are not necessarily the most talented and most competent folks out there either - they're not rigorous enough for that, many come across as smart amateur scientists more than anything, but they also appear afraid of the professional and rigorous peer review you might see at a university or well-established company. Devs have clearly gone in hiding mode so they don't have to confront and entertain the ideas of other computer scientists, competent professionals, and users. Sad.

-BTC is not the only tech that can solve the problems it was designed to solve. And, the tech doesn't matter that much - see @DanielKrawisz's latest article.

-Clearly, a lot of experimentation is happening right now w/ other cryptos and blockchains. I suspect some of this is because the CG persists and is growing. Some of it is also because the developer space comes across as unfriendly, ungrateful to the users and speculators (i.e, the customers), unwelcoming and arbitrary ( e.g., you did just admit your projection on block space demand was based on your common sense, not anything objective).

-The world is a competitive place.

- Given the state of the CG and core's apparent hatred for its customers, my common sense - along w/ professional experience advising a lot of businesses - tells me that the long-term survival of BTC, core, and its supporting companies is far from guaranteed.

People in this space - even regular ole users - are innovators that don't like to watch paint dry - the world is too exciting and moves way too fast for that. They don't like being manipulated and censored; and, they don't like feeling abandoned to developer self-interest. Users don't like having their demand for block space unfulfilled and they don't like network congestion generally, especially when the rationale is based opinion and subjective common sense (who likes sitting in a traffic jam?). Customers won't wait indefinitely - the rate of growth in altcoins and blockchains is some proof of this. Customers don't like being blamed every time they have a problem, question or concern with trying to use bitcoin in internet commerce - the wallet and user material therefor in this regard is rag-tag and lacking; clearly, this is one reason why Hearn was a threat - he was/is a professional with standards that include finishing projects so that they're user friendly (this gave him political power), its also why you guys redefined "community" to be "technical community," whatever that means, for measuring consensus.

Frankly, Core's credibility is sinking by the day and the whole situation has become a soap opera. I'm not a fan of this - it is embarrassing for everyone at this point - but it appears true. The dev decision-making comes across as so arbitrary/not objective/not based on rigorous science, opaque, and at times contradictory, that you guys have fucked yourselves and irreparably damaged your reputations - its sad. Honestly, after the inevitable fork (I don't want the one that's coming, but its coming - the dishonest tactics of some core devs (the dipshits are good example) have most certainly guaranteed it - they tainted all the core devs as liars and manipulators to the point that its too risky to associate w/ you guys now. So, I can see wide user focus soon converging on seeking core's removal and no longer their approval), you all might have problems finding work (you would in a normal industry, I can't see supporting companies like BS surviving over the long-term). I can totally see why folks either see core as incompetent when it comes to economics or business OR has a hidden agenda OR has been coopted. In a way, its comical, sorta like this: http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-french-president-barber-20160714-snap-story.html.

-Decentralization as a goal is great, but its a value judgment. Not everyone shares in that value in the same way/to the same degree, and you guys haven't proven you really value it because lightening and the current state of development seem to create centralization. You guys would benefit everyone by explaining in detail what you think it means/define it, why it is important, what it looks like implemented, and why the proposed plan is the best available way to achieve it before you force it down everyone's throat - you also need to answer the argument that you've made centralization and the continued prospects therefor worse.

gtg for now, but I'm sure you get the idea. Please don't take this as personal as it may appear - I wrote with some color, but mostly I'm parroting back observations. I'm happy to support small blocks IFF the science available in the open source process justifies it - right now, there's not enough evidence to overcome the common sense rationale for increasing capacity by raising block size limit.
 
Last edited:

albin

Active Member
Nov 8, 2015
931
4,008
@cypherdoc

On that thread, Maxwell actually goes and finds a paper that namedrops game theory like @Justus Ranvier was talking about on the podcast! This cannot get any more hilarious in my opinion.

The only thing the paper actually proves analytically is that a block size limit is equivalent to setting a tx fee floor, but the stuff Maxwell is actually interested in is just pontification in the conclusion text.
 

Inca

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 28, 2015
517
1,679
I have been thinking about things today whilst travelling abroad. It strikes me that bitcoin needs three things to happen to mature as an open source project.

1) a documented protocol
Currently the core client is the 'de facto' protocol. For bitcoin to rise above the governance issues it is being strangled by, a written version of the protocol should be documented and released.

2) bitcoin core/unlimited should be ported entirely to other languages such as python/JS etc.
The majority of the coders in the world do not use C++. It is time to open up the project to the millions of programmers who could contribute.

3) specifications for a validating node to be released
The usual suspects are now suggesting that the 1mb limit is in place to maintain decentralisation and prevent nodes dropping off the network.
Let us specify basic requirements expected of a node in terms of hardware/network and annual storage requirements.
Validating node software could have code added to allow objective assessments to be made of the performance that node on the network. These could then be used to create reports for each node and allow objective predictions of what performance increases the network can truly stand with increasing blocksize etc..

I suggest that the second two points be urgently introduced into Bitcoin Unlimited.

Thoughts on this? (@theZerg)
 
Last edited: