Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cliff]

@cypherdoc - Yep, I got that on RBF (i.e., clogged mempools). However, returning to my airline ticket example, doesn't that now mean we're going to have bidding wars at the ticketing gate to get on the plane? If RBF is used to cure a low fee for X but doesn't also raise block size limit for the targeted block, doesn't that also mean some transaction of Y's already broadcasted, but also not yet included in a block, has to be bumped if the targeted block becomes full as a result of X's low-fee-cure payment? Can't Y, upon realizing they're likely to be bumped - whenever they realize that - counterbid with their own cure payment to off-set X's cure payment? Seems like there could be spiral upwards in fees, which also seems like a nice attack vector for screwing up someone's channel. I might also just be lost in my head atm.

 

[pekatete]

The impact is not small.

Ok let me try to give you context again. There is this theory of "downward fee spiral" that may occur in the future, in the absence of a blocksize limit, which will be a problem when the block reward becomes small.
......

STOP basing your theories and arguments on events that you can not possibly predict the conditions in which they'd occur.

1. The block reward will become small when there is no block reward, aka in 2140.
2. You can not have any inkling (neither do I or anyone else for that matter) of what the tx demand will be at that point for one, let alone a multitude of other factors affecting the network in 2140

Basically, your downward fee spiral scenario is so far fetched it does not even warrant consideration, albeit for the trolling value.

 

[cypherdoc]

@cypherdoc - Yep, I got that on RBF (i.e., clogged mempools). However, returning to my airline ticket example, doesn't that now mean we're going to have bidding wars at the ticketing gate to get on the plane? If RBF is used to cure a low fee for X but doesn't also raise block size limit for the targeted block, doesn't that also mean some transaction of Y's already broadcasted, but also not yet included in a block, has to be bumped if the targeted block becomes full as a result of X's low-fee-cure payment? Can't Y, upon realizing they're likely to be bumped - whenever they realize that - counterbid with their own cure payment to off-set X's cure payment? Seems like there could be spiral upwards in fees, which also seems like a nice attack vector for screwing up someone's channel. I might also just be lost in my head atm.

that's true. my understanding is that if you replace your own low fee tx with a higher one, both can potentially get stuck in the mempools network wide. talk about congestion. not to mention that every full node had to pass around and validate your initial low fee tx. even if the higher fee tx clears, i believe the lower fee tx still sticks around.

 

[cliff]

@cypherdoc - Perhaps this is how mining cartels may come about?

 

[cypherdoc]

http://coincenter.org/link/a-resolution-calling-for-a-pro-bitcoin-national-policy-was-just-introduced-in-congress

 

[albin]

not to mention that every full node had to pass around and validate your initial low fee tx. even if the higher fee tx clears

How long before the Peter Todd / John Dillon clogged mempool 99.9% full blocks aggressive RBF scheme (that has now been realized by default) leads to calls to make transaction submission permissioned in order to remove this inefficiency?

 

[freetrader]

https://blockstream.com/2016/07/19/blockstream-defensive-patent-strategy/

 

[Inca]

With blockstream announcing this aggressive patenting stance does anyone else get the feeling the veil has just lifted?

We all wondered how they would monetise their seed funding.

 

[albin]

Remember back before Theymos destroyed the Bitcoin community, when I think BitGo was Satan incarnate on /r/bitcoin for defensive patents?

 

[cliff]

With blockstream announcing this aggressive patenting stance does anyone else get the feeling the veil has just lifted?

We all wondered how they would monetise their seed funding.

I think there are a few ways to think about this, all of which might be true:

1. BS is trying to do a good thing.
2. BS is going for easy, positive, diversionary PR given last few days - especially smarkbankings thread.
3. BS has some ideas that they want to patent up their sleeves -->

To that end, we make these promises:

Blockstream offers all of its patents and patent applications under the Defensive Patent License, version 1.1.
​

What patents?

4. They so Craigy.

 

[pekatete]

What can still be patented are the incremental improvements, complementary technologies, or additional applications of the technologies that are currently being developed.

If ever there was a right time and a good reason to fork away from this BS, it must be now..

 

[freetrader]

I'm not going with a default bad faith assumption on the patent issue, but if I had a patent I would sure as hell not see a need to sign it over to Blockstream for any reason.

This looks like a corporate fight developing of which I don't mind Blockstream being on the receiving end. I don't think Bitcoin will necessarily be affected, just that money will flow into some lawyers' pockets.

If I saw any leadership in BS that I could trust, perhaps my feelings would be different.

 

[Aquent]

https://cointelegraph.com/news/ethereum-miners-reach-conclusive-decision-to-hardfork

 

[cliff]

@freetrader - RE: " if I had a patent I would sure as hell not see a need to sign it over to Blockstream for any reason" - I dunno, seems like a way to capture some of that $76M (i.e., maybe BS wants to buy some technology/rights to technology).

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

So far the patent stuff seems to be completely ok to me, but IANAL and certainly not experienced in US software patents.
For the EU this stuff -luckily- is still not such a big issue anyway.

edit: It doesn't just look ok, it looks great. If this is what it looks like to me, Blockstream just went +10 points up in my score. The defensive patent pledge or whatever it's called looks super extra nice imho. Every other entity in the Bitcoin space should join this community imho.
Anybody has any real objections to this?

 

[lunar]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-19/financial-system-breaking-down-unimaginable-pace

In February 2015, the total amount of negative-yielding debt in the world was ‘only’ $3.6 trillion.

A year later in February 2016 it had nearly doubled to $7 trillion.
Now, just five months later, it has nearly doubled again to $13 trillion, up from $11.7 trillion just over two weeks ago.

Think about that: the total sum of negative-yielding debt in the world has increased in the last sixteen days alone by an amount that’s larger than the entire GDP of Russia.

 

[jonny1000]

STOP basing your theories and arguments on events that you can not possibly predict the conditions in which they'd occur.

Yes, I agree I do not know what will happen in the future. That is why all I am saying is lets keep our options open and not commit to removing the limit now.

I do not see why 2140 is the key date, the reward falls exponentially from here onwards.

 

[taxed4ever]

@jonny1000

It is out of your hands, the block-size will be raised and it is happening shortly.

As far as block-rewards are concerned, value continues to grow, not decline. In the year 2140, a single Bitcoin reward will have a value of some $1+ Billion USD.

 

[pekatete]

@jonny1000 - everyone knows you have no idea what will happen in the future, what you need to admit (to yourself for all I care!) is that you can not predict what the bitcoin network will be like in 2140 (if only in regard to tx demand, optimal block size, etc). What I am sure you know (and can reasonably predict with staggering accuracy) is that to keep our options open for scaling bitcoin, (quite literally in this case), entails removing the 1MB block size limit.

The block reward falling is NOT the same thing as the block reward becoming small, the former having just occurred recently (in case you missed it!) while the latter (equating to diminished block rewards in bitcoin terms) will occur circa 2140.

 

[cypherdoc]

So far the patent stuff seems to be completely ok to me, but IANAL and certainly not experienced in US software patents.
For the EU this stuff -luckily- is still not such a big issue anyway.

edit: It doesn't just look ok, it looks great. If this is what it looks like to me, Blockstream just went +10 points up in my score. The defensive patent pledge or whatever it's called looks super extra nice imho. Every other entity in the Bitcoin space should join this community imho.
Anybody has any real objections to this?

gotta admit, the intentions sound pretty good. i've read scarcely little about these concepts in years past, like the copyleft program. don't know anything really about them and certainly have no experience in these areas. but reading thru the blog, FAQ, and r/bitcoin thread, it is pretty hard to deny the intention. and those types of statements, even if informal, would carry some weight in court if it came to that. very interesting.
[doublepost=1468975799][/doublepost]

Yes, I agree I do not know what will happen in the future. That is why all I am saying is lets keep our options open and not commit to removing the limit now.

I do not see why 2140 is the key date, the reward falls exponentially from here onwards.

why not? it's the free market thing to do. feel free to dev SW, LN, & SC's if you want. but let onchain scaling happen unfettered.

your Tragedy of the Commons for miners has been debunked by my 3 dozen gvt miner scenario come 2140, which i consider a likely scenario tbh. they have no marginal costs.