Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[lunar]

@satoshis_sockpuppet , @freetrader LoL

Does your blockchain require the highest standards of security? .... Your blockchain is Bitcoin.

 

[freetrader]

@lunar: I agree - the figure needs to be extended with a few "sound money" decision boxes.

I'm not sure what you should call what you end up with if you go down the wrong paths on those, but "short-lived" and "worthless blockchains" could be an idea, "Bitcoin" could be the successful outcome.

"[Bitcoin] is a potentially significant step forward in tackling the transparency problem, which has not yet been resolved despite the good intent of the post-crisis reforms."

I'm going to adopt that quote from the hearing in case I ever need to be diplomatic.

 

[cliff]

Sorry about yesterday, guys - I promise to eat less bait today.

 

[cypherdoc]

@cypher You said that Nash implied that our money systems should be pegged to cpi's or icpi's and I showed with evidence a quote from Ideal Money which shows that to be not true.

You repeatedly asked me to attend to this assertion and I repeatedly posted the quote and bolded and underlined the part that shows you misrepresented his view.
[doublepost=1469077703][/doublepost]want to make sure everyone sees that.
[doublepost=1469077795][/doublepost]Yes I am mixing words accidentally because https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_and_explicate_order Much of my works is also an extension of bohmian physics and philosophy as well. And its clear my language skills are not standard.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-734#post-25556

 

[freetrader]

 

[cypherdoc]

lol.

anyways, great thread here by Thomas Zander:

[doublepost=1469111908,1469111283][/doublepost]someone with posting privileges on r/bitcoin should take Gavin's OP title, make the post primarily about Bitcoin, and then submit to r/bitcoin to see if theymos follows his word:

 

[cliff]

Luke's response to TZ is interesting. Here's Satoshi's full message from which Luke's quote comes. Seems like there might be a bit of truth to what both Luke and TZ have said (I'm not a coder or developer though - so I may be way off w/ this assessment):

http://blog.oleganza.com/post/61694565252/satoshi-on-bitcoin-design

The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime. Because of that, I wanted to design it to support every possible transaction type I could think of. The problem was, each thing required special support code and data fields whether it was used or not, and only covered one special case at a time. It would have been an explosion of special cases. The solution was script, which generalizes the problem so transacting parties can describe their transaction as a predicate that the node network evaluates. The nodes only need to understand the transaction to the extent of evaluating whether the sender’s conditions are met.

The script is actually a predicate. It’s just an equation that evaluates to true or false. Predicate is a long and unfamiliar word so I called it script.

The receiver of a payment does a template match on the script. Currently, receivers only accept two templates: direct payment and bitcoin address. Future versions can add templates for more transaction types and nodes running that version or higher will be able to receive them. All versions of nodes in the network can verify and process any new transactions into blocks, even though they may not know how to read them.

The design supports a tremendous variety of possible transaction types that I designed years ago. Escrow transactions, bonded contracts, third party arbitration, multi-party signature, etc. If Bitcoin catches on in a big way, these are things we’ll want to explore in the future, but they all had to be designed at the beginning to make sure they would be possible later.

I don’t believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network. The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.​

 

[freetrader]

@cypherdoc: Gavin's posting privileges seem to be functional. I'm guessing he'll follow through with that.

 

[remile]

Schizophrenia is a hell of a drug.

 

[Inca]

Who cares what batshit crazy luke thinks. Or theymos who is censoring so heavily that gavin is having to ask if something is ok to post. Or Maxwell droning on with lies which are repeatedly found to be false. Useful idiots will always try and justify this in intellectual ways or for abstruse logical reasons.

But it is clear beyond reasonable doubt that there is no significant valid objection why bitcoin cannot safely move up in blocksize from 1mb to 2mb, just as there is no reason whatsoever why bitcoin cannot safely hard fork just as numerous coins have done without incident in the past.

Time has moved on. Bitcoin demand has moved on. Time to get behind BU and support an implementation which actually is designing for continued success rather than horrific stagnation.

 

[pekatete]

Useful idiots will always try and justify this in intellectual ways or for abstruse logical reasons.

I know many here have a different take on this, but IMO cue BS "defensive" bitcoin patenting ...

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

Yes. This chart is maybe a good example of bitcoin's currents state

https://blockchain.info/de/charts/n-transactions?timespan=2year

every month it becomes more visible that we hit the ceiling and do cut of transactional growth.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

I know many here have a different take on this, but IMO cue BS "defensive" bitcoin patenting ...

Point out where the problem supposedly is.

Just because BS had a devastating effect on Bitcoin because of the blocksize issue doesn't mean they can get something right.

The patent licence looks waterproof to me and there is no reason not so aplaude BS for that.
It just has nothing to do with the blocksize or hf/sf issue and the control of development.

And the last is only partly BS's fault. I don't see Coinbase paying developers for Unlimited (or are they?).

 

[pekatete]

@satoshis_sockpuppet - Just because BS had a devastating effect on Bitcoin because of the blocksize issue.
Your words .... my point, and the context ...

Useful idiots will always try and justify this in intellectual ways or for abstruse logical reasons.

 

[cliff]

Point out where the problem supposedly is.

Just because BS had a devastating effect on Bitcoin because of the blocksize issue doesn't mean they can get something right.

The patent licence looks waterproof to me and there is no reason not so aplaude BS for that.
It just has nothing to do with the blocksize or hf/sf issue and the control of development.

And the last is only partly BS's fault. I don't see Coinbase paying developers for Unlimited (or are they?).

Yeah, the public representations probably provide some (sort of depends) protection to folks if they were sued for some behavior/action/breach. I think its more likely the news about the policy was used to balance some anticipated negative comments RE: Ethereum's fork. I doubt its even news really - they maybe just put a longstanding policy in text form finally. Remember, Greg is a little bit of trail blazer in this topic area - he had that big jstor release following Schwartz's arrest.

 

[Inca]

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4txv2t/bitcoin_has_stopped_growing/

Hmm. Currently it is a great problem to have. If transaction numbers start to fall the situation for Core is going to become ugly very quickly.

You can even imagine how they will game this if bitcoin popularity starts to dwindle:.

Core: 'See we told you the limit works perfectly, demand comes in cycles and with rising demand fees went up. The fee market works!'

Miners: 'How the f*ck are we supposed to recoup our costs in the future with a falling block reward, stagnating exchange price and falling userbase?'

Core: 'Adam Back and Gregory Maxwell are not available right now. Please leave a message after the dial tone."

 

[Norway]

Dear Conference Attendee,


We hope you have enjoyed the conference on June 24-26, 2016.


We have now updated the www.onchainscaling.com website with produced videos for each of the presenters from the event. Please assist us in spreading the information from the event which will promote future On Chain Scaling Events. The subject of OnChain Scaling remains important to move Bitcoin towards global acceptance and adoption.


We are currently working towards doing a second event on August 30 and 31 to coincide with Jeff Garzik’s presentation which had been postponed because of travel delays.


Please reply to this email address with any feedback or ideas for presentations that you would like to see included in future events.


We have added your email to our new Website. If you would no longer like to receive emails from us please reply with UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject.


Your OnChain Scaling Conference Team

 

[solex]

@Inca
I think we will be shocked to learn how fast the cryptocurrency ecosystem can pivot to a new major coin. e.g. Coinbase is now supporting ETH.
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4ty3lk/coinbase_gives_the_middle_finger_to_core_ethereum/

Once the momentum has gone from BTC it won't come back. Steem has also left LTC behind. So, even though LTC can handle 4x the volume of BTC this alone isn't enough. The market is looking at the 2nd order blockchain services which follow. BTC has potential with Counterparty and Rootstock, but both are crippled with the capped on-chain limit. The network effect from BTC's first-mover status keeps this ship ahead of the rest at present, but for how long?

Goddamn, feel sad about being a Cassandra and preaching to the converted, so apologies to people sick of it already... :-(

 

[Inca]

@solex:

I'll be totally honest that right now I am diversified between bitcoin, USD and a hedge of ETH. I would much rather be all in bitcoin and no doubt that will cost me in the longer run.

But the decisions being taken by those in charge of the Core client are so illogical and wrong headed that were I discovering bitcoin now I would probably run a mile or buy ETH.

All we can do is persist in trying to offer a brilliant alternative codebase to Core in the form of BU, with a clear alternative vision that includes robust and safe on chain scaling. I believe wholeheartedly that were it not for the rampant censorship that this situation would have been resolved long ago in our favour.

I posted on /r/bitcoin yesterday with a pseudonym (for the first time in a long while) and what was striking was that simply speaking the truth there resulted in heavy upvotes, with the resident propagandists being downvoted heavily. So there is hope.

EDIT: @cypherdoc the votes only remain hidden for a certain time period (i believe 24 hours)..

 

[cypherdoc]

Point out where the problem supposedly is.

Just because BS had a devastating effect on Bitcoin because of the blocksize issue doesn't mean they can get something right.

The patent licence looks waterproof to me and there is no reason not so aplaude BS for that.
It just has nothing to do with the blocksize or hf/sf issue and the control of development.

And the last is only partly BS's fault. I don't see Coinbase paying developers for Unlimited (or are they?).

nothing is airtight. nonetheless, i am cautiously optimistic about only this point concerning Blockstream as i've stated.
[doublepost=1469125233][/doublepost]

Dear Conference Attendee,


We hope you have enjoyed the conference on June 24-26, 2016.


We have now updated the www.onchainscaling.com website with produced videos for each of the presenters from the event. Please assist us in spreading the information from the event which will promote future On Chain Scaling Events. The subject of OnChain Scaling remains important to move Bitcoin towards global acceptance and adoption.


We are currently working towards doing a second event on August 30 and 31 to coincide with Jeff Garzik’s presentation which had been postponed because of travel delays.


Please reply to this email address with any feedback or ideas for presentations that you would like to see included in future events.


We have added your email to our new Website. If you would no longer like to receive emails from us please reply with UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject.


Your OnChain Scaling Conference Team

it was really great. thank you.
[doublepost=1469125334][/doublepost]

@solex:

I'll be totally honest that right now I am diversified between bitcoin, USD and a hedge of ETH. I would much rather be all in bitcoin and no doubt that will cost me in the longer run.

But the decisions being taken by those in charge of the Core client are so illogical and wrong headed that were I discovering bitcoin now I would probably run a mile or buy ETH.

All we can do is persist in trying to offer a brilliant alternative codebase to Core in the form of BU, with a clear alternative vision that includes robust and safe on chain scaling. I believe wholeheartedly that were it not for the rampant censorship that this situation would have been resolved long ago in our favour.

I posted on /r/bitcoin yesterday with a pseudonym (for the first time in a long while) and what was striking was that simply speaking the truth there resulted in heavy upvotes, with the resident propagandists being downvoted heavily. So there is hope.

that's interesting. how were you able to see other's votes?