Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

We're still in a large bull flag. Nows not the time to get bearish.

 

[IstvanZoltan]

The tragicomically insane u/pokertravis @NashGuy - whose two favorite words are "sincere" and "player" - is well-known for constantly spouting incoherent gibberish while calling other people "ignorant."

He thinks he's special because he uses words like "Hayekian" and "Keynesian" all the time.

But due to his weak grasp of logic and language (not to mention economics!), he has no idea what those words actually mean, and he tends to use them totally backwards - like when he claims that removing a 1 MB limit somehow constitutes "Hayekian central planning" - or that "scaling Bitcoin to be coffee money" would be "Keynesian central banking":



He likes to go around beating everyone over the head claiming that he's only one who has "read the literature" - which in his case means some stuff by his hero John Nash about "Ideal Money" which isn't re-levant to current Bitcoin scaling issues. (He also likes to put a hyphen in the word "re-levant" all the time because he thinks that's impressive.)

He actually is very "sincere" - ie, he is insufferably well-meaning and earnest in his delusions - and although he does have a reasonably decent grasp of English syntax, he seems to be blissfully unaware of the fact that words have meanings, so his arguments tend to be totally devoid of semantics and thus not even worth addressing, as can be seen from some of his earlier incoherent ramblings cited below:


https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4ic230/i_cant_fairly_participate_when_multiple_posters/

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4id38k/i_call_the_communitys_attention_i_am_being_mauled/

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4idhzg/this_player_spent_the_entire_day_researching_me/

https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4idi8o/this_player_spent_the_entire_day_researching/

In all fairness, /u/pokertravis does not really seem to be a "shill" in the usual sense of the word - because in some sense, he is quite "sincere" in his posts, which sometimes have a veneer of lucidity, until he inevitably descends into incoherent rambling and pompous, pseudointellectual gibberish:


He is known for spamming forums with massively downvoted meaningless OPs which he thinks are deep and clever but which are actually simply ridiculous and bizarre - eg:

> Rethinking Babel

https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hm9b5/rethinking_babel/

---

> Random patterns

https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3uimnp/random_patterns/

---

> If I told you we were going to build a pyramid this might not be so useful...

https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3und3g/if_i_told_you_we_were_going_to_build_a_pyramid/

---

> Theymos (and /rbitcoin) is the only moderator across MANY forums/sites that doesn't have me on perma ban.

https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/412090/theymos_and_rbitcoin_is_the_only_moderator_across/

---

> What happened to bitcoin.

https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4g6wox/what_happened_to_bitcoin/

---

He apparently believes that Bitcoin should be a "settlement layer":

> Are you sad Satoshi lied to you?

https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/49cc0m/are_you_sad_satoshi_lied_to_you/

---

> In regard to Keynesian Block-size manipulation vs a Settlement system, what is Ideal Money?

https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/49f0zd/in_regard_to_keynesian_blocksize_manipulation_vs/

---

> Block-chain Keynesians: The big banks, and the big bitcoin corporations don't want to let bitcoin become the new settlement system!

https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/49du6i/blockchain_keynesians_the_big_banks_and_the_big/

As the titles of those last two OPs of his above show (where he manages to get confused between the elementary concepts of Keynesian money supply inflation - and transaction capacity LOL!) /u/pokertravis @NashGuy likes to name-drop in a misguided attempt to create the impression that he is not entirely clueless about economics.

---

And finally: This is probably the stupidest post ever from u/pokertravis @NashGuy :

> If bitcoin's block's were "too small" your bitcoins would be worth far money than if blocks were bigger

https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4bzvie/if_bitcoins_blocks_were_too_small_your_bitcoins/

---

The five stages of u/pokertravis @NashGuy are as follows:

First people welcome him (like @cypherdoc innocently did earlier).

Then they debate him.

Then they ridicule him.

Then they pity him.

And finally, they simply ignore him.

 

[cypherdoc]

bwahahaha. what a great summary! and guess what? he did all that shit you listed here in this thread...wait for it...just yesterday!

i'd replace stage 5 with what happened here last night:

"And finally, we spanked him."

 

[jbreher]

Orphan risk cost = the expected loss in revenue due to expected orphan risk = probability of orphan * miner revenue in block in USD

total miner revenue = transaction volume * average fee * bitcoin USD FX rate + block reward * FX rate

Yes this can be considered over a period of time.

I don't know if there is remaining imprecision in your math, or if I am just being dense today. It appears to me that there is a time element to both numerator and denominator, such that the period of time -- or measured as # of blocks -- can be factored out?

Are you trying to say that as the probability of any given block being orphaned approaches 50%, that things break down?

Why would a miner create a block that odds of zero reward wold be halvsies? It would seem to me that a rational miner would create blocks that stand a negligible chance of being orphaned, no?

Then this would be catastrophic for the network as it would be a huge centralizing force on the mining industry. As I explained this is because in general it is easier for a miner to propagate to themselves.

Inasmuch as many, of not most, miners are actually loosely-affiliated, geographically dispersed collectives, I'm not sure I buy your assertion that there is any benefit due to miners 'propagating to themselves'. Even if there would be any such advantage, any latency in propagation that may arise is also a countervailing additional chance of orphanage.

Many keep arguing (which I find frustrating) that this does not matter because orphan risk is low, as I keep explaining, if orphan risk cost is large relative to total mining industry revenue, then this necessarily matters as the impact is guaranteed to be large relative to the industry revenue.

Miners are able to balance their own risk of orphanage by choosing a suitable blocksize. While this is certainly a stochastic element to this choice, it would seem folly to create blocks that stand a high probability of being orphaned. Why do you think they would?

There are also all kinds of other negative consequences of this, such as wasted work and miners competing over propagation instead of hashing.

You would need to explain to me why these so-claimed 'negative' situations actually are negative to the integrity of the system as a whole.

This is directly against the vision many have for the future, which is that as technology improves the orphan risk cost can be low (RELATIVE TO MINING REVENUE).

Why do you think that orphan risk cost would be high? Further, why is this 'vision held by many' in any way relevant? For that matter, how large is this 'many'?

If technology improves so much and the transaction volume can be very high, why bother risking destroying the network by pushing orphan risk right to the limit?

You have not demonstrated that orphan risk would be 'pushed right to the limit'. Or if it was, that this would be 'catastrophic to the network'. Heck, you've not even defined what that 'limit' even is.
[doublepost=1469166193][/doublepost]

He is the only mod on the internet that took the time to make sure my voice could be heard.

Funny, this forum's mod is allowing your voice to be heard.

I'm not so sure that the ideas in your head are coming through your words, but that's on you.

 

[cypherdoc]

the thing i like about forums like this is that all the painful history of stupid comments is right here; it doesn't go away and is easily reviewable by all. yes, @NashGuy has it backwards once again. it is his comments that will be laughed at for years.

 

[IstvanZoltan]

In amongst all the nagging negativistic nay-sayers, it is rare to find a sincere player such as @NashGuy u/pokertravis who has actually read the literature, and who seems to truly understand the deeper significance of Ideal Money - in particular the admittedly somewhat hard-to-grasp and rather arcane concept that "the death of bitcoin as a 'currency' will not be a bad thing", as @NashGuy u/pokertravis so aptly put it:


https://archive.is/YYqKt

I would also at this time like to take this opportunity to provide a link to a later work which had heretofore been rather difficult to find online due to an unfortunate formatting glitch whilst converting from the original Microsoft PowerPoint to LaTeX, and which I expect that a sincere player like @NashGuy u/pokertravis - with his deep understanding of syntax, semantics, computer science and economics - will find quite stimulating and fascinating in its sesquipedalian obfuscation:

https://www.docdroid.net/zZr8FxQ/decoupling-hierachical-databases-from-b-trees-in-consistent-hashing.pdf.html

Of course, this level of intellectual inquisition is not for the faint of heart, hence I would only expect a sincere player such as @NashGuy u/pokertravis to be able to truly appreciate such an erudite text - since he's one of the few who has actually read the literature.

With his deep appreciation for the little-known fact that removing Bitcoin's artificial 1 MB max blocksize would literally constitute Hayekian central planning and Keynesian central banking (see his brilliant quotes in post #14745 above), @NashGuy u/pokertravis has shown that he is among the anointed few who can truly levate the way to the death of the scaling of Bitcoin as a currency in the re-levant sense of Ideal Money!

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

The tragicomically insane u/pokertravis @NashGuy - whose two favorite words are "sincere" and "player" - is well-known for constantly spouting incoherent gibberish while calling other people "ignorant."
https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4bzvie/if_bitcoins_blocks_were_too_small_your_bitcoins/

---

The five stages of u/pokertravis @NashGuy are as follows:

First people welcome him (like @cypherdoc innocently did earlier).

Then they debate him.

Then they ridicule him.

Then they pity him.

And finally, they simply ignore him.

Thank you! This was the post from /u/ydtm I searched without success the last days / nights. Perfect analyzes.
[doublepost=1469175091][/doublepost]

bwahahaha. what a great summary! and guess what? he did all that shit you listed here in this thread...wait for it...just yesterday!

i'd replace stage 5 with what happened here last night:

"And finally, we spanked him."

Since I simply blocked him - what happened?

 

[Bagatell]

Since I simply blocked him - what happened?

Yes, let's feed the troll AGAIN!

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

@Bagatell

Yeas, please, let's feed him, I bought a big bag of old and stupid questions )

I was just curious --

 

[freetrader]

Please don't. Give him his well-deserved rest after the spanking.

@Christoph Bergmann , if you brought a big bag we can still discuss why your blog, bitcoinblog.de, is still linking to /r/Bitcoin even after you post things like this:


Because someone linking to the sub is on a whole 'nother level of support than someone just posting there, esp. Eric Voorhees posting there to *complain* about the censorship.

Is there some technical reason you can't at least ADD /r/btc to your blog to present a more balanced view ("offer alternative products") ?

At least EU regulations prescribe that ingredients of products should be clearly marked by a label ;-)
Maybe the /r/Bitcoin link needs a "May contain censorship" sticker...

I asked you the same question almost two weeks ago, still no answer:

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/german.42/page-2#post-24405

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

@freetrader

yes. I'm somehow insatisfied with this and I have to admit you're right with this.

About your post: I didn't read it, sorry, if I had, I had given you an answer. Next time I miss it, give me a pm please.

1. we changed it today, but for reasons I don't know it needs time (maybe cache). If you look at this article
https://bitcoinblog.de/2016/07/19/steem-die-kryptowaehrung-die-nicht-durch-mining-sondern-durch-content-entsteht/
you see that the change is already enforced.
The reaction of r/bitcoin on the ethereum-hf was the last drop for me.

2. The blog is sponsored by bitcoin.de, as you might know. Bitcoin.de itself is far more skeptical about a contentious blocksize-hardfork as I am, because as an exchange every disruption means a lot of work and risk and complication and potential downtime. The conversations have been like this "Yes, we need bigger blocks, but this ... what should we do when a fork happens? Will we have two coins? or three? Do we need to stop trading in that time? Do we need to double-spend coins for our customers? hopefully this madness doesn't happen." They made a lot of plans and tests to protect customers of a hardfork, but they are happy it didn't happen by now.

This is btw why I think we see such a low number of classic-nodes - businesses fear disruption and stay on the secure status-quo. They are NOT with core for ideological / personal reasons (like r/bitcoin propagates) but simple because they prefer stability. If the fork happens, I guess you will see nearly zero resistance from most nodes, since they just want to stay on the correct chain.

So, short answer: Since the issue was discussed controveral by the team of bitcoin.de iteself it was not adequate to start feeding an alternative sub that was made to propagate a contentious hardfork. I understand this, and I love bitcoin.de.

3. The blog is to some part made for customers of bitcoin.de. This customers have a wide variety of oppinions to the blocksize-issue, what I experience often when I write about it. We try to separate it - and I have an incredible freedom of mind and thought and writing - but sometimes the oppinion of the blog is confused with the opinion of bitcoin.de. And the position of bitcoin.de in the blocksize-debate was and is neutrality.

Feeding r/btc is in some times a constant shooting for bigger blocks and a hardfork and not adequate for the blog with its audience. It's like running a restaurant and having on tv constantly rt-deutsch or zerohedge and so on.

4. It's hard to find a good alternative. I personally like r/btc, but the frequence of personal attacks on core devs, conspiracy theories and monothematics about blocksize is from time to time disturbing and I don't want to feed this exclusively on my blog. I have never been a fan of conspiracy-theories and while I personally find some voyeuristic pleasure in reading them and the personal attcks, I don't think it helps anything. The idea with the feed on my blog is that people visiting it get in touch with bitcoin news I don't have the time to write about it / don't think they are relevant enough. Unfortunately r/bitcoin serves this purpose still better than r/btc if it isn't about issues that are object of moderation / manipulation like altcoins or classic.

5. Our solution now is to feed r/bitcoin+btc to get a more adequate image of the news and posts. I assume you are not completely satisfied with it, because we still support somehow censorship, but as things are now, this is the only solution I am / we are ok with. I hope you understand.

Edit: it seems like the double-feed r/btc+bitcoin produces not-clickable headlines. Hmm ... that's bad ... does anyone know another way to address this?

 

[freetrader]

@Christoph Bergmann : Thank you for the reasoned response.

I was indeed unaware of the closer connection between your blog and bitcoin.de . Interesting that sponsorship plays a significant role.

I read your articles sometimes, and I know what you say about yourself having an open mind is true.

The multi-reddit link solution is a good one.

Maybe you'll be surprised that I am satisfied with that. I think it's more important that people learn that forums like Reddit consist of many subforums, and that they can use the power of technology to inform themselves widely.

If /r/Bitcoin is only "Bitcoin happy news" and /r/btc is 50/50, then at least now they'll still see a mix of 75% happy news with 25% "hmm, that might be something to think about". It's a good start!

What matters most in the end is that they realize that /r/Bitcoin is not the *only* subreddit, and that there are more opinions out there. I have some trust in the intelligence of people to read and understand varying opinions, and to recognize censorship when they are shown that they can step in/out of the bubble.

If you look at this article
https://bitcoinblog.de/2016/07/19/s...-durch-mining-sondern-durch-content-entsteht/
you see that the change is already enforced.

Yes, it works there for me. Good stuff. I hope that percolates through to the front page where it matters most.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

That looks like Core is planning for success:
http://coinmarketcap.com/charts/#btc-percentage

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

@freetrader

Are you able to click links to the reddits?

And yes, sponsorship plays an important role, and bitcoin.de is a fantastic sponsor. I never ever thought that writing in demand of a company can come along with a niveau of freedom to write and think I never experienced before when i wrote for magazines and "real journalism".

I'm happy you like the solution.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

@Christoph Bergmann
It works for me, when I click an article, but on the mainpage (bitcoinblog.de) it's still only /r/bitcoin.

The links are both clickable for me.

Thanks for fixing that.

edit: Headlines are working for the multireddit for me.
edit:: fixed typo

 

[freetrader]

@freetrader
Are you able to click links to the reddits?

Yes, I got through to the multireddit from various articles.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

@freetrader
@satoshis_sockpuppet

Ok, fine. I remembered that the headlines have been clickable too, but I think I was wrong.

You also see the old version on the startpage? We too. So it has nothing to do with some strange behavior of our browser, but it's most likely a strange behaviour of the wp-plugin. We are puzzled about this, too ...
[doublepost=1469186408][/doublepost]Ah, and here's my post of today, I guess people here are interested in this:

https://bitcoinblog.de/2016/07/22/der-wahre-effekt-des-bitcoin-halvings/

For those of you not familiar with our complicated language, here's a shortcut:

This chart:
https://blockchain.info/de/charts/cost-per-transaction-percent?timespan=all&daysAverageString=7&scale=1
is the most important chart for the health of bitcoin the system and it indicates that bitcoin has never been in a better state than today.

It shows the relative cost of transactional volume. This means: it shows the share the miners get in percent of the transaction volume in dollars. Bitcoin has never been a cheaper mean of payment that today. That's surprising, but true.

 

[Inca]

@Christoph Bergmann :

Never been cheaper for that measure.

Not true for the absolute costs per transaction which is what users see. And certainly far higher than it needs to be given the artificial fee market.

Another reason why the jokers don't want to fork to 2mb is that fees will reduce immediately and hugely when that happens, the world will keep turning and another of the idiotic policies they are driving will be proven to be nonsensical.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

And under 80% market dominance again. Whey!
You did it Core! Can we break the all-time record of 75%? It will be exciting! Stay tuned!

 

[Bagatell]

80%? Pfftt..

"Firstly, to clarify, yes you are correct in that I absolutely would "hold on to strong consensus even if it destroyed the price".

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-562#post-20325