Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Norway]

 

[Bagatell]

Which bit of this -

https://btc.com/00000000000000000424f83bfb012dd9704550c3a2e136fa2776bd5c46d7c947

tells me what code they're running?

 

[theZerg]

mouse over the blue "coinbase" button. If they wanted to tell you it would be in there. But they just put "Hello world!".

Also if you look at the version field, this block is not voting for 2MB so its almost certainly Core

 

[Bagatell]

@theZerg thank you sir.

 

[freetrader]

I don't think you can tell, usually. The block version isn't a reliable indicator.

So, looking at the coinbase, is that the first block from ViaBTC?
coin.dance shows the coinbase as:

o/ViaBTC/Hello, World!/,mm37JUȂwWf";8_$,%kV5

Is there a conventional way to decipher the other data?

 

[cliff]

Classic "failed" because it was contentious. If BIP100 had been presented to the miners as an official core release with full blockstream support, 100% of the miners would have supported it. Sort of like how 100% of the country accepts a new president even if 100% of the population did not vote for that candidate. The 75% in that vote does not correlate to the adoption rate.

The only way any blocksize increase can happen is if it comes from core. I predict another "contentious hard forks", no matter the deployment scheme, will lead to the same fate as XT and Classic.

This is probably true.

The best strategy for increasing block size - I think I've mentioned this before here too - is to dilute Core, not challenge Core IMHO. Challenging Core via another implementation team just creates a target for Core to resist and discredit. It also lets Core leverage historical and status quo functionality as well as un-reflective "bitcoin is cool" public sentiment. Dilution is much, much harder to fight by an incumbent group b/c otherizing, ostracizing, and attacking with big sweeping generalizations puts the entire group at risk - it forces cannibalization which should be somewhat of an existential threat.

Dilution can happen by dramatically increasing the number of active developers. It will happen naturally over time if no proactive moves to dilute happen first. A proactive dilution strategy might take two forms: 1 - incremental infiltration, 2- or at once by a bigger more talented dev team showing up and pumping out a lot of code and thereby reclaiming control (i.e., colonization - "hi guys, this is ours now. love, the technical community"). Number 1 is easier than number 2 - I attribute this to the github access stuff. In any case, the idea is to change in the core composition of the dev team - pun intended - from the inside out.

The best explanation I can think of for the current situation is the nature of btc related media. If a site has enough traffic, it will influence the community narrative. This is not a new phenomenon - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent. On the one hand, its really cool - controlling all the main media channels for the long haul is most likely impossible and new media seems to pop up if and when centralization is revealed (hence /r/btc and bitco.in). This provides the whole ecosystem with another layer of security - especially RE: attacks from state actors I think. Sidenote: maybe this (media/sentiment analysis) is an area to explore for measuring consensus in the future? On the other hand, the role of the btc media - including forums - is frustrating b/c the most popular channels at the moment do not have diversity in ownership (theymos) and that is clearly significant. In any case, knowing the importance of public communication vehicles gives a person some strategic moves if they're so inclined to make any.

Don't get me wrong, I would like bigger blocks. I think we need them soon. Just trying to be realistic at this point.

 

[freetrader]

@cliff: Brilliant plan. All we need to do is convince Lennart Poettering that bitcoind needs to become a part of systemd on Linux.

Yup, that should do it.

For those unfamiliar with the context: Lennart is the author of systemd, a replacement for the init system that traditionally controls the startup of processes on a UNIX-like system. The 'd' stands for 'daemon', i.e. systemd is an overarching system daemon that is supposed to be responsible for making sure everything else is started up smoothly etc. His work on that, mainly at RedHat, has been highly controversial as systemd has grown to encompass all sorts of functionality normally not viewed as part of the scope of an init system by those who hold a more UNIX-like philosophy of rather keeping programs simple and fulfilling one purpose well. His work has caused a rift in the Linux community, leading to forks of Debian which 'freed themselves' of systemd again.

IOW, he's got a proven track record of this sort of thing. He's got what I'd consider a similar sized ego to certain personalities in Core/Blockstream.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

Hei ...

@Norway: yes, it's time for eric vorhees to get along with it. He's complaining for half a year, and for half a year stupid rbitcoin moderator get their one-minute-of-grandness by explaining their shit to a man far greater than they are ... it's incredible ... nearly every moderator of rbitcoin was a username I saw before and thought "what a stupid small block troll" - why is this sub even an issue? Why does eric talk to a regime of dictatorial children when he has alternatives? I don't get it.

And I'm drunk. Hehe.

drunk as I am I followed a discussion with our beloved bitcoin-"journalist" kyletorpey, and I think it will maybe interesting for you ... shit ... drunken grandness-imagination ... as if you are interested in what I wrote in my furor ... but here it is:

ktorpey said:

"Remember when Reddit thought they found the Boston Bomber? The hivemind can be just as bad/worse as moderation."

And I, in drunken rage, answered:

"Sure, that's what I say all the time. In turkey the hivemind is full on holy erdogan, in germany the hivemind is full for afd-nazis, in uk the hivemind is for brexit (what is imho something like suizide these days), in libya the hivemind resembled gadaffi by civil war(lords) and so on. Usually the hivemind is very stupid, but democracy is the idea that the stupid hivemind is never as bad as one evil man's mind ...

And, to go to bitcoin (or ethereum): wise individuals decide which transaction goes through. Ethereum government decides that the dao hackers transaction doesn't go through, PayPal decides that wikileaks should not get money, the Bayerisch LKA says we should block every cannabis' dealers bank account --

you get it? you can't be bitcoin-minded and support rbitcoin. Supporting rbitcoin is the same as saying "It's fucklng stupid to let communication be uncensored". If you are for bitcoin, there is no way around that you need to be for rbtc, because bitcoin is the uncensored hiveminds transactions, and rbtc is the uncensored hiveminds speech. You can't separate this. It's either you are for uncensored things or you are for censorship. You can't do this strange dance "I'm really really for uncensored transaction and I love bitcoin but I prefer going to moderated rbitcoin because I don't like the rbtc hivemind." The Bitcoin-hivemind in deepdarkweb is far worse than rbtc. Bitcoin-hivemind in deepdarkweb is about cp and heavy drugs and carders and so on. It's dark. If you don't get along with rbtc's hivemind, because you think the stupidity and aggressiveness is too much, you should be the first to ask for censorship on bitcoin's hivemind, because this is the field where things get really dirty and immorality.

And if you are on a level, where you say, ok, I accept all this mud and scum and waste of humanity and immorality and so on, that you find in bitcoin-hivemind's deepdarkweb, because I understand that human history is a process of freedom and because freedom is never for free, but has it's cost and it's unleasig of human scum, than you will never ever have the idea that rbtc and it's stupid hivemind is a bad idea ...

(and I'm drunk, sorry for grammar etc., I really hope this get's through the "moderation", becouse I think it's a real, a honest text, especially written for you, kyletorpey)"

... maybe it is interesting for you, maybe you have ideas about it ... if not, don't mind ... maybe I delete it when alcohol leaves my blood :!

Ah! And Keyletorpey answered. I was very disappointed, since I invested a lot of drunken energy to this person:

"Uncensored transactions vs uncensored forums is another bad analogy. Someone else's uncensored transactions don't affect me at all. I don't care why anyone is using Bitcoin. Someone else's uncensored posts with uncensored upvoting ruins a news portal (rbtc) for me."

this was it. A bad analogy. Ha!

This is what I answered:

"
that's your answer? I write blood, and you just say "another bad analogy"? wtf? Where are we? In "correct analogies for beginners"?

"I don't care why anyone is using bitcoin. But if anyone using uncensored upvoting I care"???? WHAT? What are you doing in bitcoin-land? Not caring?

You basically say that a bitcoin transaction is not as important for you as a reddit-upvote. What do you think about steem?

F**k. I shit on any reddit-up-or-downvote. I don't care, and if I care it's because I am boring and on procrastination. Monetary transactions rule the world. This is what I care about.

You basically say you just don't want censorship in bitcoin because you don't care. If you'd care - if someone sold your little brother drugs for bitcoin or something like this - you would instantly cry for transaction censorship???? Is this right?"

enjoy the entertainment. Or don't. Read bitcoinblog.de. Or don't. Just don't think you need to kill other people, as it is a temporary trend in europa.

Shit. I'm drunken. This is full of shit. But I think there is some truh inside. And the world is going crazy and going to burn. Really. I'm terrified. We have crazy muslim-killers, crazy right-wing-people, erdogans, putins - sanity is definitely going to vanish in europa. I'm more terrified of what happens here every moneth.

 

[cliff]

@freetrader - I will look him up, I don't really follow red hat stuff - so that's new info for me.

As to your other comment "Brilliant Plan" - I presume sarcasm? (That's ok if so, btw - I dish it out and I can take it ) . Anyway, my POV, at least for now, is that current Core's heels are dug in and influenced by a certain framework/philosophy. They have major influence over btc media channels, including forums. That makes it hard to know what consensus is - it creates perceptions of risk w/ supporting a fork. Talking louder than Core does not cause change alone. Core will need a mindset shift for change to happen. What typically works for causing those? Time, fresh faces, etc. Dunno... I'm totally open to alternative ideas and sorta hope I'm wrong - otherwise change will be hard and risky.

EDIT - What I have in mind is micro-politics. Here's a summary from a paper abstract about teachers in B.C.:

The ideological and political struggles of the past decade have exerted a toll on the working conditions, professional identities and personal morale of British Columbia’s public school teachers. In considering the massive task of unhinging a seemingly impenetrable hegemonic entity with more localized consensus driven methods, an ecological metaphor may be helpful to demonstrate that significant change may not be as far away as it appears. In 2002, the Larsen B Ice Shelf, a 12,000 year old glacier, unexpectedly and dramatically collapsed within the space of three weeks. Examining the causes of the sudden implosion, glaciologists discovered the powerful disintegrating effects of liquid water, which “flowed down into cracks and, acting like a multitude of wedges, levered the shelf apart, almost in one fell swoop” (Larsen Ice Shelf, 2013). While nothing significant appeared to be happening at the surface, countless tiny fissures had gradually compromised the structural integrity of the monolithic geological formation. Small, almost undetectable channels, penetrating separately but in close proximity, bored away until a tipping point was reached. This geological analogy suggests a possible way forward for the BCTF and others working to reclaim British Columbia’s public education project. Perhaps titanic macro-political battles between state and union, employers and teachers, are not the most effective way to undo hegemonic structures. Instead, social change may be carried by a thousand wedges—small but determined challenges to neoliberalism’s ideological and tactical grip, until its centre can no longer hold.
​

Additional reading:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/foucfem/ (number 3 specifically)
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.474.9644&rep=rep1&type=pdf
http://w3.unisa.edu.au/hawkeinstitute/publications/downloads/wp26.pdf

 

[freetrader]

@cliff: He's genuinely a brilliant asshole developer with a Jupiter-sized ego who could waltz into Core and say "Hello, this shit should all be done differently. Leave it to me." And there'd be a 50% chance that he could make it work (i.e. dilute the whole project/organization beyond recognition). He's got his own rabid following of those who believe he is always right. I'd pay to see what happens, because by now, Core deserves a primadonna like that to happen to them. Or rather, one more (last?) primadonna. They work wonders for re-decentralizing development.

So yeah, I'm partly being sarcastic, partly I have to grudgingly acknowledge that I don't know if you're right or wrong about where your 'dilution' suggestion would get us.

I prefer to give some harder forks a try. The Ethereum HF has provided some nice precedent and re-imparted some momentum into the Bitcoin community as regards that.

http://www.zdnet.com/article/lennart-poetterings-linus-torvalds-rant/

http://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-and-others-on-linuxs-systemd/

http://www.zdnet.com/article/debian-inches-towards-new-init-system-decision-amid-fallout/

 

[jbreher]

Apologies in advance for the sidebar:

There is the advanced option too, ... Whereby they run fork futures ...

Has there been a discussion as to whether any 'prediction market' might fall under the auspices of the CFTC -- at least here in the USA? Bart Chilton seems to have been trying for years to find an angle whereby he can exert some dominance over cryptocurrencies.

 

[cliff]

@freetrader - RE: Lennart - that would have incredible entertainment value.

RE: Uncertainty w/ dilution. Totally. No worse than status quo and no more risky than forking to an alternative implementation. I sorta see things as being in an "idea phase" right now - all options for change (or no change) are fair game to discuss.

 

[freetrader]

There is *something* that keeps Core nodes running Core, and the majority of miners running Core.
@Christoph Bergmann might have pointed to one important aspect in describing how exchanges are cautious/conservative to the point of laziness. Let's call it inertia.
I know full well how conservative businesses can be when it comes to renewing critical parts of their IT infrastructure. Even more so when their whole business is centered around it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Never touch a running system. Especially if it's a money-making machine.

We have to crack this inertia, remove the current thinking that there needs to be one "reference" implementation (Core) which everyone needs to run. This thinking probably runs very deep.
Your "change from within the system" might work if Core wasn't so conflicted with a certain corporate interest, I'd say it would have a reasonable chance. But Core right now is a zombie, if you ask me.
It has no decision making capability that is not under the control of Blockstream.

You can "dilute", i.e. change for the better from within, an open source project.
I don't think you can do that in the case of a corporately-controlled open source project.
I've never seen an example of this succeeding, and I've been paying attention to the world of free software and open source for a long time. I'd be happy if someone can throw a counterexample my way.

Is Blockstream going to disengage from Core voluntarily? No chance in hell.

Therefore, I think a multi-polar development situation (competing implementations around a common consensus endorsed by the market) is the only short-term scenario.
I think market forces will create swings from one pole to another, depending on how bad the situation gets, who's really in charge, and what their objectives are.

 

[jbreher]

@cliff: Brilliant plan. All we need to do is convince Lennart Poettering that bitcoind needs to become a part of systemd on Linux.

not-sure-if-srs.jpg

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss?

 

[freetrader]

Egg, meet face:
[doublepost=1469233381,1469232467][/doublepost]

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss?

<not-srs.jpg>
Let's game this out:

* New boss worse than old boss: BS declares 'Can't be evil', leaves in disgust, splitting up BS / Core
* New boss same as old boss: Like and like repel - good chance of split-up between Core and BS
* New boss not as bad as old boss: New boss might re-instill virtue in Core, water and oil don't mix - good chance of split between Core and BS

* Any of the above: massive amounts of time are wasted in governance fights, resulting in evaporation of actual talent as disgusted devs leave for other pastures, putting experienced dev talent to better productive use. Win!
</not-srs.jpg>

 

[cliff]

@freetrader - I don't really have any disagreement with you - thats a legit critique of my idea. Grips on power never last and change is inevitable - so, it'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

RE: the modlog post - I'm not so sure GM didn't know what he was posting there. GM knows what he's doing and he recently said participating on /r/btc is his weekend entertainment. Would not shock me if he's getting some Friday night giggles w/ a bottle of whatever he likes.

--------
EDIT - all good @freetrader - didn't think you were disagreeing. Figured we were just trying to model civil discussion for the kiddies.

 

[freetrader]

@cliff: in case it's unclear, I also have no disagreement with you - I'm perhaps just abnormally acerbic today. Apologies if that's the case. I should perhaps try inebriation. But I've seen what that leads to in combination with forum posts. Where's @Norway, debating?

The thing in the sidebar is not actually the modlog

I had a cuppa tea and it struck me, he's right.
The thing in the sidebar is the LINK to a VIEW of the actual modlog, which is in actual fact a bunch of database entries in Reddit's back end. (that sounds a little perverse, I apologize)
Damn GM, why u so smart.

 

[Inca]

I think that classic looked for the smallest compromise possible. But since no compromise is possible with core, I hope that Classic devs reassess and choose the scaling model that they find most appropriate.

If I thought block size should be part of consensus, I'd be an advocate for short term supply-side flexibility combined with something long term like Bitpay's N*median proposal.

Gmax once suggested a "flexcap" that increases difficulty when block size increases. While this is interesting technically, it makes the economic modelling very unclear. That is, its hard to decide whether the txn's extra fee makes the large block worthwhile.

Instead I still like my original proposal, which was simply to calculate the average fee/byte of the last N blocks' "normal space" and allow txns that pay exponentially more than that average to increase the block size linearly.

Its interesting to combine both of these algorithms, because a period of tremendous uptake would drive the short term block size higher which then drives the long-term "bitpay" block size faster then it would normally rise. This is what we want...

Your original proposal is interesting. But like all these things it can be gamed by miners stuffing blocks with transactions. Plus in the case that did not happen, why should I pay more to use bitcoin than someone an hour ago? Surge pricing is not an answer IMO. Instead I would agree with the bitpay approach (then you can argue that the validating nodes simply pay as they do now, which is fine, the are also preventing the network changing now, too! And in the long run number of nodes run for will inevitably contract as network traffic rises.)

I think the main actors in the space outside a narrow group of bitcoin maximalists at Core and /r/bitcoin + bitcointalk all want bitcoin to scale. The main priority as the economics start to pinch is to increase the number of non Core >1mb nodes on the network. Once that reaches a certain threshold then it just takes one or two miners to break ranks and start mining with a non-core implementation and it is over and we move up (as Peter_R's animation showed what feels like years ago).

I also think that it is very unhelpful having Classic, Unlimited and XT nodes live. We should be merging everything into a single client, ideally Unlimited so we have a 2 party approach to the network to move past this impasse, which is a political situation. Classic is simply a patch of Core and so I personally think a vote for Classic is still a kind of vote for Core in every respect other than the a marginal blocksize gain. We are better offering a completely different vision - Satoshi's original vision - and making this damn clear in social media. Plus gathering Classic/Unlimited dev's together (including Gavin) under one roof legitimises the chosen implementation hugely. (Ideally a consortium of companies in the ecosystem could fund a few dev's, too..).

Showing the network is safe to upgrade for people who actually run nodes is also a priority (and not just because I suggested the BUIP ) but because that single step will neutralise the constant argument used to prevent further on chain scaling - loss of decentralisation.

Once Core is broken then we can encourage plurality of network clients (and this is probably vital to crystallising a true decentralised development consensus, but until then we need to become the 'non-core' team.

And finally the time to act is now. Even if Core release segwit today to great fanfare cannot increase network throughput for months at least. This is a window of opportunity to start to reshape the network in terms of nodeshare. Disaffected voters (people who run nodes) need to see a clear alternative right now!

 

[Zarathustra]

Hei ...

@Norway: yes, it's time for eric vorhees to get along with it. He's complaining for half a year, and for half a year stupid rbitcoin moderator get their one-minute-of-grandness by explaining their shit to a man far greater than they are ... it's incredible ... nearly every moderator of rbitcoin was a username I saw before and thought "what a stupid small block troll" - why is this sub even an issue? Why does eric talk to a regime of dictatorial children when he has alternatives? I don't get it.

And I'm drunk. Hehe.

drunk as I am I followed a discussion with our beloved bitcoin-"journalist" kyletorpey, and I think it will maybe interesting for you ... shit ... drunken grandness-imagination ... as if you are interested in what I wrote in my furor ... but here it is:

ktorpey said:

"Remember when Reddit thought they found the Boston Bomber? The hivemind can be just as bad/worse as moderation."

And I, in drunken rage, answered:

"Sure, that's what I say all the time. In turkey the hivemind is full on holy erdogan, in germany the hivemind is full for afd-nazis, in uk the hivemind is for brexit (what is imho something like suizide these days), in libya the hivemind resembled gadaffi by civil war(lords) and so on. Usually the hivemind is very stupid, but democracy is the idea that the stupid hivemind is never as bad as one evil man's mind ...

And, to go to bitcoin (or ethereum): wise individuals decide which transaction goes through. Ethereum government decides that the dao hackers transaction doesn't go through, PayPal decides that wikileaks should not get money, the Bayerisch LKA says we should block every cannabis' dealers bank account --

you get it? you can't be bitcoin-minded and support rbitcoin. Supporting rbitcoin is the same as saying "It's fucklng stupid to let communication be uncensored". If you are for bitcoin, there is no way around that you need to be for rbtc, because bitcoin is the uncensored hiveminds transactions, and rbtc is the uncensored hiveminds speech. You can't separate this. It's either you are for uncensored things or you are for censorship. You can't do this strange dance "I'm really really for uncensored transaction and I love bitcoin but I prefer going to moderated rbitcoin because I don't like the rbtc hivemind." The Bitcoin-hivemind in deepdarkweb is far worse than rbtc. Bitcoin-hivemind in deepdarkweb is about cp and heavy drugs and carders and so on. It's dark. If you don't get along with rbtc's hivemind, because you think the stupidity and aggressiveness is too much, you should be the first to ask for censorship on bitcoin's hivemind, because this is the field where things get really dirty and immorality.

And if you are on a level, where you say, ok, I accept all this mud and scum and waste of humanity and immorality and so on, that you find in bitcoin-hivemind's deepdarkweb, because I understand that human history is a process of freedom and because freedom is never for free, but has it's cost and it's unleasig of human scum, than you will never ever have the idea that rbtc and it's stupid hivemind is a bad idea ...

(and I'm drunk, sorry for grammar etc., I really hope this get's through the "moderation", becouse I think it's a real, a honest text, especially written for you, kyletorpey)"

... maybe it is interesting for you, maybe you have ideas about it ... if not, don't mind ... maybe I delete it when alcohol leaves my blood :!

Ah! And Keyletorpey answered. I was very disappointed, since I invested a lot of drunken energy to this person:

"Uncensored transactions vs uncensored forums is another bad analogy. Someone else's uncensored transactions don't affect me at all. I don't care why anyone is using Bitcoin. Someone else's uncensored posts with uncensored upvoting ruins a news portal (rbtc) for me."

this was it. A bad analogy. Ha!

This is what I answered:

"
that's your answer? I write blood, and you just say "another bad analogy"? wtf? Where are we? In "correct analogies for beginners"?

"I don't care why anyone is using bitcoin. But if anyone using uncensored upvoting I care"???? WHAT? What are you doing in bitcoin-land? Not caring?

You basically say that a bitcoin transaction is not as important for you as a reddit-upvote. What do you think about steem?

F**k. I shit on any reddit-up-or-downvote. I don't care, and if I care it's because I am boring and on procrastination. Monetary transactions rule the world. This is what I care about.

You basically say you just don't want censorship in bitcoin because you don't care. If you'd care - if someone sold your little brother drugs for bitcoin or something like this - you would instantly cry for transaction censorship???? Is this right?"

enjoy the entertainment. Or don't. Read bitcoinblog.de. Or don't. Just don't think you need to kill other people, as it is a temporary trend in europa.

Shit. I'm drunken. This is full of shit. But I think there is some truh inside. And the world is going crazy and going to burn. Really. I'm terrified. We have crazy muslim-killers, crazy right-wing-people, erdogans, putins - sanity is definitely going to vanish in europa. I'm more terrified of what happens here every moneth.

Torpey embodies a prototype of those unspellable disgusting presstitutes, described in Chapter 11 of the Good Book.

"Just see these superfluous ones! They steal the works of the inventors and the treasures of the wise. Culture, they call their theft—and everything becometh sickness and trouble unto them!

Just see these superfluous ones! Sick are they always; they vomit their bile and call it a newspaper. They devour one another, and cannot even digest themselves.

Just see these superfluous ones! Wealth they acquire and become poorer thereby. Power they seek for, and above all, the lever of power, much money—these impotent ones!
(...)

Do go out of the way of the bad odour! Withdraw from the idolatry of the superfluous!

Do go out of the way of the bad odour! Withdraw from the steam of these human sacrifices!"

http://4umi.com/nietzsche/zarathustra/11

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

@Zarathustra

"Ihr versteht zu brüllen und mit Asche zu verdunkeln" - Ha, I remember several quotes from the great book.

Your quote seems to perfectly describe this place and that people. Maybe it's time to get out again.

My post yesterday was another example of why you should not write drunken in the internet --

But in the end ... can you explain to me what I miss?

1. We have a thread on reddit complaining that Ethereum censored effectively ONE transaction after the whole community agreed to do so. You should never censor any transaction. That's the message of this thread.
2. We have Kyle Torpey, IN THIS THREAD, saying, that the hivemind's comments and upvotes need to be censored because this makes a forum readable for him. You should censor comments. That's the message of Kyle Torpey.
3. What do I miss? How can anybody not see this screeming contradiction?