Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Inca]

I think this requires some debate here: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4u5glb/rather_than_classic_xt_or_unlimited_the_client_we/

Specifically the idea in the comments that we should set a block height and fork from there, as has always been the case for hard forks in every other crypto, rather than setting a 750/1000 mined blocks factor, first,

@Christoph Bergmann : kyle torpey is a troll. And if you notice what the paid shillstream'ers are doing now is to flood /r/btc with diversionary fluff such as accusing the subreddit of censorship, personal attacks, or concern trolling.

I believe that is because all useful debate is now happening in /r/btc and they have no power other than to disrupt discussion there this way. Progress!

 

[freetrader]

Guess who's back:

 

[jonny1000]

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

No I am not. I am talking about miner revenue and costs. If orphan risk cost is 50% of miner revenue, then "things break down" yes, this does not really imply much about the orphan rate itself.

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.

Sorry I do not understand your point here. It is pretty clear two miners in the same location may have lower propagation times between them than one on the other side of the world. It is pretty logical, isn't it?

it would seem folly to create blocks that stand a high probability of being orphaned. Why do you think they would?

I do not, you seem not to understand my point. The logical thing to do is keep adding transactions up to the point where the fee on the most marginal transaction is equal to the marginal orphan risk cost. At the same time it is logical for wallets to only pay a fee which is a small premium to the expected marginal orphan risk cost. This dangerous dynamic ensures orphan risk costs are high relative to revenue.

This is ALL I am saying. We should not have the fee market driven by orphan risk. Whenever I make this point it is constantly misrepresented as if I am saying something else.

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.

I think wasted work is the most understood one.

"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?

I do not think the orphan risk cost would be high. I even put RELATIVE TO MINING REVENUE in big letters, in a desperate attempt to avoid people misrepresenting me, it did not work.

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.

The limit as in the major point of competition in the industry, driving decision making. If you do not think it would be, answer me this question:

Why would wallets pay a fee any higher than a small premium over the expected marginal orphan risk?
[doublepost=1469270212][/doublepost]

what he wants to do is transfer the current imbalance of power in the existing fiat system into Bitcoin where he wants to continually allow a small minority of financial elite to control the large majority of common ppl

No I do not. I want Bitcoin to be a system where a small minority of financial elites or any other kind of minority can prevent a hardfork. This is not control, it cannot impose changes but only prevent them. The reason we need this is to differentiate ourselves from the existing fiat system where elites can impose changes.

Stop pretending that because I want a minority to prevent a HF that I want a minority in control.

Now you think changing the limit to 2MB would be keeping things the same don't you? You think keeping 1MB is a change? If you think that then that is the disagreement, stop misrepresenting the other side.

 

[freetrader]

330-2016-017-0001, $13,138.12 in U.S. Currency in Lieu of 25.0001538 Bitcoins from Coinbase Inc. Account in theName of Richard P. Underwood valued at $13,138.12 seized on June 03, 2016 in San Francisco, CA from RichardPaul Underwood

From: http://www.forfeiture.gov/pdf/USSS/OfficialNotification.pdf
If they wanted to seize bitcoins from Coinbase, why wouldn't they be able to?
Possible fungibility issue?

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

Jihan sounds very reasonable again.

And this got buried, I find it highly interesting:

 

[Norway]

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.

Hell yeah! In vino veritas!
(Wikipedia: In vino veritas is a Latin phrase that means "in wine, truth", suggesting a person under the influence of alcohol is more likely to speak their hidden thoughts and desires.)
[doublepost=1469273887,1469272789][/doublepost]My debut on national TV was very cool. I didn't get the opponent I wanted (the PR guy from the banking industry), but I think I have opened the eyes of NRK, the BBC of Norway. The debate is on, and will continue in a larger TV format (at least, that's what I hope.)

The bitcoin debate is at the end of this clip. And, as usual, we speak viking-language, so none of you guys will understand anything! But at least, you can see what I look like.

https://tv.nrk.no/serie/dagsnytt-atten-tv/NNFA56072216/22-07-2016

I think it's a good strategy to focus on the monetary policy. So my angle forward is that we had a better monetary policy in the viking age, than we have today.

The vikings used silver. And they were traveling around the world trading because of their good boats. (Well, I have to admit, sometimes they were just drinking, robbing & raping.)

But they didn't have to go to "Forex" to exchange norwegian money to turkish money when they visited Istanbul (Mitlagard in norwegian.)

They just used silver. And they could do it, because access to silver is limited. And accepted around the world.

 

[Inca]

@Norway:

1) I love the Scandinavian approach to drinking. Every time I have visited Stockholm and Helsinki I have partaken.
If I visit Oslo I hope you will do the honourable thing

2) free speech is a central tenet of democracy in the modern world.
I don't have to like what you say, but I will defend your right to say it (to the death, in that famous quote)
For a supposed journalist, for whom free speech and a free press are intrinsic to reporting the unfiltered truth, to come out and back censorship in any form of thoughts, ideas and written opinions is revolting and repugnant. It just shows he isn't as journalist at all. Just a shill. Sometimes the bitcoin ecosystem sickens me. We should all remember this is what separates us from them. Bitcoin cannot grow into the mainstream with such views at the 'core' of the project.

Edit: can't get it to stream from the beach, @Norway, well done!

 

[molecular]

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.

you should "drink and write" more often. Your output acquires this certain quality I like...

 

[priestc]

orphan risk cost

You keep saying this over and over again, but it makes no sense. Every miner always has complete control of how much money he/she loses due to orphan blocks. If a miner chooses to have 80% orphan rate, then they can do so very easily without any protocol changes (by playing CounterStrike on the same connection that your mining farm uses to propagate blocks). If a miner wants to have 0% orphan rate, they can have that too (by always publishing empty blocks). You act like a protocol change will force miners to make more orphan blocks, but thats simply not how it works. If there existed a minimum blocksize protocol rule, then by increase that minimum value, then orphan rates are increased across the board. Raising the maximum blocksize limit does not have the same effect, though.

 

[Roy Badami]

330-2016-017-0001, $13,138.12 in U.S. Currency in Lieu of 25.0001538 Bitcoins from Coinbase Inc. Account in theName of Richard P. Underwood valued at $13,138.12 seized on June 03, 2016 in San Francisco, CA from RichardPaul Underwood

From: http://www.forfeiture.gov/pdf/USSS/OfficialNotification.pdf
If they wanted to seize bitcoins from Coinbase, why wouldn't they be able to?
Possible fungibility issue?

Saves the significant administrative effort of holding an auction. Given it was an amount that could easily be traded on an exchange, they probably just asked Coinbase if they would sell the coins for them.

 

[jonny1000]

You keep saying this over and over again, but it makes no sense. Every miner always has complete control of how much money he/she loses due to orphan blocks. If a miner chooses to have 80% orphan rate, then they can do so very easily without any protocol changes (by playing CounterStrike on the same connection that your mining farm uses to propagate blocks). If a miner wants to have 0% orphan rate, they can have that too (by always publishing empty blocks).

Yes and the problem I am talking about emerges when miners adopt the short term profit maximization strategy...

 

[pekatete]

.....
If there existed a minimum blocksize protocol rule, then by increase that minimum value, then orphan rates are increased across the board. Raising the maximum blocksize limit does not have the same effect, though.

THIS!

 

[jonny1000]

If there existed a minimum blocksize protocol rule, then by increase that minimum value, then orphan rates are increased across the board. Raising the maximum blocksize limit does not have the same effect, though. THIS!

Totally agree. Do you know anyone who is claiming this has the same effect as a minimum size rule?

 

[priestc]

Totally agree. Do you know anyone who is claiming this has the same effect as a minimum size rule?

Anyone who claims that raising the maximum blocksize limit will increase orphan cost is making the mistake of confusing a maximum blocksize with a minimum blocksize. This is a very common mistake I see from "small blockers".

 

[lunar]

@satoshis_sockpuppet @Jihan

venture debt investors

lol

 

[jonny1000]

Anyone who claims that raising the maximum blocksize limit will increase orphan cost is making the mistake of confusing a maximum blocksize with a minimum blocksize. This is a very common mistake I see from "small blockers".

Well that's nothing to do with my point. My point is about using orphan risk to drive the fee market

 

[cliff]

you should "drink and write" more often. Your output acquires this certain quality I like...

Yup - I quite liked it.

----------

@freetrader - hope you don't think the OP of that thread is mine due to jaspopo starting his reply post w/ "Cliffs."

----------

@Norway - No clue what you said with the exception of the word "Bitcoin," which I heard a ton of times - that alone is probably good from a penetrate-the-collective-consciousness POV. What were the main objections/criticisms from your opponent?

 

[Zarathustra]

Now you think changing the limit to 2MB would be keeping things the same don't you? You think keeping 1MB is a change? If you think that then that is the disagreement, stop misrepresenting the other side.

You know very well that you support a destruction of an essential rule: Blocks must never be full; block limit always has to be far above actual block sizes.

 

[79b79aa8]

in case you've missed: http://forklog.net/exante-winklevoss-brothers-etf-to-skyrocket-bitcoin-price/

 

[lunar]

@79b79aa8 I like the optimism

FL: And finally, our traditional question: what will be the bitcoin price by the end of the year?

AK: Right now the key event in Bitcoin will be not the blocksize quarrels or the halving. It’s the approval or disapproval of Winklevoss brothers’ application for bitcoin ETF in the US.

Americans are ready to pay twice as much for bitcoin because they do this through their broker and they don’t want to bring money to cryptocurrency exchange. There are different reasons, but the main is that people don’t want to risk. We think that if the Winklevoss’ application is approved, the bitcoin price can easily rise to 2 and even to 10 thousand dollars.