Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Peter R]

The price always jumps between the moment the money leaves my bank account to the time the money is available on the exchange
[doublepost=1445748630][/doublepost]The "Call for Proposal" for the Hong Kong Scaling Bitcoin conference has now been posted. To be considered for a speaking spot, you must submit a 1-2 page extended abstract by November 9.

Is anyone here planning to go to Hong Kong? Should someone present something on the Bitcoin Unlimited idea? I have a feeling @Zangelbert Bingledack is a good public speaker

 

[AdrianX]

LOL I got lucky this time, just missed the last bottom, all this Blockstream talk and block size pandemonium left me with cash on exchange. My gut feeling is it's the same coins sloshing around, and the actual supply is very limited. I'm a very small player and its impossible to move markets as I only trade on a few small exchanges but its a little too strange that every time I sell the market dives and the reverse every time I buy in. I dont know why Canada is so slow, I once though of suing CAvirtex they took so long, and then lost my deposit on the climb from $60. I can deposit into exchanges in 3rd world countries and buy Bitcoin faster than deposit in Canada.
[doublepost=1445749232][/doublepost]@Peter R put 0.5BTC towards someones ticket if anyone wants to go.

 

[Peter R]

I think Scaling Bitcoin will be awarding subsidies for accepted speakers. Last time it was $1000US; this time I think it will be more. Besides, @cypherdoc's the whale around these waters

 

[cypherdoc]

Who determines whose paper gets accepted?

 

[Peter R]

@cypherdoc : I assume it is the Conference Planning Committee, unless they defer that decision to a sub-committee.

Hong Kong Workshop Planning Committee

• Pindar Wong, VeriFi (Hong Kong) Ltd. (Chair) <pindar dot wong at gmail dot com>
• Anton Yemelyanov, CryptoMechanics (Website) <anton dot yemelyanov at gmail dot com>
• Alex Morcos, Chaincode Labs <alex at chaincode dot com>
• Jeremy Rubin, MIT Digital Currency Initiative <jr at mit dot edu>
• Warren Togami, Blockstream <wtogami at gmail dot com>
• Victoria van Eyk, Changetip <victoriavaneyk at gmail dot com>
• Dan Elitzer, IDEO Futures
• Shawn O’Connor, Kraken
• Adam Ludwin, Chain.com
• Marshall Long, Cryptsy

 

[cypherdoc]

@Peter R

You should present BU in HK.
[doublepost=1445757209,1445756599][/doublepost]

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

@Peter R With alcohol anything is possible The good parts of my writing are often the result of hours of crafting and hundreds of lines deleted or trimmed up so that they roll off the tongue. That doesn't work when giving a talk unless inspiration strikes and I allow myself to run roughshod over some of the nuances, so I'm guessing I'd be a better speechwriter than a speech-giver. Maybe I should start a youtube channel and learn the skill.

 

[molecular]

@cypherdoc : Yeah, it was a made up reason; The Wall Observer thread is equally broad in scope but was not locked. In my opinion, the thread was locked because it was getting so many views per day and because most of the thread's participants were pro bigger blocks and pro development decentralization.

I agree with this.

In the thread you linked there are 3 possible reasons given for the locking:

1. quicksilver: off-topic (last 10 pages not about price of gold)
2. badbear: too broad (group-think)
3. laudam: xt trollfest

For me personally, none of these are reasons to lock a thread (since noone is forced to read a specific thread). What I don't like is being untruthful. If it was locked for reason 3, which I fear is true, then saying it was for 2 is pretty low.

 

[Peter R]

It's like half the community doesn't understand what a Conflict of Interest is. Here's how I see it:

1. Blockstream is in the business of developing and operating off-chain payment solutions.
2. A restrictive block size limit increases demand for off-chain payment solutions.
3. Blockstream employees and contractors are using their influence within Core Dev to ensure the block size limit stays/becomes restrictive.

OK, let's try that for Gavin:

1. MIT is in the business of research and education.
2. ???
3. Gavin (an MIT employee) is using his influence to attempt to raise the block size limit.

Or Coinbase:

1. Coinbase is in the businesses of Bitcoin/fiat exchange and payment processing.
2. ???
3. Coinbase has tweeted support for larger block size limits.

To me, comparing Adam/Greg/Pieter's conflict of interest to others in the space (in terms of the block size limit) doesn't make sense at all. Is there some argument that I'm missing?

 

[molecular]

I love these types of breakouts.

Just smash through all the negativity and disbelief.

fuck yeah!

 

[cypherdoc]

[doublepost=1445784625][/doublepost]

fuck yeah!

Well said!

 

[cypherdoc]

@cypherdoc : Yeah, it was a made up reason; The Wall Observer thread is equally broad in scope but was not locked. In my opinion, the thread was locked because it was getting so many views per day and because most of the thread's participants were pro bigger blocks and pro development decentralization.

the real clue is the "Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP-NooPooPoll" thread is alive and well.

w/o a single gold related post.

 

[cypherdoc]

i knew you could do it @Peter R!:

[doublepost=1445790739,1445789633][/doublepost]heading down again:

 

[cypherdoc]

Hah.

'We also expect the ECB to remove the lower bound, leaving the door open to go more negative.'

"Hoarding would have several weird distorting effects on society, including a new incentive for burglars to loot houses looking for piles of money under mattresses."


http://www.businessinsider.com/banks-discussing-negative-interest-rates-for-consumers-2015-10?r=UK&IR=T

wrong. there's Bitcoin

 

[cypherdoc]

prepare thyselves for the explosion:

https://infogr.am/market_cap_of_startups_and_bitcoin

 

[Peter R]

@Peter R

You should present BU in HK.

I'm planning to submit an abstract on the TX fee market (sort of a continuation of my Montreal talk). The good news is that the speaking slots are 20 - 30min, so it is possible to include more material. Perhaps there's someway I could tie Bitcoin Unlimited in at the end of the talk as a implementation of the idea that Bitcoin should be governed by the market. I'd rather approach BU from the perspective that "multiple protocol implementations are good," but I can't see how to make that work with a talk focussing on the transaction fee market.

BTW--Nice rally!

 

[cypherdoc]

Bitcoin Soars As China's Creeping Capital Controls Loom



http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-25/bitcoin-bullion-soar-chinas-creeping-capital-controls-loom

 

[yrral86]

I'm planning to submit an abstract on the TX fee market (sort of a continuation of my Montreal talk). The good news is that the speaking slots are 20 - 30min, so it is possible to include more material. Perhaps there's someway I could tie Bitcoin Unlimited in at the end of the talk as a implementation of the idea that Bitcoin should be governed by the market. I'd rather approach BU from the perspective that "multiple protocol implementations are good," but I can't see how to make that work with a talk focussing on the transaction fee market.

BTW--Nice rally!

You can't have a truly free market without competition.

 

[rocks]

I agree with this.

In the thread you linked there are 3 possible reasons given for the locking:

1. quicksilver: off-topic (last 10 pages not about price of gold)
2. badbear: too broad (group-think)
3. laudam: xt trollfest

For me personally, none of these are reasons to lock a thread (since noone is forced to read a specific thread). What I don't like is being untruthful. If it was locked for reason 3, which I fear is true, then saying it was for 2 is pretty low.

I am still so disgusted by this that is it hard to get excited about bitcoin finally re-entering a bull phase.

What is also disgusting is how Peter and the rest of the BS crew are now happily talking on reddit about forking bitcoin to include their new op codes, op codes for which there neither is consensus for or full understanding on the implications. But they get to claim consensus because they've banned/censored everyone on reddit and the bitcoin-dev board.

Since this happened a few months ago I've started to re-read about various points in history when a minority of a population was able to radically re-form a society and crush all opposition. It is always the same, a small 5% somehow are able to claim authority, they then use that authority to silence/kill/drive away the 5-10% that is willing to fight back, and the other 90% just go along. The Russian revolution and following White emigre is one example, the Iranian revolution and following emigration of secular intellectuals is another (there are many more in just the past 150 years).

it makes me believe that accepting this path is the wrong thing to do, and that the right thing is to not just go along with dictators but to continue to fight back (i.e. not emigrate away or go along). I am more and more seriously considering creating a client that appears as the standard bitcoin core, but silently rejects all blocks with unknown op codes. If you spin up enough nodes on the network with this behavior miners will see significantly higher orphan rates if they include the transactions and be more financially motivated to not go along. Maybe I am being too sensitive, but it is one thing to read about a historical period when all dissent was crushed, it's another to see it in action (even if it's at a much smaller scale...)

 

[sickpig]

@rocks maybe this apply to what you just described