Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Tomothy]

Anyone with legal background care to comment on the credibility of this?

https://bitflikz.com/blogs/news/the-theft-of-a-1-billion-dollar-blockchain-community-legal-action-begins?page=2

"The Theft of a $1 Billion Dollar Blockchain -Ethereum/Slock.it Facing Legal Action"

It's unclear to me whether this has any real substance or who the originators of it are.

First, regardless of anything, I'm happy this thread is open. I think it provides an important service to the community. Not looking to step on any toes but it's like an oasis in a sandstorm. Based on the wide range of topics and not having been following the thread too long it has probably changed significantly. This could be because of the disclosure of manipulation in the precious metals markets and central bank printing press economic policies which changed how these commodities are viewed against one another resulting in declining prices and stagnation. It gets boring in an artificially created bear market.

So, I saw these legal arguments the other day and found it very interesting. Ultimately, I think the biggest winner will be the attorneys who hopefully get paid up front on retainer because the hours they could bill on a mess like this would be a lot and it's far from certain they would ever be paid otherwise. This would take years to iron out and then appeal after appeal.


That being said, one of the biggest concerns is jurisdiction and where they bring the claim since everyone deals with cryptocurrency differently. Switzerland vs Germany vs wherever. I think also it depends on who they consider the deep pocket is and who they are trying to be compensated from. I think they could show that they were irreparably harmed by slockit and if there was any liable party it would be them. So where does Sockit exist and was there any clause in the TOS or DAO agreement that said suits would be goverend in a certain location.

In terms of a suit against vitalik, ethereum, the foundation, this seems plain silly. At most it would result in costly legal bills on both sides. Although V/Foundation coded terms for a HF, it was ultimately adopted by a sufficient portion of the community, to trigger this fork. Some didn't agree with this and so it wasn't forked. Although subject to influence, it is still a decentralized system and works as such. Contentious hard forks are part of the backbone of all coins and you simply can't wave that away. They would need to sue miners too or something, it just breaks down. Just my 0.02 ETC/ETH/BTC lol. Interesting regardless.

Also, Re; the article, I found it interesting. It tickles my subconscious with cypherdocs prior comments about governmental mining entities. Similar to how, google, twitter, facebook, are implicit governmental actors while pretending not to be at the same time. The age of shadows.

 

[albin]

@lunar

I even see alot of those manipulation techniques in play on the so-called "Bitcoin Uncensored" podcast.

 

[lunar]

@Christoph Bergmann

Agreed. Not sure what he's trying to say here? Does he think money supply should be flexible? In which case how does he expect two competing monetary systems, one with a fixed supply and another with a flexible (increasing) supply would fare in a free market competition? Surely the conclusion is obvious?

Or is he just saying money should not be a libertarian free market thing and we need governments involved? In this case reality proves otherwise.

 

[Richy_T]

Those vote figures are based on a decision that had to be made in light of a flag day. Absent the flag day, as we have seen, in my opinion, governance fully breaks down and with it too incentives as actors open themself to direct influence and even worse, a decision is never actually made.

Having a threshold, in my view, was a clear and obvious mistake, but of course that can only be said with hindsight.

This is pretty much why I thought that BU was the correct option. I would have been happy if Classic got us there but it just was doing things the wrong way.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

I think it's fine to acknowledge that a persistent chain split is "bad" from an all-else-equal perspective.

It seems to me that whether a chain split is effectively persistent is determined by the market. If the market deems the hit from friction and loss of network effect to be greater than the gain from the improvement and/or the newfound peaceful auto-determination by the two communities, it should converge on a single choice (a bit unfortunately for us, defaulting with the status quo).

Thus we should have a persistent split if and only if it is value-enhancing in total. To me that means we can try forking almost continually and the market will bat down each attempt with no issue...until it finally embraces it. Whether that embrace happens with a persistent split or not, it should maximize value regardless.

In Ethereum a persistent split makes some sense: friction is high but network effect for actual usage is zero so there is no loss there, and it could hardly be more clear that there was (at least if pro-DAO-undo people's arguments can be taken at face value rather than as ad hoc justifications for getting their money back) two latent, mutually incompatible or even diametrically opposed views on what Ethereum should be about, thus great gain from peaceful separation allowing for auto-determination by the two communities.

How does a potentially persistent-split hard fork to increase blocksize in Bitcoin stack up on these points?

• As you mentioned, the urgency is far less in Bitcoin, so right off the bat we know a minority fork may not gain traction right now, even if it eventually would.
• The hit from friction exists. Not sure whether it is higher or lower than in Ethereum.
• The hit from network effect theoretically exists since Bitcoin is used in trade, but I'm not sure casual users even need to know about the fork at all. Of course all investors need to know, but that is just what investing entails. Users should be able to operate with no knowledge of any forks or splits as long as they are using a wallet that "does things right."* Although some merchants may choose to take the network effect hit themselves by insisting on payment in only one chain (demanding a higher price to compensate), they do this in the capacity of an investor, not a merchant. I doubt many serious merchants would do so, especially once friction of exchanging is reduced (Shapeshift?), so the actual network loss may be negligible. In the event that the split is deeply persistent (both chains continue as major players in trade for months/years, which seems unlikely), again the point about the market not allowing this unless it adds value should still apply.
• Last but not least, the increase in tx capacity seems an obvious (to us) improvement, albeit not nearly as urgent as Ethereum's TheDAO rollback maneuver was to its proponents.

*As I've said before, a future where ledger-copies are common means a future where wallet software plays a much larger role. This provides a big opportunity for enterprising wallet designers; they will be tightly integrated in the user experience going forward, with the expectation that they will be maintained at the cutting edge of developments in the space so that the casual user can relax. Note how this dovetails with the Bitcoin Unlimited paradigm of decoupling consensus rulesetting from dev teams. With Core no longer setting policy and also sucking as a wallet (to take seriously the forkability aspects required would run counter to Core's entire paradigm), I imagine its future will not look bright.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

@Roger_Murdock

A few exploratory thoughts on the "fork now, gain market share later" approach:

• Timescale matters. If it plays out over the course of a week or so, it could work much better than if it takes months or longer. Imagine if ETC keeps rising, for instance. This relates back to the distinction I drew between persistent splits and "deeply persistent" splits above.

• If the majority side of the fork has a hard limiter on its network effect for use in trade (say, a tiny blocksize cap), the quartering of the network effect may not matter much, relatively. Also, failure doesn't mean anything is lost, because it seems much more likely that network effect won't split but will go one way or the other (even if the market cap temorarily is divided between them); if for example LN comes out and turns out to be great, the big-block chain never gains market share, but we have lost nothing. Either all trade moved to our chain or it didn't. A quartering of value is more of a theoretical threat, not an actual consequence of a semi-persistent split, I think. The split simply persists as long as there is hope for it, with transaction volume on it largely determined by how Core fares, but with a continual all-or-nothing dynamic. I feel tempted to say, "The network effect wants to preserve itself. We can't break it just by forking."

• It's still not clear whether the Metcalf's law correlation with price is a coincidence, and whether it is n^2 or n log n. I believe we all agree that speculation remains the main use at this stage. And as I mentioned in the previous post, things like Shapeshift and smooth wallet interfaces may make things invisible to the casual user, and that may buy more time for the timescale point above as well. In other words, users and merchants may be fine accepting both chains for a little while thanks to such smoothing out of that friction, allowing additional time for "gain market share" to happen.

• While current dominant market cap is a big Schelling point, the ultimate Schelling point is eventual market cap. Sure the majority can make the value-enhancing changes later on, but the entire endeavor of investment at this stage is inherently forward-looking so current orientation of a chain should matter quite a bit as well. This coupled with the recursive nature of the problem suggests it's not entirely clear where the Keynesian beauty contest leads here. I can see arguments for both sides.

 

[freetrader]

Dense post, but rattled some neurons.

https://blog.ethereum.org/2016/07/27/inflation-transaction-fees-cryptocurrency-monetary-policy/

 

[Norway]

I interview Prof. Bill Mauer from the university of california about Bitcoin, humanity, history and virtual currency. I'm sure this thread may not like everything he says, but I guess it's an interesting read for you.

https://bitcoinblog.de/2016/07/27/it-tells-you-something-about-the-fact-that-money-right-now-is-being-profoundly-ungrounded-it-is-up-for-question/

It's interesting, but I don't think he understands that gold is a ledger in itself. And that the current fiat system has been on a highway to hell since the Federal Reserve betrayed the Bretton Woods agreement in the 1960's by printing more USD than the gold to back it up.

 

[cliff]

TLDR - Recent events have led me to rethink my involvement in this thread. At the moment, I’m not sure what I’ll do, but I wanted to take some time to share some thoughts. If this thread is to survive, it must have Cypherdoc. The thread transcends forums and it is not right to hijack the brand. If Cypherdoc closed it, it must remain closed until he re-opens it here or elsewhere. This post is in two parts.

PART 1

*​

Events from the last week or so have led me to reviewing some old posts from this thread. The first thing I noticed is that we have covered a lot topics here since late Spring ranging from global economy and politics, to memes used in the block size debate. We spoke about gold a little too. It has been quite an amazing ride. Below, I'll share a few of my posts from late spring/early summer that made me chuckle upon review and that will guide my ruminations during these Dog Days. As stated above, I want to raise a meta-ish issue concerning this thread first.

I just used the phrase "Dog Days". Its a shortened version of the phrase “dog days of summer,” which refers to a 40 day period in July and August that is considered the hottest and most humid time of the year. This period is so notoriously intense that Homer covered it in the Illiad:

Sirius rises late in the dark, liquid sky
On summer nights, star of stars,
Orion's Dog they call it, brightest
Of all, but an evil portent, bringing heat
And fevers to suffering humanity.​

So, about now...in more ways than one. Truth be told, "the dog days of summer" is really a pretty good metaphor for the current BTC ecosystem. Let me explain, after which I'll offer a modest proposal; then, I'll get to link sharing.

**
Some Etymology​

The meaning of "Dog Days of Summer" was inspired by the heliacal rising of the Dog Star - Sirius.

During its heliacal rising period, or the "Dog Days of Summer", the Dog Star is a reliable predictor of the immediate future (it predicts the imminent coming of a new dawn, its indicative of time of day and seasonality, it can be used to understand the likely weather of the time period, etc). Given that helical rises are just before sunrise, the Dog Star during the Dog Days is a little ahead of the curve if you will. Not to sound too sappy, but I think the conversation that occurred in this thread historically was/is a vehicle for some to participate in Bitcoin as a sort of Dog Star during the Dog Days of Bitcoin.

The name "Sirius" strikes me as a timely name for two reasons:

1. "Sirius" is the name for an important foundational figure in BTC. If you think about it, Sirius's role in BTC can be considered like the Dog Star during the dog days of summer: brief; bright; timely; reliable. Sirius role left such a mark that some folks think he's likely Satoshi, and their reasons are not bad or illogical - in this way, Sirius did take on the certain qualities that have similarities with the Dog Star.
2. Building on the first point - as a star, Sirius is unique. Its bright, its close to the solar system, and is part of a well-known constellation Canis Major. That mix of qualities have made Sirius the subject of folklore and sublime pursuits as well as controversy.

A term I remember from a music class I took long ago that describes what I mean by the ‘Dog Days of Bitcoin’ is "dissonance" (think Stravinsky).

​

Dissonance is powerful. It can inspire riots. It can effect your brain. The opposite of dissonance, the resolution of it if you will, is consonance. Consonance represents clarity. Collectively, dissonance and consonance represent a dualism or dichotomy. They speak to intervals of chords or notes.

The vibe in these “Dog Days” of Bitcoin feels a lot like dissonance - its chaotic at the moment. The Dao-bacle and Ethereum Classic are case and point:

​

In many respects, it feels like we’re reaching some sort of mysterious inflection-point in BTC's history. Personally, I suspect we're going to see the emergence of a leader or leadership group before too long. I think this leader or leadership group will bring clarity of the ecosystem and carry the next wave of BTC's history forward.They will be a new Dog Star. However, that's not to say that there's going to be big change in the future - or any change at all for that matter – but, I think we're going to see some sort of credible and unifying large-scale assertion of power in the coming months. I think we’ll return to a state of consonance.

​

Let me say more: The ecosystem, which is decentralized, is intentionally and persistently in a power vacuum and power struggle. The block size debate - as adversarial as it is and has been - has inspired new ideas, new depth on old ideas, new scholarship, new voices, new concerns, etc. In some ways, the Hobbesian dialects of the big block vs. small block debate is really inspiring and intuitive; in other ways, it is scary, uncertain, and confusing. Regardless, though, there is now enough diversity in ideas and people that old and established ideas and practices are being revisited and challenged constantly. This will continue until consensus returns to the ecosystem. I do not think this is good or bad – I think its cyclical in the same way that music is based on intervals. The universe is in a constant state of change, why shouldn’t bitcoinland be the same?

As it relates to this thread, we have been in a period of dissonance this last week – a clear sign that we’re in the Dog Days of Bitcoin. It kicked off with pokertravis’s entry a week ago – which neatly corresponded with the ETH fork. Since then, we have seen a rift develop here – one for which there is not an obvious explanation – that culminated in the closure of this thread, a defiant reopening of the same, and the end of cypherdoc’s modship. We lost the Dog Star of this thread.

The dissonance of this thread isn’t as simple as what I just described either – it feels amplified via what appears to be some spiking of the ball in various places:

• https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4uo028/cypherdoc_throws_toys_out_of_pram_and_closes/

Interestingly enough, the 'spiking of the ball' on Cypherdoc and the forking of this thread - and "cult" as some have described it - is oddly similar to some squabbles cypherdoc recently had on reddit. I’d show you those reddit posts, but since yesterday cypherdoc has deleted his reddit account along with his twitter account. They’re similar to:

As stated publicly before, I welcome community input on who should be moderators on this forum. This is not an authoritarian stance by any stretch. cypherdoc has expressed before that he was not comfortable with this policy (presumably because too many people dislike him after his HashFast sponsorship fiasco) and has threatened to leave for Roger Ver's forum in the past. I personally haven't been able to trust him after being blackmailed, but my position on moderatorship is unchanged.​

END PART 1

 

[cliff]

PART 2

***
A Modest Proposal
​

The current level of dissonance is sad, confusing, and scary. I guess that’s the point, especially in cases where its intentional (not saying it is here).

Cypherdoc was and is important. He kept this thread going for years. He contributed to the community not insubstantially. He pushed and funded the exploration of various ideas and innovations. However, suddenly he appears to feel that his contributions are unwelcomed, threatened, hurt, all of the above, etc. This thread will not be the same without him to say the least.

More to the point - if this thread is to survive, it needs Cypherdoc at the helm. The thread transcends forums and frankly its not right to hijack the brand he inspired and cultivated - not without his blessing at the vert least. Keeping this thread open just adds insult to injury - its ontologically violent. If Cypherdoc closed this thread, it should remain closed until he re-opens it again here or elsewhere. That being said, I suspect Cypherdoc will not be coming back here and I think this thread should go dark IMHO.

I do not think we should go dark though. The ideas and discussions that have happened here are a good resource for folks. Maybe I’m just selfish, but I get a lot out the discussion here because we get a good intersection of global economics, crypto-currency generally, and bitcoin – which of course is the unifying theme of this thread. I’ve been clear that my POV is one of a student or a researcher trying to understand various positions. I like to try on various arguments/positions to see where they take me. I would like to continue doing that and help replicate this thread, but I don’t think I can continue in this particular thread on principle. I hope some of you will take a similar position (and maybe some of you have already).

I propose a new thread – as a successor to this Gold thread – that covers all aspects of the Dog Days of Bitcoin, from consonance to dissonance, and back to consonance. To be clear, I’m not seeking to run such a thread here or anywhere. This is a modest proposal to discuss at the moment.

One issue to consider, however, is venue. I suspect some folks do not feel safe on this forum any longer or maybe like they were re-routed a year ago under some a false sense of security. There may be good reason to feel that way, and there may not be. It is up for discussion. I’m a fan of due diligence, so I encourage folks to think about this proposal – including the issue of venue - and research as necessary. On the issue of safety, I have been wondering recently about why most of the top search terms for this thread do not involve in bitcoin. Its an interesting rabbit hole to be sure. If you’re so inclined, look at some of my infiltration and dilution posts from late last week.

****
Timely Links for Review​

I found some of my pre-dao-bacle posts interesting in light of the Dao-bacle fallout, including the emergence of ETC.

Not my post, but one that inspired some of them (Zangelbert Bingledack’s initial futures markets post):

• https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-611#post-21759

Two Responses to the Futures Market concept, the second of which I think is the first clear iteration of trading two coins following a forked chain:

• https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-612#post-21789
• https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-620#post-22007

This is my response to Daniel K’s recent post – read the point number 3 toward the bottom (the second point number 3 in the post) – very reminiscent of ETH v. ETC IMHO:

• https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-706#post-24825

Relavent to or On TheDao and ETH Governance:

• https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-268#post-10010
• https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-661#post-23252
• https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-644#post-22715

Fun but stupid Tinfoil:

• https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-653#post-22977
• https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-653#post-22979

 

[chriswilmer]

Cypherdoc deleted his Reddit and Twitter account? How are we supposed to PM him (as per his instructions)?

Weird about the search terms for the forum too.

 

[pekatete]

That he's deleted his twitter and reddit accounts probably points to a much deeper reason why he felt the need to close this thread, in my thinking the spam thing that escalated to ads revenue (attributable to being generated by this thread et al) was just the last straw on top of other events (in cypherdocs universe) outside this thread.

I did not think this thread would be re-opened by @Bloomie , but with hind-sight I have to agree that the reason given for re-opening it trumped any that @cypherdoc gave. I've also got to mention here that this forum is outstanding in lacking censorship and that is mainly due to the forum admin, who re-opened the thread.

I don't think it serves any purpose to re-close the thread, but I'd lurk around a replacement thread (should one be started in honour of this one) as much as here. I've only been following this thread for a very short time and do more learning than contribute and like I mentioned elsewhere, there are many other contributors here that make this thread tick than just cypherdoc, so I am confident (if the rest choose to continue participating) it'll continue to tick.

 

[bluemoon]

@cliff

While I agree @cypherdoc has been important to the thread, I don't recognise his ownership of it. It is a joint effort.

Nor do I care to insinuate any darkness on the part of Bloomie and his forum. Thus far it is free speaking and open.

Cypherdoc is welcome to lead whatever flock he can gather wherever he wishes to lead it, but there is no sign of him doing so yet. If we stay here he can rejoin us when he is ready, and explain himself if he is so minded.

It is not a good time for those gathered here to be scattering to the four winds.

 

[Aquent]

I don't see how we can be asked to form any opinion without being provided some facts and considering everything else that is going on such facts, whether claimed or otherwise, should, preferably, be succinct and to the point.

I really have no clue why @cypherdoc decided to, all the sudden, close the thread, and therefore I have no basis to judge whether closing it is best. In absence of such facts, I don't think I logically have any choice, but to fully ignore the closing and move on.

I must say, however, that the timing could not be worse, and the "feeding" of some posters has, for a few days/weeks prior to the sudden and unexpected action, turned this place to barely skim-worthy.

If there is something that has to be said and we should know, then say it. Otherwise, hold your peace. What else can you expect of us mere mortals? An ability to read your minds?

Just speak and get it over with, or shut up and move on.

 

[79b79aa8]

I agree with @cliff that the respectful thing to do would be to stop posting in this thread. A new one may be opened in this forum, with a link from here to there. Ideally one of the more active posters could do it.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Fork arbitrage is live in Ethereum. Kraken, Bitfinex, Shapeshift on board. Charles Hoskinson rejoined Ethereum via Classic. Very interesting times. Front row seat:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereumclassic

 

[bluemoon]

It's interesting, but I don't think he understands that gold is a ledger in itself. And that the current fiat system has been on a highway to hell since the Federal Reserve betrayed the Bretton Woods agreement in the 1960's by printing more USD than the gold to back it up.

The guy sees the organising principle of society as the state and fails to see that it is not 'scarcity' which is important in a money but the difficulty of its dilution by freeriders.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

What the hell? Why did @cypherdoc delete all known accounts? Is this really just about forum moderation or is there anything else happening?

I liked his input, sad if he doesn't come back.

Maybe its the heat but the Bitcoin world feels pretty surreal right now. And @cliff's weird posts don't help to change that.

 

[sickpig]

WAT?


I'm really start to feel there's something I'm not getting...

 

[albin]

@sickpig

I can't tell the difference between Barry Silbert and Fontas anymore.