Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

Norway · Aug 11, 2016

@freetrader
I believe that a good dev team must have a good leader on top. If not, it could be gamed according to the consensus rules. Allmost all effective organisations have a leader. Satoshi did a great job for many years. So did Gavin.

The decentralization issue must be taken care of by having competing teams. Not by having a hippie drum circle team whithout a leader.

In bitcoin world, I think it can be a good idea to let the leader be anonymous. It will make it a lot easier to be focused on the tasks.

Well, it's just my opinion. But think twice before you try to invent an organization model without leadership. It could be a can of worms.

freetrader · Aug 11, 2016

Refining Jeff Garzik's proposal to apply NASA's "Technology Readiness Levels" to Bitcoin development:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btcfork/comments/4x8wby/refining_jeff_garziks_proposal_to_apply_trls_to/

[doublepost=1470934371,1470933672][/doublepost]

Norway said:
@freetrader
I believe that a good dev team must have a good leader on top. If not, it could be gamed according to the consensus rules. Allmost all effective organisations have a leader. Satoshi did a great job for many years. So did Gavin.

The decentralization issue must be taken care of by having competing teams. Not by having a hippie drum circle team whithout a leader.

In bitcoin world, I think it can be a good idea to let the leader be anonymous. It will make it a lot easier to be focused on the tasks.

Well, it's just my opinion. But think twice before you try to invent an organization model without leadership. It could be a can of worms.

Bitcoin is greater than one leader, or one leading organization. It is true that it is lead by consensus, but the only consensus big enough to make decisions about a global electronic p2p cash which could become the bedrock of our future money is global consensus.

You can't "invent it" - it already exists - like a vacuum energy out of which virtual particles come into existence.

In bitcoin world, I think it can be a good idea to let the leader be anonymous.

Yes, Satoshi proved this in practice.

The decentralization issue must be taken care of by having competing teams. Not by having a hippie drum circle team whithout a leader.

Yes, decentralized teams. There is no single team in charge. There is no hippie drum circle producing the only beats in town. Any sort of teams can form their own structures (like already exists) and play in this big consensus game. However, they are all like players in an orchestra - to make music (good Bitcoin evolution) they must put in effort to play their part well and play together (i.e. their processes and results will be judged by the global community). That's the basic idea, not leaderlessness within a project. It always requires some people to step up and do things, like /u/singularity87 creating that subreddit and BTCfork github and various media channels, and /u/keepcalm preparing a great website, etc. That moves things forwards. Of course, we use the technology we have, like this forum, to communicate and discuss and plan and agree (or disagree)

It will make it a lot easier to be focused on the tasks.

We all find something we can focus on that brings us happiness. Helping Bitcoin grow up healthy to become what Satoshi described would be an immense joy. Right now it's just having teething troubles, maybe a bout of childhood illness.

But think twice before you try to invent an organization model without leadership. It could be a can of worms.

I thought twice, then decided it's a great idea

Of course this requires real people doing real things, but we've been doing that since Satoshi gave it to us, why stop now?

Just take care, and use technology to your advantage to protect yourself and your loved ones.

Norway · Aug 11, 2016

@freetrader
"I thought twice, then decided it's a great idea

"

Ok, I don't mean to be a negative Nancy, and I want the project to succeed. We need to fork away from the current implementation.

Just remember that a successful fork would start a new era where no specific dev team make long term decisions. Like elections of dev team from time to time by both miners and market price.

freetrader · Aug 11, 2016

@Norway: I edited my top post to include a point which I forgot to respond to.

I think we're on the same wavelength about changes of dev teams from time to time, as governed by what the market wants/needs.

lunar · Aug 11, 2016

@molecular I'd like to think he's taking a well earned break, sipping a G'n'T on a sunny beach, perhaps with a little lurking from time to time.

If that's the case @cypherdoc I'm sure you'd have a comment on Andreas's segregated witness assessment.

https://decentralize.today/segregated-witness-and-aligning-economic-incentives-with-resource-costs-7d987b135c00#.jlvah3gho

Segregated witness therefore has two main effects on the fees paid by bitcoin users. Firstly, segregated witness reduces the overall cost of transactions by discounting witness data and increasing the capacity of the bitcoin blockchain. Secondly, segregated witness’ discount on witness data corrects a misalignment of incentives that may have inadvertently created more bloat in the UTXO set.

Anyway if you are out there?

This place is just not the same without you.
Safe travels and a speedy return.

freetrader · Aug 11, 2016

Safety belt on:

https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4x93y4/refining_jeff_garziks_proposal_to_apply_trls_to/

pekatete · Aug 11, 2016

@freetrader - Being where we are, I think concentrating on dev team leadership (and / or composition) should only be for the short term (within and in the context of the proposed fork), thus confined to the "genesis" forking client team. EDIT: If at all feasible and possible, I'd go as far as saying there should be multiple forking clients from the onset.

I believe that, for the longer term, it is more important to have and encourage multiple clients from the onset to avoid falling back into the same pit we find ourselves in at the present moment.

freetrader · Aug 11, 2016

@pekatete :

I'd go as far as saying there should be multiple forking clients from the onset.

I'm 95% sure this will be the case. Many people are saying there should be a Minimum Viable Fork, but as soon as it gets to POW / SHA256 etc. opinions are not uniform. Also on the release strategy. I think therefore it will happen like you say.

In the future, I see multiple development teams already - Classic, BU, and Core won't just go away. Even the XT folks have proved they stick around and do their thing.

But if Core loses its control, I expect we will see more teams even.

cliff · Aug 11, 2016

lunar said:
Anyway if you are out there? This place is just not the same without you.
Safe travels and a speedy return.

Correct.

On that note - I'm a little tied up today and won't be able to post my gold/btc links until later today - I'll shoot for a nice recap of today's markets etc, which is a little different from what I've been doing.

Several folks have gone quiet (not necessarily from here) - its very noticeable when you look at the various fora activity from both a pre- and post- ice cream social perspective. I would not be surprised if there was a secret agreement in place concerning silence to avoid trolling, etc., in which case I would hope that something is in the hopper and that good news is on the way.

Norway · Aug 11, 2016

I hate to break it to you, @cliff. But you're not @cypherdoc

freetrader · Aug 11, 2016

>I would not be surprised if there was a secret agreement in place concerning silence to avoid trolling

I haven't heard of it. Lots of people very busy though I think, on all sides

I appreciate @cliff's post - lots of good links, and interesting perspectives.
Please keep it up if you find the time.

cliff · Aug 11, 2016

@Norway.

RE "I hate to break it to you, @cliff. But you're not @cypherdoc"

ok.

tbf, i never claimed to be - was just hoping to keep the thread's theme alive and to pay some respect.

pekatete · Aug 11, 2016

Norway said:
I hate to break it to you, @cliff. But you're not @cypherdoc

It's Thursday .... are you already inebriated? I like it when people get their spirits up, we get lots of ideas flowing here.

freetrader · Aug 12, 2016

From the oops-guess-someone-fucked-up-bigtime-but-it-was-always-going-to-happen department:

https://np.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/4x9dje/microsoft_accidentally_leaks_secure_boot_golden/

https://np.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/4x9dt2/microsoft_accidentally_leaks_secure_boot_golden/

As someone in that thread mentioned, this might usher in a golden era of kicking insecure operating systems off of what is basically decent hardware (Surface etc.) currently tied to MS, and replace them with more secure OS's

Making the world a safer place...

EDIT: so despite the sensationalist title, it seems they didn't leak the actual key but some bad code which lets a user circumvent their security. I still look forward to the fallout. This poster has a better summary:

Christoph Bergmann · Aug 12, 2016

cliff said:
-------------------------------------

Coin Center concerned about newly proposed language for California’s bitcoin legislation

[Text] “The bill would prohibit a person from engaging in the digital currency business without enrolling in the program and would prohibit the conduct of digital currency business through an unenrolled agent.”

[Text] “ The bill would also require the person to provide fingerprints and would authorize the commissioner to deliver the fingerprints to law enforcement agencies.”

[Text] “The bill would prohibit an enrollee in the program from advertising products, services, and activities without a statement regarding the program and that a government agency has not reviewed the safety or soundness of the business or digital currencies.”

[Text] “ The bill would authorize the commissioner to include in civil actions claims for ancillary relief, including restitution and disgorgement, on behalf of a person injured, as well as attorney’s fees and costs . . . .”

[Text] (d) “Digital currency business” means the business of offering or providing the service of storing, transmitting, exchanging, or issuing digital currency.“Digital currency business” does not include the following:

(1) Transmission of digital currency where the transaction is undertaken for nonfinancial purposes and does not involve the transfer of more than a nominal amount of digital currency necessary to complete the transaction.

(2) Online games or gaming platforms that use digital currency that (A) have no market or application outside of those games or gaming platforms, (B) cannot be converted into, or redeemed for, fiat currency or digital currency, and (C) are not redeemable for real-world goods, services, discounts, or purchases.

(3) Customer affinity or rewards programs that use digital currency that can be redeemed for goods, services, or for purchases with the issuer or other designated merchants, but cannot be converted into, or redeemed for, fiat currency or digital currency that is not part of the customer affinity or rewards program.

(4) Issuance of a credit card voucher, letter of credit, or any value that is redeemable only by the issuer for goods and services provided by the issuer or its affiliate, except to the extent required by applicable law to be redeemable in cash for its cash value.

(5) A person or entity developing, distributing, or servicing digital currency network software.

(6) A person or entity contributing software, connectivity, or computing power to a digital currency network.

(7) A person or entity providing data storage or cybersecurity services for an enrolled digital currency business, if the data storage or cybersecurity services do not store digital currency.

Thank you for the summery.

Most parts don't seem to be critical / going beyond what BitLicence and EU-commission wants. But (5), (6) and (7) indicate that everybody who gets in touch with digital currency, be it someone who runs a client, someone who privides Virtual Servers where a client runs, and someone who contributes code. It doesn't seem to let a loophole.

Can you help me to find the original quotes for this parts? They seem horrible.

pekatete · Aug 12, 2016

Bitcoin XT:0.11.0G(did you say segwit? you mean hackwit HACKWIT cause it is a hack, get it?; Linux; x86_64)

cliff · Aug 12, 2016

# btc intersections

IMF Sees China growth of 6.6% this year, 6.2% in 2017
Zimbabwe's social media revolt yet to take root in rural areas
- “The internet and mobile phone apps have given people a sense of anonymity, helping to create an army of activists expressing anger against high unemployment, an acute shortage of cash, poor public services and corruption.”
Excluding autos, retail sales last month fell 0.3%
- “Elsewhere in Friday’s report, noncore retailers, which posted a 1.3% gain from the prior month, offered the only other bright spot. The category is largely online merchants like Amazon but also includes catalogs, infomercials and other types of vendors.”
Taiwan’s Foxconn Completes Acquisition of Sharp

-------------------------------------
OTHER

-------------------------------------
AM TRIBUTE
[doublepost=1471011044,1471010072][/doublepost]

Christoph Bergmann said:
Thank you for the summery.

Most parts don't seem to be critical / going beyond what BitLicence and EU-commission wants. But (5), (6) and (7) indicate that everybody who gets in touch with digital currency, be it someone who runs a client, someone who privides Virtual Servers where a client runs, and someone who contributes code. It doesn't seem to let a loophole.

Can you help me to find the original quotes for this parts? They seem horrible.

I read (d)(1)-(7) as exclusions from the definition of a "digital currency business." Folks running nodes (6), developing software(5), and so forth(7) do not count as a digital currency businesses - likely because they're not in a position of trust like a bank etc. However, if you're going to operate a business holding other folks' bitcoin, you probably will need a license if and when this legislation passes. I haven't gone through the proposed changes beyond a skim or so and I may have missed something.

I'm not sure what kind of help you need in finding the quote portions, but I'll take a stab at it. Try pages 30 (lines 21-40) to 31 (lines 1 to 9) here . See also section 26010(a) on page 32 (indicating who has to enroll and pay the fee - only those engaging in a digital currency business)

Zangelbert Bingledack · Aug 12, 2016

[doublepost=1471016631][/doublepost]

cliff · Aug 12, 2016

UK Gambling Commission Views Bitcoin as Cash Equivalent
Democracy, forests and finance: the tech making Africa a better place
[A.B. Flashback] The Dawn of Mobile Banking, published 1 day after the Genesis Block and 5 days before Satoshi got BTC going in earnest
Men accused of running major drugs operations on dark web

# btc intersections

-------------------------------------

OTHER

karDASHian coin at .02. Wow

-------------------------------------
PM TRIBUTE

Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Moderator

Well-Known Member

Moderator

Well-Known Member

Moderator

Active Member

Moderator

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Moderator

Active Member

Active Member

Moderator

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member