Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[majamalu]

I could be wrong, but judging by the millions of dollars that are regularly thrown into senseless "blockchain" projects, I still think many of them have probably been misled.

 

[Dusty]

I'll leave this interesting post by Nassim Taleb about choices with asymmetric rules and minorities. Seems to overlap with what we are experiencing in Bitcoin:

The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority

An interesting quote:

Let us conjecture that the formation of moral values in society doesn’t come from the evolution of the consensus. No, it is the most intolerant person who imposes virtue on others precisely because of that intolerance. The same can apply to civil rights.

EDIT: missing word

 

[majamalu]

Interesting indeed.

"This large payoff from stubborn courage is not just in the military. The entire growth of society, whether economic or moral, comes from a small number of people."

Are we stubborn enough?

 

[solex]

@adamstgbit @Norway

Regarding sibyl nodes. Think about the difference between actors and spectators. Actors have to expend real work and possess real resources. Spectators can swell in number but do not affect what is happening on the stage. In the Bitcoin ecosystem there are frequent and infrequent users, large and small investors, hodlers , large and small businesses, service providers, etc. A cross-range of them will run full nodes (actors) and they all have their own individual capacity level for which txn volume can be comfortably handled. All they have to do is set their capacity (via EB/AD) or accept BU defaults until their capacity is reached.

Emergent consensus operates above the peer-to-peer network. It acts at the social level described above, i.e. the "Bitcoin full-node culture"

While it is feasible for one person to run up 500 nodes (spectators) and pretend that they will accept 300MB blocks, yet s/he will not be able to magnify their economic footprint within the ecosystem. In other words: the rest of the ecosystem won't give a toss that this sibyl "attack" is in progress.
So, emergent consensus is sibyl-resistant for what really matters which is a prevailing block limit which satisfies the ecosystem including miners.

What are not sibyl resistant are any websites which collate data such as the EB/AD settings advertized on BU nodes. So someone might be able to spoof a higher block limit for news purposes, and maybe some full-node owners will be misled and change their values incorrectly, but this will have a negligible effect overall.

 

[Norway]

1 peta hash Bitcoin Unlimited mining!

https://forum.bitcoin.com/post30592.html#p30592

 

[cliff]

-------------------------------------
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP!
-------------------------------------
BTC | XAU (spot) | COMEX CG1
$609.62| $1314.59 | $1318.40
-------------------------------------
BTCswap(BFX) | BTCswap(Polo)
0.0379% | 0.0095%
-------------------------------------
HashRate: 1.70 EH/s [hashrate down .08 since Friday]
MarketCap: $9,683,547,636
-------------------------------------
GBTC | SPDR Gold Trust ETF
$92.5 | $125.42
-------------------------------------
10YR Treas| Copper | Crude (WTI)
1.71% | $215.75/lb | $43.6/barrel
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------

This was a fun read:

• The cypherpunk revolution - How the tech vanguard turned public-key cryptography into one of the most potent political ideas of the 21st century

 

[cliff]

-------------------------------------
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP!
-------------------------------------
BTC | XAU (spot) | COMEX CG1
$608.20| $1313.95 | $1317.2
-------------------------------------
BTCswap(BFX) | BTCswap(Polo)
0.0379% | 0.08%
-------------------------------------
HashRate: 1.71 EH/s
MarketCap: $9,655,398,076
-------------------------------------
GBTC | SPDR Gold Trust ETF
$91 | $125.36
-------------------------------------
10YR Treas| Copper | Crude (WTI)
1.71% | $215.4/lb | $43.38/barrel
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------

• Saw this article in Core’s Slack today: Satoshi Saga Continues: Tulip Trust Trustee Expected to Appear by September 19, Says Joseph VaughnPerling
  • On the one hand, I hope it’s true. It’s not that far fetched, it would end some mystery, and and a lot of crow would need to be eaten.
  • On the other hand, the mystery is probably good to some degree and I would hate for crow futures to go through the roof.

• Note the hash rate. Then look at this reddit post from /u/3xploit here: Prepare for a huge diff spike. Bitfury just took delivery of 500k chips!
  • Predictions on when the impact will be felt? How long does it take to go from chips to boards to miner?

• San Francisco Weather Forecast
  • Saturday - 9/24/2016 - Mainly sunny. High 76F. Winds NW at 10 to 20 mph.
  • Sunday - 9/25/2016 - A mainly sunny sky. High 79F. Winds N at 10 to 20 mph.
  • Monday - 9/26/2016 - Sunny. High 79F. NNE winds shifting to W at 10 to 20 mph.

 

[albin]

Current network hashrate in GH/s is estimated to be 1,639,068,498 (on bitcoinwisdom).

500,000 chips @ 55 GH/s / chip = 27,500,000 GH/s.

That's only approximately 1.68% of total current network hashrate.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

The news of the day is that Santander uses Ethereum to bring Fiat-money as a toke on the blockchain.
https://bitcoinblog.de/2016/09/20/santander-echtes-geld-als-token-auf-ethereum-blockchain/
engl: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/devcon2-santander-ethercamp-building-bridges-between-bank-accounts-ethereum-1582242

If the scaling-plan of ethereum - using sharding and Proof-of-Stake in combination with Lightning-Network and Swarm to store data - works and they roll out well made light-wallets, they win. They will just win, planning for success with gigabyte-blocks, having visions, realizing visions and being open for all kind of ideas, while bitcoin devs still whine about a blocksize-lift to 2 mb and stonewall everybody who doesn't submit to their SegWit-Lightning-Softfork policy.

I really hope whisper and the implementation of zerocash in Ethereum will come to reality, and maybe some integration of TumbleBit. The world will need it.

Bitcoin was never able to compete with Ethereum in regards to smart contracts, and it was never able to compete with monero in regards to privacy. The only thing bitcoin was winning, was as a medium of exchange accepted by a lot of exchanges, markets, payment-providers, people and media. But as we all know - this area is crippled by a strange ideology of misunderstanding decentralization and libertarism.

Now Bitcoins share of the whole cryptocurrency-market fall under 80%. It's share of the trading-volume, btw, felt under 60%. Meanwhile, the growth of transactions / day has come to a halt. Even if you take transactions without chains longer than 10.

 

[Bagatell]

@Christoph Bergmann

Which part of P2P do they not understand?

 

[cliff]

-------------------------------------
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP!
-------------------------------------
BTC | XAU (spot) | COMEX CG1
$608.3| $1313.85 | $1316.4
-------------------------------------
BTCswap(BFX) | BTCswap(Polo)
0.0381% | 0.0825%
-------------------------------------
HashRate: 1.68 EH/s
MarketCap: $9,683,865,134
-------------------------------------
GBTC | SPDR Gold Trust ETF
$90.43 | $125.33
-------------------------------------
10YR Treas| Copper | Crude (WTI)
1.70% | $215.14/lb | $42.68/barrel
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------

• Accenture breaks blockchain taboo with editing system (Reuters)
• Bitcoin is money, U.S. judge says in case tied to JPMorgan hack (Reuters)
• Olaf Carlson - Wee aims to strike it rich with Blockchain Hedge Fund (Institutional Investor)

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

• Satoshi’s Vision (Sept 25, 2016)
• Optimizing Bitcoin’s Transaction Generation Code [C.A.Stone]

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

• Core’s most recent GitHub commit activity
• Bitcoin Unlimited’s most recent GitHub commit activity

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

• Wells Fargo CEO To Address Secret-Accounts Scandal Before Senate Panel (NPR)
  • Everything is fine . . . .
    • "It's a different spin on the system of 'checks and balances.'
      
      Wells Fargo has cut checks to the congressional campaigns of politicians on both sides of the aisle, including some who are questioning CEO John Stumpf on Capitol Hill Tuesday.
      
      The Wells Fargo and Company Employee PAC has made donations to 20 of 22 members of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, including ranking Democrat Sen. Sherrod Brown and Republican Chairman Sen. Richard Shelby, according to a review of Federal Election Commission data."
• Global stocks, dollar subdued as Fed, BOJ meetings begin (Reuters)
• U.S. Housing Permits, Starts Fell in August (WSJ)
• Oil falls on US crude stock rise forecast, Venezuela warning (CNBC, Reuters)
  • Cramer: Ridiculous game oil producers play to manipulate prices
• Intel Lifted by PC Awakening (Barron’s)
• How to Raise Trillions for Green Investments (NYT, Henry Paulson)
• Laws of Performant Software

 

[lunar]

Classic beta https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic/releases/tag/v1.2.0.b1

Flexible transactions. Segwit without the wait !
Great work.

 

[freetrader]

The BTCfork organization today released source code for hardfork_prototype_0 (HFP0), an early prototype of a Bitcoin hard fork (spin-off) client.

Reddit announcement thread:

https://ww.reddit.com/r/btcfork/comments/53tfnb/hfp0_an_early_prototype_of_a_bitcoin_hard_fork/

Main features of the prototype include:

• fixed block height trigger
• an implementation of BitPay's adaptive block size algorithm which adjusts the block size cap in the range 2MB-4MB
• optional change of POW (modified scrypt, CPU minable and hopefully ASIC-resistant)
• per-block difficulty adjustment using MIDAS (Multi Interval Difficulty Adjustment System)
• Xtreme Thinblocks from Bitcoin Unlimited

BTCfork reminds that this is a prototype and should not be used to put real money (i.e. Bitcoins) at risk.
Development of a production-ready Minimum Viable Fork client will continue.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

@freetrader
Is there a reason for using one commit only?

 

[freetrader]

@satoshis_sockpuppet : From Part 3:

Why a single huge commit?
This development was conducted privately while I was learning about the Bitcoin code, and the full commit history is long and messy. Up to the first code release there have been 317 commits since March 7, 2016. I still maintain several unclean experimental feature branches.

It would take large effort to straighten it out into a series of nice, atomic functional commits. I'm not even sure that's always entirely possible with this set of changes, at least not while keeping things compiling between certain commits.

Therefore, instead of trying to re-arrange the commit history, I have carefully marked modifications with tagged change markers that identify the functional area(s) to which a change is associated. This has been done where possible - for some files it is not possible as they permit no comments etc.

The marker tags should make it relatively easy to understand what a change is about and to focus on a set of changes of interest for review.

I agree with those who would have preferred a clean, public development with an easily understandable commit history. I'm sorry I couldn't provide that with this first prototype. My future work on improved spin-offs will be conducted using public repositories, and thus it should be easier to understand and review changes.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

@freetrader
Ah ok, thanks.

Makes a review pretty hard, no chance for a cleaned up history?

edit: And before that sounds to pessimistic, thanks for putting something out there that can be picked to pieces!

 

[freetrader]

@satoshis_sockpuppet : yeah, sorry about that. I wouldn't urge anyone to spend much time doing a full code review of a prototype which isn't going to be developed on any further and which has significant deficiencies

Partial reviews of selective bits would be helpful though. As I previously mentioned, the new POW code needs looking at. Unfortunately nobody seems to have had time to do that yet. I'm going to look at the differences between it and Colin Percival's scrypt code (or other modified scrypt versions I can find), to see if I understand what modifications rocks made to it. But honestly, I expect that a proper POW fork might decide to go with a more proven non-SHA256 POW. There's a bunch of alternatives...

Another area is the MIDAS code. I'm still polishing up a little Python test framework for testing (simulating) diificulty algorithms. That will hopefully get some more data about MIDAS behaviour. I know the original author did a lot of testing on it himself, but I don't know if he will publish any of that.

Those are probably the interesting bits. The BitPay stuff is simple enough.

The Minimum Viable Fork (MVF) development, which is what I'm going to spend time on now, will be done on public repos from the start, so everyone can follow the commits and review more easily. And the diffs should be a lot smaller due to starting on a more up-to-date codebase.

 

[Richy_T]

@freetrader
Ah ok, thanks.

Makes a review pretty hard, no chance for a cleaned up history?

edit: And before that sounds to pessimistic, thanks for putting something out there that can be picked to pieces!

Gavin put the Kaibosh on that kind of thing with his "I can't support Bitcoin Unlimited because the code in git is too messy so I'm going to go ahead and help create yet another fork that will drag things out another few months".

Don't get me wrong, I like Gavin and he's right more often than not but well...
[doublepost=1474479118][/doublepost]Poll is out of date...

Suggestion for a new one: Given what happened on Testnet, should BU signal BIP109? (Not suggesting this be actionable, just interested)

 

[theZerg]

@Richy_T just FYI, you can use a cli command to change the BIP109 flag in BU. I'm guessing that its still being signalled on bitcoin.com's mainnet blocks because most block explorers have not added code to parse the BU signaling. This may change soon though (I think one or two have already added it), and once people can clearly see the large block votes I'll bet they'll start turning the flag off, since it appears from recent statements that some large miners prefer "native" BU unlimited blocks over BIP109's 2MB compromise.

 

[VeritasSapere]

I have been busy, rehashing the blocksize debate in my old stomping grounds, starting to feel nostalgic to me now . However this time I am debating with a new twist, I am advocating splitting the chain unless we find comprise.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1616856
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1612347

Join in on the conversation, it is always good to enter into debate with the ideological opposition, always questioning our own beliefs. I often find the conversation to be more interesting when there is disagreement.