Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Bagatell]

"I have selected the Bitcoin Unlimited implementation to base the assetchains on. A couple reasons are that the MVF (minimum viable fork) btcfork project that I helped out is basing itself on that. Also instead of being insulted, I get invited to the BU slack so I can get support in making a dPoW compatible chain."

https://komodoplatform.com/assetchain-alpha-release/

 

[_mr_e]

dpow is very interesting. It allows for multiple chains but respects (and relies on) bitcoins dominance in order to work. I've followed jl777's work for a long time, it's very cool seeing the puzzle pieces of his "scattered" mind coming together. If he pulls this off it could vastly change the the crypto landscape.

https://komodoplatform.com/downloads/Komodo_dPoW_Whitepaper_v1.pdf

 

[cliff]

-------------------------------------
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP!
-------------------------------------
BTC | XAU (spot) | COMEX CG1
$618.34| $1260.34 | $1263.4
-------------------------------------
BTCswap(BFX) | BTCswap(Polo)
0.0421% | 0.0243%
-------------------------------------
HashRate: 1.86 EH/s
MarketCap: $9,830,534,425
BTC Dominance: 80%
Exchange Volume (BTC): $63.18m
Exchange Volume (ALT): $32.44m
Exchange Volume BTC Dominance: 66.1%
Gemini Daily Auction: 2200.05147367 BTC @ 612.25 ($1,346,981.51)
-------------------------------------
GBTC | SPDR Gold Trust ETF
$86 | $120.12
-------------------------------------
10YR Treas| Copper | Crude (WTI)
1.72% | $217.5/lb | $50.28/barrel
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------

• [Its just hand waving until there is an actual projected release date (Soon TM)] What's Left Before SegWit Goes Live (Coindesk)
• BTC Dominance Indicators & Hash Rate UP this morning.
• [Potential Bitfinex Hack Update] The FBI is Investigating a $1.3 Million Bitcoin Theft (Coindesk)
• Chicago’s Cook County to Test Bitcoin Blockchain-Based Property Title Transfer (Bitcoin Mag, Twerpy)
• John McAfee-led Bitcoin Mining Operation Aims to Scale 5 PetaHash in 2016 (CryptocoinsNews)
  • Robbins Arroyo LLP: MGT Capital Investments, Inc. (MGT) Misled Shareholders According to a Recently Filed Class Action (Robbins Arroyo LLP blog)
  • Stock Info on MGT (Zacks)
  • All SEC-required Company filings here (SEC - EDGAR Database)

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

• Physical gold demand will limit price decline: Goldman Sachs (CNBC)
  • Gold Prices Fall to New Four-Month Low: Speculation rises for higher interest rates in coming months (WSJ)
  • Gold price spikes after soft US jobs data (Mining.com)
  • If gold gets below $1,250 an ounce, start buying: Goldman (Market Watch)
  • Gold Fans, Keep the Faith; This Bloodbath Will End (Barrons)
• U.S. Added 156,000 Jobs in September; Jobless Rate Rose to 5% (WSJ)
• Flash Crash of the Pound Baffles Traders With Algorithms Being Blamed (Bloomberg, includes video)
• Snapchat parent working on IPO valuing firm at $25 billion or more (CNBC)
• World Bank president: Globalization not the root of all evil it's made out to be (CNBC)
• The road to Brexit: Britain’s prime minister must resist her party’s dangerous instincts (The Economist)
• Cisco’s Chambers says at IMF that 40% of businesses will disappear in a decade (MarketWatch)

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

• Thiel-Funded Seasteading Institute Cutting Deal For First Floating Commune Off French Polynesia (SFist)
• Tech billionaires convinced we live in the Matrix are secretly funding scientists to help break us out of it (Independent - UK) ← Anybody here believe this matrix theory? If so, why?

 

[albin]

@_mr_e

It would be absolutely delightful if this turns out to be the guy who actually ends up getting all that cross-chain interactivity and protocol layering working, as opposed to the ongoing two-plus years of sidechain vaporware and high-profile results-free pontification that heretofore has been in the pipe.

 

[solex]

"Subchains" by Peter Rizun. Presentation to the Satoshi's Vision Conference, San Francisco.
How nested weak-blocks significantly aids on-chain scaling and fast transaction verification.

We are making the conference videos available as they become ready.

 

[AdrianX]

Is someone mulling a BUIP?

this one only works in my understanding if implemented with outer changes notable some proposed by Gavin. I'd only go for it as a packaged including headers first, - even more controversial if taken out of context.

 

[Dusty]

Back from scaling bitcoin in Milan: it was nice to know and speak with members of the BU team!

 

[lunar]

*updated

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

 

[solex]

Nearly a year since BU was started. It's been a long road to get this far. Congratulations to @theZerg for his original vision and everyone here who contributed to get to this point.

 

[Zarathustra]

The softfork virus is now blocked.

 

[awemany]

Hey guys,

First of all: Awesome effort with BU to @solex, @theZerg, @Peter R. and everyone lse - and the surrounding pocket of sanity that seems to have formed around BU, you get my full support for all the great stuff that is happening lately. (Unfortunately, I am still busy and can't give too much else at the moment...)

Regarding ViaBTC: This is absolutely awesome and if I want to be optimistic, I'd say it is the first visible crumbling of the 1MB wall. This might actually be it, the crack that formed and the crumbling of the wall that I think @Zarathustra wrote so much about.

But along those lines: Large parts of my mind grew too cynical to actually feel enthusiastic about this yet - but this is the first time in a long while that the rational part of my brain actually tells me I should!

It has been - and still is - an uphill battle, but it looks like we're actually moving up the hill!

Also interesting it happened right after the latest stalling conference. That could be another clue into the minds of the miners.

 

[cliff]

-------------------------------------
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP!
-------------------------------------
BTC | XAU (spot) | COMEX CG1
$618.59 | $1,257.07* | $1,258.50*
-------------------------------------
BTCswap(BFX) | BTCswap(Polo)
0.037% | 0.0223%
-------------------------------------
HashRate: 1.93 EH/s
MarketCap: $9,837,818,942
BTC Dominance: 77%
Exchange Volume (BTC): $56.54m
Exchange Volume (ALT): $39.19m
Exchange Volume BTC Dominance: 59.61%
Gemini Daily Auction: 485 BTC @ $616.95 ($299,220.75)
-------------------------------------
GBTC | SPDR Gold Trust ETF*
$90.15 | $120.16
-------------------------------------
10YR Treas | Copper | Crude (WTI)
1.75% | $216.95*/lb | $49.57*/barrel

*Indicates price at market opening
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------

• ScalingBitcoin Milan, not so much about Scaling Bitcoin (WallStreetTechnologist.com)
• viaBTC switches to BitcoinUnlimited - supports 2MB blocks
• Some at MIT think Core is over-moderating the mailing-list to the detriment of bitcoin discussion
  • Its so bad, even gmax unsubscribed.
• Some of the worst propaganda I’ve seen from this rag (Coindesk)
  • Don’t forget, the owner of Coindesk is a Stream-Blocking investor
  • Throwback - I’m a Former Green Beret and Here’s How I Would Bring Down Bitcoin (Bitcoin Magazine)
  • The Agenda-Setting Role of the Mass Media in the Shaping of Public Opinion (Maxwell McCombs - PDF, Scholarly Paper)
  • Agenda-setting theory (Wikipedia)
  • Manufacturing Consensus...err...I mean Consent (Wikipedia entry on Herman & Chomsky book)
    • Five filters of editorial bias-The propaganda model for the manufacture of public consent describes five editorially distorting filters, which are applied to the reporting of news in mass communications media:
      • 1. Size, Ownership, and Profit Orientation: The dominant mass-media outlets are large companies operated for profit, and therefore they must cater to the financial interests of the owners, who are usually corporations and controlling investors. The size of a media company is a consequence of the investment capital required for the mass-communications technology required to reach a mass audience of viewers, listeners, and readers.
      • 2. The Advertising License to Do Business: Since the majority of the revenue of major media outlets derives from advertising (not from sales or subscriptions), advertisers have acquired a "de facto licensing authority".Media outlets are not commercially viable without the support of advertisers. News media must therefore cater to the political prejudices and economic desires of their advertisers. This has weakened the working class press, for example, and also helps explain the attrition in the number of newspapers.
      • 3. Sourcing Mass Media News: Herman and Chomsky argue that “the large bureaucracies of the powerful subsidize the mass media, and gain special access [to the news], by their contribution to reducing the media’s costs of acquiring [...] and producing, news. The large entities that provide this subsidy become 'routine' news sources and have privileged access to the gates. Non-routine sources must struggle for access, and may be ignored by the arbitrary decision of the gatekeepers.”
      • 4. Flak and the Enforcers: "Flak" refers to negative responses to a media statement or program (e.g. letters, complaints, lawsuits, or legislative actions). Flak can be expensive to the media, either due to loss of advertising revenue, or due to the costs of legal defense or defense of the media outlet's public image. Flak can be organized by powerful, private influence groups (e.g. think tanks). The prospect of eliciting flak can be a deterrent to the reporting of certain kinds of facts or opinions.
      • 5. Anti-Communism: This was included as a filter in the original 1988 edition of the book, but Chomsky argues that since the end of the Cold War (1945–91), anticommunism was replaced by the "War on Terror", as the major social control mechanism.

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

• Hart, Holmstrom Share Economics Nobel for Contract Theory (NYT)
• Twitter's shares slump on report that bids are unlikely (Reuters)
• China Lays Out Guidelines on Debt-for-Equity Swaps Between Banks, Companies (WSJ)
• Banks ponder the meaning of life as Deutsche agonizes (Reuters)
• Colombia’s Precarious Peace: As guerrillas head back to the mountains, divided Colombians contemplate next steps (USNWR)
• Former Employees Detail Wells Fargo’s “Boiler Room” Operation (Fortune)

 

[jonny1000]

Regarding ViaBTC: This is absolutely awesome and if I want to be optimistic, I'd say it is the first visible crumbling of the 1MB wall.

Firstly I would like to thank you guys for finally getting rid of the BIP109 75% vs 25% flag, I think this is huge progress towards larger blocks.

Please can you guys clarify the situation, ViaBTC is signalling they will build on any block up to 2MB and the Bitcoin.com pool is signalling they will build on any block up to 16MB. Is that correct?

Does this lack of convergence of the two main BU pools not offer an additional unnecessary advantage to the miners enforcing the 1MB rules?

Please consider the following example:

Hashrate distribution example:

• Miners enforcing the 1MB limit - 40%
• ViaBTC pool running BU, will build on blocks up to 2MB - 30%
• Bitcoin.com pool running BU, will build on blocks up to 16MB - 30%

Scenario:

1. Bitcoin.com pool sees 60% of the hashrate showing BU flags.
2. Bitcoin.com pool decides to mine a 1.1MB block, there is now a 40% vs 60% chain fork
3. A subsection of miners trying to enforce the 1MB limit engages in defensive strategies and decides to mine one 2.1MB block on top of the larger block chain.
4. The subsection of miners who wish to enforce the 1MB limit then switch back to the smaller block chain after finding one block
5. The ViaBTC and Bitcoin.com pool's and now competing with each other on different chains, each with a lower hashrate than the smaller block chain. (In my view there is no reason to believe that ViaBTC and Bitcoin.com will quickly converge. However many BU supporters seem to believe they will converge reasonably fast for some reason, the reasoning is something like that the people running the miners want to converge, so will update the clients to do so. Although I cannot understand why they do not run a convergent client in the first place)
6. Perhaps ViaBTC and Bitcoin.com converge reasonably fast, either because ViaBTC gets the lead or Bitcoin.com gets a 4 block lead. I have not run the maths, but lets say in our example they converge in 10 blocks and are still ahead of the 1MB chain
7. After ViaBTC and Bitcoin.com converge to one chain, the miners repeat the defensive strategy again
8. Eventually, after several defensive blocks, the miners enforcing the 1MB limit retake the lead and the people buying coins in the chain with blocks over 1MB lose their funds.

Please could somebody let me know if this is right? Or is the BU philosophy built on the idea that everyone agrees with BU, so the above does not matter?

As a supporter of doing a hardfork to increase the blocksize limit, I kindly ask you join the majority like the Core team for example (see BIP103), who want to increase the limit without giving such an unnecessary, massive and decisive asymmetric advantage to the chain enforcing the 1MB rule.

 

[freetrader]

As a supporter of doing a hardfork to increase the blocksize limit, I kindly ask you join the majority like the Core team for example (see BIP103), who want to increase the limit without giving such an unnecessary, massive and decisive asymmetric advantage to the chain enforcing the 1MB rule.

You might have to wait a little while longer for such hard fork implementations.

I don't see any progress on Core's front towards such a thing (BIP103? what about BIP-MMHF?)

But I'm glad you're solidly behind hard forks now. This day just keeps getting better.

ViaBTC is signalling they will build on any block up to 2MB

No, that's not how BU works. It just means any block > 2MB only becomes valid once it reaches their Acceptance Depth setting.

 

[jonny1000]

No, that's not how BU works. It just means any block > 2MB only becomes valid once it reaches their Acceptance Depth setting.

Sorry please can you explain my understanding was as follows:

Bitcoin.com pool:

• Block creation policy - 1MB or less
• Will build on a chain of - 16MB or less
• Will build on a chain if a 4 block lead over "any other chain" - No limit

ViaBTC pool:

• Block creation policy - 1MB or less
• Will build on a chain of - 2MB or less
• Will build on a chain if a 4 block lead over "any other chain" - No limit

Is the above correct?

 

[freetrader]

Sorry, I can't. I'm not a spokesperson for either pool.

You might want to try getting first-hand information from the owners/operators of those pools, if this matter is important.

 

[jonny1000]

You might want to try getting first-hand information from the owners/operators of those pools, if this matter is important.

Any confusion over these rules just creates more defensive opportunities for those enforcing the 1MB rule. There seems to be a lack of understanding as to how BU works.

Here in Milan I spoke to people involved in these pools and they seemed to confirm my thoughts, but it is not entirely clear.

I think the people who want to enforce the 1MB rule will be delighted by the opportunity to split the BU hashrate up at will.

 

[pekatete]

Any confusion over these rules just creates more defensive opportunities for those enforcing the 1MB rule. There seems to be a lack of understanding as to how BU works.

No one is confused other than you, our very own village troll. It is also instructive that after you spoke to the miners / pools (who you claim were confused) they went ahead and switched to BU never-the-less.

 

[albin]

Perhaps in the future, if and when Bitcoin achieves more mainstream usage, we'll have a legit culture of debunking, where individuals in Core might even win Randi awards for pseudoscience. Until then might as well make the best of a how humorous the "science" cargo-cult really is.