Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Justus Ranvier]

Imagine the momentum if Classic, XT, bitcore and btcd all opted to implement this?

A BU-compatible large block patch for btcd is on the way.

 

[Inca]

Real life work commitments are keeping me out of here a bit recently unfortunately.

Bravo on debunking Maxwell's BS on Metcalfe's law @awemany . Congratulations to @Peter R on his election. It seems BU is going from strength to strength - truly excellent!!. I am awaiting the response from the Dark Side somewhat anxiously, but unless they plan on DDOSing BU miners off the network their only alternative is to reduce 95% downwards. Still a possibility but it will take some 1984 level newspeak to justify after the last year of saying otherwise. This is the group that wanted to rewrite the original white paper so I wouldn't put a desperate kludge to inject the malleability fix segwit brings into the network whilst they still can as a soft fork.

I think the rise of alts and the continual falling of market share held by bitcoin has begun to wake up the network. If bitcoin is to remain dominant then BU will have to grow nodeshare further until other miners revolt leading to a beautiful resolution of this crisis back towards on chain scaling.

When Maxwell does eventually 'rage quit' I am sure epic is too small a word to describe his meltdown!

 

[Roger_Murdock]

I often describe "validity" in Bitcoin as inherently "subjective" because everyone gets to decide for themselves what "the rules" are by choosing what software to run and which version of the ledger to value. But from a market / rational economic actor perspective, "validity" is probably better described as inherently "speculative" because your incentive is to accept as "valid" those blocks and transactions that you predict that others will accept as valid. The Bitcoin Unlimited client, and particularly its "Accept Depth" setting, reflects the simple reality that you should be prepared to revise your predictions about what others will accept based on changed evidence of what they are actually accepting. The Core approach, because it neglects this reality, is dangerous, and it becomes more dangerous as the likelihood of a shift in the Schelling point defining the "block size limit" increases.

 

[albin]

Extreme consensus = extreme fragility

 

[AdrianX]

Well then, SW is dead as a dodo.

This does look hostile. I hope they are thinking strategically in a macro sense, that statement is not making friends.

I think I'd support Segwit if it was introduced as a Hard fork with no fee discount for transaction sizes provided there were more that 3 dominant independent implementations of the bitcoin protocol.

Who cares how big a text is relative to HD space that's a non issue - the cost and risk to the network as a whole is in relaying the transaction and here size matters - large transactions carry higher risks and use up valuable resources, and miners should charge whatever they think the market will pay, not 75% less than whatever the market is prepared to pay.

Maybe ViaBTC's response is not as harsh as it looks when you consider. Segwit undermines there profitability and thus sustainability, the question is rather leading.

Rephrasing the same question from a miner's perspective: "Is there anything Core could do to make you support losing 75% of your income?"

 

[Justus Ranvier]

I think I'd support Segwit if it was introduced as a Hard fork with no fee discount for transaction sizes

At that point it's so different that using the word "Segwit" to describe it is no longer useful.

 

[awemany]

@Justus Ranvier : Awesome! Are you writing the patch or did you get some notice of that?

@AdrianX: Regarding hostility:

a) I don't see it as hostile, rather 'loud and clear'.

and b) Risk vs. reward. I think that if we win this war, ViaBTC will be remembered as those starting the revolution and getting Bitcoin back on track. As I am also at the point where I see Bitcoin dying when Core is not ousted, I think the risk isn't actually getting bigger by aligning oneself with the sane position.
Because the case of Core winning is already a 100% loss ...

 

[AdrianX]

At that point it's so different that using the word "Segwit" to describe it is no longer useful.

In all practicality yes from Cores perspective. But realistically the innovation here is segregating the signatures once they've been witnessed by the network. Conceptually I don't care about the code it's the idea that matters.

on reflection I'm with @awemany its not a radical position at all. my datum has just been modified by Core FUD.

 

[Roger_Murdock]

Extreme consensus = extreme fragility

It's funny too because the small-blocker position is entirely built on the idea that Bitcoin is fragile. Hard forks are supposedly "dangerous" because they risk "breaking consensus" and "splitting the network." In truth, there are incredibly powerful incentives that will tend to drive convergence on a single chain. And indeed, hard forks make Bitcoin more resilient and less fragile via an evolutionary, survival-of-the-fittest dynamic whereby the people who prove themselves best at predicting the successful path gain more influence over Bitcoin's future direction. Similarly, the claim that increasing Bitcoin's transactional capacity is a mortal threat to "decentralization" is premised on a belief in Bitcoin's fragility. And here again, the small-blockers get it completely backwards. Allowing Bitcoin to grow and become more useful and increasing the number of stakeholders invested in its success will make Bitcoin more resilient to challenges from both would-be competitors and hostile actors.

Unrelated, but nice analogy here by @digitsu:

 

[Justus Ranvier]

Awesome! Are you writing the patch or did you get some notice of that?

Stash Crypto has one developer (@DanielKrawisz) working on btcd for an upcoming product, and he's creating the patch.

 

[AdrianX]

I just linden to this talk and it's totally relevant to BU and the situation right now. It's worth listening to the hour if you have the time.

If you only have a minute my favorite summary is linked in the Q&A below. Its like he's speaking to the bitcoin leadership debate at the moment.

 

[Norway]

https://coin.dance/nodes​

 

[Roger_Murdock]

Thinking more about this, it seems to me that the two really important settings that BU enables are the Excessive Block (EB) size and the Maximum Generation size (MG). The Accept Depth (AD) parameter should really be thought of as a quick-and-dirty “fail-safe” that (to repeat myself) reflects the basic reality that you should be prepared to revise your predictions about what others will accept based on changed evidence of what they are actually accepting. It’s probably “good enough” for most non-mining nodes. And for mining nodes, the Accept Depth parameter is probably unlikely to play much of a role--at least if we imagine that, in practice, most increases in “the limit” will be well coordinated by major miners and economically-significant node operators (e.g., major wallets and exchanges). Plus, in the event that a miner does experience an “Accept Depth event,” they’re almost certainly going to want to “switch to manual” and tweak their settings in response (and they have huge incentives to monitor the network pretty damn closely). Having said that, it may be the case that some nodes or miners will want to deploy their own more-advanced custom logic. And here there’s all kinds of things you could do. You could certainly dynamically adjust your EB setting in response to your AD being hit. You could also have different AD settings based on the amount by which a block exceeds your EB setting. You could even have different AD settings based on the identity of the pool that mines a block over your EB setting. But what’s really essential about BU, and what we shouldn’t lose sight of when people are attempting to critique various details of its implementation (that are really just bells and whistles), is that it shatters “the social illusion that devs are gatekeepers to these parameters.”

 

[cliff]

@Roger_Murdock - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Import_quota

 

[theZerg]

@Roger_Murdock exactly!!

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

After a long time without movement the price rises - as does the number of 'big blocks'. And some people desperately search for alternative reasons. I hope @Jihan and the other miners understand what is happening.

 

[cliff]

-------------------------------------
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP!
-------------------------------------
BTC $642.61
Gemini Daily $638.145 | 1290.70713578 BTC | Total $823,658.31
-------------------------------------
XAU (spot)* $1,251.03
COMEX CG1* $1,255.5
-------------------------------------
BTCswap(BFX - FFR) 0.0353% | BTCswap(Polo) 0.0227%
-------------------------------------
HashRate 1.8 EH/s
MarketCap $10,214,801,097
BTC Dominance 81.1%
Exchange Volume (BTC) $42.14m
Exchange Volume (ALT) $18.20m
Exchange Volume [BTC] Dominance 69.8%
-------------------------------------
GBTC* $92 | SPDR Gold Trust ETF* $119.36
-------------------------------------
10YR Treas 1.75%
Copper* $211.05/lb
Crude (WTI)* $50.35/barrel


*Indicates price at market close


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

• Algorithms Aren’t Biased, But the People Who Write Them May Be: Mathematical models that create rankings often use proxies to stand in for things the modelers wish to measure but can’t (WSJ)
• Looming digital regulation has U.S. truck industry scrambling (Reuters)
• DOT Bans All Samsung Galaxy Note7 Phones from Airplanes (transportation.gov)
• Reid Hoffman, Cofounder of LinkedIn and Partner at Greylock Partners, at Startup School 2016 (The Macro)
  
  

 

[pekatete]

I'm loving this ....

 

[Bagatell]

 

[awemany]

So given Olivier Janssens posted a 10BTC reward, I thought it might be worthwhile to try to make a couple transaction rate extrapolations.