Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Richy_T]

shitgregsays

 

[Roger_Murdock]

We've discussed here why the arguments against Bitcoin Unlimited are fundamentally self-defeating. In that same vein, I think the following is a good question to ask BU skeptics: "what exactly is the alternative to 'allowing' the block size limit to be determined by the people that actually make up the Bitcoin network (i.e., the people who, whether we like it not, actually possess the ultimate power to do so)?"

I still haven't gotten a good, straight answer to that question, but after a few of these conversations, I sort of get the impression that their real answer is that they view miners as the block size equivalent of alcoholics. Sure, they have the power to drink (set their own block size limit), but if they're smart, they'll accept that they can't trust themselves to exercise that power responsibly. So I suppose that presents two options. They can either swear off drinking entirely (no block size limit increase ever), because they recognize that as soon as they have that first sip (mine that first 1.1 MB block), it's liable to send them off on a bender where they drink themselves to death (mine the network to death). Or they can outsource the decision of whether and how much to drink to a trusted third party: "I don't trust my own judgment when it comes to booze (block size limit settings), but I do trust my buddy Greg. Obviously he'll never let me have hard liquor (substantial on-chain scaling via hard forks), but if he gives me permission to have a small glass of champagne on a very special occasion (a modest increase in effective block size via SegWit soft fork), well then it's probably ok."

 

[sickpig]

shitgregsays

So it seems that a bunch of updates and selects on a MySQL database (in the case of MtGox) are now becoming equal to "[A] purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution"?

e:grammar

 

[Richy_T]

Yes. I can't believe how wrong he can be about something so fundamental to what makes Bitcoin what it is.

It's like the train has come off the tracks and is happily chundering its way through the countryside...

 

[awemany]

@Norway: Awesome @ hut. Eerily similar to my plans. Though those are only plans still...

However! I see a cable going into your hut, so it is not really off-grid? (Personally, I am not really approaching it from the prepper angle, I rather like to make my own electricity)

 

[Bagatell]

@awemany hut??? Looks more like a chalet to me.

 

[awemany]

@Bagatell: Point taken, my English vocabulary regarding house types is kind of lacking still.

And I guess my personal preference is rather a small hut (~20-30 m^2) - but with a big barn (for projects and hobbies) attached


On another topic: It looks like SegWit proponents seem to create FUD lately out of the fact that BU has no transaction size limit and that big bad transactions could make blocks that get stuck.

Notwithstanding the fact that Bitcoin's incentive system works against such 'havoc blocks':

I wonder whether it would make sense to add a (configurable!) validation time limit to BU, after which a block is orphaned by the client? To ease worries? @Gavin Andresen did similar with the transaction size limit in the BIP109/101 spec.

Thoughts, @theZerg, others?

 

[sickpig]

@awemany

Parallel validation is coming soon and it is supposed to fix such problem. Code is already published by @Peter Tschipper

https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BitcoinUnlimited/pull/93

Quoting the doc the come with the patch (https://github.com/ptschip/bitcoin/blob/12.1parallel/doc/bu-parallel-validation.md):

1. What is Parallel Block Validation?
Essentially Parallel Validation is a simple concept. Rather than validating each block in the main processing thread, we instead create a separate thread and do the processing. If more than one block arrives to be processed then we create yet another thread. There are currently up to 4 parallel block processing threads available making a big block DDOS attack impossible. Furthermore, if any attacker were somehow able to jam all 4 processing threads and another block arrived, then the processing for the largest block would be interrupted allowing the smaller block to proceed.

If there are multiple blocks processing at the same time, when one of the blocks wins the race to complete, then the other threads of processing are interrupted and the winner will be able to update the UTXO and advance the chain tip. Although the other blocks that were interrupted will still be stored on disk in the event of a re-org.

 

[awemany]

@sickpig: Perfect, thanks. I guess I am not up to date with all of BU's recent developments anymore. I might had that something like is going to happen in the back of my mind but forgot about it.

Kudos to @Peter Tschipper for doing all this!

This sounds like a sane approach - and similarly to the decentralized block limit, this will correspond to a decentralized transaction size / complexity limit - as those huge bad blocks will tend to be orphaned more. Excellent!

Why is this all making so much sense?

 

[freetrader]

"IBM, Microsoft, and Big Miners to Talk Bitcoin in Buenos Aires"

Unsure what to make of this.

1. sponsored by Dash
2. IBM & Microsoft talking Bitcoin? nah... I guess author means Blockchain?
3. Peter Todd (who tweeted this yesterday) going to promote Bitcoin? what could go wrong...
4. "miners controlling almost 50% of Bitcoin’s total global hash power" going to be there? what's in it for them, and do the "representatives of five of the largest mining companies" really control < 50% hashing power?

 

[cliff]

-------------------------------------
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP!
-------------------------------------
BTC $640.48
Gemini Daily $636 | 1511.218 BTC | Total $961,134.65 (Monday, 2016-10-17)
GBTC* $89
-------------------------------------
BTCswap(BFX - FFR) 0.0347% | BTCswap(Polo) 0.0306%
-------------------------------------
XAU (spot)* $1,255.84
COMEX CG1* $1,256
SPDR Gold Trust ETF* $120.1
-------------------------------------
HashRate 1.76 EH/s
MarketCap $10,200,754,330
BTC Dominance 80.2%
Exchange Volume (BTC) $57.57m
Exchange Volume (ALT) $33.98m
Exchange Volume [BTC] Dominance 62.8%
-------------------------------------
10YR Treas 1.80%
Copper* $210.35/lb
Crude (WTI)* $50.04/barrel

*Indicates price at market opening

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

• The invisible politics of Bitcoin: governance crisis of a decentralised infrastructure (Internet Policy Review)
  
• Bitcoin Meets Collective Signing (Kokoris-Kogias, et al., PDF)
• Doesn’t get it.
  • Gets it.
  • Re-education effort 1 and 2
  • See also A Rigged Media Is The Death Of Democracy

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

• Gold Seen Climbing in ‘Mildly Bullish’ Scenario on Low Rates (Bloomberg)
  • PRECIOUS-Gold up as dollar slips, but upside limited (Reuters)
• In good sign for market, floating oil storage has plummeted (CNBC)
  • Big Oil to Start Spending Again After Two-Year Slump (WSJ)
  • Saudi Arabia Says Oil at $50-$60 Ensures Adequate Global Supply (Bloomberg)
• Norway wealth fund should shift more money to equities from bonds -committee (Reuters)
• Goldman Sachs Profit Climbs as Trading Revenue Surges (WSJ)
• Consumer Prices in U.S. Rise at Fastest Pace in Five Months (Bloomberg)

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

• The Linux Foundation Unites JavaScript Community for Open Web Development (JS Foundation)

 

[MoonShot]

curious about the norwegian banking crisis ... it must have been so small & short-lived that no-one noticed?

 

[Justus Ranvier]

it shifted power away from the fudalists and brought us out of the dark ages.

 

[Norway]

However! I see a cable going into your hut, so it is not really off-grid?

Well spoted, eagle eye! I have electricity. But I don't need it if the shit hits the fan. Then I can heat the house and cook with the wood stove.

 

[awemany]

> Well spoted, eagle eye! I have electricity. But I don't need it if the shit hits the fan. Then I can heat the house and cook with the wood stove.

Lets hope that SHTF scenario is just your local hydroplant having a hiccup!

I am damn jealous of you! Your house seems to be quite affordable even - and quite close to Oslo (for convenience). I have looked at Sweden for affordable, nicely located rural houses to buy but it seems it is quite expensive - is Norway cheaper than Sweden now?

 

[Norway]

curious about the norwegian banking crisis ... it must have been so small & short-lived that no-one noticed?

We had a bail out of banks in Norway in 2008. But nobody cared.

@awemany
I think it's actually cheaper in Sweden.

 

[AdrianX]

I'm still coming to terms with affordable this is what $2,400,000 buys you in my nick of the woods. (well that was the asking price. but reality isn't much better.)

 

[Erdogan]

Isn't it ironic:


ECB’s statement reads,

“The reliance of economic actors on virtual currency units, if substantially increased in the future, could in principle affect the central banks’ control over the supply of money… Thus (EU legislative bodies) should not seek in this particular context to promote a wider use of virtual currencies.”


But but but...we print only 21 million...how can that affect the ECB's trillions?

 

[Richy_T]

So it seems that a bunch of updates and selects on a MySQL database (in the case of MtGox) are now becoming equal to "[A] purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution"?

e:grammar

Yep, the new talking point appears to be that there is no Bitcoin transaction limit because off-chain transactions denoted in Bitcoin (such as ChangeTip and MtGox internal transfers I guess) are Bitcoin transactions.

 

[awemany]

@AdrianX: That's in the U.S.? Wow - I don't envy you.