Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Justus Ranvier]

Some details that didn't make it into the FAQ yet:

Stash OS is based on Hardened Gentoo Linux, automated via CFEngine.

The full node is btcd and btcwallet, and is configured to access the network exclusively through Tor.

We're porting full BU block size support into btcd.

 

[lunar]

@Justus Ranvier

The Bitcoin full node contains a self-hosted copy of the blockchain and can support any block size in the future.

I like it. Subtlety route around the problem without drawing too much troll hate.

 

[adamstgbit]

@adamstgbit looking at your example in the cases you turn out to be a disrespectful unsafe uber driver you'll have a bad rating with uber and a bad rating as a Taxi driver that identify is cryptographically links to you but it's relatively anonymous when you look at it next to your othe ratings. That won't affect you behavior rating at mud wrestling bar. But if you you consistently refuse to deliver on ebay that will affect your rating with ebay and online buying and selling.

It's controlled with you at the center. You only issue keys for the pertinent information required to link you and your reputation. People may have more than one identity who known I'd use a separate identity if I had to do business with a drug dealer and wanted a positive reputation.

i'd sign up to that.

i'd make my regular identify profile and my super hero identity profile

 

[Justus Ranvier]

@adamstgbit Remember the good old days, when we thought the block size limit problem was going to be resolved in 2013?

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/59s1ap/the_block_limit_will_be_raised_there_are_just_no/

 

[albin]

Weird thing is that if I'm not remembering incorrectly, that thread is even from before FinCEN's guidance that indicated that they wouldn't go after Bitcoin itself, but rather regulate money service businesses operating in bitcoin. At that time nobody was even really sure if any day now the US gov't itself would try to shut down Bitcoin directly.

 

[freetrader]

Misinformation campaign in full swing about how SegWit is an on-chain scaling increase.

 

[cliff]

-------------------------------------
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP!
-------------------------------------
BTC $689.92
Gemini Daily $681.595 | 1500 BTC | Total $1,022,392.50 (Thur, 2016-10-27)
GBTC* $100
-------------------------------------
BTCswap(BFX - FFR) 0.0424% | BTCswap(Polo) 0.0269%
-------------------------------------
XAU (spot)* $1,268.4
COMEX CG1* $1,269.2
SPDR Gold Trust ETF* $121.19
-------------------------------------
HashRate 1.87 EH/s
MarketCap $10,967,182,956
BTC Dominance 82.5%
Exchange Volume (BTC) $75.19m
Exchange Volume (ALT) $28.14m
Exchange Volume [BTC] Dominance 72.8%
-------------------------------------
10YR Treas 1.79%
Copper* $216.55/lb
Crude (WTI)* $49.61/barrel

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

• [Zcash is here!] Known Unknown (The Economist)
• The new boss looks awfully like the old boss, bitcoin edition (FT, Izabella)
• 2016 China Miner Conference Held in Chengdu (De La Torre)
• Swiss rail operator to sell bitcoins at its ticket machines (Reuters)
• Data Collection Requirements for Mobile Connected Health- An End User Development Approach (Veiga & Ward, Mobile!’16, October 31, 2016)
• Blockchain: Disruptive technology and its effects within the music industry (Heywood, PDF)
• Stash Launches ‘Bank In A Box’ Bitcoin Full Node (Bitcoin.com, Redman)

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

• U.S. Economy Roars Back, Grew 2.9% in Third Quarter (WSJ)
  • Exports boost U.S. growth in third quarter; consumer spending slows (Reuters)
  • Gold futures drift lower ahead of U.S. GDP reading (MarketWatch)
• Will acquittal of Oregon refuge occupiers embolden extremists, militias? (WashPo)
• Xi Jinping more powerful than ever after being named ruling partys core (CNN)
• Upstart Pirate Party Senses Victory in Iceland Elections (NYT)
• Amazon Takes Hit as Costs Surge (WSJ)
• EU Issues Data-Protection Warning to WhatsApp, Yahoo (WSJ)
• Google AI invents its own cryptographic algorithm; no one knows how it works (Ars)
• Engines of Evidence (Edge)
• Remarks to Software Forum Dinner Meeting (Kenneth L. Hess, 1997)

 

[adamstgbit]

@adamstgbit Remember the good old days, when we thought the block size limit problem was going to be resolved in 2013?

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/59s1ap/the_block_limit_will_be_raised_there_are_just_no/

I remeber... I remember talking about it myself back in the day. I concluded it was a non-issue, given the plan to bump the limit as usages ramped up, and always having the limit a few steps ahead of the curve.

I find it remarkable Core has managed to hold us back for so long.

at this point its almost 2017 and segwit isn't being adopted fast enough ( and with good reason it would seem), Core went down hill when it's lead dev quit, and blockstream took over.

I look forward to the forking off...

I would hope that as part of the fork we include the TX malleability fix ( without physically segregating the witness, simply omitting the witness in TXID calculation ) ,that way Thunder Network ( not LN ) can work.
[doublepost=1477664362,1477663700][/doublepost]i'm looking over what i said in that thread.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=145590.msg1554716#msg1554716

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=145590.msg1554737#msg1554737

clearly my stance on the subject has been fairly constant since forever, "let the free market work itself out", " just because he[the miner]has the space doesn't force him to add free-tx" "greater centralization is inevitable" "network well being > maximum decentralization" "make the max block size really really big so this never happens!"

 

[Richy_T]

So, could this be ported to the current codebase without a soft or a hard fork? Or is there something about segwit that makes it special?

 

[lunar]

​

Whooooot wooo 700
​

@solex @Peter R @theZerg

So this rise certainly boosted the Unlimited kitty ... I like that, Unlimited kitty, long may it last.

Can we supersize the team? Get Gavin, Jeff and Mike to join in? .... only half joking

​

 

[adamstgbit]

Haven't heard much from Gavin since he attended Mr Writes magic show.

was that the last straw for him?

 

[molecular]

Everyone already wants larger blocks.

Unfortunately, I don't think that's true.

 

[molecular]

slightly offtopic, but interesting.

A post of mine on bitcointalk.org got deleted. content:

-----------
> I'm not american but I hope Trump will make it.

Wont happen. They will falsify the election. If that doesn't work, he'll be killed by some challenged personality or other.
------------

not sure why it got censored

 

[pekatete]

I know this place is a bit quiet, but heck I know that dung hole ain't worth wasting one's time at since the moderation was turned up a notch with the advent of xt.

 

[taxed4ever]

@pekatete as long as there is progress, it's all good

 

[awemany]

Did anyone ever talk to the Debian maintainers of the Bitcoin package?

Debian seems to usually refrain from taking sides too much in open source fork wars, and maybe it would be worth it to have bitcoin-core, bitcoin-unlimited, (...) in the repositories, with a pure dependency package 'bitcoin' pointing to either one?

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

Lately the BU guys asked what development they should found, I wondered if it's possible for anyone to implement the SW benefits (apart from the "BS increase") into a hardfork? So malleability fix + no n^2 hashing (has that really been solved by the current SW implementation btw.?) + bigger blocks hard fork?

I have no idea how much work that is and how complex the code will be compared to the current implementation and how much work would be needed for wallets etc. Just an idea.

 

[freetrader]

@satoshis_sockpuppet :

no n^2 hashing (has that really been solved by the current SW implementation btw.?)

Only for the non-witness transactions:

"The modified hash only applies to signature operations initiated from witness data, so signature operations from the base block will continue to require lower limits." [1,2,3]

This isn't really emphasized by Core ;-)

Flexible Transactions addresses some transaction malleability (not sure it fixes all). Tom Zander is setting up a testnet for FlexTrans.

Flextrans + a hard fork to bigger blocks + new base block format could probably solve what SW does quite a bit more elegantly, but it's a big chunk of work.

[1] https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/#linear-scaling-of-sighash-operations
[2] [3] https://github.com/jl2012/bips/blob/sighash/bip-sighash.mediawiki

 

[molecular]

Lately the BU guys asked what development they should found, I wondered if it's possible for anyone to implement the SW benefits (apart from the "BS increase") into a hardfork? So malleability fix + no n^2 hashing (has that really been solved by the current SW implementation btw.?) + bigger blocks hard fork?

I have no idea how much work that is and how complex the code will be compared to the current implementation and how much work would be needed for wallets etc. Just an idea.

I think that's a great idea. It would take more wind out of segwit as SW with economic distortion. Our argument (as I read on reddit) is: segwit is ok as HF without economic incentives. Of course the answer is: "where's your code for that?"

 

[awemany]

I have seen somewhere - can't remember where, I think it might have been part of some joke or so - the idea that in a repeating argument, both sides could just go and number their arguments.

Then the exchanges would go like this: 824! But, 313? No, 2211. Well, 2341.

I feel that's kind of appropriate for /r/btc now..

And entropy reduction method to make reddit more scalable! Yay!1!1!