Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.


Active Member
Nov 8, 2015
I suspect that the hostility toward Peter Tschipper's work and parallel block validation comes from the fact that that kind of policy change at the miner node level extends Peter R's work on orphan rate as a block limiting mechanism beyond just propagation and applies it to validation even in a case where theoretically O(1) tech were propagating blocks. The entire hard-cap-as-economic-parameter regime relies on categorically rejecting the conception that any real-world physical constraints on the network could cause self-regulating feedback.

We're now in the bizarro world where creating utxos is an attack, and consolidating utxos is an attack. From the Core dev perspective I'm getting the clear message that using Bitcoin at all is an attack.

Justus Ranvier

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
We're now in the bizarro world where creating utxos is an attack, and consolidating utxos is an attack. From the Core dev perspective I'm getting the clear message that using Bitcoin at all is an attack.
There's no salvaging Bitcoin Core.

They've tied themselves up into too many logical knots that they can't even pretend to make coherent arguments any more and are reduced to shouting.

If you would have told me a few years ago it was possible for an open source project to turn into such a deranged, dysfunctional mess I wouldn't have believed you.


Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
I think the secret now gents, is to target miners, give them all the tools they want, make mining a better, safer, faster but mainly more profitable experience, when using Unlimited.

If Core is dealocked, it shouldn't be too difficult to out innovate.

Has anyone been in touch with viaBTC or what features do the miners actually want?


Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
invisible politics of bitcoin governance.
De Filippi, P. & Loveluck, B. (2016). The invisible politics of Bitcoin: governance crisis of a decentralised infrastructure. Internet Policy Review, 5

“Implicit in the governance structure of Bitcoin is the idea that the Bitcoin core developers (together with a small number of technical experts) are – by virtue of their technical expertise – the most likely to come up with the right decision as to the specific set of technical features that should be implemented in the platform. Such a “technocratic” approach to governance is problematic in that it goes counter to the original conception of the Bitcoin project. There exists, therefore, an obvious discrepancy between the libertarian vision of Bitcoin as a decentralised infrastructure that cannot be regulated by any third party institution, and the actual governance structure that dictates the technological development of Bitcoin – which, in spite of its open source nature, is highly centralised and undemocratic. While the (a)political dimension of the former has been praised or at least acknowledged by many, the latter has remained, for a long time, invisible to the public: the technical decisions to be taken by the Bitcoin developers were not presented as political decisions, and were therefore never debated as such.”

Given the experimental nature and current lack of maturity of the technology, it is difficult to predict, at this specific point in time, what would be the best strategy to ensure that the Bitcoin project evolves in accordance with the interests of all relevant stakeholders. Yet, regardless of the approach taken, it is our belief that a proper governance structure for Bitcoin can only be achieved by publicly acknowledging its political dimensions, and replacing the current technocratic power structure of the Bitcoin project with an institutional framework capable of understanding (and accommodating) the politics inherent in each of its technical features.
CCnews article here.


Active Member
Mar 14, 2016
To be honest, I really don't want Bitcoin to be democratic...

Masses understand absolutely nothing about money and if bitcoin should change democratically it would not have a finite cap, so that "more coins means more wealth and inflation is good for economic growth".
Last edited:


Active Member
Jun 1, 2016
London, England
The nuances of money only get a tad more complex from what I learned in my A level economics classes, and that is proof enough that the masses (can and) do understand money. In the case of bitcoin and where it has got to as we speak, I do not think anyone can, in this case, remove the cap and still call it bitcoin, it'll be an alt coin if that happened.


Active Member
Feb 22, 2016
To be honest, I really don't want Bitcoin to be democratic...
Bitcoin "itself" isn't democratic and won't be. Satoshi let the cat out of the bag, we will have competing digital currencies around the world, as long as the internet is at least half-way free. We don't need "elected" overseers of currencies regulating it to death, but atm we have something worse, we have unelected overseers regulating it to death.

It's important that people understand, that Bitcoin core isn't "decentralized" or "consensus based", but just a bunch of guys who decided to follow a few degenerate assholes.

Bitcoin Unlimited has a reproducible ("democratic") way of decision making and a transparent structure as well as a clear mission. I find that to be much better suited for the development of Bitcoin than core's corrupt degeneration. Sadly not all important actors see it that way, but I hope they will come around.

If Bitcoin doesn't find a way to maneuver around core, it will be replaced and it's stakeholders will have shown to be too incompetent. The more democratic structure of e.g. BU would be the right choice for Bitcoin development.

So selling a Bitcoin full node is now a danger to decentralization because the nodes software will reduce the number of Bitcoin full node because of larger blocks.


Maybe they should really just make it short and say: Using the Bitcoin network, including the operation of a full node, in any way is destroying it's fundamental decentralized properties.
Last edited:


Active Member
Dec 15, 2015
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP!
BTC $711.67
Gemini Daily $686.7 | 1436.37 BTC | Total $986,355.28 (Fri, 2016-10-28)
Gemini Daily $717.2 | 500 BTC | Total $358,597.50 (Sat, 2016-10-29)
Gemini Daily $707.06 | 210.684 BTC | Total $148,966.23 (Sun, 2016-10-30)
GBTC* $104.5
BTCswap(BFX - FFR) 0.0377% | BTCswap(Polo) 0.0184%
XAU (spot)* $1,277.97
COMEX CG1* $1,278.3
SPDR Gold Trust ETF* $121.51
HashRate 1.89 EH/s
MarketCap $11,306,691,931
BTC Dominance 83.2%
Exchange Volume (BTC) $101.43m
Exchange Volume (ALT) $38.10m
Exchange Volume [BTC] Dominance 72.7%
10YR Treas 1.85%
Copper* $220/lb
Crude (WTI)* $48.25/barrel

*Indicates price at market opening

Last edited:


Active Member
Jan 15, 2016


Active Member
Dec 31, 2015
the masses (can and) do understand money.
The masses understand no more than the fact that they can surrender some amount of money to procure some product or service. Not that they couldn't understand more, but they are blissfully ignorant.

Open a discussion with your average man-on-the-street on the mechanics of partial reserve, and their eyes glaze over. Try to teach them that 'the bank's money' that they borrowed (and now owe in full -- plus interest -- to said bank) was zapped into being by the mere act of making the loan, and their brains recoil in abject horrific denial.

It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.
- Henry Ford

No. The masses don't understand jack shit about money.


Well-Known Member
Mar 13, 2016
Hello everyone! I've been walking across Spain; I'm back for a while now. Good to see BU getting some more traction.

Nice article by John Blocke explaining why BU will drive Core into the ground once it gets a majority of the hashrate:

Core don't like it much:
i though BU was headed for a minority fork should segwit be adopted(forced) onto the network.
or is that the BTCFork crew?
I've kinda had it, all i want to know is, where do i go to fork the bitcoins ASAP??? lol.
No. The masses don't understand jack shit about money.
I agree with this.
I'll add that the masses dont understand jack shit about software either.
So why is core so hell bent on making sure everyone runs a node, and places so much importance on having the masses running nodes?
if we accept the fact that the masses dont understand jack shit about software and money.
then we should conclude that opinion of the masses is not worth much consideration at all...
F the avg-JoeCoiner's main method of choosing a client is probably which ever comes out on top of a "download bitcoin", google search....

maybe, its not about keeping bitcoin "decentralized" its about keeping bitcoin easy to control! o_O


Staff member
Aug 22, 2015
Peter R made this graphic a year ago, and it was accurate in projecting when the 1MB would be fully utilised with normal txn volume.

The actual date was on or about May 11th, 2016

With the fiction being peddled on r/bitcoin that SegWit permits the equivalent of 2MB, it would be nice to see a projection of when SegWit gets maxed out for normal business. Bear in mind that a couple of people (e.g. jratcliffe) examined the previous year of normal txns and found that if they were all SegWit type then about 1.7MB could be accommodated.

However, the reality is that even if SegWit activated it would be a year after that (late 2017 / early 2018) that even 30% of normal txns would be of the SegWit type. So, projecting the unconstrained growth would likely show that 1.3MB is inadequate today, and 1.7MB inadequate years before all normal txns use SegWit.


Well-Known Member
Mar 13, 2016
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 this is the key to victory.

IDK for real, but i THINK, all that is required to 1) fix malleability and 2) no exponentially hard to compute TX. is simply to HF a new way of calculating TX_ID, and omit the witness data from the calculation of the TX_ID.

Segwit is over complicating the issue ( and there code ) with their self imposed "soft" fork requirement.

if you can produce a fork that not only bumps the limit but also fixes TX_ID.... you win! ... no matter what...

say you fork this off with 5% hashing power.

then, everyone has to make a conscious choice to reject a bitcoin with higher capacity and a functional Thunder Network, build off of a very simple implementation ( HF are simple ). reject that for a bitcoin that may not even be able to achieve segwit activation, and even if it did the capacity incress would be no more then 1.7MB the TX mailability and n^2 only half solved, as it would not apply to (STILL PERFECTLY VALID) old TX, build off of a complex code base.
who's going to pick cripple-core???

FFS, incress to 2MB, fix TX_ID, call it a "Rock-Hard-Fork" aannnddd core's gone!
Last edited: