Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Christoph Bergmann]

organofcorti is being cited (a graph about extimated miner count) in a paper about bitcoin/blockchain just released by the "bitkom", a very sizable german lobby group in the area of information technology / new media.

https://www.bitkom.org/noindex/Publikationen/2016/Leitfaden/Blockchain/161104-LF-Blockchain-final.pdf

(sorry, it's in german)

The piece runs with the old adage "it's the blockchain, not bitcoin". But at least they recognize that's not everyones opinion and they even reference Christoph Bergmann's article questioning the narrative: https://bitcoinblog.de/2014/11/17/es-ist-die-blockchain-nicht-der-bitcoin-wirklich/

Thanks for bringing that up. I did not read it by now.

At this stage I can only laugh about how companies and advisors and lobby groups talk about "blockchain" as if it will disrupt things at some moment in the future, when the ruling companies agree on a hyperledger/R3 standard ... while they try hard to ignore everything happening today: Bitcoin as digital gold being the best assets of 2016, the ICO-madness proofing itself to be the best and most crazy method to fund a project (yes, Ethereum is on its way to a big decentralized crowdfunding-plattform, hehe)

It's happening.

And unfortunately, since the EU's new anti-money-laundering-laws make it impossible to operate an altcoin-exchange without KYC, it most likely will have zero influence on the arrival of the token economy. Amazon destroyed European remote-merchants, "blockchain" will destroy european stock exchanges.

And yes, I'm deeply worried about this. The EU splitting in peaces by idiotic nationalism, the only consens that can be achieved is to strangulate the economy with more regulations ...

 

[cliff]

-------------------------------------
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP!
-------------------------------------
BTC $703.67
Gemini Daily $728.45 | 504.40967283 BTC | Total $367437.2261730135 ((Sunday) 2016-11-06)
GBTC* $97
-------------------------------------
BTCswap(BFX - FFR) 0.0424% | BTCswap(Polo) 0.014%
-------------------------------------
XAU (spot)* $1290.06
COMEX CG1* $1294.5
SPDR Gold Trust ETF* $122.66
-------------------------------------
HashRate 1.79 EH/s
MarketCap $11197748181
BTC Dominance 83.2%
Exchange Volume (BTC) $59.26m
Exchange Volume (ALT) $22.55m
Exchange Volume (BTC) Dominance 72.4%
-------------------------------------
10YR Treas 1.82%
Copper* $226.15/lb
Crude (WTI)* $44.45/barrel

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

• Bitcoin: The Conflicting Currency (Greenwalt, LMU Law Rev, PDF)
• [ABSTRACT] Bitcoin Block Withholding Attack : Analysis and Mitigation (Samiran Bag, et al)
• The Blockchain as a Narrative Technology: Investigating the Social Ontology and Normative Configurations of Cryptocurrencies (Reijers & Coeckelbergh, PDF)
• Backing Rich Credentials with a Blockchain PKI (Lewison & Corella, PDF)
  • Using Near-Field Communication for Remote Identity Proofing (Corella & Lewison, PDF)
  • POMCOR Project Background Info

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

• Windstream, EarthLink to Combine in $673 Million All-Stock Deal (WSJ)
• Yuan Weakness Spurs Fresh Surge in China Outflows (WSJ)
• Indian media link Brexit deals to visa rules (BBC)
• U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis - Sept Report
• How Economic Gobbledygook Divides Us (NYT Magazine)
• Energy Giant Shell Says Oil Demand Could Peak in Just Five Years (Bloomberg)
• Liquidity crisis - As water becomes ever more scant the world needs to conserve it, use it more efficiently and establish clear rights over who owns the stuff (The Economist)
• Cylance Discloses Voting Machine Vulnerability (Cylance Blog)

 

[cliff]

No way, Jose.

@Bloomie

 

[albin]

Now am I crazy, or instead of all this horseshit politicking we're in the middle of, wouldn't this have been alot more logical than what we're dealing with now, at least as far as a political compromise?

- Hard fork to 2MB, or whatever limit, or no limit
- Introduce segwit tx type
- Maintain backwards compatibility with respect to status quo performance characteristics of legacy tx types (all the Blockstream timelock FUD) by limiting all non-segwit type tx's to a total of 1MB (to alleviate the Core quadratic sighash concern)
- No need for a segwit discount because this isn't a hacky extension block
- Monitor the situation and maybe move to soft-fork in the future to deprecate legacy tx formats once it becomes apparent that nobody is really using them (ecosystem outreach to wallets, services, etc)

The point being, shouldn't segwit have been all about upgrading everybody to a new tx format that removes the signatures from txid calculation and fixes quadratic sighash ops, instead of all this repurposing / political scheming / centralized economic tinkering / recriminations?

 

[pekatete]

The point being, shouldn't segwit have been all about upgrading everybody to a new tx format that removes the signatures from txid calculation and fixes quadratic sighash ops, instead of all this repurposing / political scheming / centralized economic tinkering / recriminations?

I wish I could like that comment more than once.
The main reason why perfectly level headed, bitcoin loving people are rejecting SW is due to it being repurposed and pushed as a soft-fork. The timing unfortunately coincided with a pent up concern for the state of the network (tx through-put wise) and core ill-advisedly promoted SW as capable of addressing that and .... (well, the rabbit hole is so deep ...)

 

[AdrianX]

What does a new node that joins the network do then?

Also the order in which nodes received historic orphaned blocks now matters? Why would miners agree on this?

you've found BU achilles heel. /s

Honestly new nodes joining the network that have the default settings, are unlikely to see blocks in excess of 16MB, nodes where users adjust the settings would have to be aware that if they set there block limit too low they may be 4 blocks ( or whatever they set) behind the bitcoin network.

the later 2 questions can be addresses when the average block size is greater than 8MB or so, for now and the foreseeable future it doesn't matter and miners don't have to agree to change their behavior other than to adopt BUIP 001

It's not that we don't like you, you are liked as can be seen from the number of likes you get.

You may be feeling unliked because you react with ego to your arrogant posts where you often ignoring the facts, noted by the repetition of your lack of understanding as if it was gospel while ignoring those who respond to you. Your past criticism of BU is noted in the light of your resent admission to not actually understanding how it works.

I'll also mention you are condescending, your insistence that your version of understanding often seems like trolling not to mention your inconsistent claim to support a block limit increase so long as we concede to, stop resisting and follow the lead of those who claim bitcoin will unlikely ever be able to increase the block size limit for security reasons.

That aside we love having you here, constructive criticism is what we need to make bitcoin stronger.

 

[AdrianX]

i found a new youtube channel that is simply awesome
heres one of there videos all videos they make are interesting / entertaining!

loving it

They have some great videos, the one on Addiction is the one that got my attention. One day they'll do one on block size LOL - I'm still working on by bitcoin addiction.

 

[jonny1000]

Honestly new nodes joining the network that have the default settings, are unlikely to see blocks in excess of 16MB, nodes where users adjust the settings would have to be aware that if they set there block limit too low they may be 4 blocks ( or whatever they set) behind the bitcoin network.

the later 2 questions can be addresses when the average block size is greater than 8MB or so, for now and the foreseeable future it doesn't matter and miners don't have to agree to change their behavior other than to adopt BUIP 001

I am really sorry, I do not understand what these comments have to do with the points I raised. What has an 8MB level got to do with anything? It is as if we just see totally different things. The point I am making is BU nodes, even with the same settings, can build on different chains.

You may be feeling unliked because you react with ego to your arrogant posts where you often ignoring the facts, noted by the repetition of your lack of understanding as if it was gospel while ignoring those who respond to you.

We have a different understanding of the system based on different assumptions going back years. I am not ignoring facts or ignoring posts people make, I just do not see the points they make due to a different understanding, the same is true with respect to how you respond to my comments.
[doublepost=1478583716][/doublepost]

It's not that we don't like you, you are liked as can be seen from the number of likes you get.

I am often insulted here, for example called a liar, accused of being corrupt, dishonest or even perverted. Nobody speaks up against this.

We have a different set of priorities for Bitcoin and a different understanding of how it works. For example BU people seem to think its not absolutely vital that nodes always quickly converge on the same chain on their own, without human intervention. To me this is the whole point and without it we have no working system at all, it "seems" stupid to suggest otherwise. You guys must see something else in Bitcoin, if you do not think automatically and always converging on one chain is important, I genuinely want to know what that is, because I must be missing something. Please can you explain to me what you think Bitcoin does or how it can work, if the nodes all start diverging onto different chains or require human intervention to change settings to upgrade them to follow some kind of socially determined valid chain? I just do not get it.

The opposing views seem stupid to each side, but they are not stupid, just different, that doesn't mean we need to insult each other.

 

[freetrader]

@jonny1000 : We get it, your opinion is that all clients which are not "compatible" should drop it. And Core is the only "compatible" client, because they're the majority of nodes and hashpower currently. Therefore, no change can happen that is not sanctioned by them.
The problem is their decision making. It's been extremely poor over the last few years, leading us to a blocks-full situation where Bitcoin is not getting the growth it deserves (yes, that's our opinion). And instead of acknowledging a mistake and fixing it, they write it on their banner.

Bitcoin works just fine with human intervention. Do you think those nodes upgrading to latest Core version do so automatically?


Why are you here enquiring about BU if you already made up your mind that "BU does not work"?

I have a few possible explanations, but I'd like to hear it from you.

---

From the Not-Zcash department:
https://np.reddit.com/r/Zcashclassic/comments/5av6qf/closed_due_to_trademark_go_to_rnotzcash/

 

[jonny1000]

Core is the only "compatible" client

Here we go again. No it is not. There are other compatible clients like BTCD, Bitcoin Knots ect ect. I repeat this over and over again.

The point about BU is its not even compatible with itself. BU is even incompatible with other BU clients with the same AD and blocksize limits settings.

That inherent internal BU incompatibility is a separate issue, not to be confused with how increasing the blocksize limit makes it incompatible with existing nodes.

The problem is their decision making. It's been extremely poor over the last few years, leading us to a blocks-full situation where Bitcoin is not getting the growth it deserves

If you think that, why don't you remove the Core team by creating a compatible fork of the software, then taking away Bitcoin Core's market share such that they do not matter?

Bitcoin works just fine with human intervention.

Currently nodes agree on the chain without human intervention, are you advocating a total change in the model? Is so please make it clear.

Do you think those nodes upgrading to latest Core version do so automatically?

No they dont. I dont understand why you bring this up. Bitcoin 0.1.13 is compatible with the existing rules.

 

[AdrianX]

... BU people seem to think its not absolutely vital that nodes always quickly converge on the same chain on their own, without human intervention.

I couldn't think of anything more further from the truth can you quote any instances or an examples where "BU people" have led you to believe this?

In the example I gave it would be a practical impossibility for a user to manipulate all the variables to coalesce in a situation that would require intervention. In the example you gave the results is no change from existing network behavior but for an extra 20 to 30 minute wait for the orphan chain to resolve.

1. You run a BU node with AD = 4 and EB = 1MB
2. A 1.1MB block is mined
3. This 1.1MB block then receives three additional confirmations and now has a 4 block lead over the chain with blocks less than 1.1MB
4. Shortly after the 4 block lead is taken, a miner extends the smaller block chain by one block
What happens next:

The EB = 1MB setting could be considered an arbitrary constraint that will be ignored or enforced once the orphan block chain has been resolved. In the case where the majority of hash power still supports the smaller shorter blockchain and does not support BUIP001 the BU miner that created the 1.1MB fork will have his chain orphaned, and the situation would take longer still to resolve. The user in your example will not be affected other than transaction delays. If the miner supported BUIP001 the situation would probable never come to pass and would have resolved much like orphan blocks resolve today.

I'll be a little more direct in my answer then

Also the order in which nodes received historic orphaned blocks now matters?

No. I don't see any reason why it should, all mined blocks are relayed orphaned block not.

Why would miners agree on this?

. Agree on what? there is nothing new to agree with.

I picked 8MB as a number approaching the average block size that was less than the default relay settings but higher than you 1MB limit, in an attempt to imagine a scenario where a first time node downloading the blockchain may encounter a delay in validating and confirming the bitcoin blockchain and become confused as to which fork was the bitcoin fork. I picked that number as it was far enough in the future while leaving capacity to addresses the issue as blocks approached the defalt16MB relay limit .

Looking at it now it seems I was wrong to amuse your concern had some validity I made a mistake in over thinning the issue.

 

[freetrader]

@jonny1000 : Thanks to Adrian for pointing out your quote about intervention. That's why I brought it up.

No they dont. I dont understand why you bring this up. Bitcoin 0.1.13 is compatible with the existing rules.

On a low level, 0.13.1 is compatible. This is achieved because it blinds other clients to the new rules.

On a higher level, some of the rules it introduces have absolutely not been accepted by the community, i.e. it is not seen as 'compatible' by those who run systems that are made incompatible by it.

So I see your use of 'compatible' as somewhat out of kilter with the accepted definition of it.
For me, if something is fully compatible it means it can interoperate without restriction.
That's not the case between SegWit nodes and non-SegWit nodes. We can even see this in the way SegWit nodes do not connect out to non-SegWit nodes - they discriminate because they are aware that there are new rules and they don't want to be talking to peers that are 'in the dark' about these new rules.

Fortunately, there is still a vote on this soft-fork. However, unfortunately a small minority (the miners) get to decide on whether it activates. They have suddenly become the representatives of the broader community, whether they wished to or not.

If you think that, why don't you remove the Core team by creating a compatible fork of the software, then taking away Bitcoin Core's market share such that they do not matter?

I think we agree that the valid chain with most work is Bitcoin. With SegWit or with another kind of fork, old nodes will not be able to validate it.

 

[jonny1000]

I couldn't think of anything more further from the truth can you quote any instances or an examples where "BU people" have led you to believe this?

BU supporters constantly imply this. For example when Bitcoin Classic nodes were booted off the testnet, by BU nodes tricking them, BU supporters just said "oh well, that's not a major problem, users can just download and run another client."
[doublepost=1478604360][/doublepost]

No. I don't see any reason why it should

That's apparently how BU works. If AD is 4 and the lead was 4 and then goes down to 3, the larger blocksize chain with a lead of 3 is built on. This means nodes store the historic order they received orphaned blocks to remember historic leads over orphaned chains. (of course this doesn't actually happen as far as I know, BU supporters just said it does do this). The historic order of orphaned blocks is outside of consensus and therefore BU is divergent, even for nodes where AD and EB limits are the same.
[doublepost=1478604622][/doublepost]

Agree on what? there is nothing new to agree with.

Agree on the order of historic orphaned blocks.

When you say "there is nothing new to agree", this is the kind of comment That makes me think you don't mind if nodes don't converge.
[doublepost=1478604778,1478604069][/doublepost]

absolutely not been accepted by the community

Not yet. This is part of the reason for the 95% threshold. I respect the right of a minority to reject the activation of SegWit, because of the larger blocksize limit
[doublepost=1478605093][/doublepost]

it is not seen as 'compatible' by those who run systems that are made incompatible by it.

Here we go again. You say "seen as" compatible, implying what exists as an idea in people's minds is the key thing. I am talking actual compatibility with actual nodes. As in what software actually does, for example when the person is away from the machine. At that point the idea in their head makes no difference. If someone thinks SegWit is incompatible while their miner mines away and they are away at the beach, it doesn't matter what they think, as long as SegWit is actually compatible, right? BU people seem think in social terms and how people "want" their node to behave. Perhaps you think this way as people can just get a new client that later does the thing they want?

 

[adamstgbit]

segwit is incompatible

without 100% of the minners minning segwit
older miners will allow the spending of segwit TX by anyone.
there blocks will be rejected by the network IF the network is >51% segwity

there is many fucking good reasons why core has opted for very high activation threshold (95%)
bottom line is that its incompatible.

 

[adamstgbit]

Check this out

world wide voting for US elections

https://worldwide.vote/hillary-vs-trump/#/results/total

i think its very interesting to note that Russian vote for trump with overwhelming majority, while in China 75% voted for Clinton

why are the polls so one sided in these countries??

 

[jonny1000]

there blocks will be rejected by the network IF the network is >51% segwity

That was true for old softforks, but that is not true for the new softfork method SegWit uses. Old blocks produced by unupgraded miners will be accepted and built on, even after SegWit activates.

Blocks from old miners will only be rejected if they violate the new SegWit rules. This won't happen as there is no mining software currently out there that will produce blocks violating SegWit rules (As far as I am aware). The new SegWit rules only apply to a transaction type that miners already don't put in blocks, by default.

 

[adamstgbit]

That was true for old softforks, but that is not true for the new softfork method SegWit used. Old blocks produced by unupgraded miners will be accepted and built on, even after SegWit activates.

say i make a segwit TX old miner see this as anyone-can-spend, so HE spends it and mine the block including my and his TX! you telling me the segwit miners will say this is OK even tho they know its not really an anyone can spend tx?

 

[Mengerian]

That's apparently how BU works. If AD is 4 and the lead was 4 and then goes down to 3, the larger blocksize chain with a lead of 3 is built on. This means nodes store the historic order they received orphaned blocks to remember historic leads over orphaned chains. (of course this doesn't actually happen as far as I know, BU supporters just said it does do this). The historic order of orphaned blocks is outside of consensus and therefore BU is divergent, even for nodes where AD and EB limits are the same.

No, it is not "apparently how BU works".

AD is Acceptance Depth. It refers to how many blocks are built on top of the "Excessive Block". If AD is 4, and 4 blocks are built on top of the Excessive Block, BU will track that chain, and build on it for miners.

It has nothing to do with a "lead" that has to be tracked. It has nothing to do with the order blocks are received.

BU is convergent. It converges to the longest Proof of Work chain.

 

[albin]

@jonny1000

How about you just read the code instead of trolling everybody with word games?

(Rhetorical question btw, of course I know why).

 

[molecular]

The point being, shouldn't segwit have been all about upgrading everybody to a new tx format that removes the signatures from txid calculation and fixes quadratic sighash ops, instead of all this repurposing / political scheming / centralized economic tinkering / recriminations?

yes, exactly.

and then this begs the question: WHY hasn't it been done in this way?

The only answers I was able to come up with turned out to be very disturbing.