Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Nat-go]

gold unable to hold any gains from that spike last night.
will bitcoin fallow suit?

What is "fallow suit"?

i searched (at duckduckgo), but i didn´t find something suitable. It is the opposit of a power suit?

 

[solex]

@Nat-go
It's his "power" writing style. Deliberate spelling errors forcing readers to examine his statements more closely.

@molecular
For the sigops we have a twin-track approach. First, a change in the next release, for blocks >1MB, to make this limit configurable, with a scaling default which leverages the EB so that excessive sigops blocks can receive the emergent consensus treatment. Secondly, as mentioned earlier, parallel block validation will also be in a future release, assuming BUIP033 is passed.

 

[adamstgbit]

bitcoin needs a trump

What is "fallow suit"?

i searched (at duckduckgo), but i didn´t find something suitable. It is the opposit of a power suit?

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/follow+suit

seems its spelt follow not fallow
tomoato tomato

 

[Nat-go]

@adamstgbitI
You couldn´t had written follow instead of fallow. This Thread is still called Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP, not DOWN.

It´s just the americans who sell now their Bitcoin, ´cause Trump is no threat for traditional methods of money laundering banking. The chinese trader still sell/buy short under 5000 yuan. Rumours say that the price it not allowed to go above 5.000 yuan. As the price growth stopped at 4.995 yuan this morning, the americans got weak hands..

 

[adamstgbit]

@Net-go

I predict that for ever crazy piece of news with "trump" in the headline, gold silver and bitcoin will spike.
and i predict there will be lots of "trump" news.

"trump grabs woman's ass in public" bitcoin spikes.
"trump rips up trade deal" bitcoin spikes
"trump bombs the shit out of ISIS" bitcoin spikes
"trump enjoys a NY city hot dog" bitcoin spikes.

everything this guy does will be seen as controversial and there for lead to uncertainty?? idk maybe!

i think we'll see the media immediately try to paint everything he does as " kinda nuts " and "who knows how it will turn out"

its going to be a wild ride.

 

[jonny1000]

So in this scenario. If a new BU node with AD = 4 and EB = 1MB joins the network, do they build on the blue block or the green block?

Peter, please let me know when you can

 

[pekatete]

Guys, please refrain from feeding the village troll. Just saying.

 

[AdrianX]

So in this scenario. If a new BU node with AD = 4 and EB = 1MB joins the network, do they build on the blue block or the green block?

Nodes relay and follow, miners build, in your scenario you've already confirmed the node is not a mining node.

 

[albin]

It seems to me that in any case, this quadratic thing is just more blowing smoke from the technocrats.

I feel like it's impossible at this point to deny that they've just been moving from ad hoc excuse to excuse, so that it takes so long to fully understand their objections, that you can't credibly propose any kind of counter-proposals in a reasonable amount of time within their org framework. It's impossible to even constructively review their planning, because in the blink of eye, a proposal goes from conference presentation to creepy loyalty pledge.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

@albin It's long, long past time to stop listening anything from the Core camp.

It's not just useless to engage with dishonest arguers, it's actively harmful.

 

[albin]

Looking back, I feel like the final straw was I think Dec 2015, when Blockstream folks promised Gavin some kind of compromise proposal, but it turned out to just be buying time to use the Stalling 2 event as the official "fuck you we're doing segwit softfork" press conference.

 

[jonny1000]

Nodes relay and follow, miners build, in your scenario you've already confirmed the node is not a mining node.

No I didn't...

 

[AdrianX]

@jonny1000 then @Peter R has addressed your question. You decide what stops a miner from building on an orphaned block now?

It's not important that everyone needs to know how the incentive design in bitcoin works, in fact most people will just use it without understanding. The miners confused by the choice will be disempowered you don't need to concern your self with why if you don't see it.

 

[jonny1000]

@jonny1000 then @Peter R has addressed your question.

No he didn't, he just clarified what the question was, with a diagram...

You decide what stops a miner from building on an orphaned block now?

Currently miner software tells them to build on the longest valid chain. After BU, the software will not do that. For example it can build on a chain 3 behind the longest chain. Therefore miners do not all try to extend the same chain and the system doesn't converge on one chain. BU is a divergent system.

It's not important that everyone needs to know how the incentive design in bitcoin works, in fact most people will just use it without understanding. The miners confused by the choice will be disempowered you don't need to concern your self with why if you don't see it.

Well currently I understand, in a basic way, how the incentives work. With BU I do not. Perhaps you do understand it. It would be great if you could explain it, that way more people may support it.

Which block do new BU miners build on the green or the blue one? If you do not know what chain miners will build on by default, I doubt BU works. But that doesn't matter right a miners are run be people and people decide?


[doublepost=1478835625][/doublepost]

@jonny1000: Your scenario:

1. You run a BU node with AD = 4 and EB = 1MB
2. A 1.1MB block is mined [THE RED BLOCK IN THE DIAGRAM]
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 [THE THREE BLOCKS AFTER THE RED BLOCK ON THE RIGHT SIDE]
4. Shortly after the 4 block lead is taken, a miner extends the smaller block chain by one block [THE BLUE BLOCK ON THE RIGHT SIDE]

Here's an annotated version of the diagram that might be easier to understand:

See, Peter just told me what my scenario was... He didn't respond to it...

 

[albin]

I have to give some props, that is some super sophisticated concern-trolling, for a second there I questioned whether might've actually discovered an edge case. But when you break down the details, it's clear that all he's constructing a strawman where he creates artificial expectations of system behavior, then declares victory by confusing the issue such that how BU is intended to work is suddenly the bug edge case.

Some really skilled obfuscation and verbal vomit going on there! That's some clever execution too, planting a confused assertion he intended all along under the false pretenses of asking questions. The only constructive criticism I can offer though is that he showed his hand too early with a tip of the hat as to what was going on in earlier messages in the setup that had unnecessarily editorializing, which to be perfectly honest slightly undermined the impact of the sophistry payload when it finally came.

 

[adamstgbit]

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?

No. I am saying the old miner won't put this transaction in a block, since it's non standard. Miners need to upgrade to a new client to include these transactions in blocks.

the old miner CAN spend all segwit TX if he's simply mods his old software to include segwitTX's and mines blocks that SPENDS SEGWIT TX.

clearly segwit NEEDS marjory hashing power, without that, segwit TX are unsafe, poeple will take advantage that the majority of the network will accept a segwit TX as anyone-can-spend.

you can't count on "old nodes" behaving Exactly like old-core-nodes.

no way to slice it man, segwit TX are unsafe unless segwit is enforced and understood by >51% of the network.

 

[Zarathustra]

Show me the place where the word became a man
Show me the place where the suffering began ...


The Greatest passed away, danced to the end of love.

Goodbye Leonard

 

[Zarathustra]

Snowden:

“This is a dark moment in our nation’s history – but it is not the end of history. and if we work together, we can build something better.”

https://techcrunch.com/2016/11/10/snowden-urges-companies-to-make-tech-that-protects-us-regardless-of-whos-president/

 

[jonny1000]

no way to slice it man, segwit TX are unsafe unless segwit is enforced and understood by >51% of the network.

If SegWit activates and non mining nodes upgrade, the new rules become just as safe as any other rule. Removing SegWit then becomes a hardfork.

I repeat again and again that a hardfork cannot be done with just 51% of miners. You may think it can be, but if so, that's not an issue with SegWit then, any funds can be stolen with a hardfork
[doublepost=1478874391][/doublepost]

I have to give some props, that is some super sophisticated concern-trolling, for a second there I questioned whether might've actually discovered an edge case. But when you break down the details, it's clear that all he's constructing a strawman where he creates artificial expectations of system behavior, then declares victory by confusing the issue such that how BU is intended to work is suddenly the bug edge case.

Some really skilled obfuscation and verbal vomit going on there! That's some clever execution too, planting a confused assertion he intended all along under the false pretenses of asking questions. The only constructive criticism I can offer though is that he showed his hand too early with a tip of the hat as to what was going on in earlier messages in the setup that had unnecessarily editorializing, which to be perfectly honest slightly undermined the impact of the sophistry payload when it finally came.

I take that all to mean, that in the above scenario, you don't know what chain a new BU node will build on?

I am convinced it's the blue one, but when I ask these basic questions you guys just waffle on without understanding how, why or if BU nodes (Even with the same AD and EB values) converge on the same chain.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

I guess the marxists are done playing the long march through the institutions game and are now willing to openly make their final violent takeover play.

Just checking in...