Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

awemany

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2015
1,387
5,054

Zarathustra

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,439
3,797
@awemany
Yes, despite the 30-fold increase since 2012, Adam cherry picks the 2 year correction timespan.
And yes, I also bet that they will raise the limit within the next 2-4 month at least to 2 MB. Hard to imagine that they are stupid enough to not do it.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
@awemany
Yes, despite the 30-fold increase since 2012, Adam cherry picks the 2 year correction timespan.
And yes, I also bet that they will raise the limit within the next 2-4 month at least to 2 MB. Hard to imagine that they are stupid enough to not do it.
Lack of any block size discussion on the mailing list or irc is a great indicator of what will happen. Nothing. We have to take matters into our own hands.
[doublepost=1446732936][/doublepost]
I hope it's not a repost, but do any of you brainy people have any thoughts about the recent mempool surge?

https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin
(bottom left, change to size)

What if this rally goes ballistic?
Yeah, it's real users aka the next wave of adopters.

And yes, mempool congestion is a real problem caused by choked blocks. Lotsa small fee TX's aren't getting confirmed right now. I can see them in my choked mempool and in my memory stats.crazy thing is, much of it is still leftover from the last stress test of weeks ago.

Good news is that this will get fixed :eventually.
 
Last edited:

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
I just had to tweet that
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
Can we start calling all the cipherpunks who ridiculed and dismissed Bitcoin prior to 2013 and now want to rush in and fix it "carpetbaggers" yet?
Carpetbaggers. In general, the term “carpetbagger” refers to a traveler who arrives in a new region with only a satchel (or carpetbag) of possessions, and who attempts to profit from or gain control over his new surroundings, often against the will or consent of the original inhabitants.
[doublepost=1446736850,1446735798][/doublepost]c'mon, c'mon, c'mon:

 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
 

Inca

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 28, 2015
517
1,679
Just posted this on /r/bitcoin..I'll await my ban.

Yes of course the average txn fee (within the constraints of a fee market and a limited blocksize).

But if the block is larger then the average txn fee could be lower and allow more capacity in the network to the benefit of all. The network capacity could be doubled by changing a single number on a single line of code with no ill effects. Noone is saying that bitcoin can scale up 1000x from here today. It doesn't have to, but instead simply keep pace with transaction demand.

There is a fundamental disagreement between keeping the bitcoin chain for 1) a small number of on chain transactions which are expensive or 2) increasing the block size and encouraging huge numbers of transactions which pay much less but may cause eventual centralisation. Who really believes centralisation will happen if the blocksize raises to 2mb or 5mb?

Over the longer term it is in miners interest to have as many users as possible on chain as the block reward subsidy will exponentially decay in the coming years. Ergo, miners will band together and choose a solution in conjunction with payment processors, wallet companies, exchanges etc which encourages as much activity on chain as possible. The current ideology driving the position on /r/bitcoin and in the Core camp is in direct opposition to what is in miners self interest.

Remember 'Core' is simply a tweaked fully functioning reference client created by Satoshi which has been deliberately crippled by allowing an anti spam feature to begin to throttle blockwidth from meeting network demand. It doesn't take a genius to see that when we are regularly filling blocks (no matter the cause) that it is time to increase the limit whilst other solutions mature.

It isn't a great stretch with the creation of XT to see the jig is up and soon another tweaked reference client will emerge with industry support and take network dominance. Hopefully many such implementations emerge.

There is almost sycophantic eulogising on here about bitcoin 'experts' and Core developers. The reality is that they have simply bug fixed and improved upon existing functional code created in 2009 by Satoshi, nothing more. There is nothing in of itself special about Core. If the ecosystem want bitcoin to scale it is a simple matter of changing version of bitcoin client software.

This is what Theymos fears. As soon as other clients become popular amongst miners and nodes then the ability to set rules and change (or more importantly limit) the protocol will be lost from the Core maintainers. Shouldn't be long now.​
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
Just posted this on /r/bitcoin..I'll await my ban.

Yes of course the average txn fee (within the constraints of a fee market and a limited blocksize).

But if the block is larger then the average txn fee could be lower and allow more capacity in the network to the benefit of all. The network capacity could be doubled by changing a single number on a single line of code with no ill effects. Noone is saying that bitcoin can scale up 1000x from here today. It doesn't have to, but instead simply keep pace with transaction demand.

There is a fundamental disagreement between keeping the bitcoin chain for 1) a small number of on chain transactions which are expensive or 2) increasing the block size and encouraging huge numbers of transactions which pay much less but may cause eventual centralisation. Who really believes centralisation will happen if the blocksize raises to 2mb or 5mb?

Over the longer term it is in miners interest to have as many users as possible on chain as the block reward subsidy will exponentially decay in the coming years. Ergo, miners will band together and choose a solution in conjunction with payment processors, wallet companies, exchanges etc which encourages as much activity on chain as possible. The current ideology driving the position on /r/bitcoin and in the Core camp is in direct opposition to what is in miners self interest.

Remember 'Core' is simply a tweaked fully functioning reference client created by Satoshi which has been deliberately crippled by allowing an anti spam feature to begin to throttle blockwidth from meeting network demand. It doesn't take a genius to see that when we are regularly filling blocks (no matter the cause) that it is time to increase the limit whilst other solutions mature.

It isn't a great stretch with the creation of XT to see the jig is up and soon another tweaked reference client will emerge with industry support and take network dominance. Hopefully many such implementations emerge.

There is almost sycophantic eulogising on here about bitcoin 'experts' and Core developers. The reality is that they have simply bug fixed and improved upon existing functional code created in 2009 by Satoshi, nothing more. There is nothing in of itself special about Core. If the ecosystem want bitcoin to scale it is a simple matter of changing version of bitcoin client software.

This is what Theymos fears. As soon as other clients become popular amongst miners and nodes then the ability to set rules and change (or more importantly limit) the protocol will be lost from the Core maintainers. Shouldn't be long now.​
let us know if it gets censored.
 

Melbustus

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
237
884
It just struck me that the Blockstream core devs have a fundamentally similar mentality to folks like Tim Swanson and R3 who are building private blockchains. Both sets are motivated by a core belief that miners are not rational and free markets don't work. Both sets diligently build elaborate models to explain why mining, if left to the free-est of market structures, will fail, and how *they*, with their diligent economic engineering, will "fix" it. They just take different approaches to the "solution".
 

solex

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 22, 2015
1,558
4,693
Remember how Ebay demerged Paypal? This process was completed on 20th July 2015.

It leaves them without a privileged payment handler, so makes the context of this more interesting:

In an interview with the Financial Times, John Donahoe, chief executive at eBay, said“Digital currency is going to be a very powerful thing.”

Ebay is Watching Bitcoin
http://www.newsbtc.com/2015/11/05/ebay-watching-bitcoin/

It's been obvious for a long time that Ebay and Bitcoin is a match made in heaven. Ebay could act as escrow, complimenting its proven dispute resolution service. Once the block limit is resolved, this is something to watch for.
[doublepost=1446749270][/doublepost]@Justus Ranvier

And what is most disappointing is that today we are effectively seeing option "a)"
The worst of the lot.

May 31, 2013,
a) "1MB now, 1MB tomorrow, 1MB forever"
b) Don't raise the limit "now" (where now can be anywhere from this year to next couple years)
c) Raise the limit but don't remove it
d) Remove the cap and hope the "free market" (which Bitcoin mining isn't) adapts without destroying this $1B experiment.
e) Implement some algorithm for raising the blocksize deterministically overtime.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: majamalu

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
[doublepost=1446750627,1446749805][/doublepost]auction just ended. price creeping up.
[doublepost=1446751358][/doublepost]i think we're going to close this gap and hard to the downside:


[doublepost=1446752022][/doublepost]
 
  • Like
Reactions: solex

solex

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 22, 2015
1,558
4,693
Forgot about that auction :)
Interesting to see if 1 buyer got the lot as previously seen.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
@solex

did anyone ever figure out who Cumberland Mining was/is?
 

solex

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 22, 2015
1,558
4,693
Yes, and I saw the name of one of them on reddit a couple of days ago, but damned if I can find the post again.