Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[megadeth]

@solex

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

Among the companies at the forefront of this move is DRW Holdings LLC, a high-frequency trading firm in Chicago founded by former options-pit trader Donald Wilson in 1992. DRW is a founding investor in a new bitcoin financial-services firm called Digital Asset Holdings that launched last month. Cumberland Mining & Materials LLC, a DRW subsidiary, has “begun to experiment with cryptocurrency trading,” DRW said

from: http://www.wsj.com/articles/big-investor-involvement-could-boost-bitcoin-1428259814

 

[cypherdoc]

ignoramus Tim Swanson continuing to push his own agenda; that of hobbling Bitcoin to advance his garnering of consulting fees:

http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/explore-the-blockchain-ignore-the-bitcoin-maximalists-1077657-1.html

why anyone would hire this guy, i'll never know.

 

[cypherdoc]

looks like Adam is upset he can't control/censor bitcoin.com:

 

[yrral86]

You've got to admit that paid sponsorship of recommended wallets is questionable.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Paid sponsorship is one thing, but how is it any more questionable to recommend XT to novice users than Core?

Both are bad for novices, I'd say, but at least XT keeps you on the main chain in the event of a fork between Core and XT, whereas Core does not.

What could Adam's actual reasoning even be here? Simply that XT is just some stunt and not a serious attempt to create a competing implementation? That would be horribly condescending. Hopefully he just means recommending full clients to novices is a bad idea.

 

[cypherdoc]

You've got to admit that paid sponsorship of recommended wallets is questionable.

have the maintainers of bitcoin.org, who btw censored XT for political reasons, audited every wallet listed on their site? i've never heard a claim that they have and would be surprised if they did.

this legal disclaimer suggests they have not:

https://bitcoin.org/en/legal
[doublepost=1446777523][/doublepost]

Paid sponsorship is one thing, but how is it any more questionable to recommend XT to novice users than Core?

Both are bad for novices, I'd say, but at least XT keeps you on the main chain in the event of a fork between Core and XT, whereas Core does not.

What could Adam's actual reasoning even be here? Simply that XT is just some stunt and not a serious attempt to create a competing implementation? That would be horribly condescending. Hopefully he just means recommending full clients to novices is a bad idea.

imo, it simply means he is terrified about losing control.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

@cypherdoc

Probably, but these guys always have a patina of reasoning to the things they say so that they can defend them later. It's de rigeur in their social circle.

 

[cypherdoc]

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".

i assume your thoughts were triggered by this video here by Corrallo? i cringed listening to many of his wrong assumptions throughout. he doesn't understand that most of the large pools consist of hashers that could leave the pool at the drop of a hat. and before anyone screams "but vertical integration!", he gives an an example that assumes a pool of constituent hashers: dividing up f2pool into client based hashers of 5%, 5%, 5%, & 6%. also he glosses over the fact that his wing it relay network is also centralizing, so he isn't helping things in that regard nor in that it doesn't verify everything before relaying. the Blockstream folks are all bears on Bitcoin and convinced mining is centralized and incapable of rational profit seeking.

and yet, somehow, we've never had the dreaded attack they FUD about:

 

[Melbustus]

@cypherdoc - actually I've never seen that video... I'll watch it sometime when I need to get fired up.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

The Blockstream devs all seem like they initially approached Bitcoin like this guy but in the context of its economics.

"What a pity. This is a great experiment but it'll never work this way. Fortunately I know the way to fix it."

I don't recall ever hearing an economically insightful comment from any of the Blockstream devs except maybe Rusty. These are the people some would trust to design our economic system?

I don't think they understand economics or incentives; they seem think Bitcoin is held together by code and a kind of bailing wire of social agreements among mostly themselves. No wonder they see XT as an attack. It threatens to destroy the group-of-wise-elders system that they perceive as "the only thing keeping this precarious ship afloat."

They talk of decentralization but fail to notice how this inherently contradicts their belief that central control is required. Despite them posing as the decentralists, they have only a faint glimmer of understanding that Bitcoin is a product of the market. They know nothing of how the market generates consistency, seem blithely unaware of the common central planning fallacies, and some even deny that Bitcoin is antifragile if I recall correctly. Mr. Market will soon enough grow to find this quite unacceptable.

 

[AdrianX]

You've got to admit that paid sponsorship of recommended wallets is questionable.

sure but if they lists only wallets that pass security tests, why not let sponsors get a leg up. more to the point why is BitcoinXT missing from Bitcoin.org?

theymos said he removed it because it was an alt coin. That makes me question there testing methods surly he was able to test it, and notice it only works with Bitcoin.

 

[yrral86]

Finally, some traction for IMO the best proposal to come out of Montreal.... https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3rnucc/what_do_you_guys_think_of_bitcoinng/

 

[AdrianX]

Yip next up... nodes running for profit will need to comply with existing KYC requirements.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

People never get tired of beating their head against the brick wall of the impossible.

No matter how overcomplicated you make your scheme, you can't do Bitcoin's job without being Bitcoin.

They just need to stop complaining (or, more likely, stop impeding progress just so they can make a name for themselves) and just let the blocks grow.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

This entire thread is worth a read, but this link in particular shows someone admitting in Feb 2013 they wanted to keep the block size limit in place to subsidize off chain transaction systems:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=144895.msg1564028#msg1564028

 

[cypherdoc]

The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users. The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be. Those few nodes will be big server farms. The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate.
-Satoshi Nakamoto

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306

 

[Erdogan]

You've got to admit that paid sponsorship of recommended wallets is questionable.

I happen to not agree. Most media, not the least the contrarian, new media sites have ads. You have to have a sound critical sense of everything.

 

[cypherdoc]

oh my:

[doublepost=1446820606][/doublepost]Adam showing support for censorship. Carpetbagger:

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

CENSORSHIP IS FREE DISCUSSION

TRUSTING US IS TRUSTLESSNESS

CENTRALIZATION IS DECENTRALIZATION


​

 

[lunar]

Prohashing getting sick of it.