Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Bagatell]

@freetrader I don't see how Satoshi could have objected to the Chatham House Rule (note singular) given his anonymity.

Mr. Fentons connections to British and Gulf royalty and Bain Capital are more of a concern to me.

 

[freetrader]

@Bagatell : I think opposition to holding important Bitcoin meetings / events under the Chatham House Rule does not translate into opposition to pseudonymity / anonymity.

I don't know what Satoshi would've thought, but here's what I think:

These rules corrode our ability to follow the arguments presented, and they promote reaching of decisions outside the realm of accountability.

Consider that even the list of participants of such meetings is usually requested not to be circulated.

https://engage4climate.org/chatham-house-rule-for-dialogue-events/

Imagine reading Plato's dialogues without attribution to speakers and all names censored. Sure we could try to reconstruct the arguments...

I think maybe there is a time and place for the Chatham House Rule, and SR bills itself as a private event, so it's within the rights of the organizers and participants to do as they please. My opinion / prediction is that it won't really help Bitcoin. It didn't with the first Roundtable (arguably a flop), didn't when Core + miners used it in California, and I don't think it will this time round.

 

[Bagatell]

My opinion / prediction is that it won't really help Bitcoin.

Not as P2P e-cash anyway.

 

[kyuupichan]

In other words, there is a lot of dishonest propaganda surrounding LN, it simply isn't the scaling panacea and it also makes Greg's 1:4 discount very questionable.

I think you meant "makes the discount very understandable"? Clearly LN will struggle to compete on its own merits, so quadrupling (not tripling I think) the cost of competing solutions serves a "useful" purpose to those who want to push LN, whatever the underlying motivation.

 

[awemany]

@kyuupichan : Indeed, given the UTXO set size issues with LN, it seems to be the motivation to get people onto LN but not at all to reduce UTXO set size. Greg said that SegWit intends to reduce UTXO bloat. Well yes, of course, if you implicitely assume the loss of privacy is a given with LN (but don't talk about it for obvious reasons) and you want to incentivize LN. With the routing problem not at all solved in LN, this is outright evil: He's basically proposing to reduce privacy, because he opts for a path forward that will lead to UTXO set growth reduction (and thus combining identities!) but has no solution to actually use LN in a decentralized and private way with the routing problem not solved, and thus no idea to alleviate this loss with a gain of privacy in another area. Instead, we get the 'onion routing' smokescreen!

And that trade-off involved here is neither mentioned nor properly explored by LN proponents!

Bankster couldn't have thought of a better scheme to tackle Bitcoin.

With commitment transactions at least as complex as regular payments (and I bet the complexity can go much higher with more fancy commitment schemes), they even seem to be intending to bloat the chain from a small-blockers perspective. And some have said so: SegWit is up to 4MB of spam for up to 1.7MB of regular transactions ...

 

[79b79aa8]

having myself a little party to celebrate the 450,000th mined block in a short bit . . . anticipating a chain with half a million links.

 

[awemany]

Trying to boil down what I really dislike about SegWit (apart from the unfortunately necessary political tactic part of non-activating it to get a better position and Core to yield). If blocks are assumed to be full and that what happens in payment channels of any sort are called Bitcoin transactions the same way on-chain transactions are, these three properties will hold for SegWit:

- SegWit is reducing the (UTXO privacy)/(blockchain-size) ratio
- SegWit is reducing the (on-chain-transactions)/(blockchain-size) ratio
- SegWit is reducing (miner-fee)/(Bitcoin-transaction-made) ratio

As far as I can see, those three aspects are clear-cut and completely technical aspects of the proposed Core SegWit and do not contain any opinion aspect to it.

 

[Norway]

Is a ‘Core of Bitcoin Core’ Hostile to Competing Code?
https://news.bitcoin.com/is-a-core-of-bitcoin-core-hostile-to-competing-code/

 

[Norway]

This is interesting. I'm in the camp that believes that his blog was weired, but it never claimed to give a cryptographic proof of anything. I read it as a kind of over complicated tutorial on how to check a signature. And I find it very unlikely that he could have tricked Gavin with the signature. But I can't know for sure Maybe time will tell?

 

[freetrader]

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/25/blockchain-news-bitfury-group-announced-30-million-dollar-deal-with-credit-china-fintech.html

Phang Yew Kiat, vice chairman and CEO of Credit China Fintech, told CNBC by email the company was exploring the use of blockchain on some of its fintech platforms, which include peer-to-peer lending and payments services.

"We have a working prototype payment system using blockchain technologies working in our research laboratory," Phang said.

They did it!

 

[Norway]

@freetrader
Shit, we should never have made it open source. They can just download and copy it!

 

[lunar]

Sinking ship?

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

@lunar
Hm, I doubt it. My guess, that's just a propaganda move to not have every single core dev working at Blockstream directly.
Who is funding Chaincode Labs? What is their business plan?

"Chaincode's mission is to develop technology and perform research to further the field of digital currencies."

Oh yeah, yet another company in the Bitcoin space without any plan how to make money. How come, that the companies without a plan are the small block companies? Maybe because their income stream is based on hindering Bitcoins progress..

Alex Morcos, I don't remember that guy as anybody, who ever had anything new or interesting to say. Just another Greg-amplifier.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/25/blockchain-news-bitfury-group-announced-30-million-dollar-deal-with-credit-china-fintech.html


They did it!

I wonder if they found out that they can use Bitcoin as a working blockchain payment system, or if they invented a new one.

The interesting parts of the story are:
- why do they need BitFurys Mining-Hardware for it?
- or is all this Blockchain-talk just an excuse to sell Bitfurys Mining-Hardware to chinese Miners with the "Ok" of high tier officials?
- btw with this 30m Bitfury has now $120m in funding and became the best funded bitcoin company, as far as I know
- I did not decide if this is good or bad. Bad, because it is pro-core-pro-LN-pro-blockchain-surveillence-pro-clinton-foundation BitFury, and good, because at least BitFury seems to like Bitcoin and it is the only serious competition to BitMain in the production of Mining hardware. And honestly, we know up to nothing about BitMain, while Bitfury is at least transparent about its high power connections.

 

[freetrader]

@Christoph Bergmann : yes, the BitFury aspect is why I posted that link. The "we now have a working payment system" was just a humorous tidbit.

The undertone of the story seemed, to me, to be that BitFury had to agree to this (let's be honest, we don't know how much stock the Chinese got for their $30M) to get better access to the Chinese market. This is of course speculation on my part, but I'm guessing that they want a slice of that market.

 

[awemany]

Two separate concepts but not quite as a propaganda tactic:

If you watch carefully, you can see BS-aligned people shifting between "no, SegWit will do that", "no LN will do that", "no SegWit and LN are interlinked" to "no, SegWit and LN are orthogonal".

Case in point: SegWit is the change responsible for pushing people off-chain, yet for propaganda purposes, this is assumed to be part of what the Lightning Network will do to Bitcoin.

It is a great propaganda and mind-fucking technique to destroy focus of the opponent by having multiple diffuse and always slightly wrong answers available.
[doublepost=1485429432,1485428666][/doublepost]"SegWit community manager" brg444:

I don't know how it [SegWit] will affect miners' revenue [...]

I don't speak for Blockstream.

 

[lunar]

 

[AdrianX]

Maybe because their income stream is based on hindering Bitcoins progress..

ftfu

They're not out to hinder intentionally they out to infect, direct and control.

Acutely thinking through it, when you understand what's happening it's very optimistic to classify it as just a mere hindering.

 

[awemany]

@lunar: Yes! Absolutely excellent observation by Mr. Kasparov. The whole idea of having these endless internet debates on reddit around the same topics again and again and again needs to be seen in this light.

I wonder whether there could be technological innovation helping against that. Maybe reputation systems would help a bit? Maybe there could be other ways to tackle this?

 

[Mengerian]

Aaron van Wirdum article on Bitcoin Unlimited: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/closer-look-bitcoin-unlimiteds-configurable-block-size-proposal/

From the article:

“Jonny1000” contributed to this article.