Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[freetrader]

Hmm, wonder if they used that graphic with permission.

I only know it from the BU website.

Was it sourced from a third party who would be able to license it to Bitcoin Magazine, or has this use been approved by BU?

 

[Mengerian]

It's probably a good thing for Bitcoin Unlimited to be getting this publicity, we are inching our way to mainstream acceptance.

It does use the silly argument of "If people do stupid things, bad things will happen", as if miners will ignorantly run with setting that don't make sense.

 

[albin]

Garry's games are kind of like that, where the opponent is just overwhelmed by threats coming from everywhere and exhausted into inaccuracy. Great example is the Sicilian he played as black against Karpov where he sac'ed the d-pawn seemingly prematurely but highly thematically, and proceeded to constantly exhaust Anatoly with threat after threat the entire rest of the game.

 

[lunar]

@awemany

I wonder whether there could be technological innovation helping against that.

When I first heard about the idea that 6 confirmations were necessary to negate the probability of a double spend transaction on the blockchain, I couldn't help but be reminded of the six sigma approach developed by motorola, for statistical modelling.

I've often wondered if something like this could be integrated into the blockchain? I'm imagining a system that uses levels of statistical probability to confirm a theory, and thus move the scientific process forward in a measurable, empirical manner.

I foresee the huge advantages this would enable for the scientific/medical/engineering communities. The immutable blockchain becomes a truth chain for statistical probability. Something along these lines may end up being the framework for the scientific, legal even historical records?

Wouldn't it be nice instead of rehashing the same arguments to just point to a hash on the blockchain and say this our current understanding, if you disagree with this, then provide controlled experimental data to refute any of evidence that supports this 'truth'.

The decentralised empirical method.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

It's probably a good thing for Bitcoin Unlimited to be getting this publicity, we are inching our way to mainstream acceptance.

It does use the silly argument of "If people do stupid things, bad things will happen", as if miners will ignorantly run with setting that don't make sense.

I guess the next article about the "weaknesses" will be interesting, since jonny1000 is helping.

"There is no such thing as bad publicity". No idea, how many people read these Bitcoin news outlets (I never do, only whenever somebody posts links to specific articles) but I agree, that it's a good thing to get any publicity at this time. Especially given the fact, that many people still get their information from a core-echochamber controlled by theymos.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

https://totallydisconnected.wordpress.com/2017/01/09/elliptic-curves-over-qi-are-potentially-automorphic/

Anybody here qualified enough to evaluate that?
Sounds bad enough, but I understand exactly zero of this stuff..

 

[Norway]

Great report by Rick Falkvinge from the Satoshi Roundtable in Cancun;

https://falkvinge.net/2017/01/26/impressions-satoshi-roundtable-iii/

 

[AdrianX]

@Norway I came here to post just that - that's the best summary I could have hoped for and I can't get over how much trust Falkvinge installs with his candidacy.

He confirms my suspicion of how fundamental segwit proponents are, that's going to be their undoing. It's not like there are not valid concerns related to segwit and banning people who ask awkward questions or don't buy the snake oil isn't helping them reach consensus.

Segwith fundamentalists are going to reveal themselves for who they are by their actions.
[doublepost=1485469338,1485468625][/doublepost]

Hmm, wonder if they used that graphic with permission.

I only know it from the BU website.

Was it sourced from a third party who would be able to license it to Bitcoin Magazine, or has this use been approved by BU?

it would be in poor taste but the artist could send them a simple cease and desist letter or e-mail with a request to confirm its been received.

The letter would need to identify the artist as the owner of the image how its being used and ask them to remove it from there website, if they fail to comply they would then be in breach of copy right, and further action could be taken.

I haven't read the article but I think any publicity at this time is good. I believe BU stands up to criticism so its just a mater of time until people realize it's just FUD.

 

[awemany]

Looks like smallblocker /u/Xekyo is even more aggressive than I am on UTXO set size.

I think it could be productive if we ask more on what numbers people have in mind when they want to activate SegWit.

What number of UTXOs, off chain transactions and so forth.

I think this will separate the ones that can talk and can argue from the trolls and from the arrogant (Greg e.g. never gave any numbers and always stops in any discussion asking him for that).

Because it also appears that pro-SegWit people started to feel that SegWit is an uphill battle and now are more willing to talk.

I also think that there might be a few seeing that growth in price and value of Bitcoin is absolutely unrealistic with Core's 'scaling plan' - and who might switch camps to our side.

EDIT: On another note, I agree with the publicity. Of course, it is in the hands of the artist on whether he wants it to be taken down (if they do not have permission already, which I don't know) but I'd also strongly argue for leaving it there. It is good to get the word out, also on Blockstream-affiliated publications, and also if it is AvW writing.

 

[Norway]

It's numbers like these, that make me confident that we can scale on chain without problems. Please tell me how I get the math wrong here, if I do: (Yes, it's my post. You might also read the OP comment to get the full context.)

 

[freetrader]

I haven't read the article but I think any publicity at this time is good. I believe BU stands up to criticism so its just a mater of time until people realize it's just FUD.

The article is surprisingly neutral for CoinDesk. Let's see about Part II.
Agree the publicity is good at this point.
---

http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/rosetta-wearable-disk/

 

[awemany]

It's numbers like these, that make me confident that we can scale on chain without problems. Please tell me how I get the math wrong here, if I do: (Yes, it's my post. You might also read the OP comment to get the full context.)

I think 1GB is a little bit much for now, but definitely doable in 17 years or so.

I think you got the numbers mostly right. Maybe there's a factor two in there that the calculation is off by (upstream & downstream).

We want UTXO commitments though, as few people are going to want to dig all the way through the chain at these rates. Throw the old stuff away.

 

[Norway]

@awemany
The connection I'm refering to is 500 megabit up and 500 megabit down for 120 USD per month. But there will allways be overhead etc. Still, it's pretty crazy numbers! And they fit very well with your own calculation of storing 100 outputs per person on earth. Quoting you: "70TB of UTXO set size for the whole planet!"

Stuff like this should be more visible in this whole debate where allmost everybody say that on-chain scaling is impossible for the whole planet, while in fact it could be done with the hardware and internet infrastructure we have today.

@Peter R was talking about making a proper calculation for the cost of a node serving 1 billion people under two scenarios, with and without a Lightning Network. I hope he finds time to do this, Peter, if you need help, I can do the infographics for such a calculation. (I worked as Art Director for FHM Magazine in Norway for a couple of years.)

 

[awemany]

And @Peter R. assumed just 10 UTXOs per Person, even more 'small-UTXO' than I am (I consider 50 to be a good and realistic number, but without a too strong opinion, I just think it will be >>1). I do really wonder about the other small blockers and their ideas, given that Xekyo is 'bigger-UTXO' than both me and @Peter R. I think we should ask around, on reddit and elsewhere.

 

[freetrader]

Frank talk in rBitcoin:
Core supporters' responses range from "I don't get what the problem is" to "it doesn't matter".
They are not doing their project any favor. Let's see if any of the responsible Core devs who were at the meeting even bother to chime in. My guess is their heads are too deep in the sand.

 

[Norway]

@awemany
I think we should make an awesome MEGA BIG BLOCK INFOGRAPHIC!

Peer reviewed by both team BU and also other people in the industry (like @Jihan, @Gavin Andresen etc.) who are willing to put their names on the infographic. Yes, let's make it a looong list of names!

We can show the world that massive on chain scaling is possible! Visually, and with realistic, simple math!

What do you think about that, @solex ?

 

[Norway]

(I'm talking about an infographic showing what it would cost to run a full node today, serving 1 billion people.)

 

[Norway]

Gentlemen,

Luke-jr just did it for us. We couldn't ask for a better PR for BU. His hardfork BIP suggests to reduce the max blocksize to 300kb, and the grow so slow that we will get back to 1 MB in seven years.

I can't believe my own eyes.

This will make it really easy for the miners to fire Blockstream.

I can't believe it. I'm out of words!

https://github.com/luke-jr/bips/blob/bip-blksize/bip-blksize.mediawiki

 

[albin]

It's gross that he just asserts the 17.7% per year number as gospel without any citation just like in BIP-SIPA, and all the misinformation spread by Adam Back and eragmus on /r/bitcoin about it at the time.

The real story is that somebody in the github comments for BIP-SIPA (jtoomim in fact) figured out that the figure comes from Rusty Russell's blog which cited some very cherry picked figures from Akamai data.

In the comments on Rusty Russell's blog, Gavin posted a link to a Cisco report on bandwidth growth that was quite thorough and went into extreme detail, ostensibly to contribute to expanding the discussion.

Then when Adam Back and eragmus started attacking BIP 101 by asserting the BIP-SIPA numbers, they kept repeating that they're "Cisco numbers" ad nauseum, even to the point where eragmus would bully people in reddit comments along the lines of "these are Cisco numbers, who the hell are you?". On the basis of nothing at all other than a "telephone-game" style plausibly-believable piece of misinformation.

No amount of fact-checking has elicited any response of any kind from either party, because they're unquestionably lying assholes who don't care about the truth.

Edit: turns out a year after the fact eragmus went to github (long after the death of BIP-SIPA) and posted some Cisco charts he found that kinda sorta justify his original lie, with no context from which anyone can determine anything about the methodology.

https://gist.github.com/sipa/c65665fc360ca7a176a6#gistcomment-1604079

 

[lunar]

With this algorithm, the block size will exceed the current 1 MB limit during 2024 June. Several years is sufficient time for all nodes to update so long as this proposal's extension beyond 1 MB sizes has consensus by then.

There is no point is responding to this level of trolling.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

We couldn't ask for a better PR for BU.

they certainly have doubled down on the stupid.