Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[albin]

I don't think that Nick Szabo, having not even understood what a 51% attack actually is back when smearing BIP 101, gets to pontificate about BU having the supposed liability of needing ongoing human interaction. He did interesting formative work on understanding smart contracting, but his lack of comprehension on basic nuts-and-bolts behind Nakamoto consensus is appalling.

 

[Mengerian]

I periodically read through r/bitcoin, just to try to get a feel for the narrative and mood of that community. It's so interesting to observe the interplay between the censorship-supported groupthink party line, and the frustrations people are experiencing with the state of Bitcoin. It seems there is increasing realization that (a) Capacity is a real problem on the network right now (b) There is a strong likelihood that segwit will not activate as easily as was promised, and does not enjoy the widespread support portrayed in r/bitcoin, and (c) That the messaging and mood in r/bitcoin is heavily influenced by the censorship and might not reflect the wider reality accurately.

People respond to this in one of two ways. There either dig in and become more entrenched in their view, or they become more open to questioning the "party line" looking at alternate points of view.

It reminds me of the old Ayn Rand quote: "You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality."

I have also noticed the quality of arguments and points being made in r/btc gradually improving over time. It seems that a pretty good understanding of the conceptual underpinnings of Bitcoin that inform the approach of Bitcoin Unlimited is spreading to a wider group.

Don't get me wrong, I think there's still a long way to go in this battle of ideas. But there are reasons for hope.

 

[AdrianX]

I just want to thank the calm and collected BU developers and the BU advocates and say you are doing an amazing job.

BU started with just a hand full of volunteers proposing a solution that would preserve and ensure Bitcoin would continue to grow. It's amazing its gained this much traction this fast.

I'm blown away that BU has been adopted by over 15% of the Network Hash Rate, it's truly remarkable.

The amount of FUD out there may seem overwhelming but analyzing the situation and the quality of the objections I feel BU is still the most rational, fair, secure, decentralized and strongest solution to date.

It's very disappointing seeing people in this space I had previously respected dismiss some of the core principals backing bitcoin when they look at them in criticism of BU - these are concepts I took took for granted, I would never have invested in bitcoin had I not believe they would prevail, I asumes everyone who invested in bitcoin had that ahah moment, but apparently not.

I also just recently reread what Adam Back and others said about the XT coup. I'm angry people took it so literally and gave up so easily. XT required 75% agreement - a 75% majority in agreement is anything but a coup. Only a centralized authority holding on to power with a tread would define a 75% majority vote for more decentralization away from their control as a coup and call it contentious.

If the investors in BS/Core have done one thing it's buy time - during that time tehy have built a business relationship with the BitFury Group and added mining to their tool kit. It's my view that this is the closes thing bitcoin has seen to a coordinated 51% attack.

This will all blow over in time and then bitcoin will move on, I haven't read anything in this torrent of FUD and objections to make me conclude BU is a threat to bitcoin or the users don't need BU. It's business as usual, in a sea of insanity.
[doublepost=1486751626][/doublepost]u/Happy5488Paint made an interesting few points about network efficiency and while on there own they don't address centralization, they are a fresh look at the issue from an efficiency perspective.

High cost nodes is actually a great thing.

1 This is a sign that the network is very popular and processing many transactions

2 Node cost was originally thought to be inconsequential due to the fact every miner was a full node. Now it is being used as an excuse to limit blocksize.

3 Spending extra money on nodes improves the network. Spending extra money on an artificial fee market simply reduces the network effect, bumps users off network, and creates uncertainty in network performance and reliability.

When responding I realized something BU and Core supporters support the same ideology we both believe nodes hold presidents over miners when it comes to defining block size.

 

[lunar]

Szabo is disappointing, Andreas too, but it's not their fault. Is there anyone out there who really understands all areas of Bitcoin? How do you fine tune your understanding in an environment of censorship and deliberately flawed reason.

The issue we face is a philosophical one. Code works, or it doesn't. We can make changes in efficiency or function with immediate results. What's not seen are the butterfly effects, or micro changes in incentives that are produced either expected, desirable or not. This is the point the system fails, or rather its not a failure just an communicational efficiency problem.

There's a multitude incredibly intelligent of talking heads in this space, shouting at each other in 140 chrs or less. They frequently lack the rigorous cross examination provided by a forum like this.

It's not super surprising that many of the best have fled the bear pit on reddit, especially those with customer relation sensitivity. Brian Armstrong is the best example here. Speaking his mind, led to a witch hunt, can you blame others for keeping quiet? Sad reality here is that he was the first through the door and got shot, that was the point when every other business should have piled through the door and beaten the bullies from the building. Instead they all went and hid.

The solution is critical thinking with cross examination. Honestly if it hadn't been for this thread i'd have packed up a year ago. Sadly many didn't have the stamina and patience for such an exhausting assault on the truth.

as @AdrianX points out it's remarkable how far we've come. How a realisation can be turned into an idea, in-turn to code, and finally a movement. 16 months.... not bad.

The communication efficiency problem can be solved if we reverse the brain drain. It would be great if we could get all the tweeting heads back into a space where their opinions could be critically assessed, without fear of reprisal.

F**K*NG Censorship, it's the shield cowards hide behind.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

I don't think that Nick Szabo, having not even understood what a 51% attack actually is back when smearing BIP 101, gets to pontificate about BU having the supposed liability of needing ongoing human interaction. He did interesting formative work on understanding smart contracting, but his lack of comprehension on basic nuts-and-bolts behind Nakamoto consensus is appalling.

Many of these "smart contract" guys don't show interest in Bitcoins foundation. I have the impression, that they don't actually care. They just need a vehicle for their smart contract stuff, and with Bitcoin they found one. Perfectly fine, but they should stop at their area of expertise and don't try to influence stuff they don't care about or don't understand.
Again, Bitcoin without any scripting, just as an medium for exchange and storage of value, could have gone to the moon (without the bs limit of course) already. Would have kept a lot of (smart) people away from it's core where they do damage. They could have built all their fancy stuff around Bitcoin instead of in Bitcoin.. But we are where we are.

Szabo is disappointing, Andreas too, but it's not their fault. Is there anyone out there who really understands all areas of Bitcoin? How do you fine tune your understanding in an environment of censorship and deliberately flawed reason.

Meh. It's their fault and I don't have respect for people who accept censorship when they have alternatives. If they are no idiots, they know what they are saying and doing. If they are idiots nobody should care for what they say.

There's a multitude incredibly intelligent of talking heads in this space, shouting at each other in 140 chrs or less. They frequently lack the rigorous cross examination provided by a forum like this.

The 140 chars are a factor. But, also, there are at least as many overrated talking heads in this space as really intelligent people. A lot of people in this field like to talk and write as if they are some kind of high priest, when their thoughts are mediocre at best.
If you can't communicate your thoughts in a meaningful way, there is a good chance, that you don't really understand what you are talking about.

 

[xhiggy]

Most people who are talking heads in the bitcoin space, are in some way, there by chance. Chance that they found out about it when they did, chance that the opinion that established their fame fit in with the idea du jour of bitcoin, lucky that their simple innovations hadn't been thought of yet.

Bitcoin is so new, the odds are that the smartest contributors aren't in the ecosystem yet. Greg is smart, but he dismissed the idea for years, in some ways he still rejects aspects of it. Bitcoin is on the long path, many more devils and saviors to come until the block reward runs out.

 

[lunar]

You both make very valid points. The legacy thought leader paradox - where the economic incentives are such, that some of the early adopters have been elevated above their level of incompetence. This somehow makes their opinions more weighty than they should be.

At the same time the cryptography and code was such that it took a certain type of mind to be able to understand it in the first place. It's here we meet the real menaces. (you know who they are) The ones who are so convinced of their own world view, that they can almost create a reality bubble, at odds with observable facts - like festering splinters, they must be removed.

Holders, businesses and miners are heavily incentivised to understand this new medium.
The, 'why is this valuable' is almost more important than the, 'how it works'.
Yet the odd ones out, are the developers who get paid in fiat, many would benefit from, say, a slightly risky level of BTC holdings. Perhaps a >51% of savings, would focus them on the bigger picture.

There are better reasons, but at this point I want to see a >51% hard fork just to shut people up, I don't fear it, because it will give everyone a valuable frame of reference, prove the theories, and expose the charlatans. As @Zangelbert Bingledack highlights - no % of the ledger scarcity is lost during a hardfork.

regarding hardforks it is crucial to realize that *even if* 100 forks were to all hold significant value, it would not alter digital scarcity at all. This is a basic fact of ledger economics.

Has there been a controversial hardfork on any coin that had Bitcoins difficulty adjustment schedule?

 

[79b79aa8]

Also, since we're asking questions about forks, can someone who follows ETH confirm whether pre-fork market cap of ETH > post-fork ETH + ETC?

 

[bitsko]

https://medium.com/@DCGco/scaling-bitcoin-reflections-from-the-dcg-portfolio-35b9a065b2a4#.oe95fhtti

Hope she reads my feedback.

 

[solex]

@bitsko Yes.
An open and frank exchange of views in the Digital Currency Group slack shows a shift in thinking from the off-chain scaling mantra.
"block size increase" is entering the lexicon, although "Bitcoin Unlimited" is still verboten.

 

[Norway]

We should really get this new test network to run BU when the network is finished. At Stanford University, they are creating a test network called "Miniature World". They have done a lot of real world measurements of bitcoins nodes. The bandwidth growth just the last year is impressive!

Watch the presentation here:

 

[Mengerian]

@bitsko @solex Yeah, that was a fascinating read.

It was written in such a way that segwit is presented as the only viable option, but all the points outlined scream that the companies really want a block size increase. It's like someone has blinders on.

It seems like the companies originally wanted a block size increase, then reluctantly accepted segwit as the path forward, and are now frustrated at segwit is stalling.

Definitely seems like the narrative may be starting to shift.

 

[AdrianX]

https://medium.com/@DCGco/scaling-bitcoin-reflections-from-the-dcg-portfolio-35b9a065b2a4#.oe95fhtti

Hope she reads my feedback.

thanks this struck me:

> We don’t want to be anti-SegWit or pro-SegWit, just pro-pragmatism.

> This is why we’re working on a “SegWit for CTOs” style document.

my take is this is only pro segwit it doesn't educate on any of the other scaling concerns, maybe someone can come up with a list of pro bitcoin features we can leverage (a “UB for CTOs”)

> We’ve never understood why it has to be one or the other?—?why can’t there be both?

this is the way forward its just logically removing the 1MB limit is the simple solution an provides the foundation on which to build layer 2 networks - kicking the can down the road with a 2 or 4MB block limit solves nothing.

> people are calling one another liars, claiming the “other side” is destroying bitcoin, calling anything that doesn’t match their proposal a “coup,”

oops did someone read that Adam Back post?

> BATNA?—?Best Alternative To Negotiated Agreement

User adjusted block size -is the Best Alternative To Negotiated Agreement - Core is trying to hold on to control in a system that should be decentralized. Implementing User adjusted block size is the Best Alternative To Negotiated Agreement

> Some people apparently think that if they don’t get their way then Bitcoin is over, and it’s the end of the world, and they might as well go find a different industry or meaning in life or whatever.

I only know one person who has invested his ego with such intensity his name starts with a "G"

>So what’s next? It’s up to our community to decide.

that's a very positive ending.

 

[bitsko]

'immutability looks to be worth about ten cents on the dollar compared to a community able to advance the protocol'

Does that even make sense? Is it worth being memed?

 

[albin]

Just out of curiosity, have the Bitcoin Uncensored morons put out any feelers to ambush interview @solex and/or @theZerg?

I figured no, because while they routinely bash BU on the basis of no substance, generally if they want somebody on to pillory, they engage in a lengthy public shaming to call them out. They obviously couldn't resist getting the wrong Toomim brother on to ask insulting programming questions after his funny slack convo messing w/ Adam Back, and they went for Roger I'm sure thinking they could embarrass and overpower him (boy were they wrong!), but doubtful they're interested in getting nothing they want out of interviewing competent and courteous people.

 

[AdrianX]

Hey I have an idea! - my ideas are good if anyone is ever in doubt - they have been garnished with multiple international awards on 3 continents.

Why don't we host an open conference like the one BU had when it received its donation. The one I could not attend.

We invite some of the most outspoken small block proponents and the more influential Core developers to discuss objections to UB as a Best Alternative To Negotiated Agreement. (I hate to discriminate but Gmax would not be aloud to attend) that said I'd love discuss over dinner and drinks objections among others b4444 and j1000 and hash out the issues and concerns I think it would be way more productive than whack-a-mole or squishing goo in ones hand while trying to stop it squealing out from between your fingers.

I think if it is a friendly environment and everyone has an open attitude we could make some progress.

if anyone thinks this is a good idea we should write up a BUIP "like this post" and I'll get the ball roiling.
while I would love to attend I'm taking on 2 projects and one is a rather large life changing undertaking so I'm not wanting to take the lead on this - I may be overwhelmed.

what do think?

 

[Norway]

https://medium.com/@DCGco/scaling-bitcoin-reflections-from-the-dcg-portfolio-35b9a065b2a4#.oe95fhtti

Hope she reads my feedback.

Hope she reads mine too

 

[majamalu]

@majamalu

One could only rescue Core's position by noting that Schelling points are powerful, so even that gum and string leads to great solidity. Sure, but making that argument while continuing to imply that Core should be the sole setter of these powerful Schelling points (as every Core dev does, by saying forkwise incompatible implementations are "not Bitcoin") constitutes a bald embrace of centralized power.

Indeed, we are dealing with politicians; that's why it is impossible to have an honest debate with them.

What they don't understand, though (and this will be their Achilles heel,) is that the very purpose of the Nakamoto consensus is to prevent a group of special interests from deciding Bitcoin's future.

If Bitcoin's future depended on the political skills of a bunch of guys, it would have been enough to found a caste of technocrats and entrust to its members and their disciples the protection of Bitcoin's monetary properties from here to eternity.

 

[Norway]

Are there anybody here that are not banned from /r/bitcoin?

Please try to post the blog from Meltem Demirors, Director of Development at DCG in /r/bitcoin.

Link here;
https://medium.com/@DCGco/scaling-bitcoin-reflections-from-the-dcg-portfolio-35b9a065b2a4#.um0fgzjez


What if it gets censored? That would be fun!

 

[AdrianX]

@Norway - LOL I think quite a few of us are banned.