Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[freetrader]

http://news.8btc.com/op-ed-impossible-to-de-chinalize-bitcoin

Good article, but I feel it overlooks some things. Like Chapter 1, hehe.

First what I agree with.

The premise ("you can't de-Chinalize bitcoin"). Totally agree. But I feel it's a bit of a strawman. I've never heard anyone use that phrase - literally - although it gets the idea across. But obviously, you can't take Bitcoin (free software + computers + network technology) from any country. Best you can do is isolate countries to such an extend that their "Bitcoin economies" might split off into their own chains and nationalize. Is it still Bitcoin at that point? Well, this is where Gavin's definition might become a little problematic (if a large majority of hashpower is demonstrably centralized in a country or geographic region). However, that's clearly not the main point - I don't believe any Bitcoin users really WANT to isolate specific countries or regions from Bitcoin. That would defeat the basic idea of Bitcoin as p2p electronic cash. DRM-style region locking is not part of the design for good reason

Now, what do I disagree with?

That the article sidesteps the question of putting Bitcoin into the hands of the local market.
What happens to China's Bitcoin industry / economy if export of Bitcoins (or for that matter, more generally cryptocurrencies) in exchange for foreign currency becomes severely restricted? I think it would have catastrophic effects on Bitcoin mining.

PBOC is not allowing internal use of Bitcoin in China's economy. Doing so would mean they would probably have a much more difficult stand introducing their own national digital currency. So, currently there is no indication that they will give up this direction, which involves prohibiting Bitcoin's local commercial use by ordinary Chinese people. So it remains "an export product", mostly, and so very dependent on trading relations with other countries and the state of Bitcoin regulation in those other countries. This is not good for China's Bitcoin industry, in my opinion. It makes China's Bitcoin economy vulnerable. I am interpreting "Now bitcoin has passed the most brutal confrontation period with government" as meaning "with [Chinese] government". Because in the sense of "any government" I think it is simply untrue. The "war on cash" that we are seeing in the West hasn't even got around to truly focusing on Bitcoin & co. Regulation is being mulled in the EU, some already devised but not taken effect yet. There is no basis for thinking we've seen the worst of regulation - by far.
If we assume that it's meant only for Chinese government, then this would be encouraging. Maybe there will be more relaxation even for the internal market. I don't see the evidence. The recent regulation of exchanges is MORE regulation than before. And the author admits that the central bank has by far not exhausted its playbook.

 

[jbreher]

@Norway - not that it is any of my business, but I don't think you should rescind your offer of a forum for Andreas. It is likely to backfire. I think Mengerian has the right idea - make sure you mention there is an alternative that has some preferred attributes (i.e., BU), and let him have his say.

Further, Andreas has the ability to speak captivatingly on almost any crypto-related topic. Maybe he'd be open to the suggestion of some other topic? Or you could ask him to compare and contrast The SegWit Omnibus Changeset with other approaches to scaling (e.g., BU). I think he'd render an honest (though perhaps slanted) assessment.

Lastly, it's not like the SegWit portion of The SegWit Omnibus Changeset is bad in and of itself. All things being equal, eliminating malleability is better than not eliminating malleability. It's all the other cruft bundled therein, then shoved down our throats via 'soft' fork, that is so objectionable.

 

[adamstgbit]

I'm drunk now. And I have a moral dilemma.

Andreas Antonopolous has agreed to come to a bitcoin meetup I have arranged for over two years, every month. Oslo Bitcoin Meetup. He will be in Oslo for a commercial speaker event where he gets paid. And he agrees to come to the "fan base" event for free.

This is the scoop of a lifetime for a bitcoin meetup organizer!

Or is it?

I know all the members/regular visitors of my meetup really want to see him live. Grown men behaving like 14 year old girls on a Justin Bieber concert.
I would probably be the only person in the room that is sceptical.

But I am sceptical!
Because of his latest endorsements of SegWit. Because of his rejections of alternative scaling solutions like BU. And his denial/downplay of network congestion problems.

The fresh video is here:

I have allways been very tolerant on who can stand on the tiny stage of our meetup. Altcoin-pumping, sneaky startups bordering 100% rip offs. People "stealing from the state". Everybody have allways been welcome.

I have also had the police, banks and international consultant companies on that small stage.

The small block propaganda is so massive. It's everywhere. And it makes you think. "Yeah, 1MB every 10 minutes is actually a lot of data."

The small block propaganda machinery is very powerful.

I don't know how they turned AA. But they must have done it.

I don't want to give him a stage. I don't want more small block propaganda to be transmitted.

Please confirm my drunk ideas now, and I will tell Andreas that he is not welcome at my tiny bitcoin meetup when I wake up tomorrow.

this is a bit of a mixed blessing isn't

Andreas had remained very neutral for years of debating,

he would say things like " when both sides have enough rate harsh to block each other's proposal, a Compromise is around the corner" but now clearly hes pick his side... what a shame he took the wrong side...

But, i think telling him to "fuck off" probably isn't cool.

And I dont think you can ask/show him anything to change his mind, hes good with the words and can probably demolish any argument you throw at him that is For BU or Against Segwit+LN.

If you can get someone to fallow his act, and talk about BU at a very high level, try to explain how BU is not a fork but more on track with original design of how conusues works, without at all asking or involving Andreas in that talk , that would be good.

 

[79b79aa8]

@Norway

The people surrounding BU are not afraid of open discussion. They know that over the long run reasoned argument and constructive criticism are the only way to ensure the strength of any scientific endeavor. As any decent person, they listen carefully if someone shows them they have made a mistake, and are thankful for the opportunity to correct it.

This is a good chance to (i) present to your audience, as well as to Antonopolous, succint objections to the Segwit Omnibus Rule Changeset, (ii) emphasize the grave threat of developer centralization and vulnerability to capture, (iii) present the simple, elegant, market-driven solution to the blocksize issue adopted by BU and Classic.

I am sure many here are ready to help in preparing such a presentation.

 

[freetrader]

 

[albin]

Something really messed up must've happened, such as the PBOC demanding he leave quietly for some kind of misconduct, because Mow has a nepotistic relationship with Lee that pre-existed Bitcoin.

 

[Mengerian]

The people surrounding BU are not afraid of open discussion.

Yeah, exactly. Open dialogue furthers the goals BU is after. It should be embraced. The more people think for themselves, the better off we will be.

Being willing to hear criticism makes us stronger, and helps build up good arguments to counter them.

It also helps try to understand the point of view of the other side, and what their concerns are (if genuine and not just pure bad-faith FUD or concern trolling). We're not here to push an agenda, we want to empower people.

 

[freetrader]

https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5uf679/charlie_lee_people_dont_realize_what_segwit_is/

Now that Litecoin is trying to do what has (so far) failed in Bitcoin, it becomes useful for side-by-side case study. Perhaps that's why this discussion is allowed in the censored sub.
Very impressed by the sound arguments of /u/moral_agent.

 

[Richy_T]

Is it just me or is the graph on this page and the analysis of it gobbledygook?

https://segwit.org/why-a-discount-factor-of-4-why-not-2-or-8-bbcebe91721e#.gttsmu1ka

Maybe it's just because there's no zero on it.

 

[freetrader]

Live on now

Pirate Security Conference Live Stream — Matt Corallo's talk

 

[bluemoon]

@Norway
I hope you do have AA talk. Anything to reduce the bubble effect. Maybe he'll convince you?!

Perhaps you can film his talk?

 

[Mengerian]

Re. Corallo talk.. Interesting, someone just asked him about BU. He had a kind of hand-wavy answer didn't make a strong anti-BU statement. Basically just said it's a question of social dynamics, and what trust model users want (I guess implying larger blocks make trustlessness more expensive). He didn't go out of his way to condemn BU though.

 

[freetrader]

Maybe he'll convince you?!

Good test of Norway's resolve ... I know it's hard to listen to AA and not be persuaded - he's such a good speaker ... Good idea to film it though - pls ask him!

p.s. someone is writing in the Corallo livechat chat window that the event talks will be up on Youtube for playback sometime in the next few days

 

[adamstgbit]

Maybe he'll convince you?!

Good test of Norway's resolve ... I know it's hard to listen to AA and not be persuaded

right exactly, AA is good and so persuasive, that if your try to Battle out BU vs Segwit_LN YOU'RE GONNA LOSE! big time... so don't even try.
do not ask his opinion of BU, do not question his commitment to Core, DO NOT give him the opportunity to drive his point.
Let him come, let him speak, and then do your own thing without trying to "convince him" or he'll most likely end you convincing you! and everyone else listening...

I've heard some of his most recent public speakings about scaling, I disagree with some of what he says, or fails to mention? but, the thing is, if it comes down to your argument Vs AA's argument, being very clear and concise won't matter, being "correct" won't matter, all that matters is AA wins by default.

 

[awemany]

Is it just me or is the graph on this page and the analysis of it gobbledygook?

https://segwit.org/why-a-discount-factor-of-4-why-not-2-or-8-bbcebe91721e#.gttsmu1ka

Maybe it's just because there's no zero on it.

This is from Greg, click on the 'Source' link below the picture.

I think I might understand the plot (funny that Greg's temporary, ugly gnuplot plot end up in a medium post... any responsibility for misunderstanding of this crappy plot should go back to the original author )... but I think Greg's thinking on this subject is very bogus.

In the green curve, he sees a typical UTXO transaction and calculates what would be the worst case UTXO production if current 1MB blocks would be maximizing UTXO growth (~3.9x what we get now, right end of the green curve).
Now what is very funny is that the green curve is maximum UTXO growth to typical UTXO. In other words: The green curve is absolutely not expected to play a role, as we have data on that (Bitcoin's operational history). This behavior has been tested, the green curve simply does not happen.

At the same time, and as it has been repeatedly pointed out on reddit and elsewhere, SegWit could bloat the bandwidth for less money transfers made. Less TXN for more bandwidth. Less usable Bitcoin for more bandwidth and full node cost.

And Greg actually plotted this as well. This is the red curve, that is essentially the additional bandwidth, storage and CPU bloat due to extension blocks. On this curve, we have no data yet! Additionally, we have clear intent by Blockstream to use this extra block for their fancy commitment and transaction schemes!

Without any further detailed reasoning whatsoever, but essentially an 'I like it' stance, he then selects a point on this curve that is quite far to the left ...

(Note: It's ok to like that trade-off. But this is not science in any way, this is purely his gut feeling that he likes to get us all to accept! And the reasoning he gives in the 'wizards'(!) channel is bogus and has characteristics of bamboozling)

My earlier post showing Greg inconsistently flipping between 'bandwidth' and 'UTXO' as the supposedly worst problem in Bitcoin seems quite related to this.

 

[lunar]

@adamstgbit

Disagree. I think AA has written a book on SegWit?? He's certainly done lots of research and probably spoken to most of it's hard advocates. As such he's heavily invested and probably suffers from a group think mentality.

Some prepared questions and hard cross examination on how Segwit changes the economic incentives that underpin Bitcoin is the key issue here. Also talking about BU, and how all it really does is give users easy access to the choices they already had. LN doesn't increase users only Tx quantity. The Core position is riddled with flawed thinking, this should be easy to expose.

https://medium.com/the-publius-letters/segregated-witness-a-fork-too-far-87d6e57a4179#.tq6a3jsex

Should give lots to go on.

 

[Richy_T]

Now what is very funny is that the green curve is maximum UTXO growth to typical UTXO. In other words: The green curve is absolutely not expected to play a role, as we have data on that (Bitcoin's operational history). This behavior has been tested, the green curve simply does not happen.

Yeah. My thinking is that the green line is extremely bogus. Even if it hadn't been disproven, it seems like how it is supposed to relate to the red line is very unclear and that simply drawing two lines on a graph and that where they cross happens to pick a number previously chosen seems like a very post-hoc rationalization (this page and graph are from Jan 2017). There also appears to be no chain of logic or reasoning that applies to this usage and there appears to be no consideration of other factors that may apply when it would come to such a discount (even if the precepts for such a choice were acceptable).

Of course, it doesn't help that I'm predisposed to distrust anything that emits from the keyboard of "blocks have always been full" Maxwell. But I'm pretty good at graphs. I have a piece of paper with a fancy seal on the wall that is that product, in part, of being able to interpret graphs. I even know where the 0 on a log plot goes.

 

[adamstgbit]

@adamstgbit

Disagree. I think AA has written a book on SegWit?? He's certainly done lots of research and probably spoken to most of it's hard advocates. As such he's heavily invested and probably suffers from a group think mentality.

Some prepared questions and hard cross examination on how Segwit changes the economic incentives that underpin Bitcoin is the key issue here. Also talking about BU, and how all it really does is give easily give users easy access to the choices they already had. LN doesn't increase users only Tx quantity. The Core position is riddled with flawed thinking, this should be easy to expose.

https://medium.com/the-publius-letters/segregated-witness-a-fork-too-far-87d6e57a4179#.tq6a3jsex

Should give lots to go on.

maybe if the setting is right, some kind of 1 on 1 discussion, will probably be fruitful to "change his mind"
my guess is if you talk to him 1on1 and he's being completely honest with you, you'll find he agrees with you more often than not, and is truthfully a lot less secure in his "Segwit +LN = The Best Possible Future" position, then he might otherwise portray...

But in a public / on stage / presentation kind of setting, you can't just expect him to back down, and truly listen to your reasoning and take an objective view... he's going to come in prepared, you might get him to agree on some points But he'll say " Yes i agree, BUT bla bla bla, gata take the best option, bla bla bla core said bla bla bla" Even if thats not exactly what he thinks, he's there to prove a point, not try to formulate or adjust his opinion...

Kinda like when i wrote a "bitmovements update" thing on bitcointalk, in truth i had no idea which way price was going or why price did what it did, but when it was time to write a update i took a position and I made sure i sounded like i was sure of everything and knew the market backward and forwards. I was kinda trapped by the persona i was playing, same with AA and "his opinion on scaling debate".

 

[Mengerian]

I wouldn't take the approach of trying to "convince" Antonopoulos that BU is a "better" scaling solution than segwit. Just that it is a legitimate alternative, it involves a different set of tradeoffs, and it is reasonable that some (or many) people will prefer it.

He can prefer segwit if he wants, but when he says there are no alternatives, that's a problem.

You could also ask him if he favors decentralization of development.

 

[albin]

@Norway

Andreas isn't exactly somebody you would typically think of as deliberately misleading or taking advantage of bad actor status (like your Maxwells or Backs of the world), so I would argue it's very reasonable to host him. He has a lot of speaking subjects that are not related to stumping for segwit to begin with, and depending on your format, having plenty of Q&A time could make the whole thing a good experience.