Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.


Well-Known Member
Sep 29, 2015
Long time no see, @cypherdoc ! Good to see you!
[doublepost=1488469864,1488468905][/doublepost]On a different note... What do you think about these ideas?

The problem with "Bitcoin Unlimited" is that nodes will have to grow to the size of server farms (Satoshi's quote not mine), and users will have to trust these nodes ... leaving the network open for hacking, theft and breaking distributed trust.

However, if Bitcoin were to mine a UTXO hash on-chain, this should be sufficient to scale Bitcoin for massive numbers of small-value transactions - and there's no need to break trust.

How it could work:

Right now Bitcoin ships with a hard coded UTXO (ZERO) and checkpoint (Genesis). If the UTXO was mined into the chain... then any new node that spins up could just download a UTXO, and verify that it's part of the main chain.

New generation transactions can happen solely in extension blocks, with no block size limits. And these extension blocks can be vetted, verified the way main chain blocks are....but the main block will now only consist of a chain of mined UTXOs + the legacy chain before activation.

The extension blocks are hashed to the main chain, and many thousands can be downloaded from peers by a new node who wants to verify that recent transactions are consistent with a downloaded UTXO. But ultimately the only thing that people care about is the UTXO, which is comparitively small - and can now be easily verified.

Sure, the resulting network would be a hard-fork, but would be truly unlimited... with no limit to the number of transactions that can be processed, and no memory or bandwidth problem with new nodes coming on board.

If we're going to hard-fork... lets hard-fork to a network that allows infinite scaling and high distribution.

Roy Badami

Active Member
Dec 27, 2015
Am I hallucinating or is there maybe a problem here? --
I'm not sure that's quite true. First, you're incentivised to advertise segwit addresses instead of traditional addresses for receiving payments, because this gives you segwit UTXOs that you can spend more cheaply. Second, you're incentivised to use segwit for your change outputs, because that directly gives you segwit UTXOs you can spend more cheaply.

EDIT: Or put another way this bit is untrue, IMHO: "No one is incentivised to create these UTXOs in the first place". To the extent that the incentives are significant enough for you to care, there are clear incentives to both create segwit UTXOs yourself and to in turn incentivise other people to create segwit UTXOs that you can spend.
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: satoshis_sockpuppet


Staff member
Aug 29, 2015
I was watching the Roger Ver & Jake versus Johnny Dilley et al. debate, and this quote stuck out at me:

"Ultimately, it needs to be resilient to political, personal, social maneuvering by arbitrary parties, otherwise the system doesn't work. Because if it can be manipulated by a single person, if it can be manipulated by a group of people, then ultimately the characteristics of the system are ones that are not interesting. It shouldn't be interesting to any of us, because it means the system can be co-opted by groups that are much more powerful, are much more wealthy, are much more nefarious, or better at controlling the dynamics of crowds, and the dynamics of people in Bitcoin. So fundamentally, that's the core of this whole conversation: is 'what makes you a Bitcoiner?' and what your opinion on Bitcoin is shouldn't matter from a characteristic of how the system operates. It's a protocol." -Johnny Dilley
So basically he's saying that Bitcoin needs to be resilient against any attacker, no matter how powerful.

But this sets an impossible bar. An attacker with unlimited resources will be able to destroy the system no matter what we do.

Bitcoin's resilience has to rely on economic asymmetries. In other words, the cost of attacking has to greatly exceed the benefit.

So when Bitcoin is small (like it is now) the benefits to attacking are small. Right now, a state could destroy Bitcoin if it wanted to, say by spending Millions of dollars to control mining, or whatever. But because Bitcoin is small, it's not worth their while. It is not seen as big enough threat to bother with. It's like a fly buzzing around an elephant.

Once Bitcoin grows large enough to be seen as a significant problem, it should be correspondingly more difficult and expensive to disrupt. The benefits that governments (and corruptible individuals within government) have in using Bitcoin, plus the cost in trying to disrupt it should outweigh the perceived threat it poses.

So the strategy should not be to ossify and freeze the protocol as it currently stands. The smarter strategy is to grow Bitcoin's market so that it becomes so valuable and powerful that it can't be controlled or destroyed.
Yesterday I realized how bad Bitcoin has become.

A friend of mine and I wanted to play a game on Steam (Red Alert 3, yeah!). I said, hehe, I buy it for you, Steam accepts Bitcoin (my friend doesn't even do online-banking).

I play not on my main-system, but a separate partition with Windows 10. So I booted my laptop, where I have a jaxx wallet with a little bit of Bitcoin. When I entered the BitPay-Invoice I realized that Jaxx has no fee policy and it would need days to confirm a transaction. So I shut down the laptop, shut down the win10-system, booted my main system, opened Unlimited and set I high fee to have a quick confirmation.

I paid €10 for the game, and €2 for fees. What a fuck.

I also realized that what is currently going on IS a hardfork. If you have an unupdated wallet, your funds are essentially locked. To use Bitcoin under current conditions you NEED to update. Bitcoin on its current state of affairs is loosing its backward-compatibility.


Aaaaand: The Bubble begins to build! Does anybody remember what happened in late 2013? In November Bitcoin broke the old alltimehigh of 260 Dollar. That it crashed a bit, and than an incredible raise of Altcoins began. On our forum ( a lot of people joined because they wanted to buy this or that Altcoin, and even Shitcoin's value multiplied by 10.

I'm a bad trader. In early 2016 I planned to regularly spread some bitcoin on altcoins. I did for some month, traded, was wrong, sold Monero too early, was frustrated and left trading. Now my Altcoin-stash is on its lowest level ... :)