Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[molecular]

was I hallucinating or did @cypherdoc check in here couple of days ago?

 

[freetrader]

Only after a Core supporter spotted the mistake and publicized it

@jonny1000 : could you clarify what 'mistake' it is that you are referring to here?

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Interesting. From a Counterparty guy.
Also, am I the only one who laments a lot of the discussion here moving to Slack where it is pretty disorganized, harder to follow, and soon erased?

 

[freetrader]

am I the only one who laments a lot of the discussion here moving to Slack where it is pretty disorganized, harder to follow, and soon erased?

No, you're not alone. Slack (without logging) is a very lossy and cumbersome medium (e.g. they recently apparently changed their web interface so that it's basically impossible to easily copy and paste from comments, even your own).
At the very least, BU slack should have an "on-the-record" logged channel where important discussions can take place that need to be preserved for public benefit with the consent of all parties.

My preference is always for public discussion. I believe this brings greater benefit to the project.
Secondly, if it's not stored on your computer but in the cloud, I pretty much consider it lost already - which is why I would welcome a moderated but public BU development mailing list for technical discussions.
Unmoderated public discussion can be held on IRC channels.

P.S. I just tried the copy-and-paste within Slack, and it seems to work again. Odd though, at the time another Slack member confirmed to me that they were also experiencing the problem. Maybe they got some customer feedback and improved this again.

 

[KoKansei]

was I hallucinating or did @cypherdoc check in here couple of days ago?

If it was a hallucination, we must have shared it because I recall the same thing. =)

I am becoming more optimistic that BU will eventually get >75% hashing power.
But now, I'm am becoming concerned that core will not yield, and they will fork the network with <25% hashing power.

Knowing core... they will insist that miners have turned away from the majority, and that the hashrate supporting BU is not at all representative of the ecosystem's will.

they might be able to convince a few key players (blockchain.info, coinbase, and someone else ) to join in this rhetoric, and with an army of sock-puppet-like-BTCcore-enthusiasts behind them, they will sound mighty convincing...

there might be no avoiding a chain split even with >75% of hashing power.
and that means this fight will be taken to the market!

anyone else see it that way?

This is an interesting possibility, but I think even the most delusional of the core crew will see the writing on the wall if unlimited gets 75% of the hashrate, to say nothing of major businesses.

A part of me wants you to be right though. Just as this civil war has exposed many bad actors and economic illiterates within the ecosystem, a last desperate effort to stick with core in the face of a BU-supporting majority would just provide the market with more information about who should have less influence over the bitcoin realm. A fleeting liquid market for minority fork coins would also be a great way to transfer wealth from the insane to the informed, firming up the investor base.

 

[79b79aa8]

was I hallucinating or did @cypherdoc check in here couple of days ago?

@cypherdoc was here the day BTC surpassed gold.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-913#post-35274

PS @KoKansei, nice to see you here 欢迎

 

[Mengerian]

Quote from Adam Back interview:

We asked if “4MB plus segwit in 12 months” can be proposed and merged. Back replied by stating “no one in the tech community will accept that 4MB multiplied by 2-4 by segwit (4-16mb worst case) is safe. They will want to do weak blocks first (as the roadmap says) and in order to do that they would like to see the effect of segwit. It is not just a technical effect but an economic usage effect so it’s not entirely predictable.

Just find it interesting that he's already using the "Segwit discount" as an excuse why the block size limit can't be raised by much.

Referring to miners:

My interests are bitcoins, and I know much more about the protocol and security than they do.” – Back said.

The conversation diverged somewhat in a back and forth regarding the above last sentence, we raising skepticism and Adam Back telling us it is not difficult to imagine he knows better than miners.

Also, the interview makes it pretty clear he knew about UASF before it was proposed publicly.

 

[Zarathustra]

Adam doesn't understand swarm behavior. He believes there is one guy who leads all others into BU.
Actually it's the opposite what the North Coreans suggest. Jihan and Roger are late adopters of BU.
The 'leaders' and pioneers of the BU revolution are to be found in this thread. But who is actually leading us? The behavior of the swarm and the market determine (lead) our opinions and actions.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5zas35/ceo_of_blockstream_it_is_just_one_guy_its_all_the/

 

[Norway]

Don't forget to vote on BUIP's today.
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/voting-is-open-for-buips-43-46-47-48.1888/​

 

[79b79aa8]

Maxwell: ". . . people want to be able to do things like coinswap with a four phase protocol instead of the 26 phase protocol required in the presence of malleability".

Back: "no one in the tech community will accept that 4MB multiplied by 2-4 by segwit (4-16mb worst case) is safe. They will want to do weak blocks first".

Maxwell and Back seem to believe that they are perfectly attuned to what other market participants want. They appear to imagine that their superior ideas and solutions necessarily track the wishes and interests of those invested in BTC -- whether they know it already or not. They do not seem think that such attunement and tracking needs to be constantly corroborated by sound methods, and cannot foster inside an echo chamber.

In the end, a fast-growing $20B market beast will not simply submit to the ideas of a couple of engineers. Certainly not when they are also duplicitous and remarkably poor managers.

 

[lunar]

@Zarathustra to go any deeper we'd have to go back to BCT, but that just makes me feel dirty these days.

Remember this post ?
Zangelbert Bingledack,Sep 10, 2015

In that spirit, whatever happened to the user-adjustable blocksize limit idea born from the insight that the blocksize is a feature of the transport layer that has errantly crept into the consensus layer?

 

[molecular]

If it was a hallucination, we must have shared it because I recall the same thing. =)

Well, don't know what's up and why he isn't posting more.. Just hoping his account wasn't hacked and this was a sign of him still being "with us".
[doublepost=1489502339][/doublepost]

This undercover interview with Adam Back is a "must read". I guess there is a sound recording of it somewhere if it's real.

http://www.trustnodes.com/2017/03/13/undercover-interview-adam-back-blockstreams-president

It hints very much to that Adam Back knew about UASF before it was proposed.

Jesus Christ, this is infuriating to read:

“I like to understand motives and reasons.” – Back replied, “is it a rational proposal to delay 12months to no gain?” – he continued. “In the mean time fees go up, some usecases leave bitcoin that didn’t need to, lightning is delayed. It seems to me it is within the capabilities and means of the bitcoin ecosystem to fix this problem. They just need to get their act together and talk with Jihan.” – Back said.

"is it rational to delay 12 months"?!? Fuck off Adam! If YOU hadn't been stalling for more than a year, we wouldn't even have what you correctly identify as *the* problem: not enough capacity for even the most common use cases. This fucking psycho really has some balls to project his own wrongdoings/irrationalities onto others like this, doesn't he?

 

[Mengerian]

I just published "Two Theories of Bitcoin": https://medium.com/@Mengerian/two-theories-of-bitcoin-f4da84468a7a#.x7yh3yqbg

It's a description of the theories of Extreme Consensus and Market Consensus.

Check it out!

 

[molecular]

I just published "Two Theories of Bitcoin": https://medium.com/@Mengerian/two-theories-of-bitcoin-f4da84468a7a#.x7yh3yqbg

It's a description of the theories of Extreme Consensus and Market Consensus.

Check it out!

Excellent piece! Insightful and unbiased enough (if not totally, not sure) to be able to show it to smallblockers without much danger of being accused of agenda-pushing.

Thanks!!

 

[sickpig]

 

[sickpig]

 

[VeritasSapere]

Good day comrades, I have returned from a long absence from this great community, the upcoming BUIP vote has motivated me to spend a few days getting better informed to help me make the best decision for Bitcoin Unlimited.

I have been absent from this community but not cryptocurrency, I have founded a company within cryptocurrency and my work includes studying cryptocurrency full time, I am planning on doxing myself next month and reveal what I have been working on here, including the company I have founded.

 

[lunar]

The last obstacle BU will need to overcome to accomplish a successful hard fork is black hat attacks by Core developers and supporters.

You must have some very big windows in your house.... you saw that one coming.

 

[VeritasSapere]

@adamstgbit I have formed a strong opinion on this issue, I now think that almost any major or contentious change to the Bitcoin protocol will result in a split, because of the current political climate. This has lead me to believe that Bitcoin will most likely split in 2017, I also think that any of the resulting chains will also survive.

Blockchains are very resilient, anti fragile even, and people can be very dogmatic and ideologically motivated to the point of extreme irrationality. So long as some people support that chain and believe in it, it will continue to survive. I obviously think that the chain with an increased blocksize limit will be the dominant chain compared to Core's vision of Bitcoin, however at this point I am uncertain whether one of these Bitcoin derived chains will actually remain the dominant cryptocurrency compared to some of the alternatives. We have already lost a lot of the potential momentum, mind share, adoption and network effects and the actual event of splitting the chain is not going to help.

On the upside I also think that one of the most likely outcomes for the far future is that we will end up with multiple dominant blockchains, so there certainly is room there for the Bitcoin ledger whichever form that might take.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

Argl fuck!

Well, that will take some time to heal..
Worst case scenario happened.

btw. If Todd made this public without contacting BU devs first.. Very ugly. Not that it helps anybody, the damage is done.

And another case of weird bitcoin code, or is there a reason to not allow for release compilation?