Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[megadeth]

No amount of misinformation, propaganda and divisive politics will outsmart the market.
The market reigns over all, the market decides.

The first exchange to list popular fork futures will make big $$$.

Paraphrasing a lot of ZB's ideas here, but I've become a believer.

 

[Mengerian]

@go1111111 I also read through your FAQ, it is very good. I like the terminology "Near-Unanimous Social Consensus Governance", and "Market Governance".

Aren't we already in a Market Governance situation? After all, people can hard fork right now if they want to

I think how you worded this section is fine, but just want to emphasize some points.

Maybe it's a subtle point, but I would say, yes, we are already in a Market Governance situation.

Much of the current problems are because, even though we are in this situation, people don't realize it. This means that their mental model of the system is flawed, and thus they will engage in actions that don't make sense and are counter to their goals. These actions will also reduce the overall value of the system for everyone.

For example, many companies want larger blocks, so it would make sense for them to stop enforcing the block size limit rule, prepare to accept bigger blocks, and let everyone know this. But because they believe "near-unanimous social consensus" is so important, they waste their time trying to appease people, or being paralyzed by misplaced fear of contention.

Because of this problem, Market Governance is not currently working as well as it could otherwise.

There are two main theories of how upgrades to Bitcoin should occur: Market Governance (sometimes called Market Consensus) and Near-Unanimous Social Consensus Governance.

In light of the above, maybe remove the word "should". Because we're not really advocating for Market Governance, just pointing out that it's already there.

On the other hand, since belief in "near-unanimous social consensus" is screwing things up, maybe we are advocating that people should realize the flaws of that view and embrace the market.

 

[adamstgbit]

No amount of misinformation, propaganda and divisive politics will outsmart the market.
The market reigns over all, the market decides.

The first exchange to list popular fork futures will make big $$$.

Paraphrasing a lot of ZB's ideas here, but I've become a believer.

Core really FUCKED UP tho.
all this censorship and trolling BU and any other alternative client
has really messed with people's heads
alot of poeple are now scared because they dont understand
like they LITERALLY Buy the idea that no one wants bigger blocks and China is a "big problem"

we have followed the bitcoin story closely for years and we understand how it all works, so we aren't scared of a little HF, but... we " bitcoiners " aren't all that common, there's lots more misguided newbies then bitcoiners.

 

[freetrader]

there's lots more misguided newbies then bitcoiners.

I don't understand Core's strategy here though.
These newbies don't run nodes or businesses on top of Bitcoin.

I get it - there's no time to educate them.

But the businesses (at least hopefully the majority) understand who secures the coin, and should not fall for silly polemics.

 

[go1111111]

Also, since the goal is neutrality, Strong Social Consensus Governance or Total Social Consensus Governance seems more appropriate than Extreme Social Consensus Governance.

I changed it back to Near-Unanimous Social Consensus Governance (maybe I should use acronyms more in the FAQ). It was initially that, then I switched it to be consistent with Mengerian's article. I think I like NUSCG better and agree it sounds more "fair."

I also incorporated a lot of your feedback.

Re: "
[Also note that the Market Governance position asserts that a hard fork cannot be prevented, and that a controversial soft fork is liable to incite a counter hard fork movement to undo the soft fork.

Again point about should vs. inevitable applies, though I admit that taking the point seriously kind of destroys the extreme social consensus position, so may appear unbalanced :/ -ZB]
"

I had hoped my explanation in in this section would be sufficient to address this, but I think it came too far at the end of the document, so I moved it up to the top. Do you think that's sufficient?

I also added a "where to learn more about MG" section at the bottom. Feel free to add specific articles there if you want, and feel free to make more ambitious edits to the document itself, insert links to your own longer explanations, etc. I think the individual answers being relatively concise but also peppered with lots of links to longer posts is the ideal format.

I'm least happy with my naming section. I think it's a bit too long and isn't as clear as it could be.
[doublepost=1489717452][/doublepost]

@go1111111
In light of the above, maybe remove the word "should". Because we're not really advocating for Market Governance, just pointing out that it's already there.

On the other hand, since belief in "near-unanimous social consensus" is screwing things up, maybe we are advocating that people should realize the flaws of that view and embrace the market.

Yeah, I think this is it. It's not so much that we "should" use Market Governance, it's that people "should" stop trying to scare people into being afraid of MG, and stop trying to interfere with it. Like it or not, people can make hard forks more rare just via persuasion tactics (at least, until they start happening and people have more direct evidence that they're good).

I'll keep it in the back of my mind how to make this more clear.

Thanks for the feedback.

 

[adamstgbit]

A huge problem with the debate lately is that poeple see Core's off-chain scaling and BU's on-chain scaling as mutually exclusive.

often we argue about what is better segwit or EC
but the debate ought to be:

 

[bluemoon]

I don't understand Core's strategy here though.
These newbies don't run nodes or businesses on top of Bitcoin.

I get it - there's no time to educate them.

But the businesses (at least hopefully the majority) understand who secures the coin, and should not fall for silly polemics.

I fear the businesses have hedged against Bitcoin and (maybe) are now indifferent to its success: BU's success is one way of losing the Core poison, but then so also is Eth's success.

 

[AdrianX]

Core really FUCKED UP tho.
all this censorship and trolling BU and any other alternative client
has really messed with people's heads
alot of poeple are now scared because they dont understand
like they LITERALLY Buy the idea that no one wants bigger blocks and China is a "big problem"

we have followed the bitcoin story closely for years and we understand how it all works, so we aren't scared of a little HF, but... we " bitcoiners " aren't all that common, there's lots more misguided newbies then bitcoiners.

Oh how true this is.

 

[Matthew Light]

You guys are great. I love this forum. I love BU.

That said, I hope you hold a hedge in Ethereum by now, because it looks like the market is rejecting the failure of Bitcoin to grow and adapt and is likely to pick a new leader.

 

[adamstgbit]

I had 1ETH a few mins ago

 

[AdrianX]

What are Core going to do with these "supporters" they are like trolls on auto pilot.

Trying to explain PoW voting - satoshi called Nodes "vote with their CPU power"

OMG some one ban me from r/bitcoin. This...:


....degrades into This:


I think I know why so many young people march into war and get killed - I though this fundamentalism was purged from the gene pool in the first half the the 20th century but apparently not.

On a positive note someone made an astute summary of how we got here:
https://medium.com/@arthricia/is-bitcoin-unlimited-an-attack-on-bitcoin-9444e8d53a56#.2j4geib1o

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

What are Core going to do with these "supporters" they are like trolls on auto pilot.

They won't ever be able to move even if they wanted to. They created a monster for themselves by all their fudding about a hardfork.

There will never be a planned HF with core. Never. What might happen in their craziness is an involuntary hardfork after their UASF bullshit. Which might be the best thing since sliced bread, let these retards fork off.

I think I know why so many young people march into war and get killed - I though this fundamentalism was purged from the gene pool in the first half the the 20th century but apparently not.

I don't think that that is how it works. Thousands of years of war before should have been enough, don't you think? Maybe war even helps the more aggressive DNA to spread when soldiers "visit" other countries and cultures..


I admit, I'm getting concerned about altcoins... Has any exchange so far made clear, what they'll trade as "Bitcoin"? Would be a very positive signal for the market, if i.e. Coinbase officially stated, that they follow PoW. Technically there is no alternative to that but apparently it has to be said.

 

[awemany]

Bitcoin is digital gold. Gavin's definition is bad, because Bitcoin was created by CIA. But Bitcoin == digital gold. ...

Honestly, what would you say to something like this:

[doublepost=1489738477,1489737725][/doublepost]

Interesting, agreed. Also, how can two completely different market caps be compared?

Good question, I think that's to be found out in case we get a capable Bitcoin again. I see absolutely massive potential (then!), but I think no one knows the exact figures ...

1 btc, 1 oz of gold completely aribitrary. What are your thoughts on Goldmoney?

Well, I think Bitcoin has the potential to be an alternative to fiat with its hidden inflation tax, as gold-like money. With all of the far-reaching implications (e.g. Petrodollar empire).
It also compares very favorably to government fiat in terms of accountability of the government.

And I say this as someone who did the typical progression as described by this quote usually attributed (falsely?) to W. Churchill:

Any man who is not a socialist at age 20 has no heart. Any man who is still a socialist at age 40 has no head.

Ever try buying gold with bitcoin?

Nope.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

What are Core going to do with these "supporters" they are like trolls on auto pilot.


I think I know why so many young people march into war and get killed - I though this fundamentalism was purged from the gene pool in the first half the the 20th century but apparently not.

On a positive note someone made an astute summary of how we got here:
https://medium.com/@arthricia/is-bitcoin-unlimited-an-attack-on-bitcoin-9444e8d53a56#.2j4geib1o

Love your comments more every day.

Yesterday I blogged about how Coinbase must push users from Bitcoin-Blockchain-Confirmation to Coinbase-Database-Coinfirmation and told my readers: This is what offchain means. Not Lightning, at best Altcoins and at worst banks. Guess what happened: One of my readers told me that it is party my fault, because I wrote one or two positive articles about BU.

WTF? I really don't want to compare my readers with Nazis. But since you started with world war stuff: Didn't some German zealots say in 1945 they don't loose the war because they attacked the whole world, but because some journalist did some time ago write that the war is insane?

But in the end, a polite and respectful conversation started. It has to start somewhere, and it is still possible to talk with most of them, if you route around the Pawlowish points of behaviour.

 

[VeritasSapere]

The only direct investment advice that I would give to people, is to diversify, hedge your bets.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

@go1111111 Yeah better to move it earlier in the FAQ, but since a FAQ is typically skimmed for questions the reader actually has, it may need to be mentioned in several sections.

 

[Richy_T]

Adam, absolutely correct. This is another reason I think we need a newe codebase to work from. It doesn't necessarily have to be bu based but might as well be.

I don't think I've ever used assert either. Seems like asking for trouble

 

[Mengerian]

@go1111111 @Zangelbert Bingledack I have been thinking a bit more about Market Governance.

When people criticize markets, it can be instructive to think "what is the alternative?" Since the market is just un-hindered exchange, the only real alternative to Market Governance is coercive governance.

We can give proponent of Near-Unanimous Social Consensus Governance the benefit of the doubt, and presume that they aren't intentionally promoting coercion. But if you think about how one can ensure "Near-Unanimous Social Consensus", you can see a potential for coercion to creep in.

I think we see hints of this road to coercion in the fixation some have on defining "Bitcoin". Combine that with threats of legal action against exchanges, and you have a coercive mechanism to enforce "social consensus". Consider the example of the COIN ETF proposal, there was much talk of how they would handle a fork, and how they define Bitcoins. Some people criticized their plan to follow the most-work chain, and insisted instead they should follow the "original" rules in the event of a fork. It is easy to imagine these definitional legal games being used at exchanges to interfere with the market. Increasing levels of government regulation at exchanges increase this risk.

Another "tell" that indicates a potential path to coercion is when people start using the language of force to describe peaceful actions. For example calling arguments and ideas "aggressive", calling a proposed network protocol change "hostile", or running difference software an "attack". Misconstruing peaceful actions as hostile sets the stage for justifying coercive action down the road by setting up a false moral equivalence.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

But since you started with world war stuff:

That's a rabbit hole you may or may not want to explore.

Most of what people know about that time period is wrong.

 

[adamstgbit]

Adam, absolutely correct. This is another reason I think we need a newe codebase to work from. It doesn't necessarily have to be bu based but might as well be.

I don't think I've ever used assert either. Seems like asking for trouble

what ever happened to return false; pass back *err and deal with the error
but i can see why asserts are cool, often we'll say things like "that OK because its impossible it gets here while he's in that state because XYZ" that sounds like a good use case for assert.