Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Bagatell]

@satoshis_sockpuppet

I assume it's to do with this - https://news.bitcoin.com/chandler-guos-mining-pool-support-bitcoin-unlimited/

 

[Norway]

Hi @jake

Thanks for both posts, you know a lot more about the Chinese mining scene than most people in bitcoin.

Great to hear that BTCC are not hardliners, maybe that's why Samson Mow quit, he he.

Very interesting to read the good arguments against replay protection (I could be wrong, but I think it's replay protection, not relay protection.)

 

[79b79aa8]

@go1111111 i actually prefer the original, shorter intro.

but if you think you need to expand a little, feel free to use any of the following text you may like:

"Bitcoin is a ground-breaking, revolutionary experiment. Its governance process is first of its kind, and is only being worked out and understood as the currency continues to strenghten and grow.

There are two main lines of thought about how major upgrades to Bitcoin should occur: Market Governance and Near-Unanimous Social Consensus Governance.

This FAQ aims to clarify aspects of Market Governance, in the belief that it is both the preferable process, as well as the one that, when the chips are down, will inevitably take place.

Properly understanding Market Governance will help dissipate fears about the outcome of the block-size debate, as well as similar future divergences of opinion, by making clear that Bitcoin has a built-in mechanism for sorting out such disputes, based not on finding social agreements or much less consensus, but merely on the minimal assumption that stakeholders are rational and therefore wish to preserve and increase the value of their investment."

 

[awemany]

And even better: The hardcore smallblock CEO, James Hilliard, has been instructed by the share holders of the company to switch all of it to BU in the near future!

This is lightsword, right? I have debated him both in IRC and on reddit as well.

Let me just say: Poetic what is happening here. What I am surprised about, however, is that they didn't replace that guy yet. Is there such a shortage of self-proclaimed Bitcoin-experts?

3. Bitfinex BCU/BCC tokens: Their T&Cs are complete garbage, but I think at $200 the BCU tokens are incredibly undervalued. Several events could cause the price of the tokens to rise dramatically. Bitfinex could revise the T&Cs to be more clear/fair.

My desire to enter a bet that can be unilaterally changed at whim by the deciding party is quite low.

 

[KoKansei]

Sometimes I see members of the community like /u/ydtm fighting the good fight day in and day out, like voluntary, loyal soldiers in a great information war, and I just wanna buy all you guys a big round of drinks. Bitcoin is defending itself with a voluntary army that actually want to win on a very personal level. It's pretty awe inspiring when you take a step back and think about it.

Edit:

Great to hear that BTCC are not hardliners, maybe that's why Samson Mow quit, he he.

Yes, the fact that Mow is no longer with BTCC is a very good sign and now with this new information it may be safe to say that BTCC is a viable candidate for the next big "switchover."

 

[Zarathustra]

@KoKansei

u/ydtm is a rhetorical genius. He is able to destroy 10 Core devaluators single handedly.

Great posts in that thread also by u/ABlockInTheChain and u/ferretinjapan, as always.

 

[AdrianX]

That means that the Bitcoin society - at least until now - represents a greater market failure than the average society.

Not yet, it's not looking good. Bitcoiners now in the minority - all governing structures are a reflection of the wisdom of the people. Bitcoin governance by the citizens will be no different, unless they understand why bitcoin. (Bitcoin citizens is someone who owns bitcoin - a bitcoiner loosely defined as someone who went of a 3 week binge reading everything there is to know about bitcoin - probably mined at some point or serious looked into it, statistically an adopter pre 2015)

We bitcoiners have a mammoth task ahead of us to educated the majority of bitcoin masses. We have a time limit.

The longer it takes the more damage is done to adoption and growth. Bitcoin doesn't die if we do nothing growth and maximum potential is degraded.

And, and...

If we don't do it fast enough and at a steady pase, Bitcoin governance will be moved from the domain of the investor and free market to the political domain of developers influence. Where politics sets the demand for on and off chain transactions, and the technocrats manage the network.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

Let me just say: Poetic what is happening here. What I am surprised about, however, is that they didn't replace that guy yet. Is there such a shortage of self-proclaimed Bitcoin-experts?

The self-proclaimed wizards have good PR, and many people on the business side of things deferred to them because they mistook Bitcoin's success as having a causal relationship with the wizards' guidance.

Watch Dr Strangelove, and note the scene when Mandrake suddenly realizes that General Ripper is insane.

That's a close approximation of what they are experiencing right now.

 

[AdrianX]

@KoKansei

u/ydtm is a rhetorical genius. He is able to destroy 10 Core devaluators single handedly.

Great posts in that thread also by u/ABlockInTheChain and u/ferretinjapan, as always.

Ydtm = Howl in Howl's moving castle.

Calcifer = XXX (I know he reads this forum).

 

[lunar]

@go1111111

personally prefer intro 2, but I think you mean 'Macro' economics?

I'm not sure I agree with the premise of version 1. Mainly because the unanimous consensus model is so flawed accept in certain very ideal circumstances. Guess this is what you'll be addressing in the body text, so perhaps it's worth keeping?

@jake Great post from David, he sounds like a clever man. Send him an invite here or slack.

@KoKansei Bitcoins incentive structure works on so many levels. it's fantastic. I'm of the belief that all developers in this space should be holding at least 10% of their net worth in BTC otherwise how could they possibly understand?

 

[AdrianX]

The self-proclaimed wizards have good PR, and many people on the business side of things deferred to them because they mistook Bitcoin's success as having a causal relationship with the wizards' guidance.

Justus, I am not sure how you do it, but you always manage to distill complex idea into one powerful sentence.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

@AdrianX I think it's just a matter of paying enough attention for a sufficiently long time.

We're beginning the sixth year of this debate and there's been a lot of repetition.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

real cypherpunks never run other software than core!
[doublepost=1490120298][/doublepost]

Hypocrisy in perfection: Nick Szabo, the non-inventor of Peer-to-peer-electronic-cash is still sticking and chatting with the North Coreans and accuses Jihan of talking 'like an old-style-communist'. And it's a lie. Jihan didn't say that the markets are unfair. He said the market will deliver better contracts than this one.

How the hack does Szabo think that markets decide in one day?

 

[freetrader]

https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/60ndlb/til_not_only_is_adam_back_cited_in_satoshis/

^ Clearly all these talented people will suddenly stop working on Bitcoin if it gets bigger blocks . /s

How the hack

@Christoph Bergmann : I like that, I think I will borrow that expression ;-)

http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

And one more:

This whole talk about a PoW change is so stupid. It will never work, and the minority chain doesn't need it. Their only chance to survive is to implement something like Dark Gravity / Kimono Gravity Wall: change the difficulty algorithm so that it adjusts every block. Either the minority fork does this with a hardfork, or it has no chance to survive as a top cryptocurrency

 

[AdrianX]

Developers are not part of the bitcoin incentive system. they are subservient class - they can use PR, Lawyers, letters of intent, lies, propaganda and politics to get miners or users to run their code.

Miners are profit driven, they enforce rules in the bitcoin system that benefit the network (they chose what code to run).

Miners are a dependent class they depend on user confidence expressed in a market, their profit is dependent on user demand for the coins they mine, users also pay for their servers.

Users are the decentralized governing class - users support miners by expressing confidence by buying and selling the coins in the network, or by using the network and paying transaction fees.

Bitcoin infrastructure exchanges and merchants etc, are a subservient class - they are not supporting bitcoin unless they have a closed loop business and spend bitcoin into the economy. many convert bitcoin to fiat.

The 1MB limit forces miners to charge market prices for on chain transactions - it is a rule that allowed them to form a cartel to extract maximum value.

Miners are in control of the rules - that's the bitcoin design. We users are at a point in time when users must make a choice - we can change the design of bitcoin:

1. Keep the limit, let fees increase in relation to the value of transactions - limiting adoption to the size of the network today, user cases shrink as fees increase. Miners have a cartel - and a monopoly - miners can't break from the cartel because the rules don't awol it.

2. force miners to compete with each other and let the market determine fees, Competition for market share increase bitcoin security which in turn increases user demand which in turn increases demand for transactions resulting in a win win for the bitcoin network - more security more users. cartels imposing restrictions to increase fee pressure are broken by miners out competing them using economies of scale. (Miners must change the rules and remove the 1MB limit - BU is the choice)

3. Force miners to compete with layer 2 networks,(segwit) mining cartels pushing up fees, fees are held in check by users moving to layer 2 networks to transact. Free market competition among miners forces user growth of layer 2 networks. demand to use layer 1 transactions increases when layer 2 fees are high, and decrees when fees are low.

Option 1 has hardly any support.

Option 2 has the majority of miners and community support. (trade off = mining competition increases bitcoin security - bitcoin incentive design is not changed - miners must remove the limit)

Option 3 Has the majority of developers support (trade off = mining competition = Layer 2 growth at the expense of bitcoin security. - bitcoin incentive design must changed - miners must use new code)

 

[go1111111]

Alright folks, after much editing, I plan to post my Market Governance FAQ tomorrow to both subreddits, Medium, twitter,

OK, the final version is now posted:


If you find it valuable and you think it deserves exposure, please share. You can also see it on both subreddits.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

lol, the next Lightning implementation is ready!

https://medium.com/@ACINQ/eclair-0-2-alpha1-is-out-3caaff242567#.hav2natwl

It's the geniuses who successfully tested the flare algorithm:

TLDR: It kind of works (there is a 80+% chance of finding a route to any
other node in ~500ms).
[...]
We only focused on static ranking (finding a route formed of open channels
between two given nodes), so it is very possible (probable?) that a route
is not actually usable because the channels are not balanced. Basically we
made the assumption that the network graph is undirected, which is not true
and is a pretty strong assumption.

Oh, well we just left out the most important part and got 80% success. That's nice. (At 2500 nodes..)

All "BOLTS" are implemented! Lightning is ready!

Oh, and because it's "the same as a Bitcoin transaction" and "absolutely trustless":

We also plan to develop a LN “watcher”, a thirdparty service that LN wallets can use to monitor the blockchain on their behalf without giving up on privacy, an idea originally proposed by Tadge Dryja.

Lightning is bullshit. Complete, utter bullshit. From the beginning to the end. The LN devs are snakeoil salesmen.

They sell something fancy sounding which will never work as described. But "hey we start with this version, which has some third party trust in it, but just for the time being of course!".

Andreas should be sitting in a corner, ashamed and begging for forgiveness, for selling this crap to people.

 

[adamstgbit]

next step third party LN help desks.
User:
"i'm not sure what happened my BTC is gone"
Help Desk:
"i'm sorry there's nothing i can do, before making future LN TX please get the "how to use lighting and not get fucked" handbook written by Andreas "

 

[_mr_e]

This is actually great in a way, because as soon as another exchange starts offering proper fork futures, a lot of people will mistakenly think the prices should match, and we who are in the know can take their money ruthlessly.

@_mr_e

How about this? I wrote a new draft of the Bitfinex fork futures terms. Now it just pays out coins on the 1MB chain and any >1MB chain (chain containing at least one >1MB block) that exists by year end.

Definitely better, much more clarity and fairness, but is even the one year expiry necessary? Why not make them perpetual so we can trade the true odds of a > 1mb fork over a long period of time until one eventually occurs?