Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Peter R]

"Perfect. Except that a valid transaction is also not spent by definition so that's redundant." -- @Richy_T

I see what you mean, but I think it's helpful to think of a transaction being valid independently from a transaction being already spent. For example, you could broadcast two valid transactions at the same time, but once one is confirmed, the other one cannot be double spent.

 

[Richy_T]

This is indicative of a major blind spot I see in Adam Back's public persona. Prior to even forming Blockstream, if you were founding the organization, wouldn't this be the most obvious thing ever that you would have to deal with in terms of public relations?

So you would think that he would've gone out of his way to nip conflict-of-interest suspicions in the bud?.... wrong. Instead he acts like he's entitled to your adoration and worship simply for being who he his, and faints like the silent movie damsel in distress when anyone dares to so much as lightly ask if there could be some conflict of interest or impropriety going on.

Did he seriously have Dick Cheney levels of delusion, that Bitcoin would greet them as liberators??

Just look at how he introduced himself to the Bitcoin scene (anyone have the link?). Quite clearly his assumption is that people should view him as the creator of Bitcoin and thank you to mister Nakamoto for keeping his seat warm.
[doublepost=1490565566][/doublepost]

The old chain, with a small minority of the hash rate, would be very, very dangerous for its users because the majority of the hashrate could do a lot of (succesfull) double spend attacks on it, rewriting also a long history of blocks.

So, it would be wise to kill it asap, and migrate its users to a chain with a different PoW, thus protected from this kind of attack.
Even Nicolas Dorier (core supporter) agrees for the need of a "clean fork":
https://medium.com/@nicolasdorier/proof-of-work-update-is-not-a-threat-to-miners-it-is-a-necessity-for-users-e7450a0cc146

Bottom line: the minority chain must clean fork and become an altcoin with different rules and miners

Actually, I think the point that arises from your post here is that there will be no need to kill it as simply the ability to kill it easily renders it useless.

 

[Richy_T]

"Perfect. Except that a valid transaction is also not spent by definition so that's redundant." -- @Richy_T

I see what you mean, but I think it's helpful to think of a transaction being valid independently from a transaction being already spent. For example, you could broadcast two valid transactions at the same time, but once one is confirmed, the other one cannot be double spent.

I see your point. Which probably means there should be some qualifiers in there somewhere. But I think it's more important to keep the simplicity of the initial quote so I am happy to accept it.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

If Satoshi would have asked me to review the white paper before publication I would have asked him to take out the redundant "and not spent", but he didn't so we have to live with a slightly annoying quote.

 

[Richy_T]

I didn't realize you were quoting. Fair enough

 

[Erdogan]

http://www.coindesk.com/charts-determining-ideal-block-size-bitcoin/

I've been talking about this "ideal block size thing" for a while now.
I hope people read this, and there fears about massive "unlimited blocks" filled with "unbound TX demand" will go away.

I liked it. May I also shamelessly point to this, about a fee structure with largeblocks:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/61l8v2/a_possible_fee_structure_going_forward/

It earned a top post position, but quickly fell off the first page.

 

[Windowly]

paying 8c for the same is better.

We actually used to be able to pay subcents for the same service. (And that kind of service is still available in lots of commercial services and altcoins.)

 

[Mengerian]

Just look at how he introduced himself to the Bitcoin scene (anyone have the link?).

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=15672.msg1873483#msg1873483

And I'll repeat my take on his intro:

I think this post provides a little window into his psychology. He mentions not owning any coins, regrets at not mining early on, and feelings of "ignominy" (shame, humiliation) at being treated as a newbie and not being accorded higher respect due to his history as inventor of hashcash and other cryptographic endeavours.

 

[go1111111]

@go1111111 You don't buy the argument that two coins using the same PoW are in an inherently adversarial situation?

In ethics it's sometimes called a "lifeboat situation." You have a lifeboat only big enough for one person, but two people are on it and it is at risk of sinking. One of you simply has to get off and swim (change the PoW).

That is the only decent argument for attacking the minority chain that I'm aware of, but I think it exaggerates the danger, such that attacking the small chain is an overreaction.

I see using the same PoW as the dominant chain not as running at someone with a loaded gun, but simply as having a gun. It'd be like in the old west if you happened to shoot anyone you came across just because they had a gun, because their having a gun slightly raised the probability that they'd shoot you.

As long as users are willing to punish miners who attack other chains, I don't see it as something to worry much about. If ETH miners started attacking ETC, it would make users more sympathetic to ETC and just increase their status after they did a PoW change.

 

[79b79aa8]

We actually used to be able to pay subcents for the same service. (And that kind of service is still available in lots of commercial services and altcoins.)

to be fair, i would not move large sums ("as much money as you want") on a chain not secured by massive hashpower. the point is, there is no reason we can't have it all: low fees, near-absolute security, a decentralized network.

 

[adamstgbit]

the more i engage in the debate on BCT the more i want to fork off

43.1%

GOOD

 

[bluemoon]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=15672.msg1873483#msg1873483

I'm not sure I've read Adam's intro before.

What strikes me is how he only talks in terms of technology; he has nothing to say about bitcoin as money.

For Adam, Satoshi's contribution was to recognise the importance of hashcash and use it. Adam expresses no understanding or appreciation of Bitcoin as a self-sustaining independent money and makes no mention of the white paper other than to show himself as an authority for Satoshi.

It is only in April 2013 that Adam can bring himself to concede that Bitcoin is something worth attention, having been aware of Satoshi's work at least since "back in 2008". If Adam did not immediately understand Bitcoin's significance, it suggests he has little understanding of money itself.

Adam's involvement since April 2013 has been malign: to tie down and control the free and independent Bitcoin Satoshi left us; to (re)capture the development of hashcash, which for Adam is all Bitcoin is, so hashcash's creator can possess and nurture (sic) it again.

 

[Windowly]

the more i engage in the debate on BCT the more i want to fork off

43.1%

GOOD

Hehe hopefully we don't have one or two more years of this kind of debate.

I would love to see how their version of a largely useless coin compares on the market with a coin following the original vision Satoshi had.

 

[VeritasSapere]

@BldSwtTrs I can be wrong ;-) - some huge big shifts in consciousness happening in the crypto space atm. Long term I don't think Ethereum will dominate - it solves some complex problems and will still grow, however bitcoin solves the biggest problem of all, "Money", bitcoin does not need to run my coffee maker in a trust free environment, it just needs to be digital cash that every one can understand.

However Ethereum can already be a better form of "Money" then Bitcoin today, and the more applications that can be build on such a network the greater the network effects and positive feedback loops become.

https://medium.com/@edmundedgar/why-ethereum-is-great-for-payments-ee80c5cb912a#.sxpw7imiz

Ethereum will also have a limited supply, with an inflation rate that will be lower then Bitcoins in a few years. I do not see any reason why Ethereum can not also be considered a form of sound money.

 

[Richy_T]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=15672.msg1873483#msg1873483

And I'll repeat my take on his intro:

I think the name dropping in the first paragraph is telling also. Well, the whole thing is incredibly cringe-worthy.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

Hrm?

 

[albin]

@Roger_Murdock

Arguments like Charlie is making there raise big red flags to me, because it is just a hop, skip and a jump from there to arguing full-on Labor Theory of Value, and then without being careful it's not too long before somebody starts retracing the theoretic steps that morphed Classical school economics into Marxism. Not to in any way malign Charlie with any kind of pejorative, just to draw attention to the sobering reality that those were very intelligent, educated people back in the 19th century getting sucked into really dead-end systems of economic theory on accounts of the prejudices and ignorances that were fashionable in their day.

 

[KoKansei]

@satoshis_sockpuppet

Could he be referring indirectly to the fact that in the event of a HF upgrade the other half of the "fork" will die so quickly that it cannot be considered a "full fork" in the same sense as ETH/ETC?

Any other interpretation makes him out to be a total idiot. Then again he seems to think that investing in Twitter stock is a good idea, so I don't know...

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

@KoKansei
Had the same thought but it had this "wishful thinking sound"..
Well, we will see. Maybe we will end up with BU/SW 50/50...

 

[Norway]

We are very close to 50% in the 24 hour window now. 48,6% is the highest, just two blocks from 50%.