Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Meanwhile, in the trading pits...

We've finally decisively broken past the all-time high (and symbolic "gold parity"), and the gradual exponential growth trend of the past 1.x years is back on track despite all the drama. Something's gotta give soon.
[doublepost=1493313660][/doublepost]I see two years of exponential growth:

[doublepost=1493314199,1493313271][/doublepost]Log chart for confirmation. What's that, about a 9-month doubling time since mid/late-2015? Nice straight slope. We even seem a bit ahead of schedule at the moment.

Interesting that the halving either hasn't had an effect or is almost perfectly offsetting the damage from the 1MB cap.

 

[AdrianX]

Implementation team development decentralizing bitcoin up.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/67xbcy/the_new_parity_rustlang_implementation_of_bitcoin/

 

[bluemoon]

@AdrianX

I wonder if it has a blocksize limit?

And if F2Pool, Bixin, and Antpool will adopt it, cutting out Core?

 

[AdrianX]

@bluemoon from one of the developers"


that begs the question is there an efficiency to port a particular feature to another implementation, Say BU's user adjustable block size settings?

is it an option to fund such a port if we don't have rust developers?

I suppose parity bitcoin would need to be tested too to see if it were worth funding.

 

[go1111111]

Mike-blacklists, Gavin-CIA/CSW, XT-altcoin, Classic-amateur devs, Coinbase-evil/incompetent, BU buggy, untested game theory, Roger altcoin shill/doesn't understand code, Now antminer asicboost/antbleed.

That list basically sums up the last 3 years of bitcoin censorship enforced development. There comes a point where a rational persons first response is to assume anything coming from these guys is a outright lie,

Some of the things you list are at least partly legit. BU code is buggier than Core code. There's some decent evidence that ASICBOOST may be contributing to miner opposition to SegWit. Based on what I've read of antbleed, it seems pretty concerning.

I'm disappointed in the cheerleading I see from some people in this thread. It looks like motivated reasoning where anything 'against' your position is rationalized away. There are plenty of strong reasons why we should increase the block size and decouple consensus rules from Core. We don't need to deny reality to argue for those things.

 

[AdrianX]

I don't think anyone is defending Antbleed, it is a result of many independent miners who requested this feature, it was introduced to solve a big issue that became obvious in 2013, a reaction to all the stolen Avalon miners.

In this instants consumer demand and the manufacturer is wrong for deploying the chosen solution. I think everyone agrees centralized control of anything is to be avoided, this applies to development and the 1MB limit, as well as populist support for segwit.

The criticism BITmain is getting is warranted, I expect them to learn from this, what is being objected to is a political agenda to force action, push segwit and discredit BU supporters, or using this incident to prevent miner decentralization. Attacking BITmain is not in the best interest of bitcoin, BITmain is the only viable retail distributed mining option, if it were not for BITmain mining would be way more centralized.

As far as I know the issue is patched, so who ever was planing to steal a bunch of Antminers you have the green light to use them undetected.

 

[Richy_T]

I'll take perpetually low interest rates for 1 BTC, Alex.

Bingo. See also "too much money sloshing around" and "inflation"

 

[Peter R]

Some of the things you list are at least partly legit. BU code is buggier than Core code. There's some decent evidence that ASICBOOST may be contributing to miner opposition to SegWit. Based on what I've read of antbleed, it seems pretty concerning.

I'm disappointed in the cheerleading I see from some people in this thread. It looks like motivated reasoning where anything 'against' your position is rationalized away.

What is our position, in your opinion?

I know that my position is that implementation diversity is a worthwhile aim and that making it easier for users and miners to express their preferences regarding the block size limit will facilitate a faster resolution to the debate than otherwise. I also believe that the block size limit should be maintained above the natural demand level (most blocks should not be full) and that the market would agree if given the necessary tools.

I can hold this position while also acknowledging that BU's quality-control process is not as mature as Core's (we're working hard to improve), and that Antbleed was a bug that needed to be fixed (they've already released a fix).

So how do you suggest people in this thread should change?

 

[bluemoon]

I suppose parity bitcoin would need to be tested too to see if it were worth funding.

I guess F2pool and other miners commissioned parity in preference not only to Core but other bitcoin developers.

Judging from Wang Chun's tweets, F2pool in particular seems to have been waiting for this release so it will be interesting to see if they run it and kiss Core goodbye. That prospect may be why we have seen the recent surge in BS Core trolling.

Whether an F2pool move will solve anything is another matter: they seem most interested in extension blocks.

 

[Zarathustra]

I also believe that the block size limit should be maintained above the natural demand level (most blocks should not be full) and that the market would agree if given the necessary tools.

Given? Is the market dependent on gifts from outside? I also think that the block size limit should be maintained above the natural demand level. But I believe that it's indeed the market that still refuses to do so. State terror and private terror is part of the market, and their minions and followers are as well part of the market. Sad but true!

 

[Dusty]

Interesting post by Jiang Zhuo’er:
https://medium.com/@zhangsanbtc/if-bitmain-opposes-segwit-because-of-asicboost-why-did-they-agree-to-activate-segwit-before-a-257d832d8ef7

Our goals have always been explicitly clear: according to the Hong Kong agreement, everyone agreed to first activate Segwit, and one year after that to initiate a hard fork to a 2MB block size limit.

But Core did not uphold their end of the Hong Kong agreement. After it became clear that Segwit would not activate on Bitcoin, the scaling debate spilled over into the Litecoin community, and there was a push to first activate Segwit there as an example for the Bitcoin community.

This agreement was closely modeled on Bitcoin’s Hong Kong agreement, with Segwit activation first followed by a block size increase. This fully demonstrates that the broader community is not opposed to the Hong Kong agreement, so I do not understand why Bitcoin Core has been consistently against the agreement that they already signed.

 

[lunar]

It looks like motivated reasoning where anything 'against' your position is rationalized away.

I'm not dismissing these concerns, they fall individually between slander and serious threat, but in my opinion they are only minor in comparison with the centralised Core development structure and fixed 1MB capacity. My objection is to how they have been weaponised and used to systematically push out and smear those in the on-chain camp. Even more so when equally valid concerns can be made of the off chain/segwit side

Luke-blacklists,Tx censoring Todd & others/-altcoin, Maxwell NSA backdoors, Blockstream AXA/Bilderberg, Bitfury Black money, USA/Georgian Government... I could go on, but you see my point.

We need more innocent until proven guilty and scientific method. The whitepaper design and nearly all scientific data is on the side of 'safe for on-chain scaling'. It's not coincidence that these are the people being persecuted by the faux media and censorship.

 

[bluemoon]

Interesting post by Jiang Zhuo’er:
https://medium.com/@zhangsanbtc/if-...gree-to-activate-segwit-before-a-257d832d8ef7

It is a shame he supports extension blocks:

Of course as long as Core is unwilling to do so, then we are left with no choice but to look elsewhere. The EXTBLK proposal is enough to satisfy everyone’s requirements: It’s a block size increase, it activates Segwit (BIP141), it enables Lightning Network and Rootstock, and it deploys as a soft fork.

As far as I understand, extension blocks are a hack and change bitcoin's structure: much better simply to increase the blocksize.

What is really so difficult about the simpler solution?

I also think that the block size limit should be maintained above the natural demand level. But I believe that it's indeed the market that still refuses to do so. State terror and private terror is part of the market, and their minions and followers are as well part of the market. Sad but true!

As you say, sad but true. The systematic terror and trolling causes panic and despair and together with censorship disrupts communication and sensible discussion, which becomes increasingly fraught and political. The community becomes incapable of dealing rationally in a straightforward way with scaling, drives users away, and risks irrevelance.

The whitepaper design and nearly all scientific data is on the side of 'safe for on-chain scaling'. It's not coincidence that these are the people being persecuted by the faux media and censorship.

I find it immensely worrying that even leading figures standing up against the attempt to coerce adoption of Segwit and refuse a block size increase appear willing to ignore and sacrifice the basic design principle of on-chain scaling.

If bitcoin fails it will have been a moral and intellectual failure.

 

[Dusty]

As far as I understand, extension blocks are a hack and change bitcoin's structure: much better simply to increase the blocksize.

Definitely.
Even Luke-JR agrees that an HF to raise the block size is better than extension blocks, this drama about HF is beyond madness...

 

[AdrianX]

Can someone technical give me a high level view if this is practical https://bitcrust.org/blog-fraud-proofs sounds like a scaling solution described in section 8 of the white paper.

from reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/684l7w/fraud_proofs_for_spv_using_spend_tree/

 

[go1111111]

What is our position, in your opinion?

Note that I said "some people." It's not so much a well thought out position but it manifests itself as reflexively taking the opposite position as Core, just because Core is the enemy. Or, simply being silent about real issues because they don't fit "the narrative" of Bitmain as a bringer of justice and hope to Bitcoin.

and that Antbleed was a bug that needed to be fixed (they've already released a fix).

The thing is, we don't know that it was unintentional / a bug. It might have been. I don't think we can be as sure as Core claims, but to fully accept Bitmain's explanation as if they had no incentive to lie is the type of thing that I think happens too much here. Any explanation that could possibly be true is accepted much less critically than it should be, as long as it goes against Core's narrative.

So how do you suggest people in this thread should change?

Being more skeptical of explanations from anti-Core groups would be a good start.

I do realize that some people in this thread are engaged in a sort of Machiavellian political battle (and that this might be a good strategy, since many in Core are battling in the same way). This thread is public, so those people might not want to be candid or say anything here that could suggest weakness in the anti-Core position. Or people here might have a relationship with Jihan/Bitmain and not want to say anything that upsets him. So, if that's your actual goal, my critique doesn't really apply. My comments are directed at people who are engaging in sincere truth-seeking.

 

[Justin]

Somebody had a screenshot of the Twitter accounts that were following the Antbleed account prior to the public announcement, right?

A csv of those accounts would be handy to make it easy to import as a block list.

Nope, that's false. They took it after. It seems you don't verify your evidence. It also wasn't posted in the den until AFTER it broke on twitter. You guys need to try harder, you're grasping at straws.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

@Justin The reason I asked for a convenient csv is because it's a list of horrible people that nobody should listen to anyway.

The time at which the screenshot was taken is irrelevant.

 

[Justin]

Might as well ban everyone following it now if you want to continue to stay in your little filter bubble.

 

[albin]

Nope, that's false. They took it after. It seems you don't verify your evidence. It also wasn't posted in the den until AFTER it broke on twitter. You guys need to try harder, you're grasping at straws.

There is nothing that reeks of desperation as much as the apologia of a useful idiot.