Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

freetrader

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
2,806
6,088
@Dusty : Technical projects and their governance are one thing, to draw a conclusion that democracy as such is a failed concept is probably also misguided.

https://www.sciencealert.com/the-world-happiness-index-2016-just-ranked-the-happiest-countries-on-earth

Please correlate the data with political systems, and then let me know your results.

NOTE: Switzerland long held top spot, and is a direct democracy, not one of those sham "democracies" most of us live in that give a bad reputation to the word.
 
Last edited:

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
@freetrader
At some point an attack on the voting method is, get enough members approved and then have a large subset of members not vote. The no consensus is obtained and any attempt to remove members looks bad from the outside... Ie headline /r/bitcoin BU ignores it's own voting mechanism they get rid of users that don't agree. Or BU pushes BUIP without voting consensus......
so don't vote new members in or find a way to screen them the good news is if they are bad voters and don't provide justification vote them out, if they just don't participate they will stop voting in time.

it's up to you to only vote in competent voters, limit the number and we ossify vote in too many and we ossify.

@Epilido & @Dusty This is just one way to govern one implementation forking is encouraged, forcing political bartering is not. Participation and membership in this one is voluntary unlike other democracies.
[doublepost=1496337236,1496336422][/doublepost]
Right, and since I have Jonny1000 on ignore I'm sure that Jonny will say but that's censorship of the voting mechanism. Therefore BU is shit.....
Johnny is correct, and given that fact he should fork the project and do a better job. BU is not in control of bitcoin so there is no need to force his will on BU members.

We forked away for BS/Cores Developer's "meritocracy" one that valued only incumbent developers and ignored Academics, Mathematicians Economists, Designers, Sociologists. I think this model is better, in some ways, I hope to see more diversified governance models for other implementations. If Jonny1000 was competent he'd start his own implementation instead of trying to convince the world to only see Core as the official bitcoin and ignore BU, he'd give users a choice and let them pick, he knows he'd be ignored if he put his money where his mouth is.
 

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
Bitcoin adoption is voluntary, the bitcoin implementation you choose is voluntary, the contributions you make to your preferred implementation are voluntary. The domain BU members govern over is voluntarily given to them to govern and can be withdrawn at any time.

We have a voluntary democracy, you can be a member of many others, it's inclusive, the BU democracy is empowered by bitcoin users who choose to use it, not the voting members.

We need critical thinkers and respectful debate. If the domain governed by voting members becomes ungovernable it should split and the children should govern however they see fit.

At any level you can voluntarily withdraw your participation with no negative implications. I will support diversifying governance however I can.
 
Last edited:

albin

Active Member
Nov 8, 2015
931
4,008
We now have 4 paths to activate SegWit:

- Vanilla SegWit
- BIP 148
- BIP 149
- The Silbert deal

I smell a trap where SegWit is the poison pill.
I think OG segwit and BIP 148/149 are really the same path, because UASF is intended to activate the original deployment on a split chain that orphans non-segwit signalling blocks. Their Aug. 1st timing is basically a Hail Mary to force something to happen before the original deployment bit sunsets, gambling that the threat of UASF gets segwit majority hashpower.

I guarantee you though if they actually do fork and we get two chains, they're going to blame Gavin / Big-blockers / BU for it, the same way an abusive spouse blames the other partner for making him do it.
 

awemany

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2015
1,387
5,054
I guarantee you though if they actually do fork and we get two chains, they're going to blame Gavin / Big-blockers / BU for it, the same way an abusive spouse blames the other partner for making him do it.
BS/Core, Bitcoin's crazy girlfriend.

But I think we're now at the stage where it is: BS/Core, Bitcoin's crazy ex-girlfriend.

I have the impression this analogy can be taken much further.
 

Zangelbert Bingledack

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2015
1,485
5,585
Last edited:

Zarathustra

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,439
3,797
@awemany

"What a damn mess all this is - a mess that could have totally been avoided"

Yes, could have totally been avoided, if the one and only (possible) history course could be another one.
But it can't. Bitcoin would have had a majority of honest/economically intelligent miners. As I said already, the Nakamoto Consensus seems to work for all Blockchains/Cryptocurrencies together, but not for a single one.
 

Zarathustra

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,439
3,797
@Dusty : Technical projects and their governance are one thing, to draw a conclusion that democracy as such is a failed concept is probably also misguided.

https://www.sciencealert.com/the-world-happiness-index-2016-just-ranked-the-happiest-countries-on-earth

Please correlate the data with political systems, and then let me know your results.

NOTE: Switzerland long held top spot, and is a direct democracy, not one of those sham "democracies" most of us live in that give a bad reputation to the word.
I live in Switzerland but it is not my merit. Isn't it amazing that there is just one single society on this planet that has been able to demand and get direct democracy?

But don't worry, Democracy is coming; predicted by none other than the Greatest:



"Democracy"

It's coming through a hole in the air,
from those nights in Tiananmen Square.
It's coming from the feel
that this ain't exactly real,
or it's real, but it ain't exactly there.
From the wars against disorder,
from the sirens night and day,
from the fires of the homeless,
from the ashes of the gay:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.
It's coming through a crack in the wall;
on a visionary flood of alcohol;
from the staggering account
of the Sermon on the Mount
which I don't pretend to understand at all.
It's coming from the silence
on the dock of the bay,
from the brave, the bold, the battered
heart of Chevrolet:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.

It's coming from the sorrow in the street,
the holy places where the races meet;
from the homicidal bitchin'
that goes down in every kitchen
to determine who will serve and who will eat.
From the wells of disappointment
where the women kneel to pray
for the grace of God in the desert here
and the desert far away:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.

Sail on, sail on
O mighty Ship of State!
To the Shores of Need
Past the Reefs of Greed
Through the Squalls of Hate
Sail on, sail on, sail on, sail on.

It's coming to America first,
the cradle of the best and of the worst.
It's here they got the range
and the machinery for change
and it's here they got the spiritual thirst.
It's here the family's broken
and it's here the lonely say
that the heart has got to open
in a fundamental way:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.

It's coming from the women and the men.
O baby, we'll be making love again.
We'll be going down so deep
the river's going to weep,
and the mountain's going to shout Amen!
It's coming like the tidal flood
beneath the lunar sway,
imperial, mysterious,
in amorous array:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.

Sail on, sail on ...

I'm sentimental, if you know what I mean
I love the country but I can't stand the scene.
And I'm neither left or right
I'm just staying home tonight,
getting lost in that hopeless little screen.
But I'm stubborn as those garbage bags
that Time cannot decay,
I'm junk but I'm still holding up
this little wild bouquet:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bluemoon

freetrader

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
2,806
6,088

What's worse is the bot is wrong, assuming it was trying to calculate 148! .
If it was trying to calcate the factorial of that, it'd still be wrong :)

Code:
>>> from math import factorial
>>> factorial(148)
2556323917872865588581178015776757943261545225324888777742656636831312265093753843092911610231557545654456728355563946494973881440657024808338073789526714388140608147460213822341179297111631430532680840748193219035217998643200000000000000000000000000000000000L
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bluemoon

bluemoon

Active Member
Jan 15, 2016
215
966
https://medium.com/@Iskenderun/arti...nother-variety-of-lifting-the-21-f972b6e3afd8

Speaking of which, as per the article, I wonder if there some kind of consistent calculation about how much greater than 21 million bitcoins we are on track for (notionally, in terms of unexpectedly high fees as unexpected additional payoff to miners being equivalent to coin inflation) now?
I cannot agree with that article: while it is the miners that benefit in each case, lifting the 21 million bitcoin cap dilutes everyone's holdings, whereas while paying excessive transaction fees shifts spending power, it does not dilute bitcoin units: the cost is borne by those spending bitcoin and can be avoided by refraining from bitcoin transactions.

Artificially high transaction fees create neither additional money units nor credit, which are the traditional fiat sources of inflation. Rather their effect is to cripple the bitcoin economy by introducing chronic transactional friction, not only cost but unpredictability of transaction execution, and to reduce bitcoin's value by reducing its utility. They are akin to a tax perhaps, but not inflation.

The block size limit shows that bitcoin's strength, its system of PoW, is also its weakness.

The block size limit guarded by a hashpower majority is an unparalleled cartel device. There is no possibility of a miner breaking ranks and accepting lower fees in larger blocks because the rest of the miners will orphan all his blocks. This block size cartel is maintained because miner competition cannot undermine it on the margin; it requires >50% of miners to agree a change together.

I used to think bitcoin had the potential to become the world's universal money, but I no longer see how that can be possible: there is no obvious economic pressure on the miners to lift the block size limit (or any future purely self-serving practice) except external competition, i.e. the prospect of the market abandoning bitcoin for another money. Even that prospect may not be enough if a significant number of miners stand to gain by such an event.

Edit: If bitcoin is to succeed it needs the discipline of competition from competing monies.

[doublepost=1496418189][/doublepost]
What's worse is the bot is wrong
Lol. There's no escape: fallibility wherever you go.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bitsko and solex
BS/Core, Bitcoin's crazy girlfriend.

But I think we're now at the stage where it is: BS/Core, Bitcoin's crazy ex-girlfriend.

I have the impression this analogy can be taken much further.
That's something I thought some time ago. The "style" of some people, like nullc or the mass of core trolls heaviliy reminds me at the darkest moments of my girlfriend and me: Taking everything in discussion to be right and to make the other be guilty of something. Ignore when your are wrong, while ragingly overplaying every mistake of the other. While we have the modus of communication only sometimes a year and than only for a some hours, Gregory and his gang of trolls established this as the standard modi of communication.
 

Norway

Well-Known Member
Sep 29, 2015
2,424
6,410



Hi guys!

I hope you all can come to this special “Gold Collapsing, Bitcoin UP!” event the day before the “The Future of Bitcoin” conference in Arnhem.

No entrance fee on this event, and you can pay for what you eat and drink with bitcoin.

Please let me know if you can make it.

In the next 24 hours, you can still get early bird tickets to the conference here:

https://www.thefutureofbitcoin.com/#tickets

BU members get 50% off on the conference tickets. PM @solex as soon as you can if you want this.
 

Dusty

Active Member
Mar 14, 2016
362
1,172
@Epilido & @Dusty This is just one way to govern one implementation forking is encouraged, forcing political bartering is not. Participation and membership in this one is voluntary unlike other democracies.
What I mean is that voting, like talking, is cheap (and can also directed with false votes, etc), while usually only people with skin in the game should be able to have weight.

For example, if I dislike coin X or want that project to fail I could infiltrate their team as a "voting user" and then vote proposals to raise the money base, it would be good for Bitcoin.
 
Last edited:

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
@Dusty, yes this is the case here. I don't know of a mechanism yet that could be used that is not corruptible. The best solution I know of is to stay alert and sentient. I would be happy to explode other options.

Ultimately the market is in control and that's what we are depending on. It's going to be interesting to see if this is true with bitcoin first BU second. BS/Core, segwit, UASF, people pushing agendas in opposition to their own interests and social engendering this is a microcosm of what we've seen in the real world.

Bitcoin PoW could break the cycle of controle, I think this vulnerability with BU corrupting will be less impactful than the corrupting of BS/Core.
 

Dusty

Active Member
Mar 14, 2016
362
1,172
  • Bitcoin Cored Node ?????????????
I think its this nodejs library interfacing via the usual RPC to bitcoin core: https://github.com/seegno/bitcoin-core
[doublepost=1496480506][/doublepost]
@Dusty, yes this is the case here. I don't know of a mechanism yet that could be used that is not corruptible. The best solution I know of is to stay alert and sentient. I would be happy to explode other options.
I'm with Gavin (and Linus, etc) with this one: a software project must have a clear leader which has the ultimate say on what gets merged and what not.
All the others can publicly (or not) debate the merits of various code enhancements/modules with the aim to show their merit to the person that is the final judge.
And of course a good leader will learn to trust the more worthy developers/advisors/users with time.