Wow, just wow. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h9cq4/its_time_for_a_break_about_the_recent_mess/Thermos has really exposed himself and the rest of the intentions of the LN crew in this post. What is interesting is in the 24 hours he was off over the weekend just how pro-XT /r/bitcoin became. Huge upvotes and a large number of intelligent comments regarding the blocksize debate favoring XT and larger blocks determined by a free market. Then thermos came back and poof, it was as if it never happened. At least the absurdity is fully out in the open Do not violate our rules just because you disagree with them. This will get you banned from /r/Bitcoin, and evading this ban will get you (and maybe your IP) banned from Reddit entirely.
If 90% of /r/Bitcoin users find these policies to be intolerable, then I want these 90% of /r/Bitcoin users to leave. Both /r/Bitcoin and these people will be happier for it. I do not want these people to make threads breaking the rules, demanding change, asking for upvotes, making personal attacks against moderators, etc. Without some real argument, you're not going to convince anyone with any brains -- you're just wasting your time and ours. The temporary rules against blocksize and moderation discussion are in part designed to encourage people who should leave /r/Bitcoin to actually do so so that /r/Bitcoin can get back to the business of discussing Bitcoin news in peace.
Wow indeed. I wonder if we should shut up in this thread too? Decentralized project for th[break] |
|
|
|
About the Satoshi comment: Zeke says:
It's a brilliant comment, made even better by its plausible deniability. If the author really is SN, and he signed it to prove authorship, then he would be invoking personal authority rather than reason to influence the debate. And would also completely undermine even a reformed Gavin, b/c now we would know that SN is waiting in the wings to offer divine guidance. Instead, we have a comment that points out with convincing reasoning that regardless of originalist doctrine, SN's early opinions are not canonical. Furthermore, it is equally plausible that a present-day SN would disagree with the approach of coercing a hard-fork to XT. When you think about it, if Satoshi really had something to say that is exactly how he would do it. Of course the Gavinistas are never going to accept even the slightest possibility it is him seeing the butthurt induced by his comments. Yeah, the real SN would definitely invoke Barack Obama. Confirmed I don't see why he wouldn't? Care to explain your logic? Because you didn't "portray him" that way? I didn't "perceive" him that way? Maybe. He always rose above the political BS and focused on the bolts. And any message delivered in this manner, under the name "Satoshi Nakamoto"... is an ad verecundiam, regardless of whether you are able to contort your mind to believe otherwise. See it appears you either didn't read the post I mentioned or "perceive" Satoshi as a complete idiot. I for one think he's absolutely smart and perfectly conscious that the post would create confusion and that most would simply disregard it as just another scammer using an old, hacked satoshi email account. If we believe this to be true then it should follow that being the wise guy he is, he wouldn't sign the message and "confirm" his identity so that the nature of his message would shine through his action : let ideas stand on their own and stop idolizing idiots. You could say he "walked the walk" exactly to avoid "ad verecundiam". I'm not suggesting I actually believe 100% it was him. "Only god knows". Simply proposing it isn't out of character or a particular stretch of the mind. So brg444 thinks those were the words satoshi has waited so long to tell us. How about you iCE? |
|
|
|
About the Satoshi comment: Zeke says:
It's a brilliant comment, made even better by its plausible deniability. If the author really is SN, and he signed it to prove authorship, then he would be invoking personal authority rather than reason to influence the debate. And would also completely undermine even a reformed Gavin, b/c now we would know that SN is waiting in the wings to offer divine guidance. Instead, we have a comment that points out with convincing reasoning that regardless of originalist doctrine, SN's early opinions are not canonical. Furthermore, it is equally plausible that a present-day SN would disagree with the approach of coercing a hard-fork to XT. When you think about it, if Satoshi really had something to say that is exactly how he would do it. Of course the Gavinistas are never going to accept even the slightest possibility it is him seeing the butthurt induced by his comments. Yeah, the real SN would definitely invoke Barack Obama. Confirmed I don't see why he wouldn't? Care to explain your logic? Because you didn't "portray him" that way? I didn't "perceive" him that way? Maybe. He always rose above the political BS and focused on the bolts. And any message delivered in this manner, under the name "Satoshi Nakamoto"... is an ad verecundiam, regardless of whether you are able to contort your mind to believe otherwise. |
|
|
|
About the Satoshi comment: Zeke says:
It's a brilliant comment, made even better by its plausible deniability. If the author really is SN, and he signed it to prove authorship, then he would be invoking personal authority rather than reason to influence the debate. And would also completely undermine even a reformed Gavin, b/c now we would know that SN is waiting in the wings to offer divine guidance. Instead, we have a comment that points out with convincing reasoning that regardless of originalist doctrine, SN's early opinions are not canonical. Furthermore, it is equally plausible that a present-day SN would disagree with the approach of coercing a hard-fork to XT. When you think about it, if Satoshi really had something to say that is exactly how he would do it. Of course the Gavinistas are never going to accept even the slightest possibility it is him seeing the butthurt induced by his comments. Yeah, the real SN would definitely invoke Barack Obama. Confirmed |
|
|
|
Simple function, 1000 words.
The function is simple. Observing the actual XT adoption curve, though the fog of war and despite weaponized version stamps, is another matter entirely. I'm not surprised you'd rather gloat about the funny picture than address what happens when XT is led down our garden path, into premature aggression and subsequent disaster.  Using the analogy (throwing the hockey stick) was apt before its time.
Core is using XT's own strength (mob rule popularity contests) to thwart its attack. That's elegant judo, not hockey violence.  You foresee multi petahash mining concerns running a client posing as XT just to give MP an orgasm, I don't see it happening that way. |
|
|
|
Can you please get your Theymos Is Literally Hitler narrative sorted out? It's getting confusing.
Im just here observing your desperation curve, wondering where it will intersect the bitcoinXT adoption curve. When t = t*.  Simple function, 1000 words.
Im just here observing your desperation curve, wondering where it will intersect the bitcoinXT adoption curve.
Good luck observing the "bitcoinXT adoption curve." You're going to need it.  We have entered the fog of war, with version stamp weaponization ensuing exactly as I predicted. This is a special fork for those who do not agree with the blocksize scheduled increase as proposed by Gavin and Mike in their divisive altcoin fork, "Bitcoin XT".
This version can be used to protect the status quo until real technical consensus is formed about the blocksize.
This version is indistinguishable from Bitcoin XT 0.11A except that it will not actually hard fork to BIP101, yet appears on the p2p network as Bitcoin XT 0.11A replete with features, yet at a consensus level behaves just like Bitcoin Core 0.11. If it is used to mine, it will produce XT block versions without actually supporting >1MB blocks.
Running this version and/or mining with XT block versions will make it impossible for the Bitcoin XT network to detect the correct switchover and cause a premature fork of anyone foolish enough to support BIP101 without wide consensus from the technical community.
It prevents correct detection of Bitcoin XT adoption in the wild since usage will be known to have been tampered with and thus all statistical data gathered by getnodes can only be considered unreliable. https://github.com/xtbit/notbitcoinxt#not-bitcoin-xtYour move, hearn@sigint.google.mil. Using the analogy (throwing the hockey stick) was apt before its time. |
|
|
|
So somebody dumped 10,000 coins and the price moved ~ six bucks down, bounced back up five and is now holding steady half way up (or down depending on your point of view). Put together with last weekend's more successful dump, that's 50,000 coins to move the price down ~$25 or 2k coins per dollar lower value. And there seems to be diminishing returns.
He should write a book called "How to lose your ass attempting to manipulate the bitcoin market".
my guess is he borrowed those coins from some early adopter off exchange and now he is looking to trying to buy them back without moving the market up so much that he loses money. Good luck with that.
Got to give him credit for his timing though..He probably thought dumping 10k coins among forking/censorship controversy would trigger a cascade of closing longs.Too bad that finex wall ate his coins without flinching.Sometimes walls are real, kids.Don't run head first into them. Yeah, that's twice now. The bidwall is damn real kids. Either the guy runs out of money, or he is laughing as you come to his prices. Errybody's got a limit tho... and why buy here when they'll sell to you even lower? Seems the max_blocksize controversy may have better gifts to give. |
|
|
|
So is everyone supposed to sell their coins and then repurchase them on Bitcoin XT?
And where do you go to buy Bitcoin XT coins?
Just on the contrary! If you buy bitcoins now will give the opportunity to spend same coins twice both on Bitcoin and XT networks in future if there is a split at all. So, if you buy 1 bitcoin now you actually buy 2 bitcoins if XT altcoin succeeds in being true alternative to bitcoin! I don't think this is correct. If curious, this is an example of what will actually happen once bitcoin forks: http://qntra.net/2015/01/the-hard-fork-missile-crisis/There is no fork, until 75% of mining power is making blocks using software that supports more than 2.7tps. Once the fork does happen, Mircea better have some idle petahashes ready to fire up to mine at a (extremely high for <25% hashing power) difficulty. The fork will be quick, and brutal, for those who choose pride over logic. Not surprising that his ego is telling him he can bend the entire network to his will by selling off his coins tho. |
|
|
|
Can somebody explain this to me like I'm a 5 year old:
XT is supposed to make bitcoin futureproof, but how is it going to achieve that, when it can be spammed up to ~1.15gb / day, meaning that it'll take just 100 days for a determined attacker to increase the blockchain to +115gb, and around a year to take it up half a terabyte.
Terabyte hard drives are standard now. A year from now 5 TB drives will be standard. That's a worst case scenario and could still be easily handled. The worst case scenario is that someone starts spamming the blockchain with the 8mb blocks. Then, next thing you know, people will say "ohh these 8mb blocks are full, we need bigger blocks". Then you get 20mb blocks and ~3gb/day of bloat / >1 tb per year. And who is to stop them spamming the 20mb blocks and getting them full too? What's next? We'll be asking for 100mb blocks? This is madness. Personally I don't believe that even the 750k/1mb blocks are full by legitimate transactions and not bogus transactions. I believe these bogus transactions are created to stir a "debate" about "ohh we need bigger blocks" and stuff so that we can then go on and shoot ourselves in the foot by "accepting" larger blocks as the "natural evolution". We have to deal with a reality here: Big banks, credit cards, swift etc, don't want BTC to succeed. Bloating it is a very cheap way they can use to kill it. It's much cheaper than a 51% and cheaper than manipulating the BTC market. And it will be FAAAAAAAAAR cheaper to enable that attack vector with 8mb or 20mb blocks. 1MB blocks actually incentivize a spammer, as we saw during the tx spam exercises of the last weeks. Reason: it's much cheaper to do. Spammers get their transactions (and attached fees) kicked out of the mempool after not getting into maxed out blocks. This allows them to just do it over and over again, much more cheaply than if those tx were actually included in a block with their fees collected by the miners. The scenario you propose would be much more expensive to sustain with larger blocks, with that increased expense going to the miners. Node concentration is a concern with more demanding requirements for running a full node, and should not be ignored, but staying at 2.7 tx per second to infinity is potentially much more damaging to this grand experiment. We'll never know how it might impact node count and concentration unless we do a modest increase and measure the result. The intransigence and vitriol coming from MP, the PR gal, and his toadies is a sign of the weakness inherent in their position. Rather than appeal to reasoned judgement, it devolves into name calling and fear mongering in a grand ego stroking exercise. There will be no larger blocks unless 75% of solved blocks are made by nodes supporting >1MB, this means consensus will have already happened, and the orphaned chain will die quickly as <25% of hashing power will face an impossible difficulty. My prediction is that the 25% will quickly upgrade so they are mining the chain that will actually be worth something. There's no question this debate and stalemate has been impacting confidence in the exchange rate, and rightly so. On a positive note, once this is settled and Bitcoin has a tx throughput that isn't laughable for a global p2p digital cash system... the fear dissolves and we can dust off those old moon boots. |
|
|
|
I want to see the entire order book only of the exchange I'm trading with! Where did I say that I want to see the order book of all the other hundreds of bitcoin exchanges simultaneously?
Then trade on a platform that allows that. As said not every stock/forex broker allows you to see their order books. Your argument doesn't make sense
No, your argument doesn't make sense. What you're basically saying is - blind people are more difficult to manipulate than people capable of seeing every activity around? Is that really what you're trying to convince me?
If the whole order book is hidden then there is no way at all to manipulate anybody just by using the order books. If you are able to see the entire books then there is the ability to manipulate people using the order books with fake orders that the owners have no intentions of being filled. Is this incorrect?  |
|
|
|
Think of it like this : if the 1% of the world's population who apparently controls around 40% of the world's wealth moved that money into Bitcoin it would do more to strengthen & grow the ecosystem than if 25% of the other people on earth invested all of their savings. Chew on this one for a bit and see what comes out of it when you're done. It's not exactly a viewpoint but pretty much matter of fact. I did, seems idealistic, imitating people that divide the market cap of gold by the number of bitcoins. The few top 1% wealth owners I've met seem highly unlikely to convert their entire net worth to private keys, storing m of n in various places, subject to destruction, theft, and system collapse with zero recourse. "Large streams from little fountains flow, Tall oaks from little acorns grow." |
|
|
|
 Is AAPL competing with fiat as money? Sorry but that's such a stupid thing to say. I'm sure you can do better than this... Let me ask you. Did the current 1B$ ecosystem investment, equivalent billion dollar mining infrastructure, incremental userbase and increasing transactions come before or after the price increase? Of course I'm being silly and hyperbolic, but only to illustrate that market cap isn't some "build it and they will come" metric. There is a feedback loop between price and user growth, but it can only be sustained with growing utility. "Yikes" You still don't get it. Stop thinking in terms of users. Think in terms of capital. This is not Facebook. market cap isn't some "build it and they will come" metric.
On the contrary, when it comes to money (or networks for that matter) it seemingly works this way. Let me borrow from the Facebook example again : create a huge network of people and they will come. Create a huge network of money and you will attract wealth. Look I'm not neglecting the positive added effect of these other feedback loops you are referring too. Merely downplaying their importance for the time being as some people have seemingly lost their eyes from the prize. "When the wise man points at the moon, the fool looks at the finger." Who plows capital into the ecosystem other than users? More of them = more available capital. More utility = more users. You still don't get it and I'm done trying... for today. I respect your viewpoint, I just don't completely share it. |
|
|
|
Is AAPL competing with fiat as money? Sorry but that's such a stupid thing to say. I'm sure you can do better than this... Let me ask you. Did the current 1B$ ecosystem investment, equivalent billion dollar mining infrastructure, incremental userbase and increasing transactions come before or after the price increase? Of course I'm being silly and hyperbolic, but only to illustrate that market cap isn't some "build it and they will come" metric. There is a feedback loop between price and user growth, but it can only be sustained with growing utility. |
|
|
|
Not at all. It's not hard to understand really..
The thing holding other crypto back is the amount of capital people are willing to trust to them. Not necessarily the amount of users. The increasing ecosystem size is a result of capital, speculative or not, being stored into Bitcoin. As far as the nature of the speculation this is beside the point which is that Bitcoin is not used, as we speak, as a medium of exchange to purchase goods or services.
People are not buying Bitcoin because the number of transactions or users is seemingly increasing. They are buying because it attracts wealth unlike what most other coins can claim.
I've stated this repeatedly but I honestly believe it to be true: we are talking about a money protocol, a money network effect. the unit concerned is not number of users but amount of capital.
Think of it like this : if the 1% of the world's population who apparently controls around 40% of the world's wealth moved that money into Bitcoin it would do more to strengthen & grow the ecosystem than if 25% of the other people on earth invested all of their savings.
Capital flowing into Bitcoin is absolutely about expected future growth, in users, transactions, market cap, and in usefulness. Hard for me to comprehend how you can even divorce these metrics. Remaining the domain of 10,000 geeks sitting on hordes of coins in paper wallets, occasionally trading some back and forth with each other... means failure to me. Not that it would fail to work, but that it would fail to reach its potential. This is not to say that user/transaction growth is some kind of panacea to be pursued at all costs, just that it shouldn't be ignored. Yes. And much like the others your mischaracterize the only growth we are really concerned about : market cap, or how much of the fiat economy we have absorbed. As I've said previously I couldn't care less if it comes from the pockets of the 1% or the 99%. More fiat capital trusting Bitcoin as money is exactly how it grows until it consumes all of wealth in the world. Users, transactions are secondary. They will follow the money because like any thing worth a lot in this world people will want a piece of it. Velocity of transactions will pickup once an actual Bitcoin economy develops. Meanwhile people will hoard Bitcoin and get rid of fiat. Some might not agree but this is pretty much Gresham's law in action. While you may not consider them "panacea to be pursued at all costs", others have outright stated this is the ONLY goal to be pursuing and that it should be done as quickly as possible. They would like to run Bitcoin like a startup. This is IMO the wrong way to go about it. You say I mischaracterize the importance of market cap growth, I say I simply try to describe some of the forces behind market cap. Do you see a scenario where market cap goes up while the number of users, transactions, applications, and merchants... goes down? I did not say anything about your characterization of market cap but of growth. Or more precisely, the driver of growth. No I don't see a scenario where that happens. What I am observing though is market cap going up and users, transactions and merchants following. So AAPL's market cap growth is a feedback loop in which it ultimately consumes the entirety of global wealth... before bitcoin! Yikes! |
|
|
|
Not at all. It's not hard to understand really..
The thing holding other crypto back is the amount of capital people are willing to trust to them. Not necessarily the amount of users. The increasing ecosystem size is a result of capital, speculative or not, being stored into Bitcoin. As far as the nature of the speculation this is beside the point which is that Bitcoin is not used, as we speak, as a medium of exchange to purchase goods or services.
People are not buying Bitcoin because the number of transactions or users is seemingly increasing. They are buying because it attracts wealth unlike what most other coins can claim.
I've stated this repeatedly but I honestly believe it to be true: we are talking about a money protocol, a money network effect. the unit concerned is not number of users but amount of capital.
Think of it like this : if the 1% of the world's population who apparently controls around 40% of the world's wealth moved that money into Bitcoin it would do more to strengthen & grow the ecosystem than if 25% of the other people on earth invested all of their savings.
Capital flowing into Bitcoin is absolutely about expected future growth, in users, transactions, market cap, and in usefulness. Hard for me to comprehend how you can even divorce these metrics. Remaining the domain of 10,000 geeks sitting on hordes of coins in paper wallets, occasionally trading some back and forth with each other... means failure to me. Not that it would fail to work, but that it would fail to reach its potential. This is not to say that user/transaction growth is some kind of panacea to be pursued at all costs, just that it shouldn't be ignored. Yes. And much like the others your mischaracterize the only growth we are really concerned about : market cap, or how much of the fiat economy we have absorbed. As I've said previously I couldn't care less if it comes from the pockets of the 1% or the 99%. More fiat capital trusting Bitcoin as money is exactly how it grows until it consumes all of wealth in the world. Users, transactions are secondary. They will follow the money because like any thing worth a lot in this world people will want a piece of it. Velocity of transactions will pickup once an actual Bitcoin economy develops. Meanwhile people will hoard Bitcoin and get rid of fiat. Some might not agree but this is pretty much Gresham's law in action. While you may not consider them "panacea to be pursued at all costs", others have outright stated this is the ONLY goal to be pursuing and that it should be done as quickly as possible. They would like to run Bitcoin like a startup. This is IMO the wrong way to go about it. You say I mischaracterize the importance of market cap growth, I say I simply try to describe some of the forces behind market cap. Do you see a scenario where market cap goes up while the number of users, transactions, applications, and merchants... goes down? |
|
|
|
|
The bid tsunami on finex seems to have been gotten slightly shorter, 21k to ~18k protecting mid 240's. Ho-hum as jimbo would say, let's see if the weekend brings some volume.
Remember bitcoiners:
"There is neither happiness nor misery in the world; there is only the comparison of one state with another, nothing more. He who has felt the deepest grief is best able to experience supreme happiness."
See... dramatic unrealized losses are the key to true success! Chin up!
|
|
|
|
Not at all. It's not hard to understand really..
The thing holding other crypto back is the amount of capital people are willing to trust to them. Not necessarily the amount of users. The increasing ecosystem size is a result of capital, speculative or not, being stored into Bitcoin. As far as the nature of the speculation this is beside the point which is that Bitcoin is not used, as we speak, as a medium of exchange to purchase goods or services.
People are not buying Bitcoin because the number of transactions or users is seemingly increasing. They are buying because it attracts wealth unlike what most other coins can claim.
I've stated this repeatedly but I honestly believe it to be true: we are talking about a money protocol, a money network effect. the unit concerned is not number of users but amount of capital.
Think of it like this : if the 1% of the world's population who apparently controls around 40% of the world's wealth moved that money into Bitcoin it would do more to strengthen & grow the ecosystem than if 25% of the other people on earth invested all of their savings.
Capital flowing into Bitcoin is absolutely about expected future growth, in users, transactions, market cap, and in usefulness. Hard for me to comprehend how you can even divorce these metrics. Remaining the domain of 10,000 geeks sitting on hordes of coins in paper wallets, occasionally trading some back and forth with each other... means failure to me. Not that it would fail to work, but that it would fail to reach its potential. This is not to say that user/transaction growth is some kind of panacea to be pursued at all costs, just that it shouldn't be ignored. |
|
|
|
If billyjoeallen says we're going to $230 I'm highly considering selling and making a nice profit.
Battered bull syndrome. |
|
|
|
The max_blocksize debate takes a big step forward. All the major chinese pools voting for 8MB blocks by stamping the blocks they are mining. This plus chinese devaluation = UP.
The big miners are always going to want 8mb blocks, they have the economic incentive to as they can punish the smaller miners by not relaying their solved blocks to them and with the added bandwith needed to relay the larger blocks the big miners only relaying their blocks to the big miners reduces competition and centralizes even more. Are there really small miners anymore? Even the small guys point at big pools. If anything, the remote mines in china may be at a disadvantage compared to locations with better bandwidth. The concern with big blocks isn't the mining nodes, it's just the regular nodes. People worry about a percentage of them shutting down after balking at increased network costs leading to more centralization on a relaying node (vs mining node) level. It's definitely not resolved yet, but progress is good, markets hate uncertainty. |
|
|
|
|
The max_blocksize debate takes a big step forward. All the major chinese pools voting for 8MB blocks by stamping the blocks they are mining. This plus chinese devaluation = UP.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
