Very much interested in hearing rebuttals which take into account the human psychology and stay on the ground of voluntarism  Unifying two topics here. A hard fork is in some ways akin to the creation of a new alt. A difference being that it happening fairly rapidly where one of the chains typically survives at the expense of the other. Rare events such as a hard fork are edge cases wherein unique opportunities for mischief present themselves. Some of these are fairly obvious others are less obvious. Certainly there are ways to amplify an economic attack through various types of DDoS as has been often done in the past. These should be well and fully anticipated, especially by exchanges, and most especially by exchanges that may deal with both forks. |
|
|
|
If I was those people I'd buy BTC from these little markets (Coinbase, Bitstamp & others) then sell for a 2x profit on OTCmarkets.
The catch is that you must give the bitcoins to Grayscale, they will give you fresh BIT shares, and you must keep them for 1 year before you can sell them on the OTCQX market. Good luck... If this is true, then it explains a lot, regarding the difference from the exchanges. Do you have any source about this info? I constantly kept scratching my head why this is happening... Weird that after hodling for a year, that they aren't being loaned out for shorting. I would expect the hodlers would welcome the interest and wouldn't mind more forced hodling. |
|
|
|
"The Avocado Number is a constant contained in one of Dave McClain's moles."
It takes 6.022 Avacados to make a Guaca- mole. |
|
|
|
O.E. docga, a late, rare word used of a powerful breed of canine. It forced out O.E. hund (the general Germanic and IE word; see canine) by 16c. and subsequently was picked up in many continental languages (cf. Fr. dogue (16c.), Dan. dogge), but the origin remains one of the great mysteries of English etymology.
The Walrus has the longest canines, which can reach a length of 1 m (3 ft 3 in) and weigh up to 5.4 kg (12 lb). |
|
|
|
I'm surprised that there aren't more folks moving BTC short plays to GBTC and taking advantage of the gap. Or even go long BTC and short GBTC. Free straddles, and you hold the more secure asset, the BTC. |
|
|
|
On the other hand, its quite possible that he was not trying to replace credit cards, only bank accounts and wire transfers... Replacing credit card internet transactions was a part of the initial vision. |
|
|
|
I agree this has potential. It'd be a clean, permanent solution with nothing arbitrary about it. Sometimes we just don't see the simple things? Too-large-blocks are already disincentivized by their slow propagation and resulting higher orphan risk. I read that many pools already use a "soft limit" well below 1 MB because of this. It would probably make most sense for a miner to calculate the cost of the orphan risk (needs some assumptions, I guess) and contrast that with the potential additional tx fees being earned and make tx inclusion decisions based on that calculation. what will happen when block propagation will be O(1)? (see: https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/e20c3b5a1d4b97f79ac2) The scenario was discussed at length. The most obvious risk is that the larger pools could easily drive others out by pumping up the sizes creating more centralization. Essentially a bandwidth attack. |
|
|
|
The age old model is that when the banks get out of control, a few fail (or a few hundred) and it resets as the survivors scoop up the remains. Now with the use of state power, they have taxpayer funded bailouts, bail-ins and all sorts of new ways to destroy wealth.
It was the emergence of the "Too Big To Fail" policy which created this and was effectively codified into law with the LTCM bailout in the late 1990s. To Big To Fail = disabling the clearing mechanism which is necessary for a functioning capitalist society. If you are too big to fail, then you can do anything and be as inefficient as possible, but that inefficiency will never be cleared out of the market. The creation of the FED in 1913 was essentially to formation of a too big to fail policy at the government level (before the US gov would have to go for bailouts itself). But as you pointed out banks and other industry were still allowed to fail. This stopped in the 1990s and TBTF was extended to corporations, which is why every corporate entity from banks to auto manufactures (i.e. GM/Chrysler) have tried to position themselves as too big to fail. This will continue until the dollar fails, effectively destroying the too big to fail enabler. Perfectly stated. TBTF has also been added on the other side of the dollar though with the IMF SDRs (XDR), so we get to break the world now, not just the United States. Here's how: As you noted, LTCM was the catalyst for the smaller side TBTF. Since this happened after we already had the fall of USSR from bond failures, the USA certainly has had a similar risk. XDR are still a small percentage of FOREX trade, but as the USD gets closer to a potential fail point we should see that percentage grow. Jim Rickards postulates that the US might do a gold bail-in and initiate a new gold standard, but I suspect that would be a last resort after the XDR TBTF pops. He details the process the US could use to accomplish this quite well at the end of his last book. Its feasible. Bitcoin could also potentially fill that spot if investment continues to advance. |
|
|
|
LOL! End boom and bust by sticking only to bust? The more they squeeze though, the more that making a compelling case for Bitcoin to everyone who learns of it becomes easy. |
|
|
|
So funny.
Try not to pretend that you know my thoughts, especially if it makes you sad.
Then take a look at the cypherpunk manifesto someday.
Bitcoin is part of the path to making government obsolete and unnecessary.
Also, when the possibility of corruption in government is diminished, it reduces the incentive for corrupt people to promote government powers.
Even with no government, you still don't want random people parking on your flowerbed, right?
Yes but there are more efficient ways to make people do the right thing than: hiring thugs to enforce it (cops), who get paid by stolen money (tax) or counterfeited money (central bank) and whoever opposes their authority gets put in a cage (correctional facility) or get killed. It seems lunatic if you really think about what they really are, but all those kind words and euphemisms makes you think that we live in a pink world. Yes, it is a weird trick our minds play upon us. For example, we pretend that we are not personally responsible when our police kills one of our citizens. |
|
|
|
As of April 8, 2015
(Updated April 10, 2015)
Total Cases (Suspected, Probable, and Confirmed): 25,591
Laboratory-Confirmed Cases: 14,839
Total Deaths: 10,602
As of April 21, 2015 (Updated April 23, 2015) Total Cases (Suspected, Probable, and Confirmed): 26,109 Laboratory-Confirmed Cases: 14,909 Total Deaths: 10,835 As of May 10, 2015 (Updated May 12, 2015) Total Cases (Suspected, Probable, and Confirmed): 26,759 Laboratory-Confirmed Cases: 14,955 Total Deaths: 11,080 |
|
|
|
They exchange function for confidence, the real for the prettier illusion.
I suppose it is a risk... If you are running such a really long con, even your successors might fall for it.
100 years is such a long time that anyone working at a CB has to believe that they are following tried and tested principles. What saved the long con for so long was the 20th century population boom and technological revolutions. Those two factors created wealth at a faster rate than the central banks could destroy it. So much so, that it wasn't apparent to anyone that the central banks were destroying wealth at all. That no longer appears to be the case. I like this view. Its pretty accurate. In the last decade though, they have been getting pretty greedy. The TARP bailout sort of broke the model harshly in their favor. The age old model is that when the banks get out of control, a few fail (or a few hundred) and it resets as the survivors scoop up the remains. Now with the use of state power, they have taxpayer funded bailouts, bail-ins and all sorts of new ways to destroy wealth. The war on cash includes most of the AML powers along with it. When the reporting requirement of US$10K was enacted in the 70's it was quite a chunk of cash. Now with a bit of inflation mixed in, it is not an uncommon monthly pay for folks in large US cities. But that isn't happening fast enough, so banks must keep a record of transactions as small as US$1K cash and report on as small as US$2K transactions. http://www.fincen.gov/financial_institutions/msb/materials/en/bank_reference.htmlCurrency Exchanges of More Than $1,000
Currency exchangers must keep a record of each exchange totaling more than $1,000 in either domestic or foreign currency.
How to record a currency exchange:
1. Record customer information.
2. Record transaction information.
3. Keep the record for 5 years from the date of transaction.
Suspicious Activity Reporting Requirements
Certain money services businesses – businesses that provide money transfers or currency dealing or exchange; or businesses that issue, sell, or redeem money orders or traveler’s checks – must report suspicious activity involving any transaction or pattern of transactions at or above a certain amount:
$2,000 or more;
$5,000 or more for issuers reviewing clearance records.
You have 30 calendar days to file a SAR after becoming aware of any suspicious transaction that is required to be reported. |
|
|
|
To me they seem less depressing and more simply incomprehensible.
Could you be more specific please? Because my posts were very specific. You have not stated what specifically I enumerated which you think is incomprehensible? And you post the following which supports my thesis: Incomprehensible likely because I've not yet discovered your thesis. Thus, I'm not arguing for or against you. The war on cash has been long and ongoing. Bitcoin is as of now the most stalwart defense, but it is in its infancy. From what I've gleened so far, I would offer this observation: It fundamentally does NOT require any conspiracy when incentives are naturally aligned, (as they are with the many governments beholden to central banks). These entities do not even need to collude. Basic economics and game theory teaches us this, if nothing else. |
|
|
|
P.S. apologies if my posts are depressing. I am realistic, optimist. Meaning I see the cup as half full when it is. But when it is empty, I call a spade a spade. I hope to present a half-full option soon that I can be inspired about...
To me they seem less depressing and more simply incomprehensible. You may well be a smart fellow with your eyes open, but these seem more http://www.godlikeproductions.com/ type messages. Not sure at all what you are saying other than that there are big bad powerful things to fear out there somewhere. |
|
|
|
What the US traded was a series of small but easily recoverable busts that continuously cleansed out the system, for a system that appears stable but in reality is not, the series of small busts are simply being allowed to build into one massive bust.
They exchange function for confidence, the real for the prettier illusion. I suppose it is a risk... If you are running such a really long con, even your successors might fall for it. |
|
|
|
Richard Gendal Brown, who i've never been fond of b/c of his misperceptions around Bitcoin, may be finally getting it:
So, sure: bitcoin raises all kinds of conceptual, legal, technical and philosophical questions. But it would only take one of these scenarios to drive some adoption and, very quickly, bitcoin might cease to be a sideshow. And, given that its core design goal of censorship-resistant digital cash has such disruptive potential – good and bad, this possibility alone is reason to keep an eye on it. Dismissing it entirely could be a big mistake.http://gendal.me/2015/05/12/blockchain-is-where-banks-have-the-most-obvious-opportunity-but-you-ignore-bitcoin-at-your-peril/Now that the "headline risk" is diminished, there will likely be all sorts of new converts. It is going to get interesting. |
|
|
|
Gold is tangible asset. Hard to convince older generation to hold bitcoin.
its impossible  I resemble that remark. But then I was convinced long before you'd even heard of it. |
|
|
|
Those sexy diagrams are a helpful addition. I've always enjoyed the ongoing romance of Alice and Bob. |
|
|
|
Cypherdoc while I still am "for" sidechains from a technical perspective, I'm beginning to think that you are correct that sidechains (etc) presents a conflict of interest for some core devs. Ideally one could make bitcoin the best that it can be and use sidechains for things that are impossible for bitcoin to do. However resistance to the 20MB change seems to me like people want bitcoin to be reduced to Gold's role -- backing a lot of other layers (lightning network, changetip, certain sidechains) that are what is actually used. This opens up space for these other layers to make money.
And so we will end up with the all the same issues with services we have today because these for-profit corporate backed layers will be taking their piece of the pie, limiting transactional freedom, and confiscating balances at the whim of TPTB.
My guess is that this blogging avalanche of Gavin's is basically his way of saying that he's going to fight this one "to the death".
I hope he does. I very strongly advocated AGAINST ALL his previous proposals. I'd have sold out of the fork and stayed on the 1mb chain until a better solution was made. He answered all my concerns with this one. I'm on board. It does little enough and gives us room to develop the necessary pieces for getting further. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
