Even more: Adam once claimed that the LN would achieve 10'000 transactions for every blockchain transaction. Leaving aside what that would mean for the coin lock-in periods of the channels, the rate of 1:10'000 is so close to 0:10'000 that no one would notice if the LN just dropped bitcoin altogether, and from then on just shuffled its "cryptochecks" around indefinitely, without ever settling them.
Of course, LN users would never accept that. It would be like that time when the US government decided that dollars would no longer be convertible to gold or silver. We all remember the revolts in the streets, and the huge bonfires where enraged dollar holders burned their then-worthless bills. Right?
Conversely 1:10000 is so close to 0:10000 that you might as well just leave it on the Bitcoin blockchain. The benefit of not doing so would be negligible. I don't follow, smooth. Are you being sarcastic? Not at all. JorgeStolfi was saying that if you settle to the Bitcoin blockchain only 1/10000 of your tx then you might as well not do it at all and use a fiat LN system. I'm saying that at 1/10000 of your tx, the cost of using real Bitcoin (even with, hypothetically, expensive BTC transactions) would be so low there is no reason not to just stay with Bitcoin. I don't think people will want fiat LN. |
|
|
|
Also: All the Tetris blocks seem to be lining up for Monero this year - seriously.
I wanna see a screen shot. And the minimum quality standard is CryptoNote Gauntlet. |
|
|
|
Shorts are being bent over and spanked. New monthly high achievement unlocked.
There are hardly any shorts (despite no shortage of people who talk as if they would). I've watched the lending market and seen almost no demand, and relatively little supply. There may be off-exchange shorts, for example, people who sold hoping to buy lower, and are now risking a spanking by the FOMO paddle. |
|
|
|
Even more: Adam once claimed that the LN would achieve 10'000 transactions for every blockchain transaction. Leaving aside what that would mean for the coin lock-in periods of the channels, the rate of 1:10'000 is so close to 0:10'000 that no one would notice if the LN just dropped bitcoin altogether, and from then on just shuffled its "cryptochecks" around indefinitely, without ever settling them.
Of course, LN users would never accept that. It would be like that time when the US government decided that dollars would no longer be convertible to gold or silver. We all remember the revolts in the streets, and the huge bonfires where enraged dollar holders burned their then-worthless bills. Right?
Conversely 1:10000 is so close to 0:10000 that you might as well just leave it on the Bitcoin blockchain. The benefit of not doing so would be negligible. BTW, I'm pretty sure the LN people have stated that block size increases of some sort would be needed. I don't know where Blockstream stands on this. Maybe they want people to anchor their channels on their Improved Bitcoin Sidealtchain instead of Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
I first read about bitcoin in Wired when bitcoin was about $6-8 in 2011
The story in Wired that got a lot of attention (and introduced many people to Bitcoin) was late 2011. It was a large review (maybe cover?) that included the history of Satoshi, etc., the pump, the MtGox hack, etc. The price had hit $30 earlier that year and was on its way down to $2 or whatever the low ended up being after another year or so. Still I guess $6-8 when the article came out. The one I read was before the bubble. Let me just find it EDIT: Here it is. The article came out just before the bubble: http://www.wired.com/2011/06/silkroad-2/Price was $8.67 according the article. Ah okay, I hadn't seen that one. The pump started in late April though (maybe Silk Road becoming popular?). The price as of April 15 was still $1, and arguably even back in October ($0.06). Maybe the Wired piece did contribute to the blow-off high at $30 though. More to do the point, do you agree with my perception that the next pump that attracts mainstream media attention will be much, much bigger? Yes, I've made some posts about how I think the recurring bubble cycle is based partly on the bitcoin hype expanding into increasingly wider demographics through different media outlets, starting with cryptoanarchists and STEM guys hearing about bitcoin from Slashdot getting us to $1, and then Silk Road/Gawker/Wired geeks getting us to double digits, and so on. We have a lot more demographics that we can expand into. We still haven't seriously broken into the worldwide baby boomer demographic at all. We haven't broken into Japan at all. There are 450,000+ millionaires in Tokyo alone. Almost all babyboomers. How many of them own bitcoin? We can probably round the number down to zero. The yen is the third biggest currency in the world. We haven't cracked it at all. We have very few women owning any bitcoin. We actually haven't really broken into China. If Chinese retail investors were buying bitcoin like they were buying Chinese stocks in 2015, we would've broken $20,000 easily. All we did in 2013 was break into the Chinese geek population. If we can break out into the wealthy babyboomer demographic and get them buying bitcoins like they were buying real estate or dotcom stocks, then we could have a media hype cycle and bubble that could dwarf anything we've seen. The problem is that they are going to be the hardest demographic to crack. The previous bubbles were low hanging fruit. Of course we could get the DollarVigilante, Max Keiser, Wired/Gawker, Zerohedge, PirateParty, Wikileaks guys on board. The delay between the last bubble in November 2013 and the next real hype cycle goes to show how difficult it is to crack the next demographic nut. Good analysis. Is there another intermediate stage? |
|
|
|
What happens if the MSM refuses to cover Monero (or any altcoin)? Can an altcoin overcome any way?
Okay good angle. Did Bittorrent become popular without MSM coverage? I'm not really sure. Is Bittorrent as popular as Bitcoin? Bittorrent is more popular than Bitcoin by a wide margin. I've seen reports of 30 million Bittorrent nodes at times, and that does not include all users. |
|
|
|
Mainstream covers stuff, including Bitcoin, that bubbles (or sometimes crashes). Other than that they mostly ignore it.
Huh? Afair CNBC was having roundtable discussions about it. During the bubble for sure. Every fucking day. Before the bubble, no. That is precisely when you pump a bubble to drive the price to $1000+ so your Chinese miners can rape it all the way down. And we've already established the MSM were helping lay the ground work of marketing awareness before the 2013 bubble. Seems there were also some stories when Bitcoin broke back above $10 again. Okay let's assume this unprovable and undisprovable theory might be true. Can we get back on topic. That means either relating it directly to Monero or not discussing it here any more. |
|
|
|
Mainstream covers stuff, including Bitcoin, that bubbles (or sometimes crashes). Other than that they mostly ignore it.
Huh? Afair CNBC was having roundtable discussions about it. During the bubble for sure. Every fucking day (maybe not a roundtable but I really do think they had at least one guest or host discussing it literally every day). Before the bubble, no. |
|
|
|
I hope we can get to the bottom of this. I am curious. Wish we had more hard data to work with. I am very sleepless at the moment, so I can't really think clearly.
A lot depends on your definition of mainstream. If you think it encompasses all manner of things including techie news, precious metals, alex jones, etc. then I guess I'd probably agree there was some element of pumping to it. Obviously people became aware of Bitcoin somehow, and while there was some word of mouth, there was also tech news, some blogs, probably precious metal stuff, etc. Those sources were around in 2011 and early 2013 and probably were early to the game reporting the late 2013 pump (and reporting on the halvening). If you define it as the way the middle 80% (say within one sigma of average ordinary people on whatever sort of spectrum you want to use) get their information, then I don't agree it had anything to do with it. Yet. |
|
|
|
From bitmonerod screen IP 190.154.236.3 blocked
IP 194.125.224.2 blocked Why were those IPs blocked? Misbehaving or unreachable nodes. Your node will stop trying to connect to them or stop accepting connections from them for 24 hours, then will allow retrying (after which they might get banned again if the problem persists) |
|
|
|
I first read about bitcoin in Wired when bitcoin was about $6-8 in 2011
The story in Wired that got a lot of attention (and introduced many people to Bitcoin) was late 2011. It was a large review (maybe cover?) that included the history of Satoshi, etc., the pump, the MtGox hack, etc. The price had hit $30 earlier that year and was on its way down to $2 or whatever the low ended up being after another year or so. Still I guess $6-8 when the article came out. The one I read was before the bubble. Let me just find it EDIT: Here it is. The article came out just before the bubble: http://www.wired.com/2011/06/silkroad-2/Price was $8.67 according the article. Ah okay, I hadn't seen that one. The pump started in late April though (maybe Silk Road becoming popular?). The price as of April 15 was still $1, and arguably even back in October ($0.06). Maybe the Wired piece did contribute to the blow-off high at $30 though. More to do the point, do you agree with my perception that the next pump that attracts mainstream media attention will be much, much bigger? I think we discussed this here recently. Some say it will take a new ATH. I think $1000 is enough. |
|
|
|
I first read about bitcoin in Wired when bitcoin was about $6-8 in 2011
The story in Wired that got a lot of attention (and introduced many people to Bitcoin) was late 2011. It was a large review (maybe cover?) that included the history of Satoshi, etc., the pump, the MtGox hack, etc. The price had hit $30 earlier that year and was on its way down to $2 or whatever the low ended up being a year or so after the first pump. Still I guess $6-8 when the article came out. |
|
|
|
I remember that Wired article too which I had read some of. But I heard about the 10,000 BTC for pizza when it occurred. If slashdot was the only source to publish that, it somehow was showing up in my Google searches and other MSM ways that I was connecting to news.
The pizza was in 2010. If you heard about when it occurred, that was at a time when there was even less coverage. You can't say that just because the news source is slashdot, that the MSM weren't promoting it.
Slashdot didn't spread to me by word of mouth!! Rpietila didn't tell me. I wasn't talking to anyone else in the tech industry at that time.
Perhaps I read it on Alex Jones which is very MSM.
Okay, so anything you read is mainstream media. I'll stick with the conventional definition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_mediaI don't know whether Alex Jones mentioned it in 2010 or who did (quite possibly some precious metals sites -- again I wouldn't call those mainstream media, but maybe you would). I can say that most of the people trading Bitcoin in 2011 were just actual regular old Bitcoiners. People who had been around for a while, downloaded the Satoshi client, did mining, etc. People who would have been hypothetically pumped in by mainstream media wouldn't have even had any idea how to buy it if they wanted to, unless highly motivated and at least somewhat techie. Did you ever try the MtGox UI? Enough said. There was no Mainstream Media Pump in 2011 or early 2013 in my opnion as a participant. Late 2013 is debatable, but I still doubt it. If it happens that way it will be the next one. Now that's a different story entirely. There was no Coinbase (existed by barely usable in 2013), Gemini, etc. back then. Now there is. Look out above (XMR too). |
|
|
|
Edit: haven't you been slightly suspicious of why the MSM publicized Bitcoin so much. That doesn't happen without the approval the global elite.
No, because they really didn't. They started covering it only after it starting making new highs in 2013. They covered a bit of the Silk Road and MtGox stuff, but never in a manner that promoted Bitcoin at all. The latter was often mis-reported as Bitcoin having failed or gone bankrupt or something. Since the price sagged in 2014, they barely cover it at all. Occasionally there is something in business news (WSJ, Bloomberg, etc.) but that's about it. Hearn's piece in the NYT was unusual, and again negative. A lot of the (business) coverage now avoids mentioning Bitcoin at all and talks about "the blockchain" (of course, that's where most of the VC money is going too). I don't see the MSM promoting Bitcoin at all. If Bitcoin enjoys further success from here it will without (short term) help from MSM/elite. You can still find non-tech people or even some tech people who have never heard of it, or think it failed in 2014. Some techie I know outside of crypto recently owed me $20. I asked if he wanted to send Bitcoin instead of Paypal, etc. and he had no clue whatsoever. Pretty common. The MSM drove the bubble in 2013. That's not my recollection at all, and I was here, actively mining and trading. They were late to it. Followers, not drivers. Oh come on I joined the forum in March 2013, because the fervor was picking up steam. And the MSM did the 10,000 bitcoins for one pizza promotion that drove the first bubble. The first bubble was in mid 2011. I was here for that too. There was NO mainstream coverage at all. Incorrect: http://web.archive.org/web/20110627061856/http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2011/06/14/wikileaks-asks-for-anonymous-bitcoin-donations/Now I remember that story too. I was sort of aware of Wikileaks and when I heard that, it added fuel to my building awareness of Bitcoin as a phenomenon. You see only what you want to see. That is a problem with objectivity. That story was already post-bubble! The bubble ran from mid May to June 15, 2011, when MtGox was hacked. From then onward it was a long, long, long, cold winter. EDIT: Look like peak was actually a bit earlier, June 9, although I don't have high confidence in chart data from 2011 being accurate. EDIT 2: If you click through to that blog post, the same author wrote another one in April, so there was SOME coverage, but realistically very little. |
|
|
|
Edit: haven't you been slightly suspicious of why the MSM publicized Bitcoin so much. That doesn't happen without the approval the global elite.
No, because they really didn't. They started covering it only after it starting making new highs in 2013. They covered a bit of the Silk Road and MtGox stuff, but never in a manner that promoted Bitcoin at all. The latter was often mis-reported as Bitcoin having failed or gone bankrupt or something. Since the price sagged in 2014, they barely cover it at all. Occasionally there is something in business news (WSJ, Bloomberg, etc.) but that's about it. Hearn's piece in the NYT was unusual, and again negative. A lot of the (business) coverage now avoids mentioning Bitcoin at all and talks about "the blockchain" (of course, that's where most of the VC money is going too). I don't see the MSM promoting Bitcoin at all. If Bitcoin enjoys further success from here it will without (short term) help from MSM/elite. You can still find non-tech people or even some tech people who have never heard of it, or think it failed in 2014. Some techie I know outside of crypto recently owed me $20. I asked if he wanted to send Bitcoin instead of Paypal, etc. and he had no clue whatsoever. Pretty common. The MSM drove the bubble in 2013. That's not my recollection at all, and I was here, actively mining and trading. They were late to it. Followers, not drivers. Oh come on I joined the forum in March 2013, because the fervor was picking up steam. And the MSM did the 10,000 bitcoins for one pizza promotion that drove the first bubble. The first bubble was in mid 2011. I was here for that too. There was NO mainstream coverage at all. If you didn't find out about it from word of mouth or techie sites like slashdot (not at all mainstream then), you didn't find out about it all. The first article in Wired I can find was June 2011, but even that was post-bubble (May). Coverage was still sparse even in early 2013. The main coverage around that time was 2013 was of Schumer calling to ban it because of silk road, but that coverage mostly dies out when the price dropped again. The pizza coverage you are talking about was specifically coverage of the bubble that was already happening ("The pizza now worth a million dollars!") Mainstream covers stuff, including Bitcoin, that bubbles (or sometimes crashes). Other than that they mostly ignore it. Chinese stock market being another perfect example. Pretty much no coverage unless it is making new highs or new lows. |
|
|
|
Edit: haven't you been slightly suspicious of why the MSM publicized Bitcoin so much. That doesn't happen without the approval the global elite.
No, because they really didn't. They started covering it only after it starting making new highs in 2013. They covered a bit of the Silk Road and MtGox stuff, but never in a manner that promoted Bitcoin at all. The latter was often mis-reported as Bitcoin having failed or gone bankrupt or something. Since the price sagged in 2014, they barely cover it at all. Occasionally there is something in business news (WSJ, Bloomberg, etc.) but that's about it. Hearn's piece in the NYT was unusual, and again negative. A lot of the (business) coverage now avoids mentioning Bitcoin at all and talks about "the blockchain" (of course, that's where most of the VC money is going too). I don't see the MSM promoting Bitcoin at all. If Bitcoin enjoys further success from here it will without (short term) help from MSM/elite. You can still find non-tech people or even some tech people who have never heard of it, or think it failed in 2014. Some techie I know outside of crypto recently owed me $20. I asked if he wanted to send Bitcoin instead of Paypal, etc. and he had no clue whatsoever. Pretty common. The MSM drove the bubble in 2013. That's not my recollection at all, and I was here, actively mining and trading. They were late to it. Followers, not drivers. Now as for what actually did start it and drive it, that's a whole other ball of yarn. MtGox issues, China speculation, Silicon Valley heavy hitters buying in, reduced supply from the halvening, the transition to ASICs. I've heard all these theories and more. Who knows. EDIT: If you are saying that an elite drove it behind the scenes, that may be possible. But the mainstream media did not drive it with public coverage. |
|
|
|
Edit: haven't you been slightly suspicious of why the MSM publicized Bitcoin so much. That doesn't happen without the approval the global elite.
No, because they really didn't. They started covering it only after it starting making new highs in 2013. They covered a bit of the Silk Road and MtGox stuff, but never in a manner that promoted Bitcoin at all. The latter was often mis-reported as Bitcoin having failed or gone bankrupt or something. Since the price sagged in 2014, they barely cover it at all. Occasionally there is something in business news (WSJ, Bloomberg, etc.) but that's about it. Hearn's piece in the NYT was unusual, and again negative. A lot of the (business) coverage now avoids mentioning Bitcoin at all and talks about "the blockchain" (of course, that's where most of the VC money is going too). I don't see the MSM promoting Bitcoin at all. If Bitcoin enjoys further success from here it will without (short term) help from MSM/elite. You can still find non-tech people or even some tech people who have never heard of it, or think it failed in 2014. Some techie I know outside of crypto recently owed me $20. I asked if he wanted to send Bitcoin instead of Paypal, etc. and he had no clue whatsoever. Pretty common. |
|
|
|
|
What the hell happened to all the later posts here?
|
|
|
|
Funny thing about Poisson Processes: Every day you don't stake, you still have 100,000 days to go.
Here's a fun thing: Pick a random point in time, then: A) the average amount of time from that point to the next CLAM block is 1 minute B) the average amount of time from that point to the previous CLAM block is also 1 minute C) the average time between CLAM blocks is also 1 minute Wouldn't you expect A + B = C? Yet A, B, and C are all 1 minute. I'm certain A) is correct, but not so sure about B). Isn't the previous block already fixed in time? It is absurd that a random point in time would not have equal expected time difference with the previous and next blocks. How could that possibly happen? You could replay the blocks in reverse sequence, right? The time between poisson events is exponentially distributed and "memoryless". It's defined nicely here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_distribution#Memorylessness. Since the process is memoryless the forward or reversed sequence of inter-block durations are just as likely as any other arbitrary sequence of the same inter-block durations. I could well be making some kind of error of logic here, but: * Pick any time random time, T. * The expected time until the next block is always one minute. * The time *since* the last block is always T - (time since last block). * The time since last block is always known and is not always one minute. * Therefore the expected time since the last block != the expected time until the next block. Put all the blocks that have already happened on a line on a piece of paper, drawn to scale (scale = time). Now put another piece of paper on top and slowly slide the top paper to reveal the blocks. The expected time to reveal the next block is (always) one minute. If you stop at any random point and flip the paper over so the opposite set of points is hidden, and then start sliding in the opposite direction, the expected time to reveal a block at the moment when you flip the paper over is still one minute. However, it is certainly true that like most logic "puzzles" the exact wording of the problem statement (and its interpretation if ambiguous) changes the answer. EDIT: Interestingly, by the way, I think we had a very similar discussion a long time ago having to do with the Eligius payout method. My last sentence above likely applied to that discussion as well. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
