Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 11:56:03 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 ... 970 »
461  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 25, 2015, 02:05:18 AM
bullish:

462  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 24, 2015, 11:31:43 PM
This sounds just grand:

http://www.coindesk.com/research-banks-unprepared-for-digital-disruption/?utm_content=bufferdac01&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
463  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 24, 2015, 11:11:31 PM
oops, gold going negative again.

ah, that sweet smell of deflation.

Next jobs claim is gonna be a doozy... lowest claims for unemployment insurance since '74. Look for mickey mouse game to continue with a 300pt rise

You were right on the report  but wrong on the reaction. What are you going to do?

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2015/07/weekly-initial-unemployment-claims_23.html?m=1
464  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 24, 2015, 10:58:47 PM
Garzik starting to get it more and more:

https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/624712746471329792

I keep asking, you think Nasdaq expects or wants to have to compete, do an RBF, or pay high fees in getting every stock trade marker into the MC? Nor will they ever accept a SC solution.
465  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 24, 2015, 10:29:35 PM
Kinda late, eh?:

https://twitter.com/cypherdoc2/status/624663002151788544
466  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 24, 2015, 09:50:23 PM
Gavin's solution to solve 25 sec long time validation attack blocks ala the single 1MB f2pool block of a coupla wks ago:

http://bitcoin-development.narkive.com/wEdAXkTT/for-discussion-limit-transaction-size-to-mitigate-cve-2013-2292#post6
467  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 24, 2015, 07:58:34 PM
What is your brief take on the macro economic picture for the next year or two cypher?

Not good. I'd like confirmation of the Dow Theory by getting a violation of that red line first by the $DJI, but I think it's going to happen. I expect the $DJI to be lower than it is in a year and a half.
468  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 24, 2015, 05:39:33 PM
hey iCE.  look at NBG for an example of what can happen to Hecla. 

i put this chart up last year as an example of what can happen to dip buyers assuming the worst is over.  the first narrative i wrote in red is when NBG was at $0.98.  for fun, i was joking about what would've happened if your timing was absolutely horrible and one went short at a major bottom of $70.28.  well, if you'd held, you'd have made a bundle as, at the time, price had dropped all the way down to $0.98.  now it's at $0.85  Smiley  lesson learned is that in a bad environment, stocks can go down much lower than you can even imagine:

469  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 24, 2015, 05:25:19 PM
iCE, didn't you say you own Hecla?  geez man, you gotta get outta that thing.  once it breaks the red support line, it's lights out:

Hecla's been around for 100 years.  They know how to hibernate in bear markets, and historically offer the best leverage to silver.

I'm investing/accumulating for the long term, not day trading.  Let's hope they can snarf up Wildcat for pennies/oz before the market turns bullish.   Cool

good luck with this:

470  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 24, 2015, 05:17:08 PM
energy?  we don't need no stinkin' energy!:

471  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 24, 2015, 04:10:07 PM
see that little red line?  once the $DJI catches down to break that support, it's Lights Out:

472  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 24, 2015, 03:55:19 PM
4y and counting:





otoh, breakout!:

473  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 24, 2015, 11:33:16 AM
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
474  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 24, 2015, 02:32:56 AM
oh wonderful.  just look at what they're doing to our beloved Bitcoin:

https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/pull/972
is this "for real", or was the request done in earnest?

that Tom David Harding guy was the same one who produced this document "in earnest" last month:

https://bitcoin.org/en/posts/hard-fork-policy
475  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 24, 2015, 02:25:10 AM
it's getting worse:

476  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 24, 2015, 01:18:48 AM
...



 Roll Eyes

Give us a break.

You're getting dangerously close to Anonymint-levels of megalomania


Maybe. But then you could always leave too.

But that never seems to happen.
477  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 24, 2015, 12:54:30 AM
oh wonderful.  just look at what they're doing to our beloved Bitcoin:

https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/pull/972
478  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 24, 2015, 12:33:55 AM
I think the vast majority of the bitcoin ecosystem want bitcoin to scale in the safest manner possible. The '1mb blockers' seem to only have any sway in the argument because of the naturally conservative approach to changing things in Core.

Bitcoin is by design reactionary, not merely conservative, in its approach to changing things.  Changes are considered an attack until proven otherwise. 

Not one iota of security will be traded for adoption, no matter the preferences of In-Q-Tel, Sand Hill Road, and their sigint-veteran toadies.

https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/624316213473062913



^That^ is the type of computer science research we need more of in order to make informed decisions regarding block size.

"Throwing the hammer down" and declaring UX the hill upon Bitcoin must die is the kind of drama-queen exaggeration we need to calm down and eschew.

Another relevant dataset from today:

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009567.html

Quote
On this day, the Bitcoin network was crawled and reachable nodes surveyed to find their maximum throughput in order to determine if it can safely support a faster block rate. Specifically this is an attempt to prove or disprove the common statement that 1MB blocks were only suitable slower internet connections in 2009 when Bitcoin launched, and that connection speeds have improved to the point of obviously supporting larger blocks.

...

This does not support the theory that the network has the available bandwidth for increased block sizes, as in its current state 37% of nodes would fail to upload a 20MB block to a single peer in under 20 seconds (referencing a number quoted by Gavin). If the bar for suitability is placed at taking only 1% of the block time (6 seconds) to upload one block to one peer, then 69% of the network fails for 20MB blocks. For comparison, only 10% fail this metric for 1MB blocks.

I'll leave it to cypherdoc to spin this one in his favor


I'm flattered that you think this whole debate hinges around me but I also love how you cherry pick your discussion.

I noticed that Jameson Lopp, well known CS and author of the killer Statoshi website wants to look at the code. We'll see if he gets it because it matters.

I noticed you didn't answer the usability question I posed earlier.

I notice Frap.doc has no comment (much less spin) on Szabo's tweet about research into vulnerability vs blocksize trade-offs or the maximum throughput survey (thx for that BTW), except to retreat into a great wall of text about generalities and meaningless platitudes such as "the internet is still a relatively new phenomenon that is not well understood."

Talk about cherry-picking your responses.

Is Frap.doc's 'zeal of the recent Gavinista convert' beginning to wear off?

what was interesting is that the author showed up on Reddit stating flat out he is a bigger block proponent while admitting it's not entirely clear what would happen if they were implemented now.  he, and every other conservative, can sit there and advocate for more research but that doesn't invalidate my pt that every other bear paper on mining has been wrong.  we haven't seen all the selfish mining attacks Eyal outlined.  why is that?  you're supposedly a geek, explain that for all of us.  crickets.......

so yeah, the Zohar paper is probably just the next one to go into the bin of fails.  if you'll notice, i'm in that Reddit thread making the argument that academic papers always fail to consider how participants can react.  i'm not getting any push back either.
479  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 24, 2015, 12:16:29 AM
my impression of this whole debate is that no one really knows for sure what's going on.  esp the CS guys who didn't contribute a lick to Satoshi's original code or assumptions.

the internet is still a relatively new phenomenon that is not well understood.  not to mention, distributed/decentralized systems like Bitcoin.  so many smart technical ppl missed the boat on the investment part of Bitcoin early on b/c of extreme skepticism across the board esp regarding the technical system. even insiders.  they didn't and still don't fully understand the network topology and we see new information uncovered everyday from researchers like Andrew Miller to the selfish mining folks like Sirer to today's report from Zohar.  as evidence for what i say, all we have to do is go back over the dozen or so academic papers over the last 6 yrs that have outlined detailed attacks based on various unfounded assumptions and a ton of math.  so far the result?  nothing.  they've all been wrong.  i was one of the first to start talking about the game theory around Bitcoin and mining.  not that i'm a game theory expert or anything but it was clear to me that there are a lot more disciplines intersecting at the Bitcoin nexus that make it successful, not just the CS.  namely, finance, group psychology, CS, math, networking, engineering, the speculative mind, big money, politics, etc.  it appears no one really has a grasp on all the components.  so yeah, i get a little defensive when new and esp existing ppl from one small corner of the space start going around and making statements as if they're facts.  i'll listen to what they say but if it doesn't make sense, i will challenge them.  iow, i know enough about Bitcoin to make me dangerous.

so yeah, i extrapolate out this "revelation" even to the current set of core devs who are holding up the block size debate.  i think one of the inviolable principles behind Bitcoin are that as many tx's should be kept on MC to replace block rewards going forward.  otherwise, how will miners get paid to confirm tx's and provide the security and decentralization the network desperately needs in the long run?  thus we should try, even at some risk, to expand the block size to as large as we can to accommodate user growth worldwide as no one can predict how fast tech improvements will grow with time to mitigate the effects of slower propagation.  which also is another principle Bitcoin should try to achieve; that being maximum user decentralization worldwide so as to minimize the ability of any one gvt to intervene.

i think Bitcoin is awfully close to achieving this.  if only we can get bigger blocks simply b/c they can provide the growth we want now.  and i say now, b/c as i've been quite nicely forecasting for all of you for a long time now (4y), the financial markets and pm markets are now undergoing the suffering i've predicted and demonstrated in real time.  and i really mean nicely b/c i don't have to do this. i could just simply lock the thread down and sit here behind my computer silently and pick all of you off as a swing trader timing the cycles or by injecting alot of financial obfuscation like many others do.  some of you might actually want to say thank you every once in a while instead of trolling the hell out of me for trying to help.

Bitcoin needs to be ready to accept all that fiat flowing out of those mkts so something needs to be done.
480  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 23, 2015, 11:34:53 PM
I think the vast majority of the bitcoin ecosystem want bitcoin to scale in the safest manner possible. The '1mb blockers' seem to only have any sway in the argument because of the naturally conservative approach to changing things in Core.

Bitcoin is by design reactionary, not merely conservative, in its approach to changing things.  Changes are considered an attack until proven otherwise. 

Not one iota of security will be traded for adoption, no matter the preferences of In-Q-Tel, Sand Hill Road, and their sigint-veteran toadies.

https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/624316213473062913



^That^ is the type of computer science research we need more of in order to make informed decisions regarding block size.

"Throwing the hammer down" and declaring UX the hill upon Bitcoin must die is the kind of drama-queen exaggeration we need to calm down and eschew.

Another relevant dataset from today:

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009567.html

Quote
On this day, the Bitcoin network was crawled and reachable nodes surveyed to find their maximum throughput in order to determine if it can safely support a faster block rate. Specifically this is an attempt to prove or disprove the common statement that 1MB blocks were only suitable slower internet connections in 2009 when Bitcoin launched, and that connection speeds have improved to the point of obviously supporting larger blocks.

...

This does not support the theory that the network has the available bandwidth for increased block sizes, as in its current state 37% of nodes would fail to upload a 20MB block to a single peer in under 20 seconds (referencing a number quoted by Gavin). If the bar for suitability is placed at taking only 1% of the block time (6 seconds) to upload one block to one peer, then 69% of the network fails for 20MB blocks. For comparison, only 10% fail this metric for 1MB blocks.

I'll leave it to cypherdoc to spin this one in his favor


I'm flattered that you think this whole debate hinges around me but I also love how you cherry pick your discussion.

I noticed that Jameson Lopp, well known CS and author of the killer Statoshi website wants to look at the code. We'll see if he gets it because it matters.

I noticed you didn't answer the usability question I posed earlier.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 ... 970 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!