Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[tomothy]

Bitfurys article strongly rejects XT principles. Not Classic.  XT != Classic.

Read it again, and the underlying tone is that they prefer development to be more open.

You must have skipped to the end of the article instead of reading the whole thing. Additionally , most of us want development to be more open. Stop creating false wedge issues where none exist ... we agree on this! Lets support Libbitcoinconsensus!

 https://medium.com/@BitFuryGroup/keep-calm-and-bitcoin-on-4f29d581276#.lsa4ml1p6


This directly refutes the Bitcoin Classic And Bitcoin Unlimited governance model.

Meh, not too sure. That Medium piece was written in the context of Hearns exit piece, so yes, I still think it was largely directed at that, and not specifically at Classic.
We could argue the interpretation of various pieces of that artical, but I would prefer to simply quote the man himself's view on Classic, as he posted on twitter:

https://twitter.com/valeryvavilov/status/688054411650818048?s=09

@BitFuryGroup - the largest private miner and security provider is ready to move forward and support 2MB increase with @Bitcoin Classic

That seems pretty unequivocal.

edit: posted before i saw you address it earlier. But point still stands - your view that the article denegrades Classic is only your interpretation of it. And condidering his explicit support for Classic, I'd say you could redress the dichotomy by simply saying that maybe the article was about XT and Hearn.

Ok, So crazy question, I goto valery vavilov's twitter page... and I can't find this 1/15/16 tweet supporting core. I mean, if i click on the link you provided, it shows me his tweet. However, if I'm on his page, his tweet seemingly does not exist. Conspiracy time?

[BitUsher]

Ok, So crazy question, I goto valery vavilov's twitter page... and I can't find this 1/15/16 tweet supporting core. I mean, if i click on the link you provided, it shows me his tweet. However, if I'm on his page, his tweet seemingly does not exist. Conspiracy time?

It is still there - https://twitter.com/valeryvavilov/with_replies

[ChartBuddy]

Coin


Explanation

[tomothy]

Ok, Thanks, found it. That seems pretty cut and dry then, doesn't it?
So, 2mb HF at some point, is coming. LN/Segwit, wait and see whether or not it's just more bitcoin vaporware. Not like we haven't been promised moon before...

[Richy_T]

You either manage that in a somewhat predictable way which ends up still being subject to being dominated by specialized hardware or you do it in a completely freeform way which is a lot of work and is a huge security risk if you make a mistake.

One does not need to switch to completely different algos with different risks to make something ASIC proof. Small changes to a variant of ASIC resistant SHA3 without compromising or changing the fundamentals of security could be implemented in a random matter. You understand that all ASIC's would be worthless if we switched to 3 rounds of SHA256(1 example of many) but a gpu would merely need to upgrade its software, right?

More details --
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=359323.0

Good reading... This guy's not bad when operating within his domain.

[...] No finite collection of fixed algorithms (Even a large set) can be ASIC proof (in fact, large sets probably just lead to ASIC monopolies due to higher NRE).  But if you change the POW periodically in ways which aren't predicable months in advance, and in ways that can't just be generalized with anything more specialized than general purpose consumer hardware... then I do think you would actually have achieved a fairly high degree of asic-proof-ness. There is just the question of the costs of periodic changes being worth the benefits, and what cadence is required to make investment unwise.

[CuntChocula]

Anarchism is so poorly defined that no two "anarchists" agree on exactly what it means. That's why no one else knows what it means/how it works either.
Case in point: enter "anarchist venn diagram" in Google image search

It is great that there are many different schools of anarchism. There are similarities between all groups as well.

Unfortunately, when there are so many interpretations of the term "Anarchy" (as is [un]bound to happen with a thingamabob which appears, to the uninitiated, intrinsically anti-authoritarian), the term becomes a tautology, unenlightening, meaningless, sophistry. Commit it then to the flames.
There are similarities between garden tractors and symphony orchestras, too. Let's narrow the scope, define our terms, and then proceed with our slap-fight.
https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2106/2338479886_700e5fa90f_b.jpg

[billyjoeallen]

I know that it is difficult to understand why democracy is "the worst system of government, excluding all the others".  It takes the ability to think socially: "Whatever I can think, do, want, or get, others can think, do, want, or get too".

Libertarians and anarchists are notoriously unable to think that way.  So, when they conclude that the choices of a minority should prevail over those of the majority, they always assume implicitly that it will be their minority, not some other minority.

You don't understand us at all, Prof. The Core devs aren't anarchists. It's early adopters like me who are. Libertarians and anarcho-capitalists most commonly are Natural Rights advocates and not utilitarians, so you can be forgiven for misunderstanding us, but if you really dive into the philosophy and economics of it, you'll find that most of us are on the other side in this conflict.

Deomocracy, in the sense of one person one vote for control over pooled resources, is inefficient because there is no way to communicate the intensity of one's preferences. That is one objection. The main objection is that we don't believe you can delegate your right to a government if you don't have that right in the first place, so for example, if you don't have the right to take by force from your neighbor because you need his property more than he does, then you don't have that right even if the majority of voters decide that you do.

No, in political and economic issues, we are basically saying it's got to be win-win or no deal. Zero-sum game theory is relevant only in that we seek to reduce as much as possible the cases in which it applies.

In the present conflict, here is how I see it: Miners have every right to run whichever version they choose. Developers have every right to contribute to whatever version of the client they wish.  investors and speculators have every right to buy or sell as much as they want.  Everyone has a right to run or not run any node they like. 

I would like Core/Blockstream to get on board with a blocksize increase, but I don't think that's going to happen unless circumstances change significantly and they may never get on board. That's their right. I will support any proposed scaling solution that looks like it has a reasonable chance of success, but I don't think Core or the miners that support them will change positions without a major loss in market cap. This puts me in a weird position:

If the market stays up or goes higher, I sell. If the market goes lower, I hold, because it means we are more likely to get a scaling solution one way or another.  The market is more democratic than democracy. I can vote with my wallet. So can you. So can anybody.

In my opinion, a higher price will attract new users and bring on the very network congestion the transaction fees are supposed to overcome. There will be a period in which low value transactions will diminish due to loss of economic viability and be replaced by higher value transaction, but eventually all growth will plateau and stop.

I don't know if this issue will EVER be resolved, and that will be a tragedy, but this will play out in the market, as it should. Either Bitcoin will scale or another coin that is found to be more useful by the market will.  Core has no more power than the market gives them. Miners have no more power than traders/investors/speculators give them.  If we reward them for doing something stupid, it's our fault when they do it.

[xyzzy099]

Unfortunately, when there are so many interpretations of the term "Anarchy"

Isn't that true of any generic socio-political term?

'Socialism' can mean anything from Nazis to Communists to European social Democrats.

[tomothy]

I know that it is difficult to understand why democracy is "the worst system of government, excluding all the others".  It takes the ability to think socially: "Whatever I can think, do, want, or get, others can think, do, want, or get too".

Libertarians and anarchists are notoriously unable to think that way.  So, when they conclude that the choices of a minority should prevail over those of the majority, they always assume implicitly that it will be their minority, not some other minority.

You don't understand us at all, Prof. The Core devs aren't anarchists. It's early adopters like me who are. Libertarians and anarcho-capitalists most commonly are Natural Rights advocates and not utilitarians, so you can be forgiven for misunderstanding us, but if you really dive into the philosophy and economics of it, you'll find that most of us are on the other side in this conflict.

Deomocracy, in the sense of one person one vote for control over pooled resources, is inefficient because there is no way to communicate the intensity of one's preferences. That is one objection. The main objection is that we don't believe you can delegate your right to a government if you don't have that right in the first place, so for example, if you don't have the right to take by force from your neighbor because you need his property more than he does, then you don't have that right even if the majority of voters decide that you do.

No, in political and economic issues, we are basically saying it's got to be win-win or no deal. Zero-sum game theory is relevant only in that we seek to reduce as much as possible the cases in which it applies.

In the present conflict, here is how I see it: Miners have every right to run whichever version they choose. Developers have every right to contribute to whatever version of the client they wish.  investors and speculators have every right to buy or sell as much as they want.  Everyone has a right to run or not run any node they like. 

I would like Core/Blockstream to get on board with a blocksize increase, but I don't think that's going to happen unless circumstances change significantly and they may never get on board. That's their right. I will support any proposed scaling solution that looks like it has a reasonable chance of success, but I don't think Core or the miners that support them will change positions without a major loss in market cap. This puts me in a weird position:

If the market stays up or goes higher, I sell. If the market goes lower, I hold, because it means we are more likely to get a scaling solution one way or another.  The market is more democratic than democracy. I can vote with my wallet. So can you. So can anybody.

In my opinion, a higher price will attract new users and bring on the very network congestion the transaction fees are supposed to overcome. There will be a period in which low value transactions will diminish due to loss of economic viability and be replaced by higher value transaction, but eventually all growth will plateau and stop.

I don't know if this issue will EVER be resolved, and that will be a tragedy, but this will play out in the market, as it should. Either Bitcoin will scale or another coin that is found to be more useful by the market will.  Core has no more power than the market gives them. Miners have no more power than traders/investors/speculators give them.  If we reward them for doing something stupid, it's our fault when they do it.

http://pastebin.com/B8YQr5TQ


Hey Jorge, I was wondering if you have time and could possibly comment later about the exchange between JToomin and Guy Corem?
It's a long read but it lays out the history post hk scaling convention and recent development of classic.
It then goes on to discuss post classic activation.

Advanced Warning, It's a long read... But super informative and IMHO provides a good understanding of the competing interests and goals...

[CuntChocula]

Unfortunately, when there are so many interpretations of the term "Anarchy"

Isn't that true of any generic socio-political term?

'Socialism' can mean anything from Nazis to Communists to European social Democrats.

To an extent. Most human language words are ambiguous.
"Socialism" is loosely defined as "social ownership and democratic control of the means of production."
That's a big thing to have in common, and makes it a useful word.
Anarchism is hard to pin down like that, it doesn't have that "necessary and sufficient" component defining it. Not to say it can't be misused, like someone calling their party "Capitososialist." But "Socialism" works fine in "Nazis to Communists to European social Democrats."
See what I mean?

*Which isn't to say "anarchy" is a useless word. It's useful in its colloquial, everyday sense:
an·ar·chy
ˈanərkē/
noun
noun: anarchy

    a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
    "he must ensure public order in a country threatened with anarchy"

[Fatman3001]

Unfortunately, when there are so many interpretations of the term "Anarchy"

Isn't that true of any generic socio-political term?

'Socialism' can mean anything from Nazis to Communists to European social Democrats.

No, it can't.

Stop spreading stoopid.

[xyzzy099]

Unfortunately, when there are so many interpretations of the term "Anarchy"

Isn't that true of any generic socio-political term?

'Socialism' can mean anything from Nazis to Communists to European social Democrats.

To an extent. Most human language words are ambiguous.
"Socialism" is loosely defined as "social ownership and democratic control of the means of production."
That's a big thing to have in common, and makes it a useful word.
Anarchism is hard to pin down like that, it doesn't have that "necessary and sufficient" component defining it. Not to say it can't be misused, like someone calling their party "Capitososialist." But "Socialism" works fine in "Nazis to Communists to European social Democrats."
See what I mean?

The point is simply that if you choose to use imprecise terminology, you should not be surprised if your meaning is ambiguously interpreted.  It's not a unique quality of 'anarchy'.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin


Explanation

[CuntChocula]

Unfortunately, when there are so many interpretations of the term "Anarchy"

Isn't that true of any generic socio-political term?

'Socialism' can mean anything from Nazis to Communists to European social Democrats.

To an extent. Most human language words are ambiguous.
"Socialism" is loosely defined as "social ownership and democratic control of the means of production."
That's a big thing to have in common, and makes it a useful word.
Anarchism is hard to pin down like that, it doesn't have that "necessary and sufficient" component defining it. Not to say it can't be misused, like someone calling their party "Capitososialist." But "Socialism" works fine in "Nazis to Communists to European social Democrats."
See what I mean?

The point is simply that if you choose to use imprecise terminology, you should not be surprised if your meaning is ambiguously interpreted.  It's not a unique quality of 'anarchy'.

It's a question of degree. The problem with "Anarchy" is it has become a meaningless term (outside of its colloquial usage, as in "he must ensure public order in a country threatened with anarchy").
When you say "I'm an Anarchist," I don't know what you're trying to say. Think of it like X in the formula Y=Z+X-X. I can eliminate it, and the formula stays the same. It add nothing.
It's the same with "Anarchist."
After calling yourself an Anarchist, you still have to go through exactly the same list of explanations if the word "Anarchy" didn't exist.
See what I'm trying to say?

[xyzzy099]

Unfortunately, when there are so many interpretations of the term "Anarchy"

Isn't that true of any generic socio-political term?

'Socialism' can mean anything from Nazis to Communists to European social Democrats.

To an extent. Most human language words are ambiguous.
"Socialism" is loosely defined as "social ownership and democratic control of the means of production."
That's a big thing to have in common, and makes it a useful word.
Anarchism is hard to pin down like that, it doesn't have that "necessary and sufficient" component defining it. Not to say it can't be misused, like someone calling their party "Capitososialist." But "Socialism" works fine in "Nazis to Communists to European social Democrats."
See what I mean?

The point is simply that if you choose to use imprecise terminology, you should not be surprised if your meaning is ambiguously interpreted.  It's not a unique quality of 'anarchy'.

It's a question of degree. The problem with "Anarchy" is it has become a meaningless term (outside of its colloquial usage, as in "he must ensure public order in a country threatened with anarchy").
When you say "I'm an Anarchist," I don't know what you're trying to say. Think of it like X in the formula Y=Z+X-X. I can eliminate it, and the formula stays the same. It add nothing.
It's the same with "Anarchist."
After calling yourself an Anarchist, you still have to go through exactly the same list of explanations if the word "Anarchy" didn't exist.
See what I'm trying to say?

Yeah, that's true enough.

So many socio-political terms have become genericized to the point of meaninglessness.  In America, it's amazing how almost any political term you use will end up being interpreted by your listener as either 'Democrat' or 'Republican', i.e. left-wing = liberal = Democrat, right-wing = conservative = Republican.

Kind of sad really, because all of those words have distinct, useful meanings of their own.

No use in complaining about it though - all you can do is try to take that into account, and speak (or write) more precisely.

There's no way around the ultimate semiotic dilemma, though, that when I present a symbol to you to convey meaning, the meaning you get will come from you, not from me.

[billyjoeallen]

I'm a fan of Murray Rothbard, but I don't like the term "anarcho-capitalist" that he coined, because, although it is technically accurate, it is misleading to laymen.  Rothbard was an anarchist in the sense that he believed in "no rulers", but he absolutely believed in order and thought the central State was ultimately an agent of disorder and I agree with him.

I prefer to use the term "distributed governance".  Hierarchies are found throughout nature and I think it is contrary to human nature and therefor impossible to eliminate them entirely. But I still think Political power should be reduced as much as possible and reducing the amount of pooled resources to squabble over is a step in that direction. 

We can also dramatically reduce violence if it becomes taboo to ever initiate it, meaning defensive force is the only kind with any social sanction. The problem arises that there are differing views on what exactly constitutes "initiatory violence." This is because there are differing views on how threatening speech has to be before it constitutes an actual threat and because defense of property depends on the definition of rightful property.  Still, I think these problems are solvable after a few generations of children raised without corporal punishment grow up.

[Richy_T]

*Which isn't to say "anarchy" is a useless word. It's useful in its colloquial, everyday sense:
an·ar·chy
ˈanərkē/
noun
noun: anarchy

    a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
    "he must ensure public order in a country threatened with anarchy"

The big problem with anarchy is that many of its types are inconsistent and amount to "I should be free to tell others what to do". As such, you are correct that it is mainly of use only colloquially.

[JorgeStolfi]

The answer to your question of attacking one of the chains seems to be valid, still.

I don't think so...

When a fork is proposed, like XT or Classic (with 75% trigger and a few weeks of grace period between the trigger and the switch to new rules), I think that:

* Before the fork, holders should pray that it resolves neatly and quickly as a non-event, and keep quiet or voice their preferences quietly, so that it does not upset the price;

* If the proposal gains some support, but neither reaches 75% nor drops back to zero, and it looks like the impasse may continue for a while, they may want to speak out for one outcome, to help break the impasse -- but that may make things worse if they themselves cant agree on which side to support.   They may want to sell while the price is still OK, justin case; but that may cause the price to crash.  Or they may choose to bet on the price recovering later, and keep holding.

* If the proposal gets little suport and seems to be a sure fail, the holders shoul shout it down.

* If the proposal gets 51% and keeps increasing, the holders should cheer it along.

* If the proposal gets the required support and triggers, the holders should upgrade their clients accept it, and do what they can to convince the remaining miners and players to accept it too.

* If the change has triggered, but at the end of the grace period there is still a non-negligible fraction of the miners that refuse to accep it, then the holders should try to convince the exchanges and other services to boycott the minority chain and refuse its coins, and convince the miners to sabotage the minority chain.

[billyjoeallen]

The answer to your question of attacking one of the chains seems to be valid, still.

I don't think so...

When a fork is proposed, like XT or Classic (with 75% trigger and a few weeks of grace period between the trigger and the switch to new rules), I think that:

* Before the fork, holders should pray that it resolves neatly and quickly as a non-event, and keep quiet or voice their preferences quietly, so that it does not upset the price;

* If the proposal gains some support, but neither reaches 75% nor drops back to zero, and it looks like the impasse may continue for a while, they may want to speak out for one outcome, to help break the impasse -- but that may make things worse if they themselves cant agree on which side to support.   They may want to sell while the price is still OK, justin case; but that may cause the price to crash.  Or they may choose to bet on the price recovering later, and keep holding.

* If the proposal gets little suport and seems to be a sure fail, the holders shoul shout it down.

* If the proposal gets 51% and keeps increasing, the holders should cheer it along.

* If the proposal gets the required support and triggers, the holders should upgrade their clients accept it, and do what they can to convince the remaining miners and players to accept it too.

* If the change has triggered, but at the end of the grace period there is still a non-negligible fraction of the miners that refuse to accep it, then the holders should try to convince the exchanges and other services to boycott the minority chain and refuse its coins, and convince the miners to sabotage the minority chain.

When a minority can veto, we have what amounts to a game of "chicken". In the game of chicken, the side perceived to be the craziest and most hell-bent on winning at any cost (including their own destruction) is the side that wins.  This right now is the side of the smallblockers, unfortunately.  That's why I think this will take a while to play out, longer in fact than it will take to fill the blocks and hike fees. Possibly long enough to get a network congestion failure. 

[r0ach]

Another average day in Bitcoin.  

China FOMO short squeeze sucker's rally designed solely to margin call MatTheCat then immediately dump after while forum discusses fullblockalypse vs barackalypse.