Bitcoin Forum
July 24, 2017, 03:46:15 PM *
News: Due to BIP91, it would starting now be prudent to require 5 times more confirmations than usual before trusting transactions.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 [986] 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1936178 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 05, 2015, 09:27:02 PM
 #19701

oil @ 49.90.  the only thing sweet about sweet crude oil is the sweet smell of Deflation.

The more dollars are printed the more scarce they are :-) ... I don't get it.

Debt implosion> money printing
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
January 05, 2015, 09:30:10 PM
 #19702

The USD desperately wants to appreciate.

The reason the USD lost so much value over the last century was due, not to base money printing, but to credit expansion, a.k.a debt issuance.

Debt is temporary. It's either repaid, or else defaulted. Either way of resolving debt shrinks the money supply as much as the original issuance expanded it.

As long as the population was growing, and as long as the middle class had positive savings, it was possible to expand credit. Now both conditions are no longer true.

Since it's no longer possible to continue credit expansion, the only way to stop the deflation caused by debt repayment and defaults is to print more base money (QE).

When QE stops, the USD resumes its natural appreciation.
sidhujag
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1526


View Profile
January 05, 2015, 09:34:22 PM
 #19703

The USD desperately wants to appreciate.

The reason the USD lost so much value over the last century was due, not to base money printing, but to credit expansion, a.k.a debt issuance.

Debt is temporary. It's either repaid, or else defaulted. Either way of resolving debt shrinks the money supply as much as the original issuance expanded it.

As long as the population was growing, and as long as the middle class had positive savings, it was possible to expand credit. Now both conditions are no longer true.

Since it's no longer possible to continue credit expansion, the only way to stop the deflation caused by debt repayment and defaults is to print more base money (QE).

When QE stops, the USD resumes its natural appreciation.
Rates will have to rise and after a few raises we will finally see more qe and final collapse of trust

★☆★Syscoin - Decentralized Marketplace and Multisig Platform
Pay with Bitcoin, ZCash and many more
For more visit Syscoin.org  ★☆★
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 05, 2015, 09:41:13 PM
 #19704

The USD desperately wants to appreciate.

The reason the USD lost so much value over the last century was due, not to base money printing, but to credit expansion, a.k.a debt issuance.

Debt is temporary. It's either repaid, or else defaulted. Either way of resolving debt shrinks the money supply as much as the original issuance expanded it.

As long as the population was growing, and as long as the middle class had positive savings, it was possible to expand credit. Now both conditions are no longer true.

Since it's no longer possible to continue credit expansion, the only way to stop the deflation caused by debt repayment and defaults is to print more base money (QE).

When QE stops, the USD resumes its natural appreciation.

Exactly with an additional subtlety. Not only does the Fed have to print, they have to stimulate confidence because they can never print enough to fill the debt hole  and especially the derivatives mountain. If anything, the last 6 years has shown dubious levels of confidence, if any, along with demonstrably worse real wage growth. The Internet has spawned nearly instantaneous documentation of all the stealing going on.

The last few ramps this year have been nearly vertical short squeezes by the invisible hand which shows increasing desperation, imo. Now is the time to be cautious.  

sidhuajag, I really don't think you're gonna find your masses piling into a final blow off top.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
January 05, 2015, 09:42:05 PM
 #19705

Rates will have to rise and after a few raises we will finally see more qe and final collapse of trust
The consequences of resuming QE are unaccceptable.

So are the consequences of not resuming QE.

Must be fun to be in any kind of decision-making position at the Federal Reserve right now.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 05, 2015, 09:45:47 PM
 #19706

Rates will have to rise and after a few raises we will finally see more qe and final collapse of trust
The consequences of resuming QE are unaccceptable.

So are the consequences of not resuming QE.

Must be fun to be in any kind of decision-making position at the Federal Reserve right now.

I heard an interesting theory on a podcast the other day which matched my observation. Every Fed head has their crisis with which they are forced to deal with and given that's a fact, they prefer to take it early on in their term so they can clean up before the next head comes in. Nows the time for Janet.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
January 05, 2015, 09:48:04 PM
 #19707

What can she actually do, though?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 05, 2015, 09:54:31 PM
 #19708

What can she actually do, though?

she's a woman.  she'll tell you when she's good and ready.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2212


View Profile
January 05, 2015, 09:57:03 PM
 #19709

What can she actually do, though?

she's a woman.  she'll tell you when she's good and ready.

Have you checked?  It's not clear to me just by looking.


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 05, 2015, 09:59:45 PM
 #19710

What can she actually do, though?

she's a woman.  she'll tell you when she's good and ready.

Have you checked?  It's not clear to me just by looking.



lol, as obnoxious and nonsensical as you can get, i've been roflmao with several of your posts this last week.

have you been drinking again?
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1484



View Profile
January 05, 2015, 10:06:04 PM
 #19711

As long as the population was growing, and as long as the middle class had positive savings, it was possible to expand credit. Now both conditions are no longer true.

Population not growing?



rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
January 05, 2015, 10:14:19 PM
 #19712

nice quote Marc Andreessen

Paraphrasing (Bitcoin's value is it's blockchain not the BTC)

My fundamental issue with SC is they don't secure the value just the BTC. SC offer economic hackers a way to steal that value.

It's economic ignorance to believe the value in the blockchain is inherent.
I've been saying this for a long time now. The Blockchain will be the only aspect of Bitcoin that survives.

Marc made 26 great tweets today defending both Bitcoin and BTC. He clearly does not believe that Bitcoin's value is the blockchain and not BTC, which is impossible since the two are inseparable.

https://www.coinprices.io/articles/marc-andreessen-defends-bitcoin-on-twitter-in-latest-tweetstorm
ssmc2
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 994


View Profile
January 05, 2015, 10:25:25 PM
 #19713

nice quote Marc Andreessen

Paraphrasing (Bitcoin's value is it's blockchain not the BTC)

My fundamental issue with SC is they don't secure the value just the BTC. SC offer economic hackers a way to steal that value.

It's economic ignorance to believe the value in the blockchain is inherent.
I've been saying this for a long time now. The Blockchain will be the only aspect of Bitcoin that survives.

Marc made 26 great tweets today defending both Bitcoin and BTC. He clearly does not believe that Bitcoin's value is the blockchain and not BTC, which is impossible since the two are inseparable.

https://www.coinprices.io/articles/marc-andreessen-defends-bitcoin-on-twitter-in-latest-tweetstorm

Great stuff! And yes, you are totally misinterpreting him if you think he doesn't understand the basics of the bitcoin protocol.
msin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134


View Profile
January 05, 2015, 10:32:30 PM
 #19714


Marc made 26 great tweets today defending both Bitcoin and BTC. He clearly does not believe that Bitcoin's value is the blockchain and not BTC, which is impossible since the two are inseparable.

https://www.coinprices.io/articles/marc-andreessen-defends-bitcoin-on-twitter-in-latest-tweetstorm

Great stuff! And yes, you are totally misinterpreting him if you think he doesn't understand the basics of the bitcoin protocol.

Marc is the best kind of representative/cheerleader that BTC can have.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
January 05, 2015, 11:09:47 PM
 #19715

Newest video from Cypherdoc's favourite artist:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEBP9dpVM70
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
January 05, 2015, 11:14:15 PM
 #19716

with anything new like this, i'm interested in knowing the upper and lower bounds of the IBLT data size.

lower bound:  theoretically, as the UTXO set difference shrinks to zero with 0 network latency, the IBLT will shrink similarly but can never reach zero since it has to at minimum relay enough data to convey the exact subset of tx's included in the miner's block.  how small can this data get esp in relation to the avg block size now?

upper bound:  if the UTXO set difference is 100%, how big does the IBLT data size get?  or does the entire IBLT concept fall apart at some intermediate set difference?

OK, so the bounds.

Note that UTXO is unspent tx outputs held in the blockchain, but unconfirmed tx are in node mempools, pending inclusion into the blockchain by miners. What Satoshi achieved with his PoW blockchain breakthrough was consensus on the whole transaction history, and resulting UTXOs. I think of that as the steel-work in a skyscraper. What IBLT does is go to further by enforcing consensus on unconfirmed transactions, it pours concrete into that steel reinforcing. This is a significant improvement to cryptocurrency, but it is truly effective only at high volumes, volumes too high for the existing standard method of block propagation.

The reason is that right now the whole network could agree on the same 2000 unconfirmed tx, real-world business, but the next block mined can contain none of them. It could be full of previously unknown gambling dice-bot spam tx, a set which is 100% different. Because these tx validly spend UTXO, then the block is accepted, and the 2000 unconfirmed tx have to wait for the next block. However, when blocks are too big to propagate in the existing method, and require IBLT, then miners have to rely on the majority of the nodes knowing their unconfirmed tx in advance, they can only include a few unknown tx as the more unknowns they include the more likely their IBLT will fail to get decoded, and it gets rejected.

I expect IBLT blocks to be a constant size, starting at about 500KB or 1MB and staying at the same size for a long time, then increasing in steps, perhaps doubling after a number of years, just as the block reward halves periodically. A 1MB IBLT contains about 1500 differences, which means a 1% difference in mempools allows for 150,000 tx or 60MB disk blocks. A 32MB IBLT could support 3GB disk blocks, or 20,000 TPS, as by then differences of <1% should be the norm.

hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
January 05, 2015, 11:47:16 PM
 #19717

2,5+ billion euros bankrun in greece within december only. acknowledgedly by anticipation of Syriza winning the election and thus resulting in a possible exit of the euro zone...

http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/soziales/neuwahlen-griechen-heben-2-5-milliarden-euro-von-konten-ab-a-1010865.html#ref=plista

note that the first media reporting it is german..
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162



View Profile
January 05, 2015, 11:54:07 PM
 #19718

that's interesting.  i tried listening to that video of SNARK and boy was that complex.  certainly not yet developed.

but let's say SNARKS do come to fruition.  wouldn't it be better to integrate it into Bitcoin if possible?  this would prevent existing cold wallets from having to migrate to the SNARK SC which would save alot of ppl time and headache, not to mention all the ppl who WON'T have heard of this new SC and the need to move their BTC. 

if it turns out SNARKS are not implementable into Bitcoin and are somehow able to prove that it's functionality is SO MUCH better than Bitcoin, then maybe.  we'll have to see about that.

but that's not really what we're talking about here.  we're discussing spvp, a 2 way peg.  if what you're talking about comes to fruition, we'd be only needing a 1 way peg, which technically is simpler and probably safer for Bitcoin MC.

I do not agree with red underlined sentences.

 - SNARK is developed
 - cold wallet and exchange account are 2 different things
 - there is not problem to add/implement OP_SNARK_VERIFY into bitcoin
 - 2wp is just fine  1-way) deposit  and 2-way) withdraw
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 06, 2015, 12:26:00 AM
 #19719

with anything new like this, i'm interested in knowing the upper and lower bounds of the IBLT data size.

lower bound:  theoretically, as the UTXO set difference shrinks to zero with 0 network latency, the IBLT will shrink similarly but can never reach zero since it has to at minimum relay enough data to convey the exact subset of tx's included in the miner's block.  how small can this data get esp in relation to the avg block size now?

upper bound:  if the UTXO set difference is 100%, how big does the IBLT data size get?  or does the entire IBLT concept fall apart at some intermediate set difference?

OK, so the bounds.

Note that UTXO is unspent tx outputs held in the blockchain, but unconfirmed tx are in node mempools, pending inclusion into the blockchain by miners.

man, that is depressing when one sees "un_" and extrapolates everything to mean the same thing after that Tongue  of course you're right.

but aren't UTXO also held in memory?:

UTXO are tracked by every full-node bitcoin client in a database held in memory, called the UTXO set or UTXO pool.
http://chimera.labs.oreilly.com/books/1234000001802/ch05.html#tx_inputs_outputs
Quote

What Satoshi achieved with his PoW blockchain breakthrough was consensus on the whole transaction history, and resulting UTXO. I think of that as the steel-work in a skyscraper. What IBLT does is go to further by enforcing consensus on unconfirmed transactions, it pours concrete into that steel reinforcing. This is a significant improvement to cryptocurrency, but it is truly effective only at high volumes, volumes too high for the existing standard method of block propagation.

i assume you mean high volumes of unconfirmed tx's.  if so, how do we make the transition from the existing standard low volume method to IBLT?
Quote

The reason is that right now the whole network could agree on the same 2000 unconfirmed tx, real-world business, but the next block mined can contain none of them. It could be full of previously unknown gambling dice-bot spam tx, a set which is 100% different. Because these tx validly spend UTXO, then the block is accepted, and the 2000 unconfirmed tx have to wait for the next block.

how is this possible?  i thought the unconf tx sets differences were supposed to be currently quite low which is the reason for IBLT in the first place? (sounds like you're saying we, in fact, don't have enough volume to make IBLT practical as of today)
Quote

However, when blocks are too big to propagate in the existing method, and require IBLT, then miners have to rely on the majority of the nodes knowing their unconfirmed tx in advance, they can only include a few unknown tx as the more unknowns they include the more likely their IBLT will fail to get decoded, and it gets rejected.

so how do miners know which unconf tx's are known vs unknown, ie, which to incl in the IBLT to enhance block acceptance ?
Quote

I expect IBLT blocks to be a constant size, starting at about 500KB or 1MB and staying at the same size for a long time, then increasing in steps, perhaps doubling after a number of years, just as the block reward halves periodically. A 1MB IBLT contains about 1500 differences, which means a 1% difference in mempools allows for 150,000 tx or 60MB disk blocks. A 32MB IBLT could support 3GB disk blocks, or 20,000 TPS, as by then differences of <1% should be the norm.

how do you arrive at 500KB or 1MB?  or are you just using the current 1MB block limitation of today into which you would fit the IBLT?  so are you saying that a 1MB sized IBLT equals 1500 diffs or an estimated 1% difference in unconf tx sets across network nodes or an equivalent 150,000 tx's block?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 06, 2015, 12:32:08 AM
 #19720

that's interesting.  i tried listening to that video of SNARK and boy was that complex.  certainly not yet developed.

but let's say SNARKS do come to fruition.  wouldn't it be better to integrate it into Bitcoin if possible?  this would prevent existing cold wallets from having to migrate to the SNARK SC which would save alot of ppl time and headache, not to mention all the ppl who WON'T have heard of this new SC and the need to move their BTC. 

if it turns out SNARKS are not implementable into Bitcoin and are somehow able to prove that it's functionality is SO MUCH better than Bitcoin, then maybe.  we'll have to see about that.

but that's not really what we're talking about here.  we're discussing spvp, a 2 way peg.  if what you're talking about comes to fruition, we'd be only needing a 1 way peg, which technically is simpler and probably safer for Bitcoin MC.

I do not agree with red underlined sentences.

 - SNARK is developed
 - cold wallet and exchange account are 2 different things
 - there is not problem to add/implement OP_SNARK_VERIFY into bitcoin
 - 2wp is just fine  1-way) deposit  and 2-way) withdraw

tell me what a SNARK allows. 
Pages: « 1 ... 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 [986] 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 ... 1558 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

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!