Bitcoin Forum
September 21, 2017, 11:15:50 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   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 ... 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 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1978302 times)
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2268


View Profile
January 13, 2015, 07:05:26 AM
 #20041

...
the problem here is that when the price doesn't conform to ppl's expectations, low level thinkers like tvbcof & even high level thinkers like Adam ...

Say, I was just thinking, wasn't it about a year ago I was moving some of my position out of Bitcoin and into USD and gold if I could figure out an expedient and cheap way to do it and telling everyone about my plans?

Why don't you be a sport, cyph, and tell everyone here how my ass tastes?


Link please.

The first I found was this, but there are probably more:

  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg3727919#msg3727919

Would you like to tell the boys and girls how my ass tastes?

People who listened to me (and cypherdoc) in the last half of 2011 were happy for it.  People who listened to me a year ago, same;  Cypherdip not so much.  As I say, he's a broken clock that is right by chance sometimes.  The big difference between me and cypherdoc is that I know full well how much luck is associated with my good calls.  A lot.  Cyph gives his brilliance the credit for all his calls that happened to work out and totally banishes those which didn't to his own personal memory hole.  Unfortunately for him not everyone does so so probably half of the traffic on 'his' thread here are people who get a kick out of seeing his bozo-the-clown act.


1506035750
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506035750

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506035750
Reply with quote  #2

1506035750
Report to moderator
1506035750
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506035750

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506035750
Reply with quote  #2

1506035750
Report to moderator
1506035750
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506035750

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506035750
Reply with quote  #2

1506035750
Report to moderator
Transactions can optionally carry transaction fees. Whoever mines the block which ends up containing your transaction will get the fee. The Bitcoin client will sometimes force you to pay a fee when it thinks that no miner will accept your transaction otherwise.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
majamalu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652



View Profile WWW
January 13, 2015, 07:13:57 AM
 #20042

Returning to the origin of this thread... this is probably a good time to sell gold and buy btc, isn't it?

http://elbitcoin.org - Bitcoin en español
http://mercadobitcoin.com - MercadoBitcoin
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
January 13, 2015, 07:21:31 AM
 #20043

Returning to the origin of this thread... this is probably a good time to sell gold and buy btc, isn't it?
I'm calling bottom. This was a panic. The percentage increases the lower you drop.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
tabnloz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 962


View Profile
January 13, 2015, 07:23:11 AM
 #20044

Returning to the origin of this thread... this is probably a good time to sell gold and buy btc, isn't it?

1. If you believe in bitcoin mid-long term

2. Especially if your local currency has depreciated v USD (ie gold price has risen despite price drop in USD)

tabnloz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 962


View Profile
January 13, 2015, 07:26:06 AM
 #20045

Returning to the origin of this thread... this is probably a good time to sell gold and buy btc, isn't it?
I'm calling bottom. This was a panic. The percentage increases the lower you drop.

Tonight certainly was panicked. And circumstantially, the number of bear threads is growing quickly. Bottom? I dunno, I think there is a concerted push to destroy all confidence and morale.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2268


View Profile
January 13, 2015, 08:33:12 AM
 #20046


Bitcoin has clearly failed in an 'exchange' role as evidenced by still not needing to fiddle with the 7 tps transaction rate (1MB block size) and not being on a trajectory to need to do so any time soon.  The reason for this is abundantly clear and I've been saying so for years:  Bitcoin is simply not competitive in this role.
...

I don't fully get where you're coming from on this one. Does it all boil down to your assertion that blocksize increase would have to outrun Nielsen's law in order to sustain significant transaction throughput?

Forgive me for neglecting to answer your other questions, but I like to try to keep things tight, and this is important.

Firstly, Adam cast some pearls that I'm afraid went over most people's heads which is a shame.  He is not talking about exactly what I want to mention here, but the same principles apply:

...
Its a little risky to play steganography arms race though because they could bypass that (at the limit steganography wins)  by replacing
...

So, here's the deal:

Something can act as a reserve if it is rock solid in all circumstances.  Gold is a classic example.

If in the future things are as they are now from a regulatory point of view, there are all kinds of instruments which could serve my purposes.  I've long said that Bitcoin is a fun little toy in today's world and hardly anything more.  In a world where it is really needed there is nearly no chance that it won't be viciously attacked by those who are threatened.

The attacks possible (and likely in my opinion) against Bitcoin will drastically shrink the available bandwidth and the reliability the network.  I don't give two shits what the capacity of todays or tomorrows 'consumer grade' bandwidth may be.  It's an irrelevance in a situation where it matters.  And even in situations where it does not (mainstream monetary systems are working fine) there is a high likelihood that the global internet will become more restrictive and less free for other reasons.

Bitcoin really only has value to me if I can have some confidence that it will be supportable under vigorous attacks.  I suspect there are many others who feel similarly and enough to result in some pretty high valuations.  If Bitcoin can succeed here then that success will be (potentially) available to solutions which use Bitcoin as a backing.  Sidechains would be a good example, and by their nature they are quickly adaptable and a whack-a-mole headache to attackers.

It is this potential to possibly succeed which give Bitcoin it's value.  Fortunately for Bitcoin, most of the alts are not really vying for this market-space since the very thought of a hostile global internet is widely considered to be some sort of crazed conspiricy theory...and it's no fun to restrict ones code anyway.

As I've mentioned ad-nauseam recently it does not matter how big or small the transaction rate, fees, or coinbase.  Bitcoin is economically doomed relying on the normally assumed rewards.  This because the hashing power grows at a rate proportional to the reward so it relatively quickly becomes unprofitable no matter what the reward.  Hashing gear is durable however, so it does not shrink.  Maybe it can find something else to do or maybe not.  Sidechains could help resolve this economic dilemma because they must support Bitcoin at a loss if need be...they cannot afford to let native Bitcoin be unhealthy.

The above para means that nothing good economically can be achieved by increasing the block size.  The only thing doing so could achieve would be to make the solution more bloated and thus more easy to attack.  To add insult to injury, the piss-ant 10x or 20x size increases would chase out another big tranche of enthusiast class infrastructure providers and not come close to supporting even a mid-sized exchange economy anyway.  At least by my seat-of-the-pants estimation.

---

Just a brief word about Bitcoin's competitiveness as an 'exchange currency'.  It sucks.  The system is a marvel of inefficiency because it was architecture to be resistant to some aspect of the kind of nightmare attack scenarios that I allude to.  Just look at the real cost of providing a transaction...it's laughably high.  Also there is no reason to suspect that mainstream systems are ever going to become more secure to the Joe Sixpack class user so he'll always be struggling with secret keys.  And, of course, there is the block latency which requires various shortcuts, workarounds, and throwing out of some of the security features that Bitcoin crows about in the first place.  Bitcoin is also just (barely) subversive enough to create all kinds of legal-ish and regulatory-ish hassles that make it a real bitch to use, and I don't see that changing.  If it does change then Bitcoin loses almost any reason to be used.  The list goes on.


lunarboy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 544



View Profile
January 13, 2015, 09:46:35 AM
 #20047

Breaking news.

Quote
UK consumer price inflation fell sharply to 0.5% in December, down from 1% in November, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has said.

December's rate is the joint lowest on record, easing pressure on the Bank of England to raise interest rates.

Many economists had forecast a rate of about 0.7% because of the slide in global oil prices.


deflation everywhere
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
January 13, 2015, 10:25:39 AM
 #20048


Firstly, Adam cast some pearls that I'm afraid went over most people's heads which is a shame.  He is not talking about exactly what I want to mention here, but the same principles apply:

...
Its a little risky to play steganography arms race though because they could bypass that (at the limit steganography wins)  by replacing
...

Right. So Bitcoin adapts.

So, here's the deal:

Something can act as a reserve if it is rock solid in all circumstances.  Gold is a classic example.

Try buying something from Amazon with a gold bar.

If in the future things are as they are now from a regulatory point of view, there are all kinds of instruments which could serve my purposes.  I've long said that Bitcoin is a fun little toy in today's world and hardly anything more.  In a world where it is really needed there is nearly no chance that it won't be viciously attacked by those who are threatened.
ZOMG! ZOMBIE TERRORISTS!

The attacks possible (and likely in my opinion) against Bitcoin will drastically shrink the available bandwidth and the reliability the network.  I don't give two shits what the capacity of todays or tomorrows 'consumer grade' bandwidth may be.  It's an irrelevance in a situation where it matters.  And even in situations where it does not (mainstream monetary systems are working fine) there is a high likelihood that the global internet will become more restrictive and less free for other reasons.

Because all the bandwidthtonium gets used up. OK, Mr. 640K.


Bitcoin really only has value to me if I can have some confidence that it will be supportable under vigorous attacks.

It has so far.

 I suspect there are many others who feel similarly and enough to result in some pretty high valuations.  

Argumentum ad populum

If Bitcoin can succeed here then that success will be (potentially) available to solutions which use Bitcoin as a backing.
You have to trust someone to do the backing and thus lose security.

Sidechains would be a good example, and by their nature they are quickly adaptable and a whack-a-mole headache to attackers.

VAPORWARE

It is this potential to possibly succeed which give Bitcoin it's value.  Fortunately for Bitcoin, most of the alts are not really vying for this market-space since the very thought of a hostile global internet is widely considered to be some sort of crazed conspiricy theory...and it's no fun to restrict ones code anyway.

They are listed on trading markets. They are trying very hard to find market space.

As I've mentioned ad-nauseam recently
You do have a habit of repeating unsubstantiated or disproven claims.

it does not matter how big or small the transaction rate, fees, or coinbase.  Bitcoin is economically doomed relying on the normally assumed rewards.  This because the hashing power grows at a rate proportional to the reward so it relatively quickly becomes unprofitable no matter what the reward.  
It's called competition. Some people are better at things than others. Did you go to one of those private schools that gives everyone 'A's?

Hashing gear is durable however, so it does not shrink.  Maybe it can find something else to do or maybe not.

Yeah, I'm trying to figure out what to do with my Betamax.

Sidechains could help resolve this economic dilemma because they must support Bitcoin at a loss if need be...they cannot afford to let native Bitcoin be unhealthy.


UNICORNS!

The above para means that nothing good economically can be achieved by increasing the block size.  
You failed to even make a point, let alone a good argument.

The only thing doing so could achieve would be to make the solution more bloated and thus more easy to attack.  To add insult to injury, the piss-ant 10x or 20x size increases would chase out another big tranche of enthusiast class infrastructure providers and not come close to supporting even a mid-sized exchange economy anyway.  At least by my seat-of-the-pants estimation.
It would give Bitcoin half the capacity of PayPal without the fees and restrictions. Not a bad start.

---

Just a brief word about Bitcoin's competitiveness as an 'exchange currency'.  It sucks.  The system is a marvel of inefficiency because it was architecture to be resistant to some aspect of the kind of nightmare attack scenarios that I allude to.  Just look at the real cost of providing a transaction...it's laughably high.  Also there is no reason to suspect that mainstream systems are ever going to become more secure to the Joe Sixpack class user so he'll always be struggling with secret keys.  And, of course, there is the block latency which requires various shortcuts, workarounds, and throwing out of some of the security features that Bitcoin crows about in the first place.  Bitcoin is also just (barely) subversive enough to create all kinds of legal-ish and regulatory-ish hassles that make it a real bitch to use, and I don't see that changing.  If it does change then Bitcoin loses almost any reason to be used.  The list goes on.


And yet you pump an imaginary vaporware solution.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274



View Profile
January 13, 2015, 01:01:23 PM
 #20049

Im not sure if you guys already talked about it, neither if it is correct to ask here, but i recently came across the block size debate, where gavin actually favors it and is being declared 'war' from MP's "la sereniblabla" gang, arguing that it could lead to other scamcoins et al. But this is not about the sidechains issue right?

So here is my noob question: how generating 'fake bitcoins' and increasing the block size (as in the number of transactions per block?!) are linked?

Assuming that i did not messed up my understanding of the warmongering articles..
http://www.contravex.com/2015/01/12/bitcoin-doesnt-need-a-hard-fork-it-needs-hard-people/
http://trilema.com/2015/if-you-go-on-a-bitcoin-fork-irrespective-which-scammer-proposes-it-you-will-lose-your-bitcoins/
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
January 13, 2015, 01:24:14 PM
 #20050

Im not sure if you guys already talked about it, neither if it is correct to ask here, but i recently came across the block size debate, where gavin actually favors it and is being declared 'war' from MP's "la sereniblabla" gang, arguing that it could lead to other scamcoins et al. But this is not about the sidechains issue right?

So here is my noob question: how generating 'fake bitcoins' and increasing the block size (as in the number of transactions per block?!) are linked?

Assuming that i did not messed up my understanding of the warmongering articles..
http://www.contravex.com/2015/01/12/bitcoin-doesnt-need-a-hard-fork-it-needs-hard-people/
http://trilema.com/2015/if-you-go-on-a-bitcoin-fork-irrespective-which-scammer-proposes-it-you-will-lose-your-bitcoins/
Don't read to much into his rant. Here's the thing: anything that can be tried, will be tried by someone. Gavin and his peers have taken much into consideration about what and when features are added to Bitcoin. Meanwhile a lot of devs have left Bitcoin because it is not progressing fast enough for all the new ideas. It is a good thing that MP has announced his intention up front so we know where his faction stands. Maybe he will go bother Buterin now.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
BlindMayorBitcorn
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 994


View Profile
January 13, 2015, 01:25:42 PM
 #20051

Returning to the origin of this thread... this is probably a good time to sell gold and buy btc, isn't it?
I'm calling bottom. This was a panic. The percentage increases the lower you drop.

Tonight certainly was panicked. And circumstantially, the number of bear threads is growing quickly. Bottom? I dunno, I think there is a concerted push to destroy all confidence and morale.

Read the news today. It will be working like a charm

Forgive my petulance and oft-times, I fear, ill-founded criticisms, and forgive me that I have, by this time, made your eyes and head ache with my long letter. But I cannot forgo hastily the pleasure and pride of thus conversing with you.
hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274



View Profile
January 13, 2015, 01:33:43 PM
 #20052

Im not sure if you guys already talked about it, neither if it is correct to ask here, but i recently came across the block size debate, where gavin actually favors it and is being declared 'war' from MP's "la sereniblabla" gang, arguing that it could lead to other scamcoins et al. But this is not about the sidechains issue right?

So here is my noob question: how generating 'fake bitcoins' and increasing the block size (as in the number of transactions per block?!) are linked?

Assuming that i did not messed up my understanding of the warmongering articles..
http://www.contravex.com/2015/01/12/bitcoin-doesnt-need-a-hard-fork-it-needs-hard-people/
http://trilema.com/2015/if-you-go-on-a-bitcoin-fork-irrespective-which-scammer-proposes-it-you-will-lose-your-bitcoins/
Don't read to much into his rant. Here's the thing: anything that can be tried, will be tried by someone. Gavin and his peers have taken much into consideration about what and when features are added to Bitcoin. Meanwhile a lot of devs have left Bitcoin because it is not progressing fast enough for all the new ideas. It is a good thing that MP has announced his intention up front so we know where his faction stands. Maybe he will go bother Buterin now.

hum alright, i get it, but it doesnt answer my question as to how increasing the block size has anything to do with releasing 'altcoins'.

plus, who in here seriously 'believes' MP's actually has the "strike force" that he claims?

Quote
my budget to sink this scam exceeds the budget of everyone involved on the supporting side. That is all.
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
January 13, 2015, 01:36:12 PM
 #20053

Im not sure if you guys already talked about it, neither if it is correct to ask here, but i recently came across the block size debate, where gavin actually favors it and is being declared 'war' from MP's "la sereniblabla" gang, arguing that it could lead to other scamcoins et al. But this is not about the sidechains issue right?

So here is my noob question: how generating 'fake bitcoins' and increasing the block size (as in the number of transactions per block?!) are linked?

Assuming that i did not messed up my understanding of the warmongering articles..
http://www.contravex.com/2015/01/12/bitcoin-doesnt-need-a-hard-fork-it-needs-hard-people/
http://trilema.com/2015/if-you-go-on-a-bitcoin-fork-irrespective-which-scammer-proposes-it-you-will-lose-your-bitcoins/
Don't read to much into his rant. Here's the thing: anything that can be tried, will be tried by someone. Gavin and his peers have taken much into consideration about what and when features are added to Bitcoin. Meanwhile a lot of devs have left Bitcoin because it is not progressing fast enough for all the new ideas. It is a good thing that MP has announced his intention up front so we know where his faction stands. Maybe he will go bother Buterin now.

hum alright, i get it, but it doesnt answer my question as to how increasing the block size has anything to do with releasing 'subcoins'.

plus, who in here 'believes' MP's actually has the "strike force" that he claims?

Quote
my budget to sink this scam exceeds the budget of everyone involved on the supporting side. That is all.
I think he means that anyone that allows a hard fork is in effect creating an altcoin. He is only worth IIRC about 20M. He can't do anything to Bitcoin.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
sidhujag
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582


View Profile
January 13, 2015, 08:03:21 PM
 #20054

we are on our next leg down.. litecoin to $1.3x then MAYBE $0.7x bitcoin down accordingly.

★☆★Syscoin - Decentralized Marketplace and Multisig Platform
Pay with Bitcoin, ZCash and many more
For more visit Syscoin.org  ★☆★
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
January 13, 2015, 08:33:07 PM
 #20055

Im not sure if you guys already talked about it, neither if it is correct to ask here, but i recently came across the block size debate, where gavin actually favors it and is being declared 'war' from MP's "la sereniblabla" gang, arguing that it could lead to other scamcoins et al. But this is not about the sidechains issue right?

So here is my noob question: how generating 'fake bitcoins' and increasing the block size (as in the number of transactions per block?!) are linked?

Assuming that i did not messed up my understanding of the warmongering articles..
http://www.contravex.com/2015/01/12/bitcoin-doesnt-need-a-hard-fork-it-needs-hard-people/
http://trilema.com/2015/if-you-go-on-a-bitcoin-fork-irrespective-which-scammer-proposes-it-you-will-lose-your-bitcoins/
Don't read to much into his rant. Here's the thing: anything that can be tried, will be tried by someone. Gavin and his peers have taken much into consideration about what and when features are added to Bitcoin. Meanwhile a lot of devs have left Bitcoin because it is not progressing fast enough for all the new ideas. It is a good thing that MP has announced his intention up front so we know where his faction stands. Maybe he will go bother Buterin now.

hum alright, i get it, but it doesnt answer my question as to how increasing the block size has anything to do with releasing 'subcoins'.

plus, who in here 'believes' MP's actually has the "strike force" that he claims?

Quote
my budget to sink this scam exceeds the budget of everyone involved on the supporting side. That is all.
I think he means that anyone that allows a hard fork is in effect creating an altcoin. He is only worth IIRC about 20M. He can't do anything to Bitcoin.

He would tell you that calculating his wealth in USD is a mistake and point to the 100k+ BTC he "controls" through MPex

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1540



View Profile
January 13, 2015, 09:02:57 PM
 #20056

I think he means that anyone that allows a hard fork is in effect creating an altcoin.

Perhaps he should stick with "the real Bitcoin" from before the hard fork that created the 1 MB limit.



MarketNeutral
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


View Profile
January 13, 2015, 09:22:12 PM
 #20057

MP will probably have more supporters than Gavin and Co. realize. There will be a schism.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
January 13, 2015, 09:43:40 PM
 #20058

Perhaps he should stick with "the real Bitcoin" from before the hard fork that created the 1 MB limit.
Hilarious how many people defend the 1 MB limit without realizing that it wasn't part of the original release.
hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274



View Profile
January 13, 2015, 10:04:35 PM
 #20059

Perhaps he should stick with "the real Bitcoin" from before the hard fork that created the 1 MB limit.
Hilarious how many people defend the 1 MB limit without realizing that it wasn't part of the original release.

That would be a great infographic - Satoshi's 1st code - Todays code with adds /deletes

+1 but i guess it would be quite a mess ^^
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204



View Profile
January 13, 2015, 10:05:49 PM
 #20060

Perhaps he should stick with "the real Bitcoin" from before the hard fork that created the 1 MB limit.
Hilarious how many people defend the 1 MB limit without realizing that it wasn't part of the original release.

I would prefer 256k limit.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 ... 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!