Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cbeast]

Certainly I'd want fewer unknowns and more knows before I was very comfortable with huge fraction of my net worth riding on Bitcoin.

What variables would you like to know to make you cofortable?

I'm chronically worried about people's behavior being influenced by legal and regulatory issues.  In spite of the tough talk, it's hard not to notice that when the rubber meets the road most people in the community (and out) capitulate immediately and do what the fuck they are told.  I almost certainly would.  The propensity is directly proportional to what one has to lose.

Also, as I've mentioned a bunch lately, I see the solution on a collision course with the big data companies if it is to survive at all.

Thus, I would like to have a much better idea qualitatively about the nature of those running mining gear, transfer nodes, etc.  This will allow me to better predict what might happen when and take appropriate actions.

What does "idea qualitatively about the nature of those [entities]" even mean?
There is a difference between knowing what and who. Knowing what can be done pseudonymously. Knowing who requires guns. Which is it, what or who?

[cypherdoc]

Certainly I'd want fewer unknowns and more knows before I was very comfortable with huge fraction of my net worth riding fry  on Bitcoin.

What variables would you like to know to make you cofortable?

I'm chronically worried about people's behavior being influenced by legal and regulatory issues.  In spite of the tough talk, it's hard not to notice that when the rubber meets the road most people in the community (and out) capitulate immediately and do what the fuck they are told.  I almost certainly would.  The propensity is directly proportional to what one has to lose.

Also, as I've mentioned a bunch lately, I see the solution on a collision course with the big data companies if it is to survive at all.

Thus, I would like to have a much better idea qualitatively about the nature of those running mining gear, transfer nodes, etc.  This will allow me to better predict what might happen when and take appropriate actions.

What does "idea qualitatively about the nature of those [entities]" even mean?
There is a difference between knowing what and who. Knowing what can be done pseudonymously. Knowing who requires guns. Which is it, what or who?

Don't ever expect much of his vomit ever to make much sense.

[smooth]

* Finally, one of them claimed that, if the cartel decided to do that, the, rather than accept a small compatible change to the protocol, surely all users would make a big incompatible change to the protocol, alienate all the miners, and go back to the network of 2010. And closed the discussion with "QED".

That was not the argument that proved your scenario unworkable. Maybe we need three of four posts before you read it, rather than throwing up a straw man and ignoring that your scenario fails. Or maybe you are just trollin'

Also the change you claim (incorrectly) users would accept is not a "small compatible change," it requires users to accept a hard fork. That's not compatible and its not small. Its perhaps the only thing that would indeed make another hard fork clearly (as) viable -- since users would simply be choosing between one hard fork or another.

[tvbcof]

What does "idea qualitatively about the nature of those [entities]" even mean?
There is a difference between knowing what and who. Knowing what can be done pseudonymously. Knowing who requires guns. Which is it, what or who?

One example would be as I mentioned earlier:  How much mining gear is sitting in someone's home-office relative to how much in liquid cooled racks in a datacenter.

I'd also really like to know about jurisdictional distribution of both mining and transfer nodes.  I think there are some maps, but such things are fairly easy to fake (and usually fairly dubious even when they are not faked.)

A more ideal system would make some of this stuff more known with higher reliability for operational reasons while preserving as much anonymity as possible.  But as I've said before, Bitcoin is what we've got and it's not likely or even possible that it will change in such ways.

[cbeast]

What does "idea qualitatively about the nature of those [entities]" even mean?
There is a difference between knowing what and who. Knowing what can be done pseudonymously. Knowing who requires guns. Which is it, what or who?

One example would be as I mentioned earlier:  How much mining gear is sitting in someone's home-office relative to how much in liquid cooled racks in a datacenter.

I'd also really like to know about jurisdictional distribution of both mining and transfer nodes.  I think there are some maps, but such things are fairly easy to fake (and usually fairly dubious even when they are not faked.)

A more ideal system would make some of this stuff more known with higher reliability for operational reasons while preserving as much anonymity as possible.  But as I've said before, Bitcoin is what we've got and it's not likely or even possible that it will change in such ways.

I agree with you, but that is the future, not today's reality. Mining will one day be done almost entirely by datacenters. You may not know exactly where they are, but they will be well protected by very large guns. Bitcoin doesn't need jurisdictions because you know you can't trust anyone, you can only trust the protocol and how it is engineered to balance mathematical security and networking limitations. If a major mining firm is going to overtly attack the network, it will destroy their investment. If they attack an individual, then it is best that you remain as anonymous as possible.

[JorgeStolfi]

* Finally, one of them claimed that, if the cartel decided to do that, the, rather than accept a small compatible change to the protocol, surely all users would make a big incompatible change to the protocol, alienate all the miners, and go back to the network of 2010. And closed the discussion with "QED".

That was not the argument that proved your scenario unworkable. Maybe we need three of four posts before you read it, rather than throwing up a straw man and ignoring that your scenario fails.

We were down to discussing the "Red Button" solution.  Wasn't that your argument?

Also the change you claim (incorrectly) users would accept is not a "small compatible change," it requires users to accept a hard fork. That's not compatible and its not small. Its perhaps the only thing that would indeed make another hard fork clearly (as) viable -- since users would simply be choosing between one hard fork or another.

Whether the users would accept it or not is a matter of belief, and clearly we have vastly different views about the mindset of the bitcoin community.  What we can discuss objectively is what are their choices and the respective gains/losses. 

Yes, either change in the protocol would require everybody to upgrade their client software, and recompile private software with upgraded libraries and/or parameters.  Like other hard forks in the past, and hard forks that will surely be necessary in the future, cartel or no cartel.   But the Red Button fork is way more radical than the cartel's.

Moreover, after the cartel's fork, only one branch will be viable, so most users will upgrade to it, and the price may not suffer; whereas the Red Button fork will result in two functioning "bitcoins", so the price will be split among them.

[smooth]

* Finally, one of them claimed that, if the cartel decided to do that, the, rather than accept a small compatible change to the protocol, surely all users would make a big incompatible change to the protocol, alienate all the miners, and go back to the network of 2010. And closed the discussion with "QED".

That was not the argument that proved your scenario unworkable. Maybe we need three of four posts before you read it, rather than throwing up a straw man and ignoring that your scenario fails.

We were down to discussing the "Red Button" solution.  Wasn't that your argument?

No, it was not.

Two or three more posts to go?

[Bagatell]

Two or three more posts to go?

If only.

[lebing]

what a crock of shit:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/story?guid=202a1eaa-9f62-11e4-b098-3bcc8cdda52c

honestly are they just trying to fuck people over? Or is this guy just a fucking moron?

[tvbcof]

What does "idea qualitatively about the nature of those [entities]" even mean?
There is a difference between knowing what and who. Knowing what can be done pseudonymously. Knowing who requires guns. Which is it, what or who?

One example would be as I mentioned earlier:  How much mining gear is sitting in someone's home-office relative to how much in liquid cooled racks in a datacenter.

I'd also really like to know about jurisdictional distribution of both mining and transfer nodes.  I think there are some maps, but such things are fairly easy to fake (and usually fairly dubious even when they are not faked.)

A more ideal system would make some of this stuff more known with higher reliability for operational reasons while preserving as much anonymity as possible.  But as I've said before, Bitcoin is what we've got and it's not likely or even possible that it will change in such ways.

I agree with you, but that is the future, not today's reality. Mining will one day be done almost entirely by datacenters. You may not know exactly where they are, but they will be well protected by very large guns. Bitcoin doesn't need jurisdictions because you know you can't trust anyone, you can only trust the protocol and how it is engineered to balance mathematical security and networking limitations. If a major mining firm is going to overtly attack the network, it will destroy their investment. If they attack an individual, then it is best that you remain as anonymous as possible.

And if they attack you because you are anonymous?  That doesn't actually seem like it should be a hugely challenging technical problem if there was sufficient pressure to do it (such as the forfeiture ones mining gear for example.)

If "forget about anonymity" then can you tell me what it is about Bitcoin that makes it particularly worth supporting or using.

My answer would be 'counter-party risk protection' but to say the truth there would be so little else that I would pretty much be forced to move on to more promising pastures (which also provided counter-party risk protection as a minimum.)

[cbeast]

What does "idea qualitatively about the nature of those [entities]" even mean?
There is a difference between knowing what and who. Knowing what can be done pseudonymously. Knowing who requires guns. Which is it, what or who?

One example would be as I mentioned earlier:  How much mining gear is sitting in someone's home-office relative to how much in liquid cooled racks in a datacenter.

I'd also really like to know about jurisdictional distribution of both mining and transfer nodes.  I think there are some maps, but such things are fairly easy to fake (and usually fairly dubious even when they are not faked.)

A more ideal system would make some of this stuff more known with higher reliability for operational reasons while preserving as much anonymity as possible.  But as I've said before, Bitcoin is what we've got and it's not likely or even possible that it will change in such ways.

I agree with you, but that is the future, not today's reality. Mining will one day be done almost entirely by datacenters. You may not know exactly where they are, but they will be well protected by very large guns. Bitcoin doesn't need jurisdictions because you know you can't trust anyone, you can only trust the protocol and how it is engineered to balance mathematical security and networking limitations. If a major mining firm is going to overtly attack the network, it will destroy their investment. If they attack an individual, then it is best that you remain as anonymous as possible.

And if they attack you because you are anonymous?  That doesn't actually seem like it should be a hugely challenging technical problem if there was sufficient pressure to do it (such as the forfeiture ones mining gear for example.)

If you are anonymous, they wouldn't know about your mining gear now, would they? Cancelling an anonymous payment might be a hospital bill for a child with cancer. That would not bode well for the miner that signed that block.

If "forget about anonymity" then can you tell me what it is about Bitcoin that makes it particularly worth supporting or using.

Who are you quoting? I presume it is Mr. Strawman. Bitcoin is pseudonymous. Anonymity is a social construct. It's not part of the protocol, but how it is used.

My answer would be 'counter-party risk protection' but to say the truth there would be so little else that I would pretty much be forced to move on to more promising pastures (which also provided counter-party risk protection as a minimum.)

Your strawman attempt at leaving wiggle room is in vain. You cannot have counter-party without trust in an authority. You Sir, are a Statist.

[smooth]

more promising pastures (which also provided counter-party risk protection as a minimum.)

Which ones are those?

I don't know of any.

[cbeast]

i made a point some time ago that if Bitcoin were to become a global reserve currency, much like gold, due to maintaining the 1MB block size, all Bitcoin 2.0 projects trying to ride the MC would be eliminated due to high tx costs.  in that case, the blockchain would only be applicable to Bitcoin as Money:

Bitcoin can't be money with a capped transaction rate.

Gold only maintains purchasing power due to being subsidized by central banks - there's no such thing as intrinsic value for a currency.

If those transaction rate limits are hit and the situation isn't fixed, then Bitcoin will disappear.

Some Venture Capitalists are funding alternative systems betting on the failure of Bitcoin. I can't really blame those few. The miraculous advent of the first block chain is falling to the betrayal of its own proponents to follow the spirit of creating a global currency. Fortunately, it's only the dumb ones doing that. Drive on, Bitcoin!

[NewLiberty]

This is the opposite of what is happening.
It is because we are worried about it that it is not a problem.
Whenever centralization increases, the twitter storms and articles splash everywhere and miners react.

So bitcoin's future is protected by the power of twitter storms and coindesk articles? Mind if I am not impressed?  

Seriously, I can't believe that a company would voluntarily shrink because some customers (who cannot choose their suppliers) complain about them being too big.  I would expect it to merely disguise its size, by using two or more diferent names.  Is anyone worried bout that?

What is your point?  The disaster did not happen until now, so the risk does not exist?

His point, and it is a good one, is that the available evidence points to a trend away from increasing centralization.

2012:  3 companies had more than 50%
2013:  2 companies has more than 50%
2014:  1 company (GHash.io) had more than 50%
2015:  4(?) companies have more than 50%

Well, sorry, I dont see a trend there.  

Read up on mining pools please.
Then check your assumptions.
The threat isn't what you think it is, it is addressed in ways you aren't comprehending, and it is only a small part of the centralization problems.

[_mr_e]

Ummm, so is this not massive news or what!?

https://twitter.com/nyse/status/557544864821542912

[zanzibar]

Ummm, so is this not massive news or what!?

https://twitter.com/nyse/status/557544864821542912

Yes, I would say that's very big news.

[justusranvier]

Ummm, so is this not massive news or what!?

https://twitter.com/nyse/status/557544864821542912

Yes, I would say that's very big news.

They are going to bring the same transparency to Bitcoin pricing that the bring to gold pricing. Or mortgage-backed security pricing.

Remember that if you don't have exclusive control over the private keys, you don't actually own any bitcoins.

[_mr_e]

Ummm, so is this not massive news or what!?

https://twitter.com/nyse/status/557544864821542912

Yes, I would say that's very big news.

They are going to bring the same transparency to Bitcoin pricing that the bring to gold pricing. Or mortgage-backed security pricing.

Remember that if you don't have exclusive control over the private keys, you don't actually own any bitcoins.

I think the important part here is that the nyse is publicly investing into Bitcoin. They've obviously done their homework and decided to go through with this. BitLicense and all, that says something rather loud in my book.

[lebing]

Ummm, so is this not massive news or what!?

https://twitter.com/nyse/status/557544864821542912

Yes, I would say that's very big news.

They are going to bring the same transparency to Bitcoin pricing that the bring to gold pricing. Or mortgage-backed security pricing.

Remember that if you don't have exclusive control over the private keys, you don't actually own any bitcoins.

What exactly does "transparency to pricing" mean?

[lebing]

What exactly does "transparency to pricing" mean?

It means in the future Wall St will be the speculative market setting the price like Gold and GLD ETF with BTC ETFs

Well, yes then I believe this is a big fucking deal.