Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[rocks]

That's an interesting line of reasoning.

It suggests that Bitcoin can only succeed if no such attackers exist.

Bitcoin can only succeed by growing larger than all attackers.

Maybe you and Peter Todd need to get in a room:

"Nifty paper proving what we knew already: w/o a blocksize limit there's no PoW security -> death of Bitcoin." http://t.co/VPsgVkdzj9
(https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/564934207487897601?s=03)

Since his tweet misrepresents what the paper says, it seems to me that he's irrationally entrenched in his opinion.

Yep. It is another downside of problems like this remaining unresolved for so long. As the debate continues people do become entrenched when they have have invested so much time and mental energy in their position. They have to admit to themselves that they wasted a lot of effort, if they reverse their view. This is further "cemented" once they go public and stake their reputation on an entrenched position. Peter did this with his video, and Mircea has done it on his blog in front of all his followers.

I have still not seen any reasonable argument why Bitcoin can't be allowed to scale at the rate of the slowest improving computing technology that it uses:  (bandwidth, at present).

From the abstract

We show that any situation with a fixed fee is equivalent to another situation with a limited block size.

And this is why bitcoin only allows free transactions for "priority" transactions (that are small), while everything else requires a fee. This by design ensures that there will be enough fees to support the network even if block sizes are limitless.

It is also why "priority" transactions are determined in BTC units. As the value of the network increases, fewer and fewer transaction qualify for free processing. To send a free transaction requires the equivalent of 1 BTC day (for example 2 BTC for 1/2 day or 0.5 BTC for 2 days). When BTC = $0.01 it was easy to qualify for free transactions and most were, but when BTC = $1000 very few transactions start to qualify. So by design more fees are generated as the value of bitcoin increases.

Satoshi thought this one through, and his design is holding up to the various academic attacks we are seeing.

[1714212029]

1714212029

[1714212029]

1714212029

[1714212029]

1714212029

[1714212029]

1714212029

[Melbustus]

That's an interesting line of reasoning.

It suggests that Bitcoin can only succeed if no such attackers exist.

Bitcoin can only succeed by growing larger than all attackers.

"Growing" implies a stage of being smaller, at which point such attackers can and will destroy it. How can anything grow if it is already destroyed?

Kinda the unlikely miracle of Bitcoin's current size, perhaps. This is partly why Wences Casares, for example, likes to assert that it's much less likely for Bitcoin to have gotten from 0 to where it is today, than for it to get to 1B users from where we are now.

Haven't heard that before,...

I think he's said it multiple times, but I first him say it in his Bitcoin 2014 presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NERAN-89j8M

It is also explains the 2011 bubble, which represented almost a 1000x increase in valuation. The reason was bitcoin crossed from being a small project among a few people (i.e. 0) to being a stand alone entity, this was a massive transition and validation of the platform.

Indeed. I think that's a reasonable distinction; the transition from effectively a pet project for a few dozen people, to something that could live on its own...

[tabnloz]

The HSBC story is fantastic  Shows once again double standard toward Bitcoins from regulators not even able to police traditional institutions

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/feb/08/hsbc-files-expose-swiss-bank-clients-dodge-taxes-hide-millions

Here's a link to the ZH article giving a list of some of the clients.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-09/if-your-name-list-prepare-be-audited-or-worse

[domob]

This math assumes the fork starts just after adjustment.

You're right, I forgot about that. So would it be best to schedule the fork for the middle of a period to minimize this impact, if that can be done? I think the Doge merged mining hardfork was scheduled for a specific block count, not time.

Yes, that can be done.  However, you also can't schedule the fork too close to the end of a retargeting period - otherwise the difficulty won't drop much, even when the hashrate drops significantly.  (That's presumably why you said "middle of a period" - this makes sense.  At least it should be some compromise.)

[hdbuck]

lol: https://xato.net/passwords/ten-million-passwords/#.VNoKgbCG-RT

torrent: http://www.justhack.co.in/10-million-userpass-combolist.html

Are you on the list? ^^

[sidhujag]

lol: https://xato.net/passwords/ten-million-passwords/#.VNoKgbCG-RT

torrent: http://www.justhack.co.in/10-million-userpass-combolist.html

Are you on the list? ^^

This is why we need our social identity secured by the blockchain:

http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2014/12/22/BitShares-Login/

proof of concept:

1) http://faucet.bitshares.org/users/sign_in?locale=en

my very own:

2) http://www.bitsharesdemo.com/presta/

[bucktotal]

lol: https://xato.net/passwords/ten-million-passwords/#.VNoKgbCG-RT

torrent: http://www.justhack.co.in/10-million-userpass-combolist.html

Are you on the list? ^^

This is why we need our social identity secured by the blockchain:

http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2014/12/22/BitShares-Login/

proof of concept:

1) http://faucet.bitshares.org/users/sign_in?locale=en

my very own:

2) http://www.bitsharesdemo.com/presta/

identity, login, and other certificate authority information might as well be backed by the security of the bitcoin network. ie, use namecoin, which is merge mined with bitcoin.

for ex. https://onename.com/

[uki]

If there exist entities that both care about Bitcoin and want to end it (and have sufficient motivation and resources)

...then they will succeed, and there's no technological solution we can implement that will stop them.

There is no substitute for growth as a defence against such attackers.

I thought I will bring back the discussion to the original topic (gold vs. BTC), using this very interesting post that fully applies to both BTC and gold. Gold has started this year pretty promising, yet the rally got capped pretty quickly as soon as there was the risk of putting the confirmation of the bottom on the charts. And down we go with the gold (see again the underlined sentence).

[rocks]

If there exist entities that both care about Bitcoin and want to end it (and have sufficient motivation and resources)

...then they will succeed, and there's no technological solution we can implement that will stop them.

There is no substitute for growth as a defence against such attackers.

I thought I will bring back the discussion to the original topic (gold vs. BTC), using this very interesting post that fully applies to both BTC and gold. Gold has started this year pretty promising, yet the rally got capped pretty quickly as soon as there was the risk of putting the confirmation of the bottom on the charts. And down we go with the gold (see again the underlined sentence).

Gold was attacked by outright banning possession for 2 generations until the general population forgot about gold's role as money. Today gold is regulated mostly to jewelry and central bank transfers. Without strong general public demand, it is easy for central bank's to manipulate prices.

Bitcoin is much more difficult to attack by banning possession, so they are left with regulation and compliance (for example tax compliance). The problem (for them) is greed is slowly taking hold with more and more people in positions of authority.

For example the ex-CEO of Credit Suisse recently stated "The only investment that demonstrably keeps its value over a long period is gold, and in future perhaps also bitcoins… Gold and Bitcoins production is limited.  Not so with money.  Central banks can print money limitlessly and these days they are telling us that openly.  It’s therefore no longer recoverable." There is a massive wealth transfer opportunity with bitcoin today and that is being recognized by more and more people, greed will protect the project.

[justusranvier]

There is a massive wealth transfer opportunity with bitcoin today and that is being recognized by more and more people, greed will protect the project.

Bitcoin has the capability to introduce a wedge between the individuals who make up the ruling institutions and the institutions themselves. Those institutions are only as powerful as their ability to promise the people who work for them a better deal than they could get anywhere else.

The name is intentional, DarkWallet is created to be radical.
Something which draws less attention probably would have been wise....too late now.

Actually quite the opposite.

Radical is the winning strategy.

Remember that "government" is just a word - there is no monolithic entity with that name. Instead, there are a large number of individuals who all have their own individual goals and motivations. The extent to which they cooperate to enforce certain policies on the rest of the population is a function of how well their individual goals and motivations align with the goals of the organization itself.

Regulators can't stop Bitcoin any more than the RIAA could stop P2P file sharing, so there's no need for Bitcoin users to self-censor out of a misplaced hope that doing so will protect them.

Every time regulators attempt to stifle Bitcoin and are unsuccessful, Bitcoin will gain more credibility and more users - and very importantly many of those users will be "defectors" from the government side. As governments are finding themselves unable to stop Bitcoin, their organizations will slowly start to fill up with Bitcoin users. Identifying the positive feedback loop in this scenario is left as an exercise for the reader.

Provoking conflict with the regulators is, in fact, the best thing that can happen for Bitcoin in the long term.

[smoothie]

If there exist entities that both care about Bitcoin and want to end it (and have sufficient motivation and resources)

...then they will succeed, and there's no technological solution we can implement that will stop them.

There is no substitute for growth as a defence against such attackers.

That's an interesting line of reasoning.

It suggests that Bitcoin can only succeed if no such attackers exist.

Sometimes such attackers keep what is being attacked healthy.

[smoothie]

5 Reasons To Buy Gold & Silver In 2015: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-08/guest-post-5-reasons-buy-gold-silver-2015



this chart oddly reminds me Bitcoin's diff+price chart  

A test of the $900 to $1050 range may be in the cards...

look at past resistance...should be support...well we will see.

[solex]

For a price chart which spans more than 10 years, the inflation-adjusted version is also useful. (This one a little stale though).

[domob]

lol: https://xato.net/passwords/ten-million-passwords/#.VNoKgbCG-RT

torrent: http://www.justhack.co.in/10-million-userpass-combolist.html

Are you on the list? ^^

This is why we need our social identity secured by the blockchain:

http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2014/12/22/BitShares-Login/

proof of concept:

1) http://faucet.bitshares.org/users/sign_in?locale=en

my very own:

2) http://www.bitsharesdemo.com/presta/

identity, login, and other certificate authority information might as well be backed by the security of the bitcoin network. ie, use namecoin, which is merge mined with bitcoin.

for ex. https://onename.com/

Do they (OneName) support logins?  The official identity system in Namecoin is the id/ namespace, by the way, not OneName.  See, for instance, https://nameid.org/ - including the ability to log into websites.  (Already in summer 2013, before BitShares was even in discussion, BTW.)

[smooth]

For a price chart which spans more than 10 years, the inflation-adjusted version is also useful. (This one a little stale though).

Okay so we are fairly near but now somewhat below recent decades' highs. What do you think that indicates?

[solex]

For a price chart which spans more than 10 years, the inflation-adjusted version is also useful. (This one a little stale though).

Okay so we are fairly near but now somewhat below recent decades' highs. What do you think that indicates?

It looks to me that it will bounce from the $1100s, probably for a few years, even permanently.
Too many shooting wars and currency wars going on for gold to stay down IMHO.

[uki]

5 Reasons To Buy Gold & Silver In 2015: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-08/guest-post-5-reasons-buy-gold-silver-2015



this chart oddly reminds me Bitcoin's diff+price chart  

A test of the $900 to $1050 range may be in the cards...

look at past resistance...should be support...well we will see.

great to see the updated version of this chart. When are the next talks about raising debt ceiling scheduled? This event may ignite some short-squeeze rally in gold, and possibly it may also have a positive influence on the price of bitcoin. It seems to me that there is a positive correlation between the price of gold and bitcoin, contrary to the title of this thread. Now, which of the two is leading it is another question.

[bucktotal]

lol: https://xato.net/passwords/ten-million-passwords/#.VNoKgbCG-RT

torrent: http://www.justhack.co.in/10-million-userpass-combolist.html

Are you on the list? ^^

This is why we need our social identity secured by the blockchain:

http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2014/12/22/BitShares-Login/

proof of concept:

1) http://faucet.bitshares.org/users/sign_in?locale=en

my very own:

2) http://www.bitsharesdemo.com/presta/

identity, login, and other certificate authority information might as well be backed by the security of the bitcoin network. ie, use namecoin, which is merge mined with bitcoin.

for ex. https://onename.com/

Do they (OneName) support logins?  The official identity system in Namecoin is the id/ namespace, by the way, not OneName.  See, for instance, https://nameid.org/ - including the ability to log into websites.  (Already in summer 2013, before BitShares was even in discussion, BTW.)

onename site says login support is coming. btw, i support your work big time and its a bummer the onename guys did not use /id (a mistake imo). but you gotta admit, they have a nicer website (and that sometimes matters when linking to random examples of applications)

edit: but you're right. i should have included nameid.org too.. my bad Domob.
<3

[NewLiberty]

If there exist entities that both care about Bitcoin and want to end it (and have sufficient motivation and resources)

...then they will succeed, and there's no technological solution we can implement that will stop them.

There is no substitute for growth as a defence against such attackers.

I thought I will bring back the discussion to the original topic (gold vs. BTC), using this very interesting post that fully applies to both BTC and gold. Gold has started this year pretty promising, yet the rally got capped pretty quickly as soon as there was the risk of putting the confirmation of the bottom on the charts. And down we go with the gold (see again the underlined sentence).

The goal in both cases XAU/XBT is to increase what is "sufficient" to subvert the currency.  XAU has had thousands of years head start, and is mostly but not completely subverted.

Justusranvier correctly points out that growth is a helpful defense or that.
Bad forks are harmful to it. 
Arguably, so also it is harmful for my showing how a proposal for a fork is bad.  It is just not as harmful as would be the implementation of it.

[cypherdoc]

Gold Collapsing. Bitcoin bottoming.