Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[solex]

What would a meltdown mean for Bitcoin?

IMHO a debt-driven deflationary meltdown would keep the BTC price depressed (as with gold) because billions of electronic dollars/euros etc are vanishing from the economy when debts are defaulted on.
BTC would spike (like gold) afterwards when central banks react with unprecedented money printing, far beyond any QE so far, but eventually they are caught out when the velocity of money ramps up causing an overcompensation for the debt-deflationary effects, and 1970s-style high-inflation is revisited, but worse. Then BTC and gold rockets.

BTC is a censorship-free refuge which will help it, plus 2/3rds are already mined, so it may front-run the above mess.

[1508759533]

1508759533

[1508759533]

1508759533

[1508759533]

1508759533

[1508759533]

1508759533

[rocks]

The negative interest rate hall of mirrors is screwing with people's minds enough to wake them up from the Central Bank manipulated price-perception fantasy dream. The monetary CONfidence game may be coming to an end ... feels to me like the Rubicon has been crossed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/jeremy-warner/11569329/Jeremy-Warner-Negative-interest-rates-put-world-on-course-for-biggest-mass-default-in-history.html

nothing new, it seems at this point the reality could simply go beyond the fiction. at least for quite a while. just look at varoufakis exiting negociations by the small door.

I disagree, what is novel here is a mainstream financial editor/writer willing to threaten the centralbank mind-control mantra and say specifically, "This is really, really, f$#%ed up". Fiat money is based purely on perception and Keynesians write papers on "behavioral economics" that fuel the manipulations, jaw-boning, market operations, etc that target price controls. If the illusion begins to dissolve it is over, that is how fragile the current situation is.

What is depressing is it has taken the prospect of negative nominal rates to start this. Negative real rates are what really matter, that is financial repression. We have had negative real rates for years, but most people seem OK with that. It is only when the nominal rate goes negative and people see that their balances will go down, that all of a sudden it's an issue.

An educated populace would have balked at negative real rates. That fact that we collectively didn't says a lot.

[marcus_of_augustus]

...

What would a meltdown mean for Bitcoin?

The network will keep operating and you will still have control of your private keys.

[justusranvier]

We do need to get larger transaction volume capability into Bitcoin before there's a legacy financial system meltdown.

Right now the infrastructure isn't capable of scaling to pick up the slack, and nobody's interested in fixing the resource allocation problem in a comprehensive way such that we could be ready for sudden, massive growth.

Apparently building appcoins based on MMT is more fun, or pays better, or something.

[explorer]

The negative interest rate hall of mirrors is screwing with people's minds enough to wake them up from the Central Bank manipulated price-perception fantasy dream. The monetary CONfidence game may be coming to an end ... feels to me like the Rubicon has been crossed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/jeremy-warner/11569329/Jeremy-Warner-Negative-interest-rates-put-world-on-course-for-biggest-mass-default-in-history.html

nothing new, it seems at this point the reality could simply go beyond the fiction. at least for quite a while. just look at varoufakis exiting negociations by the small door.

 
I disagree, what is novel here is a mainstream financial editor/writer willing to threaten the centralbank mind-control mantra and say specifically, "This is really, really, f$#%ed up". Fiat money is based purely on perception and Keynesians write papers on "behavioral economics" that fuel the manipulations, jaw-boning, market operations, etc that target price controls. If the illusion begins to dissolve it is over, that is how fragile the current situation is.

What is depressing is it has taken the prospect of negative nominal rates to start this. Negative real rates are what really matter, that is financial repression. We have had negative real rates for years, but most people seem OK with that. It is only when the nominal rate goes negative and people see that their balances will go down, that all of a sudden it's an issue.

An educated populace would have balked at negative real rates. That fact that we collectively didn't says a lot.

There is a reason  that we find the 'average' person to be stupid.  It is not an illusion.  It is merely perspective.  Most people are not suited to academic learning.  They are suited (in wool?) to following, and we can't have a trend until they do (follow), regardless of right/wrong/need/want.  The truth is, they HAVE been 'educated'. It is just that our little minority disagrees with the particular indoctrination with which they were so easily placated.

[smooth]

Until yesterday I thought UTXO commitments were a good idea. After the discussion here I oppose it for 2 reasons:

• It gives additional capabilities to a 51% attacker

I don't think this is true. UTXO hashes would be verified the same as transactions.

Not if people are trusting them. Only if people are constructing them or verifying them. So you have a tragedy of the commons where if you have this nice little hash you can use to cheaply verify transactions without processing all the data, while expecting "someone else" to do the heavy lifting, the network as a whole gets weaker.

I have to qualify that by saying I haven't looked that closely at the UXTO commitment proposals so my analysis may be slightly off, but I don't think so.

[rocks]

Until yesterday I thought UTXO commitments were a good idea. After the discussion here I oppose it for 2 reasons:

• It gives additional capabilities to a 51% attacker

I don't think this is true. UTXO hashes would be verified the same as transactions.

Not if people are trusting them. Only if people are constructing them or verifying them. So you have a tragedy of the commons where if you have this nice little hash you can use to cheaply verify transactions without processing all the data, while expecting "someone else" to do the heavy lifting, the network as a whole gets weaker.

I have to qualify that by saying I haven't looked that closely at the UXTO commitment proposals so my analysis may be slightly off, but I don't think so.

UTXO hashes would be verified by both the P2P network and full (archival) nodes that maintain full history. I'd consider them as strong as a regular chain.

Another way to look at it is, why can't a 51% miner reward themselves with larger than allowed coinbase transactions and increase the supply of coins beyond 21M? They do after all have the power to create the longest chain. The reason is such blocks are invalid and would be rejected as an invalid chain. Same with UTXO hashes, any attempt to insert an invalid UTXO hash is an invalid block and rejected by the P2P network. It is the exact same protection mechanism.

[rocks]

Last arguments for UTXO hashes, then I'll stop on it.

The reason I think bitcoin is going to have to add UTXO hashes at some point at simple, without them new nodes at some point will be forced to use centralized services that require trust to get going. In that scenario UTXO hashes strengthen bitcoin by providing a trustless mechanism for new nodes to get started.

In 30 years when Bitcoin has fully taken over, eliminated all fiat and gold, and ALL of mankind's transactions are on the blockchain (including machine-to-machine micropayments), the blockchain will be 100 Exabytes in size and grow by 10 Exabytes per year. Even if a new node is able to download this volume of data, processing the full history takes several CPU years. (I'm making up the numbers to make a point)

In such an environment starting a new node is both too costly and takes too long.

To fix this, centralized services appear that offer services to help new nodes start. These services will provide a node state for download that is valid as of xxxx block. This node state will have the full header history, the current UTXO set, and some number of random blocks to serve to others. With this download anyone can start a new node in minutes, instead of years.

Some of these centralized services are run by entities we like (such as blockchain.info) but others are run by entities we don't or shouldn't (such as the Bitcoin Foundation). But in either case, the practicality of starting a new node forces most people to trust some 3rd party entity .

UTXO hashes would eliminate this trust and enable new nodes to quickly start in a manner where they only have to trust the integrity of the blockchain (which is all you should need to trust). As argued in the above posts, I haven't seen a valid attack on them, even with a 51% miner attack.

[smooth]

UTXO hashes would be verified by both the P2P network and full (archival) nodes that maintain full history. I'd consider them as strong as a regular chain.

The p2p network can't verify them if it doesn't have the full chain, which is exactly what we were talking about: lightweight nodes that run an ARM thumb or something. You have a bootstrapping problem.

Yes archival nodes would (or at least could) verify the whole thing, but there is nothing forcing them to, or at present not even any incentive to run an archival node at all. What happens if no one realizes that the last archival node shut down, or is malicious?

To be clear, I'm not arguing "against" UXTO commitments, just pointing out that there is a reduction in trustlessness if everyone isn't verifying everything, and added risks when the incentives to verify are aligned with letting "someone else" do it. These can probably be fixed, or at least controlled, I agree with what you said about the third party trust creeping in regardless.

[rocks]

UTXO hashes would be verified by both the P2P network and full (archival) nodes that maintain full history. I'd consider them as strong as a regular chain.

The p2p network can't verify them if it doesn't have the full chain, which is exactly what we were talking about: lightweight nodes that run an ARM thumb or something. You have a bootstrapping problem.

Yes archival nodes would (or at least could) verify the whole thing, but there is nothing forcing them to, or at present not even any incentive to run an archival node at all. What happens if no one realizes that the last archival node shut down, or is malicious?

To be clear, I'm not arguing "against" UXTO commitments, just pointing out that there is a reduction in trustlessness if everyone isn't verifying everything, and added risks when the incentives to verify are aligned with letting "someone else" do it. These can probably be fixed, or at least controlled, I agree with what you said about the third party trust creeping in regardless.

The thing to remember is you don't need to hold the full chain to participate as a full node. That is why pruning works.

Once you have a valid node state as of xxx block, you only need the header chain and the UTXO set to FULLY validate the next block. Assuming your node's state is correct, you do not need the full history to validate the next block. Again this is why pruning works.

A UTXO set offers a faster method to reach a valid state as of xxx block.

Today the only method to reach a valid state is to download & validate the complete history. But once your node has done so, your node can delete that history and just save the UTXO set, and still validate all future transactions and blocks. This is exactly what nodes that prune do. But this method is very inefficient, it is not a problem today, but it will be if bitcoin succeeds.

As another example, with pruning it is possible that all nodes on the P2P network prune their history, and NO nodes on the network have a complete history individually. But each one would still be able to independently validate transactions and blocks. This is because they still have the valid UTXO set, the pruned history is not necessary.

[cypherdoc]

As am archival full node operator, I appreciate the deeper understanding I'm getting from this discussion.

just in the last couple of days I have been renegotiating my yearly vps contracts serving up full nodes. My specs were 2GB RAM and 60GB disk space. From past experience I didn't want to increase my rate but wanted to decrease RAM to 1GB and increase disk to 100GB for future growth in the next year. I have about 1GB swap RAM which allows me to do this. After some back and forth with the sales manager they agreed. It's my intention to always be there with archival node service, if not via multiple paid vps service, at least with single home and business service.

I really like this utxo discussion. It's been helpful.

[ssmc2]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/magazine/how-bitcoin-is-disrupting-argentinas-economy.html?_r=0

"JPMorgan belongs to an association of big banks, the Clearing House, that has been confidentially putting together a “proof of concept” for a decentralized ledger, or blockchain, that would run on the computers of all the participating banks. According to people involved, this network, which is still in the conceptual phase, could allow instant transfers between accounts at all the member banks and eliminate the current risks involved in having billions of dollars in limbo for days at a time. For many bankers, the most valuable potential use of the blockchain is not small payments but very large ones, which account for the vast majority of the money moving around the world each day. The banks, though, are moving slowly, even as several start-ups are trying to use the Bitcoin blockchain to do the same thing on a global basis, cutting out the banks altogether."


When they inevitably realize that the only truly secure, decentralized blockchain is the original, well, you can't move "very large payments" with a 3.5 billion dollar marketcap. 

[cypherdoc]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/magazine/how-bitcoin-is-disrupting-argentinas-economy.html?_r=0

"JPMorgan belongs to an association of big banks, the Clearing House, that has been confidentially putting together a “proof of concept” for a decentralized ledger, or blockchain, that would run on the computers of all the participating banks. According to people involved, this network, which is still in the conceptual phase, could allow instant transfers between accounts at all the member banks and eliminate the current risks involved in having billions of dollars in limbo for days at a time. For many bankers, the most valuable potential use of the blockchain is not small payments but very large ones, which account for the vast majority of the money moving around the world each day. The banks, though, are moving slowly, even as several start-ups are trying to use the Bitcoin blockchain to do the same thing on a global basis, cutting out the banks altogether."


When they inevitably realize that the only truly secure, decentralized blockchain is the original, well, you can't move "very large payments" with a 3.5 billion dollar marketcap. 

this is going to be beautiful.

[cypherdoc]

continuing to look the hell out:

[cypherdoc]

new poll

[cypherdoc]

just to memorialize the results of last poll:

[justusranvier]

Poll needs an option for market-set limit

[cypherdoc]

Poll needs an option for market-set limit

that's what "no limit" refers to.

[Sup221]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/magazine/how-bitcoin-is-disrupting-argentinas-economy.html?_r=0

"JPMorgan belongs to an association of big banks, the Clearing House, that has been confidentially putting together a “proof of concept” for a decentralized ledger, or blockchain, that would run on the computers of all the participating banks. According to people involved, this network, which is still in the conceptual phase, could allow instant transfers between accounts at all the member banks and eliminate the current risks involved in having billions of dollars in limbo for days at a time. For many bankers, the most valuable potential use of the blockchain is not small payments but very large ones, which account for the vast majority of the money moving around the world each day. The banks, though, are moving slowly, even as several start-ups are trying to use the Bitcoin blockchain to do the same thing on a global basis, cutting out the banks altogether."


When they inevitably realize that the only truly secure, decentralized blockchain is the original, well, you can't move "very large payments" with a 3.5 billion dollar marketcap.  

this is going to be beautiful.

I thought bitcoin was supposed to be anti-banking/fiat "Honest Money".

Now bankers are free to join the fun so it's all good?

[cypherdoc]

$dxy continuing to roll:



TLT rolling too:



there is one other theory out there and it goes like this:

everything goes down except Bitcoin.