Bitcoin Forum
December 18, 2017, 08:58:20 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   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 ... 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 [1173] 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2022644 times)
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
May 05, 2015, 09:58:25 PM
 #23441


I cant help but have a little chuckle, it is now obvious to me one Core Developer is an amazing programer but with limited foresight.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
1513630700
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513630700

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513630700
Reply with quote  #2

1513630700
Report to moderator
1513630700
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513630700

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513630700
Reply with quote  #2

1513630700
Report to moderator
1513630700
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513630700

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513630700
Reply with quote  #2

1513630700
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
May 05, 2015, 10:01:38 PM
 #23442

ppl get defensive when they know there's some truth to the allegation.  in fact, they start seeing things that aren't there, like in your comment.  problem is, though, Blockstream for profit does indeed represent a conflict of interest to expanding tx throughput on the MC.  it's clear they stand to profit the more this tx volume gets pushed off to SC's.  plus, given all his Bitcoin skepticism and behavior over the years, it all fits.

life isn't easy and I think there is more to his stress than we know, my only interest is to see Bitcoin succeed.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 05, 2015, 10:02:34 PM
 #23443


I cant help but have a little chuckle, it is now obvious to me one Core Developer is an amazing programer but with limited foresight.

limited understanding of economics and financial game theory.  his name is gmaxwell.

edit:  oh, and he's willing to try and cover up his posting history in this regard.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 05, 2015, 10:52:12 PM
 #23444


Quote from: nullc on redit
You've repeatedly made this accusation regarding me specifically-

LOL, bribing up that history is his response to this comment, for pointing out sidechains stand to benefit from a small transaction size.  I was not picking on him or even challenging his position merely pointing out why there was a debate at all.  

I originally stopped reading after the word specifically. but if it's any consolation ripple has always been a centralized system, and I have taken a lot of flack for pointing out that's its Achilles' heel and not supporting it, why not take some heat on the other side for not recognizing that fact at the start.  

I think nullc relates to sidechains on a very personal level and is feeling very threatened at the moment, my comment was an observation not an accusation for the record.

since even before the San Jose Conference 2013, smoothie and i have been pounding this thread and the forum in general about the problems with centralized Ripple gateways and their ridiculous premine model of XRP that awarded the founders billions.  we now see the fallout btwn them that has resulted.  anyone truly understanding of Bitcoin's core principles and how they did not relate to Ripple in any way recognized what has happened from the very beginning.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 05, 2015, 10:52:33 PM
 #23445

here's LukeJr going off on Reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/34y48z/mike_hearn_the_capacity_cliff_and_why_we_cant_use/cqzadpn
Chalkbot
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 891



View Profile
May 05, 2015, 10:57:26 PM
 #23446


Quote from: nullc on redit
You've repeatedly made this accusation regarding me specifically-

LOL, bribing up that history is his response to this comment, for pointing out sidechains stand to benefit from a small transaction size.  I was not picking on him or even challenging his position merely pointing out why there was a debate at all.  

I originally stopped reading after the word specifically. but if it's any consolation ripple has always been a centralized system, and I have taken a lot of flack for pointing out that's its Achilles' heel and not supporting it, why not take some heat on the other side for not recognizing that fact at the start.  

I think nullc relates to sidechains on a very personal level and is feeling very threatened at the moment, my comment was an observation not an accusation for the record.

since even before the San Jose Conference 2013, smoothie and i have been pounding this thread and the forum in general about the problems with centralized Ripple gateways and their ridiculous premine model of XRP that awarded the founders billions.  we now see the fallout btwn them that has resulted.  anyone truly understanding of Bitcoin's core principles and how they did not relate to Ripple in any way recognized what has happened from the very beginning.

Maybe the entire point of Ripple was to show bitcoin's superiority to the idea of "modernizing" the traditional money system.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 06, 2015, 12:30:20 AM
 #23447

Coinbase coming out backing Gavin:

https://twitter.com/cypherdoc2/status/595741967759335426
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
May 06, 2015, 12:39:00 AM
 #23448

Maybe the entire point of Ripple was to show bitcoin's superiority to the idea of "modernizing" the traditional money system.
I'll just leave this here...

If FinCEN loses they say "hmm well now we know" and there is absolute no consequence.  Even the cost of the trial was simply paid for by taxpayers (including Mike indirectly). If Mike loses they judicial system could take everything he owns, include his freedom for the next thirty years.  Not really worth it.

Imagine we played a game of poker and if you win I have to say "I was wrong" in public, if I win you get executed.  Now you are 80% sure you can beat me in poker, everyone says you have a very sold game.  Would you play?  How about if you were 99.9% sure?
Everybody thought I was exaggerating. "It's no problem - we'll talk to the regulators and do what it takes to become compliant like a good citizens and everything will be fine," they said.

Future Bitcoin services need to be run as if they are illegal enterprises, like Silk Road, even if what they are doing is apparently legal.

Why:
  • Laws change.
  • Regulations are vague and open-ended, and it's probably impossible to operate a business without accidentally violating one.
  • Even if you do manage to operate without violating any rule law enforcement agencies do not always limit themselves to the letter of the law when deciding to begin an enforcement action.
  • Governments are not the only threats to a successful business. Non-governmental organized crime is almost equally capable of extortion.

The solution is to run all services in the darknet, not tied to any physical location or legal jurisdiction, and without any explicit connection to a real-life identity.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 06, 2015, 01:02:35 AM
 #23449

given what has happened to Ripple today, i am forced to haul out one of my old time memes which i have now taken up to 70% probability in my own mind:

"The blockchain may only ever be applicable to Bitcoin as Money".

i've written several posts over the years detailing how CEO's and founders of Bitcoin financial startups are identifiably known targets for law enforcement.  they are almost irresistible targets as they are treading on the foundations of our financial system and incumbent interests.  this applies to every Bitcoin 2.0 company and every altcoin that has a known founder.

Bitcoin, as the only purely decentralized POW protocol designed specifically to be Sound Money, has none of these problems.  this is exactly why Satoshi disappeared.  sure, you can bring up the age 'ol argument that the USG can try to shutdown Bitcoin here in the US but then there will be many countries who will simply allow Bitcoin to route around the damage.  there is too much to be gained.

fiat investment is going to start being forced into the BTC currency unit as the only safe option.

edit:  here's one guy starting to get it: 
https://twitter.com/kristovatlas/status/595740095036182532
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
May 06, 2015, 01:07:33 AM
 #23450


Excellent. Any serious Bitcoin business will have this view because retaining the 1MB will not only cripple the network but also cripple dependent business models.

I think the problem that luke, gmaxwell, todd etc have is that they are too close to the tech. They think that the decay in confirmation times can be managed (when it will be a PR disaster), they think that the 1MB has relevance to the fees market, they ignore that node quality is improving even though node quantity declines, (but the decline should eventually be arrested by a growing ecosystem, and increasing price).

They basically need to get out of the woods and see the whole landscape: like Coinbase clearly does.

justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
May 06, 2015, 01:16:36 AM
 #23451

even though node quantity declines, (but the decline should eventually be arrested by a growing ecosystem, and increasing price).

Here's a quote from an essay I'm using as a source for my next article about Bitcoin economics. See if you can spot the parallel between this example and the number of nodes in the Bitcoin network:

https://mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarian

Quote
In the face of the combination of price controls and shortages, the effect of a decrease in the supply of an item is not, as it would be in a free market, to raise its price and increase its profitability, thereby operating to stop the decrease in supply, or reverse it if it has gone too far. Price control prohibits the rise in price and thus the increase in profitability. At the same time, the shortages caused by price controls prevent increases in supply from reducing price and profitability. When there is a shortage, the effect of an increase in supply is merely a reduction in the severity of the shortage. Only when the shortage is totally eliminated does an increase in supply necessitate a decrease in price and bring about a decrease in profitability.

As a result, the combination of price controls and shortages makes possible random movements of supply without any effect on price and profitability. In this situation, the production of the most trivial and unimportant goods, even pet rocks, can be expanded at the expense of the production of the most urgently needed and important goods, such as life-saving medicines, with no effect on the price or profitability of either good. Price controls would prevent the production of the medicines from becoming more profitable as their supply decreased, while a shortage even of pet rocks prevented their production from becoming less profitable as their supply increased.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 06, 2015, 02:22:41 AM
 #23452

Greece has revealed it is to introduce a surcharge for all cashpoint withdrawals and financial transactions in a desperate attempt to prevent citizens withdrawing their money from the country's beleaguered banks.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3068975/Greece-introduces-mandatory-surcharges-cashpoints-desperate-attempt-raise-money-stop-panicked-citizens-withdrawing-life-savings-country-s-beleaguered-banks.html
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 06, 2015, 02:32:18 AM
 #23453

more Gavin.

http://gavinandresen.ninja/does-more-transactions-necessarily-mean-more-centralized#kudo
marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2464



View Profile
May 06, 2015, 02:34:06 AM
 #23454


Excellent. Any serious Bitcoin business will have this view because retaining the 1MB will not only cripple the network but also cripple dependent business models.

I think the problem that luke, gmaxwell, todd etc have is that they are too close to the tech. They think that the decay in confirmation times can be managed (when it will be a PR disaster), they think that the 1MB has relevance to the fees market, they ignore that node quality is improving even though node quantity declines, (but the decline should eventually be arrested by a growing ecosystem, and increasing price).

They basically need to get out of the woods and see the whole landscape: like Coinbase clearly does.

coinbase looks to me like the next mt. gox waiting to happen ... can't see why you guys always rally behind centralised organisations for your self-affirmation. coinbase will be hacked or corrupted in some way, will you be singing their praises for what that brings?

luke-jr gmaxwell ptodd have done nothing to deserve the opprobium being dished up here, most of them have worked for free for years already, such ungrateful ignorance on display here is dismaying. There are many other quieter devs who disagree with gavin/hearn on this one but afraid of speaking out because of the risk of the kind of pillorying from the loud-mouths that might result. Wumpus is actually the lead dev now, gavin has been a figurehead for the last 2 versions ... and I haven't seen anyone question his role in the Bitcoin Foundation fiasco?

GambitBTC
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
May 06, 2015, 02:35:54 AM
 #23455

Not sure how to feel about the hardfork
Chef Ramsay
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1568



View Profile
May 06, 2015, 02:45:18 AM
 #23456


Excellent. Any serious Bitcoin business will have this view because retaining the 1MB will not only cripple the network but also cripple dependent business models.

I think the problem that luke, gmaxwell, todd etc have is that they are too close to the tech. They think that the decay in confirmation times can be managed (when it will be a PR disaster), they think that the 1MB has relevance to the fees market, they ignore that node quality is improving even though node quantity declines, (but the decline should eventually be arrested by a growing ecosystem, and increasing price).

They basically need to get out of the woods and see the whole landscape: like Coinbase clearly does.

coinbase looks to me like the next mt. gox waiting to happen ... can't see why you guys always rally behind centralised organisations for your self-affirmation. coinbase will be hacked or corrupted in some way, will you be singing their praises for what that brings?

Well, if that's your position then the newb buying options are going to dwindle on the vine to very little here in the US. If the Winks don't pan out then the outlook will be dim for any fatcats getting in and subsequently the boobs will have less options to help on the hindsight. Coinbase having many millions under their belt has to mean something positive for their operations.
msin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148


View Profile
May 06, 2015, 02:50:58 AM
 #23457

Ouch: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/34zj70/fincen_fines_ripple_labs_inc_in_first_civil/

Edit: see that was already discussed above.
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
May 06, 2015, 03:48:06 AM
 #23458

luke-jr gmaxwell ptodd have done nothing to deserve the opprobium being dished up here, most of them have worked for free for years already, such ungrateful ignorance on display here is dismaying. There are many other quieter devs who disagree with gavin/hearn on this one but afraid of speaking out because of the risk of the kind of pillorying from the loud-mouths that might result. Wumpus is actually the lead dev now, gavin has been a figurehead for the last 2 versions ... and I haven't seen anyone question his role in the Bitcoin Foundation fiasco?
There is zero opprobrium on my part, just dismay and puzzlement at seeing people who have done so much for Bitcoin become willing to let it slide into a high-risk state, when that is what they have strived to avoid all along. Trying to reduce spam by block-space rationing, forcing up fees, pricing users away to 3rd party off-chain services (like Coinbase?!) is a radical economic experiment on top of what is a nascent revolution in money, taking the robustness of its ecosystem for granted.

I make a point of reading gmaxwell's posts as they are always insightful, but one thing he has done remarkably well is fence-sit for over 2 years on the 1MB issue. If he dislikes Gavin's approach then where is his solution? How are crippling confirmation delays going to be avoided if core dev sits back and does nothing about the limit?

Wumpus has not ventured his solution, but neither has he been on reddit actively wanting to delay action on what is the No.1 issue for Bitcoin.

See if you can spot the parallel between this example and the number of nodes in the Bitcoin network:

https://mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarian

Quote
In the face of the combination of price controls and shortages, the effect of a decrease in the supply of an item is not, as it would be in a free market, to raise its price and increase its profitability, thereby operating to stop the decrease in supply, or reverse it if it has gone too far. Price control prohibits the rise in price and thus the increase in profitability. At the same time, the shortages caused by price controls prevent increases in supply from reducing price and profitability. When there is a shortage, the effect of an increase in supply is merely a reduction in the severity of the shortage. Only when the shortage is totally eliminated does an increase in supply necessitate a decrease in price and bring about a decrease in profitability.

As a result, the combination of price controls and shortages makes possible random movements of supply without any effect on price and profitability. In this situation, the production of the most trivial and unimportant goods, even pet rocks, can be expanded at the expense of the production of the most urgently needed and important goods, such as life-saving medicines, with no effect on the price or profitability of either good. Price controls would prevent the production of the medicines from becoming more profitable as their supply decreased, while a shortage even of pet rocks prevented their production from becoming less profitable as their supply increased.

Hmm. It seems to be a variation of Mises' "Calculation problem" and individuals trying to know better than markets.

justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
May 06, 2015, 04:11:06 AM
 #23459

Hmm. It seems to be a variation of Mises' "Calculation problem" and individuals trying to know better than markets.
Without working price discovery, the function that relates supply with demand is a random function.

That's why the number of full nodes appears to have no correlation with the number of Bitcoin users, number of transactions, or any other intuitive metric.

Until the price discovery problem is solved, we have no reason to assume the function will become non-random.
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
May 06, 2015, 04:17:13 AM
 #23460

Hmm. It seems to be a variation of Mises' "Calculation problem" and individuals trying to know better than markets.
Without working price discovery, the function that relates supply with demand is a random function.

That's why the number of full nodes appears to have no correlation with the number of Bitcoin users, number of transactions, or any other intuitive metric.

Until the price discovery problem is solved, we have no reason to assume the function will become non-random.

Ah! Absolutely. Particularly for non-mining nodes.

Pages: « 1 ... 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 [1173] 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 ... 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!