Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[GambitBTC]

Not sure how to feel about the hardfork

[1714211930]

1714211930

[1714211930]

1714211930

[1714211930]

1714211930

[Chef Ramsay]

Coinbase coming out backing Gavin:

https://twitter.com/cypherdoc2/status/595741967759335426

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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.

[cypherdoc]

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 suspect this is too much logic for the skeptics.

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?

i think both gmax and luke are on record that they would like to experience the mild chaos that might result from bumping up against the limit; as if it wouldn't have any negative long term consequences.  that is the naivete and ignorance of a technologist who doesn't understand money.  investors and ordinary users will just walk away in such a situation and Bitcoin would be irreparably harmed.

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

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.

i too have read most of gmax's posts over the years.  i honestly believe he doesn't fully believe in Bitcoin.  reread this post he made today.  it's almost as if, when backed into a corner by this Gavin proposal, he gives tortured platitudes to Bitcoin's fundamentals. i've never heard him talk like this before:

"I do have something to gain by being careful and thoughtful about the block size though, the same thing I had to gain in 2011 when I wrote the above link: I gain Bitcoin continuing as an interesting secure and decentralized system, an ongoing interest that is worthy of the worlds attention; hopefully the same as you. I start from the premise that Bitcoin is worth having-- that it's something better than paypal or some centeralized service (which could scale much better!) because it's decentralized. That is Bitcoin's fundamental advantage; and we must take great care to not undermine it or allow it to continue to fade out-- as we've seen with mining where compromising a half dozen computers/companies could quite possibly rewrite the chain today."

but following this, he launches into his usual stance of identifying all the problems he sees with Bitcoin once again.  those which i don't see as particularly problematic or insolvable going forward.

for even more than the last 2 yrs he has always focused on the negatives of Bitcoin esp when it comes to centralization.  i suspect he never invested significantly in BTC, altho since the Blockstream controversy, he claims to have done so.  i highly doubt it.  his venture into Blockstream would allow him to profit from a second chance via SC's but would endanger Bitcoin, imo.  that may be harsh but it says right there in the WP that Bitcoiners may be forced to migrate to a superior SC which would in essence destroy all the early adoption in Bitcoin itself.  and $21M of high powered investment money is expecting a 10x return at least and will effect one's decision making.

[smooth]

i suspect he never invested significantly in BTC

He has mined from (almost, if not) the very beginning. I don't know how much, but I would guess a significant amount.

Maybe that gives a different perspective than investing hard-earned money out of pocket. If that is a good or bad thing, I don't know.

[molecular]

Coinbase coming out backing Gavin:

https://twitter.com/cypherdoc2/status/595741967759335426

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.

Except if the business model includes profiting from off-chain transactions.

It's good to see coinbase support bigger blocks. I wouldn't have bet on it. What about circle?

[cypherdoc]

Coinbase coming out backing Gavin:

https://twitter.com/cypherdoc2/status/595741967759335426

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.

Except if the business model includes profiting from off-chain transactions.

It's good to see coinbase support bigger blocks. I wouldn't have bet on it. What about circle?

But, but marcus says Coinbase is the big bad boogie man of Bitcoin. Aren't they supposed to want what's best for themselves which should be small 1mb blocks so that offchain TX's become the thing?

They couldn't possibly want what's best for Bitcoin which is involves supporting Gavin could they?

[marcus_of_augustus]

cypherdoc : your personal vendettas have just become toxic. Play the ball not the man, it is just becoming a continual string of ad hominem and character smearing (or cheering) with you. Take a vacation or bitcoin burn-out might get you ...

[marcus_of_augustus]

Coinbase coming out backing Gavin:

https://twitter.com/cypherdoc2/status/595741967759335426

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.

Except if the business model includes profiting from off-chain transactions.

It's good to see coinbase support bigger blocks. I wouldn't have bet on it. What about circle?

But, but marcus says Coinbase is the big bad boogie man of Bitcoin. Aren't they supposed to want what's best for themselves which should be small 1mb blocks so that offchain TX's become the thing?

They couldn't possibly want what's best for Bitcoin which is involves supporting Gavin could they?

You really, really don't get it do you? You can't see past your blind greed I'm afraid. Of course coinbase wants more centralisation ... how hard is that to understand?

[cypherdoc]

marcus, the above poll results and the general tenor of support on reddit for Gavin's proposal clearly indicates that it is you who doesn't get it.

[cypherdoc]

marcus, never mind me. what's with you and Gavin anyways? I noticed you were racking up the down votes big time on reddit today after a series of characteristic disrespectful  comments from you against him. What did he do, flip you off one time?

[marcus_of_augustus]

marcus, the above poll results and the general tenor of support on reddit for Gavin's proposal clearly indicates that it is you who doesn't get it.

Your opinion is mostly worthless at this point, so I'm not sure why you create so much noise instead of solutions?

Why do you post comments on github commits, are you making code commits? Seems pretentious.

[cypherdoc]

marcus, the above poll results and the general tenor of support on reddit for Gavin's proposal clearly indicates that it is you who doesn't get it.

Your opinion is mostly worthless at this point, so I'm not sure why you create so much noise instead of solutions?

Why do you post comments on github commits, are you making code commits? Seems pretentious.

Well if marcus says it, it must be true!

What, I can't comments on github just like the other 12 or so guys who did so?

[Last of the V8s]

marcus, the above poll results and the general tenor of support on reddit for Gavin's proposal clearly indicates that it is you who doesn't get it.

no, you. don't get it.

you are so self-important you rely on a few dozen yes-men to back you up. and reddit.

[cypherdoc]

marcus, the above poll results and the general tenor of support on reddit for Gavin's proposal clearly indicates that it is you who doesn't get it.

no, you. don't get it.

you are so self-important you rely on a few dozen yes-men to back you up. and reddit.

There you go again. They're not backing me up: they've indicated support for Gavin's proposal. Better to point to something objective in the poll and on reddit than simply sling mud like you're doing. But that's what you're good at; I understand.

[cypherdoc]

marcus, the above poll results and the general tenor of support on reddit for Gavin's proposal clearly indicates that it is you who doesn't get it.

no, you. don't get it.

you are so self-important you rely on a few dozen yes-men to back you up. and reddit.

Talk about not getting it. Do you realize you just insulted the intelligence of those very men you dare speak of?

I can see you've taken Dale Carnegies course on how to make friends and influence people.

[lunarboy]

Gentlemen a time out would be appreciated. It's getting a little warm in here.  



Can someone please point me to the specific details of this 20Mb blocksize increase, other than the http://gavinandresen.ninja/time-to-roll-out-bigger-blocks (not many details here)

I'm trying to find out if this is different to the last gavin update, where the rolling increase was proposed 20mb first and X% per increment after. Or if this new proposal is a different hacked increase to 20mb, thus requiring another hard fork in the future should this new limit need changing?

thanks