Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[NewLiberty]

In the great Bitcoin experiment of ours...
It is increasingly likely that we will experience a scarcity market for transactions, at least for a time.
It will be some interesting data.
I doubt it will be the 'end of bitcoin', or whatever the rush to increase folks are worrying over.

Full node volume has declined from a high point of about 250K in 2011 to maybe less than 10K nodes?
With the only incentives for running a full node being non-economic, primarily informational or possibly security concerns, it will be interesting to see if that rate of decline stabilizes somewhere.

250K was not due to economic incentives. There was no choice back then.

I know, but it was still worth it.
Its a downward trend for years.  Whether/when it levels or begins increasing, and under what conditions will prove interesting.  Don't you think?

[1714221136]

1714221136

[cypherdoc]

In the great Bitcoin experiment of ours...
It is increasingly likely that we will experience a scarcity market for transactions, at least for a time.
It will be some interesting data.
I doubt it will be the 'end of bitcoin', or whatever the rush to increase folks are worrying over.

Full node volume has declined from a high point of about 250K in 2011 to maybe less than 10K nodes?
With the only incentives for running a full node being non-economic, primarily informational or possibly security concerns, it will be interesting to see if that rate of decline stabilizes somewhere.

250K was not due to economic incentives. There was no choice back then.

I know, but it was still worth it.
Its a downward trend for years.  Whether/when it levels or begins increasing, and under what conditions will prove interesting.  Don't you think?

did you listen to the Mike Hearn interview on Epicenter Bitcoin?  he says the measuring methods used back then were poor and primitive and likely overestimated the #full nodes probably well under 100K.  today its better and we're at around 6086.

it's also downtrended mainly b/c of the proliferation of spv clients, imo.

[Adrian-x]

why don't you try debating the technical feasibilities instead of slinging arrows?

Because your sidestream FUD has already been repeatedly debunked.

If you didn't understand then, you won't understand now.

No amount of facts and logic are capable of disabusing you of your paranoid fear of and animosity towards Blockstream.

We get it.  You don't like Blockstream.  If they're for something, you're against it.

Sidechains are here now.  As for GavinCoin, "not tonight dear."   

Monero is bouncing right back up.  Even if it wasn't, you still be guilty of making the same invalid, cherrypicked "zomg BTC crashed from ATH wat a worthless failure AMIRIT" argument as Buttcoiners.  As others have said, you of all people know better.

i haven't seen is there an FAQ or something that i can read that will convince me I'm wrong, no one has addressed my concerns people like nullc retort and call my concerns personal attacks wrought with deformation, I've asked for a peer reviewed economic study on the impact of the proposed SPV proof protocol change, and been met with "that will never happen".

I think you are living in a circle jerk bubble.

[NewLiberty]

i would like to propose a compromise.

let the Blockstream folks insert their SPV proof into source while simultaneously eliminating the block size limit. then we can see which Ferrari will go faster.

the network effect of sound money vs that of SC's (speculation). it would be a fantastic test of the market.

No deal.  Sidechains are, as nullc and pwuille already patiently explained to you last night, "completely orthogonal to the blocksize debate."

Did you sleep well after getting spanked and pouting until downvoted?  

One interesting quote there:
"The blocksize debate if anything substantially slowed the release, absorbing mindbogglingly enormous amounts of time, and also having avoid including some scaling tools to avoid people getting confused that sidechains themselves were a scaling answer."

In the process of trying to show how they are not a conflict of interest, he uses a conflict of interest (time devoted).
The thing is, he is right sidechains are only a factor in scaling, but they aren't the answer.  They do provide for some scaling, but not at all a full solution.

They waste a lot of time trying to claim that there isn't a conflict of interest.  The better method is to simply acknowledge it and move on.  People are fairly accepting of the risk for now, but their efforts to fight it and claim it doesn't exist both make them look foolish and waste their time.

[kazuki49]

When the mining refuses transactions without KYC, then you will not be anonymous in Bitcoin. I have already explained how this will come about over time.

You are digging your expropriation grave with Bitcoin.

Anonymous cash has been the preferred form of money for the last centuries. It is only with the advent of Bitcoin in the last ~7 years that has opened the possibility of a traceable digital token for some delusional "one-world-one-block-chain" bitcoiners think its a silver bullet for every problem in the world, mainly against the system and its power-grabbing freaks they say to fight against.

http://www.wired.com/2015/06/tech-behind-bitcoin-stop-next-snowden/

Some of us see the threat. But how many of us are there? Enough to make an altcoin fly?

I think so, especially by drawing in the Silk Road market using an out-of-band application. What say you?

I say you have spoken like a true agent, Silk Road is dark web stuff.

[NewLiberty]

In the great Bitcoin experiment of ours...
It is increasingly likely that we will experience a scarcity market for transactions, at least for a time.
It will be some interesting data.
I doubt it will be the 'end of bitcoin', or whatever the rush to increase folks are worrying over.

Full node volume has declined from a high point of about 250K in 2011 to maybe less than 10K nodes?
With the only incentives for running a full node being non-economic, primarily informational or possibly security concerns, it will be interesting to see if that rate of decline stabilizes somewhere.

250K was not due to economic incentives. There was no choice back then.

I know, but it was still worth it.
Its a downward trend for years.  Whether/when it levels or begins increasing, and under what conditions will prove interesting.  Don't you think?

did you listen to the Mike Hearn interview on Epicenter Bitcoin?  he says the measuring methods used back then were poor and primitive and likely overestimated the #full nodes probably well under 100K.  today its better and we're at around 6086.

it's also downtrended mainly b/c of the proliferation of spv clients, imo.

I agree with the reasons, (lack of/creation of other options, and yes cost).  I am running fewer full nodes myself now than even two years ago.

[NewLiberty]

I say you have spoken like a true agent, Silk Road is dark web stuff.

I like the term "cypher-space" over dark web.  Just saying.

[tvbcof]

...
did you listen to the Mike Hearn interview on Epicenter Bitcoin?  he says the measuring methods used back then were poor and primitive and likely overestimated the #full nodes probably well under 100K.  today its better and we're at around 6086.
...

I listened to it.  It was a near continuous stream of desperate lies and deceit.  It was so pathetic it almost made me sad for him as he has made some significant contributions over the years.  He's lost and he knows it.

What's really funny is that the guy even realizes he might need to kludge around a POW minority problem.  <chuckle>  Maybe he can leverage some of the federated work that Blockstream has graciously open-sourced.  Or talk with justusranvier about getting their oracle thingy put in place for XT.

[Adrian-x]

In the great Bitcoin experiment of ours...
It is increasingly likely that we will experience a scarcity market for transactions, at least for a time.
It will be some interesting data.
I doubt it will be the 'end of bitcoin', or whatever the rush to increase folks are worrying over.

Full node volume has declined from a high point of about 250K in 2011 to maybe less than 10K nodes?
With the only incentives for running a full node being non-economic, primarily informational or possibly security concerns, it will be interesting to see if that rate of decline stabilizes somewhere.

I feel incentivized to run a full node for economic reasons, the economic reason is to preserve my savings, while I may be ensuring that part of Bitcoin’s market cap of 3.2 billion dollars is in sync with some 6000 nodes. That’s a half million dollars of responsibility I'm giving the network at my own expense, - that's a win win - i don't see it an a non economic motive. 

[Adrian-x]

i would like to propose a compromise.

let the Blockstream folks insert their SPV proof into source while simultaneously eliminating the block size limit. then we can see which Ferrari will go faster.

the network effect of sound money vs that of SC's (speculation). it would be a fantastic test of the market.

No deal.  Sidechains are, as nullc and pwuille already patiently explained to you last night, "completely orthogonal to the blocksize debate."

Did you sleep well after getting spanked and pouting until downvoted?  

One interesting quote there:
"The blocksize debate if anything substantially slowed the release, absorbing mindbogglingly enormous amounts of time, and also having avoid including some scaling tools to avoid people getting confused that sidechains themselves were a scaling answer."

In the process of trying to show how they are not a conflict of interest, he uses a conflict of interest (time devoted).
The thing is, he is right sidechains are only a factor in scaling, but they aren't the answer.  They do provide for some scaling, but not at all a full solution.

They waste a lot of time trying to claim that there isn't a conflict of interest.  The better method is to simply acknowledge it and move on.  People are fairly accepting of the risk for now, but their efforts to fight it and claim it doesn't exist both make them look foolish and waste their time.

I don't think they see it the way you do, pointing it out like you did brought it to my attention, although i read those same words, all i thought of was nullc writing pages and pages trying to prove his motives are consistent with a time when blockstream hadn't registered. he failed to address the fact he conserved of the idea back then too.  

he has in my view admired to tampering with evidence to prove allegations of a conflict of interest wrong.

[Odalv]

here is the entire talk.  everyone should read it.  it's good.

http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/gmaxwell-sidechains-elements/

but it's also complex and calls for lots of changes.  mostly on the SC's themselves, so that's good.  of course i don't understand it all, nor claim to.  but how many really do, including gmax himself?  it's time to put the thinking caps on and analyze.

Yes, a little more complex then increase number to 20M :-).

[cypherdoc]

i would like to propose a compromise.

let the Blockstream folks insert their SPV proof into source while simultaneously eliminating the block size limit. then we can see which Ferrari will go faster.

the network effect of sound money vs that of SC's (speculation). it would be a fantastic test of the market.

No deal.  Sidechains are, as nullc and pwuille already patiently explained to you last night, "completely orthogonal to the blocksize debate."

Did you sleep well after getting spanked and pouting until downvoted?  

One interesting quote there:
"The blocksize debate if anything substantially slowed the release, absorbing mindbogglingly enormous amounts of time, and also having avoid including some scaling tools to avoid people getting confused that sidechains themselves were a scaling answer."

In the process of trying to show how they are not a conflict of interest, he uses a conflict of interest (time devoted).
The thing is, he is right sidechains are only a factor in scaling, but they aren't the answer.  They do provide for some scaling, but not at all a full solution.

They waste a lot of time trying to claim that there isn't a conflict of interest.  The better method is to simply acknowledge it and move on.  People are fairly accepting of the risk for now, but their efforts to fight it and claim it doesn't exist both make them look foolish and waste their time.

i'll be damned.  i was gonna just post exactly this based on that quote that popped into my head.

which goes back to a previous concern of how nullc spends inordinate amounts of time politicking on forums.  amazing actually.

[cypherdoc]

here is the entire talk.  everyone should read it.  it's good.

http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/gmaxwell-sidechains-elements/

but it's also complex and calls for lots of changes.  mostly on the SC's themselves, so that's good.  of course i don't understand it all, nor claim to.  but how many really do, including gmax himself?  it's time to put the thinking caps on and analyze.

Yes, a little more complex then increase number to 20M :-).

but that's a very good thing.  what's Gavin's proposal code change require?  changing a setting?

whereas SC's requires encrypting everything, changing the signature scheme, enabling over a dozen unpredictable OP_CODES, depending on the altruism of merge mining, risking pass thru scBTC on a less secure SC, draining value and fees away from MC, seriously changing the emphasis from sound money to speculation.

did i miss any?

[cypherdoc]

...
did you listen to the Mike Hearn interview on Epicenter Bitcoin?  he says the measuring methods used back then were poor and primitive and likely overestimated the #full nodes probably well under 100K.  today its better and we're at around 6086.
...

I listened to it.  It was a near continuous stream of desperate lies and deceit.  It was so pathetic it almost made me sad for him as he has made some significant contributions over the years.  He's lost and he knows it.

What's really funny is that the guy even realizes he might need to kludge around a POW minority problem.  <chuckle>  Maybe he can leverage some of the federated work that Blockstream has graciously open-sourced.  Or talk with justusranvier about getting their oracle thingy put in place for XT.

wow, the older i get, the more amazed i am at just how different we all are.  i guess that's what makes a community.

[Odalv]

here is the entire talk.  everyone should read it.  it's good.

http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/gmaxwell-sidechains-elements/

but it's also complex and calls for lots of changes.  mostly on the SC's themselves, so that's good.  of course i don't understand it all, nor claim to.  but how many really do, including gmax himself?  it's time to put the thinking caps on and analyze.

Yes, a little more complex then increase number to 20M :-).

but that's a very good thing.  what's Gavin's proposal code change require?  changing a setting?

whereas SC's requires encrypting everything, changing the signature scheme, enabling over a dozen unpredictable OP_CODES, depending on the altruism of merge mining, risking pass thru scBTC on a less secure SC, draining value and fees away from MC, seriously changing the emphasis from sound money to speculation.

did i miss any?

Gavin: We can ADD another horse harness to a wagon.
Greg: Let's build a truck.

[cypherdoc]

i would like to propose a compromise.

let the Blockstream folks insert their SPV proof into source while simultaneously eliminating the block size limit. then we can see which Ferrari will go faster.

the network effect of sound money vs that of SC's (speculation). it would be a fantastic test of the market.

No deal.  Sidechains are, as nullc and pwuille already patiently explained to you last night, "completely orthogonal to the blocksize debate."

Did you sleep well after getting spanked and pouting until downvoted?  

One interesting quote there:
"The blocksize debate if anything substantially slowed the release, absorbing mindbogglingly enormous amounts of time, and also having avoid including some scaling tools to avoid people getting confused that sidechains themselves were a scaling answer."

In the process of trying to show how they are not a conflict of interest, he uses a conflict of interest (time devoted).
The thing is, he is right sidechains are only a factor in scaling, but they aren't the answer.  They do provide for some scaling, but not at all a full solution.

They waste a lot of time trying to claim that there isn't a conflict of interest.  The better method is to simply acknowledge it and move on.  People are fairly accepting of the risk for now, but their efforts to fight it and claim it doesn't exist both make them look foolish and waste their time.

I don't think they see it the way you do, pointing it out like you did brought it to my attention, although i read those same words, all i thought of was nullc writing pages and pages trying to prove his motives are consistent with a time when blockstream hadn't registered. he failed to address the fact he conserved of the idea back then too.  

he has in my view admired to tampering with evidence to prove allegations of a conflict of interest wrong.

that's a little strong even for me.  but i get your point and i'll probably be guilty of saying the same thing somewhere along the line here.  there is such a thing as trying too hard though and he seems to not get that.

i actually think the community is made up mostly of sound money advocates like most of us here.  i say this based on all the coins that have been dormant and reflected in the days destroyed stats.  i also think the desperation of the masses is to seek SOV and not speculation.  i've gone thru the stats before on this and we all know that the forex mkts are where the real money is at.  that will be the source of Bitcoin's future value as problems in fiat currency continue to build.  even if SC's get enabled somewhere along the line here as spvp, i doubt they'll be used much.  certainly used by the geeks and other speculators.  but there will be consequences for those ppl which will result in losses from decreased security. like i keep saying, lots of ppl need to keep losing money on our way to the top.

so in the end, i doubt it matters much if they get implemented.  i don't need to fight it.  i'll just keep pointing out my thoughts on the matter.

[cypherdoc]

the other thing here that i think rocks pointed out.

gmax et al are very highly visible and identified.  will TPTB let them implement all this privacy tech?  i don't know. 

we do know satoshi left b/c he didn't want to get carted away.

[Odalv]

the other thing here that i think rocks pointed out.

gmax et al are very highly visible and identified.  will TPTB let them implement all this privacy tech?  i don't know. 

we do know satoshi left b/c he didn't want to get carted away.

Blockstream published ideas. It is hard to invent, but once things are invented and described then it is easy to implement.

[Odalv]

the other thing here that i think rocks pointed out.

gmax et al are very highly visible and identified.  will TPTB let them implement all this privacy tech?  i don't know.  

we do know satoshi left b/c he didn't want to get carted away.

Now we know
 a) how to build simple elements (lego parts).
 b) what elements do we need.

And we know how to build a wall from a brick (lego parts)


Edit:

Now we can build house, and we know that house will stay here for 100 years, we only need to replace door (federated peg) with "better door" (SPV proof) 

[cypherdoc]

the other thing here that i think rocks pointed out.

gmax et al are very highly visible and identified.  will TPTB let them implement all this privacy tech?  i don't know.  

we do know satoshi left b/c he didn't want to get carted away.

Now we know
 a) how to build simple elements (lego parts).
 b) what elements do we need.

And we know how to build a wall from a brick (lego parts)


Edit:

Now we can build house, and we know that house will stay here for 100 years, we only need to replace door (federated peg) with "better door" (SPV proof)  

no, i get that.  that's your view as a dev, ie, the one's who are really grabbing on to this idea.

but as even staunch supporters as tvbcof have said, he will only bounce in and out of a SC with small amts to prevent from getting trapped by what is a relatively high friction 2wp that we know takes at least 2d or 144 blocks to clear on the SC.  i need to read more about this "hybrid" traverse back and forth Corrallo was talking about.  what was interesting about the nullc talk is how each "element" had an different author.  it will be interesting to see how all the elements fit together and interact in what is clearly going to be a highly complex system that's completely encrypted, which slows things down even more.  

my schtick is that this is more about a system of users and about money.  satoshi designed the tech to enforce sound money first and foremost.  it's not about the tech altho that's what you'd say it is about.  we'll see if it's really about the economic majority.  

but hey, i get it, devs gotta dev.