Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[macsga]

I think Gavin & Devs should meet at 8MB Blocks with at halving block since Blockstream's side chains are here now to assist. 

I also like the idea of looking at 1 minute blocks with 1 MB in the future.

When there's will, there's a solution. Gavin should stay with what he's doing best; programming. Sometimes your silence says more than your mouth does and it's far more persuasive. There are far better solutions than a "I decide this and it's non negotiable". I truly liked the guy; maybe he had enough and wants out. This is a perfect way to leave IMHO and nobody says a word...

[1529778730]

1529778730

[1529778730]

1529778730

[JLynn171]

I saw a thing on t.v. last night talking about how great gold was and trying to sell off what they had at the same time... i felt like it was a load of shit because if something was really as great as they were trying to make it out to be they wouldnt be selling what they had, but buying more and hoarding for themselves

[justusranvier]

Some of those new opcodes look great.

When will they make it into Bitcoin?

[Adrian-x]

in the end, Bitcoin with larger blocks is what will win.  sidechains will die and take Blockstream with it.
   

bitcoin will get larger blocks, just not now, "not tonight dear" ... sidechains are inevitable because they are a logical evolution of the technology (if you study self-similar network properties arising from the emergent behaviours due to self-interested individual elements you will know this), with or without blockstream (i'm picking with at this point in time).

Sidechains as embodied in Sidechains Elements is an innovative and inevitable use of the technology, I love it well done, it's what's proposed to come next that concerns me, changing the protocol to allow SPV proofs is an abuse of centralized power.

[cypherdoc]

Some of those new opcodes look great.

When will they make it into Bitcoin?

maybe never.  depends on how they perform on the SC.  they already are in Core but have been disabled.

[cypherdoc]

i think we should lift the cap altogether, add the spvp, and let her run.  we'll see which runs faster.

or, if they prefer, lift the cap and compare to the federated server model.

[cypherdoc]

somehow though, i don't think Blockstream wants the competition as iCE's reaction above would indicate. 

[justusranvier]

Some of those new opcodes look great.

When will they make it into Bitcoin?

maybe never.  depends on how they perform on the SC.  they already are in Core but have been disabled.

I mean the blinded amounts.

That's exactly the kind of improvement that should be added to the protocol.

[Adrian-x]

So at this time it's Bitcoin hat has the most utility, alts aren't a threat, there will be hacks that can leverage that network, there will be investment opportunities and price growth in alts but for now as I see it

Until there is something that Bitcoin can't do and where BTC is not accepted because Bitcoin is a sly, imminent KYC expropriation paradigm. So now you know how such a coin will be marketed. Prepare your counter-arguments.

I'm advocating the most valuable feature of Bitcoin is the size of the network, that's what makes it better money than alts.

There is no counter argument I agree with your analysis,  the bigger network will be a SC with features that attract ignorant lambs. Hell I'll also invest in it to avoid discrimination and to preserve value, Its proof of principal starts with somthing as a merge mined anonymous SC, and used for elicit internet commerce, then it's pumped and dumped and miners from jurisdictions that benefit from attacking the network lock exiting to BTC through the peg during the process.

[cypherdoc]

i thought this was great:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/395r7h/the_real_reason_for_not_reaching_consensus_on/cs0vgxe

the best part:  "Decentralization is so important that as adoption grows we must force everyone toward centralization." It's ludicrous.

[sickpig]

Some of those new opcodes look great.

When will they make it into Bitcoin?

maybe never.  depends on how they perform on the SC.  they already are in Core but have been disabled.

from a cursory look there are only 2 novel proposed opcodes, namely:

• A new DETERMINISTICRANDOM operation which produces a random number within a range from a seed.
• A new CHECKSIGFROMSTACK operation which verifies a signature against a message on the stack, rather than the spending transaction itself.

all the rest are OPCODEs that were disabled in 2010 due to security concerns.
 

I mean the blinded amounts.

That's exactly the kind of improvement that should be added to the protocol.

what you're referring to with blinded amount? signature http://elementsproject.org/#signature-covers-value

edit: or "confidential transaction" (http://elementsproject.org/#confidential-transactions) ?

[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.

[majamalu]

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.

[Adrian-x]

This is a key point on my todo research list. Federated servers don't work? Or wouldn't be trusted by the market?

Federated servers are just a hack to be able to test prior to getting the necessary softfork. Without the proper two-way peg where coins are secured by an SPV proof against the Bitcoin blockchain, this is fundamentally no different than any other off-chain solution where coins are being held in some form of custody.

This needs to be proved, It doesn't appear to be true, any business relationship is based on trust. The federated service will be (should become) as trusted as the service or product you purchase 100% dependent on reputation.

e.g. if i buy a particular security (product / service) I trust (1) it is what it is, this is reputation and then I must trust the person proposing the business opportunity, trust (2), this is reputation.
If trust (2) can be violated, guaranteeing trust (1) is irrelevant because it was misrepresented by an abuse of reputation. arguing that we need SideChains to increase trust (1) is not a valid reason to reduce trust, we still are reliant on reputation.

Gmax and Lukejr and other SC proponents see trust (1) as a holy grail, news flash, the mortgage backed securities if constructed in a trust free "blockchain technology" environment would still be dependent on the reputation of subjective evaluations and selling false promises.  

solving the reputation dilemma is more valuable to society, this technology without Federated servers is not innovation in trustlessness, just because it is done in a trust free way using SPV proofs doesn't solve the problem of trust as reputation, if anything it allows reputation to go unscathed as the SPV proof executed a multistig contract that was agreed, it executed flawlessly as both parties agreed, too bad you trusted some subjective AAA reputation system.

[tvbcof]

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.

Put another way, Bitcoin was a peer-2-peer solution back in the early days before the embrace-extend-extinguish folks produced and popularized their MultiBitch client.  Thanks God they didn't get their bloatchain dream into place, but it was not for lack of trying.

[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?  

yes and nullc wont sell out and abandon Bitcoin if the general community was to move in a direction he defined as suicidal.  Great leader wannabe, what's the market cap of Bitcoin, some $3,000,000,000 i don't think he thinks about the capital he is playing with.

[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?

[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.