Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

Transports about to go off the next cliff.

Gavin's Bitcoin will be your salvation:

[1714523301]

1714523301

[1714523301]

1714523301

[1714523301]

1714523301

[1714523301]

1714523301

[1714523301]

1714523301

[cypherdoc]

likewise for gold.

[lunarboy]

i smell desperation from the 1MB'ers. 

they love to flap their lips don't they?

btw, my poll is back over 73%.  tisk, tisk.

My much more accurate poll is running 40/60 at the moment.

such a ridiculously loaded question for a poll is insulting.

[cypherdoc]

i smell desperation from the 1MB'ers. 

they love to flap their lips don't they?

btw, my poll is back over 73%.  tisk, tisk.

My much more accurate poll is running 40/60 at the moment.

such a ridiculously loaded question for a poll is insulting.

this one is even worse:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1098850.0

these guys have gone over the cliff with their desperate character assassination schemes.  do not trust them. 

they do not have a realistic view of the world.

[Adrian-x]

i smell desperation from the 1MB'ers. 

they love to flap their lips don't they?

btw, my poll is back over 73%.  tisk, tisk.

My much more accurate poll is running 40/60 at the moment.

But my vote is stuck on the wrong side over there.

[Adrian-x]

Cypher, you and Trolfi should unite. He's dispensing the gospel day after day on reddit and the forum.

I see that as burying one's head 100 feet deep in the sand and laying down a foot-thick concrete slab on top.

Transaction fees did not go up, because most clients were not prepared to upgrade their fees, and replace-by-fee is still not a common practice.  Transactions that paid the standard fee got delayed for many hours.  If the "attackers" had used higher paying transactions,  then hiigher-paying transactions would have been delayed too.  

The "attackers" had intended to spend 5000 euros on the test, but their own BitcoinD servers crashed under the load and so they gave up after spending less than 500 euros.  Even so, the large queues that formed at the nodes crashed Blockchain.info, knocked out bitcoin ATMs, caused problems for BitPay and other services.

The small-blockians have no meaningful technical arguments against the block increase, so they are resorting to personal attacks on Mike and Gavin, and exaggerating the danger of a possible a split of the coin.  Which would never be a real risk if they did not make such a fuss about the increase themselves.

Again, I am each day more convinced that Blockstream had promised to their investors that the network would saturate in a year or two, and then the crowds would come knocking at their door for their Sidechains/LN solutions; and that Blockstream had most of the core devs, so that they could make the changes that they needed to the protocol while blocking any changes that their competitors would need.  That would explain why they were so upset, and why they continue to oppose it when the major players have all agreed to it.

his mission is to protect people, originally he was trying to understand Bitcoin. He spends a lot of time studying manipulation and uncovering scams I find his dedication admirable.  

He is just protecting the people who don't understand what is happening by educating them.

He won't use Bitcoin, I once offered him 1BTC to play with so he could test the system.

[cypherdoc]

i can't believe ppl would sell or short into that bid wall to bail those guys out on BFX.  stupidity:

[hdbuck]

Cypher, you and Trolfi should unite. He's dispensing the gospel day after day on reddit and the forum.

I see that as burying one's head 100 feet deep in the sand and laying down a foot-thick concrete slab on top.

Transaction fees did not go up, because most clients were not prepared to upgrade their fees, and replace-by-fee is still not a common practice.  Transactions that paid the standard fee got delayed for many hours.  If the "attackers" had used higher paying transactions,  then hiigher-paying transactions would have been delayed too. 

The "attackers" had intended to spend 5000 euros on the test, but their own BitcoinD servers crashed under the load and so they gave up after spending less than 500 euros.  Even so, the large queues that formed at the nodes crashed Blockchain.info, knocked out bitcoin ATMs, caused problems for BitPay and other services.

The small-blockians have no meaningful technical arguments against the block increase, so they are resorting to personal attacks on Mike and Gavin, and exaggerating the danger of a possible a split of the coin.  Which would never be a real risk if they did not make such a fuss about the increase themselves.

Again, I am each day more convinced that Blockstream had promised to their investors that the network would saturate in a year or two, and then the crowds would come knocking at their door for their Sidechains/LN solutions; and that Blockstream had most of the core devs, so that they could make the changes that they needed to the protocol while blocking any changes that their competitors would need.  That would explain why they were so upset, and why they continue to oppose it when the major players have all agreed to it.

his mission is to protect people, originally he was trying to understand Bitcoin. He spends a lot of time uncovering scams I find his dedication admirable. 

He is just protecting the people who don't understand what is happening by educating them.

He won't use Bitcoin, I once offered him 1BTC to play with so he could test the system.

such good samaritan ^^

[Adrian-x]

Cypher, you and Trolfi should unite. He's dispensing the gospel day after day on reddit and the forum.

I see that as burying one's head 100 feet deep in the sand and laying down a foot-thick concrete slab on top.

Transaction fees did not go up, because most clients were not prepared to upgrade their fees, and replace-by-fee is still not a common practice.  Transactions that paid the standard fee got delayed for many hours.  If the "attackers" had used higher paying transactions,  then hiigher-paying transactions would have been delayed too. 

The "attackers" had intended to spend 5000 euros on the test, but their own BitcoinD servers crashed under the load and so they gave up after spending less than 500 euros.  Even so, the large queues that formed at the nodes crashed Blockchain.info, knocked out bitcoin ATMs, caused problems for BitPay and other services.

The small-blockians have no meaningful technical arguments against the block increase, so they are resorting to personal attacks on Mike and Gavin, and exaggerating the danger of a possible a split of the coin.  Which would never be a real risk if they did not make such a fuss about the increase themselves.

Again, I am each day more convinced that Blockstream had promised to their investors that the network would saturate in a year or two, and then the crowds would come knocking at their door for their Sidechains/LN solutions; and that Blockstream had most of the core devs, so that they could make the changes that they needed to the protocol while blocking any changes that their competitors would need.  That would explain why they were so upset, and why they continue to oppose it when the major players have all agreed to it.

his mission is to protect people, originally he was trying to understand Bitcoin. He spends a lot of time uncovering scams I find his dedication admirable. 

He is just protecting the people who don't understand what is happening by educating them.

He won't use Bitcoin, I once offered him 1BTC to play with so he could test the system.

such good samaritan ^^

Understanding how Bitcoin can be manipulated is a very interesting topic, being paid to do it is an engaging job. Sharing your findings and measuring the feedback loop is science.

If doesn't look like you are paying attention.

[hdbuck]

Cypher, you and Trolfi should unite. He's dispensing the gospel day after day on reddit and the forum.

I see that as burying one's head 100 feet deep in the sand and laying down a foot-thick concrete slab on top.

Transaction fees did not go up, because most clients were not prepared to upgrade their fees, and replace-by-fee is still not a common practice.  Transactions that paid the standard fee got delayed for many hours.  If the "attackers" had used higher paying transactions,  then hiigher-paying transactions would have been delayed too. 

The "attackers" had intended to spend 5000 euros on the test, but their own BitcoinD servers crashed under the load and so they gave up after spending less than 500 euros.  Even so, the large queues that formed at the nodes crashed Blockchain.info, knocked out bitcoin ATMs, caused problems for BitPay and other services.

The small-blockians have no meaningful technical arguments against the block increase, so they are resorting to personal attacks on Mike and Gavin, and exaggerating the danger of a possible a split of the coin.  Which would never be a real risk if they did not make such a fuss about the increase themselves.

Again, I am each day more convinced that Blockstream had promised to their investors that the network would saturate in a year or two, and then the crowds would come knocking at their door for their Sidechains/LN solutions; and that Blockstream had most of the core devs, so that they could make the changes that they needed to the protocol while blocking any changes that their competitors would need.  That would explain why they were so upset, and why they continue to oppose it when the major players have all agreed to it.

his mission is to protect people, originally he was trying to understand Bitcoin. He spends a lot of time uncovering scams I find his dedication admirable. 

He is just protecting the people who don't understand what is happening by educating them.

He won't use Bitcoin, I once offered him 1BTC to play with so he could test the system.

such good samaritan ^^

Understanding how Bitcoin can be manipulated is a very interesting topic, being paid to do it is an engaging job. Sharing your findings and measuring the feedback loop is science.

If doesn't look like you are paying attention.

It's not findings, it's opinions.

Personally i find this professor pretty boring, if not totally weird, and i would tend to disregard any of his "findings". Because "not invested".
Hence, him being aligned with me of some sort would tilt that red alarm in ma brainz.

But we are not looking for the same thing here.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Pantera Capital explains the "three buckets" theory, though combining mining and VC as a single bucket: https://panteracapital.com/download/the-five-phases-of-bitcoin-ibnyc-keynote/

[Adrian-x]

Cypher, you and Trolfi should unite. He's dispensing the gospel day after day on reddit and the forum.

I see that as burying one's head 100 feet deep in the sand and laying down a foot-thick concrete slab on top.

Transaction fees did not go up, because most clients were not prepared to upgrade their fees, and replace-by-fee is still not a common practice.  Transactions that paid the standard fee got delayed for many hours.  If the "attackers" had used higher paying transactions,  then hiigher-paying transactions would have been delayed too.  

The "attackers" had intended to spend 5000 euros on the test, but their own BitcoinD servers crashed under the load and so they gave up after spending less than 500 euros.  Even so, the large queues that formed at the nodes crashed Blockchain.info, knocked out bitcoin ATMs, caused problems for BitPay and other services.

The small-blockians have no meaningful technical arguments against the block increase, so they are resorting to personal attacks on Mike and Gavin, and exaggerating the danger of a possible a split of the coin.  Which would never be a real risk if they did not make such a fuss about the increase themselves.

Again, I am each day more convinced that Blockstream had promised to their investors that the network would saturate in a year or two, and then the crowds would come knocking at their door for their Sidechains/LN solutions; and that Blockstream had most of the core devs, so that they could make the changes that they needed to the protocol while blocking any changes that their competitors would need.  That would explain why they were so upset, and why they continue to oppose it when the major players have all agreed to it.

his mission is to protect people, originally he was trying to understand Bitcoin. He spends a lot of time uncovering scams I find his dedication admirable.  

He is just protecting the people who don't understand what is happening by educating them.

He won't use Bitcoin, I once offered him 1BTC to play with so he could test the system.

such good samaritan ^^

Understanding how Bitcoin can be manipulated is a very interesting topic, being paid to do it is an engaging job. Sharing your findings and measuring the feedback loop is science.

If doesn't look like you are paying attention.

It's not findings, it's opinions.

Personally i find this professor pretty boring, if not totally weird, and i would tend to disregard any of his "findings". Because "not invested".
Hence, him being aligned with me of some sort would tilt that red alarm in ma brainz.

But we are not looking for the same thing here.

Sure they are opinions as is the opinion I hope we share that satoshi's white paper is a world changing idea. Jorge doesn't share that one with us.

We just might not share the opinion that Blockstream are helping protect or propagate the idea by wanting to prevent people from investing in alternate ideas like market pegged altcoins.

I value variety of opinion more than consistency, the ones backed by logic and facts are the ones I try to internalize.

[rocks]

I want a solution which can give me something approaching the confidence I have in precious metals under times of stress.

I say that when (not if) there is another financial crisis of the type which (according to legend) incited Satoshi, and it cannot be controlled with bail-outs and such, it is a near certainty that alternates to whatever solution we are funneled into will be attacked vigorously.  This includes gold and Bitcoin.

I say that these attacks are nearly certain to include pressure on corporate internet infrastructure providers and leveraging of the monitoring framworks known to be available to entities such as our NSA.

There is no way to achieve the goal you want through the methods you're proposing.

If you want a currency that can store value, then it needs to be used by other people. That means it has to support the kind of usage levels that you're afraid of.

If remains too small to be effectively attacked, then it will also be too small to retain any kind of monetary value.

Safety through smallness is a dead end, which leaves safety through growth.

That might not work, but staying small for certain won't work.

Gold in modern societies counters your argument, but I agree that wide use is desirable.  Not necessarily for security but more for humanity.  This is exactly why sidechains are so important.  They're promise is a cryptographically strong and thus near perfect proxy for Bitcoin which is then free to hide out.  That it hides out significantly under the care of people with the skills to protect it is a good thing and a key to it's robustness.  Again, not at all unlike gold.

The sidechains where Bitcoin use flows among the masses are highly flexible to fill a variety of niches (e.g., a 'safe' monitored and controlled currency for use within the mandates of the state.)  They are also dispensable which addresses the single-point-of-failure problem.  What I never did envision was the crypto methods which could allow individuals using a successfully attacked sidechain to reclaim their original BTC eventually.  Brilliant!

Gold in modern societies proves justusranvier's point. The total value of all monetary gold is massively undervalued to the total value of monetary instruments.  The reason is because gold is not used as money by 99.9% of the population and so gold is not valued as money by 99.% percent of the population. The gold bug's dream from 1933 of the rest of the population finally waking up and re-valuing their gold to it's proper level has never happened because of this.

It takes a version of Bitcoin that scales to the point that every person on the planet can interact with it directly, to achieve the status that gold once held. To get there requires that bitcoin scales, while maintaining it's decentralized and thus independent nature.

One option to get there is to let the blockchain scale to accommodate everyone, this could look like the following and still be OK. This was Satoshi's vision according to my interpretation of his comments. This option is secure because the miners are highly distributed, decentralized and independent. They are what provide security. In many ways this is how Bitcoin looks today, except for the smaller blocksize.
- ~10GB sized blocks every 10 minutes
- ~100 P2P nodes that are independently sponsored and paid for to perform validation (these would be several large institutions such as MIT, remember it only takes 1 node to flag cheating)
- ~10 pools that receive fees from billions of transactions and are located in several regions (or preferably behind tor or something similar)
- ~100,000 small independent miners connected by stratum to pools, the true location of each miner is easily hidden. These miners live off of the massive number of fees generated

Another option to get there is to take transactions off-chain. This is the SC / lighting network path. The problem with this option is the bitcoin main chain is starved for fees, and so the mining security mechanism is too small to effectively secure the network. This thought process that small blocks will cause fee pressure and that will support a large mining community is just wrong. What will happen is bitcoin will not be used to the extent that it needs to be used to be secure.

A bitcoin with 10s of billions of transactions a day each generating 1 penny in minimum transaction fee, will be much more secure than a bitcoin with a small number of transactions and slight fee pressure (at best) and where most fees are captured by SCs.

[cypherdoc]

could this in any way be related to the new Blockstream Alpha SC that was recently hooked up to Testnet?:

https://blog.blocktrail.com/2015/06/bitcoin-testnet-is-forking-19-blocks-deep-and-counting/

[Mengerian]

I've come to see a single core as being the single greatest threat to Bitcoin out of all of this. A better situation to me would be a bitcoin P2P network with several separately developed cores that adhere to a common set of rules. The upgrade path is then always put to a vote. Any one core could then propose a change simply by implementing it (with a rule that after x% of blocks back the change it becomes active).

Then if people like the change, more will move to that core. This in turn would cause the other core to adopt the change or lose their users, and that is how consensus is achieved. If a majority did not like the change, they would not move to that core, and the change would never be accepted.

At no point in this do any set of gatekeepers get to dictate terms. Since no core has a majority of users captured, change would always have to come through user acceptance and adoption, and developers would simply be proposers of options.

Yes, in the long run a network composed of many parallel implementations would be the most robust and anti-fragile.

It strikes me that contentious consensus decisions such as this could serve as impetus for these parallel implementations. If miners and node operators "vote" on various hard- and soft-fork decisions by choosing to run different forks of the main client, then a more diverse software ecosystem could emerge. This should also be a less contentious way of coming to consensus, everyone simply choosing the client that will implement the policy they favor once a supermajority of the network agrees.

This would probably also require something better than "version number" for clients to communicate the consensus rules they are willing to follow. If several consensus changes are being considered simultaneously, then some sort of more fine-grained indication would be needed.

[cypherdoc]

as i said earlier this morning, you're getting to watch the Transports go off the next cliff:

[cypherdoc]

I've come to see a single core as being the single greatest threat to Bitcoin out of all of this. A better situation to me would be a bitcoin P2P network with several separately developed cores that adhere to a common set of rules. The upgrade path is then always put to a vote. Any one core could then propose a change simply by implementing it (with a rule that after x% of blocks back the change it becomes active).

Then if people like the change, more will move to that core. This in turn would cause the other core to adopt the change or lose their users, and that is how consensus is achieved. If a majority did not like the change, they would not move to that core, and the change would never be accepted.

At no point in this do any set of gatekeepers get to dictate terms. Since no core has a majority of users captured, change would always have to come through user acceptance and adoption, and developers would simply be proposers of options.

Yes, in the long run a network composed of many parallel implementations would be the most robust and anti-fragile.

It strikes me that contentious consensus decisions such as this could serve as impetus for these parallel implementations. If miners and node operators "vote" on various hard- and soft-fork decisions by choosing to run different forks of the main client, then a more diverse software ecosystem could emerge. This should also be a less contentious way of coming to consensus, everyone simply choosing the client that will implement the policy they favor once a supermajority of the network agrees.

This would probably also require something better than "version number" for clients to communicate the consensus rules they are willing to follow. If several consensus changes are being considered simultaneously, then some sort of more fine-grained indication would be needed.

yes, when viewed this way the prospect of XT becomes much less frightening despite the best efforts of the 1MB'ers to try and scare everyone.

what i'm not convinced of is that there can be many different implementations existing at any one time.  i don't mean the difference btwn btcd and Bitcoin Core; i mean btwn chains with say 1MB and 8MB block sizes.  if and when 8MB blocks catch on with say 75% majority of users, miners, and merchants, there will be tremendous incentives for participants to attack the competing chain in both directions.  personally, i feel the 1MB will be the weaker of the two unsurprisingly.  a persistent spamming attack to fill up the 1MB blocks seems to me to be the much easier and less expensive attack to perform.  after all, it didn't take many BTC to clog us up for the last two Stress Tests.  there are existing players with lots and lots of BTC that could be employed for this use as they would have a great incentive to shut down the 1MB chain.  on the flipside, an MP could try to attack the 8MB block similarly but it would cost him 8x the BTC along with the risk of orphans that miners won't allow.  guess who wins in the long run?  but there are many other reasons not to use SC's as i have gone on about ad nauseum, so maybe the above attack isn't even necessary.  i doubt the market will even want to use them in aggregate.

[cypherdoc]

my favorite silver mining proxy SLW going off the cliff and leading:

[cypherdoc]

both $DJI & $DJT accelerating to the downside now.

get yourself some Gavincoin.

[Adrian-x]

i smell desperation from the 1MB'ers.  

they love to flap their lips don't they?

btw, my poll is back over 73%.  tisk, tisk.

My much more accurate poll is running 40/60 at the moment.

such a ridiculously loaded question for a poll is insulting.

the fact that XT is favored given how the question is framed, to me indicated that the majority of people see past the FUD supporting the proponents of limiting block-size for now.