Bitcoin Forum
June 25, 2017, 05:35:54 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.14.2  [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 ... 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 [1430] 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 ... 1559 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1921763 times)
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148



View Profile
July 09, 2015, 10:05:47 PM
 #28581

Yes people will stop using Bitcoin b/c they have to pay $0.5 per transaction. They rather use bank and will pay $20.

Or use an altcoin that doesn't fetishize 1MB blocks and pay $0.01. Bitcoin can't afford to be ultra-conservative in the face of endless altcoin competition. It must take calculated risks or be overtaken.

 or ... there are SC
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1498412154
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1498412154

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1498412154
Reply with quote  #2

1498412154
Report to moderator
1498412154
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1498412154

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1498412154
Reply with quote  #2

1498412154
Report to moderator
1498412154
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1498412154

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1498412154
Reply with quote  #2

1498412154
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 09, 2015, 10:07:11 PM
 #28582

Yes people will stop using Bitcoin b/c they have to pay $0.5 per transaction. They rather use bank and will pay $20.

Or use an altcoin that doesn't fetishize 1MB blocks and pay $0.01. Bitcoin can't afford to be ultra-conservative in the face of endless altcoin competition. It must take calculated risks or be overtaken.

 or ... there are SC

like i said:


if i have to migrate to a new chain and lose money doing it, i'm done with crypto.

they warned us in the WP it could happen.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148



View Profile
July 09, 2015, 10:09:37 PM
 #28583

Yes people will stop using Bitcoin b/c they have to pay $0.5 per transaction. They rather use bank and will pay $20.

Or use an altcoin that doesn't fetishize 1MB blocks and pay $0.01. Bitcoin can't afford to be ultra-conservative in the face of endless altcoin competition. It must take calculated risks or be overtaken.

 or ... there are SC

like i said:


if i have to migrate to a new chain and lose money doing it, i'm done with crypto.

they warned us in the WP it could happen.

Please, tell me how many bitcoin are you spending everyday ? Did you spend any during 6 years ?
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708


https://monero.stackexchange.com/a/1203


View Profile WWW
July 09, 2015, 10:09:57 PM
 #28584

the congestion really has only just begun.  if it persists, yes, ppl will start to stop using Bitcoin.  the exit starts slowly at first and then will morph into a stampede; especially if the price starts plunging.  the mempool is a problem that does have to be fixed so that ordinary users can start getting their tx's through.  they won't be as patient as some of us here.

Yes people will stop using Bitcoin b/c they have to pay $0.5 per transaction. They rather use bank and will pay $20.
 

[Frappuccino_Doc]

African kids don't have banks, nor $20.  Cheep space on 8GB Gavinblocks is their (and by extension, all of humanity's) only hope.

The network is congested, even though transactions with appropriate fees are working just fine.  Efficiency is more important than resiliency.

Satoshi never planned for Bitcoin to be decentralized forever.  We must try hard to increase adoption, at any cost.

MPEX and everyone else opposed to larger blocks ASAP are Monero pumpers.  Especially iCEBREAKER and tvbcof.

The core devs are corrupt and worthless.  We would be better off with Mike "Drop fees by 10x" Hearn and some guys from Rent-A-Coder.

I'm an OG true believer in the potential of stateless e-cash.  if i have to migrate to a new chain and lose money doing it, i'm done with  crypto.

People will stop using gold as a store of value, because Bitcoin is here to stay no matter what.  Bitcoin is going to die without larger blocks.

Cripplecoin.

[/Frappuccino_Doc]

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Core GUI - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }
MoneroForCash.com  |  Buy and sell XMR near you  |  Easymonero.com  |  Bitsquare.io - Decentralized XMR Exchange  |  Buy XMR with fiat
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


View Profile
July 09, 2015, 10:10:28 PM
 #28585

Yes people will stop using Bitcoin b/c they have to pay $0.5 per transaction. They rather use bank and will pay $20.

Or use an altcoin that doesn't fetishize 1MB blocks and pay $0.01. Bitcoin can't afford to be ultra-conservative in the face of endless altcoin competition. It must take calculated risks or be overtaken.

 or ... there are SC

Yes, if they work (as an aside, why does Blockstream keep saying sidechains are not a scalability solution?).

I'd rather it be spinoffs, which are much simpler and less risky.
izanami
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 52


View Profile
July 09, 2015, 10:12:51 PM
 #28586

is possible LTC rise to 0.1 BTC?  Huh
I heard bitcoin getting stronger because there are two countries that go bankrupt  Shocked
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 09, 2015, 10:14:42 PM
 #28587

is possible LTC rise to 0.1 BTC?  Huh
I heard bitcoin getting stronger because there are two countries that go bankrupt  Shocked

if we weren't being crippled by iCEBlow and his Cripplecoiners, we'd have had the huge LTC rally here.
luigi1111
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1112



View Profile
July 09, 2015, 10:17:10 PM
 #28588

if i have to migrate to a new chain and lose money doing it, i'm done with  crypto.

If you see the event ahead of time (and act on it), you'd likely make an enormous amount of money rather than losing.
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708


https://monero.stackexchange.com/a/1203


View Profile WWW
July 09, 2015, 10:21:40 PM
 #28589

is possible LTC rise to 0.1 BTC?  Huh
I heard bitcoin getting stronger because there are two countries that go bankrupt  Shocked

if we weren't being crippled by iCEBlow and his Cripplecoiners, we'd have had the huge LTC rally here.

If XT weren't being buttressed by Frap.doc and his Buttcoiners, we'd have the huge NFLX rally here.

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Core GUI - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }
MoneroForCash.com  |  Buy and sell XMR near you  |  Easymonero.com  |  Bitsquare.io - Decentralized XMR Exchange  |  Buy XMR with fiat
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 09, 2015, 10:23:31 PM
 #28590

if i have to migrate to a new chain and lose money doing it, i'm done with  crypto.

If you see the event ahead of time (and act on it), you'd likely make an enormous amount of money rather than losing.

that's true.  but i converted from gold to Bitcoin precisely b/c i saw it as a SOV to replace gold that's had that role for thousands of years.  i'm not about to remain in a system that guarantees a rolling ponzi scheme every 5-6 yrs where i might get lucky the first migration but lose everything the second migration.  Bitcoiners should have the luxury of socking savings away in a cold wallet and forgetting about it maybe for the rest of their lives as they hand them down generation after generation.  b/c that is what it will take to really replace gold as digital gold.

we were told that the open source nature of the code would be able to adapt or mutate according to threats.  migration to another chain is the antithesis of that.
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


View Profile
July 09, 2015, 10:27:17 PM
 #28591

Yes people will stop using Bitcoin b/c they have to pay $0.5 per transaction. They rather use bank and will pay $20.

Or use an altcoin that doesn't fetishize 1MB blocks and pay $0.01. Bitcoin can't afford to be ultra-conservative in the face of endless altcoin competition. It must take calculated risks or be overtaken.

so important to demonstrate that it is indeed open source adaptable and resilient.  forks are not to be feared but to be encouraged in the proper situations.

I completely agree.

Branching into law, here's a quote from John Hasnas, the Hayekian legal professor (emphasis mine):

Quote
I have been arguing that the law is inherently indeterminate, and further, that this may not be such a bad thing. I realize, however, that you may still not be convinced. Even if you are now willing to admit that the law is somewhat indeterminate, you probably believe that I have vastly exaggerated the degree to which this is true. After all, it is obvious that the law cannot be radically indeterminate. If this were the case, the law would be completely unpredictable. Judges hearing similar cases would render wildly divergent decisions. There would be no stability or uniformity in the law. But, as imperfect as the current legal system may be, this is clearly not the case.

The observation that the legal system is highly stable is, of course, correct, but it is a mistake to believe that this is because the law is determinate. The stability of the law derives not from any feature of the law itself, but from the overwhelming uniformity of ideological background among those empowered to make legal decisions. Consider who the judges are in this country. Typically, they are people from a solid middle- to upper-class background who performed well at an appropriately prestigious undergraduate institution; demonstrated the ability to engage in the type of analytical reasoning that is measured by the standardized Law School Admissions Test; passed through the crucible of law school, complete with its methodological and political indoctrination; and went on to high-profile careers as attorneys, probably with a prestigious Wall Street-style law firm. To have been appointed to the bench, it is virtually certain that they were both politically moderate and well-connected, and, until recently, white males of the correct ethnic and religious pedigree. It should be clear that, culturally speaking, such a group will tend to be quite homogeneous, sharing a great many moral, spiritual, and political beliefs and values. Given this, it can hardly be surprising that there will be a high degree of agreement among judges as to how cases ought to be decided. But this agreement is due to the common set of normative presuppositions the judges share, not some immanent, objective meaning that exists within the rules of law.

In fact, however, the law is not truly stable, since it is continually, if slowly, evolving in response to changing social mores and conditions. This evolution occurs because each new generation of judges brings with it its own set of "progressive" normative assumptions. As the older generation passes from the scene, these assumptions come to be shared by an ever-increasing percentage of the judiciary. Eventually, they become the consensus of opinion among judicial decisionmakers, and the law changes to reflect them. Thus, a generation of judges that regarded "separate but equal" as a perfectly legitimate interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment gave way to one which interpreted that clause as prohibiting virtually all governmental actions that classify individuals by race, which, in turn, gave way to one which interpreted the same language to permit "benign" racial classifications designed to advance the social status of minority groups. In this way, as the moral and political values conventionally accepted by society change over time, so too do those embedded in the law.

The law appears to be stable because of the slowness with which it evolves. But the slow pace of legal development is not due to any inherent characteristic of the law itself. Logically speaking, any conclusion, however radical, is derivable from the rules of law. It is simply that, even between generations, the range of ideological opinion represented on the bench is so narrow that anything more than incremental departures from conventional wisdom and morality will not be respected within the profession. Such decisions are virtually certain to be overturned on appeal, and thus, are rarely even rendered in the first instance.

Confirming evidence for this thesis can be found in our contemporary judicial history. Over the past quarter-century, the "diversity" movement has produced a bar, and concomitantly a bench, somewhat more open to people of different racial, sexual, ethnic, and socio-economic backgrounds. To some extent, this movement has produced a judiciary that represents a broader range of ideological viewpoints than has been the case in the past. Over the same time period, we have seen an accelerated rate of legal change. Today, long-standing precedents are more freely overruled, novel theories of liability are more frequently accepted by the courts, and different courts hand down different, and seemingly irreconcilable, decisions more often. In addition, it is worth noting that recently, the chief complaint about the legal system seems to concern the degree to which it has become "politicized." This suggests that as the ideological solidarity of the judiciary breaks down, so too does the predictability of legal decisionmaking, and hence, the stability of the law. Regardless of this trend, I hope it is now apparent that to assume that the law is stable because it is determinate is to reverse cause and effect. Rather, it is because the law is basically stable that it appears to be determinate. It is not rule of law that gives us a stable legal system; it is the stability of the culturally shared values of the judiciary that gives rise to and supports the myth of the rule of law.

We could rewrite the bold text to make a fundamental point about Bitcoin forks and open source in general:

"The observation that Bitcoin is highly stable is, of course, correct, but it is a mistake to believe that this is because it is "governed by impartial math" or code. The stability of Bitcoin derives not from any feature of the code itself, but from the overwhelming uniformity of ideological background and interests among its investors and other stakeholders."

The correct way to think about it is that Bitcoin is constantly forking, just usually to the same thing, because the stakeholders by default desire constancy. But by the same token, whenever Bitcoin needs to change to better serve what its investors/stakeholders deem to be its purpose, that continual forking - like someone just repeatedly pushing a button marked "STATUS QUO" - will shift easily to the necessary change. Of course this will essentially never involve changing the monetary parameters, because - again - that would be the "third rail" for investors and other stakeholders. They will ONLY support changes that add value.

It is not, like the code-focused devs imagine, a matter of stakeholders desiring that "the code" remain constant, but a matter of them desiring that "the code + the environment it interacts with = the resulting effective functionality of Bitcoin in the world" remain constant. If and when that environment changes, the code must also change: in this case, when there is greater adoption and higher technology available, especially with altcoins nipping at Bitcoin's heels, the code must change just to keep the final result (the effective functionality of Bitcoin in the world) constant.
HeliKopterBen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622



View Profile
July 09, 2015, 10:27:32 PM
 #28592

The sub-coins (Litecoin, Peercoin, and Namecoin - the original three popular alts) were down from their average ratio to BTC and were due for an upward correction. As usual, the stress testing is just the trigger, just the domino that sets off the cascade of pent-up tension there. It would have happened sooner or later anyway.

Note the orange line, showing Litecoin price in term of BTC. It's merely returning to its usual ratio. It will likely overshoot a bit out of exuberance, then settle back down.



It looks a bit worse if you use log scale.  In fact, btc has fallen 80% when priced in ltc in the past 2 months, but it is still only a 50% retracement from the all time high.  Hopefully it is just a natural bounceback, but it is a bit stronger than I would have expected, and it goes against Cypherdoc's thesis that there will only be one dominant POW money.  Its definitely due for a pullback.


Counterfeit:  made in imitation of something else with intent to deceive:  merriam-webster
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


View Profile
July 09, 2015, 10:38:18 PM
 #28593

if i have to migrate to a new chain and lose money doing it, i'm done with  crypto.

If you see the event ahead of time (and act on it), you'd likely make an enormous amount of money rather than losing.

No, because the principle would be dead. You'd forever have to be an investor, hopping from coin to coin. No reliability as a store of value. That's why it won't happen. Altcoins (meaning alt-ledgers, not alt-protocols) are a fundamentally self-defeating idea, except in catastrophic backup scenarios and as testnets. The window to market an altcoin to a new audience unfamiliar with Bitcoin - so that it wouldn't be an altcoin from those new people's perspective - has mostly closed, making it truly self-defeating as a long-term investment proposition.

Now alt-protocols are different, as they can be pasted on to Bitcoin's ledger via the spinoff method; maintaining Bitcoin's ledger just like a sidechain would try to. If Litecoin, for example, turns out to be better and there's somehow no way to incorporate its better ideas into the Bitcoin protocol, LTC will not be what rises; instead a spinoff of Litecoin will administer Bitcoin's ledger and BTC will rise because it has successfully improved itself!
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
July 09, 2015, 10:44:12 PM
 #28594

If there is only 1 copy of blockchain then I expect it is located in 1 datacenter. (node)
I agree that if the least secure and reliable way, out of all the other possible ways, of storing the blockchain was chosen, it probably wouldn't work very well.

Did you have anything else to add to the discussion?
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


View Profile
July 09, 2015, 10:46:31 PM
 #28595

is possible LTC rise to 0.1 BTC?  Huh
I heard bitcoin getting stronger because there are two countries that go bankrupt  Shocked

In terms of market cap, it has been typical for Litecoin to be around 10% of Bitcoin. (But since there are nearly 4x as many LTC as BTC, the price should be closer to 1 LTC = 0.025 BTC, which is almost exactly where we are now.) Nothing strange going on.
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


View Profile
July 09, 2015, 10:48:10 PM
 #28596

is possible LTC rise to 0.1 BTC?  Huh
I heard bitcoin getting stronger because there are two countries that go bankrupt  Shocked

if we weren't being crippled by iCEBlow and his Cripplecoiners, we'd have had the huge LTC rally here.

Well maybe 10% of it, since it's a 10x small market. But as I said, the stress test is only the narrative. The ratio is merely reverting to the norm.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 09, 2015, 10:49:51 PM
 #28597

Yes people will stop using Bitcoin b/c they have to pay $0.5 per transaction. They rather use bank and will pay $20.

Or use an altcoin that doesn't fetishize 1MB blocks and pay $0.01. Bitcoin can't afford to be ultra-conservative in the face of endless altcoin competition. It must take calculated risks or be overtaken.

so important to demonstrate that it is indeed open source adaptable and resilient.  forks are not to be feared but to be encouraged in the proper situations.

I completely agree.

Branching into law, here's a quote from John Hasnas, the Hayekian legal professor (emphasis mine):

Quote
I have been arguing that the law is inherently indeterminate, and further, that this may not be such a bad thing. I realize, however, that you may still not be convinced. Even if you are now willing to admit that the law is somewhat indeterminate, you probably believe that I have vastly exaggerated the degree to which this is true. After all, it is obvious that the law cannot be radically indeterminate. If this were the case, the law would be completely unpredictable. Judges hearing similar cases would render wildly divergent decisions. There would be no stability or uniformity in the law. But, as imperfect as the current legal system may be, this is clearly not the case.

The observation that the legal system is highly stable is, of course, correct, but it is a mistake to believe that this is because the law is determinate. The stability of the law derives not from any feature of the law itself, but from the overwhelming uniformity of ideological background among those empowered to make legal decisions. Consider who the judges are in this country. Typically, they are people from a solid middle- to upper-class background who performed well at an appropriately prestigious undergraduate institution; demonstrated the ability to engage in the type of analytical reasoning that is measured by the standardized Law School Admissions Test; passed through the crucible of law school, complete with its methodological and political indoctrination; and went on to high-profile careers as attorneys, probably with a prestigious Wall Street-style law firm. To have been appointed to the bench, it is virtually certain that they were both politically moderate and well-connected, and, until recently, white males of the correct ethnic and religious pedigree. It should be clear that, culturally speaking, such a group will tend to be quite homogeneous, sharing a great many moral, spiritual, and political beliefs and values. Given this, it can hardly be surprising that there will be a high degree of agreement among judges as to how cases ought to be decided. But this agreement is due to the common set of normative presuppositions the judges share, not some immanent, objective meaning that exists within the rules of law.

In fact, however, the law is not truly stable, since it is continually, if slowly, evolving in response to changing social mores and conditions. This evolution occurs because each new generation of judges brings with it its own set of "progressive" normative assumptions. As the older generation passes from the scene, these assumptions come to be shared by an ever-increasing percentage of the judiciary. Eventually, they become the consensus of opinion among judicial decisionmakers, and the law changes to reflect them. Thus, a generation of judges that regarded "separate but equal" as a perfectly legitimate interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment gave way to one which interpreted that clause as prohibiting virtually all governmental actions that classify individuals by race, which, in turn, gave way to one which interpreted the same language to permit "benign" racial classifications designed to advance the social status of minority groups. In this way, as the moral and political values conventionally accepted by society change over time, so too do those embedded in the law.

The law appears to be stable because of the slowness with which it evolves. But the slow pace of legal development is not due to any inherent characteristic of the law itself. Logically speaking, any conclusion, however radical, is derivable from the rules of law. It is simply that, even between generations, the range of ideological opinion represented on the bench is so narrow that anything more than incremental departures from conventional wisdom and morality will not be respected within the profession. Such decisions are virtually certain to be overturned on appeal, and thus, are rarely even rendered in the first instance.

Confirming evidence for this thesis can be found in our contemporary judicial history. Over the past quarter-century, the "diversity" movement has produced a bar, and concomitantly a bench, somewhat more open to people of different racial, sexual, ethnic, and socio-economic backgrounds. To some extent, this movement has produced a judiciary that represents a broader range of ideological viewpoints than has been the case in the past. Over the same time period, we have seen an accelerated rate of legal change. Today, long-standing precedents are more freely overruled, novel theories of liability are more frequently accepted by the courts, and different courts hand down different, and seemingly irreconcilable, decisions more often. In addition, it is worth noting that recently, the chief complaint about the legal system seems to concern the degree to which it has become "politicized." This suggests that as the ideological solidarity of the judiciary breaks down, so too does the predictability of legal decisionmaking, and hence, the stability of the law. Regardless of this trend, I hope it is now apparent that to assume that the law is stable because it is determinate is to reverse cause and effect. Rather, it is because the law is basically stable that it appears to be determinate. It is not rule of law that gives us a stable legal system; it is the stability of the culturally shared values of the judiciary that gives rise to and supports the myth of the rule of law.

We could rewrite the bold text to make a fundamental point about Bitcoin forks and open source in general:

"The observation that Bitcoin is highly stable is, of course, correct, but it is a mistake to believe that this is because it is "governed by impartial math" or code. The stability of Bitcoin derives not from any feature of the code itself, but from the overwhelming uniformity of ideological background and interests among its investors and other stakeholders."

The correct way to think about it is that Bitcoin is constantly forking, just usually to the same thing, because the stakeholders by default desire constancy. But by the same token, whenever Bitcoin needs to change to better serve what its investors/stakeholders deem to be its purpose, that continual forking - like someone just repeatedly pushing a button marked "STATUS QUO" - will shift easily to the necessary change. Of course this will essentially never involve changing the monetary parameters, because - again - that would be the "third rail" for investors and other stakeholders. They will ONLY support changes that add value.

It is not, like the code-focused devs imagine, a matter of stakeholders desiring that "the code" remain constant, but a matter of them desiring that "the code + the environment it interacts with = the resulting effective functionality of Bitcoin in the world" remain constant. If and when that environment changes, the code must also change: in this case, when there is greater adoption and higher technology available, especially with altcoins nipping at Bitcoin's heels, the code must change just to keep the final result (the effective functionality of Bitcoin in the world) constant.

this brings up a good point that i've been meaning to talk about.  hopefully i have enough time to express it properly.

what comes first?  the code or the economic theory?  to me, it seems all the code monkeys trying to enforce Cripplecoin are just another play on the blockchain comes first theory where the coin is irrelevant.  this is also demonstrated by their incessant focus on decentralization of full nodes while ignoring users.  also demonstrated by their stubbornness in their position in spite of 75% support to inc block size over a number of polls.

they're wrong of course.  for those of us who've been around for a long time and have witnessed the evolution of the altcoin and Bitcoin 2.0 spaces, it should be obvious what comes first.  and that is, a bunch of geeks sit around a table and talk about what types of economic features should go into a coin to draw in as many investors and speculators as possible.  this happens FIRST.   then they go out and code it.  this comes SECOND.  this is what happened with Bitcoin as is clear in Satoshi's writings, the book of which i've read and studied for over 4.5 yrs now.  the code is merely used to enforce the economic precepts.

i see non tech ppl around here and on Reddit get intimidated by devs into thinking they don't know what they're talking about when they voice economic concerns about how core dev is being handled.  they are criticized and dismissed as if this is all about the tech.  i say BULLSHIT.  it's about a very important economic concept that's been around for thousands of years and that is SOUND MONEY.  it's bigger than all of us put together.  it's the human races first chance to have the most efficient form of sound money ever conceived of and created.  if we don't get this one right it could be another hundred years before we get another chance.  all the dev sounding bullshit we get from tvbcof, iCEBlow, gmax, kazukiPimp, MOA and TPTB is just about dev's gotta dev.  so don't let them intimidate you, non techies!

that's the truth of the matter.
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708


https://monero.stackexchange.com/a/1203


View Profile WWW
July 09, 2015, 10:53:02 PM
 #28598

if i have to migrate to a new chain and lose money doing it, i'm done with  crypto.

If you see the event ahead of time (and act on it), you'd likely make an enormous amount of money rather than losing.

that's true.  but i converted from gold to Bitcoin precisely b/c i saw it as a SOV to replace gold that's had that role for thousands of years.  i'm not about to remain in a system that guarantees a rolling ponzi scheme every 5-6 yrs where i might get lucky the first migration but lose everything the second migration.  Bitcoiners should have the luxury of socking savings away in a cold wallet and forgetting about it maybe for the rest of their lives as they hand them down generation after generation.  b/c that is what it will take to really replace gold as digital gold.

we were told that the open source nature of the code would be able to adapt or mutate according to threats.  migration to another chain is the antithesis of that.

Yah, I know how it feels to be a "you'll pry DOS from my cold dead hands" "Windows-is-Literally-Satan" guy.   Cheesy

But it is possible BTC is the DOS (or GM-NAA I/O) of e-cash.  Or, more hopefully, the UNIX.

UNIX is still around, but not in anything like the original version.  And Linux (the Litecoin of Unix) is the most popular descendant.

Bitcoin is just software, not an ubiquitous-yet-rare immutable element.   I'm sure you'll spout some smug cliche about first mover advantages or network effects.

Doesn't matter; software changes rapidly and you shouldn't get married to any one implementation (or stock in a promising new sector).

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Core GUI - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }
MoneroForCash.com  |  Buy and sell XMR near you  |  Easymonero.com  |  Bitsquare.io - Decentralized XMR Exchange  |  Buy XMR with fiat
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 09, 2015, 10:56:51 PM
 #28599

if i have to migrate to a new chain and lose money doing it, i'm done with  crypto.

If you see the event ahead of time (and act on it), you'd likely make an enormous amount of money rather than losing.

that's true.  but i converted from gold to Bitcoin precisely b/c i saw it as a SOV to replace gold that's had that role for thousands of years.  i'm not about to remain in a system that guarantees a rolling ponzi scheme every 5-6 yrs where i might get lucky the first migration but lose everything the second migration.  Bitcoiners should have the luxury of socking savings away in a cold wallet and forgetting about it maybe for the rest of their lives as they hand them down generation after generation.  b/c that is what it will take to really replace gold as digital gold.

we were told that the open source nature of the code would be able to adapt or mutate according to threats.  migration to another chain is the antithesis of that.

Yah, I know how it feels to be a "you'll pry DOS from my cold dead hands" "Windows-is-Literally-Satan" guy.   Cheesy

But it is possible BTC is the DOS (or GM-NAA I/O) of e-cash.  Or, more hopefully, the UNIX.

UNIX is still around, but not in anything like the original version.  And Linux (the Litecoin of Unix) is the most popular descendant.

Bitcoin is just software, not an ubiquitous-yet-rare immutable element.   I'm sure you'll spout some smug cliche about first mover advantages or network effects.

Doesn't matter; software changes rapidly and you shouldn't get married to any one implementation (or stock in a promising new sector).

says blows the iCEBlow Monero Pimp.
luigi1111
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1112



View Profile
July 09, 2015, 11:04:12 PM
 #28600

if i have to migrate to a new chain and lose money doing it, i'm done with  crypto.

If you see the event ahead of time (and act on it), you'd likely make an enormous amount of money rather than losing.

No, because the principle would be dead. You'd forever have to be an investor, hopping from coin to coin. No reliability as a store of value. That's why it won't happen. Altcoins (meaning alt-ledgers, not alt-protocols) are a fundamentally self-defeating idea, except in catastrophic backup scenarios and as testnets. The window to market an altcoin to a new audience unfamiliar with Bitcoin - so that it wouldn't be an altcoin from those new people's perspective - has mostly closed, making it truly self-defeating as a long-term investment proposition.

Now alt-protocols are different, as they can be pasted on to Bitcoin's ledger via the spinoff method; maintaining Bitcoin's ledger just like a sidechain would try to. If Litecoin, for example, turns out to be better and there's somehow no way to incorporate its better ideas into the Bitcoin protocol, LTC will not be what rises; instead a spinoff of Litecoin will administer Bitcoin's ledger and BTC will rise because it has successfully improved itself!

Eh, I basically agree with you that no other coin really stands a chance of "taking on" or replacing BTC, but my post was based only on the implied possibility in cypherdoc's post that it could happen.

On the flipside, I don't really buy into the One True LedgerTM thesis, so it doesn't ring true to me that "the principle would be dead" if another coin somehow managed to become the leader. I DO, however, assign an extremely low probability of that happening.

BTC has not yet been anything close to a reliable store of value.
Pages: « 1 ... 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 [1430] 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 ... 1559 »
  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!