Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 08:03:11 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   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 ... 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 1481 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1806990 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 09, 2015, 10:49:51 PM
 #28601

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.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481270591
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481270591

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481270591
Reply with quote  #2

1481270591
Report to moderator
1481270591
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481270591

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481270591
Reply with quote  #2

1481270591
Report to moderator
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
July 09, 2015, 10:53:02 PM
 #28602

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
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Wallets - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }


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


"I believed @Dashpay instamine was a bug & not a feature but then read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg13017231#msg13017231
I'm not against people making money, but can't support questionable origins."
https://twitter.com/Tone_LLT/status/717822927908024320


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

"Hard forks cannot be co
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 09, 2015, 10:56:51 PM
 #28603

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: 1050



View Profile
July 09, 2015, 11:04:12 PM
 #28604

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.
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


View Profile
July 09, 2015, 11:05:06 PM
 #28605

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!

I agree that the code is secondary to the desired functionality; I actually think most of the people you mentioned would agree on that, especially if pressed (meaning this is somewhat a problem of mental compartmentalization). There are arguments from the small-blockers that are purely about what would allow Bitcoin to succeed as sound money, and those are fine in this respect, but some of them also slip into this pitfall you are talking about of seeing the code as primary (Mircea Popescu being the extreme example) rather than as a means to an end.

With that in mind, I think it's important to call out whenever this fallacy is invoked. Often it is not explicitly stated, so it should be drawn out into the open to be swept away. Insofar as the debate revolves solely around what will allow Bitcoin to scale without making it more vulnerable, that is fine. We both happen to think that keeping blocks small is not going to be the best way to achieve the resilience Bitcoin needs, but as Greg might say, "smart people can disagree on this." What is inexcusable is mistaking the code for a sacred cow, and that does extend a bit into the notion that "the devs know best." They're experts at optimizing the existing code, not at sculpting robust economic incentive structures (except Satoshi, of course).
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


View Profile
July 09, 2015, 11:11:38 PM
 #28606

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

By all means, upgrade the protocol, even to the Litecoin or Monero protocol or whatever. But to change ledgers every time you need to upgrade the protocol doesn't make sense at all. People don't want to have to play stock trader with their bank account.

Fortunately, because of spinoffs (and maybe sidechains), the Bitcoin ledger is a safe place to store value even if the Bitcoin protocol gets superseded.
newb4now
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700


View Profile
July 09, 2015, 11:38:07 PM
 #28607

China threatening short sellers.  Shades of US back in 2008.  the volatility back then makes Bitcoin look like cake:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-07-09/china-soars-most-2009-after-government-threatens-sellers-arrest-global-stocks-surge

Speaking of volatility:




(From the very good Pantera Report)

I don't really see the recent relative price stability to be a lasting trend quite yet.

Supply/demand just seems relatively balanced right now despite all the chaos (blocksize debates, Greece, etc.)  I expect resolution of some of these big questions will increase volatility again soon and BTC price will move again in one direction or the other.

On the other hand I expect that volatility in LTC, PPC, NMC and other coins will decrease from current levels.
2112
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708



View Profile
July 09, 2015, 11:42:24 PM
 #28608

Branching into law, here's a quote from John Hasnas, the Hayekian legal professor (emphasis mine):
How profoundly naïve and myopic point of view! How exceptionally Anglocentric to the point of parochialism! What a beautiful example of "Here be dragons" from somebody who is considered "learned" amongst the Anglophiles.

Here are my standard two links I send to the lawyers who attempt to do common law reasoning to the rest of the world and the rest of the history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adversarial_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisitorial_system

I'm going to preserve the whole quote for my future reference. This type of reasoning typically comes from various "diploma mill (or step above)" graduates and political apparatchiks, but this one is actually very well written.
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.

Please comment, critique, criticize or ridicule BIP 2112: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=54382.0
Long-term mining prognosis: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=91101.0
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


View Profile
July 09, 2015, 11:58:06 PM
 #28609

How profoundly naïve and myopic point of view! How exceptionally Anglocentric to the point of parochialism! What a beautiful example of "Here be dragons" from somebody who is considered "learned" amongst the Anglophiles.

Not sure what you're on about, but the point here is merely to illustrate a particular dynamic: how something maintained by a group of people can appear consistent because of reasons other than the consistency of opinion and background of such people, when it is really that very thing that accounts for the consistency. Whether Hasnas is actually right about the US legal system is completely irrelevant for my purposes here (though if you really want to discuss legal theory in particular at least read the whole essay; this quote is pretty out-of-context).
canth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232



View Profile
July 10, 2015, 12:15:50 AM
 #28610

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.

In my mind, it's all about motivation. Right now, there's lots of disagreement about making any changes to Bitcoin that have any (meritorious) objections. In a situation where an altcoin starts surpassing Bitcoin in adoption (unlikely right now) there will there will be plenty of motivation for adopting changes and consensus will be easier to obtain.

Bitcoiners are stubborn, but not stupid and software is flexible.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 10, 2015, 12:19:35 AM
 #28611

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!

I agree that the code is secondary to the desired functionality; I actually think most of the people you mentioned would agree on that, especially if pressed (meaning this is somewhat a problem of mental compartmentalization). There are arguments from the small-blockers that are purely about what would allow Bitcoin to succeed as sound money, and those are fine in this respect, but some of them also slip into this pitfall you are talking about of seeing the code as primary (Mircea Popescu being the extreme example) rather than as a means to an end.

With that in mind, I think it's important to call out whenever this fallacy is invoked. Often it is not explicitly stated, so it should be drawn out into the open to be swept away. Insofar as the debate revolves solely around what will allow Bitcoin to scale without making it more vulnerable, that is fine. We both happen to think that keeping blocks small is not going to be the best way to achieve the resilience Bitcoin needs, but as Greg might say, "smart people can disagree on this." What is inexcusable is mistaking the code for a sacred cow, and that does extend a bit into the notion that "the devs know best." They're experts at optimizing the existing code, not at sculpting robust economic incentive structures (except Satoshi, of course).

But your being politically correct and non confrontational by leaving out one major factor that is driving the debate under the hood. And that is Blockstream. They, like Bitcoin, are also about money. Except I'd argue, by crippling Bitcoin, they are about USD's.
2112
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708



View Profile
July 10, 2015, 12:28:57 AM
 #28612

Not sure what you're on about, but the point here is merely to illustrate a particular dynamic: how something maintained by a group of people can appear consistent because of reasons other than the consistency of opinion and background of such people, when it is really that very thing that accounts for the consistency. Whether Hasnas is actually right about the US legal system is completely irrelevant for my purposes here (though if you really want to discuss legal theory in particular at least read the whole essay; this quote is pretty out-of-context).
Sorry, bro. This cannot be explained in the single forum post. The best I could do is give you a link to a philosophy book by Herbert Marcuse:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-Dimensional_Man

Essentially the thinking you espouse is a moral equivalent of:

a) football https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultras "What is the best football team and why Manchester United?"

b) post-communist intellectuals who consider Marxism the pinnacle of human thought
They're experts at {snippage}, not at {more snippage} (except Satoshi, of course).
just substitute any of combination of {Marx,Engels,Lenin,Stalin,Mao,...} in place of Satoshi.


Please comment, critique, criticize or ridicule BIP 2112: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=54382.0
Long-term mining prognosis: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=91101.0
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


View Profile
July 10, 2015, 12:52:25 AM
 #28613

Not sure what you're on about, but the point here is merely to illustrate a particular dynamic: how something maintained by a group of people can appear consistent because of reasons other than the consistency of opinion and background of such people, when it is really that very thing that accounts for the consistency. Whether Hasnas is actually right about the US legal system is completely irrelevant for my purposes here (though if you really want to discuss legal theory in particular at least read the whole essay; this quote is pretty out-of-context).
Sorry, bro. This cannot be explained in the single forum post. The best I could do is give you a link to a philosophy book by Herbert Marcuse:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-Dimensional_Man

Essentially the thinking you espouse is a moral equivalent of:

a) football https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultras "What is the best football team and why Manchester United?"

b) post-communist intellectuals who consider Marxism the pinnacle of human thought
They're experts at {snippage}, not at {more snippage} (except Satoshi, of course).
just substitute any of combination of {Marx,Engels,Lenin,Stalin,Mao,...} in place of Satoshi.

I think you're reading too much into it. The point is simpler: if we are to take the argument that "devs know best because they have proven themselves" at face value, the only dev we could credit as having any evidence of being a good incentive designer is Satoshi, since he is the one who designed the incentives. I'm not idolizing Satoshi, just pointing out that the other devs have no track record on that front, so it wouldn't make sense to expect them to be particularly skilled at it.
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


View Profile
July 10, 2015, 01:04:49 AM
 #28614

But your being politically correct and non confrontational by leaving out one major factor that is driving the debate under the hood. And that is Blockstream. They, like Bitcoin, are also about money. Except I'd argue, by crippling Bitcoin, they are about USD's.

The conflict of interest is a real concern, to be sure, but at this point I think it more likely that they are sincere. At least Greg, because he's always been a bit of a pessimist on Bitcoin scalability as a whole, being so code-focused, it really is quite consistent for him to side with Blockstream. Adam I suspect a bit more, since missing out on Bitcoin and all the financial gains despite having created part of it has to hurt, but I'm not at all willing to assume bad faith on his part either. At this point it's basically a social club for their point of view, and I do think the money influence will be corrupting as time wears on, but I'm skeptical that it's having a substantial effect yet. I

In any case, the main point is that it could be but we simply can't know. We can suspect, and it is probably good to needle them about it, but actually jumping to that conclusion as a decided fact doesn't seem helpful to me.
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
July 10, 2015, 01:08:47 AM
 #28615

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.

Yep. This is my take:


brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
July 10, 2015, 01:12:33 AM
 #28616

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.

Yep. This is my take:



 Roll Eyes

I really feel sorry for anyone that falls into the trap of this narrative.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


View Profile
July 10, 2015, 01:15:42 AM
 #28617



I'm torn on this: the fact that Bitcoin doesn't live in a vacuum and can't afford to be arbitrarily conservative when altcoins can just raise the cap and take the market share is THE pain point to press against the small-blockers, but on the other hand fueling the narrative that there's any substance to altcoin investing, or that this is anything other than an excuse for Litecoin to effect a long-overdue reversion to its usual ratio to BTC, seems hazardous. Which of the two evils is greater and more pressing? Small block obstructionism or altcoin investing? Anyway, this will be on reddit soon enough thanks to all the lurkers here (hi! Wink).

Also, I misread at first. I thought it said make LTC silver to BTC's gold, which I think makes more sense. I would remove the bottom line for posting on reddit, because it's a little too complex to get maximum upvotes.

Nice touch on the green middle finger resembling a green candle, by the way Smiley
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 10, 2015, 01:21:45 AM
 #28618

Not sure what you're on about, but the point here is merely to illustrate a particular dynamic: how something maintained by a group of people can appear consistent because of reasons other than the consistency of opinion and background of such people, when it is really that very thing that accounts for the consistency. Whether Hasnas is actually right about the US legal system is completely irrelevant for my purposes here (though if you really want to discuss legal theory in particular at least read the whole essay; this quote is pretty out-of-context).
Sorry, bro. This cannot be explained in the single forum post. The best I could do is give you a link to a philosophy book by Herbert Marcuse:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-Dimensional_Man

Essentially the thinking you espouse is a moral equivalent of:

a) football https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultras "What is the best football team and why Manchester United?"

b) post-communist intellectuals who consider Marxism the pinnacle of human thought
They're experts at {snippage}, not at {more snippage} (except Satoshi, of course).
just substitute any of combination of {Marx,Engels,Lenin,Stalin,Mao,...} in place of Satoshi.

I think you're reading too much into it. The point is simpler: if we are to take the argument that "devs know best because they have proven themselves" at face value, the only dev we could credit as having any evidence of being a good incentive designer is Satoshi, since he is the one who designed the incentives. I'm not idolizing Satoshi, just pointing out that the other devs have no track record on that front, so it wouldn't make sense to expect them to be particularly skilled at it.

Hear ye hear ye.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 10, 2015, 02:03:46 AM
 #28619

everyone is starting to notice.  esp the big hitters like the Nasdaq mafia boys.  anyone who thinks Cripplecoin and the resulting user disruption isn't affecting our rally need to think twice.

i said years ago that high tx costs, like we're starting to get now, will drive all these op_return companies away from Bitcoin.  and it will be the fault of guys like iCEBlow, tvbcof, & the BS core devs.  there will be repercussions:

One potential complication to the vision, however, stems from the current uncertainty and controversy over how Bitcoin’s core developers should modify its software so it can better handle growing transaction volumes (see “Leaderless Bitcoin Struggles to Make Its Most Crucial Decision Yet”).

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/539171/why-nasdaq-is-betting-on-bitcoins-blockchain/
2112
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708



View Profile
July 10, 2015, 02:47:11 AM
 #28620

I think you're reading too much into it. The point is simpler: if we are to take the argument that "devs know best because they have proven themselves" at face value, the only dev we could credit as having any evidence of being a good incentive designer is Satoshi, since he is the one who designed the incentives. I'm not idolizing Satoshi, just pointing out that the other devs have no track record on that front, so it wouldn't make sense to expect them to be particularly skilled at it.
Where do you want to go with that strawman "devs know best..."?

The more-than-one-dimension thinking is much simpler:

The "dev" members of the core development team were (and are) the people who are willing to lie and misrepresent on absolutely any issue for some short term gain. Those lies aren't only related to the economic issues, they are also related to the strictly technical matters.

I would expect that any non-one-dimensional person will recognize the current discussion as another variant of "how many angels can fit in the mempool?"

Three years ago it was "[POLL] Multi-sig or scalability--which is more pressing?"

blah blah blah blah
Gentle reminder to the other bitcoin developers: it is generally best not to feed trolls.  Use the ignore button.

The immoral equivalent of Gavin Andresen, Mike Hearn, Gregory Maxwell (and others)pontificating on the database technology would be an ophthalmologist (like cypherdoc) giving supposedly professional advice on complications of pregnancy. Fortunately for all of us the "docs" have a code of ethics.

Unfortunately for us there's no ethical code for the "devs". Sa anyone can pontificate about mempool, which is basically a really lame implementation of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-memory_database .

It doesn't take years of medical studies to understand the difference between ophthalmologist and obstetrician.

It shouldn't need years of engineering studies to understand that there's no real technical discussion going on between the various sub-camps in the developer's camp.

Please comment, critique, criticize or ridicule BIP 2112: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=54382.0
Long-term mining prognosis: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=91101.0
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1481 ... 1560 »
  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!