Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[hdbuck]

...

iCEBREAKER

I must be an Asshole Libertarian (because that's just kinda the way I am), but even lil ol moi thinks that security and health of the Bitcoin Ecosystem might require the occasional *tweak* now and then.  As in my idea posted a couple of weeks or so ago re minimum BTC amounts (sayBTC0.001) and/or minimum fees (say, BTC0.0003) to fight off the spammers...

I don't mind paying a bit more for my BTC payment to go through.  And, really, who needs micropayments?  (Oh...., was that an ominous silence I just heard in here?)

*   *   *

(Hear you re getting rich programming if I could do really advanced calculations)

And this thinking would drive all the markets that infact need the bitcoin ecosystem, either to offchain solutions or cryptocurrencies with a lower fee.

I am talking about the unbanked and poor economies.

Bitcoin should want to include those who need it most for its own protection aka decentralization.

Who need it most?!
And Please dont tell me the "unbanked". They need money food?!, not bitcoin.

Those most in need are those who have to live with tariffs, regulations and currency controls. It includes people in poor countries. Look at Africa and the middle east, there is almost no trade between neighbouring countries, it is almost all import and export to the west.

That is pure fud if not bs, whatever you like.

Im not denying african's problems, but bitcoin is so not going to change anything there.

They need to get rid of corruption, access water, food, first necessity Goods, medicine, etc etc..

Why da f*ck would they need internet money? Seriously this is beyond utopia, this is nonsense. Not that it is good to care about them poor people, but you are obviously blurred by either greed or stupidity.

[1714267953]

1714267953

[1714267953]

1714267953

[1714267953]

1714267953

[Erdogan]

...

iCEBREAKER

I must be an Asshole Libertarian (because that's just kinda the way I am), but even lil ol moi thinks that security and health of the Bitcoin Ecosystem might require the occasional *tweak* now and then.  As in my idea posted a couple of weeks or so ago re minimum BTC amounts (sayBTC0.001) and/or minimum fees (say, BTC0.0003) to fight off the spammers...

I don't mind paying a bit more for my BTC payment to go through.  And, really, who needs micropayments?  (Oh...., was that an ominous silence I just heard in here?)

*   *   *

(Hear you re getting rich programming if I could do really advanced calculations)

And this thinking would drive all the markets that infact need the bitcoin ecosystem, either to offchain solutions or cryptocurrencies with a lower fee.

I am talking about the unbanked and poor economies.

Bitcoin should want to include those who need it most for its own protection aka decentralization.

Who need it most?!
And Please dont tell me the "unbanked". They need money food?!, not bitcoin.

Those most in need are those who have to live with tariffs, regulations and currency controls. It includes people in poor countries. Look at Africa and the middle east, there is almost no trade between neighbouring countries, it is almost all import and export to the west.

That is pure fud if not bs, whatever you like.

Im not denying african's problems, but bitcoin is so not going to change anything there.

They need to get rid of corruption, access water, food, first necessity Goods, medicine, etc etc..

Why da f*ck would they need internet money? Seriously this is beyond utopia, this is nonsense. Not that it is good to care about them poor people, but you are obviously blurred by either greed or stupidity.

Since my comment could hardly install fear in anyone, it can not be fud. Therefore I don't have to argue the uncertainty part, nor the doubt part.

[Erdogan]

hdbuck: So they need to have exactly what we have, including the socialism? (Pointing at Greece). And who should give them all that, you? No, let them trade freely, say I.

[hdbuck]

hdbuck: So they need to have exactly what we have, including the socialism? (Pointing at Greece). And who should give them all that, you? No, let them trade freely, say I.

eh, utlimately i'd argue that Africans need to kick the "white man" out of their continent.
its been too long already they have been spoiled, killed and manipulated by the West/North.

[Erdogan]

hdbuck: So they need to have exactly what we have, including the socialism? (Pointing at Greece). And who should give them all that, you? No, let them trade freely, say I.

eh, utlimately i'd argue that Africans need to kick the "white man" out of their continent.
its been too long already they have been spoiled, killed and manipulated by the West/North.

You could also argue that the trade represented by foreigners have been good, and their self-inflicted trade regulations have been the bad.

[hdbuck]

hdbuck: So they need to have exactly what we have, including the socialism? (Pointing at Greece). And who should give them all that, you? No, let them trade freely, say I.

eh, utlimately i'd argue that Africans need to kick the "white man" out of their continent.
its been too long already they have been spoiled, killed and manipulated by the West/North.

You could also argue that the trade represented by foreigners have been good, and their self-inflicted trade regulations have been the bad.

lel i would certainly not argue so.

foreigners controls both the trade and the regulation.
remember they regulated the slave trade..

[Erdogan]

hdbuck: So they need to have exactly what we have, including the socialism? (Pointing at Greece). And who should give them all that, you? No, let them trade freely, say I.

eh, utlimately i'd argue that Africans need to kick the "white man" out of their continent.
its been too long already they have been spoiled, killed and manipulated by the West/North.

You could also argue that the trade represented by foreigners have been good, and their self-inflicted trade regulations have been the bad.

lel i would certainly not argue so.

foreigners controls both the trade and the regulation.
remember they regulated the slave trade..

That part was bad, i agree.

[hdbuck]

hdbuck: So they need to have exactly what we have, including the socialism? (Pointing at Greece). And who should give them all that, you? No, let them trade freely, say I.

eh, utlimately i'd argue that Africans need to kick the "white man" out of their continent.
its been too long already they have been spoiled, killed and manipulated by the West/North.

You could also argue that the trade represented by foreigners have been good, and their self-inflicted trade regulations have been the bad.

lel i would certainly not argue so.

foreigners controls both the trade and the regulation.
remember they regulated the slave trade..

That part was bad, i agree.

okay, so why would they want to cooperate with the same people taht use to treat them worst than dogs? (and kinda keep doing so)

africans are kept poor and powerless because the "white colon" just has to give money to the 1% tyrans other politicians wanabees there, so they keep their hands on their natural resources and minerals. plain and simple.

it has always been like that and it wont change unless they reclaim their independance/sovereignty/freedom and kick the invader out.

so imho they dont need this consumption system we are all relying upon to live our happy enslaving lives. and they certainly dont need bitcoin.

[cypherdoc]

...

iCEBREAKER

I must be an Asshole Libertarian (because that's just kinda the way I am), but even lil ol moi thinks that security and health of the Bitcoin Ecosystem might require the occasional *tweak* now and then.  As in my idea posted a couple of weeks or so ago re minimum BTC amounts (sayBTC0.001) and/or minimum fees (say, BTC0.0003) to fight off the spammers...

I don't mind paying a bit more for my BTC payment to go through.  And, really, who needs micropayments?  (Oh...., was that an ominous silence I just heard in here?)

*   *   *

(Hear you re getting rich programming if I could do really advanced calculations)

And this thinking would drive all the markets that infact need the bitcoin ecosystem, either to offchain solutions or cryptocurrencies with a lower fee.

I am talking about the unbanked and poor economies.

Bitcoin should want to include those who need it most for its own protection aka decentralization.

Who need it most?!
And Please dont tell me the "unbanked". They need money food?!, not bitcoin.

Those most in need are those who have to live with tariffs, regulations and currency controls. It includes people in poor countries. Look at Africa and the middle east, there is almost no trade between neighbouring countries, it is almost all import and export to the west.

That is pure fud if not bs, whatever you like.

Im not denying african's problems, but bitcoin is so not going to change anything there.

They need to get rid of corruption, access water, food, first necessity Goods, medicine, etc etc..

Why da f*ck would they need internet money? Seriously this is beyond utopia, this is nonsense. Not that it is good to care about them poor people, but you are obviously blurred by either greed or stupidity.

You have heard of m-pesa haven't you?

Did it ever occur to you that an African actually might want to use a phone to transmit magic virtual money?

[cypherdoc]

Gold collapsing. Dow down.

That sweet smell of deflation.

[Erdogan]

So what could this be?

"Officials in Israel this morning picked up two men charged in the U.S. with running a multimillion-dollar stock manipulation scheme. A third person remains at large. In another case in Florida, officials arrested two men for operating an unlicensed money-transfer business using bitcoins.

Though these are separate cases, some of the individuals are linked."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-21/fbi-israel-make-securities-fraud-arrests-tied-to-jpmorgan-hack

[Erdogan]

hdbuck: we can't drag along all garbage from history. People are individuals, the contemporary businessmen are not the same as the old. I am talking about free trade business, not foreign government force and those who hide behind it.

[hdbuck]

...

iCEBREAKER

I must be an Asshole Libertarian (because that's just kinda the way I am), but even lil ol moi thinks that security and health of the Bitcoin Ecosystem might require the occasional *tweak* now and then.  As in my idea posted a couple of weeks or so ago re minimum BTC amounts (sayBTC0.001) and/or minimum fees (say, BTC0.0003) to fight off the spammers...

I don't mind paying a bit more for my BTC payment to go through.  And, really, who needs micropayments?  (Oh...., was that an ominous silence I just heard in here?)

*   *   *

(Hear you re getting rich programming if I could do really advanced calculations)

And this thinking would drive all the markets that infact need the bitcoin ecosystem, either to offchain solutions or cryptocurrencies with a lower fee.

I am talking about the unbanked and poor economies.

Bitcoin should want to include those who need it most for its own protection aka decentralization.

Who need it most?!
And Please dont tell me the "unbanked". They need money food?!, not bitcoin.

Those most in need are those who have to live with tariffs, regulations and currency controls. It includes people in poor countries. Look at Africa and the middle east, there is almost no trade between neighbouring countries, it is almost all import and export to the west.

That is pure fud if not bs, whatever you like.

Im not denying african's problems, but bitcoin is so not going to change anything there.

They need to get rid of corruption, access water, food, first necessity Goods, medicine, etc etc..

Why da f*ck would they need internet money? Seriously this is beyond utopia, this is nonsense. Not that it is good to care about them poor people, but you are obviously blurred by either greed or stupidity.

You have heard of m-pesa haven't you?

Did it ever occur to you that an African actually might want to use a phone to transmit magic virtual money?

yes i know mpesa. they did not waited for bitcoin to start their buisness.

[Wexlike]

After some time an entire continent should be responsible for its self. Stop blaming the "white man" for everything that goes wrong in africa.

[cypherdoc]

...

iCEBREAKER

I must be an Asshole Libertarian (because that's just kinda the way I am), but even lil ol moi thinks that security and health of the Bitcoin Ecosystem might require the occasional *tweak* now and then.  As in my idea posted a couple of weeks or so ago re minimum BTC amounts (sayBTC0.001) and/or minimum fees (say, BTC0.0003) to fight off the spammers...

I don't mind paying a bit more for my BTC payment to go through.  And, really, who needs micropayments?  (Oh...., was that an ominous silence I just heard in here?)

*   *   *

(Hear you re getting rich programming if I could do really advanced calculations)

And this thinking would drive all the markets that infact need the bitcoin ecosystem, either to offchain solutions or cryptocurrencies with a lower fee.

I am talking about the unbanked and poor economies.

Bitcoin should want to include those who need it most for its own protection aka decentralization.

Who need it most?!
And Please dont tell me the "unbanked". They need money food?!, not bitcoin.

Those most in need are those who have to live with tariffs, regulations and currency controls. It includes people in poor countries. Look at Africa and the middle east, there is almost no trade between neighbouring countries, it is almost all import and export to the west.

That is pure fud if not bs, whatever you like.

Im not denying african's problems, but bitcoin is so not going to change anything there.

They need to get rid of corruption, access water, food, first necessity Goods, medicine, etc etc..

Why da f*ck would they need internet money? Seriously this is beyond utopia, this is nonsense. Not that it is good to care about them poor people, but you are obviously blurred by either greed or stupidity.

You have heard of m-pesa haven't you?

Did it ever occur to you that an African actually might want to use a phone to transmit magic virtual money?

yes i know mpesa. they did not waited for bitcoin to start their buisness.

And bitcoin should be allowed to disrupt that business too.

[cypherdoc]

$DJI continuing it's catchdown:

[cypherdoc]

to the Moon:

[cypherdoc]

Garzik just hit it out of the park with this one in response to Wuille:

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

    >Some people have called the prospect of limited block space and the development of a fee market a change in policy compared to the past. I respectfully disagree with that. Bitcoin Core is not running the Bitcoin economy, and its developers have no authority to set its rules. Change in economics is always happening, and should be expected. Worse, intervening in consensus changes would make the ecosystem more dependent on the group taking that decision, not less.


This completely ignores reality, what users have experienced for the past ~6 years.

"Change in economics is always happening" does not begin to approach the scale of the change.

For the entirety of bitcoin's history, absent long blocks and traffic bursts, fee pressure has been largely absent.

Moving to a new economic policy where fee pressure is consistently present is radically different from what users, markets, and software have experienced and lived.

Analysis such as [1][2] and more shows that users will hit a "painful" "wall" and market disruption will occur - eventually settling to a new equilibrium after a period of chaos - when blocks are consistently full.

[1] http://hashingit.com/analysis/34-bitcoin-traffic-bulletin
[2] http://gavinandresen.ninja/why-increasing-the-max-block-size-is-urgent

First, users & market are forced through this period of chaos by "let a fee market develop" as the whole market changes to a radically different economic policy, once the network has never seen before.

Next, when blocks are consistently full, the past consensus was that block size limit will be increased eventually.  What happens at that point?

Answer - Users & market are forced through a second period of chaos and disruption as the fee market is rebooted again by changing the block size limit.

The average user hears a lot of noise on both sides of the block size debate, and really has no idea that the new "let a fee market develop" Bitcoin Core policy is going to raise fees on them.

It is clear that
- "let the fee market develop, Right Now" has not been thought through
- Users are not prepared for a brand new economic policy
- Users are unaware that a brand new economic policy will be foisted upon them

 

    >So to point out what I consider obvious: if Bitcoin requires central control over its rules by a group of developers, it is completely uninteresting to me. Consensus changes should be done using consensus, and the default in case of controversy is no change.


False.

All that has to do be done to change bitcoin to a new economic policy - not seen in the entire 6 year history of bitcoin - is to stonewall work on block size.

Closing size increase PRs and failing to participate in planning for a block size increase accomplishes your stated goal of changing bitcoin to a new economic policy.

"no code change"... changes bitcoin to a brand new economic policy, picking economic winners & losers.  Some businesses will be priced out of bitcoin, etc.

Stonewalling size increase changes is just as much as a Ben Bernanke/FOMC move as increasing the hard limit by hard fork.

 

   > My personal opinion is that we - as a community - should indeed let a fee market develop, and rather sooner than later, and that "kicking the can down the road" is an incredibly dangerous precedent: if we are willing to go through the risk of a hard fork because of a fear of change of economics, then I believe that community is not ready to deal with change at all. And some change is inevitable, at any block size. Again, this does not mean the block size needs to be fixed forever, but its intent should be growing with the evolution of technology, not a panic reaction because a fear of change. But I am not in any position to force this view. I only hope that people don't think a fear of economic change is reason to give up consensus.


Actually you are.

When size increase progress gets frozen out of Bitcoin Core, that just increases the chances that progress must be made through a contentious hard fork.

Further, it increases the market disruption users will experience, as described above.

Think about the users.  Please.

[inca]

Kicking off on reddit, too.

[cypherdoc]

interesting.  looks like GavinMike are going to pull the trigger soon:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3e64dk/time_to_end_bitcoin_reliance_on_core_and_end_this/ctce5cu?context=3