Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[smooth]

Looks like we have a rate rise by the fed on tap this year. Should start to get priced in on monday

Yeah, no.  QE4?  Yep.

I'm expecting both, with unlimited Keynesian hubris on the side.
This is a confidence game, so with sufficiently disorganized alternatives, the Fed may be bold and anyway they are not afraid of Bitcoin... at all.

Indeed. And for those that are still counting it will be QE5 next.
http://useconomy.about.com/od/glossary/g/Quantitative-Easing.htm

QE4 was a re-bailout of the Treasury market for new issuance plus a much needed cash infusion for the primary dealers (banks)
QE3 was a re-bailout of the MBS investors (re-bailout of Fannie & Freddie) and banks
QE2 was a bailout of the Treasury market, FDIC, plus domestic and foreign banks
QE1 was a bailout of the MBS investors (bailout of Fannie & Freddie) and the banks
TARP was a bailout of the merchant banks (Citi, Squid etc) plus AIG, car-makers and (why not?) foreign banks

the time to have raised rates was during the towering stock market advance of the last few years before what appears to have been the peak on May 19, 2015.  now that we have a Dow Theory non-confirmation on the board which looks to confirm the latter half of this year, it would be highly unlikely they raise interest rates into the the teeth of that as that would only accelerate an ongoing plunge.

it will be interesting to see how they handle this one but i doubt it will include a raise in rates.

I kind of agree with solex that the medicine (rate increase, even if symbolic, just so they can say they did) will come with a spoonful of sugar (QE of some sort, or something similar) to avoid crushing the markets.

But I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see rate increases continually delayed either. It's the US version of extend and pretend.

[1714324636]

1714324636

[1714324636]

1714324636

[pinky]

Armstrong will be wrong again. Nothing special will happen Oct 2015.

Even Armstrong said this. Don't expect some market to crash on that day, but it will be important turning point that indicates years of misery ahead (countries going bankrupt, companies going bankrupt, more civil unrests, wars, migrations, viruses).

Not really. Only a little bit of misery ahead; and then, acccording to his model: Roaring Twenties reloaded:

http://i1.wp.com/armstrongeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/ecconf-maa-clr.jpg?resize=584%2C449

Well I guess it depends where you live, since every country/region has it's own cycle. There are multiple cycles that converge this time and it will be scary.

For example look at the Middle East & North Africa - total chaos and destruction in the past years. They are effectively in the Dark Ages and will stay there for decades.

Then you can look at EU where around 50% of the economy is governments spending (debt + taxation). Debt in most EURO countries is at 100% of GDP or more. Taxation is very high - in some countries 50% of you paycheck goes directly to your government + VAT is at 20-30%. Can you imagine how even small economic downturn can tear apart thin social justice bullshit when you are starving or cannot pay your bills. Remember that EURO countries cannot manage their level of debts via inflation as they used to do with their own currencies.

[sgbett]

Small blocks equal small minds.

lol, small blocks equal smart minds.   (contrary big and stupid)

Small blocks, small dicks.

Does your mom know you're staying up late and sneaking on to her laptop just to act like a jackass?

Here son, have a clue:

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

Oh yeah? So adding complicated stuff like sidechains and lightning network is making bitcoin code smaller?

To the extent those build on top of Bitcoin they aren't adding features to it or making the the core code bigger. If they require changes to the core code or adding new features to it, that's a different matter that needs to be considered carefully.

But if the claim is that sidechains are the 'solution' to the 'problem'. Then you are saying they are part of bitcoin [the ecosystem] whether they are part of core or not.

Increasing block size does not add features *and* it 'solves' the 'problem'. Without introducing any other layers of complexity, or attempting to artificially manipulate the fee economy that is growing organically just as it was always intended.

What frightens me is that the whole thing seems to have turned into a pissing contest.

The fee market isn't a problem right now, the block size is. So why are people trying to pre-emptively fix the fee market in an ass backwards way to address the block size problem.

Only 2 nodes here but as soon as we get an XT block size fork I'm in. I sincerely hope that it doesn't come to that though, and the opposing core devs see sense and pull one of the recent BIPS (preferably the 8 meg one, but the 2 would do) straight to core. A complicit hard for will go over much more smoothly I feel.

[smooth]

Small blocks equal small minds.

lol, small blocks equal smart minds.   (contrary big and stupid)

Small blocks, small dicks.

Does your mom know you're staying up late and sneaking on to her laptop just to act like a jackass?

Here son, have a clue:

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

Oh yeah? So adding complicated stuff like sidechains and lightning network is making bitcoin code smaller?

To the extent those build on top of Bitcoin they aren't adding features to it or making the the core code bigger. If they require changes to the core code or adding new features to it, that's a different matter that needs to be considered carefully.

But if the claim is that sidechains are the 'solution' to the 'problem'. Then you are saying they are part of bitcoin [the ecosystem] whether they are part of core or not.

Reread the original quote. The way to make software small is to have components there are small. That doesn't mean you can't many other components. Ultimately they're just applications on top of the core.

Increasing block size does not add features *and* it 'solves' the 'problem'. Without introducing any other layers of complexity, or attempting to artificially manipulate the fee economy that is growing organically just as it was always intended.

On the surface that would be true, and it is mostly true in reality for small increases. But when big increases are introduced that creates a requirement for more complexity to cope with massive scaling and deal with the sheer volume of data and potentially more attack vectors. Algorithms and implementations (and deployments) that just work fine with 1 MB blocks won't necessarily work with blocks many times that size (or especially many, many times that size).

I don't really have a dog in this fight. I think the block size should be raised, but only modestly. From a software design point of view I do think that a simple core (that lacks requirements for massive scaling) along with independent applications is a "work smarter not harder" way to go. That's one reason I would limit the increases to a modest size.

But at the same time I don't think we know how well sidechains (which I'm deeply skeptical about) or lightning network (which I'm less skeptical about) will work out in actual practice. So it may turn out that massively increasing the block size (and coping with the scaling challenges of that) is indeed the way to go. But let's be cautious and try smarter approaches before we just throw the bigger hammer at it.

[cypherdoc]

Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Zarathustra]

Armstrong will be wrong again. Nothing special will happen Oct 2015.

Even Armstrong said this. Don't expect some market to crash on that day, but it will be important turning point that indicates years of misery ahead (countries going bankrupt, companies going bankrupt, more civil unrests, wars, migrations, viruses).

Not really. Only a little bit of misery ahead; and then, acccording to his model: Roaring Twenties reloaded:

http://i1.wp.com/armstrongeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/ecconf-maa-clr.jpg?resize=584%2C449

Well I guess it depends where you live, since every country/region has it's own cycle. There are multiple cycles that converge this time and it will be scary.

For example look at the Middle East & North Africa - total chaos and destruction in the past years. They are effectively in the Dark Ages and will stay there for decades.

Then you can look at EU where around 50% of the economy is governments spending (debt + taxation). Debt in most EURO countries is at 100% of GDP or more. Taxation is very high - in some countries 50% of you paycheck goes directly to your government + VAT is at 20-30%. Can you imagine how even small economic downturn can tear apart thin social justice bullshit when you are starving or cannot pay your bills. Remember that EURO countries cannot manage their level of debts via inflation as they used to do with their own currencies.

EURO countries as a whole have not as much government debt and deficit as Japan and the US. Current account looks also much better than in the US.

[thezerg]

And now icebreaker is quoting a guy who's only contribution is a failed OS architecture, probably typing it from his incredibly successful linux android or windows monolithic kernel.  And yes I tried minix.  It crashed after a few hours.

And to add irony on top the argument actually adds ammo to block size increase crowd because lightning or sidechains will be an ESSENTIAL part of a 1MB chain.  There won't be any value to users if BTC is running if lightning or SC fails because there isn't space on the chain for users.

I'm guessing ice is still in school regurgitating here the garbage his professors (who likely never worked on a million+ LOC project in their lives) feed him.

[nby]

And now icebreaker is quoting a guy who's only contribution is a failed OS architecture, probably typing it from his incredibly successful linux android or windows monolithic kernel.  And yes I tried minix.  It crashed after a few hours.

And to add irony on top the argument actually adds ammo to block size increase crowd because lightning or sidechains will be an ESSENTIAL part of a 1MB chain.  There won't be any value to users if BTC is running if lightning or SC fails because there isn't space on the chain for users.

I'm guessing ice is still in school regurgitating here the garbage his professors (who likely never worked on a million+ LOC project in their lives) feed him.

Whoah, that's a bit harsh. I wouldn't agree on saying minix is Tanenbaun only contribution, there's so much more from him, despite being proven "wrong" on the specific monolithic/microkernel debate.

Apart from that, I agree with you on SC and LN (currently mostly vaporware) being an essential part of a 1MB chain in order to make it valuable.

[thezerg]

And now icebreaker is quoting a guy who's only contribution is a failed OS architecture, probably typing it from his incredibly successful linux android or windows monolithic kernel.  And yes I tried minix.  It crashed after a few hours.

And to add irony on top the argument actually adds ammo to block size increase crowd because lightning or sidechains will be an ESSENTIAL part of a 1MB chain.  There won't be any value to users if BTC is running if lightning or SC fails because there isn't space on the chain for users.

I'm guessing ice is still in school regurgitating here the garbage his professors (who likely never worked on a million+ LOC project in their lives) feed him.

Whoah, that's a bit harsh. I wouldn't agree on saying minix is Tanenbaun only contribution, there's so much more from him, despite being proven "wrong" on the specific monolithic/microkernel debate.

Apart from that, I agree with you on SC and LN (currently mostly vaporware) being an essential part of a 1MB chain in order to make it valuable.

Yes I exaggerated.  Its a good book.  But that quote probably directly refers to his infamous criticism of linux.

[sickpig]

And now icebreaker is quoting a guy who's only contribution is a failed OS architecture, probably typing it from his incredibly successful linux android or windows monolithic kernel.  And yes I tried minix.  It crashed after a few hours.

And to add irony on top the argument actually adds ammo to block size increase crowd because lightning or sidechains will be an ESSENTIAL part of a 1MB chain.  There won't be any value to users if BTC is running if lightning or SC fails because there isn't space on the chain for users.

I'm guessing ice is still in school regurgitating here the garbage his professors (who likely never worked on a million+ LOC project in their lives) feed him.

Whoah, that's a bit harsh. I wouldn't agree on saying minix is Tanenbaun only contribution, there's so much more from him, despite being proven "wrong" on the specific monolithic/microkernel debate.

Apart from that, I agree with you on SC and LN (currently mostly vaporware) being an essential part of a 1MB chain in order to make it valuable.

if memory serves both Adam Back and Joseph Poon said that SC and LN respectively needed a bigger block in any case.

(I'm actually in a hurry as soon as I've time I'll post reference to the source)

[Dusty]

I've you conceptualize that core  dev determination of block size is central planning, then  it becomes clear why it doesn't  work.

That's exactly what Pierre Rochard demostrated whith his replies when I criticized Peter Todd during the "network stress test":

Peter Todd ‏@petertoddbtc 7 lug

The transaction backlog is like a large crowd of orphans standing outside Sotheby's trying to buy Picasso's for spare change.

The correct analogy is an orphan that can't buy a loaf of bread from the store because the State limited production to 1000 / day

[tvbcof]

if memory serves both Adam Back and Joseph Poon said that SC and LN respectively needed a bigger block in any case.

(I'm actually in a hurry as soon as I've time I'll post reference to the source)

Sure.  Everyone is concerned about the transaction rate.  SC and LN do not obviate the need for performing on-chain transactions.  They simply make it possible to do lesser importance transactions without bloating the Blockchain or trying to morph Bitcoin into a real-time system.

From an operational perspective everyone benefits from a higher transaction rate.  The main thing is that if the higher transaction rates in Bitcoin results in subversion of if as the core value store then everything goes up in smoke and we've got to start over from scratch (which, as I've said, is not without it's own set of pros and cons.)

[WhatsBitcoin]

Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

Finally!

[cypherdoc]

There goes the argument by Cripplecoiners of not being able to run a full node from behind Tor with bigger blocks:

http://bitcoinist.net/hornet-combines-user-privacy-high-speed-internet-bitcoin-implications-possible/

[cypherdoc]

I've you conceptualize that core  dev determination of block size is central planning, then  it becomes clear why it doesn't  work.

That's exactly what Pierre Rochard demostrated whith his replies when I criticized Peter Todd during the "network stress test":

Peter Todd ‏@petertoddbtc 7 lug

The transaction backlog is like a large crowd of orphans standing outside Sotheby's trying to buy Picasso's for spare change.

The correct analogy is an orphan that can't buy a loaf of bread from the store because the State limited production to 1000 / day

Nice!

BTW, were you the same Dusty that responded in Rusty Russell's last  blog post?

[cypherdoc]

I've mentioned this before. Two years ago during the San Jose conference, I made this prediction in one of my newsletter posts. Glad to see other mainstream news organizations beginning to recognize this:

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21659745-silicon-valley-should-be-celebrated-its-insularity-risks-backlash-empire-geeks

[solex]

So they are trying to solve the ever increasing burden of running a full node for a non miner indirectly, through the mean of a side effect of an anti-DoS mechanism.

Am I right?

if I'm correct, It seems to me a rather convoluted way of thinking, why not just say that instead of use the fee pressure rhetoric?

why not embrace JR's free market idea for full node services?

Yes, absolutely. That's what I think is the central plank of the informed pro-1MB opinion.
This question can be turned around: "After 5 years is the 1MB hard-limit the best anti-DoS mechanism that Bitcoin dev can come up with?"
Answer no, because the real anti-DoS protection comes from the consensus dust-limit and fee policy. This is what has kept the average block size to something reflecting real market demand, otherwise blocks would have been constantly bumping the 1MB since 2011/12 where real ecosystem traffic would have to crowd out spam with fee pressure alone, as a "normal" state of affairs. Effectively, this is 5 years of proof that a hard block limit is not needed, with the 32.5MB message size limit still remaining as a sanity check.

The market for node services will certainly be a major feature of successful cryptocurrency in the years ahead, but again, requires more time to develop, and co-ordination than can quickly be expected. Also, I suspect that work on SC and LN has potentially more scope for individual profit than work on a real free market for node services. TBH, that is OK, it is human nature to work on what has the most scope for individual gain, especially for long periods of time.
The solution to accelerating work on node services payment channels is indirect incentives for the developers of it. Monetizing it.

[smooth]

if memory serves both Adam Back and Joseph Poon said that SC and LN respectively needed a bigger block in any case.

(I'm actually in a hurry as soon as I've time I'll post reference to the source)

There is a huge difference between "a bigger block" and proposing to scale block sizes upward to the moon in an attempt to meet the core scaling demands of the system that way.

[smooth]

"After 5 years is the 1MB hard-limit the best anti-DoS mechanism that Bitcoin dev can come up with?"
Answer no, because the real anti-DoS protection comes from the consensus dust-limit and fee policy.

False. The dust limit and fee policy are not part of the consensus code (which the 1 MB limit is).

So the answer is in fact yes: There is no other anti-DoS mechanism in the consensus code after 5 years.

Proposing to add one is one possibility. Have at it.

[solex]

"After 5 years is the 1MB hard-limit the best anti-DoS mechanism that Bitcoin dev can come up with?"
Answer no, because the real anti-DoS protection comes from the consensus dust-limit and fee policy.

False. The dust limit and fee policy are not part of the consensus code (which the 1 MB limit is).

So the answer is in fact yes: There is no other anti-DoS mechanism in the consensus code after 5 years.

Proposing to add one is one possibility. Have at it.

consensus dust-limit and fee policy.

Policy which is observed by a super-majority of nodes is effectively a consensus. Also the message size limit is anti-DoS