Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Zarathustra]

Debt is not paper. Debt is debt (= money), and that has always been the basis of every economy. Whether debt is written on paper or on clay tablets (mesopot) makes no difference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_First_5000_Years

Debt can be money until it's not (default / no CONfidence). Serious/sound money is only commodity-money. And then there is pure fiat which is another big "irredeemable" con, but not debt.

No man's credit is as good as his money.

Commodities are not money. Commodities are commodities.
Commodities are always valued in debt, which is money.
Beyond a debt economy (stateless rain forest communities), gold is not money and has no value.

[1714281156]

1714281156

[1714281156]

1714281156

[1714281156]

1714281156

[1714281156]

1714281156

[sgbett]

I've tried really hard to try and see the opposing POV but I come up short every time, and I think that's because I can't understand the philosophy behind making BTC some elitist tool when it seemed right from the outset that it was anything but.

If that makes me part of the "free-shit" army, then so be it. I'm not (yet) so morally bankrupt that I think that my well being can only come at the expense of others. That's what cripplecoin sounds like, thats why I don't want any part of it.

You aren't trying that hard if you can't read and understand this fairly simple, single sentence summation of the opposing POV:

The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain".

Where in Davout's statement is the "moral bankruptcy?"  All I see is economic literacy and an understanding of the technical limitations of scaling Bitcoin I/O.

Where in Davout's statement is the desire for well being coming "at the expense of others?"  All I see is a workable plan for radical inclusion ("everyone gets to benefit"), albeit not in the manner preferred by those with atrociously paltry understandings of Bitcoin and economics.

Who are these financial institutions, and why do assume they are necessary. You seem to ignore the fact that bitcoin is money. Its a medium of exchange, a unit of account, a store of value. The blockchain facilitates these things. Your financial institutions are an unnecessary complexity, the blockchain doesn't need financial institutions it *is* the institution.

Your summation quite clearly reveals some other agenda. You know that increasing the block size undermines it, so you are fighting tooth and nail to try and prevent it.

[sgbett]

I’d like to share a research paper I’ve recently completed titled “A Transaction Fee Market Exists Without a Block Size Limit.”  I formalizes the ideas from Cypherdoc, Adrian-X, thezerg, Rocks, ZB, Justus Ranvier, Solex, Melbustus, Majamalu and many others here.   In addition to presenting some useful charts such as the cost to produce large spam blocks, I think the paper convincingly demonstrates that due to the orphaning cost, a block size limit is not necessary to ensure a functioning fee market.  

The paper does not argue that a block size limit is unnecessary in general, and in fact brings up questions related to mining cartels and the size of the UTXO set.  

It can be downloaded in PDF format here:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/43331625/feemarket.pdf

Or viewed with a web-browser here:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/273443462/A-Transaction-Fee-Market-Exists-Without-a-Block-Size-Limit

And here is its Reddit thread:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3fpuld/a_transaction_fee_market_exists_without_a_block/

Hero member indeed! A functioning bitcoin economy without a(n artificial) block size limit and not a sedition in sight. Marvellous.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Just finished Peter R's paper. Really excellent, clear, and much-needed formalization of an important aspect of the debate often mentioned here.

Is that the sound of the tide turning I hear?

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

The incentive structure does not need to be put into the protocol, market dynamics on their own will create the proper incentive structure. In other words if it becomes too difficult for your average person to run a node or if there are not enough nodes to provide data upload for free, then a market will create on its own to fulfill this need.

The ignorance of Bitcoin's current crop of "board of director" types regarding the nature of free markets is both highly ironic and sad.

I suspect this is true as well. And if it is, imagine how funny it will be to look back on these times when there is a nice node market because of no blocksize cap.

[sgbett]

Just finished Peter R's paper. Really excellent, clear, and much-needed formalization of an important aspect of the debate often mentioned here.

Is that the sound of the tide turning I hear?

I don't think the actual tide was ever in doubt, just a few noisy ego's yelling King Canute style.

[nby]

I’d like to share a research paper I’ve recently completed titled “A Transaction Fee Market Exists Without a Block Size Limit.”  I formalizes the ideas from Cypherdoc, Adrian-X, thezerg, Rocks, ZB, Justus Ranvier, Solex, Melbustus, Majamalu and many others here.   In addition to presenting some useful charts such as the cost to produce large spam blocks, I think the paper convincingly demonstrates that due to the orphaning cost, a block size limit is not necessary to ensure a functioning fee market. 

Just finished reading it. Well done.

[inca]

Just finished Peter R's paper. Really excellent, clear, and much-needed formalization of an important aspect of the debate often mentioned here.

Is that the sound of the tide turning I hear?

I don't think the actual tide was ever in doubt, just a few noisy ego's yelling King Canute style.

Excellent work Peter R. Congratulations on the paper.

[uvwvj]

Most important thing dropping?

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-a-deeper-dive-by-apple-could-crush-this-market-2015-08-04

[Zarathustra]

Just finished Peter R's paper. Really excellent, clear, and much-needed formalization of an important aspect of the debate often mentioned here.

Is that the sound of the tide turning I hear?

Yes. Peter R. definitely turns the tide. And this is the tide-is-turning-sound, my tribute to Peter, as brilliant as himself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFWCAYPWFbs

[Adrian-x]

I’d like to share a research paper I’ve recently completed titled “A Transaction Fee Market Exists Without a Block Size Limit.”  I formalizes the ideas from Cypherdoc, Adrian-X, thezerg, Rocks, ZB, Justus Ranvier, Solex, Melbustus, Majamalu and many others here.   In addition to presenting some useful charts such as the cost to produce large spam blocks, I think the paper convincingly demonstrates that due to the orphaning cost, a block size limit is not necessary to ensure a functioning fee market. 

Looking forward to reading it, just finished reviewing the r/bitcoin comments just want to say well done too.

I love the way you introduced it, it's fascinating to see the r/bitcoin community contribute like this. Even the "trolls" have some valuable feedback.

And it's attracted the attention and participation of developers too.

Nice work and flattered to see ideas discussed here credited to the foundation of what appears to be such superior analysis. (Should read befor commenting :-)

[lunarboy]

Satoshi moves some coin  .....  from 2009-01-09 02:54:25


https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3frht4/satoshi_nakamoto_moved_today_for_the_first_time/


https://blockchain.info/en/address/12c6DSiU4Rq3P4ZxziKxzrL5LmMBrzjrJX


edit seems like a blockchain.info problem

[Chainsaw]

Satoshi moves some coin  .....  from 2009-01-09 02:54:25


https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3frht4/satoshi_nakamoto_moved_today_for_the_first_time/


https://blockchain.info/en/address/12c6DSiU4Rq3P4ZxziKxzrL5LmMBrzjrJX

Debunked. It's a blockchain.info exploit.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3frn1d/satoshis_coins_have_not_moved_blockchaininfo_is/

[lunarboy]

Satoshi moves some coin  .....  from 2009-01-09 02:54:25


https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3frht4/satoshi_nakamoto_moved_today_for_the_first_time/


https://blockchain.info/en/address/12c6DSiU4Rq3P4ZxziKxzrL5LmMBrzjrJX

Debunked. It's a blockchain.info exploit.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3frn1d/satoshis_coins_have_not_moved_blockchaininfo_is/

Awwwh thats a shame, would have made for a few interesting conversations 

[cypherdoc]

Just got out of surgery. Looking forward to this landmark paper. Congratulations Peter.

[manselr]

Satoshi moves some coin  .....  from 2009-01-09 02:54:25


https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3frht4/satoshi_nakamoto_moved_today_for_the_first_time/


https://blockchain.info/en/address/12c6DSiU4Rq3P4ZxziKxzrL5LmMBrzjrJX

Debunked. It's a blockchain.info exploit.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3frn1d/satoshis_coins_have_not_moved_blockchaininfo_is/

Awwwh thats a shame, would have made for a few interesting conversations 

Well that just made me skip a couple heartbeats at least. Think about it, satoshi moving coins around would be an absolute disaster. I don't want a guy with access to near 1 million coins. It's just ridiculous. We are better off with the idea of him having lost his private keys to be honest. Sure he deserves to be a millionaire from Bitcoin, but not owning that much of it in my opinion.

[cypherdoc]

Dow dumping, gold continuing it's drop.

Bitcoin UP.

[jbreher]

Think about it, satoshi moving coins around would be an absolute disaster. I don't want a guy with access to near 1 million coins. It's just ridiculous.

If you've not factored this possibility into your plans, you may wish to reevaluate.

I've made my peace with it. If satoshi dumps 7% of all coins into the market, price will retrace for a bit. Then resume its inexorable climb. No Big Deal.

He can only do it once. Once it is done, it removes this spectre hanging over us.

[brg444]

I've tried really hard to try and see the opposing POV but I come up short every time, and I think that's because I can't understand the philosophy behind making BTC some elitist tool when it seemed right from the outset that it was anything but.

If that makes me part of the "free-shit" army, then so be it. I'm not (yet) so morally bankrupt that I think that my well being can only come at the expense of others. That's what cripplecoin sounds like, thats why I don't want any part of it.

You aren't trying that hard if you can't read and understand this fairly simple, single sentence summation of the opposing POV:

The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain".

Where in Davout's statement is the "moral bankruptcy?"  All I see is economic literacy and an understanding of the technical limitations of scaling Bitcoin I/O.

Where in Davout's statement is the desire for well being coming "at the expense of others?"  All I see is a workable plan for radical inclusion ("everyone gets to benefit"), albeit not in the manner preferred by those with atrociously paltry understandings of Bitcoin and economics.

Who are these financial institutions, and why do assume they are necessary. You seem to ignore the fact that bitcoin is money. Its a medium of exchange, a unit of account, a store of value. The blockchain facilitates these things. Your financial institutions are an unnecessary complexity, the blockchain doesn't need financial institutions it *is* the institution.

Your summation quite clearly reveals some other agenda. You know that increasing the block size undermines it, so you are fighting tooth and nail to try and prevent it.

I'm guessing you don't quite understand the nuances behind the idea icebreaker is trying to lead you to.. or maybe you outright disagree. Here is Peter Wuille's version of the same logic:

I see centralization and scalability as a trade-off, and for better or for worse, the block chain only offers one trade-off. I want to see technology
built on top that introduces lower levels of trust than typical fully centralized systems, while offering increased convenience, speed, reliability, and scale. I just don't think that all of that can happen on the lowest layer without hurting everything built on top. We need different trade-offs, and the blockchain is just one, but a very fundamental one.

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/009908.html

[brg444]

On an unrelated note I've rarely seen a company drop the ball like blockchain.info.

Can someone tell me what the hell these guys are doing with their funding? It seems everytime I read about them is because they broke something once again.