Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[gkv9]

i should've put up the 1 min chart:

...

That's a fantastic chart.

What made SNB take back their decision on continuing 1.20 Cap on EUR/CHF?

[1713929245]

1713929245

[1713929245]

1713929245

[1713929245]

1713929245

[1713929245]

1713929245

[1713929245]

1713929245

[1713929245]

1713929245

[solex]

i should've put up the 1 min chart:

...

That's a fantastic chart.

What made SNB take back their decision on continuing 1.20 Cap on EUR/CHF?

The noises that the ECB was making about copying the other major CBs (Fed, BoJ and BoE) and entering a full-blown QE program. The legal basis for this is dubious and so far Draghi has relied on jawboning. If the ECB started QE then the SNB would have had to add significantly to the $500 billion it has already printed in francs to buy euros to support their peg. They blinked.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Cypher (or someone who feels like they can properly explain it): can you please ELI5 why sidechains will break the incentive mechanism? I haven't been able to follow this thread as well as I used to.

I think (cypher can correct me) its because taking transactions off (main)chain reduces fee-based income for miners. When the block reward dwindles after several halving that is their only incentive to mine. If they have no incentive, then they will not mine, the network will become more vulnerable.

eh ok, there must be some way to count off chain transactions and then credit the miners appropriately. I'm not saying this would be a trivial change, but this scenario is probably 10 years away minimum and I find it fairly difficult to believe that there is no way to get around this between now and then.

it has already been coded.

secure, cheap, off-chain tx is a solved problem. SC or max block size increases are not needed for increasing max TX throughput.

PM me if you are genuinely interested and not just shooting the breeze on a forum.

[lebing]

Cypher (or someone who feels like they can properly explain it): can you please ELI5 why sidechains will break the incentive mechanism? I haven't been able to follow this thread as well as I used to.

I think (cypher can correct me) its because taking transactions off (main)chain reduces fee-based income for miners. When the block reward dwindles after several halving that is their only incentive to mine. If they have no incentive, then they will not mine, the network will become more vulnerable.

eh ok, there must be some way to count off chain transactions and then credit the miners appropriately. I'm not saying this would be a trivial change, but this scenario is probably 10 years away minimum and I find it fairly difficult to believe that there is no way to get around this between now and then.

it has already been coded.

secure, cheap, off-chain tx is a solved problem. SC or max block size increases are not needed for increasing max TX throughput.

PM me if you are genuinely interested and not just shooting the breeze on a forum.

What say you now Cypher?

[ABISprotocol]

Wrong person/thread/board?

I am curious what are your thoughts as to Kimoto Gravity Well currently being talked up a bit by Pavel Chorbadzhiyski:

https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/1207-more-adaptive-way-of-adjusting-the-difficulty-is-needed/

Seen in Donationcoin, Darkcoin, and Blackcoin earlier in 2013 and 2014 (not sure which implemented it first) in 2013 and 2014, there are some discussions that it could be used adaptively for bitcoin.

Anyway, let me know, there has also of course been _something related to it_ on the bitcoin-development discussion also, but maybe not exactly this, but I do not know to what extent, curious as to how you might consider that kimoto gravity well bit could be evaluated, or if it should be, in bitcoin context.

I was more interested before your edit when the question was about Kimono Gravity Wells.  I've always been interested in what's under a kimono, and I could imagine gravity and a well being useful in revealing answers.

I've never been aware of any particular problems in bitcoin-land with difficulty adjustment.  Alts have been attacked and have had problems, and I suppose that Bitcoin could as well under some scenarios (such as state sponsored molestation of centralized minning effort.)  I've never even heard of the other coins you mention.  My interest in alts is nearly nill.

In retrospect I think Bitcoin would have been much better off with quasi-random and periodically switching proof of work algorithms themselves.  More significantly, I believe that the various kinds of rewards granted for supporting the system should be apportioned based on value added by diversity which would make the solution that much harder to attack.  I started describing it on the paracoin deal, but haven't touched it or even looked at it for years.

Fact is though that my thoughts on the matter which I believe would have made a better currency would never have been practical in the beginning, and would never be practical to adopt in Bitcoin.  So they are a pipe-dream.

I did envision sidechains shortly after I read the whitepaper as a means of scaling, but never did and do not now have the technical understanding or ability to know how to implement the two-way-peg and I'm not really sure that this rather obvious interface ever occurred to me though it should have.  I gave up on Bitcoin as a viable base for a while during the satoshi-dice spam thinking that it was already mortally damaged with cruft.  I've changed my mind on that and believe that if the Blockstream guys can get sidechains implemented, and if there is no more unnecessary bloat, Bitcoin is still workable and the best bet as top-dog, but a reserve-currency/exchange-currency differentiation needs to be recognized and embraced.  Also, the code needs to just cease and lock with very little more work in order to preserve the confidence that it has.  Vastly more development is needed, but it should occur at a different level.

Sorry to not really answer your question which was, I guess, sort of directed my way.

No, I was interested in what you had to say about it.  I do have a couple kimono things around, so I might have been thinking about that, but made a mistake and put them in the text instead of kimoto, which is indeed the proper spelling for this 'kimoto gravity well' item.

I wonder if this would be adjustable enough to allow ordinary users to "dial it down" so that, in accordance with the capacity of their machines, nearly anyone could mine on some similar system such as this kimoto gravity well?  When you are using BCN, the amount of resource it needs is so low you can mine it using a laptop, but there is essentially no variation (nor user direction that would indicate some adjustment needed) for adaptive-ness in such a system.  It just does it as far as I can tell.  But in bitcoin (BTC) it is another matter entirely, and would be very interesting to see if users with limited equipment (say, those who only have laptops or towers) could make certain adjustments and run it as we used to some years back (2010 - 2011).  That would spawn a whole lot of new interest to be sure, although I have about zero idea as to how technically it might work, I certainly found the visualization (graph) here interesting: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/21730/how-does-the-kimoto-gravity-well-regulate-difficulty

Then imagine at the same time all this is happening, which introduces a lot of new diversity to the system, which I suspect is good, in come various approaches to sidechains.  Regardless what anyone thinks of them, in they come, and one can imagine that there will be a system in which there will eventually be zerocash, or something like it, with its own consensus system being managed potentially on a sidechain independently from bitcoin, but still being able to be exchanged for bitcoin if someone were to sit at a table and say, "hey, let's exchange this zerocash token for some bitcoin" or something to that effect.  Zerocash would have its own way of ensuring no double spends.  Not to say sidechains are necessary for this to work, just turning over ideas in my brain randomly, and considering some questions to e-mail the zerocash developers, who have not (yet) released the zerocash code. 

[sickpig]

Cypher (or someone who feels like they can properly explain it): can you please ELI5 why sidechains will break the incentive mechanism? I haven't been able to follow this thread as well as I used to.

I think (cypher can correct me) its because taking transactions off (main)chain reduces fee-based income for miners. When the block reward dwindles after several halving that is their only incentive to mine. If they have no incentive, then they will not mine, the network will become more vulnerable.

eh ok, there must be some way to count off chain transactions and then credit the miners appropriately. I'm not saying this would be a trivial change, but this scenario is probably 10 years away minimum and I find it fairly difficult to believe that there is no way to get around this between now and then.

it has already been coded.

secure, cheap, off-chain tx is a solved problem. SC or max block size increases are not needed for increasing max TX throughput.

PM me if you are genuinely interested and not just shooting the breeze on a forum.

Do you have some kind of white paper?
Is it an open source project?

[tabnloz]

Alpari, who have gone into insolvency today, released this statement from their CEO


"I'm sure this isn't the last we'll hear on the subject and the SNB are going to be heavily scrutinised in the coming weeks for what appears to be a horribly irresponsible move on their part. For years central banks have tried to avoid days like today by being transparent and making moves like this over time while drip feeding their intentions to the markets. The SNB have shown themselves to be amateurs today and there is many people that will suffer considerably as a result."

[cypherdoc]

Refreshingly simple and to the point:

http://www.sovereignman.com/finance/this-may-be-the-most-important-transaction-in-the-history-of-finance-15921/

[Wekkel]

Alpari, who have gone into insolvency today, released this statement from their CEO


"I'm sure this isn't the last we'll hear on the subject and the SNB are going to be heavily scrutinised in the coming weeks for what appears to be a horribly irresponsible move on their part. For years central banks have tried to avoid days like today by being transparent and making moves like this over time while drip feeding their intentions to the markets. The SNB have shown themselves to be amateurs today and there is many people that will suffer considerably as a result."

There was no obligation for people to make trades in an (openly) rigged market. Caveat Emptor.

[cypherdoc]

Alpari, who have gone into insolvency today, released this statement from their CEO


"I'm sure this isn't the last we'll hear on the subject and the SNB are going to be heavily scrutinised in the coming weeks for what appears to be a horribly irresponsible move on their part. For years central banks have tried to avoid days like today by being transparent and making moves like this over time while drip feeding their intentions to the markets. The SNB have shown themselves to be amateurs today and there is many people that will suffer considerably as a result."

There was no obligation for people to make trades in an (openly) rigged market. Caveat Emptor.

You sound like a SC proponent.

[lebing]

Alpari, who have gone into insolvency today, released this statement from their CEO


"I'm sure this isn't the last we'll hear on the subject and the SNB are going to be heavily scrutinised in the coming weeks for what appears to be a horribly irresponsible move on their part. For years central banks have tried to avoid days like today by being transparent and making moves like this over time while drip feeding their intentions to the markets. The SNB have shown themselves to be amateurs today and there is many people that will suffer considerably as a result."

wow. I used to be a customer there. Amazing that they allowed that to happen.

[cypherdoc]

Alpari, who have gone into insolvency today, released this statement from their CEO


"I'm sure this isn't the last we'll hear on the subject and the SNB are going to be heavily scrutinised in the coming weeks for what appears to be a horribly irresponsible move on their part. For years central banks have tried to avoid days like today by being transparent and making moves like this over time while drip feeding their intentions to the markets. The SNB have shown themselves to be amateurs today and there is many people that will suffer considerably as a result."

wow. I used to be a customer there. Amazing that they allowed that to happen.

whiners gonna whine.

the real question is:  "irresponsible for who?"

[Wekkel]

Alpari, who have gone into insolvency today, released this statement from their CEO


"I'm sure this isn't the last we'll hear on the subject and the SNB are going to be heavily scrutinised in the coming weeks for what appears to be a horribly irresponsible move on their part. For years central banks have tried to avoid days like today by being transparent and making moves like this over time while drip feeding their intentions to the markets. The SNB have shown themselves to be amateurs today and there is many people that will suffer considerably as a result."

There was no obligation for people to make trades in an (openly) rigged market. Caveat Emptor.

You sound like a SC proponent.

I am in favour of whatever works. Preconceived ideas be damned.

[cypherdoc]

Cypher (or someone who feels like they can properly explain it): can you please ELI5 why sidechains will break the incentive mechanism? I haven't been able to follow this thread as well as I used to.

I think (cypher can correct me) its because taking transactions off (main)chain reduces fee-based income for miners. When the block reward dwindles after several halving that is their only incentive to mine. If they have no incentive, then they will not mine, the network will become more vulnerable.

eh ok, there must be some way to count off chain transactions and then credit the miners appropriately. I'm not saying this would be a trivial change, but this scenario is probably 10 years away minimum and I find it fairly difficult to believe that there is no way to get around this between now and then.

it has already been coded.

secure, cheap, off-chain tx is a solved problem. SC or max block size increases are not needed for increasing max TX throughput.

PM me if you are genuinely interested and not just shooting the breeze on a forum.

Do you have some kind of white paper?
Is it an open source project?

Do you have some kind of white paper?   NO
Is it an open source project?    maybe yes, maybe no.  the pt is, is it secure and does it make sense economically?

for some, it may make sense economically as they will be willing to take the risk.  that's fine.  i can't stop ppl from making risky, if not downright stupid, decisions with their money.

but what i can try to prevent is "institutionalizing" risky protocol changes (spvp) that benefits a specific for-profit company at the expense of a public good, ie, Bitcoin as Sound Money.  yesterday's CHF decision should continue to highlight what i feel is Bitcoins greater purpose; that of replacing gold with a digital equivalent.  if Bitcoin is based on consensus, i sure won't ever be giving my consent to implementing spvp as i think it sends the wrong message to global markets that a self interested group can change the rules in the middle of the game.

[cypherdoc]

here's the zoomed in 1min chart of the EUR/CHF decision.  notice the gap in time btwn the 2nd & 3rd down bars is 54 min.  why?  was it a market halt?  usually, afaik, currency trading in my TOS app is 24/7.  it would be interesting to find out the time of the official release.  also note the initial 2 down bars; frontrunning?  how could it not be?  obviously, a small group of interested men debated this decision for days, weeks, if not months before hand and knew very well the implications.  

this is the disruption of currency markets that all we Bitcoiners have been waiting for:

[Mirsad]

this is the disruption of currency markets that all we Bitcoiners have been waiting for:

AHAHAHAHAHAH.
No offense, but still, you are retarded.
Do you even know what the SNB does? Do you even know that they bought 3 years EUR to hold down the CHF ?

But keep believing you tinfoil hut theory. Better get a job and earn you money than hoping for a BTC miracle.

[cypherdoc]

this is the disruption of currency markets that all we Bitcoiners have been waiting for:

AHAHAHAHAHAH.
No offense, but still, you are retarded.
Do you even know what the SNB does? Do you even know that they bought 3 years EUR to hold down the CHF ?

But keep believing you tinfoil hut theory. Better get a job and earn you money than hoping for a BTC miracle.

lol.  thanks for making my points.  yeah, that manipulation is exactly what lead to this mess and a bunch of forex brokers going broke yesterday and today.  great policy moves, dude.  that's what you get when a small bunch of unelected egotistical morons are allowed to control the printing presses of an entire nation which then causes enormous ripple effects across the entire world.  you moron.

[justusranvier]

this is the disruption of currency markets that all we Bitcoiners have been waiting for:

I'd be quite happy with another year of low BTC prices, actually.

[Mirsad]

lol.  thanks for making my points.  yeah, that manipulation is exactly what lead to this mess and a bunch of forex brokers going broke yesterday and today.  great policy moves, dude.  that's what you get when a small bunch of unelected egotistical morons are allowed to control the printing presses of an entire nation which then causes enormous ripple effects across the entire world.  you moron.

You still do not know what the SNB does. They did not print money for the fun of it... but that is hard to understand as tinfoil hut user. Probably you should do their job. Wonderful future with a brain of 4th grader at this position.

[cypherdoc]

lol.  thanks for making my points.  yeah, that manipulation is exactly what lead to this mess and a bunch of forex brokers going broke yesterday and today.  great policy moves, dude.  that's what you get when a small bunch of unelected egotistical morons are allowed to control the printing presses of an entire nation which then causes enormous ripple effects across the entire world.  you moron.

You still do not know what the SNB does. They did not print money for the fun of it... but that is hard to understand as tinfoil hut user. Probably you should do their job. Wonderful future with a brain of 4th grader at this position.

i know exactly what their stated objective was.  and it was a stupid policy to begin with called "market manipulation".  devaluing the CHF at the expense of the ppl's purchasing power only helps the corporations and gvt.  and don't give me any bullshit about "trickle down" effects.  this is and will always be the dichotomous battle btwn big and little and Bitcoin is shifting the power to choose back to the ppl. 

you'd better look the hell out and buy some Bitcoin before you get left behind.