Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

I am somewhat surprised Cypherdoc allows obvious trolls to post on this thread.

It may well be the last vestige of intelligent conversation within the fora. What a great shame it would be for this thread to be derailed down to the depths like the rest of the forum!

it's called troll fatigue. can't fight 'em by myself.  we're going on 4 yrs here.

anyways, should be obvious all the trolling is from ppl not understanding Bitcoin.

[1713564942]

1713564942

[1713564942]

1713564942

[1713564942]

1713564942

[tvbcof]

I am somewhat surprised Cypherdoc allows obvious trolls to post on this thread.

It may well be the last vestige of intelligent conversation within the fora. What a great shame it would be for this thread to be derailed down to the depths like the rest of the forum!

it's called troll fatigue. can't fight 'em by myself.  we're going on 4 yrs here.

anyways, should be obvious all the trolling is from ppl not understanding Bitcoin.

Different people have different understandings of 'bitcoin', 'gold', and for that matter, 'trolls'.

I would say that if one defines a 'troll' as someone who holds a different opinion or who understands something like Bitcoin from a different perspective than one's own, that is pretty retarded.  I see it a lot around here.  I consider this thread to be one of the more absurd because of this, but it also makes it one of the most fun.  Especially for trolling.

[NotHatinJustTrollin]

ppl not understanding Bitcoin.

But dad! You just don't understand!  








Sometimes I have the impression that the users expressing opinions against BTC (what you call "trolls") understand bitcoin better simply because they are not biased by the greed that motivates bitcoin hodlers  
They can see things for what they are.
Sometimes  

I guess you would call JorgeStolfi a troll too, right?  

[rocks]

Regarding the hard fork/scalability issue: I have never seen so much controversy regarding the way to deal with a problem in bitcoin within the bitcoin community.

You guys saying it's a "Solved problem" or one with an obvious solution?

Controversy IMHO is a good thing, it is the messy process of having a diverse set of individuals be responsible for their own destiny, as opposed to one of the many forms of centralized command and control.

What I do not like about the hard fork/scalability issue is bitcoin is not going through this messy process to make the change, but instead is having it's future be decided by a single individual by default.

Overall I have been very impressed by Gavin. I think his IBLT solution was brilliant, no change to the underlying protocol yet it incentivizes all miners to include all outstanding mem pool transactions. What's more miners are incentivized to switch to IBLT on their own since it lowers block propagation time in all cases.

But his hard fork proposal puts bitcoin on a dangerous auto pilot regarding block sizes. The initial 20x jump to 20MB blocks is fine, but automatically having 10 doublings to 20GB blocks is dangerous. What if we find out there is some scale issue at 128MB? It will take a hard fork to stop the ramp.

But what I really don't like about it is there hasn't been any real discussion. Gavin thinks everything will be fine, so it is. I work in tech and know processors really well. Compute scaling has slowed down and will further slow down, there are only so many cores that can be feed data to process. But the real issue is network, network does not double every 2 years.

I've been so bothered by it that I've started to contemplate building an affordable AWS node configuration that refuses to propagate the hard fork blocks and open that up. If enough people started such nodes then miners would see that the new blocks propagate more slowly and maybe stick to older blocks out of self interest.

Gavin's upgrade cycle requires 80% of blocks over 1000 block period to be new blocks, so if you can get a few pools to opt-out you can block the upgrade.

[NotHatinJustTrollin]

Regarding the hard fork/scalability issue: I have never seen so much controversy regarding the way to deal with a problem in bitcoin within the bitcoin community.

You guys saying it's a "Solved problem" or one with an obvious solution?

Controversy IMHO is a good thing, it is the messy process of having a diverse set of individuals be responsible for their own destiny, as opposed to one of the many forms of centralized command and control.

What I do not like about the hard fork/scalability issue is bitcoin is not going through this messy process to make the change, but instead is having it's future be decided by a single individual by default.

Overall I have been very impressed by Gavin. I think his IBLT solution was brilliant, no change to the underlying protocol yet it incentivizes all miners to include all outstanding mem pool transactions. What's more miners are incentivized to switch to IBLT on their own since it lowers block propagation time in all cases.

But his hard fork proposal puts bitcoin on a dangerous auto pilot regarding block sizes. The initial 20x jump to 20MB blocks is fine, but automatically having 10 doublings to 20GB blocks is dangerous. What if we find out there is some scale issue at 128MB? It will take a hard fork to stop the ramp.

But what I really don't like about it is there hasn't been any real discussion. Gavin thinks everything will be fine, so it is. I work in tech and know processors really well. Compute scaling has slowed down and will further slow down, there are only so many cores that can be feed data to process. But the real issue is network, network does not double every 2 years.

I've been so bothered by it that I've started to contemplate building an affordable AWS node configuration that refuses to propagate the hard fork blocks and open that up. If enough people started such nodes then miners would see that the new blocks propagate more slowly and maybe stick to older blocks out of self interest.

Gavin's upgrade cycle requires 80% of blocks over 1000 block period to be new blocks, so if you can get a few pools to opt-out you can block the upgrade.

That's what I was talking about, some people here are like "no big deal, it's solved" while that scaling solution brings a plethora of other issues.

I'm pretty sure Gavin himself said that his solution "comes with risks" though.

[tvbcof]

...
I guess you would call JorgeStolfi a troll too, right?  

The guy has poor cypherdoc all balled up.  Not long ago he seemed to say something that cypherdoc agreed with and cyph re-labeled him 'not a troll' and stated this agreement as the reason for his newly achieved standing.  Then a few days later he said something cypherdoc didn't like and was back to wearing the troll label again.

[epilido]

Regarding the hard fork/scalability issue: I have never seen so much controversy regarding the way to deal with a problem in bitcoin within the bitcoin community.

You guys saying it's a "Solved problem" or one with an obvious solution?

But what I really don't like about it is there hasn't been any real discussion. Gavin thinks everything will be fine, so it is. I work in tech and know processors really well. Compute scaling has slowed down and will further slow down, there are only so many cores that can be feed data to process. But the real issue is network, network does not double every 2 years.

I've been so bothered by it that I've started to contemplate building an affordable AWS node configuration that refuses to propagate the hard fork blocks and open that up. If enough people started such nodes then miners would see that the new blocks propagate more slowly and maybe stick to older blocks out of self interest.

Gavin's upgrade cycle requires 80% of blocks over 1000 block period to be new blocks, so if you can get a few pools to opt-out you can block the upgrade.

How about using your energy to offer a solution.  Sticking your finger in the eye of the process is counterproductive.  It seems that the most productive people in Bitcoin are offering solutions and getting conversations started.  Without Gavin coding and testing the very large blocks we would not be talking about it or working toward a solution.

[cypherdoc]

...
I guess you would call JorgeStolfi a troll too, right?  

The guy has poor cypherdoc all balled up.  Not long ago he seemed to say something that cypherdoc agreed with and cyph re-labeled him 'not a troll' and stated this agreement as the reason for his newly achieved standing.  Then a few days later he said something cypherdoc didn't like and was back to wearing the troll label again.

Poor tvbcof.  Still seeing shadows. Typical paranoia.

[Melbustus]

Speaking of trolls, here's Rickards in attack mode: www.darientimes.com/39695/rickards-fighting-the-islamic-state-with-special-operations/

Note that he never says there *is* terrorist financing via bitcoin, he just makes it sound like a really scary idea. Also fails to mention that ISIS has said they're using gold, and further, that it seems like a really bad idea to commit big crimes using a public ledger. If it wasn't obvious already, SR trial makes that clear.

And of course, he has a number of factual errors, but tries to come across as reasoned by giving btc props here and there. I'd be a lot more willing to accept his legit criticisms (eg, btc hasn't gone through a full econ cycle yet), if he'd quit it with the painfully obvious fear-mongering.

[bubble83]

Speaking of trolls, here's Rickards in attack mode: www.darientimes.com/39695/rickards-fighting-the-islamic-state-with-special-operations/

Note that he never says there *is* terrorist financing via bitcoin, he just makes it sound like a really scary idea. Also fails to mention that ISIS has said they're using gold, and further, that it seems like a really bad idea to commit big crimes using a public ledger. If it wasn't obvious already, SR trial makes that clear.

And of course, he has a number of factual errors, but tries to come across as reasoned by giving btc props here and there. I'd be a lot more willing to accept his legit criticisms (eg, btc hasn't gone through a full econ cycle yet), if he'd quit it with the painfully obvious fear-mongering.

Why would ISIS want to use bitcoin on a down trend and risk losing a load of money in a crash?

[marcus_of_augustus]

... and yet here they are.

The Wall Observer thread has been sufficiently ruined so now like a plague of locusts they move to the next most viewed thread ...

[hdbuck]

Speaking of trolls, here's Rickards in attack mode: www.darientimes.com/39695/rickards-fighting-the-islamic-state-with-special-operations/

Note that he never says there *is* terrorist financing via bitcoin, he just makes it sound like a really scary idea. Also fails to mention that ISIS has said they're using gold, and further, that it seems like a really bad idea to commit big crimes using a public ledger. If it wasn't obvious already, SR trial makes that clear.

And of course, he has a number of factual errors, but tries to come across as reasoned by giving btc props here and there. I'd be a lot more willing to accept his legit criticisms (eg, btc hasn't gone through a full econ cycle yet), if he'd quit it with the painfully obvious fear-mongering.

i believe sir, ISIS is using petro-dollar 

(besides USG supplies..)

[rocks]

How about using your energy to offer a solution.  Sticking your finger in the eye of the process is counterproductive.  It seems that the most productive people in Bitcoin are offering solutions and getting conversations started.  Without Gavin coding and testing the very large blocks we would not be talking about it or working toward a solution.

Believe it or not, but seeing a centralized non-community based hard-fork process as a problem and opening up a discussion on a possible method to resist/hold off that centralized change until it is more community driven, is in fact offering solutions to problems. Here the problem is centralized driven hard-forks, not block-size limit increases.  If no one likes or is on-board with the proposal, then there is little point spending energy on it. But if it resonates with some people then maybe it is. Oh, and people have been talking about large blocks since before Gavin took on his maintainer role.

[rocks]

... and yet here they are.

The Wall Observer thread has been sufficiently ruined so now like a plague of locusts they move to the next most viewed thread ...

A while ago the wall observer thread was demoted to skimming only for memes & animated gifs, of which there were many funny ones. Now it's lacking even that simple value and I can't understand why anyone's there...

[tabnloz]

Speaking of trolls, here's Rickards in attack mode: www.darientimes.com/39695/rickards-fighting-the-islamic-state-with-special-operations/

Note that he never says there *is* terrorist financing via bitcoin, he just makes it sound like a really scary idea. Also fails to mention that ISIS has said they're using gold, and further, that it seems like a really bad idea to commit big crimes using a public ledger. If it wasn't obvious already, SR trial makes that clear.

And of course, he has a number of factual errors, but tries to come across as reasoned by giving btc props here and there. I'd be a lot more willing to accept his legit criticisms (eg, btc hasn't gone through a full econ cycle yet), if he'd quit it with the painfully obvious fear-mongering.

No problems with the USG holding strategy meetings regarding crypto, as well they should, but as you say, there is no need to paint the mechanism in a bad light. It is, after all, only math and an internet connection. But at least he has dropped off with some of his sillier criticisms (EMP, Internet down etc) and on the face of it is giving some props to bitcoin.

Another thing, unless it is OTC, then until bitcoin is used and accepted without being converted into fiat the evidence (albeit circumstantial) of 'financing' will be seen in the banking system ie, transferred from exchange to bank account.

And regarding how bitcoin performs in a full economic cycle and in relation to other assets, well, that ties in nicely with this thread. Perhaps he should give it a read.

[tvbcof]

Speaking of trolls, here's Rickards in attack mode: www.darientimes.com/39695/rickards-fighting-the-islamic-state-with-special-operations/

Note that he never says there *is* terrorist financing via bitcoin, he just makes it sound like a really scary idea. Also fails to mention that ISIS has said they're using gold, and further, that it seems like a really bad idea to commit big crimes using a public ledger. If it wasn't obvious already, SR trial makes that clear.

And of course, he has a number of factual errors, but tries to come across as reasoned by giving btc props here and there. I'd be a lot more willing to accept his legit criticisms (eg, btc hasn't gone through a full econ cycle yet), if he'd quit it with the painfully obvious fear-mongering.

i believe sir, ISIS is using petro-dollar 

(besides USG supplies..)

They do seem nicely decked out in snappy NATO style gear and are driving around in a lot of U.S. manufactured equipment fresh off the assembly line.

Oh ya, now I remember.  3000 rag-tag 'terrorists' routed 30,000 U.S. armed and trained Iraqis who dropped all their equipment in a panic and ran for the hills.  Ya...that's the ticket!  The amazing thing is that nearly all Americans bought that one hook, line, and sinker.

Maybe my brethren can be forgiven since the accounts of the CIA training camps in Jordan and Turkey appeared only in the 'alternate' media and anything anyone reads there is automatically and 'conspiracy theory' and thus automatically the opposite of reality.

[Huobi-CEO]

... and yet here they are.

The Wall Observer thread has been sufficiently ruined so now like a plague of locusts they move to the next most viewed thread ...

Stop trolling bull scammer!

We are still at FEAR stage! Wait until we hit despair @ around 5-10$. We, the chinese bitcoiners, will dump the shit out of this!

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/anatomy-of-a-bubble.png

[smoothie]

... and yet here they are.

The Wall Observer thread has been sufficiently ruined so now like a plague of locusts they move to the next most viewed thread ...

Stop trolling bull scammer!

We are still at FEAR stage! Wait until we hit despair @ around 5-10$. We, the chinese bitcoiners, will dump the shit out of this!

lol yell louder please!

If we hit $5-$10...TIME TO BACK UP THE TRUCK!

[epilido]

How about using your energy to offer a solution.  Sticking your finger in the eye of the process is counterproductive.  It seems that the most productive people in Bitcoin are offering solutions and getting conversations started.  Without Gavin coding and testing the very large blocks we would not be talking about it or working toward a solution.

Believe it or not, but seeing a centralized non-community based hard-fork process as a problem and opening up a discussion on a possible method to resist/hold off that centralized change until it is more community driven, is in fact offering solutions to problems. Here the problem is centralized driven hard-forks, not block-size limit increases.  If no one likes or is on-board with the proposal, then there is little point spending energy on it. But if it resonates with some people then maybe it is. Oh, and people have been talking about large blocks since before Gavin took on his maintainer role.

 A method to resist is not a solution to a problem.  It is a hope for stagnation.   Since people have been discussing large blocks since before Gavin took it on, maybe large blocks are needed.  I think Gavin's method of suggestion and testing is much more constructive than obstructive and I fail to see how it is centralised.

[NewLiberty]

How about using your energy to offer a solution.  Sticking your finger in the eye of the process is counterproductive.  It seems that the most productive people in Bitcoin are offering solutions and getting conversations started.  Without Gavin coding and testing the very large blocks we would not be talking about it or working toward a solution.

Believe it or not, but seeing a centralized non-community based hard-fork process as a problem and opening up a discussion on a possible method to resist/hold off that centralized change until it is more community driven, is in fact offering solutions to problems. Here the problem is centralized driven hard-forks, not block-size limit increases.  If no one likes or is on-board with the proposal, then there is little point spending energy on it. But if it resonates with some people then maybe it is. Oh, and people have been talking about large blocks since before Gavin took on his maintainer role.

 A method to resist is not a solution to a problem.  It is a hope for stagnation.   Since people have been discussing large blocks since before Gavin took it on, maybe large blocks are needed.  I think Gavin's method of suggestion and testing is much more constructive than obstructive and I fail to see how it is centralised.

http://www.bizforum.org/Journal/www_journalJVP018.htm

Gavin's method engenders some centralization of nodes.  A great number of nodes can be made to disappear by a single pool loading up some very large blocks.  There are other problems with it, but this one may be sufficient for some folks to disagree with it.  Node population is an important factor of scalability and functionality.  The proposal harms such scalability in order to foster microtransaction scalability.

The internet is not a uniform web of high speed links globally.  There are great differences in costs and deployed infrastructure.  Very large blocks may reduce Bitcoin to a Northern hemisphere usability.

There are going to be risks with any change.  Better proposals than Gavin's have been made and discussed, but they require more code.  They are not as simple.

One thing is sure, and that is if we do another hard fork to set-it-and-forget-it using a guess as to what the future of the internet will be based on current or past data, we are going to be wrong about that guess.

Gavin's solution is a very good one from a software-development perspective.  It is not a good solution from a protocol perspective.  These are very different things.