Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

[1713580461]

1713580461

[1713580461]

1713580461

[1713580461]

1713580461

[1713580461]

1713580461

[1713580461]

1713580461

[Melbustus]

Looks like a chart of 99% of alt-coins.

[cypherdoc]

Bitcoin volatility?  pfffft:

[rocks]

...
 so it is probably in the 'good enough' category.  It is not in the 'safe' category (though Andreas A. disagrees with me on this).

That is a great way to put it. It also highlights that people's views on bitcoin largely depend upon their risk aversion preferences and/or what they view as risky. Someone who views maintaining a fixed dollar amount as low risk and their primary goal, will likely see negatives to bitcoin since it's not "safe" (i.e. 100% guaranteed), while someone who views the value of a fixed dollar amount as itself being risky, will likely  see value to the project since it is "good enough".

[justusranvier]

If there exist entities that both care about Bitcoin and want to end it (and have sufficient motivation and resources)

...then they will succeed, and there's no technological solution we can implement that will stop them.

There is no substitute for growth as a defence against such attackers.

[Pruden]

Dow rolling again.  -100.

desperately trying to stay up.

Volume was very low, what is your idea of desperation?
The trend is UP!

[sidhujag]

http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/who-controls-bitcoin/

Im gonna give that to a coworker who is a conspiracy theorist yet pessimistic about bitcoin.. He always asks who controls bitcoin and never satsified as a fork can cause a large loss to his investment.. Thus labels it a ponzi scheme aimed at luring in small fish

He will panic-buy at much higher prices.

His pessismistic attitude is worrying as im sure he thinks hes right just like most of the other engineers i know. I told him last year and i remind him again.. The day you buy is the day i sellout

[Melbustus]

If there exist entities that both care about Bitcoin and want to end it (and have sufficient motivation and resources)

...then they will succeed, and there's no technological solution we can implement that will stop them.

There is no substitute for growth as a defence against such attackers.

+1

[smooth]

If there exist entities that both care about Bitcoin and want to end it (and have sufficient motivation and resources)

...then they will succeed, and there's no technological solution we can implement that will stop them.

There is no substitute for growth as a defence against such attackers.

That's an interesting line of reasoning.

It suggests that Bitcoin can only succeed if no such attackers exist.

[justusranvier]

That's an interesting line of reasoning.

It suggests that Bitcoin can only succeed if no such attackers exist.

Bitcoin can only succeed by growing larger than all attackers.

[smooth]

That's an interesting line of reasoning.

It suggests that Bitcoin can only succeed if no such attackers exist.

Bitcoin can only succeed by growing larger than all attackers.

"Growing" implies a stage of being smaller, at which point such attackers can and will destroy it. How can anything grow if it is already destroyed?

[Melbustus]

That's an interesting line of reasoning.

It suggests that Bitcoin can only succeed if no such attackers exist.

Bitcoin can only succeed by growing larger than all attackers.

"Growing" implies a stage of being smaller, at which point such attackers can and will destroy it. How can anything grow if it is already destroyed?

Kinda the unlikely miracle of Bitcoin's current size, perhaps. This is partly why Wences Casares, for example, likes to assert that it's much less likely for Bitcoin to have gotten from 0 to where it is today, than for it to get to 1B users from where we are now.

[Melbustus]

That's an interesting line of reasoning.

It suggests that Bitcoin can only succeed if no such attackers exist.

Bitcoin can only succeed by growing larger than all attackers.

Maybe you and Peter Todd need to get in a room:

"Nifty paper proving what we knew already: w/o a blocksize limit there's no PoW security -> death of Bitcoin." http://t.co/VPsgVkdzj9
(https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/564934207487897601?s=03)

Since his tweet misrepresents what the paper says, it seems to me that he's irrationally entrenched in his opinion.

[smooth]

That's an interesting line of reasoning.

It suggests that Bitcoin can only succeed if no such attackers exist.

Bitcoin can only succeed by growing larger than all attackers.

"Growing" implies a stage of being smaller, at which point such attackers can and will destroy it. How can anything grow if it is already destroyed?

Kinda the unlikely miracle of Bitcoin's current size, perhaps.

Bitcoin is already too large for "entities that both care about Bitcoin and want to end it (and have sufficient motivation and resources)" to destroy it?

[Melbustus]

That's an interesting line of reasoning.

It suggests that Bitcoin can only succeed if no such attackers exist.

Bitcoin can only succeed by growing larger than all attackers.

"Growing" implies a stage of being smaller, at which point such attackers can and will destroy it. How can anything grow if it is already destroyed?

Kinda the unlikely miracle of Bitcoin's current size, perhaps.

Bitcoin is already too large for "entities that both care about Bitcoin and want to end it (and have sufficient motivation and resources)" to destroy it?

No, but it's not easy anymore. And we're not that far off a technical attack being feasible only for highly motivated nation-states....which, as JR points out, seems like a bad choice of attack vector for a motivated sovereign, given the legal and regulatory tools available to them.

[smooth]

That's an interesting line of reasoning.

It suggests that Bitcoin can only succeed if no such attackers exist.

Bitcoin can only succeed by growing larger than all attackers.

"Growing" implies a stage of being smaller, at which point such attackers can and will destroy it. How can anything grow if it is already destroyed?

Kinda the unlikely miracle of Bitcoin's current size, perhaps.

Bitcoin is already too large for "entities that both care about Bitcoin and want to end it (and have sufficient motivation and resources)" to destroy it?

No, but it's not easy anymore. And we're not that far off a technical attack being feasible only for highly motivated nation-states....which, as JR points out, seems like a bad choice of attack vector for a motivated sovereign, given the legal and regulatory tools available to them.

Yes legal and regulatory strangulation seem more obvious methods both in theory and practice, but that still doesn't answer the question of how it can ever grow to be too large to attack if adversaries want to end it while it's small enough to successful attack (by whatever method), and have the ability to do so.

JR's arguments seem to lead to the logical conclusion that Bitcoin can't succeed.

[solex]

That's an interesting line of reasoning.

It suggests that Bitcoin can only succeed if no such attackers exist.

Bitcoin can only succeed by growing larger than all attackers.

Maybe you and Peter Todd need to get in a room:

"Nifty paper proving what we knew already: w/o a blocksize limit there's no PoW security -> death of Bitcoin." http://t.co/VPsgVkdzj9
(https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/564934207487897601?s=03)

Since his tweet misrepresents what the paper says, it seems to me that he's irrationally entrenched in his opinion.

Yep. It is another downside of problems like this remaining unresolved for so long. As the debate continues people do become entrenched when they have have invested so much time and mental energy in their position. They have to admit to themselves that they wasted a lot of effort, if they reverse their view. This is further "cemented" once they go public and stake their reputation on an entrenched position. Peter did this with his video, and Mircea has done it on his blog in front of all his followers.

I have still not seen any reasonable argument why Bitcoin can't be allowed to scale at the rate of the slowest improving computing technology that it uses:  (bandwidth, at present).

[rocks]

That's an interesting line of reasoning.

It suggests that Bitcoin can only succeed if no such attackers exist.

Bitcoin can only succeed by growing larger than all attackers.

"Growing" implies a stage of being smaller, at which point such attackers can and will destroy it. How can anything grow if it is already destroyed?

Kinda the unlikely miracle of Bitcoin's current size, perhaps. This is partly why Wences Casares, for example, likes to assert that it's much less likely for Bitcoin to have gotten from 0 to where it is today, than for it to get to 1B users from where we are now.

Haven't heard that before, but completely agree with the sentiment. It is also explains the 2011 bubble, which represented almost a 1000x increase in valuation. The reason was bitcoin crossed from being a small project among a few people (i.e. 0) to being a stand alone entity, this was a massive transition and validation of the platform.

[justusranvier]

That's an interesting line of reasoning.

It suggests that Bitcoin can only succeed if no such attackers exist.

Bitcoin can only succeed by growing larger than all attackers.

"Growing" implies a stage of being smaller, at which point such attackers can and will destroy it. How can anything grow if it is already destroyed?

I thought I already answered that.

http://bitcoinism.liberty.me/2015/02/09/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-2-price-discovery/

The good news is that the largest and most dangerous attackers tend to be slow (compared to the pace of software development) to believe that a threat exists, decide on the correct response to neutralize the threat, and effectively execute the response.

The bad news is that Bitcoin’s inherent speed advantage is diluted by people who oppose growth based on the mistaken belief that smallness is an effective defense.

[smooth]

The good news is that the largest and most dangerous attackers tend to be slow (compared to the pace of software development) to believe that a threat exists, decide on the correct response to neutralize the threat, and effectively execute the response.

So your argument is that Bitcoin can succeed only if its opponents are incompetent or irrational?

Also, what about the attackers who aren't the largest and most dangerous? They're not a threat?