Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[tabnloz]

Bitcoin as an 'infrastructure' weapon in digital war.

Plenty wrong with this article ( “You don’t like us and we often don’t like you. Performing this service will in no way immunize you from applicable domestic laws, now or in the future. But we share a common enemy and will defeat it best by working together.”), however quite interesting.

"US Govt should pay Anonymous in bitcoin to fight ISIS"

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/03/03/the-u-s-government-should-pay-anonymous-in-bitcoin-to-fight-isis/

[1714009997]

1714009997

[1714009997]

1714009997

[1714009997]

1714009997

[1714009997]

1714009997

[1714009997]

1714009997

[sickpig]

Hopefully between that and https://bitcoinism.liberty.me/2015/01/21/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-1-scarcity/ this stupid argument is over.

By the way, part 2 will be out... soonish.

Great! I'm waiting for it eagerly.

Monday.

I'm going to let a proofreader go over this one rather than simply publishing the moment I finished writing the draft.

Firstly, I really want to thank you for what you've done here. You've perfectly formalized (and theoretically solved) a problem that was in the back of my mind since I've properly understood the bitcoin network topology.

Secondly, as of your knowledge, are the core devs aware of this issue? Do they agree with the given definition of the problem? And more to the point, is there a plan to develop something along the line of your proposed solution?

By the way I've just discovered, thanks to 2112, the existence of a 2012 paper about this specific matter (introduce economic incentive to relay information through p2p bitcoin network) titled "On Bitcoin and Red Balloons":

http://research.microsoft.com/apps/pubs/?id=156072 (1)

I've gave just a quick glance to the paper and I don't even look to their proposed solution. I've just mention it as a proof that the issue at hand is a long standing one.

(1) here http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/socialalgs/bitcoin-red-balloons.aspx you can find a brief overview/summary of the paper.

[justusranvier]

Firstly, I really want to thank you for what you've done here. You've perfectly formalized (and theoretically solved) a problem that was in the back of my mind since I've properly understood the bitcoin network topology.

I should thank MojoNation. I've been musing about the problem ever since I encountered their (unsuccessful) attempt to solve it. In particularly, their experience was a great case study in why price discovery needs to be fully automatic on both sides of the transaction.

Secondly, as of your knowledge, are the core devs aware of this issue? Do they agree with the given definition of the problem? And more to the point, is there a plan to develop something along the line of your proposed solution?

To the best of my knowledge, they are aware of it. None of them have commented, however.

I don't know of any immediate, specific plans to implement this.

[thezerg]

Firstly, I really want to thank you for what you've done here. You've perfectly formalized (and theoretically solved) a problem that was in the back of my mind since I've properly understood the bitcoin network topology.

I should thank MojoNation. I've been musing about the problem ever since I encountered their (unsuccessful) attempt to solve it. In particularly, their experience was a great case study in why price discovery needs to be fully automatic on both sides of the transaction.

Secondly, as of your knowledge, are the core devs aware of this issue? Do they agree with the given definition of the problem? And more to the point, is there a plan to develop something along the line of your proposed solution?

To the best of my knowledge, they are aware of it. None of them have commented, however.

I don't know of any immediate, specific plans to implement this.

have you considered issues of, I don't know what to call it, maybe "hyperpriceification"?  That is, when every tiny thing requires a micro-transaction the system suffers from certain drawbacks:
1. overly complex
2. inefficient
3. bootstrap issues both technical and social:
   a) technical: I can't get bitcoin blockchain info without paying for them, but I can't make a wallet until I get the info
   b) social barriers to entry: I can't try a bitcoin wallet, just to see if it basically works, until I acquire some coin and pay for bootstrap data

[cypherdoc]

traditional financial mkts getting monkey hammered today.

large Dow Theory non conf in position and enlarging.

UST's down, dollar up.  always thought one would go down but bonds?

Gold major collapsing, Bitcoin UP.

Gold stocks getting crushed again.

i definitely like UP:

[justusranvier]

have you considered issues of, I don't know what to call it, maybe "hyperpriceification"?

I have.

1. overly complex

"Overly" is a relative statement that is only meaningful when compared to the skill of the people implementing it.

2. inefficient

Payment channels are a perfect fit for this particular application, and they can be made very efficient, both in terms of blockchain transactions needed and in terms of bytes per adjustment and frequency of adjustments.

3. bootstrap issues both technical and social:
   a) technical: I can't get bitcoin blockchain info without paying for them, but I can't make a wallet until I get the info
   b) social barriers to entry: I can't try a bitcoin wallet, just to see if it basically works, until I acquire some coin and pay for bootstrap data

If nobody can use Bitcoin without first having bitcoins, then nobody makes any money for operating a network that nobody can use.

I expect that enough people will realize this that a freemium model will develop. Some nodes will offer a limited number of free connection slots so there will be ways to connect and operate without paying. Those who can pay for access will get more reliable service.

[cypherdoc]

have you considered issues of, I don't know what to call it, maybe "hyperpriceification"?

I have.

1. overly complex

"Overly" is a relative statement that is only meaningful when compared to the skill of the people implementing it.

2. inefficient

Payment channels are a perfect fit for this particular application, and they can be made very efficient, both in terms of blockchain transactions needed and in terms of bytes per adjustment and frequency of adjustments.

3. bootstrap issues both technical and social:
   a) technical: I can't get bitcoin blockchain info without paying for them, but I can't make a wallet until I get the info
   b) social barriers to entry: I can't try a bitcoin wallet, just to see if it basically works, until I acquire some coin and pay for bootstrap data

If nobody can use Bitcoin without first having bitcoins, then nobody makes any money for operating a network that nobody can use.

I expect that enough people will realize this that a freemium model will develop. Some nodes will offer a limited number of free connection slots so there will be ways to connect and operate without paying. Those who can pay for access will get more reliable service.

there's enough of us around who will always run free nodes.  it's fun, technically challenging, and just all around helpful.

it's a warm, fuzzy feeling...

[Adrian-x]

have you considered issues of, I don't know what to call it, maybe "hyperpriceification"?

I have.

1. overly complex

"Overly" is a relative statement that is only meaningful when compared to the skill of the people implementing it.

2. inefficient

Payment channels are a perfect fit for this particular application, and they can be made very efficient, both in terms of blockchain transactions needed and in terms of bytes per adjustment and frequency of adjustments.

3. bootstrap issues both technical and social:
   a) technical: I can't get bitcoin blockchain info without paying for them, but I can't make a wallet until I get the info
   b) social barriers to entry: I can't try a bitcoin wallet, just to see if it basically works, until I acquire some coin and pay for bootstrap data

If nobody can use Bitcoin without first having bitcoins, then nobody makes any money for operating a network that nobody can use.

I expect that enough people will realize this that a freemium model will develop. Some nodes will offer a limited number of free connection slots so there will be ways to connect and operate without paying. Those who can pay for access will get more reliable service.

there's enough of us around who will always run free nodes.  it's fun, technically challenging, and just all around helpful.

it's a warm, fuzzy feeling...

there is a financial motive to run a free node, it isn't true altruism.

If Bitcoin becomes a network of much value, then anyone who has the skill and enjoys building computers, and who is invested in Bitcoin in what would be considered a small way say 21 BTC possibly even 2.1 BTC today, will likely be financially enabled and motivated to keep and broadcast a copy of the blockchain that secures the integrity of the network (note: nodes also keep the miners honest). In my view this act ensuring the coins they own on that blockchain are preserved along with the value they represent.

In a way it's like having a safe to keep your valuables, now it is you have a node to preserve your record.

[justusranvier]

there is a financial motive to run a free node, it isn't true altruism.

Think about why Starbucks pays to supply their customers with free wifi, and why people still pay for mobile data plans in spite of the relatively widespread access to free wifi, and it will make sense how free and paid Bitcoin nodes could co-exist.

[cypherdoc]

there is a financial motive to run a free node, it isn't true altruism.

Think about why Starbucks pays to supply their customers with free wifi, and why people still pay for mobile data plans in spite of the relatively widespread access to free wifi, and it will make sense how free and paid Bitcoin nodes could co-exist.

Yes, these principles are very well articulated. 

[cypherdoc]

Gold getting smashed. And rightfully so.

 Welcome to the Age of Bitcoin. 

[NotLambchop]

Gold getting smashed. And rightfully so.

 Welcome to the Age of Bitcoin. 

You know, gold ain't half bad if we just use BTC as unit of account.
Did great in 2014 & 2015

[ranlo]

Gold getting smashed. And rightfully so.

 Welcome to the Age of Bitcoin. 

I still don't get why we use gold as a "standard," anyways. Why not Platinum or something more rare?

[NoIgnoreCapisce?]

We should use bitcoin, amazing store of value for the average joe.



http://media.gotraffic.net/images/ixkhK3oLG4ZE/v38/-1x-1.jpg

[cypherdoc]

We should use bitcoin, amazing store of value for the average joe.

Sigh 

[Hfleer]

We should use bitcoin, amazing store of value for the average joe.

This chart is highly missleading. Why did you choose such an arbitrary zoom?
It is like you are implying that all people bought at exactly 900 USD.

[ssmc2]

This chart is highly missleading. Why did you choose such an arbitrary zoom?
It is like you are implying that all people bought at exactly 900 USD.

Because troll.

[leopard2]

Gold is not doing bad in EUR

And keep in mind gold has done great over 20 years, when there was no Bitcoin

Gold will exist in 20 years, BTC not sure

Major reason for gold weakness is: MANIPULATION VIA PAPER GOLD

90+% of gold transactions is paper gold, futures etc; gold is created from thin air via paper certificates and sold short....the papers can never be redeemed for real gold just fiat money, therefore this can be done in an unlimited amount

Now with BTC this is impossible, because no paper BTC exist, cannot exist due to limited amount and deflationary behaviour

BTC and Gold both deserve to exist but not fiat money 

[Kupsi]

Gold will exist in 20 years, BTC not sure

But what will the value of gold be in 20 years?

[brg444]

Gold is not doing bad in EUR

And keep in mind gold has done great over 20 years, when there was no Bitcoin

Gold will exist in 20 years, BTC not sure

Major reason for gold weakness is: MANIPULATION VIA PAPER GOLD

90+% of gold transactions is paper gold, futures etc; gold is created from thin air via paper certificates and sold short....the papers can never be redeemed for real gold just fiat money, therefore this can be done in an unlimited amount

Now with BTC this is impossible, because no paper BTC exist, cannot exist due to limited amount and deflationary behaviour

BTC and Gold both deserve to exist but not fiat money  

Well then shouldn't we do away with gold entirely since it is so easily gamed?