Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

hmmm.  i wonder if Gavin is putting his foot down:

https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoin-git/commit/5f46da29fd02fd2a8a787286fd6a56f680073770

eh, looks like he's serious.  i, for one, support him:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/34riua/hard_fork_allow_20mb_blocks_after_1_march_2016/cqxfpni

given this new development, you guys ought to make sure to vote in the current poll above.

[1713309286]

1713309286

[1713309286]

1713309286

[freakying99]

It looks like bitcoin will continue to drop for the next little while. I have sold most of my btc and plan on to reenter at around $150. Untill then I may buy some gold and see where that goes.

[cypherdoc]

It looks like bitcoin will continue to drop for the next little while. I have sold most of my btc and plan on to reenter at around $150. Untill then I may buy some gold and see where that goes.

sounds like you're gonna be left behind.

[freakying99]

It looks like bitcoin will continue to drop for the next little while. I have sold most of my btc and plan on to reenter at around $150. Untill then I may buy some gold and see where that goes.

sounds like you're gonna be left behind.

no man, I made enough money to not worry. but btc is coming back down and you failing to see that is retarded. You're old school and you still don't get it. Your loss my gain.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

I wonder how many of those who voted for a graduated increase realize that the blocksize limit isn't actually limiting anything right now. It's a limit that will eventually become a factor. Right now if it were removed nothing special would happen.

[cypherdoc]

I wonder how many of those who voted for a graduated increase realize that the blocksize limit isn't actually limiting anything right now. It's a limit that will eventually become a factor. Right now if it were removed nothing special would happen.

you're right that it isn't limiting anything right now.  but if the market gets the sense that Gavin is going to get his way (and i think he will) it could unleash the next wave of speculation into the market, and along with it, a new wave of tx volume simply from everyone piling in frontrunning.

the way the charts are lining up it seems to me that the market is looking for any reason at all to rally hard.

[smooth]

I wonder how many of those who voted for a graduated increase realize that the blocksize limit isn't actually limiting anything right now. It's a limit that will eventually become a factor. Right now if it were removed nothing special would happen.

That's a bit overstated. It already slows things down when there are long (random) block times because all the accumulated transactions can't fit in the first block. Allowing all (or at least more) of the transactions into the first block doesn't increase bandwidth or storage requirements at all, but does improve service. There is a small centralizing effect though (rewards miners with higher bandwidth).
 
This has happened to me twice. I have the worst luck on block times. Both were close to an hour.

[cypherdoc]

just in case anyone is interested in what one of my full nodes is using.  it's remarkably consistent across all of them.  note the minimal bandwidth usage.  i have 1GB of RAM with 100GB of disk:

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

you're right that it isn't limiting anything right now.  but if the market gets the sense that Gavin is going to get his way (and i think he will) it could unleash the next wave of speculation into the market, and along with it, a new wave of tx volume simply from everyone piling in frontrunning.

the way the charts are lining up it seems to me that the market is looking for any reason at all to rally hard.

That would be a welcome development. I do get the sense that some investors have developed misgivings because of the blocksize issue, and if that's the case certainly a step toward solving that should spur some investment.

I still say just let exchanges arbitrage the two forks so that skeptics of "GavinCoin" () can put their money where their mouth is and see if anyone agrees with them - that is, if they are really willing to take, oh, say a 95% devaluation of their holdings if the market rejects them (and that's the optimistic case where their little group lasts as an altcoin; otherwise they can ride it all the way to zero). I suspect very few people will actually take this bet.

To quote the enigmatic Mr. Sztorc again, "Predictions markets make cheap talk expensive." Fork arbitrage functions as a prediction market for which fork will succeed.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

I wonder how many of those who voted for a graduated increase realize that the blocksize limit isn't actually limiting anything right now. It's a limit that will eventually become a factor. Right now if it were removed nothing special would happen.

That's a bit overstated. It already slows things down when there are long (random) block times because all the accumulated transactions can't fit in the first block. Allowing all (or at least more) of the transactions into the first block doesn't increase bandwidth or storage requirements at all, but does improve service. There is a small centralizing effect though (rewards miners with higher bandwidth).
 
This has happened to me twice. I have the worst luck on block times. Both were close to an hour.

Hmm, that's interesting. Thanks for the correction.

[cypherdoc]

i'm going to lock this poll by tomorrow and put up a new one given Gavin's "announcement" so get your voting in now.

[thezerg]

i'm going to lock this poll by tomorrow and put up a new one given Gavin's "announcement" so get your voting in now.

How about all of the above, stop wasting gavin's precious time, and do it sooner to give ppl some confidence that micropayments will be economically viable so we can get on with building stuff on the blockchain. Stuff that actually delves into areas where fiat cannot go rather then merely providing small benefits to those who have already set up wallets and little to no benefit to those who must do the whole education thing and then the time inefficient fiat btc xfer btc fiat circus.

[iCEBREAKER]

i'm going to lock this poll by tomorrow and put up a new one given Gavin's "announcement" so get your voting in now.

How about all of the above, stop wasting gavin's precious time, and do it sooner to give ppl some confidence that micropayments will be economically viable so we can get on with building stuff on the blockchain. Stuff that actually delves into areas where fiat cannot go rather then merely providing small benefits to those who have already set up wallets and little to no benefit to those who must do the whole education thing and then the time inefficient fiat btc xfer btc fiat circus.

If Bitcoin's precious blockchain has no greater destiny than to be used for an eternal record of inconsequential "micropayments" the project has no future.

Stop trying to enable the fluffy VC daydream of 'enabling tipping economies' and worry about macropayments.

This is revolution against the BIS, etc. and a chance to evolve past gold as humanity's default store of value, not a call to replace Reddit gold/Dogecoin/TipBot.

The places "where fiat cannot go" that matter are brain/paper/hardware wallets, multi-sig, and realtime auditing, not giving some Redditard 0.000000001 BTC for confirming your bias with a snarky comment.

Too bad we have to wait an entire year to watch Mircea shit all over GavinCoin.  It's worse than waiting for the next season of Walking Dead!

[HeliKopterBen]

I voted graduated limit but if things go well over time eventually remove the limit.

[shmadz]

just in case anyone is interested in what one of my full nodes is using.  it's remarkably consistent across all of them.  note the minimal bandwidth usage.  i have 1GB of RAM with 100GB of disk:

Umm, bandwidth numbers without time are meaningless.

Are you using 23 GB per day? Per hour? Per second?

Please clarify, thanks.

[shmadz]

i'm going to lock this poll by tomorrow and put up a new one given Gavin's "announcement" so get your voting in now.

How about all of the above, stop wasting gavin's precious time, and do it sooner to give ppl some confidence that micropayments will be economically viable so we can get on with building stuff on the blockchain. Stuff that actually delves into areas where fiat cannot go rather then merely providing small benefits to those who have already set up wallets and little to no benefit to those who must do the whole education thing and then the time inefficient fiat btc xfer btc fiat circus.

If Bitcoin's precious blockchain has no greater destiny than to be used for an eternal record of inconsequential "micropayments" the project has no future.

Stop trying to enable the fluffy VC daydream of 'enabling tipping economies' and worry about macropayments.

This is revolution against the BIS, etc. and a chance to evolve past gold as humanity's default store of value, not a call to replace Reddit gold/Dogecoin/TipBot.

The places "where fiat cannot go" that matter are brain/paper/hardware wallets, multi-sig, and realtime auditing, not giving some Redditard 0.000000001 BTC for confirming your bias with a snarky comment.

Too bad we have to wait an entire year to watch Mircea shit all over GavinCoin.  It's worse than waiting for the next season of Walking Dead!

Agreed.

Bitcoin is much better suited to the store of value function.

Why do you think Goldman Sachs et all are trying to pigeon-hole bitcoin as merely a "payments network"?

*also, increasing block size does nothing to address the "instant payment" problem.

[lunarboy]

Subspace sounds like an interesting project BIP70

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-startup-subspace-develops-bip70-payment-requests-protocol/

We should be able to achieve full-node like privacy for lightweight wallets. But on top of that we’ll be able to do things like ‘push’ payment requests to end-users. This could enable monthly billing for services, which we don’t currently have in Bitcoin. We can also attach messages to our transactions and even use it for messages between clients.

[cypherdoc]

i'm going to lock this poll by tomorrow and put up a new one given Gavin's "announcement" so get your voting in now.

How about all of the above, stop wasting gavin's precious time, and do it sooner to give ppl some confidence that micropayments will be economically viable so we can get on with building stuff on the blockchain. Stuff that actually delves into areas where fiat cannot go rather then merely providing small benefits to those who have already set up wallets and little to no benefit to those who must do the whole education thing and then the time inefficient fiat btc xfer btc fiat circus.

If Bitcoin's precious blockchain has no greater destiny than to be used for an eternal record of inconsequential "micropayments" the project has no future.

Stop trying to enable the fluffy VC daydream of 'enabling tipping economies' and worry about macropayments.

This is revolution against the BIS, etc. and a chance to evolve past gold as humanity's default store of value, not a call to replace Reddit gold/Dogecoin/TipBot.

The places "where fiat cannot go" that matter are brain/paper/hardware wallets, multi-sig, and realtime auditing, not giving some Redditard 0.000000001 BTC for confirming your bias with a snarky comment.

Too bad we have to wait an entire year to watch Mircea shit all over GavinCoin.  It's worse than waiting for the next season of Walking Dead!

Agreed.

Bitcoin is much better suited to the store of value function.

Why do you think Goldman Sachs et all are trying to pigeon-hole bitcoin as merely a "payments network"?

*also, increasing block size does nothing to address the "instant payment" problem.

The only thing Bitcoin needs to retain the SOV function is that it maintains its fixed supply. No one is talking about changing that. What you're forgetting is that thousands of years ago gold coins were in fact used on a daily basis to buy loaves of bread. Increasing usage in day to day TX's would maximize its utility as money and drive it's value much higher. The increase TX volume is clearly necessary to feed miners over the long run via fees.  Bitcoins usage needs to be driven to the far ends of the earth into the hands of a many people as possible to guarantee is safety.

[solex]

Agreed.

Bitcoin is much better suited to the store of value function.

Why do you think Goldman Sachs et all are trying to pigeon-hole bitcoin as merely a "payments network"?

*also, increasing block size does nothing to address the "instant payment" problem.

The only thing Bitcoin needs to retain the SOV function is that it maintains its fixed supply. No one is talking about changing that. What you're forgetting is that thousands of years ago gold coins were in fact used on a daily basis to buy loaves of bread. Increasing usage in day to day TX's would maximize its utility as money and increase  drive it's value much higher. The increase TX volume is clearly necessary to feed miners over the long run via fees.  Bitcoins usage needs to be driven to the far ends of the earth into the hands of a many people as possible to guarantee is safety.

Nailed it.

The SOV function cannot be taken for granted. Gold has the inherent advantage of being physically rare. Bitcoin, while its issuance is capped at 21M, the software can be duplicated thousands of times. Already much duplication is happening in the alts, although they primarily use scrypt which is a very fortuitous accident of history. Lee wanted a coin which would require more memory&cpu  for hashing, hence his Litecoin uses scrypt, and most new altcoins have cloned the Litecoin fork of Bitcoin. This has left the sha256 miners to focus primarily on Bitcoin while the scrypt miners are spread over many alts. Litecoin is being bled to death by all its clones.

So, Bitcoin's SOV is buttressed by two things: the network effect of its ecosystem, and the hardware invested in sha256 hashing-power. Bitcoin needs to keep growing its ecosystem, and the hashing power will follow it. Bitcoin is not being bled by clones - yet - but there is a real risk  if its ecosystem growth is crippled by volume constraints.

*also, increasing block size does nothing to address the "instant payment" problem.

re instant payments, doesn't the lightning network provide a form of it?

[shmadz]

i'm going to lock this poll by tomorrow and put up a new one given Gavin's "announcement" so get your voting in now.

How about all of the above, stop wasting gavin's precious time, and do it sooner to give ppl some confidence that micropayments will be economically viable so we can get on with building stuff on the blockchain. Stuff that actually delves into areas where fiat cannot go rather then merely providing small benefits to those who have already set up wallets and little to no benefit to those who must do the whole education thing and then the time inefficient fiat btc xfer btc fiat circus.

If Bitcoin's precious blockchain has no greater destiny than to be used for an eternal record of inconsequential "micropayments" the project has no future.

Stop trying to enable the fluffy VC daydream of 'enabling tipping economies' and worry about macropayments.

This is revolution against the BIS, etc. and a chance to evolve past gold as humanity's default store of value, not a call to replace Reddit gold/Dogecoin/TipBot.

The places "where fiat cannot go" that matter are brain/paper/hardware wallets, multi-sig, and realtime auditing, not giving some Redditard 0.000000001 BTC for confirming your bias with a snarky comment.

Too bad we have to wait an entire year to watch Mircea shit all over GavinCoin.  It's worse than waiting for the next season of Walking Dead!

Agreed.

Bitcoin is much better suited to the store of value function.

Why do you think Goldman Sachs et all are trying to pigeon-hole bitcoin as merely a "payments network"?

*also, increasing block size does nothing to address the "instant payment" problem.

The only thing Bitcoin needs to retain the SOV function is that it maintains its fixed supply. No one is talking about changing that. What you're forgetting is that thousands of years ago gold coins were in fact used on a daily basis to buy loaves of bread. Increasing usage in day to day TX's would maximize its utility as money and drive it's value much higher. The increase TX volume is clearly necessary to feed miners over the long run via fees.  Bitcoins usage needs to be driven to the far ends of the earth into the hands of a many people as possible to guarantee is safety.

Ok, I'll admit I'm still a little torn/undecided on this issue, but I don't think we need the same security model for buying loaves of bread that we use for buying homes,.

As long as the profit motive for miners is kept intact, then I'm fine with whatever method ensures the security of the Blockchain.

*btw, I'm still curious what your full node consumes in bandwidth?