Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[solex]

Here was my comment on IBLT:

https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/e20c3b5a1d4b97f79ac2#comment-1324639

My thought is it appears to me to be pie-in-the-sky in sense of hoping that parties will avoid the increasing probability of failure as the compression rate increases. In short, the system will need be highly centralized in order to cope with that loss of entropy.

Did you read the comment below yours? It is from Rusty Russell, a software genius who is behind parts of the Linux kernel. He and Kalle Rosenbaum exchange notes on their independently developed implementations of IBLT tested using tx recovered from the Bitcoin blockchain. It is not pie-in-the-sky. It works!
http://rustyrussell.github.io/pettycoin/2014/11/05/Playing-with-invertible-bloom-lookup-tables-and-bitcoin-transactions.html

Regarding "compression rate increase" == "system will need be highly centralized".
Successful compression rate increase is a function of the synchronization of node mempools, remember they are already all running the same software (consensus code), and receiving the same cascading p2p unconfirmed tx. They don't need to be centralized, they just need to avoid applying their own personal tx censorship rules (e.g. like Eligius who regards Counterparty tx as spam while encoding books is fine and dandy).

[1714176785]

1714176785

[1714176785]

1714176785

[1714176785]

1714176785

[smooth]

Rusty Russell, the genius who is behind the implementation of the Lightning Networks.

No he's not. Proper credit for Lightning Network is Joseph Poon and Thaddeus Dryja. Rusty wrote a series of posts explaining Lightning Network.

[solex]

Rusty Russell, the genius who is behind the implementation of the Lightning Networks.

No he's not. Proper credit for Lightning Network is Joseph Poon and Thaddeus Dryja. Rusty wrote a series of posts explaining Lightning Network

Yes. He is building the software for it, made that clearer now. I know he didn't write the paper.

[smooth]

Rusty Russell, the genius who is behind the implementation of the Lightning Networks.

No he's not. Proper credit for Lightning Network is Joseph Poon and Thaddeus Dryja. Rusty wrote a series of posts explaining Lightning Network

Yes. He is building the software for it, made that clearer now. I know he didn't write the paper.

Do you have a source for that? It's reasonably plausible he'd be working on something given the level of effort he put into studying it, but I haven't seen any explicit statement to that effect. I know he went to work for Blockstream, but Lightning Network is primarily a project of another Bitcoin company (Mirror).

[solex]

Rusty Russell, the genius who is behind the implementation of the Lightning Networks.

No he's not. Proper credit for Lightning Network is Joseph Poon and Thaddeus Dryja. Rusty wrote a series of posts explaining Lightning Network

Yes. He is building the software for it, made that clearer now. I know he didn't write the paper.

Do you have a source for that? It's reasonably plausible he'd be working on something given the level of effort he put into studying it, but I haven't seen any explicit statement to that effect. I know he went to work for Blockstream, but Lightning Network is primarily a project of another Bitcoin company (Mirror).

Not to hand, it was anecdotal based on soft-fork discussions. I will amend the post until the situation is clearer. Thanks for the info.

[justusranvier]

Gold is tangible asset. Hard to convince older generation to hold bitcoin.

The need to convince the older generation about anything is highly overrated.

The people we need to worry about convincing are the people who will be producing new wealth in the future - not those who are already (for the most part) done producing.

[cypherdoc]

following script pretty well:

[rocks]

Gold is tangible asset. Hard to convince older generation to hold bitcoin.

The need to convince the older generation about anything is highly overrated.

The people we need to worry about convincing are the people who will be producing new wealth in the future - not those who are already (for the most part) done producing.

I don't know about that. Just look at the money Soros and Buffet spend on various NGO's to "educate" us dumb plebs. Would be useful is some of that went towards reality and not Keynesian fantasy.

[rocks]

Great perspective on Bitcoin's growth over the past 2 years.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/35pku9/i_wonder_what_would_have_happened_if_todays/

[cypherdoc]

Andrew Miller, good paper on Bitcoin network topology:

https://cs.umd.edu/projects/coinscope/coinscope.pdf

[cypherdoc]

Richard Gendal Brown, who i've never been fond of b/c of his misperceptions around Bitcoin, may be finally getting it:

So, sure: bitcoin raises all kinds of conceptual, legal, technical and philosophical questions. But it would only take one of these scenarios to drive some adoption and, very quickly, bitcoin might cease to be a sideshow.  And, given that its core design goal of censorship-resistant digital cash has such disruptive potential – good and bad, this possibility alone is reason to keep an eye on it. Dismissing it entirely could be a big mistake.

http://gendal.me/2015/05/12/blockchain-is-where-banks-have-the-most-obvious-opportunity-but-you-ignore-bitcoin-at-your-peril/

[sidhujag]

http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1431444202.php

Getting closer to the moment it works until it doesnt.

Not quite there yet.

[tabnloz]

http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1431444202.php

Getting closer to the moment it works until it doesnt.

Not quite there yet.

Happened for a few hours today as well. Japan, then Europe. Again though, someone stepped in.

[pa]

Richard Gendal Brown, who i've never been fond of b/c of his misperceptions around Bitcoin, may be finally getting it:

So, sure: bitcoin raises all kinds of conceptual, legal, technical and philosophical questions. But it would only take one of these scenarios to drive some adoption and, very quickly, bitcoin might cease to be a sideshow.  And, given that its core design goal of censorship-resistant digital cash has such disruptive potential – good and bad, this possibility alone is reason to keep an eye on it. Dismissing it entirely could be a big mistake.

http://gendal.me/2015/05/12/blockchain-is-where-banks-have-the-most-obvious-opportunity-but-you-ignore-bitcoin-at-your-peril/

Terrific piece.

[solex]

http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1431444202.php

Getting closer to the moment it works until it doesnt.

Not quite there yet.

Happened for a few hours today as well. Japan, then Europe. Again though, someone stepped in.

This is really interesting. I think it goes back to a fundamental flaw in debt-based money, particularly when FRB means that 95% of a currency is not even government printed "fiat". The flaw is interest, specifically that debt-money which attracts interest is only sustainable long-term if real GDP grows faster than the real interest rate which debt-money requires to service it. Otherwise most money is drained from the productive economy and winds up at the banks where the only cleansing mechanism is bank insolvencies which returns money to the economy. Since bank insolvency is pretty much "banned" by CBs as banks are backstopped by printed money, then wealth transfers and economic distortions continue to build up relentlessly.

Equity-based money and asset alternatives (Gold, silver, real-estate, Picasso paintings) do not have this flaw, however, until Bitcoin was invented, none of them were suitable for 21st (or even 20th) Century long-distance, fast moving commerce.

Paradigm change. Your time is coming!

[cypherdoc]

i say UP

[thezerg]

http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1431444202.php

Getting closer to the moment it works until it doesnt.

Not quite there yet.

Ok but I'd love to see something supportive from a guy who is NOT peddling PMs.  And some charts... anybody read any other sources?

EDIT: oops quoted the wrong msg

[NewLiberty]

Richard Gendal Brown, who i've never been fond of b/c of his misperceptions around Bitcoin, may be finally getting it:

So, sure: bitcoin raises all kinds of conceptual, legal, technical and philosophical questions. But it would only take one of these scenarios to drive some adoption and, very quickly, bitcoin might cease to be a sideshow.  And, given that its core design goal of censorship-resistant digital cash has such disruptive potential – good and bad, this possibility alone is reason to keep an eye on it. Dismissing it entirely could be a big mistake.

http://gendal.me/2015/05/12/blockchain-is-where-banks-have-the-most-obvious-opportunity-but-you-ignore-bitcoin-at-your-peril/

Now that the "headline risk" is diminished, there will likely be all sorts of new converts.  It is going to get interesting.

[sidhujag]

http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1431444202.php

Getting closer to the moment it works until it doesnt.

Not quite there yet.

Happened for a few hours today as well. Japan, then Europe. Again though, someone stepped in.

This is really interesting. I think it goes back to a fundamental flaw in debt-based money, particularly when FRB means that 95% of a currency is not even government printed "fiat". The flaw is interest, specifically that debt-money which attracts interest is only sustainable long-term if real GDP grows faster than the real interest rate which debt-money requires to service it. Otherwise most money is drained from the productive economy and winds up at the banks where the only cleansing mechanism is bank insolvencies which returns money to the economy. Since bank insolvency is pretty much "banned" by CBs as banks are backstopped by printed money, then wealth transfers and economic distortions continue to build up relentlessly.

Equity-based money and asset alternatives (Gold, silver, real-estate, Picasso paintings) do not have this flaw, however, until Bitcoin was invented, none of them were suitable for 21st (or even 20th) Century long-distance, fast moving commerce.

Paradigm change. Your time is coming!

I think it's obvious of the implications of debt based economy if mismanaged.. Although long term it's impossible to manage due to greed and fear. The reason It was done was because economy simply would stagnate and not grow from the 70s on who knows if Internet would have been invented.. Although the system was the best at the time it's not one to look back on and say we totally failed. It's really interest rate targetting that is the foundation of the system and it's pretty sound according to John Nash although not ideal. Gold standard is less ideal howver Bitcoin seems to be better than both on paper.. In practice who knows. I personally believe nash purposely doesn't acknowldge it because he had a hand in designing it and it may be definition of what he calls ideal money. It would probably result in a big credit crunch lasting years before we prosper so it really depends on if enough people can be convinced of the long term solution giving up some short term pain.

[rocks]

http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1431444202.php

Getting closer to the moment it works until it doesnt.

Not quite there yet.

Happened for a few hours today as well. Japan, then Europe. Again though, someone stepped in.

This is really interesting. I think it goes back to a fundamental flaw in debt-based money, particularly when FRB means that 95% of a currency is not even government printed "fiat". The flaw is interest, specifically that debt-money which attracts interest is only sustainable long-term if real GDP grows faster than the real interest rate which debt-money requires to service it. Otherwise most money is drained from the productive economy and winds up at the banks where the only cleansing mechanism is bank insolvencies which returns money to the economy. Since bank insolvency is pretty much "banned" by CBs as banks are backstopped by printed money, then wealth transfers and economic distortions continue to build up relentlessly.

You just described what happened in the 1920s and then 1930s. And on the first FED cycle they decided against allowing the cleansing mechanism to function, and instead choose monetary inflation.

Equity-based money and asset alternatives (Gold, silver, real-estate, Picasso paintings) do not have this flaw, however, until Bitcoin was invented, none of them were suitable for 21st (or even 20th) Century long-distance, fast moving commerce.

And that is why gold as money worked for so long. Yes there were cycles, but since money never extended too far beyond the base money (M0 gold), the busts were relatively small.

With debt money, as you said 95% of money in use isn't even printed yet, and on top of that is further leverage. This means that the bust would be massive and crushing in a manner that could never happen under a gold standard.

What the US traded was a series of small but easily recoverable busts that continuously cleansed out the system, for a system that appears stable but in reality is not, the series of small busts are simply being allowed to build into one massive bust.