Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

it's called Metcalfe's Law.  "value" of the network is squared by every new user.  iCE would rather keep it strangled down to him and his Myrcea buddies.

As you know, I am for the upgrade, but I don't think the alternative is catastrophic, only inconvenient and slows us down. Naysayers can always find limits and reasons to downplay this extraordinary invention. The size of the UTXO set is a recent example.

cypherdoc is invoking the catastrophic Death Of Bitcoin BS with wild melodramatic claims of the network "choking" and being "strangled" when it is merely relatively busy or at worst bogged down.

That kind of artificial deadline based nonsense is an aggressive high-pressure promotion technique called the "hard sell."  It's manipulative, dishonest, and usually indicates lack of a better argument.

"Act now before it's too late!  Demand GavinCoins from your local miners today!  OR WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE."

-every GavinCoin apologist ever

and you're not with all the FUD and personal Gavin attacks you've been slinging around?  i haven't heard any counter arguments to all the points i've made to your FUD.

[Adrian-x]

Ironically, when the wheels fall off of GavinCoin because of UXTO assplosions or whatever, these spurned core devs will be the ones Gavin and everyone else will turn to for solutions.  Typical "Oops I broke it, now you fix it" pointy-headed boss behavior!  

If persistent full 1mb blocks turn out to be an insurmountable problem, consensus to modify that limit would not need to be manufactured with lobbying and tales of impending dooom.

This stunt may generate the type of incalculable empirical feedback we need to ascertain how best to modify the max_block_size parameter.

Of course since it is artificial demand in the form of a stress-test that factor must be accounted for.

1. You seem to not be aware that $billions in capital (a lot of it not invested in BTC but rather VC investments in the space) is invested on the future of Bitcoin, and to make the future uncertain causes capital to become risk adverse. Gavin can't wait, because capital has to plan out the future.

2. You seem to assume centralization[1] can't solve every technical issue of scaling higher transaction rates. Wasn't Visa scale the initial goal? Is Visa not centralized? ("Damn it, but we want decentralization and we will early adopters will fork and short NWOcoin" is not a logical retort)

Come on man, come back to reality.

You seem to have developed an overconfidence from your early adopter decision, which you are projecting as correct analysis of the future. But where is the logic?

The utility of early adopters to Larry Summers has now diminished. He has used you successfully and is moving on. You can be discarded now.

You early adopters were bought at a very small cost by the banksters to help them launch the NWOcoin trojan horse. You are now expendable. They have already the inertia they need.

[1] IBLT is a fancy sugar coating on centralization to make geeks wet their pants again (see their Jesus) and be fooled, as they were with the original DEEP STATE whitepaper.

Money creation is the tool that allows the 0.1% to subvert the work of the 99%. Redistribution of money to the people who understand this mechanism, and want to change it because they understand the consequences, will result in a new model, even if bitcoin was NWOcoin it would upset the system enough to change it.

In your analogy I'm think if Gavin forks with Bitcoin XT that Bitcoin Core will be the NWO coin.

This fork will force Venture capital to buy Bitcoin XT as the money invested in changing Bitcoin Core will not necessary render results.

Still this is fun to watch.

[iCEBREAKER]

it's called Metcalfe's Law.  "value" of the network is squared by every new user.  iCE would rather keep it strangled down to him and his Myrcea buddies.

As you know, I am for the upgrade, but I don't think the alternative is catastrophic, only inconvenient and slows us down. Naysayers can always find limits and reasons to downplay this extraordinary invention. The size of the UTXO set is a recent example.

cypherdoc is invoking the catastrophic Death Of Bitcoin BS with wild melodramatic claims of the network "choking" and being "strangled" when it is merely relatively busy or at worst bogged down.

That kind of artificial deadline based nonsense is an aggressive high-pressure promotion technique called the "hard sell."  It's manipulative, dishonest, and usually indicates lack of a better argument.

"Act now before it's too late!  Demand GavinCoins from your local miners today!  OR WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE."

-every GavinCoin apologist ever

and you're not with all the FUD and personal Gavin attacks you've been slinging around?  i haven't heard any counter arguments to all the points i've made to your FUD.

Here's one you missed: you are shrieking about the network "choking" and being "strangled" when it is merely relatively busy or at worst bogged down.  Lukejr doesn't see a problem here and neither do I.

Between vertoe's domination quote and UXTO overflow, the 'we need millions of direct users and MOAR tps, because Metcalfe!' proposition has been thoroughly debunked.

It's all over, except for the shouting.   

[Erdogan]

Here is what I think will happen when we reach the limit:

1. A short lived carnage (2 days tops). This is analogous to what happens after a dump, the market price waves a few times before a new relative stability ensues. The effect can not be computed, that is just keynesian sorcery. It's all in the heads of the bitcoin participants. We don't know yet.

2. People will know what fee is necessary to have a reasonable chance of first confirmation in less than one day.

3. The fee will be considerably lower than the current international money transfer plus conversion to and from dollar. That means, considerably less than the 10 - 50 dollar price such transactions currently have. Just guessing: Something like 2 dollars.

4. Zero confirmation payments become more risky. They will be used only for very small transactions and where the traders have a trust relationship (which is the bulk of all trade).

5. Due to high fee, bitcoin can not comfortably be used to buy a cup of coffe, for a period. So what?

6. Publicity a: The fact that fees rise will be all over the internet. Doom will be spelled.

7. Publicity b: "Why do some still use them? Is there something else?" All publicity is good publicity.

[Adrian-x]

You can never win with the masses. They will always be wrong, for as long as they demand to organize themselves in collectives.

The Internet is essentially the mass of masses. Extrapolate the audience averaging effect in the popular game show Who Wants to Be a Millionaire:

"But there’s a third option: You can use your “Ask-the-Audience" life line. You can poll the entire studio audience on the four possible answers, and their responses are instantaneously assembled into a bar graph. Invariably, this graph shows one overwhelming choice, and with rare exceptions the audience is right. “I’ll trust the audience,” you tell Regis. “Final answer.”

Good move. But why? No person in the audience is any more likely than you to know where grapes come from, yet the collective intelligence of the group is almost always a better bet than your best guess. Psychologists are very interested in this perplexing statistical phenomenon. If the crowd is always wiser than any individual, what does that say about the way knowledge is stored and arranged in our minds? And can it help us make better choices, even beyond game shows?

...

That’s actually what Vul and Pashler found when they ran the experiment. As reported in the July issue of the journal Psychological Science, the average of two guesses for any individual participant was better than either guess alone, regardless of the time between guesses. So polling the “crowd within” does indeed yield a statistically more accurate answer. What’s more, this internal crowd gets more independent-minded with time: Contestants who were asked to second-guess themselves three weeks later benefited even more by averaging their two guesses than did those who second-guessed themselves immediately. The psychologists speculate that the cognitive pull of the original answer loses its power and allows more mental flexibility over time."
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/onlyhuman/2008/06/polling-crowd-within.cfm

@vokain You have probably seen this already, but in case not: enjoy!
BBC - The Code - The Wisdom of the Crowd
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOucwX7Z1HU

PS. Interesting how every single block size limit poll, since the first one in Feb 2013, has had majority support for the increase.

Thanks both of you for that way cook.

[justusranvier]

i don't blame the short sightedness of the guy who just sold us off down to $232 given how strident iCE and his buddies have been about making any progress whatsoever on this block size issue.

It's equally likely the sell off is related to the impending Goxxing of OKCoin users.

[cypherdoc]

iCE, here's a nice assemblage of your shrieking and it's just scratching the surface:

I wonder how Gavin stabbing his our core devs in their backs will be priced into the market...

That kind of artificial deadline based nonsense is an aggressive high-pressure promotion technique called the "hard sell."  It's manipulative, dishonest, and usually indicates lack of a better argument

Gavin is mad with power and has gone completely Even Duffield. He wants to infect BTC with supernodes!  You are both welcome to bugger off to the altcoin ghetto with Gavin's bloated XT fork, but please leave the rest of us (who want to keep Bitcoin diffuse/diverse/defensible/resilient) out of it.

Typical of you to invoke a violent metaphor, which entails me ruthlessly killing poor baby bitcoin asleep in its little crib.  How scary!  Quelle horrour!

Perhaps it would be better for the pointy-haired boss to listen to the coders and engineers responsible for fixing Bitcoin when the GigaBlocks break it?

I wish cypher, Hearn, and Gavin good luck with Bitcoin XT in the alt subs.

Who does he think he is, Linux Torvalds or Evan Duffield?

So how does Gavin the pointy-headed boss react to being unable to convince his coders and engineers?

By lobbying (*cough, panicking, cough*) the drooling masses in an attempt to overrule the experts with a stampeding mob.

The Gavin tail is trying to wag the core dev dog, which guarantees the predictable "rancor" he's whining about.

Ironically, when the wheels fall off of GavinCoin because of UXTO assplosions or whatever, these spurned core devs will be the ones Gavin and everyone else will turn to for solutions.  Typical "Oops I broke it, now you fix it" pointy-headed boss behavior!

So you are an old fart like cypher.  Big effing deal.  In 10 years, I'll have 30 years of experience in IT.  Drink an Ensure and change your Depends grandpa, because I'm not going to turn down my dubstep nor get off your lawn.

We will not be stampeded into premature hard forks because the pointy-haired boss and his mob of Redditard sycophants demands Action Now.

Gavin's absurd call for <10 minute blocks indicates he has been (internally and/or externally) compromised.  You would do well to abandon that ship (and its fanboys) before it sinks...

[hdbuck]

there's a real danger here that if the other 1MB core devs don't get off their asses and help out Gavin & Mike, their roles as core devs could be relegated to the dustbin of history.  this is a great chance for those talented devs who have felt rejected or humiliated from the likes of current core devs to get their foot in the door.  we clearly know they exist and in great #'s.  core dev is a highly coveted position leading to all sorts of great opportunities as the Blockstream core dev's refusal to step down in the name of conflict of interest very well demonstrates.

from Mike Hearns on Reddit:

[–]mike_hearn 70 points 7 hours ago

Short of some last minute change of heart by Wladimir and the other committers, it looks like Bitcoin XT may soon become more important.
I am looking for someone to help develop a website and logo for it. If you're interested please hop onto the mailing list and let me know:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/bitcoin-xt
Or you can just email me: hearn@vinumeris.com
If things go ahead and running XT becomes the way to express an opt-in to larger blocks, I will also be looking for volunteers to help co-build the binaries with gitian.
Finally I am looking for anyone who has experience with managing patchsets in git. My current workflow of one-branch-per-feature plus one-branch-per-release is fiddly and fragile. I plan to reorganise things at some point. Suggestions for better approaches are welcome.

permalinksavecontextfull comments (499)reportgive gold

gav&mikey doesnt *even* have someone "to help develop a website and logo for it" ?!

Lulz of the Day.

[adamstgBit]

question: can a miner with a 56K dial up modem connect to a mining pool to contribute hashing power without having to worry about downloading and verifying the TX's?

[cypherdoc]

question: can a miner with a 56K dial up modem connect to a mining pool to contribute hashing power without having to worry about downloading and verifying the TX's?

yes, but i doubt you could afford to keep that dial up connection open and connected at all times.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Fascinating chart posted in masterluc's thread. I trust I don't need to spell out the implications.

[Adrian-x]

it's called Metcalfe's Law.  "value" of the network is squared by every new user.  iCE would rather keep it strangled down to him and his Myrcea buddies.

Not every new user needs direct access to the Mother Blockchain:

I think you've drunk the SideChain cool aid, and now your salary is dependent on the views of your employer.

It's not about what you think other people need (we have central controls to manage that), it's about individuals having freedom to make the best subjective choice.

I would think just like you if I had a product that solved the problem like SC does. In fact I was pushing in the same direction until  Peter Tod released this video. https://youtu.be/cZp7UGgBR0I, I agreed with him for all of 1 day a year ago and Justice I think pointed out very concisely the problems of limiting money velocity was not good for bitcoin. (he was the only critical voice at the time.)

I hope this does not pop up on Reddit.

[cypherdoc]

TPTB, if you're still out there.  this graph shows we, the masses, are controlling more of what we consume as information as the years go by.  that is a good thing:

[cypherdoc]

it's called Metcalfe's Law.  "value" of the network is squared by every new user.  iCE would rather keep it strangled down to him and his Myrcea buddies.

Not every new user needs direct access to the Mother Blockchain:

I think you've drunk the SideChain cool aid, and now your salary is dependent on the views of your employer.

It's not about what you think other people need (we have central controls to manage that), it's about individuals having freedom to make the best subjective choice.

I would think just like you if I had a product that solved the problem like SC does. In fact I was pushing in the same direction until  Peter Tod released this video. https://youtu.be/cZp7UGgBR0I, I agreed with him for all of 1 day a year ago and Justice I think pointed out very concisely the problems of limiting money velocity was not good for bitcoin. (he was the only critical voice at the time.)

I hope this does not pop up on Reddit.

what does that mean?  iCE working for Blockstream?

[TPTB_need_war]

You can never win with the masses. They will always be wrong, for as long as they demand to organize themselves in collectives.

The Internet is essentially the mass of masses. Extrapolate the audience averaging effect in the popular game show Who Wants to Be a Millionaire:

"But there’s a third option: You can use your “Ask-the-Audience" life line. You can poll the entire studio audience on the four possible answers, and their responses are instantaneously assembled into a bar graph. Invariably, this graph shows one overwhelming choice, and with rare exceptions the audience is right. “I’ll trust the audience,” you tell Regis. “Final answer.”

Good move. But why? No person in the audience is any more likely than you to know where grapes come from, yet the collective intelligence of the group is almost always a better bet than your best guess. Psychologists are very interested in this perplexing statistical phenomenon. If the crowd is always wiser than any individual, what does that say about the way knowledge is stored and arranged in our minds? And can it help us make better choices, even beyond game shows?

...

That’s actually what Vul and Pashler found when they ran the experiment. As reported in the July issue of the journal Psychological Science, the average of two guesses for any individual participant was better than either guess alone, regardless of the time between guesses. So polling the “crowd within” does indeed yield a statistically more accurate answer. What’s more, this internal crowd gets more independent-minded with time: Contestants who were asked to second-guess themselves three weeks later benefited even more by averaging their two guesses than did those who second-guessed themselves immediately. The psychologists speculate that the cognitive pull of the original answer loses its power and allows more mental flexibility over time."
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/onlyhuman/2008/06/polling-crowd-within.cfm

@vokain You have probably seen this already, but in case not: enjoy!
BBC - The Code - The Wisdom of the Crowd
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOucwX7Z1HU

PS. Interesting how every single block size limit poll, since the first one in Feb 2013, has had majority support for the increase.

I assume both of you are smart guys.

So why do you commit this blatantly obvious category error of equating collective intelligence to the misalignment of priorities in the Iron Law of Political Economics?

I just can't fathom how you can't see that is proximately analogous (in terms of shared versus independent self-interest) to equating ant colonies to Tasmanian devils.

Let me translate that Iron Law into a form that is more easily appreciated:

Mancur Olson, in his book The Logic Of Collective Action, highlighted the central problem of politics in a democracy. The benefits of political market-rigging can be concentrated to benefit particular special interest groups and simultaneously distributed via debt to the population wherein each self-interested individual has the incentive to maximize his/her parasitic extraction from the collective, while the costs (in higher taxes, slower economic growth, and many other second-order effects) are diffused through the entire population (and often obfuscated and easily ignored as charged to the future generation in the form of debt).

This general model has consequences. Here are some of them:

Political demand for income transfers, entitlements and subsidies always rises faster than the economy can generate increased wealth to supply them from.

The equilibrium state of a regulatory agency is to have been captured by the entities it is supposed to regulate.

The only important class distinction in any advanced democracy is between those who are net producers of tax revenues and those who are net consumers of them.

Corruption is not the exceptional condition of politics, it is the normal one.

P.S. I have tried my best to teach this concept but it seems after 1000s of posts in the Economic Devastation and other threads, I still can't get readers to acknowledge that collective organization of humans suffers from a misalignment of priorities. That humans have big brains or that collective intelligence of humans is higher than for solitary humans is irrelevant.

[cypherdoc]

You can never win with the masses. They will always be wrong, for as long as they demand to organize themselves in collectives.

The Internet is essentially the mass of masses. Extrapolate the audience averaging effect in the popular game show Who Wants to Be a Millionaire:

"But there’s a third option: You can use your “Ask-the-Audience" life line. You can poll the entire studio audience on the four possible answers, and their responses are instantaneously assembled into a bar graph. Invariably, this graph shows one overwhelming choice, and with rare exceptions the audience is right. “I’ll trust the audience,” you tell Regis. “Final answer.”

Good move. But why? No person in the audience is any more likely than you to know where grapes come from, yet the collective intelligence of the group is almost always a better bet than your best guess. Psychologists are very interested in this perplexing statistical phenomenon. If the crowd is always wiser than any individual, what does that say about the way knowledge is stored and arranged in our minds? And can it help us make better choices, even beyond game shows?

...

That’s actually what Vul and Pashler found when they ran the experiment. As reported in the July issue of the journal Psychological Science, the average of two guesses for any individual participant was better than either guess alone, regardless of the time between guesses. So polling the “crowd within” does indeed yield a statistically more accurate answer. What’s more, this internal crowd gets more independent-minded with time: Contestants who were asked to second-guess themselves three weeks later benefited even more by averaging their two guesses than did those who second-guessed themselves immediately. The psychologists speculate that the cognitive pull of the original answer loses its power and allows more mental flexibility over time."
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/onlyhuman/2008/06/polling-crowd-within.cfm

@vokain You have probably seen this already, but in case not: enjoy!
BBC - The Code - The Wisdom of the Crowd
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOucwX7Z1HU

PS. Interesting how every single block size limit poll, since the first one in Feb 2013, has had majority support for the increase.

I assume both of you are smart guys.

So why do you commit this blatantly obvious category error of equating collective intelligence to the misalignment of priorities in the Iron Law of Political Economics?

I just can't fathom how you can't see that is proximately analogous (in terms of shared versus independent self-interest) to equating ant colonies to Tasmanian devils.

Let me translate that Iron Law into a form that is more easily appreciated:

Mancur Olson, in his book The Logic Of Collective Action, highlighted the central problem of politics in a democracy. The benefits of political market-rigging can be concentrated to benefit particular special interest groups and simultaneously distributed via debt to the population wherein each self-interested individual has the incentive to maximize his/her parasitic extraction from the collective, while the costs (in higher taxes, slower economic growth, and many other second-order effects) are diffused through the entire population (and often obfuscated and easily ignored as charged to the future generation in the form of debt).

This general model has consequences. Here are some of them:

Political demand for income transfers, entitlements and subsidies always rises faster than the economy can generate increased wealth to supply them from.

The equilibrium state of a regulatory agency is to have been captured by the entities it is supposed to regulate.

The only important class distinction in any advanced democracy is between those who are net producers of tax revenues and those who are net consumers of them.

Corruption is not the exceptional condition of politics, it is the normal one.

P.S. I have tried my best to teach this concept but it seems after 1000s of posts in the Economic Devastation and other threads, I still can't get readers to acknowledge that collective organization of humans suffers from a misalignment of priorities. That humans have big brains or that collective intelligence of humans is higher than for solitary humans is irrelevant.

that "Law" was constructed in the context of a debt-based fiat system in which money printing is central and of which Bitcoin is NOT.  hence, our optimism that we can change things for the better.  does optimism always have to be unrealistic?

[cypherdoc]

Fascinating chart posted in masterluc's thread. I trust I don't need to spell out the implications.

so what is weighted stability?

[Fakhoury]

Fascinating chart posted in masterluc's thread. I trust I don't need to spell out the implications.

so what is weighted stability?

I would like to underatand something, how is bitcoin affected by golds price going up/down ?

[Adrian-x]

it's called Metcalfe's Law.  "value" of the network is squared by every new user.  iCE would rather keep it strangled down to him and his Myrcea buddies.

Not every new user needs direct access to the Mother Blockchain:

I think you've drunk the SideChain cool aid, and now your salary is dependent on the views of your employer.

It's not about what you think other people need (we have central controls to manage that), it's about individuals having freedom to make the best subjective choice.

I would think just like you if I had a product that solved the problem like SC does. In fact I was pushing in the same direction until  Peter Tod released this video. https://youtu.be/cZp7UGgBR0I, I agreed with him for all of 1 day a year ago and Justice I think pointed out very concisely the problems of limiting money velocity was not good for bitcoin. (he was the only critical voice at the time.)

I hope this does not pop up on Reddit.

what does that mean?  iCE working for Blockstream?

This is the speculation section isn't it ;-)

[8up]

Fascinating chart posted in masterluc's thread. I trust I don't need to spell out the implications.

so what is weighted stability?

More on that you will find here http://bitcoinstability.github.io/bitcoinstability/#/home and here https://azopstability.com/