Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[rocks]

One option is to start with a move towards adoption of multiple implementations before making the "spec". If Bitcoin XT and btcd both gained enough adoption vs. the Satoshi client that all three were below 50% of the network, then we would now have a situation where a bug in the Satoshi client was no longer the spec, and the Satoshi client would have to quickly bug fix itself to adhear to the XT and btcd majority (and same for XT and btcd).

This situation would then force the drafting of a real specification. With one dominate implementation the need for a spec is diminished. But with several implementations the need for them to draft what is agreed becomes quite strong.

Imagine if Bitcoin Core/XT, btcd, libbitcoin, BitcoinJ, Toshi, etc. all got together to make sure there was a common test suite that was a strict superset of all the relevant unit tests in each codebase.

The next step would be for each implementation to make sure to add any missing consensus-related tests to their own repositories. Repeat the process as necessary.

After all that was done, you could use the test suites as the basis of a spec.

Organizing that is something useful that Bitcoin Foundation could have done, instead of... whatever it was they did.

Start spec sheet drafting through the process of developing a common testing framework for multiple separate implementations. That's interesting and could practically work.

[1714968224]

1714968224

[1714968224]

1714968224

[kazuki49]

Not only that friend, what else are they planing to change down the line? Like I said many moons ago, they will try change the emission and they will start making Bitcoin permanently inflationary, not that I'm against the model, I like Monero exactly because the disinflation but it is a severe rupture of Bitcoin's trust and social contract and all started with the project being hijacked into this obscure XT fork.

If they try to make a change like that, users will migrate away from their fork just as easy as they migrated to it.

In the end, the developers don't actually have any power - they can only product the software which users want or refrain from doing so.

I would have thought the same until his last statement, you are clearly ignoring the power he is displaying to hold as he forces his plan with help of the billionaire backed VC companies so if you want to buy Bitcoin on exchange X, you'll need to install his fork.

[Adrian-x]

Not only that friend, what else are they planing to change down the line? Like I said many moons ago, they will try change the emission and they will start making Bitcoin permanently inflationary, not that I'm against the model, I like Monero exactly because the disinflation but it is a severe rupture of Bitcoin's trust and social contract and all started with the project being hijacked into this obscure XT fork.

If they try to make a change like that, users will migrate away from their fork just as easy as they migrated to it.

In the end, the developers don't actually have any power - they can only product the software which users want or refrain from doing so.

I agree, it will be easier for users to switch next time, this time is the hard one, power hungry developers are going to defend their castle.  

[Adrian-x]

Not only that friend, what else are they planing to change down the line? Like I said many moons ago, they will try change the emission and they will start making Bitcoin permanently inflationary, not that I'm against the model, I like Monero exactly because the disinflation but it is a severe rupture of Bitcoin's trust and social contract and all started with the project being hijacked into this obscure XT fork.

If they try to make a change like that, users will migrate away from their fork just as easy as they migrated to it.

In the end, the developers don't actually have any power - they can only product the software which users want or refrain from doing so.

I would have thought the same until his last statement, you are clearly ignoring the power he is displaying to hold as he forces his plan with help of the billionaire backed VC companies so if you want to buy Bitcoin on exchange X, you'll need to install his fork.

I think you need to consider who the billionaire backed VC companies are backing. we don't know how this turns out, but your concerns are valid, i just don't know if you are directing them towards the correct developers.

if this is a 1 way path why do you think so, I agree with justusranvier, you just switch back if they move in the wrong direction how do you see it?

[kazuki49]

Not only that friend, what else are they planing to change down the line? Like I said many moons ago, they will try change the emission and they will start making Bitcoin permanently inflationary, not that I'm against the model, I like Monero exactly because the disinflation but it is a severe rupture of Bitcoin's trust and social contract and all started with the project being hijacked into this obscure XT fork.

If they try to make a change like that, users will migrate away from their fork just as easy as they migrated to it.

In the end, the developers don't actually have any power - they can only product the software which users want or refrain from doing so.

I would have thought the same until his last statement, you are clearly ignoring the power he is displaying to hold as he forces his plan with help of the billionaire backed VC companies so if you want to buy Bitcoin on exchange X, you'll need to install his fork.

I think you need to consider who the billionaire backed VC companies are backing. we don't know how this turns out, but your concerns are valid, i just don't know if you are directing them towards the correct developers.

if this is a 1 way path why do you think so, I agree with justusranvier, you just switch back if they move in the wrong direction how do you see it?

Masses are easily influenced, you would think most people think like you, there is no "going back" from this, the bitcoin eco-system is already centralized in few companies backed by same hands, what I see is a move to put the bitcoin network effect in great peril if this fork happens, because the way bitcoin and decentralized crypto works, only when theres absolute consensus should a move like that happen. What I believe to be the hidden intention behind this fork is to open the bitcoin network to new regulatory frameworks that will be born from the centralized nature of mining and the inherent traceability and likability of the protocol, and establishing a precedent of strong-arming forks.

If you can't see the messages from the same agents pointing towards this scenario, well, you are making a fool of yourself to the future community that will be studying Bitcoin-history http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34161751/

[smooth]

Not only that friend, what else are they planing to change down the line? Like I said many moons ago, they will try change the emission and they will start making Bitcoin permanently inflationary, not that I'm against the model, I like Monero exactly because the disinflation but it is a severe rupture of Bitcoin's trust and social contract and all started with the project being hijacked into this obscure XT fork.

If they try to make a change like that, users will migrate away from their fork just as easy as they migrated to it.

In the end, the developers don't actually have any power - they can only product the software which users want or refrain from doing so.

That's an unrealistic view of human nature. Many, possibly most, users are too busy, not knowledgable enough, and/or too apathetic to form and act on their own opinion. They will support whatever the developers propose, as long as it isn't outrageous. That gives the developers an enormous amount of power, because they get to influence the votes of the abstaining users, which in many cases will by itself represent a majority.

[kazuki49]

Not only that friend, what else are they planing to change down the line? Like I said many moons ago, they will try change the emission and they will start making Bitcoin permanently inflationary, not that I'm against the model, I like Monero exactly because the disinflation but it is a severe rupture of Bitcoin's trust and social contract and all started with the project being hijacked into this obscure XT fork.

If they try to make a change like that, users will migrate away from their fork just as easy as they migrated to it.

In the end, the developers don't actually have any power - they can only product the software which users want or refrain from doing so.

That's an unrealistic view of human nature. Many, possibly most, users are too busy, not knowledgable enough, and/or too apathetic to form and act on their own opinion. They will support whatever the developers propose, as long as it isn't outrageous. That gives the developers an enormous amount of power, because they get to influence the votes of the abstaining users, which in many cases will by itself represent a majority.

based smooth! Thats what I mean, I feel good knowing Monero is in good and self-aware leadership hands.

[tvbcof]

One option is to start with a move towards adoption of multiple implementations before making the "spec". If Bitcoin XT and btcd both gained enough adoption vs. the Satoshi client that all three were below 50% of the network, then we would now have a situation where a bug in the Satoshi client was no longer the spec, and the Satoshi client would have to quickly bug fix itself to adhear to the XT and btcd majority (and same for XT and btcd).

This situation would then force the drafting of a real specification. With one dominate implementation the need for a spec is diminished. But with several implementations the need for them to draft what is agreed becomes quite strong.

Imagine if Bitcoin Core/XT, btcd, libbitcoin, BitcoinJ, Toshi, etc. all got together to make sure there was a common test suite that was a strict superset of all the relevant unit tests in each codebase.

The next step would be for each implementation to make sure to add any missing consensus-related tests to their own repositories. Repeat the process as necessary.

After all that was done, you could use the test suites as the basis of a spec.

Organizing that is something useful that Bitcoin Foundation could have done, instead of... whatever it was they did.

If bctd is the best and most well documented code that mysterious group of highly funded spooky dudes who nobody knows can pump out then it would be interesting to fork it as the basis for a viable project on one of the many forks that the Bitcoin blockchain is going to blossom into.  I'd use it (as long as I can compile it and compile the compilers that compile it.)

At this point I have little interest in a common spec and test cases and such.  We're past the phase where multiple implementations are very valuable, and may be into the phase where the opposite is true and makes no logical sense anyway.

[explorer]

Not only that friend, what else are they planing to change down the line? Like I said many moons ago, they will try change the emission and they will start making Bitcoin permanently inflationary, not that I'm against the model, I like Monero exactly because the disinflation but it is a severe rupture of Bitcoin's trust and social contract and all started with the project being hijacked into this obscure XT fork.

If they try to make a change like that, users will migrate away from their fork just as easy as they migrated to it.

In the end, the developers don't actually have any power - they can only product the software which users want or refrain from doing so.

People are sheep that will go with the loudest/best advertising, regardless of benefit/detriment.   Just look at every other system in existence. 

[justusranvier]

Not only that friend, what else are they planing to change down the line? Like I said many moons ago, they will try change the emission and they will start making Bitcoin permanently inflationary, not that I'm against the model, I like Monero exactly because the disinflation but it is a severe rupture of Bitcoin's trust and social contract and all started with the project being hijacked into this obscure XT fork.

If they try to make a change like that, users will migrate away from their fork just as easy as they migrated to it.

In the end, the developers don't actually have any power - they can only product the software which users want or refrain from doing so.

I would have thought the same until his last statement, you are clearly ignoring the power he is displaying to hold as he forces his plan with help of the billionaire backed VC companies so if you want to buy Bitcoin on exchange X, you'll need to install his fork.

I think you need to consider who the billionaire backed VC companies are backing. we don't know how this turns out, but your concerns are valid, i just don't know if you are directing them towards the correct developers.

if this is a 1 way path why do you think so, I agree with justusranvier, you just switch back if they move in the wrong direction how do you see it?

Masses are easily influenced, you would think most people think like you, there is no "going back" from this, the bitcoin eco-system is already centralized in few companies backed by same hands, what I see is a move to put the bitcoin network effect in great peril if this fork happens, because the way bitcoin and decentralized crypto works, only when theres absolute consensus should a move like that happen. What I believe to be the hidden intention behind this fork is to open the bitcoin network to new regulatory frameworks that will be born from the centralized nature of mining and the inherent traceability and likability of the protocol, and establishing a precedent of strong-arming forks.

If you can't see the messages from the same agents pointing towards this scenario, well, you are making a fool of yourself to the future community that will be studying Bitcoin-history http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34161751/

So you're saying we should address the implementation monoculture problem?

[vokain]

Not only that friend, what else are they planing to change down the line? Like I said many moons ago, they will try change the emission and they will start making Bitcoin permanently inflationary, not that I'm against the model, I like Monero exactly because the disinflation but it is a severe rupture of Bitcoin's trust and social contract and all started with the project being hijacked into this obscure XT fork.

If they try to make a change like that, users will migrate away from their fork just as easy as they migrated to it.

In the end, the developers don't actually have any power - they can only product the software which users want or refrain from doing so.

People are sheep that will go with the loudest/best advertising, regardless of benefit/detriment.   Just look at every other system in existence.  

When the culture of a collective emphasizes the theory and practice of truth as a core tenet, then their loudest/best advertising may very well converge with the truth.

[TPTB_need_war]

Our problem however, is that most humans are not ready to transition to the Knowledge Age work and they will continue to demand debt and Industrial Age jobs (or the government to subsidize failure to obtain such a job).

i foresee a leveling out of resources and wealth due to the transparency of information access facilitated by the Internet.  this can't be stopped despite the state's resistance.

The only way we cross the chasm without falling into an totalitarian abyss along the way, is a newly designed crypto-currency for the fledgling Knowledge Age that can resist attack by the State because the People implicitly (due to their self-interest in debt and subsidies) demand the State to maintain a monopoly on force.

i agree and think Bitcoin is it.

Dont you think there's something off, as in your brain,  in you continually berating me about thousands of years of sheeples being manipulated, no chance that Bitcoin can change anything, yet you coming in here and telling us that for $10000 you will let us in on your altcoin that WILL change everything?

When debate on the merits has been conceded, the loser often resorts to character assassination.

Bitcoin will surely change some things, and I assert not all for the better. I never claimed Bitcoin was a /dev/null event and in fact argued that it is a monumental event.

I doubt anything I or others might attempt would change everything. Experiments are experiments. And I have no delusion about changing everything. I might hope to make some positive contribution if after more thought it is concluded that moving forward is viable and wise.

I support Bitcoin because for every 100 masses we introduce to crypto-currency, maybe 1 will awaken and be an important ally. I have repeatedly said I support spreading Bitcoin because it adds to the capital base (remember capital is not money, but the productive capacity).

I view Bitcoin as the scattershot coin (assuming iCe et al lose[1]). I entertain the hope and ideas about potential anonymity and decentralized focused altcoin(s) that serve vertical (hopefully horizontal growth) markets.

In short, "you can't do just one thing" and this applies to anything TPTB create as well. There is always a reactive force and seepage.

[1] I have entertained the thought that Coinbase, Paypal, etc might prefer a 1MB limit because it would push transactions to offchain. But I doubt that is their overriding calculus.


Edit: the many readers I and others have been able to touch (including our dialogue here) is one of the seepage effects Bitcoin is causing. I do not assert that Bitcoin has no positive effects. I've been derogatory on the overriding effect of Bitcoin on the masses. You are correct to call me out and get me to clarify this point.

what a bunch of dissembling, conflicted, and illogical bullshit.

Apparently the concept is too complex for your mind.

It is quite simple actually.

The internet and Bitcoin are platforms for spreading information, but the masses are not aligned to global monetary optimization because their daily priorities are else where. Thus they easily throw their support to the wrong "solutions", e.g. the massive outpouring of emotions and support for FCC regulation of Net Neutrality (which the mass media propaganda fed to the idealistic masses).

And Bitcoin doesn't have the design which resists on its own. It requires mass diligence.

Very simple. Don't know why you can't wrap your mind around it.

[TPTB_need_war]

His IQ is probably higher than either of ours...

It appears to be quite high. I have caught him in a logic error at least once though. He apparently didn't like it much that I publicly pointed it out in these forums. I don't have time to go digging for it.

Note he PM'ed first before I ever knew of him in 2013. Coincidentally someone else prominent here PM'ed me just after that warning me about him.

I don't really know all about what is going on behind the scenes and I don't really care to know. Head in the sand and code. Let the chips fall where they will...

Remember the time he clowned the SEC?  Hysterical.

I do. That might have been the thread I am referring to above.

well, the half woman half man dude is definitely more out there

i guess i could learn to admire a transsex.

I thought you were referring to Mark Karpeles until I read the qualifier "between the 3".

[iCEBREAKER]

luckily Monero doesn't have a nullc yet. 

Are you kidding?  A crypto rock star like gmaxwell would be a stellar addition to XMR's core team.  The price would double in an hour.

I'd rather he stay with Bitcoin to help balance/cancel out nefarious MBA/VC/frat boy influence, but if the Gavinistas run him off... 

[kazuki49]

Not only that friend, what else are they planing to change down the line? Like I said many moons ago, they will try change the emission and they will start making Bitcoin permanently inflationary, not that I'm against the model, I like Monero exactly because the disinflation but it is a severe rupture of Bitcoin's trust and social contract and all started with the project being hijacked into this obscure XT fork.

If they try to make a change like that, users will migrate away from their fork just as easy as they migrated to it.

In the end, the developers don't actually have any power - they can only product the software which users want or refrain from doing so.

I would have thought the same until his last statement, you are clearly ignoring the power he is displaying to hold as he forces his plan with help of the billionaire backed VC companies so if you want to buy Bitcoin on exchange X, you'll need to install his fork.

I think you need to consider who the billionaire backed VC companies are backing. we don't know how this turns out, but your concerns are valid, i just don't know if you are directing them towards the correct developers.

if this is a 1 way path why do you think so, I agree with justusranvier, you just switch back if they move in the wrong direction how do you see it?

Masses are easily influenced, you would think most people think like you, there is no "going back" from this, the bitcoin eco-system is already centralized in few companies backed by same hands, what I see is a move to put the bitcoin network effect in great peril if this fork happens, because the way bitcoin and decentralized crypto works, only when theres absolute consensus should a move like that happen. What I believe to be the hidden intention behind this fork is to open the bitcoin network to new regulatory frameworks that will be born from the centralized nature of mining and the inherent traceability and likability of the protocol, and establishing a precedent of strong-arming forks.

If you can't see the messages from the same agents pointing towards this scenario, well, you are making a fool of yourself to the future community that will be studying Bitcoin-history http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34161751/

So you're saying we should address the implementation monoculture problem?

wtf this means? Its very simple to understand why a fork without 90% consensus will wreak havoc, specially with the ones like MP opposing it, its like committing suicide, maybe the Bitcoin community already in their subconsciousness realized Bitcoin is a danger to mankind with its public blockchain and the hive mind decided to abort it from within.

[TPTB_need_war]

oh c'mon.  is that all u got?  if i were him i wouldn't say that either.  why let your enemy know what you're thinking?  lure them in, let them get comfortable.  why the hell should he listen to you anyways?

i see the exact opposite.  and i've listened to just about everything he's ever said about Bitcoin.  he's very pro-Bitcoin first principles.

btw, all you guys here keep banging on Gavin's ulterior motives.  maybe it's time i bring up the core dev Blockstream block's motivations here once again.  let me remind you; they are a for-profit, gvt registered, $21M conflicted, high powered gvt-captured investor driven, 10x expected return demanded, command and control insinuated core dev cabal, with a choke hold on Bitcoin development using stalling tactics to destroy all further growth and decentralization, employing all out diversionary measures so as to further their pet project called sidechains, at tremendous personal billion dollar windfalls to themselves in the form of exercised stock options and lucrative pay contracts.   there.  how's that feel?

admittedly over the top, yes, but i'm tired of your guys slash and burn techniques.

Excellent retort.

I see TPTB playing all sides, co-opting Bitcoin from every direction.

The one thing they can't do "is just one thing" so we do get to leverage Bitcoin. We'd be remiss in not maximizing our opportunity to do so.

I remain largely neutral about whether Bitcoin, Monero, or any future cryptocurrency will actually succeed on a large scale.

Does that include all potential Butterfly effects?

I am not neutral when it comes to the Butterfly effects likely having large scale impacts.

[TPTB_need_war]

Eleuthria from BTCGuild thinks we need an increase:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/370rko/21_inc_engineer_everyone_assumes_humans_will_be/crjfnpg?context=3

If the TPTB think this is their "ace in the hole" forcing crypto-currency to become centralized, I believe they've miscalculated. I agree that micropayment world is coming, but I don't agree it needs the centralized hardware he assumes.

[iCEBREAKER]

Mike Hearn's "Crash Landing" post

I don’t believe fees will become high and stable if Bitcoin runs out of capacity. Instead, I believe Bitcoin will crash. -Mike Hearn

^^^There it is again. The tired old 'argument from fear."  Maybe the Gavinistas were only paying lip service to BTC's antifragility, in order to execute phase one of their embrace/extend/extinguish agenda.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. -William Pitt the Younger, 1783

"And with necessity, / The tyrant's plea, / excus'd his devilish deeds" -John Milton, Paradise Lost

"Necessity is the mother of invention." -Latin/English proverb

Gavin is easily 2000% more poisonous than Luke.  Luke wears his eccentricities and peccadillos with pride; Gavin intentionally hid the Bitcoin XT agenda in smokey, spooky boardrooms until the time was ripe to spring his poison pill/stalking horse/tar baby trap.

[kazuki49]

oh c'mon.  is that all u got?  if i were him i wouldn't say that either.  why let your enemy know what you're thinking?  lure them in, let them get comfortable.  why the hell should he listen to you anyways?

i see the exact opposite.  and i've listened to just about everything he's ever said about Bitcoin.  he's very pro-Bitcoin first principles.

btw, all you guys here keep banging on Gavin's ulterior motives.  maybe it's time i bring up the core dev Blockstream block's motivations here once again.  let me remind you; they are a for-profit, gvt registered, $21M conflicted, high powered gvt-captured investor driven, 10x expected return demanded, command and control insinuated core dev cabal, with a choke hold on Bitcoin development using stalling tactics to destroy all further growth and decentralization, employing all out diversionary measures so as to further their pet project called sidechains, at tremendous personal billion dollar windfalls to themselves in the form of exercised stock options and lucrative pay contracts.   there.  how's that feel?

admittedly over the top, yes, but i'm tired of your guys slash and burn techniques.

Excellent retort.

I see TPTB playing all sides, co-opting Bitcoin from every direction.

The one thing they can't do "is just one thing" so we do get to leverage Bitcoin. We'd be remiss in not maximizing our opportunity to do so.

And thats exactly why I don't like sidechains neither lol, co-opting Bitcoin from every direction is live.

Its funny one of the most influential bitcoiners that truly is with his roots is MP, the one the mainstream community harshly demonize.

[TPTB_need_war]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=643235.msg11506171#msg11506171

I have written that a bounce (perhaps to $320) this summer is expected, but the final low (below $150) is still to come after that.