Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

Rusty may very well be the only level headed one within Blockstream:

Interpretation: Hard Landing Unlikely, But Microtransactions Lose
If the block size doesn’t increase (or doesn’t increase in time): we’ll see transactions get slower, and fees become the significant factor in whether your transaction gets processed quickly.  People will change behaviour: I’m not going to spend 20c to send you 50c!

Because block finding is highly variable and many miners are capping blocks at 750k, we see backlogs at times already; these bursts will happen with increasing frequency from now on.  This will put pressure on Satoshdice and similar services, who will be highly incentivized to use StrawPay or roll their own channel mechanism for off-blockchain microtransactions.

http://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=500

the anti-increase crowd never bother to explain clear increasing centralization and regulatory risk caused by forcing everyone to use 3rd party offchain services.  

oh, but of course i forgot, who cares about users, it's about full nodes! :/

here, let's do this.

let's make blocksize=0kB that way we can have infinite full nodes and decentralization!  nirvana!

[1715076980]

1715076980

[1715076980]

1715076980

[1715076980]

1715076980

[1715076980]

1715076980

[marcus_of_augustus]

bad smell all over xt ... note it is not even a faithful branch fork of the main bitcoin repo look https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt at the main link, if it was fork it would have a link beneath it to the git repo it was forked from. So what? you might ask, software forking is subtle ... what this means is there is no way to easily know what has and hasn't been left out out of XT that was in Core ... why do that?

On the front page you can tell things have been changed that have nothing to do with "only 3 major difference" there is a file called "pkg.m4"https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/blob/0.10.2A/pkg.m4 that was removed from Core because of erroneous behaviour that made every system it was built on to default to using it instead of the system pkg.m4 ... why put broken behaviour back in? Maybe some bad coding reasons but way too much fishy shit right on the front page of XT to trust in the slightest. Removed files put back in, and not a correct, verifiable fork of Core, it looks dodgy as all heck. If it was just some anonymous guy on the internet I would expect coins to go missing immediately if you ran this code.

To me this seems like more fear-mongering from you  m_o_a
Just like when you told us that BitStamp would never come back after the hack as they were all crooks (I am not going to waste my time digging out your post, but you know what you said)
I don't know the truth of the matter, but I don't trust your judgement either. I have seen it to be negatively biased on more than one occasion, enough to make me think that you have your own (unspoken) agenda here

"just trust us" (your ninja edit) ... I don't trust you

But you haven't refuted anything I pointed out. Don't trust me, trust your own lying eyes. But keep attacking the source not the facts, that is what this thread is all about after all right?

Bitstamp didn't implode as I thought but looks to be bleeding out slowly instead, if volume is any indicator. So I got the method of their demise a bit wrong but it still looks like they are finished ... still think they are crooks.

No agenda, no monero.

[marcus_of_augustus]

bad smell all over xt ... note it is not even a faithful branch fork of the main bitcoin repo look https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt at the main link, if it was fork it would have a link beneath it to the git repo it was forked from. So what? you might ask, software forking with git trackinng is subtle ... what this means is there is no way to easily know what has and hasn't been left out of XT that was in Core ... why do that? Git is a system of hashing every commit so you can easily verify every commit back to the original source dump and know it hasn't been messed with, exactly like a block hash chain ... XT has branched in such a way you will never really easily know how it is different from Core, except for, yes you guessed it, "just trust us".

On the front page you can tell things have been changed that have nothing to do with "only 3 major differences" there is a file called "pkg.m4"https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/blob/0.10.2A/pkg.m4 that was removed from Core because of erroneous behaviour that made every system it was built on to default to using it instead of the system pkg.m4 ... why put broken behaviour back in? Maybe some bad coding reasons but way too much fishy shit right on the front page of XT to trust in the slightest. Removed files put back in, and not a correct, verifiable fork of Core, it looks dodgy as all heck. If it was just some anonymous guy on the internet I would expect coins to go missing immediately if you ran this code.

The other reason is to simply get on the path of being a fully independent implementation that breaks ties with the Satoshi client.

Except everything on the XT readme goes to lengths to explain that is simply "based on Core". In fact it is not "rebased", in the git sense, on Core at all but is a complete new code base. The way it has been forked it will never be a true branch of Core and never able to be rebased upon it. That is all you need to know as a developer to know where they are coming from.

[marcus_of_augustus]

bad smell all over xt ... note it is not even a faithful branch fork of the main bitcoin repo look https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt at the main link, if it was fork it would have a link beneath it to the git repo it was forked from. So what? you might ask, software forking is subtle ... what this means is there is no way to easily know what has and hasn't been left out out of XT that was in Core ... why do that?

On the front page you can tell things have been changed that have nothing to do with "only 3 major difference" there is a file called "pkg.m4"https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/blob/0.10.2A/pkg.m4 that was removed from Core because of erroneous behaviour that made every system it was built on to default to using it instead of the system pkg.m4 ... why put broken behaviour back in? Maybe some bad coding reasons but way too much fishy shit right on the front page of XT to trust in the slightest. Removed files put back in, and not a correct, verifiable fork of Core, it looks dodgy as all heck. If it was just some anonymous guy on the internet I would expect coins to go missing immediately if you ran this code.

To me this seems like more fear-mongering from you  m_o_a
Just like when you told us that BitStamp would never come back after the hack as they were all crooks (I am not going to waste my time digging out your post, but you know what you said)
I don't know the truth of the matter, but I don't trust your judgement either. I have seen it to be negatively biased on more than one occasion, enough to make me think that you have your own (unspoken) agenda here

"just trust us" (your ninja edit) ... I don't trust you

i smell Monero all over him.

No monero and even if I did how does it change the facts that you refuse to accept?

character assassin, smear tactics ... is about all you have left when you are of limited intellect i'm guessing? Such a drag explaining every last detail like you are 5, are you 5?

[phoenix1]

Bitstamp didn't implode as I thought but looks to be bleeding out slowly instead, if volume is any indicator. So I got the method of their demise a bit wrong but it still looks like they are finished ... still think they are crooks.

A bit wrong ? You said they were crooks and were going to run off with the money. Difference between that and a slow bleed is enormous ( FWIW I actually agree they wil probably suffer a slow painful demise)
And you threw that huge 'error' out at a critical point for BTC ...

[kazuki49]

bad smell all over xt ... note it is not even a faithful branch fork of the main bitcoin repo look https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt at the main link, if it was fork it would have a link beneath it to the git repo it was forked from. So what? you might ask, software forking is subtle ... what this means is there is no way to easily know what has and hasn't been left out out of XT that was in Core ... why do that?

On the front page you can tell things have been changed that have nothing to do with "only 3 major difference" there is a file called "pkg.m4"https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/blob/0.10.2A/pkg.m4 that was removed from Core because of erroneous behaviour that made every system it was built on to default to using it instead of the system pkg.m4 ... why put broken behaviour back in? Maybe some bad coding reasons but way too much fishy shit right on the front page of XT to trust in the slightest. Removed files put back in, and not a correct, verifiable fork of Core, it looks dodgy as all heck. If it was just some anonymous guy on the internet I would expect coins to go missing immediately if you ran this code.

To me this seems like more fear-mongering from you  m_o_a
Just like when you told us that BitStamp would never come back after the hack as they were all crooks (I am not going to waste my time digging out your post, but you know what you said)
I don't know the truth of the matter, but I don't trust your judgement either. I have seen it to be negatively biased on more than one occasion, enough to make me think that you have your own (unspoken) agenda here

"just trust us" (your ninja edit) ... I don't trust you

i smell Monero all over him.

No monero and even if I did how does it change the facts that you refuse to accept?

character assassin, smear tactics ... is about all you have left when you are of limited intellect i'm guessing? Such a drag explaining every last detail like you are 5, are you 5?

Yes last time I went against the fork I was called a Monero shill so I fully embraced it since Monero is better than Bitcoin anyway, last time few prominent core devs were talking against it too so I thought it was understandable, you need to see that its their insecurity talking, deep down everyone know how Monero is better. Not saying you agree with me, but welcome to the club.

[cypherdoc]

Bitstamp didn't implode as I thought but looks to be bleeding out slowly instead, if volume is any indicator. So I got the method of their demise a bit wrong but it still looks like they are finished ... still think they are crooks.

A bit wrong ? You said they were crooks and were going to run off with the money. Difference between that and a slow bleed is enormous ( FWIW I actually agree they wil probably suffer a slow painful demise)
And you threw that huge 'error' out at a critical point for BTC ...

guys like marcus, tvbcof, and iCE are bombastic, antagonistic, fear mongerers that seldom contribute any meaningful theoretical discussion here.  they usually attack first by suddenly appearing out of nowhere throwing bombs and vicious name calling; usually at me.  i can easily take it but i've seen them do it to other ppl too.  they are extremists and unfortunately want Bitcoin to wallow in it's own small little corner here in the US & Europe.  which is quite ironic given their objectives.  i just don't think they realize what the hell they're doing.

i can kinda be that way too but usually in self defense.  but at least i'm willing to engage in deep thought, talk openly, ask questions, acknowledge not knowing some things, or ask for help.  these guys are like terrorist know-it-alls that have no remorse.

[kazuki49]

<snip>

i smell Monero all over him.

Ok, as you mention it, and this is not meant as an attack on Monero, what I really don't understand is how a truly anonymous coin can survive, regardless of the tech, when the lead developers are public figures (eg Smooth, who was extremely helpful when I asked about the 21inc stuff) and they have a very public 'castle' as the home of one of their lead promoters (Risto).
How does that work if/when  the SHTF ??
Honestly, I have nothing against Monero, but I can't wrap my head around how something that TPTB will obviously fight against can flourish with these criteria. $5 wrench anyone ??

Please enlighten me. I say this in a truly non-confrontational manner - I am truly confused

Its simple: I thought Bitcoin was already anonymous? Are you saying its all deep down an agenda to make us more traceable? Just confess how much of a nightmare Bitcoin is just waiting like a glove to be used by a NWO hand.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Bitstamp didn't implode as I thought but looks to be bleeding out slowly instead, if volume is any indicator. So I got the method of their demise a bit wrong but it still looks like they are finished ... still think they are crooks.

A bit wrong ? You said they were crooks and were going to run off with the money. Difference between that and a slow bleed is enormous ( FWIW I actually agree they wil probably suffer a slow painful demise)
And you threw that huge 'error' out at a critical point for BTC ...

I never said they were going to run off with the coins. If anything, I think Stamp are hugely net short of coins due to the crazy leveraged shorting they allow ... and I was saying that before the hack. Worse is who they are allowing to short. The hack may have been their wake up call that saves them, who knows, sometimes the places need to be taught a lesson to see the error of their ways.

I encourage idiots to run XT because it will weed them out. frap.doc keeps saying most people will be left without coins ...

[phoenix1]

<snip>

i smell Monero all over him.

Ok, as you mention it, and this is not meant as an attack on Monero, what I really don't understand is how a truly anonymous coin can survive, regardless of the tech, when the lead developers are public figures (eg Smooth, who was extremely helpful when I asked about the 21inc stuff) and they have a very public 'castle' as the home of one of their lead promoters (Risto).
How does that work if/when  the SHTF ??
Honestly, I have nothing against Monero, but I can't wrap my head around how something that TPTB will obviously fight against can flourish with these criteria. $5 wrench anyone ??

Please enlighten me. I say this in a truly non-confrontational manner - I am truly confused

Its simple: I thought Bitcoin was already anonymous? Are you saying its all deep down an agenda to make us more traceable? Just confess how much of a nightmare Bitcoin is just waiting like a glove to be used by a NWO hand.

Not saying anything of the sort, tho its pretty clear that anonymity /=BTC
I don't have any agenda re BTC vs Monero. I am simply asking how a coin with acknowledged superior anonymity features can thrive if all the devs and the HQ are publicly known. It's a purely innocent unbiased question that I would love to hear a solid answer on.

[kazuki49]

<snip>

i smell Monero all over him.

Ok, as you mention it, and this is not meant as an attack on Monero, what I really don't understand is how a truly anonymous coin can survive, regardless of the tech, when the lead developers are public figures (eg Smooth, who was extremely helpful when I asked about the 21inc stuff) and they have a very public 'castle' as the home of one of their lead promoters (Risto).
How does that work if/when  the SHTF ??
Honestly, I have nothing against Monero, but I can't wrap my head around how something that TPTB will obviously fight against can flourish with these criteria. $5 wrench anyone ??

Please enlighten me. I say this in a truly non-confrontational manner - I am truly confused

Its simple: I thought Bitcoin was already anonymous? Are you saying its all deep down an agenda to make us more traceable? Just confess how much of a nightmare Bitcoin is just waiting like a glove to be used by a NWO hand.

Not saying anything of the sort, tho its pretty clear that anonymity /=BTC
I don't have any agenda re BTC vs Monero. I am simply asking how a coin with acknowledged superior anonymity features can thrive if all the devs and the HQ are publicly known. It's a purely innocent unbiased question that I would love to hear a solid answer on.

Well personally I feel better knowing some devs are public, the most important is that the code is public and while the devs maintain a neutral usage view of the coin it wont matter if its bitcoin or monero. Also they didn't launched it, just like the current core devs of bitcoin.

[smooth]

<snip>

i smell Monero all over him.

Ok, as you mention it, and this is not meant as an attack on Monero, what I really don't understand is how a truly anonymous coin can survive, regardless of the tech, when the lead developers are public figures (eg Smooth, who was extremely helpful when I asked about the 21inc stuff) and they have a very public 'castle' as the home of one of their lead promoters (Risto).
How does that work if/when  the SHTF ??
Honestly, I have nothing against Monero, but I can't wrap my head around how something that TPTB will obviously fight against can flourish with these criteria. $5 wrench anyone ??

Please enlighten me. I say this in a truly non-confrontational manner - I am truly confused

What do you think the developers and promoters can actually do to stop it, even when/if the $5 wrench is applied?

It's an open source project, the code is "out there."

Worst case I suppose is some sort of malicious/coerced code changes to introduce a back door, of the sort that some of the most paranoid attribute to Gavin (I don't). But those are going to be public, and the code is sufficiently well organized that nefarious changes to the "juicy" stuff would be pretty darn obvious.

What am I missing here?

Also, by the way, not all the devs and especially independent contributors are public at all. Some are much more cautious with their identities than than I am. Even with some highly implausible seven person global takedown (for what exactly?), the project would likely continue.

[phoenix1]

Bitstamp didn't implode as I thought but looks to be bleeding out slowly instead, if volume is any indicator. So I got the method of their demise a bit wrong but it still looks like they are finished ... still think they are crooks.

A bit wrong ? You said they were crooks and were going to run off with the money. Difference between that and a slow bleed is enormous ( FWIW I actually agree they wil probably suffer a slow painful demise)
And you threw that huge 'error' out at a critical point for BTC ...

I never said they were going to run off with the coins. If anything, I think Stamp are hugely net short of coins due to the crazy leveraged shorting they allow ... and I was saying that before the hack. Worse is who they are allowing to short. The hack may have been their wake up call that saves them, who knows, sometimes the places need to be taught a lesson to see the error of their ways.

Really not sure what you are talking about. As far as I am aware Stamp are one of the few exchanges that have not introduced leverage yet.

[kazuki49]

What am I missing here?

Its pretty disappointing really, in attacking the anonymous nature of Monero, most people inadvertently revel their subconscious backing of TPTB agendas, it just confirm that Bitcoin is not what I was waiting for.

[phoenix1]

<snip>

i smell Monero all over him.

Ok, as you mention it, and this is not meant as an attack on Monero, what I really don't understand is how a truly anonymous coin can survive, regardless of the tech, when the lead developers are public figures (eg Smooth, who was extremely helpful when I asked about the 21inc stuff) and they have a very public 'castle' as the home of one of their lead promoters (Risto).
How does that work if/when  the SHTF ??
Honestly, I have nothing against Monero, but I can't wrap my head around how something that TPTB will obviously fight against can flourish with these criteria. $5 wrench anyone ??

Please enlighten me. I say this in a truly non-confrontational manner - I am truly confused

What do you think the developers and promoters can actually do to stop it, even when/if the $5 wrench is applied?

It's an open source project, the code is "out there."

Worst case I suppose is some sort of malicious/coerced code changes to introduce a back door, of the sort that some of the most paranoid attribute to Gavin (I don't). But those are going to be public, and the code is sufficiently well organized that nefarious changes to the "juicy" stuff would be pretty darn obvious.

What am I missing here?

That is exactly what I am asking about. IMO that is not unlikely to occur in the event of significant traction and non-co-operation with TPTB. What happens to Monero in that scenario?

[TPTB_need_war]

What am I missing here?

I agree with your points about open-source. His point I think is that if the leaders are taken down and the coin needs further leadership, it might be co-opted by changes from newly inserted lead devs.

The underlying point is that coins aren't truly decentralized because users are dumb (or preoccupied and can't be detailed diligent) thus rely on lead devs to the do the right decisions.

The point is that coins aren't really done and on auto-pilot. They require ongoing upkeep from lead devs.

[kazuki49]

What am I missing here?

I agree with your points about open-source. His point I think is that if the leaders are taken down and the coin needs further leadership, it might be co-opted by changes from newly inserted lead devs.

The underlying point is that coins aren't truly decentralized because users are dumb and rely on lead devs to the do the right decisions.

lol thats always a danger, I agree with him them.

[phoenix1]

What am I missing here?

Its pretty disappointing really, in attacking the anonymous nature of Monero, most people inadvertently revel their subconscious backing of TPTB agendas, it just confirm that Bitcoin is not what I was waiting for.

Not at all. There is so much angst in this commnuity that innocent questions cannot be asked. I am not attacking Monero, I am inquiring about it, and how it can defend against TPTB's agendas

[TPTB_need_war]

I believe either the anonymous coin needs to be truly done and able to run decentralized on auto-pilot, or the lead devs need to be anonymous so they can avoid prosecution. The prosecution of cryptographers has begun.

Note Monero has the same problems with centralization as Bitcoin. Thus it is not done.

[phoenix1]

What am I missing here?

I agree with your points about open-source. His point I think is that if the leaders are taken down and the coin needs further leadership, it might be co-opted by changes from newly inserted lead devs.

The underlying point is that coins aren't truly decentralized because users are dumb and rely on lead devs to the do the right decisions.

lol thats always a danger, I agree with him them.

Yes, that is what I am pointing at. Because I believe that the devs of any truly anon coin will be considered 'enemies of the state' in the world that we live in. Unless they 'co-operate' ...

Its fine when the mkt caps are low, but if/when they become significant, I do not see how they will not become a prime target on the radar, with all the bullshit  and lies that comes with that