Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[hdbuck]

Most chineese outsource their servers for obvious reasons. Its not the service providers location that counts but rather the location of their contractors. Nice try

“A very large block size would be problematic for miners because the network bandwidth between China, where the majority of mining is done, and rest of the world is heavily restricted. Important proposals like these need to factor in all of the nuances of the global landscape.”

Are most Chinese outsourcing to the 1 of 91 nodes located in China? the concern quoted above would imply that or it would imply they are outsourcing to some on in North America.

eather way they better jack up of piss off, Bitcoin is not a charity, they should outsource to someone with more bandwidth, let me guess Blockstream wants to keep a client happy by limiting the block size?

Nice try

Lel so now bitcoin is no charity.

Nodes arent just miners.

[1714100100]

1714100100

[1714100100]

1714100100

[1714100100]

1714100100

[cypherdoc]

so who has more credibility in this matter?  the pools themselves, who have the hard data?  or the armchair apparatchiks being the likes of Greg Maxwell, LukeJr, pwiullie, Corallo, and Peter Todd?  the answer is simple:  the armchair experts are wrong.

These guys are actually writing the code you are running, are you making code commits ... I mean who's really the "armchair expert" here?

Just stop being a dick. You are looking worse and worse every time you open your ignorant mouth to trash the developers.

marcus, you have long been the real dick.

nice of you to ignore the thrust of my argument.  the armchair experts on this matter who haven't done any studies on the matter are blockading the 80-90% of the community's wishes to increase the block size based on just this large block attack hypothetical that just got totally trashed by the large miners they were pontificating about.

how do you explain that?

dammit marcus, you are a simpleton weasel dickhead coming in here and throwing hand grenades yet refusing to answer/defend your allegations.  i have no idea why iCELatte thinks you're some smart poster b/c all i ever see from you are ad hominems and no substance of debate or theory.

since you won't answer, i will.  they are either financially captured by Blockstream or they are just plain reckless or stupid to have come up with this large miner, large block FUD attack.  either way they did so as to unfairly make Gavin look bad.

shame on you for supporting such a wanky theory and for standing behind devs just b/c you are a dev.

[hdbuck]

Better blockstream than mit or Google lab rat

[TPTB_need_war]

the only centralization problem i see is the centralization of Core developers under the Blockstream banner, and their lack economic understanding

I don't understand how you can write that given all I have written in this thread about the inherent centralization in Bitcoin's design.

This discourages me about the rationality of the readers here.

If you have rebuttal to the points I made about Bitcoin technical design being centralized, I'd like to read it to see if it is rational.

[cypherdoc]

Better blockstream than mit or Google lab rat

i just added you to the list of arsonists.

[smooth]

makes Monero roughly 1% of my assets

Some of have publicly commented that you ended up coding less for Monero than they had hoped.

If I said that hypothetically if I was a dev on a coin and my holding in the coin was only 1% of my assets then I wouldn't have much incentive to work on it full-time (forum posting not included as work); would this strike you or anyone else as being unethical or in any other way incorrect or inappropriate?

I am getting at whether a dev having a large stake in a coin is detrimental or positive?

I understand Cypherdoc criticizes Gregory's stake in Bitcoin because Greg is on the other side of the block size increase debate. And he seems to be jealous that Greg was gifted some hardware in exchange for (and/or to aid) his development work.

Seems to me that there will always be jealously, but Satoshi seems to mostly get a free ride. Is it because he is anonymous, gone, or because he caused a star to appear in the eyes of the Bitcoin supporters?

Let's just say I'm not necessarily a good example to use for generalizations, in part because I practice aggressive risk management, and also in part because I'm perfectly comfortable financially (I have no desire for a castle), so I don't see the need to take extreme risks.

I don't necessarily sign up for the moon shots (e.g. SpaceShipTwo -- see below). But on the other hand I incur large losses only rarely and always have a bullet left in the chamber when opportunity presents itself, so I've done okay.

[smooth]

there's a fundamental disconnect with developing new altcoins that Bitcoiners should be able to migrate to or exchange for.  it's called instability or even inflation.

this ties in with Bitcoin's promise of being open source and being programmable money.  if Monero or any other coin is proven to be successful to the point of forcing all Bitcoiner's to switch, then i think crypto money as a concept fails.  why?  it's b/c that process causes so many ppl to lose money in aggregate from the migration process.  this is why i don't like SC's b/c it can force the same thing if a SC becomes dominant.  ppl can't afford that and it destroys stability and thus confidence.  it would appear as if crypto were a ponzi scheme, luring in ppl to one scam, only to take their money and create another.

I think its more likely that people like you who refused to hedge will get badly burned (conditional on this scenario playing out, and I'm not calling it likely), but many others who did hedge or picked a winner will do extremely well. To observers, the dynamics of greed make the latter narrative far more compelling than the former.

So no I don't really see a few cyperdocs losing money as the death of the concept, it is more like once-dominant Blackberry getting leapfrogged and steamrolled by iPhone and Android. Except of course, as I said earlier, Bitcoin isn't even dominant at all. If Bitcoin gets leapfrogged or fails, the popular perception of that event will be basically non-existent ("What ever happened to that Bitcoin thing we used to hear about?")

[Adrian-x]

Most chineese outsource their servers for obvious reasons. Its not the service providers location that counts but rather the location of their contractors. Nice try

“A very large block size would be problematic for miners because the network bandwidth between China, where the majority of mining is done, and rest of the world is heavily restricted. Important proposals like these need to factor in all of the nuances of the global landscape.”

Are most Chinese outsourcing to the 1 of 91 nodes located in China? the concern quoted above would imply that or it would imply they are outsourcing to some on in North America.

eather way they better jack up of piss off, Bitcoin is not a charity, they should outsource to someone with more bandwidth, let me guess Blockstream wants to keep a client happy by limiting the block size?

Nice try

not a client but $21M worth of investors.

Blockstream have many conflicts of interest, as the Duck says, Wang is outsourcing block propagation and optimization to someone for good reason, how are we to know that service is not benign provided by Blockstream, and if it is, that would explain why all Blockstream employees are looking to limit the block size.

Wang just made it quite crystal clear there is no way for them to outsource to improve propagation or optimization.  he didn't say that specifically but he doesn't have to.  if there was, they would've done it by now to further decrease any orphaning they're already having as their margins are quite thin.  they are in the Nash Equilibrium.  

the smaller Chinese miner on the dev list the other day said they were outsourcing to Alydan and Linode which improved their connection to 100MB/s but still left them at a disadvantage b/c they are in China.  in other words, the limiting factor is not the size of the miner but the fact that they are in China.  which shoots the hell outta the Blockstream FUD.

Thanks,

[Adrian-x]

the only centralization problem i see is the centralization of Core developers under the Blockstream banner, and their lack economic understanding

I don't understand how you can write that given all I have written in this thread about the inherent centralization in Bitcoin's design.

This discourages me about the rationality of the readers here.

If you have rebuttal to the points I made about Bitcoin technical design being centralized, I'd like to read it to see if it is rational.

your Ideas are too convoluted, the total number of miners and nodes expanding and contracting is in response to market conditions and inevitable, I don't buy the idea of a contraction in the number of mining participants or nodes will continue to the point of centralization, able it there is lots that needs optimizing to guarantee it, i think the Nash Equilibrium kicks in at some point and specialization and scales of efficiency balance the network out. 

there are some underlying incentives that maintain the economic conditions necessary to preserve Bitcoin. so long as they are preserved i think we will be fine, the fact that many of the Developers overlook the subtleties and try to control what they see as problematic is a concern and that if anything is the greatest threat i see to Bitcoin.

you have made some good points and i have an idea how you may improve Bitcoin but I cant see it as doomed until i understand the mechanics you seem to find circumvent the existing incentive structure.

so until then, Bitcoin isn't doomed just a risky bet, with odds in favor of my understanding.

[iCEBREAKER]

Looks like Gavin's plan to get the miners to join his coup d'état is not going so great, lol

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114481/chinese-exchanges-reject-gavin-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase

LOL @ Gavin r3kt like Stannis on the Blackwater.   

So much for FrappuccinoDoc's anglocentric assertion that most BTC activity takes place in the EU and US.

This news comes right after f2pool (China's and the world's largest) publicly told Gavin in an exchange (tweeted by Szabo) to calm down, forget about 20mb blocks, and learn to spell their names right.

[justusranvier]

Here's a perfect example of the kind of doublethink coming from the decentralization crowd:

https://twitter.com/Daniel_Plante/status/607009316915191808

https://twitter.com/Daniel_Plante/status/607010068857393152

"the point of decentralization is to give TX confirmation power to as many clueless people as possible."
"300 million ordinary people running full nodes is the goal because they don't get it and don't care. Won't collude."

How many assumptions are baked into those statements?

• The developers/distributors of full nodes are 300 million times more clueful than ordinary humans
• Ordinary humans can not be trusted to make informed decisions, but they can be trusted to listen to the right group of developers
• Decentralization means multiplying by 300 million times the capabilities of a self-selected group of developers who can be trusted to do the right thing, unlike regular clueless humans

War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, and techno-fascism is decentralization.

[iCEBREAKER]

Looks like Gavin's plan to get the miners to join his coup d'état is not going so great, lol

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114481/chinese-exchanges-reject-gavin-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase

LOL, this quote just cut the legs out from Blockstream's main objection to raising the block limit; that being the large block attack  on small miners supposedly facilitated by "superior"  bandwidth connections. Well, the largest miners in the world are telling us they have "inferior"  connections! Lol! What a bunch of amateurs.

“A very large block size would be problematic for miners because the network bandwidth between China, where the majority of mining is done, and rest of the world is heavily restricted. Important proposals like these need to factor in all of the nuances of the global landscape.”

Now you are desperately gainsaying and nitpicking the completely legitimate and highly-informed concerns of the world's largest miners, pools, and exchanges in yet another demonstration of the Gavinesque "rudeness" of which Digcoin CEO Evan Mo spoke:

   

“A decentralized system serves for users all over the world to eliminate racial and cultural discrimination, and needs a democratic mechanism to operate and to avoid that disputes are thrown into the Bitcoin community directly and rudely. We hope it will be possible to figure out a convincing and robust solution, for which is very necessary to listen to a wide range of voices and opinions.”

The big Chinese mine, pool, and exchange operators are pounding nail after nail into GavinCoin's coffin with such domination quotes, and you're just blowing them off.  That's not chutzpah, that just being an obstinately ignorant asshole.

Is there any depth to which you will not sink in your clownish jihad against 1MB blocks and the diffuse/diverse/defensible/resilient system they engender?

[Adrian-x]

Looks like Gavin's plan to get the miners to join his coup d'état is not going so great, lol

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114481/chinese-exchanges-reject-gavin-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase

LOL @ Gavin r3kt like Stannis on the Blackwater.   

So much for FrappuccinoDoc's anglocentric assertion that most BTC activity takes place in the EU and US.

This news comes right after f2pool (China's and the world's largest) publicly told Gavin in an exchange (tweeted by Szabo) to calm down, forget about 20mb blocks, and learn to spell their names right.

They need to use strong words, Hong Kong and China combined have less than 100 nodes and miners face an exponential increase of orphans with a disproportionate increase in blockchain size due to there trans Pacific internet connection.

They have little influence other than political.

They need Bitcoin centralization or SC to survive.

[TPTB_need_war]

Here's a perfect example of the kind of doublethink coming from the decentralization crowd:

https://twitter.com/Daniel_Plante/status/607009316915191808

https://twitter.com/Daniel_Plante/status/607010068857393152

"the point of decentralization is to give TX confirmation power to as many clueless people as possible."
"300 million ordinary people running full nodes is the goal because they don't get it and don't care. Won't collude."

How many assumptions are baked into those statements?

• The developers/distributors of full nodes are 300 million times more clueful than ordinary humans
• Ordinary humans can not be trusted to make informed decisions, but they can be trusted to listen to the right group of developers
• Decentralization means multiplying by 300 million times the capabilities of a self-selected group of developers who can be trusted to do the right thing, unlike regular clueless humans

War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, and techno-fascism is decentralization.

Let me correct their statements to what they were trying to say...

The point of decentralization is that the nodes don't need to care or know, i.e. that decentralization is guaranteed by the protocol independent of any game theory the nodes play. That is a huge difference from requiring diligence and intelligence in order to remain decentralized, which in Logic of Collective Action will never be the outcome — not even once in 6000 years.

Bitcoin (and every crypto-coin I've studied) places too much power in the hands of the consensus and thus requires human diligence from the full nodes (or their functional analog in PoS) in order to remain decentralized.

[iCEBREAKER]

On the Chinese mine objections. Let them cry. Bitcoin is a force for good so if they want to allow themselves to be forked off the network through their local bandwidth problems, so be it. I say do someing about it. It will give miners round the world a chance to level the passing field. And if Wall street really does  want to get into Bitcoin, this will give them a chance to build their own mines. That would be a good thing too so as to further decentralize the process. Personally I think the Chinese gvt will allow their miners to step it up to stay competitive. Bitcoin is their chance to challenge the dollar which is why they haven't crushed it yet.

Bitcoin must remain concerned with "local bandwidth problems" in order to stay diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient.  Not that Gavinstas GAS about that these days; just saying for the record.

And if one cares to RTFA, one notices it contains quotes from major Chinese exchange operators, not "mine objections" (those came a couple of days ago, these are new; please try to keep up with the class).

The exchanges are key to GavinCoin's fate.  The more exchanges stay faithful to vanilla Bitcoin, the more power is given to MP's 'GavinCoin Short.'

[cypherdoc]

Looks like Gavin's plan to get the miners to join his coup d'état is not going so great, lol

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114481/chinese-exchanges-reject-gavin-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase

LOL, this quote just cut the legs out from Blockstream's main objection to raising the block limit; that being the large block attack  on small miners supposedly facilitated by "superior"  bandwidth connections. Well, the largest miners in the world are telling us they have "inferior"  connections! Lol! What a bunch of amateurs.

“A very large block size would be problematic for miners because the network bandwidth between China, where the majority of mining is done, and rest of the world is heavily restricted. Important proposals like these need to factor in all of the nuances of the global landscape.”

Now you are desperately gainsaying and nitpicking the completely legitimate and highly-informed concerns of the world's largest miners, pools, and exchanges in yet another demonstration of the Gavinesque "rudeness" of which Digcoin CEO Evan Mo spoke:

   

“A decentralized system serves for users all over the world to eliminate racial and cultural discrimination, and needs a democratic mechanism to operate and to avoid that disputes are thrown into the Bitcoin community directly and rudely. We hope it will be possible to figure out a convincing and robust solution, for which is very necessary to listen to a wide range of voices and opinions.”

The big Chinese mine, pool, and exchange operators are pounding nail after nail into GavinCoin's coffin with such domination quotes, and you're just blowing them off.  That's not chutzpah, that just being an obstinately ignorant asshole.

Is there any depth to which you will not sink in your clownish jihad against 1MB blocks and the diffuse/diverse/defensible/resilient system they engender?

whoosh, that just went right over your pinhead, didn't it?

i'm not arguing against what the Chinese miners are saying.  i'm listening to what they're saying and using that info to blow a huge hole in yours and the Blockstream devs #1 theory against large blocks, that being the large miner, large block attack they've so incessantly been wanking on about.  it's always been a dubious theory to me and now we have confirmation that it is even more ludicrous than i thought.  typical scare tactics from financially conflicted ppl such as yourself.

[cypherdoc]

On the Chinese mine objections. Let them cry. Bitcoin is a force for good so if they want to allow themselves to be forked off the network through their local bandwidth problems, so be it. I say do someing about it. It will give miners round the world a chance to level the passing field. And if Wall street really does  want to get into Bitcoin, this will give them a chance to build their own mines. That would be a good thing too so as to further decentralize the process. Personally I think the Chinese gvt will allow their miners to step it up to stay competitive. Bitcoin is their chance to challenge the dollar which is why they haven't crushed it yet.

Bitcoin must remain concerned with "local bandwidth problems" in order to stay diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient.  Not that Gavinstas GAS about that these days; just saying for the record.

And if one cares to RTFA, one notices it contains quotes from major Chinese exchange operators, not "mine objections" (those came a couple of days ago, these are new; please try to keep up with the class).

The exchanges are key to GavinCoin's fate.  The more exchanges stay faithful to vanilla Bitcoin, the more power is given to MP's 'GavinCoin Short.'

BTCChina is the #3 pool miner, laggard.

[TPTB_need_war]

the only centralization problem i see is the centralization of Core developers under the Blockstream banner, and their lack economic understanding

I don't understand how you can write that given all I have written in this thread about the inherent centralization in Bitcoin's design.

This discourages me about the rationality of the readers here.

If you have rebuttal to the points I made about Bitcoin technical design being centralized, I'd like to read it to see if it is rational.

your Ideas are too convoluted, the total number of miners and nodes expanding and contracting is in response to market conditions and inevitable, I don't buy the idea of a contraction in the number of mining participants or nodes will continue to the point of centralization

You did not comprehend that I pointed out monopolization mechanisms by which the number of full nodes could even increase yet centralization could still occur.

You also don't seem to comprehend that the number of mining nodes has nothing to do with the fact that the consensus has the power to deny transactions. Bitcoin proponents depend on a diligent human action running full nodes that will fork or blacklist away from any malfeasance. But humans are more self-interested than they are collective goals focused, as the Logic Of Collective Action explains.

Your conceptualization revolving around the # of nodes and economic incentives equilibrium ignores the points I've made about the ability of the cartel to attain the exclusive lowest cost access to electricity and economies-of-scale on hardware optimization.

I've already explained how the incentive structure breaks in numerous scenarios. Do you have your ears covered?

[iCEBREAKER]

Monero's implementation is fixed.

Like Bitcoin, only Monero's emission schedule is fixed (by social contract).  

In all other areas, both remain open to improvement, bound only by the constraint of community consensus.

[iCEBREAKER]

On the Chinese mine objections. Let them cry. Bitcoin is a force for good so if they want to allow themselves to be forked off the network through their local bandwidth problems, so be it. I say do someing about it. It will give miners round the world a chance to level the passing field. And if Wall street really does  want to get into Bitcoin, this will give them a chance to build their own mines. That would be a good thing too so as to further decentralize the process. Personally I think the Chinese gvt will allow their miners to step it up to stay competitive. Bitcoin is their chance to challenge the dollar which is why they haven't crushed it yet.

Bitcoin must remain concerned with "local bandwidth problems" in order to stay diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient.  Not that Gavinstas GAS about that these days; just saying for the record.

And if one cares to RTFA, one notices it contains quotes from major Chinese exchange operators, not "mine objections" (those came a couple of days ago, these are new; please try to keep up with the class).

The exchanges are key to GavinCoin's fate.  The more exchanges stay faithful to vanilla Bitcoin, the more power is given to MP's 'GavinCoin Short.'

BTCChina is the #3 pool miner, laggard.

That's right!  Very good.  Now you know that, at minimum, ~31% of the network (f2pool + BTCChina + Eligius) are against mining GavinCoins.

BTCChina is also one of the largest exchanges.  The first line in the CT article says:

Two of China's biggest bitcoin exchanges - BTCChina and Huobi - have voiced concerns over Bitcoin Core developer Gavin Andresen's proposal to raise the block size limit to 20 megabytes by next year.

The combined defensive power of these huge pro-vanilla pools/mines/exchanges makes it more likely GavinCoin will get r3kt like Stannis on the Blackwater (perhaps thanks in part to MP's 'GavinCoin Short' wildfire WMD).