Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

It's possible that the covert power grab of the manufactured "governance crisis" by gavin and the MIT g-men may have unintended consequences of their own. (I never took gavin for a blockhead or a hot-head, as he has come across in this debate, but now it is clear there are ulterior motives that fit the observed behaviour much better. Now he just seems like a regular, Machiavellian, conniving politician, it's like he has been media-coached by Hearn.

The only concrete ulterior motives that I'm seeing is that Blockstream's profitability entirely depends on scoring consulting clients to support implementing the technologies that they're working on, whose necessity to implement quickly depend on the blocksize not increasing. But if the blocksize simply must be increased, Adam Back's ultra-complicated Rube Goldberg-esque extension block proposal is there to ensure that practically every enterprise in the space has massive incentive to employ Blockstream to have a smooth implementation.

LOL, that's the only thing I see getting crystal clearer today.

Adam is co-founder and President of Blockstream with $21M riding on his back expecting at minimum 10x returns. That's a lot of pressure.

[justusranvier]

The one good thing to have come out of Blockstream is the confidential values technique for blinding output amounts.

What if that technique outlives sidechains and Blockstream?

[BldSwtTrs]

The one good thing to have come out of Blockstream is the confidential values technique for blinding output amounts.

What if that technique outlives sidechains and Blockstream?

Can confidential values be implemented without a sidechain/directly on the mainchain?

[cypherdoc]

The one good thing to have come out of Blockstream is the confidential values technique for blinding output amounts.

What if that technique outlives sidechains and Blockstream?

Very good chance at that happening.

[Mixles]

The one good thing to have come out of Blockstream is the confidential values technique for blinding output amounts.

They hide only the mantissa part of the number and take 2.5KB to achieve that.

My confidential values technique hides the whole number in 0.4KB (subject to ongoing peer review, positive so far).

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1085436.msg11597427#msg11597427

Can confidential values be implemented without a sidechain/directly on the mainchain?

Yes.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

I think Gavin should de-hitch his wagon from Mike Hearn after hearing how Mike proposed centralized checkpointing. The blacklisting thing was his one free pass at a really horrible idea. Now it just looks like he doesn't get what Bitcoin is really about.

I can see why Gavin would utilize XT as an end-run around the political gridlock in core, and I also see that Mike Hearn has a unique perspective and background that is useful, but he should not be a core committer in my opinion. Gavin is the only person qualified to (provisionally) lead the project as far as I can see now, but I think "palling around with Mike Hearn" will be viewed with suspicion, especially if it's unnecessary. Why not just just add in the patch to Core and fork off if necessary?

[justusranvier]

I think Gavin should de-hitch his wagon from Mike Hearn after hearing how Mike proposed centralized checkpointing. The blacklisting thing was his one free pass at a really horrible idea. Now it just looks like he doesn't get what Bitcoin is really about.

I can see why Gavin would utilize XT as an end-run around the political gridlock in core, and I also see that Mike Hearn has a unique perspective and background that is useful, but he should not be a core committer in my opinion. Gavin is the only person qualified to (provisionally) lead the project as far as I can see now, but I think "palling around with Mike Hearn" will be viewed with suspicion, especially if it's unnecessary. Why not just just add in the patch to Core and fork off if necessary?

https://github.com/btcsuite/btcd

[cypherdoc]

I think Gavin should de-hitch his wagon from Mike Hearn after hearing how Mike proposed centralized checkpointing. The blacklisting thing was his one free pass at a really horrible idea. Now it just looks like he doesn't get what Bitcoin is really about.

I can see why Gavin would utilize XT as an end-run around the political gridlock in core, and I also see that Mike Hearn has a unique perspective and background that is useful, but he should not be a core committer in my opinion. Gavin is the only person qualified to (provisionally) lead the project as far as I can see now, but I think "palling around with Mike Hearn" will be viewed with suspicion, especially if it's unnecessary. Why not just just add in the patch to Core and fork off if necessary?

i too think that Gavin has to explicitly state that he will be the lead core dev for XT.  i don't have as much of a problem as you seem to have with Hearn being a core dev for XT as long as Gavin has the last word.  the other good thing is that Gavin can bring in a whole new core dev crew with more academic expertise with more of a like mind towards sound money, which is a big part with how i see these differences btwn Gavin and Greg. 

the checkpoint thing Hearns was talking about was only if there were 2 persistent chains with XT being a minority.  i don't think that will happen.

[Adrian-x]

I think Gavin should de-hitch his wagon from Mike Hearn after hearing how Mike proposed centralized checkpointing. The blacklisting thing was his one free pass at a really horrible idea. Now it just looks like he doesn't get what Bitcoin is really about.

I can see why Gavin would utilize XT as an end-run around the political gridlock in core, and I also see that Mike Hearn has a unique perspective and background that is useful, but he should not be a core committer in my opinion. Gavin is the only person qualified to (provisionally) lead the project as far as I can see now, but I think "palling around with Mike Hearn" will be viewed with suspicion, especially if it's unnecessary. Why not just just add in the patch to Core and fork off if necessary?

I'd agree if you're referring to that interview he did, he didn't do the goal of decentralized control any good.

I'm still open to XT, just not sure he's a good "Linus Torvalds"

[tvbcof]

I think Gavin should de-hitch his wagon from Mike Hearn after hearing how Mike proposed centralized checkpointing. The blacklisting thing was his one free pass at a really horrible idea. Now it just looks like he doesn't get what Bitcoin is really about.

I can see why Gavin would utilize XT as an end-run around the political gridlock in core, and I also see that Mike Hearn has a unique perspective and background that is useful, but he should not be a core committer in my opinion. Gavin is the only person qualified to (provisionally) lead the project as far as I can see now, but I think "palling around with Mike Hearn" will be viewed with suspicion, especially if it's unnecessary. Why not just just add in the patch to Core and fork off if necessary?

I'd agree if you're referring to that interview he did, he didn't do the goal of decentralized control any good.

If you've been paying attention there is nothing new in Mike's recent activities.  Granted, they have become a little more audacious of late.  Probably an artifact of getting pretty much complete control of Gavin and an element of desperation given the fairly amazing progress made by the Blockstream folk.  His half-decade long hopes for the system (a monitoring tool controllable by his beloved leaders in mainstreamland) are fluttering away.

[cypherdoc]

not starting off the week well.  they got 15 hrs to rescue this:

[thebigtalk]

not starting off the week well.  they got 15 hrs to rescue this:

I don't want this ending up stable in 220-ish again. Hope they'll be able to pull it up again. There's a thread I just saw around about the upcoming rise. What do you guys think about that?

[marcus_of_augustus]

The one good thing to have come out of Blockstream is the confidential values technique for blinding output amounts.

What if that technique outlives sidechains and Blockstream?

Perhaps it is time you declared what Monetas's position is on blocksize? And if there is anything in your contracts that allow opt-out "for the betterment of bitcoin" if you become conflicted? You know the same clauses that key blockstream employees have that cypherdoc has glossed over many times in his persistent smearing, defamation and character assassination that you seem to be supporting curiously ...

cypherdoc: how's the hashfast debacle progressing? Been sued for your involvement in that scam yet?

[cypherdoc]

The one good thing to have come out of Blockstream is the confidential values technique for blinding output amounts.

What if that technique outlives sidechains and Blockstream?

Perhaps it is time you declared what Monetas's position is on blocksize? And if there is anything in your contracts that allow opt-out "for the betterment of bitcoin" if you become conflicted? You know the same clauses that key blockstream employees have that cypherdoc has glossed over many times in his persistent smearing, defamation and character assassination that you seem to be supporting curiously ...

cypherdoc: how's the hashfast debacle progressing? Been sued for your involvement in that scam yet?

at least i have the self control not to become as venomous as you.

is this a crusade for you?  you honor me for putting me up on such a pedestal.

[Cconvert2G36]

If you're not catching flak, you're not over the target.

[marcus_of_augustus]

I think Gavin should de-hitch his wagon from Mike Hearn after hearing how Mike proposed centralized checkpointing. The blacklisting thing was his one free pass at a really horrible idea. Now it just looks like he doesn't get what Bitcoin is really about.

I can see why Gavin would utilize XT as an end-run around the political gridlock in core, and I also see that Mike Hearn has a unique perspective and background that is useful, but he should not be a core committer in my opinion. Gavin is the only person qualified to (provisionally) lead the project as far as I can see now, but I think "palling around with Mike Hearn" will be viewed with suspicion, especially if it's unnecessary. Why not just just add in the patch to Core and fork off if necessary?

I'd agree if you're referring to that interview he did, he didn't do the goal of decentralized control any good.

If you've been paying attention there is nothing new in Mike's recent activities.  Granted, they have become a little more audacious of late.  Probably an artifact of getting pretty much complete control of Gavin and an element of desperation given the fairly amazing progress made by the Blockstream folk.  His half-decade long hopes for the system (a monitoring tool controllable by his beloved leaders in mainstreamland) are fluttering away.

I'm glad someone else is paying attention. The productivity of the current crop of core devs has outpaced the surveillance branch and Gavin's threat to fork is a desperate attempt to regain control, which is fast slipping away from them, just through sheer innovation. They are losing in the meritocracy stakes.

Gavin's last major contribution was back-dooring bitcoin privacy through the broken X.409 bolt-on kludge, 'payments security' (theatre). He is not a leader in content, quality or name any longer as far as I am concerned. And he still needs to come clean about how much and when he knew about the Bitcoin Foundation collapse, after drawing a salary from them for so long and being the sole reason it was instituted. He seems to be in a hurry to distance himself from that particular fiasco.

[marcus_of_augustus]

The one good thing to have come out of Blockstream is the confidential values technique for blinding output amounts.

What if that technique outlives sidechains and Blockstream?

Perhaps it is time you declared what Monetas's position is on blocksize? And if there is anything in your contracts that allow opt-out "for the betterment of bitcoin" if you become conflicted? You know the same clauses that key blockstream employees have that cypherdoc has glossed over many times in his persistent smearing, defamation and character assassination that you seem to be supporting curiously ...

cypherdoc: how's the hashfast debacle progressing? Been sued for your involvement in that scam yet?

at least i have the self control not to become as venomous as you.

is this a crusade for you?  you honor me for putting me up on such a pedestal.

do unto others as you would have them do unto you ...

[cypherdoc]

The one good thing to have come out of Blockstream is the confidential values technique for blinding output amounts.

What if that technique outlives sidechains and Blockstream?

Perhaps it is time you declared what Monetas's position is on blocksize? And if there is anything in your contracts that allow opt-out "for the betterment of bitcoin" if you become conflicted? You know the same clauses that key blockstream employees have that cypherdoc has glossed over many times in his persistent smearing, defamation and character assassination that you seem to be supporting curiously ...

cypherdoc: how's the hashfast debacle progressing? Been sued for your involvement in that scam yet?

at least i have the self control not to become as venomous as you.

is this a crusade for you?  you honor me for putting me up on such a pedestal.

do unto others as you would have them do unto you ...

do you ever have any real arguments to bring to the debate?  or is it always just slander and defamation with you?

[marcus_of_augustus]

The one good thing to have come out of Blockstream is the confidential values technique for blinding output amounts.

What if that technique outlives sidechains and Blockstream?

Perhaps it is time you declared what Monetas's position is on blocksize? And if there is anything in your contracts that allow opt-out "for the betterment of bitcoin" if you become conflicted? You know the same clauses that key blockstream employees have that cypherdoc has glossed over many times in his persistent smearing, defamation and character assassination that you seem to be supporting curiously ...

cypherdoc: how's the hashfast debacle progressing? Been sued for your involvement in that scam yet?

at least i have the self control not to become as venomous as you.

is this a crusade for you?  you honor me for putting me up on such a pedestal.

do unto others as you would have them do unto you ...

do you ever have any real arguments to bring to the debate?  or is it always just slander and defamation with you?

Unfortunately that is the standard you have set in your own thread, and on reddit also it seems. I'm just obliging after you choose to play the man and not the ball, on enough occasions now to show that it is not just a fluke, but you are intent on poisoning the debate and swerving away from legitimate technical discussion. Endlessly parroting character smears doesn't make them real.

I kind of regret that I may have armed you with so many big words and concepts that you might actually sound convincingly smart enough to be dangerous, to the unwary reader.

[cypherdoc]

The one good thing to have come out of Blockstream is the confidential values technique for blinding output amounts.

What if that technique outlives sidechains and Blockstream?

Perhaps it is time you declared what Monetas's position is on blocksize? And if there is anything in your contracts that allow opt-out "for the betterment of bitcoin" if you become conflicted? You know the same clauses that key blockstream employees have that cypherdoc has glossed over many times in his persistent smearing, defamation and character assassination that you seem to be supporting curiously ...

cypherdoc: how's the hashfast debacle progressing? Been sued for your involvement in that scam yet?

at least i have the self control not to become as venomous as you.

is this a crusade for you?  you honor me for putting me up on such a pedestal.

do unto others as you would have them do unto you ...

do you ever have any real arguments to bring to the debate?  or is it always just slander and defamation with you?

Unfortunately that is the standard you have set in your own thread, and on reddit also it seems. I'm just obliging after you choose to play the man and not the ball, on enough occasions now to show that it is not just a fluke, but you are intent on poisoning the debate and swerving away from legitimate technical discussion. Endlessly parroting character smears doesn't make them real.

I kind of regret that I may have armed you with so many big words and concepts that you might actually sound convincingly smart enough to be dangerous, to the unwary reader.

lots and lots of big words.  never any justification for preventing Bitcoin from fulfilling it's original vision:

Satoshi Nakamoto wrote:
> The bandwidth might not be as prohibitive as you
> think.  A typical transaction would be about 400 bytes
> (ECC is nicely compact).  Each transaction has to be
> broadcast twice, so lets say 1KB per transaction.
> Visa processed 37 billion transactions in FY2008, or
> an average of 100 million transactions per day.  That
> many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth, or
> the size of 12 DVD or 2 HD quality movies, or about
> $18 worth of bandwidth at current prices.


https://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography%40metzdowd.com/msg10006.html