Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

everyone is starting to notice.  esp the big hitters like the Nasdaq mafia boys.  anyone who thinks Cripplecoin and the resulting user disruption isn't affecting our rally need to think twice.

i said years ago that high tx costs, like we're starting to get now, will drive all these op_return companies away from Bitcoin.  and it will be the fault of guys like iCEBlow, tvbcof, & the BS core devs.  there will be repercussions:

One potential complication to the vision, however, stems from the current uncertainty and controversy over how Bitcoin’s core developers should modify its software so it can better handle growing transaction volumes (see “Leaderless Bitcoin Struggles to Make Its Most Crucial Decision Yet”).

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/539171/why-nasdaq-is-betting-on-bitcoins-blockchain/

[2112]

I think you're reading too much into it. The point is simpler: if we are to take the argument that "devs know best because they have proven themselves" at face value, the only dev we could credit as having any evidence of being a good incentive designer is Satoshi, since he is the one who designed the incentives. I'm not idolizing Satoshi, just pointing out that the other devs have no track record on that front, so it wouldn't make sense to expect them to be particularly skilled at it.

Where do you want to go with that strawman "devs know best..."?

The more-than-one-dimension thinking is much simpler:

The "dev" members of the core development team were (and are) the people who are willing to lie and misrepresent on absolutely any issue for some short term gain. Those lies aren't only related to the economic issues, they are also related to the strictly technical matters.

I would expect that any non-one-dimensional person will recognize the current discussion as another variant of "how many angels can fit in the mempool?"

Three years ago it was "[POLL] Multi-sig or scalability--which is more pressing?"

blah blah blah blah

Gentle reminder to the other bitcoin developers: it is generally best not to feed trolls.  Use the ignore button.

The immoral equivalent of Gavin Andresen, Mike Hearn, Gregory Maxwell (and others)pontificating on the database technology would be an ophthalmologist (like cypherdoc) giving supposedly professional advice on complications of pregnancy. Fortunately for all of us the "docs" have a code of ethics.

Unfortunately for us there's no ethical code for the "devs". Sa anyone can pontificate about mempool, which is basically a really lame implementation of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-memory_database .

It doesn't take years of medical studies to understand the difference between ophthalmologist and obstetrician.

It shouldn't need years of engineering studies to understand that there's no real technical discussion going on between the various sub-camps in the developer's camp.

[domob]

the exit starts slowly at first and then will morph into a stampede; especially if the price starts plunging.  the mempool is a problem that does have to be fixed so that ordinary users can start getting their tx's through.  they won't be as patient as some of us here.

It looks like the bull cycle has already started and investors are looking for alternatives, likely because of the 1mb attack that has gone unresolved for years now.  Hopefully its not too late to increase the limit and let the bull run... or maybe its time to jump ship.

Or maybe it's just another trick whales are using to get the last weak hands to dump their BTC. This "attack" is just part of their schemes.

You people need to stop with the paranoia and the scare tactics. All this money is gonna end up flowing back into BTC in due times. Lots of people are going to end up holding the LTC, PPC and NMC bag.

I definitely know that I'm using this to "rebalance" my holdings in those three into BTC.  (I've been looking for a good opportunity to get out of LTC and PPC for a long time know; they are pointless.  Only NMC is interesting as a small portion of my crypto portfolio, since it has real features.)  Thanks to all the pumpers for that!

[cypherdoc]

the exit starts slowly at first and then will morph into a stampede; especially if the price starts plunging.  the mempool is a problem that does have to be fixed so that ordinary users can start getting their tx's through.  they won't be as patient as some of us here.

It looks like the bull cycle has already started and investors are looking for alternatives, likely because of the 1mb attack that has gone unresolved for years now.  Hopefully its not too late to increase the limit and let the bull run... or maybe its time to jump ship.

Or maybe it's just another trick whales are using to get the last weak hands to dump their BTC. This "attack" is just part of their schemes.

You people need to stop with the paranoia and the scare tactics. All this money is gonna end up flowing back into BTC in due times. Lots of people are going to end up holding the LTC, PPC and NMC bag.

I definitely know that I'm using this to "rebalance" my holdings in those three into BTC.  (I've been looking for a good opportunity to get out of LTC and PPC for a long time know; they are pointless.  Only NMC is interesting as a small portion of my crypto portfolio, since it has real features.)  Thanks to all the pumpers for that!

wow, good for you!  you've been patient as heck!

[domob]

I definitely know that I'm using this to "rebalance" my holdings in those three into BTC.  (I've been looking for a good opportunity to get out of LTC and PPC for a long time know; they are pointless.  Only NMC is interesting as a small portion of my crypto portfolio, since it has real features.)  Thanks to all the pumpers for that!

wow, good for you!  you've been patient as heck!

Yes, I'm very happy about the pump.   "Unfortunately", it is still (and always was) only a minor part of my crypto portfolio.  I believe mostly in Bitcoin in terms of store of value.  So it wasn't too hard to be patient all along.

[cypherdoc]

Slowly creeping out the door... tiptoe...

[sickpig]

Who ever have put in place this DoS is extremely persistent:

Code:

Unconf Txs:    30202 
Fees:          1.04549825 BTC
Mempoll Size:  73600.9267578125 (KB)

[smooth]

is possible LTC rise to 0.1 BTC? 
I heard bitcoin getting stronger because there are two countries that go bankrupt 

if we weren't being crippled by iCEBlow and his Cripplecoiners, we'd have had the huge LTC rally here.

Yep. This is my take:

 

I really feel sorry for anyone that falls into the trap of this narrative.

I rarely agree with brg and rarely disagree with ICE but in this case I'll do both. LTC is being pumped based on the short term catalyst of the halving and will resume its regularly scheduled march to zero shortly.

[smooth]

Doesn't matter; software changes rapidly and you shouldn't get married to any one implementation (or stock in a promising new sector).

By all means, upgrade the protocol, even to the Litecoin or Monero protocol or whatever. But to change ledgers every time you need to upgrade the protocol doesn't make sense at all. People don't want to have to play stock trader with their bank account.

Fortunately, because of spinoffs (and maybe sidechains), the Bitcoin ledger is a safe place to store value even if the Bitcoin protocol gets superseded.

The problem with this reasoning is that Bitcoin is not a bank account. A chart was recently posted that showed Bitcoin price volatility to be in line with several other asset classes (for some relatively short historical period). Unfortunately, the asset classes were stocks, oil, and a couple of severely damaged/broken currencies. Those are all highly speculative assets.

The nature of speculative assets is that there are more than one of them, people do play stock trader with them, and some of them fail and are replaced by others.

As long as Bitcoin is in the speculative asset category, it doesn't constitute a "global ledger" of anything akin to bank accounts and it makes perfect sense for one speculative asset to potentially be replaced by others. That is nothing like people playing stock trader with their bank accounts.

Only when Bitcoin achieves the status of a reference currency can it claim legitimacy as a ledger that is (even somewhat) immune from the nature of speculative winners and losers, not before.

[NewLiberty]

But your being politically correct and non confrontational by leaving out one major factor that is driving the debate under the hood. And that is Blockstream. They, like Bitcoin, are also about money. Except I'd argue, by crippling Bitcoin, they are about USD's.

The conflict of interest is a real concern, to be sure, but at this point I think it more likely that they are sincere. At least Greg, because he's always been a bit of a pessimist on Bitcoin scalability as a whole, being so code-focused, it really is quite consistent for him to side with Blockstream. Adam I suspect a bit more, since missing out on Bitcoin and all the financial gains despite having created part of it has to hurt, but I'm not at all willing to assume bad faith on his part either. At this point it's basically a social club for their point of view, and I do think the money influence will be corrupting as time wears on, but I'm skeptical that it's having a substantial effect yet. I

In any case, the main point is that it could be but we simply can't know. We can suspect, and it is probably good to needle them about it, but actually jumping to that conclusion as a decided fact doesn't seem helpful to me.

The conflict of interest is a simple matter of the facts.

Whether it is problematic to the point of whether any recusal is warranted is another matter entirely. 
Likely its sufficient to examine on an issue by issue basis.

[TPTB_need_war]

This thread is a perfect example of the power vacuum of politics.

If we had a decentralized system, this thread would not exist.

I am working on that.

[NewLiberty]

i said years ago that high tx costs, like we're starting to get now, will drive all these op_return companies away from Bitcoin.  and it will be the fault of guys like iCEBlow, tvbcof, & the BS core devs.  there will be repercussions:

What high TX costs?  Its up a little, but still less than everything comparable (if anything is).
Miner revenue is up lately.

Using only slightly higher than default fee, your TX gets processed without delay.

[Erdogan]

The sound money is the beginning and the end, the alfa and the omega.

We already have that with gold and silver, but bitcoin has overall better qualities. In times and places where gold has been sound money, it has always been modified with paper substitutes and finanzialization. This has been true the last 500 years. Gold is not sufficiently practical in the modern world. It is the reason why fiat keeps creeping in. With bitcoin, the actual money can be used directly, reducing the danger represented by paper substitutes.

With good quality sound money, people can save money, they are not pressed into risky investments when they don't want. The opportunity to save is the most profound change to the world that bitcoin promises.

[iCEBREAKER]

if we weren't being crippled by iCEBlow and his Cripplecoiners, we'd have had the huge LTC rally here.

Yep. This is my take:

Bwah-ha-ha!  I thank you for that, because I know Frap.doc will be greatly annoyed by being put on the same page as the alt-coiners he hates with such sectarian passion.

The best part is, he did it to himself with his envious, intemperate "if we weren't being crippled by iCEBlow and his Cripplecoiners, we'd have had the huge LTC rally here" remark.   

Maybe it's a good idea to diversify investments in a new sector and keep a few carefully chosen hedges around, instead of getting married in a religious ceremony to one particular enterprise?

Nah, that would violate the principle known as Frappuccino_Doc's Razor:

"The single form of e-cash in which I am heavily invested is so totally legitimate it will replace gold, Visa, and car wash tokens; but everything else is a Ponzi Scheme."

It's just like when you are driving.  Everyone going slower than you is a granny creating a safety hazard; everyone going faster than you is a suicidal moran.  Enjoy your road rage, Frap.doc!   

[cypherdoc]

But your being politically correct and non confrontational by leaving out one major factor that is driving the debate under the hood. And that is Blockstream. They, like Bitcoin, are also about money. Except I'd argue, by crippling Bitcoin, they are about USD's.

The conflict of interest is a real concern, to be sure, but at this point I think it more likely that they are sincere. At least Greg, because he's always been a bit of a pessimist on Bitcoin scalability as a whole, being so code-focused, it really is quite consistent for him to side with Blockstream. Adam I suspect a bit more, since missing out on Bitcoin and all the financial gains despite having created part of it has to hurt, but I'm not at all willing to assume bad faith on his part either. At this point it's basically a social club for their point of view, and I do think the money influence will be corrupting as time wears on, but I'm skeptical that it's having a substantial effect yet. I

In any case, the main point is that it could be but we simply can't know. We can suspect, and it is probably good to needle them about it, but actually jumping to that conclusion as a decided fact doesn't seem helpful to me.

The conflict of interest is a simple matter of the facts.

Whether it is problematic to the point of whether any recusal is warranted is another matter entirely. 
Likely its sufficient to examine on an issue by issue basis.

Correct, but no one wants or should have  to do this on a case by case basis when it comes  down to what's supposed to be a public good, sound money, or digital gold.

[cypherdoc]

i said years ago that high tx costs, like we're starting to get now, will drive all these op_return companies away from Bitcoin.  and it will be the fault of guys like iCEBlow, tvbcof, & the BS core devs.  there will be repercussions:

What high TX costs?  Its up a little, but still less than everything comparable (if anything is).
Miner revenue is up lately.

Using only slightly higher than default fee, your TX gets processed without delay.

The spammer had gotten his feet up to. 0002 earlier but it may have gone back down to. 0001. Yes not much for you or me but maybe not so for 3rd world. Yes, it's mostly an unusability issue. But still, Nasdaq is not going to get aggressive until a solution to the spam occurs.

[sickpig]

It shouldn't need years of engineering studies to understand that there's no real technical discussion going on between the various sub-camps in the developer's camp.

So your take is that devs are going full "political" rather than technical? (serious question)

If yes, what's the way to unlock this impasse?

[awemany]

It shouldn't need years of engineering studies to understand that there's no real technical discussion going on between the various sub-camps in the developer's camp.

So your take is that devs are going full "political" rather than technical? (serious question)

If yes, what's the way to unlock this impasse?

Given the deadlock, I honestly start to think it might be good to do a 'divorce'. As in, we actually agree to disagree, and all see that there are fundamentally incompatible opinions with regards to the direction of Bitcoin. But we can keep it friendly.  This might be less damage/cost than having a hardfork battle solving it in January 2016.

That way we can avoid the fighting and truly let the market work out the rest. We divide up the common assets of the web sites, code repos etc. between Bitcoin/QT and Bitcoin/XT. Make it clear that Bitcoin is now two Bitcoins, and that the user has to decide.

QT and XT simply seem like two people who shouldn't be married. Better have a clean divorce than endless fighting.

Thoughts?

[sickpig]

It shouldn't need years of engineering studies to understand that there's no real technical discussion going on between the various sub-camps in the developer's camp.

So your take is that devs are going full "political" rather than technical? (serious question)

If yes, what's the way to unlock this impasse?

Given the deadlock, I honestly start to think it might be good to do a 'divorce'. As in, we actually agree to disagree, and all see that there are fundamentally incompatible opinions with regards to the direction of Bitcoin. But we can keep it friendly.  This might be less damage/cost than having a hardfork battle solving it in January 2016.

That way we can avoid the fighting and truly let the market work out the rest. We divide up the common assets of the web sites, code repos etc. between Bitcoin/QT and Bitcoin/XT. Make it clear that Bitcoin is now two Bitcoins, and that the user has to decide.

QT and XT simply seem like two people who shouldn't be married. Better have a clean divorce than endless fighting.

Thoughts?

If XT hadn't been a MIke Hearn's creature I would have said 100% yes.

My gut feeling and few facts that I gather along the way (mainly red-listing, but also having decreased dust fee request https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/3305), make me think that way.

But all in all yes, by definition to resolve a deadlock you need to change the policy that have regulated the process since.

I'm still hoping that the situation will be solved without the need of a "schism", though.

Mind you I think that more implementations of the bitcoin protocol (modulo the consensus rules that has to be enforced by
the same library for all the clients) is an healthy thing to have, but that's not the case unfortunately.

[awemany]

@ Solomon's Trial:

The fundamental problem with seeing it as a King Solomon's trial is that Bitcoin is not to be owned ever by either party. It is a false equivalence.

@sickpig:

Maybe a scheme could be worked out where XT and QT would each have their own set of core dev consensus, with only a partial overlap of core devs between the two?