Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[iCEBREAKER]

Wait..for...it...











Wait..for...it...

[cypherdoc]

If that's what you think you should sell your coins now.

I don't necessarily believe that is the case right now but certainly won't pretend this is not possible, see smooth's comment again for explanation.

The point is we have no way to know and it is a big enough risk that we shouldn't ignore its existence even if we are to pretend the odds for this to occur are small

No one ever said ignore the possibility. But since you are so adamant about the need to worry about it, what do you propose we do?

[brg444]

Wait..for...it...

Later that day....



 

man is desperate

[brg444]

If that's what you think you should sell your coins now.

I don't necessarily believe that is the case right now but certainly won't pretend this is not possible, see smooth's comment again for explanation.

The point is we have no way to know and it is a big enough risk that we shouldn't ignore its existence even if we are to pretend the odds for this to occur are small

No one ever said ignore the possibility. But since you are so adamant about the need to worry about it, what do you propose we do?

 

I thought I told you already not to twist my or anyone's words

[kazuki49]

Interesting post by smooth on another thread, thanks to the last optimizations Monero can actually get near VISA-levels of TPS:

Speaking of block size...what's Monero's capacity in terms of txs per second?

Monero has a very scalable block size solution. It is "adaptive" as it changes with the amount of information going through the Monero network.

Okay, thanks. I'd prefer a number, but what you wrote will do.

What he said was right. There is no hard limit in the protocol. Noodle Doodle's recent benchmarks on an i7-2600K show 2.5 ms average tx verification time (per core) so that would max out at 1600 tx/second.

Usage at that level would require a lot of bandwidth and CPUs slower than a 2011 quad core desktop would not be able to keep up and would need to drop off.

[tvbcof]

Wait..for...it...

Later that day....



 

man is desperate

On the contrary, that is about the only thing I can think of where I agree with Hearn nearly 100%.

That said, it does seem to me that in terms of overall design (which is all I am even vaguely informed enough to critique) 'old school' in the way Hearn seems to have meant it and to me that is a very good thing.  Back in the day, resources of many types were scarce and people had to, by necessity, expend a lot of energy thinking about how to make things efficient.  From what I can tell Satoshi thought a fair bit about some of these things.  In some cases it seems like he had some ideas which were abandoned half way through though.  For instance, the idea of spending all your money and having change returned opens the door for some significant preening but the actually leveraging it to it's potential was something which really never happened.

It is worth note that when the dimension of time is introduced, modern resource availability is not nearly as much of a panacea as it is for someone just trying to get the next release out to a customer or deployment.  Tight and well considered 'old school' designs have a place even in the 'modern' world in some corner-case efforts.  Bitcoin is a classic example of one of these.

s/blast from the past/old school/g

[MarketNeutral]

Once again, Nick Szabo is spot on correct. Kudos!

[ABISprotocol]

What is this thread, "gold collapsing, bitcoin up?"  Yeah, that.  Without commenting on stuff like vaultoro.com partnering with shapeshift.io (kind of interesting hybrid development), I'll just throw this out there and let you chew on it:

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sn3lqs

[Cconvert2G36]

Interesting post by smooth on another thread, thanks to the last optimizations Monero can actually get near VISA-levels of TPS:

Speaking of block size...what's Monero's capacity in terms of txs per second?

Monero has a very scalable block size solution. It is "adaptive" as it changes with the amount of information going through the Monero network.

Okay, thanks. I'd prefer a number, but what you wrote will do.

What he said was right. There is no hard limit in the protocol. Noodle Doodle's recent benchmarks on an i7-2600K show 2.5 ms average tx verification time (per core) so that would max out at 1600 tx/second.

Usage at that level would require a lot of bandwidth and CPUs slower than a 2011 quad core desktop would not be able to keep up and would need to drop off.

The good news, re:groundbreaking study detailing scaling capability in the face of exploding demand, has yet to permeate down to the traders. Early bird gets the worm.

[smooth]

The good news, re:groundbreaking study detailing scaling capability in the face of exploding demand, has yet to permeate down to the traders. Early bird gets the worm.

Looks a lot like



I'm not sure what to make of either graph, other than to say that speculative interest in cryptocurrencies has waned quite a bit over the past 12-18 months.

[sidhujag]

To me spec interest in crypto is at all time high. we just dont see result as of yet. Devs and whales dumping i think depressed prices but not interest

[solex]

What goes up must come down?
or Damned lies and statistics? (squish the x-axis and truncate the y for dramatic effect)

[cypherdoc]

hey iCEBlow,

was it you accusing me a few weeks ago about using sockpuppets on Reddit?  sorry i didn't make the list.  but a couple of your BS core devs did.  :

https://github.com/aehaynes/reddit_authorship/blob/master/sock_rankings.txt

[cypherdoc]

while certainly the Bitcoin network can "handle" the spam tx load and has the capacity for much bigger blocks, that doesn't mean it can't be "congested" for relatively little money esp when the goal is to disrupt new user growth:

BitcoinAddress 3 points an hour ago

A rough guess would be:

Assume:

    6 months = 365/2 * 24*6 = 26,280 blocks
    50,000 txn backlog desired
    500 spam txn's needed to maintain backlog per block confirmed

50,000 txns + (500 txn/block * 26,280 blocks) = 13,190,000 txns

@ network fee cost of 0.0001 BTC = 1,319 BTC

@ $250/BTC market price = $330K

So somewhere between 300K and a Million is my guess. Pennies for big fish.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3dty9w/looks_like_the_latest_stress_test_is_over/ct8pa67

[Patel]

What is this thread, "gold collapsing, bitcoin up?"  Yeah, that.  Without commenting on stuff like vaultoro.com partnering with shapeshift.io (kind of interesting hybrid development), I'll just throw this out there and let you chew on it:

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sn3lqs

nice

[LucyLovesCrypto]

a store-of-value that can't offer anything for the micropayments of the fledgling Knowledge Age, is going no where in terms of network effects.

Bitcoin is going to monopolize network effects in the NWO paradigm that most of the masses will fall into. If you are going to create an alternative, then you must identify the unique network effects of the alternative market.

Micropayments are only feasible given a prunable mini-blockchain like XCN's, or perhaps vaporware such as the Lightening Network.

Bitcoin is not here to create monopolies, it is here to destroy them.  And it brought a friend...

Bitcoin is the good cop; Monero is the bad one.  One hand washes the other, like salt and pepper:

Monero’s Allure

Furthermore, potential attackers are at a disadvantage for another reason. Monero tends to oppose organizations rather than people. Even someone who stands to lose from Monero by not reacting to it, such as a banker or government agent, stands to gain a great deal by buying now. Only the very wealthiest people might reasonably expect to be worse off attempting to buy up as much as possible now than if it were gone. (This could happen if their attempt to buy caused the price to rise too fast relative to their ability to acquire additional Moneros, to the point that they ultimately had less influence over the future Monero economy than they have over the economy of today.) Thus, the agency problem with Monero affects Monero competitors as well as Monero holders.

Nearly any government agent who begins to see Monero as a potential threat must also simultaneously see it as an opportunity. He, too, can invest in Monero. And why shouldn’t he? Monero may be a threat to his livelihood, but it may well be making him an offer he can’t refuse. How can an organization that stands to lose by the adoption of Monero provide its members with a better opportunity for staying loyal than Monero provides for defection?

Even those who might resist the temptation to defect would have to think about the defection of his fellows. How quickly is adoption happening? Is there time to mount an attack before Monero becomes too powerful? How easily could the resources for such an attack be amassed, given both the ignorance and treachery of the other agents. If such an attack would be unlikely to succeed, then buying now would be the only intelligent action. Regardless of whether he liked Monero, it would be futile to continue pursuing a doomed cause.

Potential Monero attackers are in a Prisoner’s Dilemma. In the same way that the people cannot easily rebel against the king owing to a lack of coordination on their part, governments cannot rebel against Monero for the same reason. The government puts the people in a Prisoner’s Dilemma against one another, and Monero does the same to government agents.

Monero is like Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Monero attracts inside men to act as covert saboteurs. There have long been predictions from both Moneroers and naysayers of impending government attacks, but I think there is a possibility that Monero could win without suffering much resistance. Moreover, although I said above only that any legal Monero attack could be perverted, the considerations discussed in this section tend to make such diffusion very likely.

Monero defends itself by being obscure, but once it has attracted someone’s attention, its best interest is for that person to understand the logic presented here. For then he will also understand that his best course is to deny Monero’s threat to his superiors and quietly to become its willing slave.

Because of the automatic availability of privacy with the opt-in alternative of transparency, everything true about BTC is twice as true for XMR.

IE, defection previously impossible or too risky using BTC is now enabled via XMR's radical opacity.  

Very interesting analysis.  I don't necessarily think the events above will happen soon, but when they do they could happen quickly. I see many hero members make positive and negative comments about Monero. Are they any bitcoin core developers that have a public position on its cryptography one way or the other?

Compared to the biased XMR and DASH threads this seemed like a good place to come for an unbiased opinion.

I am not a cryptographer so seek opinions from those better informed than myself

[iCEBREAKER]

hey iCEBlow,

was it you accusing me a few weeks ago about using sockpuppets on Reddit?  sorry i didn't make the list.  but a couple of your BS core devs did.  :

https://github.com/aehaynes/reddit_authorship/blob/master/sock_rankings.txt

Nope, not me.  I've on several occasions told you I don't post at Reddit and despise the venue.

If you think the core devs are BS, I suggest you stop running their code.

Biting the hands which feed you is considered impolite, and performative contradictions destroy credibility.

Not that you have much left after the failed 20MB jihad, failed XT putsch, failed anti-sidechain/lightning FUD, gmax administered spankings, embarrassing Chicken Little falling sky routine, and logical contortions in the Gavin "financial crisis is over" kerfuffle.

[iCEBREAKER]

Bitcoin is not here to create monopolies, it is here to destroy them.  And it brought a friend...

Because of the automatic availability of privacy with the opt-in alternative of transparency, everything true about BTC is twice as true for XMR.

IE, defection previously impossible or too risky using BTC is now enabled via XMR's radical opacity.  

Very interesting analysis.  I don't necessarily think the events above will happen soon, but when they do they could happen quickly. I see many hero members make positive and negative comments about Monero. Are they any bitcoin core developers that have a public position on its cryptography one way or the other?

Yes, Monero is considered by many legendary/hero members to be the next step in crypto.  No other coin even comes close.

Peter Todd says XMR's crypto is legitimate: https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/622022840330682368

gmax has an XMR address on his profile (which can expect a nice Halving Day present from me).

[LucyLovesCrypto]

Bitcoin is not here to create monopolies, it is here to destroy them.  And it brought a friend...

Because of the automatic availability of privacy with the opt-in alternative of transparency, everything true about BTC is twice as true for XMR.

IE, defection previously impossible or too risky using BTC is now enabled via XMR's radical opacity.  

Very interesting analysis.  I don't necessarily think the events above will happen soon, but when they do they could happen quickly. I see many hero members make positive and negative comments about Monero. Are they any bitcoin core developers that have a public position on its cryptography one way or the other?

Yes, Monero is considered by many legendary/hero members to be the next step in crypto.  No other coin even comes close.

Peter Todd says XMR's crypto is legitimate: https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/622022840330682368

gmax has an XMR address on his profile (which can expect a nice Halving Day present from me).

Thank you for the Peter Todd and Greg Maxwell citations!

Are there any more core developers with a position either positive or negative on Monero?

[tvbcof]

Checkpoint.  People are waking up and we crossed the 30/70 threshold...even here on on the defective wording of cypherdoc (Generalissimo, Free Shit Army.)

Question:    Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes    200 (69.9%)
2.  no    86 (30.1%)
Total Voters: 286