Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[smooth]

Gmax finally getting the treatment he deserves:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3f26b7/thank_you_mike_hearn_for_sticking_up_for_us_this/

I score this for Mike.

He's made a strong case for what the original vision was, and maybe from the perspective of "social contract" that should be kept regardless of whether it is viewed as the "best thing" for Bitcoin. Obviously opinions strongly differ on the latter, and maybe that has to do with the context of us now living in a post-Snowden era which didn't exist when that "original vision" was defined. But the argument against the original vision being nodes all in data centers, most people using SPV, etc. is getting very thin.

Still, that's not really the point. If the original vision is unconstrained growth, and the argument is that the original vision should not be violated, then let it be, security issues or otherwise.

[1714175576]

1714175576

[1714175576]

1714175576

[1714175576]

1714175576

[justusranvier]

He's made a strong case for what the original vision was, and maybe from the perspective of "social contract" that should be kept regardless of whether it is viewed as the "best thing" for Bitcoin. Obviously opinions strongly differ on the latter, and maybe that has to do with the context of us now living in a post-Snowden era which didn't exist when that "original vision" was defined. But the argument against the original vision being nodes all in data centers, most people using SPV, etc. is getting very thin.

There are security challenges with a network consisting mostly of light nodes.

Why aren't more people talking about ways to address them rather than using their existence as an excuse to prevent progress?

[solex]

by running a full node you're helping to prop your investment in the coin and you should be using it to secure your own tx's; which should be a security measure you're willing to pay for.  as the user base grows, if we let it, then merchant base grows with it and they will be more than willing from a security and fiduciary standpoint to increase the availability of full nodes across the network.

^This^ is key to the preservation of Bitcoin as a growing decentralised network.
Yes, miners earn rewards directly and have a estimated ROI, but the majority of full nodes are non-mining, their owners are looking at the long-game, ecosystem growth, and the current situation of be-your-own-bank, escape from CB fiat, fast economical permissionless money transfers.

Constraining volume with a block limit which does not at least increase in line with improving technology will seriously erode the confidence of non-mining node owners, who will switch off, or switch to an alternative coin. This is the real threat to decentralisation.

If average blocks were to increase to 3,5, or 10MB and at some level cause problems for the network then full node owners would rally with Core Dev to put in place a lower temporary limit, or help fund obvious scaling improvements. Bitcoin the network constrained by technical limits will bring people to work together to maintain the $4 Billion enterprise. Bitcoin constrained by an artificial limit which is not wanted by the majority of mining power and user-base will achieve the opposite and destroy co-operation, destroy the enthusiasm to work together, and increase centralisation by reducing node counts.

Edit, of relevance here too: Raystonn nails shut the coffin of the plan to force a "settlement layer"

Much like anywhere else where liquidity moves within a
system, value will move to the network of least friction.  The reality right
now is it's very easy to move value from Bitcoin to another blockchain with
less friction.  Because of this, there will never be a high value settlement
network created by an artificially imposed limit on transaction rate.  The
value will simply bleed out of Bitcoin to alternative blockchains offering
lower fees if this is attempted.  This is basic economics.

[inca]

I am I the only one who can feel the narrative of the blocksize debate shifting?

[Adrian-x]

It's coming soon:

https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/pull/22

I'll bet that 8-20 MB block-chain will not last more than few hours.

is that you Gmax?

[smooth]

He's made a strong case for what the original vision was, and maybe from the perspective of "social contract" that should be kept regardless of whether it is viewed as the "best thing" for Bitcoin. Obviously opinions strongly differ on the latter, and maybe that has to do with the context of us now living in a post-Snowden era which didn't exist when that "original vision" was defined. But the argument against the original vision being nodes all in data centers, most people using SPV, etc. is getting very thin.

There are security challenges with a network consisting mostly of light nodes.

Why aren't more people talking about ways to address them rather than using their existence as an excuse to prevent progress?

Largely because at the moment too many people are obsessed with the block size debate as a gladiatorial contest.

I really doubt that anyone is opposed to improvements to SPV security, although it is also the case (as we've seen with the block size debate) that what one person claims is an "improvement" may not be viewed by others as such.

But to the extent your point is valid, maybe people should take a step back from the block size, work on the other pieces, and then raise the block size again when the infrastructure is there to better support it. I've made that same point with respect to DoS protection and tragedy-of-the-commons issues. You don't just take away the limit, you address the issues that made it necessary, and then it makes sense to loosen it or remove it.

[tvbcof]

Gmax finally getting the treatment he deserves:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3f26b7/thank_you_mike_hearn_for_sticking_up_for_us_this/

I score this for Mike.

He's made a strong case for what the original vision was, and maybe from the perspective of "social contract" that should be kept regardless of whether it is viewed as the "best thing" for Bitcoin. Obviously opinions strongly differ on the latter, and maybe that has to do with the context of us now living in a post-Snowden era which didn't exist when that "original vision" was defined. But the argument against the original vision being nodes all in data centers, most people using SPV, etc. is getting very thin.

Hearn has always been quite brilliant about this stuff and much more far sighted than most.  Not only that but he has demonstrated the energy and ability to make his visions come at least close to reality.  (No shit about this, BTW.)

I do hope that people analyze the path forward and make the decision which is best for them about which fork to follow.if they have much choice in the matter.  By now the various visions for the future are much more defined than they were even half a year ago so there is no excuse for people not to put up or shut up.  Fork it soon please!

I will mention again that I am willing to entertain a proof-of-burn to migrate to a solution which holds to and enhances the aspects of Bitcoin which appealed to me when I first got into it.  What would be groovy would be to do it in such a way that the XT folks could re-mine the things.  This would be good to get more people more interested in XT and jump on that bandwagon (and hopefully stop stinking up ours.)

[kaykawa]

Real money fluctuates in value according to the market.
Fiat only goes down in value.

[iCEBREAKER]

Fully parsed, what you are claiming is

The simple solution is to remove the artificial cap hard fork Bitcoin.

Do you realize how naive that makes you look?

If you truly understood your own position then you would argue it instead of just railing at people who might have an opposing view. Call me some more names, it's really helping the credibility of your argument.

What *is* bloat? (apart from the intentional choice of hyperbolic word). Can you put a value on what is considered bloated? Can you confidently say that your idea of what constitute bloat is some world wide standard?

You put words in my mouth, then claim those invented words make me look stupid. In fact this only serves to make you look even more desperate. if I didn't understand the maxim, I would not be able to point out just how incoherent your thought process must be if you are attempting to equate feature-set with size-of-data. I understand the difference between feature-set and data-size, do you? I'll bet you do. So, don't even for one second pretend you think that systems with more data are inherently more complex than systems with less data.

Do you truly believe they are the same thing or are you again being disingenuous in order to try and maintain your tenuous argument that effectively 'changing a config setting' is somehow more complicated than developing a whole new platform and all the interfaces necessary to communicate.

Its about as elegant as your debating skill....

Fully parsed your argument against Gavin's fix for CVE-2013-2292 seems to be, don't do it because it increases complexity. Again disingenuous or actually not very smart?

Then finally you try to create further confusion between the feature-set of software vs its deployment. To be clear, what is being kept simple is the software. I'm interested to know though just exactly what it is that is complex about the hard fork. I can think of other words that might apply - contentious, unpredictable even undesirable - depending on your viewpoint - but not complex. You put the new release up, and those that want it deploy it. Those that don't do not.

Interestingly those words that apply to the hard fork, could quite easily be used to describe intentionally restricting transaction growth by refusing to update the max block size. So in that respect both 'solutions' are equal.

In another very important respect, they are not equal. Releasing a version of bitcoin core with an increased block size allows for true consensus from the user base. Refusing to do so, is enforcing the view of some core-devs. That's what is despicable.

Thankfully in time, once the details have been ironed out and devs eventually accept some form of block size increase schedule (and they will, however much you cling to your delusion) the hard fork can happen in core, and then the miners can have the final say in what goes forward. If everyone sticks on 1MB coin then you get your wish! I'll send you a cookie, iced with the words "Well done you!".

I think though, that is what you are terrified of. That you know there is actually no way in hell the block size will stay at 1MB, but you are so married to your position that you can't let go and will say anything to defend it. It comes across in your posts.

"Truly understood?"  The True Scotsman called and asks you return his kilt ASAP.   

Fret and mewl more about being called mean names, your endless concern-meta scoldings and finger-wagging process objections (we already know you are afraid to "fight features") are really helping the credibility of your argument.   

The only way to remove the 1MB cap is via a hard fork.  Thus my parsing of your absurd assertion regarding "The Simple Solution^TM" is logically correct.

To quote Hearn, "don't pretend any of this stuff is obvious."

You asked "what is bloat?"  Bloat is Gavincoin, with its undesirable sacrifice of security for (the feature of) MOAR TPS.

I made no generic claims about whether "systems with more data are inherently more complex than systems with less data."

That depends on the inheritances (ie data dependencies or non-dependencies) of the system in question.  Usenet?  No.  Bitcoin?  Yes.  Your retreat into generalities is noted, with all due scorn.   

Raising the block size, if done responsibly with a view to present entailments (100k max tx) and forward implications (Future Gavin vs 2015 Gavin), is not as obvious as 'changing a config setting.'  Again, "don't pretend any of this stuff is obvious."  DoS blocks are only one example of why Bitcoin is only now scaling to 1MB, and why massive order-of-magnitude jumps are hubris.

I want to enable Layer 2+ using the minimum of additional functionality in Layer 1.  You want to stuff all of Layer 2+ into Layer 1.  It doesn't take a PhD in linguistics to see who is proposing bloat.   

Funny how you try to throw the term "eventually" in my face, when I've already said I agree a block size will happen in exactly that timespan.  Quick, pout moar about what a horrible person I am for agreeing with Satoshi!

[cypherdoc]

this is what i've been saying:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3f2u2f/the_block_size_from_a_classic_ddos_mitigation/

[cbeast]

He's made a strong case for what the original vision was, and maybe from the perspective of "social contract" that should be kept regardless of whether it is viewed as the "best thing" for Bitcoin. Obviously opinions strongly differ on the latter, and maybe that has to do with the context of us now living in a post-Snowden era which didn't exist when that "original vision" was defined. But the argument against the original vision being nodes all in data centers, most people using SPV, etc. is getting very thin.

There are security challenges with a network consisting mostly of light nodes.

Why aren't more people talking about ways to address them rather than using their existence as an excuse to prevent progress?

What would you propose that the free market wouldn't do by itself?

[jmw74]

He's made a strong case for what the original vision was, and maybe from the perspective of "social contract" that should be kept regardless of whether it is viewed as the "best thing" for Bitcoin. Obviously opinions strongly differ on the latter, and maybe that has to do with the context of us now living in a post-Snowden era which didn't exist when that "original vision" was defined. But the argument against the original vision being nodes all in data centers, most people using SPV, etc. is getting very thin.

There are security challenges with a network consisting mostly of light nodes.

Why aren't more people talking about ways to address them rather than using their existence as an excuse to prevent progress?

What would you propose that the free market wouldn't do by itself?

The free market doesn't do anything "by itself", it's an abstract concept.

The act of building software (or anything else for that matter) is done by people who need to organize to complete the task. They can't all just sit back and wait for a magical "free market" to come along and do the work for them.

[Erdogan]

He's made a strong case for what the original vision was, and maybe from the perspective of "social contract" that should be kept regardless of whether it is viewed as the "best thing" for Bitcoin. Obviously opinions strongly differ on the latter, and maybe that has to do with the context of us now living in a post-Snowden era which didn't exist when that "original vision" was defined. But the argument against the original vision being nodes all in data centers, most people using SPV, etc. is getting very thin.

There are security challenges with a network consisting mostly of light nodes.

Why aren't more people talking about ways to address them rather than using their existence as an excuse to prevent progress?

What would you propose that the free market wouldn't do by itself?

The free market doesn't do anything "by itself", it's an abstract concept.

The act of building software (or anything else for that matter) is done by people who need to organize to complete the task. They can't all just sit back and wait for a magical "free market" to come along and do the work for them.

You need to read up on the market.

EDIT: All right, that was unfair. Explanation: The market is people who organize to work together. It is magic, in the sense that its workings are not intuitively appearant to a new person entering the world, its workings have to be learnt.

[cypherdoc]

George Gilder: Bitcoin is the Gold of the Internet

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drbEqLIEI3M

[cypherdoc]

Martin Armstrong continues to demonstrate idiocy.  he probably is TPTB_needs_war:

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/35453

[cypherdoc]

Newmont leading the way:

[cypherdoc]

3D Xpoint memory: Faster-than-flash storage unveiled

Why do we need faster storage? The flash storage in my smartphone and PC seems more than fast enough to view and record the photos and videos I want.

Because there are other situations where using today's storage slows things down or introduces constraints.

So-called "big data" tasks are a particular issue.

For example, efforts to sequence and analyse our genes/DNA hold the potential for new and personalised medical treatments.

But copying the huge amounts of information involved backwards and forwards makes this an extremely time-intensive activity at present.

Faster storage would also help cloud services better handle big files.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-33675734

[cypherdoc]

Gold has potential to plummet to $700: Strategist

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/30/gold-has-potential-to-hit-700-strategist.html

[sickpig]

Pieter Wuille's BIP proposal: "Block size according to technological growth"

https://gist.github.com/sipa/c65665fc360ca7a176a6


edit: btc dev ml announcment http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009763.html

[cypherdoc]

Pieter Wuille's BIP proposal: "Block size according to technological growth"

https://gist.github.com/sipa/c65665fc360ca7a176a6


edit: btc dev ml announcment http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009763.html

what does it mean when Wladimir "merges" a BIP over on github?