Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Pruden]

In my opinion this (a couple of months +/-) is the bottom in PM's, general sentiment is apalling.

https://twitter.com/jessefelder/status/628285488663691264

[iCEBREAKER]

the Cripplecoiners all but admitted that it is not a technical limitation that they are worried about

the last thing these guys want to do; SHARE.

You are exaggerating again; Team 1MB has not "all but admitted" any such thing.  To the contrary:



How quickly you forget your weeks of shilling for 20MB Gavinblocks, only to have that pipe dream #rekt by your ignorance of mining's technical limitations.   

And yes, we do want to SHARE the utility of Bitcoin with everyone, even the FSA.  Just not in the naive, unscalable way you want:

The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain".

Let me draw you a freaking picture, since you are a remarkably slow learner of this subject matter:

"everyone gets to write into the holy ledger" = equality of outcome = economic impossibility = BAD

"everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain" = equality of opportunity = economic rationality = GOOD

By promoting equality of outcome and denigrating equality of opportunity, you appoint yourself Generalissimo Frappuccino of the Free Shit Army.

Is that clear enough?  I am fully capable of explaining in even more excruciating detail if you still don't get it.   

[cypherdoc]

the Cripplecoiners all but admitted that it is not a technical limitation that they are worried about

the last thing these guys want to do; SHARE.

You are exaggerating again; Team 1MB has not "all but admitted" any such thing.  To the contrary:



How quickly you forget your weeks of shilling for 20MB Gavinblocks, only to have that pipe dream #rekt by your ignorance of mining's technical limitations.   

And yes, we do want to SHARE the utility of Bitcoin with everyone, even the FSA.  Just not in the naive, unscalable way you want:

The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain".

Let me draw you a freaking picture, since you are a remarkably slow learner of this subject matter:

"everyone gets to write into the holy ledger" = equality of outcome = economic impossibility = BAD

"everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain" = equality of opportunity = economic rationality = GOOD

By promoting equality of outcome and denigrating equality of opportunity, you appoint yourself Generalissimo Frappuccino of the Free Shit Army.

Is that clear enough?  I am fully capable of explaining in even more excruciating detail if you still don't get it.   

nah, you've done enough explaining.  you're just greedy.  plain and simple.

[iCEBREAKER]

growth?  what f*cking growth?:

Weren't you listening when Gavin told us "the financial crisis is over" thanks to binge-watching of Broadchurch, Wolf Hall and Peaky Blinders?  Those show are so good (especially in 1080) they saved the world economy from petrodollar collapse!  Hooray!

The f*cking growth is right here bro:



and here:



 

We will all soon be running BitcoinSX nodes with 20MB++ Gavinblocks, thanks to the fibre-to-the-screen broadband infrastructure AMZN and NFLX will be deploying...any...second...now...

[tvbcof]

By promoting equality of outcome and denigrating equality of opportunity, you appoint yourself Generalissimo Frappuccino of the Free Shit Army. ...

I have to beg forgiveness for employing the (rather hilarious) term 'generalissimo' in association with the 'Free Shit Army' without looking up the definition.  A 'generalissimo' is actually the supreme commander of all forces; not just the 'army' so the word doesn't make sense in this context.

So our dear friend cypherdoc would be more accurately described as 'Generalissimo Frappuccino of the Free Shit Nation' since clearly that is how he imagines himself.  In reality he's just another pinko as you correctly describe, and a slimy shill for at least one entity and possibly more.

[iCEBREAKER]

Let me draw you a freaking picture, since you are a remarkably slow learner of this subject matter:

"everyone gets to write into the holy ledger" = equality of outcome = economic impossibility = BAD

"everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain" = equality of opportunity = economic rationality = GOOD

By promoting equality of outcome and denigrating equality of opportunity, you appoint yourself Generalissimo Frappuccino of the Free Shit Army.

Is that clear enough?  I am fully capable of explaining in even more excruciating detail if you still don't get it.   

nah, you've done enough explaining.  you're just greedy.  plain and simple.

Of course you attack my motivation when you have nothing to say about the economics of Marxist equality of outcome vs capitalist equality of opportunity.

The impossibility of equal outcomes is exactly why the FSA always wants moar free shit.  And you want to subsidize them moar, by further externalizing the costs of eternal spam tx storage and rebroadcast to full node operators.

Regarding greed, it is in hindsight now obvious how silly the Redditurd mob's reasoning about Gavinblocks was.

In Gavinista logic, increasing the blocksize by a factor of 20 would magically grow Bitcoin's user base by the same multiple, and by Metcalfe's network effect, each Bitcoin would suddenly be worth 20^2 times more.  Too bad that turned out to be a load of BS.   

And you call me greedy?  LOL, I'm the only other person (besides your lawyer and the judge) in the entire universe speaking out against the forcible taking and redistribution of your LeBronCoin hoard, in spite of the fact I would materially benefit from such actions.

[iCEBREAKER]

I've tried really hard to try and see the opposing POV but I come up short every time, and I think that's because I can't understand the philosophy behind making BTC some elitist tool when it seemed right from the outset that it was anything but.

If that makes me part of the "free-shit" army, then so be it. I'm not (yet) so morally bankrupt that I think that my well being can only come at the expense of others. That's what cripplecoin sounds like, thats why I don't want any part of it.

You aren't trying that hard if you can't read and understand this fairly simple, single sentence summation of the opposing POV:

The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain".

Where in Davout's statement is the "moral bankruptcy?"  All I see is economic literacy and an understanding of the technical limitations of scaling Bitcoin I/O.

Where in Davout's statement is the desire for well being coming "at the expense of others?"  All I see is a workable plan for radical inclusion ("everyone gets to benefit"), albeit not in the manner preferred by those with atrociously paltry understandings of Bitcoin and economics.

[rocks]

justus, all

it seems that awareness of the need to introduce economic incentives for services provided by full nodes are rising among devs community, see this thread on the btc dev mailing list:

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/009879.html

let's see how core devs will react to this idea.

How would this work if you issue (say) one txn per day on average?  I mean, wouldn't it take a month or even a year before the SPV client summed up enough use to make it worth committing the txn?  Are there risks to having a payment channel or LN connection open for these durations?

To me the economic incentives for full nodes have always been obvious.

In the end full nodes will be services that charge a fee for SPV clients to access. i.e. if you want to connect to the network as a leacher (which is fine) the only peers you will be able to access will charge nominal small amounts to do so.

In this model it is likely that we would have a variety of full nodes types
a) Private business nodes - i.e. Nodes run by entities such as coinbase, bitpay, amazon, etc as a method to verify transactions themselves. After certain bandwidth limits it is likely these nodes will not provide data upload to just anyone
b) P2P services - i.e. Nodes that are run as for profit services that charge some market based amount for SPV clients.
c) NGO type nodes - i.e. Nodes run by non-profits for the general community (MIT node, EFF node, etc).

The incentive structure does not need to be put into the protocol, market dynamics on their own will create the proper incentive structure. In other words if it becomes too difficult for your average person to run a node or if there are not enough nodes to provide data upload for free, then a market will create on its own to fulfill this need.

The ignorance of Bitcoin's current crop of "board of director" types regarding the nature of free markets is both highly ironic and sad.

[jbreher]

and gold will be at $400

maybe paper gold. You'll never get any gold that you can hold nowhere near that price.
In fact if BTC goes todamoon again and PM stay depressed I will stack some more phyzz.

still a gold bug?

since when can you get a better price at your local bullion dealer than what's priced on comex?

I don't think he was speaking of the comparative cost of local/comex. I think he was speaking of the comparative value of cold hard metal in hand vs. a piece of paper claiming ownership rights, irredeemable when the collapse comes.

[majamalu]

The ignorance of Bitcoin's current crop of "board of director" types regarding the nature of free markets is both highly ironic and sad.

Indeed. They remind me of those goldbugs who think we don't need a market in money because gold already won.

Bitcoin has a long way before becoming the world settlement layer. That shit is not free  

[Melbustus]

...

The incentive structure does not need to be put into the protocol, market dynamics on their own will create the proper incentive structure. In other words if it becomes too difficult for your average person to run a node or if there are not enough nodes to provide data upload for free, then a market will create on its own to fulfill this need.

The ignorance of Bitcoin's current crop of "board of director" types regarding the nature of free markets is both highly ironic and sad.

Yes, agreed. From the small-block crowd, to the 21m-cap-needs-inflation crowd, there's a distressing lack of appreciation for how markets tend to find viable equilibria...

[Peter R]

I’d like to share a research paper I’ve recently completed titled “A Transaction Fee Market Exists Without a Block Size Limit.”  I formalizes the ideas from Cypherdoc, Adrian-X, thezerg, Rocks, ZB, Justus Ranvier, Solex, Melbustus, Majamalu and many others here.   In addition to presenting some useful charts such as the cost to produce large spam blocks, I think the paper convincingly demonstrates that due to the orphaning cost, a block size limit is not necessary to ensure a functioning fee market.  

The paper does not argue that a block size limit is unnecessary in general, and in fact brings up questions related to mining cartels and the size of the UTXO set.  

It can be downloaded in PDF format here:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/43331625/feemarket.pdf

Or viewed with a web-browser here:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/273443462/A-Transaction-Fee-Market-Exists-Without-a-Block-Size-Limit

And here is its Reddit thread:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3fpuld/a_transaction_fee_market_exists_without_a_block/

[smooth]

I’d like to share a research paper I’ve recently completed titled “A Transaction Fee Market Exists Without a Block Size Limit.”

Wonderful work, Peter R. Congratulations! I do find the last paragraph a bit unsatisfying though.

[cypherdoc]

I’d like to share a research paper I’ve recently completed titled “A Transaction Fee Market Exists Without a Block Size Limit.”  I formalizes the ideas from Cypherdoc, Adrian-X, thezerg, Rocks, ZB, Justus Ranvier, Solex, Melbustus, Majamalu and many others here.   In addition to presenting some useful charts such as the cost to produce large spam blocks, I think the paper convincingly demonstrates that due to the orphaning cost, a block size limit is not necessary to ensure a functioning fee market.  

The paper does not argue that a block size limit is unnecessary in general, and in fact brings up questions related to mining cartels and the size of the UTXO set.  

It can be downloaded in PDF format here:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/43331625/feemarket.pdf

Or viewed with a web-browser here:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/273443462/A-Transaction-Fee-Market-Exists-Without-a-Block-Size-Limit

And here is its Reddit thread:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3fpuld/a_transaction_fee_market_exists_without_a_block/

Very much looking forward  to reading in the morning.

[Zarathustra]

growth?  what f*cking growth?:

Weren't you listening when Gavin told us "the financial crisis is over" thanks to binge-watching of Broadchurch...

On what planet do you live?
It is over. For the time being. As always. Recessions, crises, depressions appear cyclically. As everybody knows. The economy has been growing since 2010.

[Zarathustra]

By promoting equality of outcome and denigrating equality of opportunity, you appoint yourself Generalissimo Frappuccino of the Free Shit Army. ...

I have to beg forgiveness for employing the (rather hilarious) term 'generalissimo' in association with the 'Free Shit Army' without looking up the definition.  A 'generalissimo' is actually the supreme commander of all forces; not just the 'army' so the word doesn't make sense in this context.

So our dear friend cypherdoc would be more accurately described as 'Generalissimo Frappuccino of the Free Shit Nation' since clearly that is how he imagines himself.  In reality he's just another pinko as you correctly describe, and a slimy shill for at least one entity and possibly more.

You're still a stalker without charisma. That's why you're here and not elsewhere.
A primitive anonymous pseudonym abusing his anonymity to harass individuals and their privacy. A low life at its best.

[conspirosphere.tk]

and gold will be at $400

maybe paper gold. You'll never get any gold that you can hold nowhere near that price.
In fact if BTC goes todamoon again and PM stay depressed I will stack some more phyzz.

still a gold bug?

since when can you get a better price at your local bullion dealer than what's priced on comex?

more than a gold bug, a paper bear :-D.  An interesting thing is that premiums on physical are increasing the more they push comex price down. At this rate soon they will break their toy and they will decouple, possibly (hopefully) forever. And it's interesting especially because they could play the same crooked game with bitcoins.

[Zarathustra]

and gold will be at $400

maybe paper gold. You'll never get any gold that you can hold nowhere near that price.
In fact if BTC goes todamoon again and PM stay depressed I will stack some more phyzz.

still a gold bug?

since when can you get a better price at your local bullion dealer than what's priced on comex?

more than a gold bug, a paper bear :-D.  An interesting thing is that premiums on physical are increasing the more they push comex price down. At this rate soon they will break their toy and they will decouple, possibly (hopefully) forever. And it's interesting especially because they could play the same crooked game with bitcoins.

Debt is not paper. Debt is debt (= money), and that has always been the basis of every economy. Whether debt is written on paper or on clay tablets (mesopot) makes no difference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_First_5000_Years

[Natalia_AnatolioPAMM]

The ignorance of Bitcoin's current crop of "board of director" types regarding the nature of free markets is both highly ironic and sad.

Indeed. They remind me of those goldbugs who think we don't need a market in money because gold already won.

Bitcoin has a long way before becoming the world settlement layer. That shit is not free  

and I'm not even sure bitcoin is capable of going through that

[conspirosphere.tk]

Debt is not paper. Debt is debt (= money), and that has always been the basis of every economy. Whether debt is written on paper or on clay tablets (mesopot) makes no difference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_First_5000_Years

Debt can be money until it's not (default / no CONfidence). Serious/sound money is only commodity-money. And then there is pure fiat which is another big "irredeemable" con, but not debt.

No man's credit is as good as his money.