Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[lunarboy]

I exchanged emails with Greg Maxwell over several aspects of the paper that he questioned.  One point he did make, that I admit is valid but do not personally see as an issue, is that the most profitable "configuration" according to the results from the paper is a single "super pool" made up of ALL the network's hashing power (which would be centralizing).  This would minimize the propagation impedance.  While I agree that this is true, it seems like just another way of looking at the 51% problem.  We already know that if one entity controls a huge amount of hash power they can do nasty things and gain certain advantages.  But it would be nice to find a way to explain why this shouldn't happen with more rigour than the "game theory" or "anti-fragile" fallback positions…

Is there any disadvantage to a pure P2P super pool?

[1714136517]

1714136517

[1714136517]

1714136517

[YoYa]

It's with some delicious irony we find this thread arguing over block size, while Gold really is collapsing, while bitcoin is doing relatively okay hanging close to the 300 - 315 resistance.

While we have a way to go towards parity as of yet, it does seem that gold and btc are heading in the right directions to meet should the trends continue.



I'm just an amature when it comes to XAU, so perhaps the more experienced on this thread might want to give us some insight in where they think gold is going and where bottom lies?

[sickpig]

t0.com

"The Trade is the Settlement"

the new Overstock's blockchain based trading platform.

[cypherdoc]

http://reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3fuz2s/peter_todd_against_gavin_on_the_bitcoindev/cts8dn1

[hdbuck]

It's with some delicious irony we find this thread arguing over block size, while Gold really is collapsing, while bitcoin is doing relatively okay hanging close to the 300 - 315 resistance.

While we have a way to go towards parity as of yet, it does seem that gold and btc are heading in the right directions to meet should the trends continue.

https://i.imgur.com/njmLLAw.png

I'm just an amature when it comes to XAU, so perhaps the more experienced on this thread might want to give us some insight in where they think gold is going and where bottom lies?

nothing new

gold is *being* collapsed.

the only question is, how low will it go?

[cypherdoc]

so if I understand correctly Peter's "landmark paper" rise to the top was.."short like leprechaun".

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/009916.html

a valiant effort I guess. getting some more peer-review probably would've been of better judgment?

ps. I'm not against you "crowd-sourcing" your grammar but I thought the whole exercise on reddit made your thread unreadable.

I don't see how proportion of hash rate has anything to do with orphan rate.  Each broadcast block has the same chance of being orphaned as the next broadcast block, regardless of your proportion of hashrate, with network speed and connectivity being the only major variable.  He needs to show some peterr-style analysis.

It is simple. You never orphan your own blocks. So if you have hypothetically a 99% hash rate you will have an orphan rate that is <1% regardless of propagation time. Someone else on the same network may have an orphan rate that is much greater than 1% given high propagation time.

The numbers work out differently with a more realistic hash rate share (say 15%) but the principle is the same. The higher your share the more of an advantage you get from the prevailing orphan rate being high.

Ok that makes sense

I think the "you" in the phrase "you never orphan your own blocks" needs to be thought about more carefully, but the point is valid that a block's propagation impedance [my (gamma x C)^-1 in the paper] is much less when the information is communicated across a miner's own hardware network compared to when the information is communicated to other miners. The paper spoke to this [albeit less than I should have in hindsight and I didn't explicitly talk about intra-miner communication] in the Conclusion and in End Note 13.  

I was actually working on an "Appendix B" to formalize my definition for tau(Q) by considering these details more rigorously, but the math become too complex and so I felt that such an analysis deserved a follow-up paper instead.  

In any case, my suspicion is:

(1) As long as information regarding the transactions in a solved block needs to be communicated between miners (and even within a miner's own network), the Shannon-Hartley limit will apply, orphaning cost will be non-zero, and the fee market will remain healthy.

(2) We will be able to show that any attempts to create a "mining cartel" that prevents outsiders from accessing the same "fast relay networks" as the cartel members will fail, as individual members will improve their profitability by "cheating" by providing access to non-members. [A point Erdogan mentioned earlier in this thread.]

(3) The results of the paper will hold "as long as honest nodes collectively control more CPU power than any cooperating group of attacker nodes."  [Satoshi White Paper]

great work Peter.  thank you for applying such rigor to what we've suspected all along.

as long as miners and full nodes are free to choose the size of the blocks they will relay/construct as well as employ "defensive" mining, they should be able to defeat a spammer.  as long as they can set their minfees, they should be able to defeat a spammer.  as long as users can outbid a spammer, they too should be able to help defeat a spamming attack.  note the freedom that all these direct economic actors have in this scenario.  they all have a financial incentive to do so.  core dev, otoh, doesn't have and shouldn't have a direct economic incentive in these negotiations (except in an accidental conflict of interest scenario like we have now). even if we agreed they should, they don't have the proprietary info required to make informed economic decisions.

i hear all this talk about how miners would be encouraged to do the wrong thing.  no, Bitcoin encourages them to do the right thing, esp in a no limit situation.  b/c Bitcoin has a fixed and transparent supply of coin and b/c of the open source nature of the protocol, miners have a chance to become the infrastructure of an entirely new financial system.  what an amazing opportunity. they won't want to jeopardize that. all this focus of devs on malicious intent is just a reflection of the suspicious, pessimistic nature of these individuals.  they can't believe such a system like Bitcoin can work.  well, Satoshi has proved them all wrong and Bitcoin grinds on and will be improved and upgraded as necessary to advance and grow the system.  it is inevitable.

i'm reminded of this great video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ic2JRy1SYqA

no miner will go for the blonde (bloated block attack) b/c it would be fatal to their bottom line and ultimate survival ala ghash. we've never seen it and we won't see it. mining is more decentralized than it has ever been and opening up the block caps will encourage growth of mining outside of China as other countries will be able to exploit their superior bandwidths.  and if a consequence of that is that China needs to bring down their GFC, that would be great too in spreading even more freedom.

[zenitzz]

It's with some delicious irony we find this thread arguing over block size, while Gold really is collapsing, while bitcoin is doing relatively okay hanging close to the 300 - 315 resistance.

While we have a way to go towards parity as of yet, it does seem that gold and btc are heading in the right directions to meet should the trends continue.

https://i.imgur.com/njmLLAw.png

I'm just an amature when it comes to XAU, so perhaps the more experienced on this thread might want to give us some insight in where they think gold is going and where bottom lies?

nothing new

gold is *being* collapsed.

the only question is, how low will it go?

If gold drop down to $1000 dollar per ounce. The Russian, Chinese, India and all people of the whole world will buy it.

[Wekkel]

Interesting read from Amerman: http://danielamerman.com/va/GHratio.html
Conclusion: gold is still relatively expensive compared to real estate (in the US)

[rocks]

http://reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3fuz2s/peter_todd_against_gavin_on_the_bitcoindev/cts8dn1

PT is getting trashed in the rest of the comment section those who seem sick of him are getting very highly upvoted

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3fuz2s/peter_todd_against_gavin_on_the_bitcoindev/

I think this whole blocksize "debate" has opened a lot of people's eyes.

[brg444]

http://reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3fuz2s/peter_todd_against_gavin_on_the_bitcoindev/cts8dn1

PT is getting trashed in the rest of the comment section those who seem sick of him are getting very highly upvoted

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3fuz2s/peter_todd_against_gavin_on_the_bitcoindev/

I think this whole blocksize "debate" has opened a lot of people's eyes.

In all honestly PT is probably tired that Gavin is trolling the dev list non stop and just jealous for attention

[iCEBREAKER]

t0.com

"The Trade is the Settlement"

the new Overstock's blockchain based trading platform.

The trade is the settlement...and the settlement layer is the blockchain.   

Move over Frappuccinos, there's now a more valuable use for BTC than yet another payment rail.

[tvbcof]

http://reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3fuz2s/peter_todd_against_gavin_on_the_bitcoindev/cts8dn1

PT is getting trashed in the rest of the comment section those who seem sick of him are getting very highly upvoted

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3fuz2s/peter_todd_against_gavin_on_the_bitcoindev/

I think this whole blocksize "debate" has opened a lot of people's eyes.

Peter Todd is 'toxic' and a poisonous peep because he asks that people quote him correctly and not invent his arguments for him.  LOL.  I don't follow reddit much but when I do I inevitably find it even more useless than our little trolltalk here.

[Zarathustra]

http://reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3fuz2s/peter_todd_against_gavin_on_the_bitcoindev/cts8dn1

PT is getting trashed in the rest of the comment section those who seem sick of him are getting very highly upvoted

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3fuz2s/peter_todd_against_gavin_on_the_bitcoindev/

I think this whole blocksize "debate" has opened a lot of people's eyes.

A runaway victory for the "pseudo science" of Peter_R over Peter T.

[brg444]

http://reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3fuz2s/peter_todd_against_gavin_on_the_bitcoindev/cts8dn1

PT is getting trashed in the rest of the comment section those who seem sick of him are getting very highly upvoted

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3fuz2s/peter_todd_against_gavin_on_the_bitcoindev/

I think this whole blocksize "debate" has opened a lot of people's eyes.

Peter Todd is 'toxic' and a poisonous peep because he asks that people quote him correctly and not invent his arguments for him.  LOL.  I don't follow reddit much but when I do I inevitably find it even more useless than our little trolltalk here.

that anyone would give credence to the mob on there shows the desperation some are experiencing.

if you have followed the dev list for the past 2 months you know exactly what Todd was talking about.

[Zarathustra]

http://reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3fuz2s/peter_todd_against_gavin_on_the_bitcoindev/cts8dn1

PT is getting trashed in the rest of the comment section those who seem sick of him are getting very highly upvoted

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3fuz2s/peter_todd_against_gavin_on_the_bitcoindev/

I think this whole blocksize "debate" has opened a lot of people's eyes.

Peter Todd is 'toxic' and a poisonous peep because he asks that people quote him correctly and not invent his arguments for him.  LOL.  I don't follow reddit much but when I do I inevitably find it even more useless than our little trolltalk here.

that anyone would give credence to the mob on there shows the desperation some are experiencing.


if you have followed the dev list for the past 2 months you know exactly what Todd was talking about.

Same result within the 'mob' in this thread. 28.5% : 71.5%
Zero chance for limited blocks/brains ...

[iCEBREAKER]

How anything can be a mystery to someone of such overwhelming intelligence is the real puzzle here. Sidestepped again, oh woe is me. It's not my job to explain your own view to you. Only you can bring yourself to your senses, you've proved countless times that you won't hear reason from anyone else.

The thrust of the Rome Burning metaphor is not the fact that Rome burns, but that you are Nero meddling fiddling whilst it happens. You missed that point though, so eager to to try and deny that there is any risk https://medium.com/@octskyward/crash-landing-f5cc19908e32

...and gavin said what now?

There is a very good blog post by David Hudson at hashingit.com analyzing what will happen on the network as we approach 100% full blocks. Please visit that link for full details, but basically he points out there is a mismatch between when transactions are created and when blocks are found– and that mismatch means very bad things start to happen on the network as the one megabyte limit is reached.

The only mystery here is how you could possibly extrapolate "moral bankruptcy" and well being coming "at the expense of others" from Davout's explicit "everyone gets to benefit" specification.  I suspect you are assigning moral solvency exclusively to equality of outcome, like a typical Free Shit Army Marxist.

And for the coup de grace, here is what Gavin said last month about your Sky Falling/Rome Burning/Red Zone/QUICK LET'S ALL PANIC-based attempts to ram through ill-considered hard forks using fear and mass hysteria:



Keep in mind this is the same Gavin who declared "increasing the max block size is urgent" back in early May.  Gavin must be using some exotic radial definition of "urgent" with which I am not familiar, because despite his FUD nothing bad happened, and as a result of 'meddling by doing nothing' we now enjoy the benefits of better node/pool/mine configurations, smarter wallet software, RBF, fee market incubation, and pressure on SC/LN development.

Code:

Gavin in May 2015: "increasing the max block size is urgent"
Gavin in July 2015: "The sky will not fall if the block size stays at 1MB"

#REKT

[Zarathustra]

How anything can be a mystery to someone of such overwhelming intelligence is the real puzzle here. Sidestepped again, oh woe is me. It's not my job to explain your own view to you. Only you can bring yourself to your senses, you've proved countless times that you won't hear reason from anyone else.

The thrust of the Rome Burning metaphor is not the fact that Rome burns, but that you are Nero meddling fiddling whilst it happens. You missed that point though, so eager to to try and deny that there is any risk https://medium.com/@octskyward/crash-landing-f5cc19908e32

...and gavin said what now?

There is a very good blog post by David Hudson at hashingit.com analyzing what will happen on the network as we approach 100% full blocks. Please visit that link for full details, but basically he points out there is a mismatch between when transactions are created and when blocks are found– and that mismatch means very bad things start to happen on the network as the one megabyte limit is reached.

The only mystery here is how you could possibly extrapolate "moral bankruptcy" and well being coming "at the expense of others" from Davout's explicit "everyone gets to benefit" specification.  I suspect you are assigning moral solvency exclusively to equality of outcome, like a typical Free Shit Army Marxist.

And for the coup de grace, here is what Gavin said last month about your Sky Falling/Rome Burning/Red Zone/QUICK LET'S ALL PANIC-based attempts to ram through ill-considered hard forks using fear and mass hysteria:



Keep in mind this is the same Gavin who declared "increasing the max block size is urgent" back in early May.  Gavin must be using some exotic radial definition of "urgent" with which I am not familiar, because despite his FUD nothing bad happened, and as a result of 'meddling by doing nothing' we now enjoy the benefits of better node/pool/mine configurations, smarter wallet software, RBF, fee market incubation, and pressure on SC/LN development.

Code:

Gavin in May 2015: "increasing the max block size is urgent"
Gavin in July 2015: "The sky will not fall if the block size stays at 1MB"

#REKT

Urgency begins before the sky is falling. Only limited brains would wait until the sky is falling.

[brg444]

Urgency begins before the sky is falling. Only limited brains would wait until the sky is falling.

When and how do you project the sky to fall?

[iCEBREAKER]

Peter Todd

Peter Todd

Peter Todd

that anyone would give credence to the mob on there shows the desperation some are experiencing.

if you have followed the dev list for the past 2 months you know exactly what Todd was talking about.

Exactly.  The epic buttburn Todd has inflicted, which ranges from the Gavinistas here to those on reddit and back to our DashHole thread, puts him well into Legendary Troll territory.   

[iCEBREAKER]

Code:

Gavin in May 2015: "increasing the max block size is urgent"
Gavin in July 2015: "The sky will not fall if the block size stays at 1MB"

Urgency begins before the sky is falling. Only limited brains would wait until the sky is falling.

I just quoted you Gavin saying "The sky will not fall."  How fucking thick are you?