Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[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.

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.

Why would they step in to buy if they felt they might get it cheaper by holding out for a bit longer? I appreciate gold, but it ain't got no magical powers either, the markets will decide it's value, not its proponents. Goldbugs would do well to reflect upon that fact.

[1714047151]

1714047151

[1714047151]

1714047151

[1714047151]

1714047151

[1714047151]

1714047151

[1714047151]

1714047151

[smoothie]

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]

Peter,

I read through about half of your paper and it outlines the issues very well. What it appears to me is how things will be moving forward there will be no block size limit and the network will be self-regulating as there is increased risk in creating larger blocks for more fees (i.e. pay off) in the form of that block being orphaned.

What I am still on the side lines about is whether there will be a successful attack on creating a very large block like say 1 TB just be happenstance.

Of course putting an upper limit on the block size could help I personally would like to see bitcoin stand on its own two feet with no limit restrictions on block sizes and let the free market of miners and attackers decide on how big the blocks should be going forward.

I'll have to read the rest of your paper but so far it is very interesting how you have outline the major issues and put them into visual representations for all to see and understand.

[cypherdoc]

Peter's problem, if you call it a problem at all, is that I've only seen one person have the confidence or ability to step up and discuss the math with him. That's pretty damn  impressive.

Instead, all we get is a childish scolding by a hand waving armchair logic dev also by the name of Peter.

[majamalu]

Peter's problem, if you call it a problem at all, is that I've only seen one person have the confidence or ability to step up and discuss the math with him. That's pretty damn  impressive.

Instead, all we get is a childish scolding by a hand waving armchair logic dev also by the name of Peter.

That's why I think this will not be solved with more debate.

[cypherdoc]

Gavin responds with a killer answer, similar to the one i've made before, to a Blockstream dev who fails to consider anything except his tunnel vision concept of a "small miner".  bottom line being, just b/c a small miner might be small says nothing about his capacity to fend off attacks from "large miners":

On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Jorge Timón <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

    Miner A is able to process 100 M tx/block while miner B is only able
    to process 10 M tx/block.

    Will miner B be able to maintain itself competitive against miner B?

    The answer is: it depends on the consensus maximum block size.

 
No, it depends on all of the variables that go into the mining profitability equation.

Does miner B have access to cheaper electricity than miner A?
Access to more advanced mining hardware, sooner?
Ability to use excess heat generated from mining productively?
Access to inexpensive labor to oversee their operations?
Access to inexpensive capital to finance investment in hardware?

The number of fee-paying transactions a miner can profitably include in their blocks will certainly eventually be part of that equation (it is insignificant today), and that's fantastic-- we WANT miners to include lots of transactions in their blocks.

--
--
Gavin Andresen



_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

[cypherdoc]

Peter's problem, if you call it a problem at all, is that I've only seen one person have the confidence or ability to step up and discuss the math with him. That's pretty damn  impressive.

Instead, all we get is a childish scolding by a hand waving armchair logic dev also by the name of Peter.

That's why I think this will not be solved with more debate.

correct. 

[iCEBREAKER]

Peter's problem, if you call it a problem at all, is that I've only seen one person have the confidence or ability to step up and discuss the math with him. That's pretty damn  impressive.

Instead, all we get is a childish scolding by a hand waving armchair logic dev also by the name of Peter.

That's why I think this will not be solved with more debate.

More debate won't solve this *in the way you prefer.*

But more debate prolongs the stalemate, which is the preferred outcome of Team Core.

I don't see Frap.doc listed here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/graphs/contributors

PT is #15 in terms of commits to Bitcoin.  The nerve of Doctor Frappe and you flinging the counterfactul "armchair" label at him is astonishing.

But I'm not worried about PT's feelings being hurt, because of the astronomical levels of satisfaction he is surely deriving from so successfully trolling and wrecking you hapless Gavinistas.   

[shane]

so which is better for investmen ?
sell gold buy bitcoin ?
or
sell bitcoin and buy gold  ?

[smooth]

so which is better for investmen ?
sell gold buy bitcoin ?
or
sell bitcoin and buy gold  ?

Sell both. Hold dollars. As long as King Dollar is on the throne pretty much everything else is fighting a losing battle. Eventually that will reverse, but not yet.

[cypherdoc]

so which is better for investmen ?
sell gold buy bitcoin ?
or
sell bitcoin and buy gold  ?

Sell both. Hold dollars. As long as King Dollar is on the throne pretty much everything else is fighting a losing battle. Eventually that will reverse, but not yet.

no wonder you're such a Monero bull.

don't you think it's kinda contradictory that you think block scaling is a selling pt for Monero but would be a negative for Bitcoin?

[smooth]

so which is better for investmen ?
sell gold buy bitcoin ?
or
sell bitcoin and buy gold  ?

Sell both. Hold dollars. As long as King Dollar is on the throne pretty much everything else is fighting a losing battle. Eventually that will reverse, but not yet.

no wonder you're such a Monero bull.

don't you think it's kinda contradictory that you think block scaling is a selling pt for Monero but would be a negative for Bitcoin?

I already said on this thread that I'm not sure block scaling in Monero will work out. At least one if not more of the core developers wanted to remove it, and it was only left as an experiment to see what happens (after all it could work).

What does that have to do with King Dollar anyway? I'm not really much of a Monero bull right now in trading terms for that reason, although if you are trading XMRBTC (as opposed to effective XMRUSD), that is doing okay at the moment.

[kazuki49]

fiat is king. btw the hate bitcoiners have against fiat is far stronger than the political skirmish some moneranoj have against bitcoin (me included, I dont see reasons to use bitcoin anymore), seeing how bitcoin needs fiat to survive its quite a paradox it is hated so much, monero on other hand doesnt need bitcoin to survive.

[Zarathustra]

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?

He's right. The sky would not fall.

[Natalia_AnatolioPAMM]

fiat is king. btw the hate bitcoiners have against fiat is far stronger than the political skirmish some moneranoj have against bitcoin (me included, I dont see reasons to use bitcoin anymore), seeing how bitcoin needs fiat to survive its quite a paradox it is hated so much, monero on other hand doesnt need bitcoin to survive.

That's so true. Agree with you wholeheartedly. Bitcoin is nothing in a real life without fiat.

[Zarathustra]

Peter's problem, if you call it a problem at all, is that I've only seen one person have the confidence or ability to step up and discuss the math with him. That's pretty damn  impressive.

Instead, all we get is a childish scolding by a hand waving armchair logic dev also by the name of Peter.

That's why I think this will not be solved with more debate.

More debate won't solve this *in the way you prefer.*

But more debate prolongs the stalemate,

Why monero matters
- Adaptive limits. Doesn't suffer from the 1MB block limits

https://moneroeconomy.com/faq/why-monero-matters

[sgbett]

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

The problem with calling people 'fucking morons' is it really bites you in the ass when you say something stupid yourself.

Your "coup de grace" only serves to illustrate the point I have made several times here, that whatever anyone says, you will find some way to spin it to suit your own agenda.

Here is your last post, without the fancy words:

I don't understand why its fair for everyone to be able to use the blockchain, I'm afraid that somehow I won't be able to get more benefit than everyone else, so I'll call you names.

I don't really care about facts or reason, I just like arguing on the internet because I feel safe protected by anonymity and the lack of accountability it affords me. Look how I can misconstrue this quote to support my argument.

Hey everyone look at me I am super cool because I can make text red and I know what a hashtag is.

Yeah its ad hom. sue me.

[stereotype]

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

The problem with calling people 'fucking morons' is it really bites you in the ass when you say something stupid yourself.

Your "coup de grace" only serves to illustrate the point I have made several times here, that whatever anyone says, you will find some way to spin it to suit your own agenda.

Here is your last post, without the fancy words:

I don't understand why its fair for everyone to be able to use the blockchain, I'm afraid that somehow I won't be able to get more benefit than everyone else, so I'll call you names.

I don't really care about facts or reason, I just like arguing on the internet because I feel safe protected by anonymity and the lack of accountability it affords me. Look how I can misconstrue this quote to support my argument.

Hey everyone look at me I am super cool because I can make text red and I know what a hashtag is.

Yeah its ad hom. sue me.

Nicely done. 

I decided that decentralised internet ego's have a tendency to disappear up ones own arse, eventually. Really boring process to watch, actually. 

[lunarboy]

The problem with calling people 'fucking morons' is it really bites you in the ass when you say something stupid yourself.

Your "coup de grace" only serves to illustrate the point I have made several times here, that whatever anyone says, you will find some way to spin it to suit your own agenda.

Here is your last post, without the fancy words:

I don't understand why its fair for everyone to be able to use the blockchain, I'm afraid that somehow I won't be able to get more benefit than everyone else, so I'll call you names.

I don't really care about facts or reason, I just like arguing on the internet because I feel safe protected by anonymity and the lack of accountability it affords me. Look how I can misconstrue this quote to support my argument.

Hey everyone look at me I am super cool because I can make text red and I know what a hashtag is.

Yeah its ad hom. sue me.

class dismissed. 

[cypherdoc]

Peter's problem, if you call it a problem at all, is that I've only seen one person have the confidence or ability to step up and discuss the math with him. That's pretty damn  impressive.

Instead, all we get is a childish scolding by a hand waving armchair logic dev also by the name of Peter.

That's why I think this will not be solved with more debate.

More debate won't solve this *in the way you prefer.*

But more debate prolongs the stalemate,

Why monero matters
- Adaptive limits. Doesn't suffer from the 1MB block limits

https://moneroeconomy.com/faq/why-monero-matters

Exactly

[cypherdoc]

The problem with calling people 'fucking morons' is it really bites you in the ass when you say something stupid yourself.

Your "coup de grace" only serves to illustrate the point I have made several times here, that whatever anyone says, you will find some way to spin it to suit your own agenda.

Here is your last post, without the fancy words:

I don't understand why its fair for everyone to be able to use the blockchain, I'm afraid that somehow I won't be able to get more benefit than everyone else, so I'll call you names.

I don't really care about facts or reason, I just like arguing on the internet because I feel safe protected by anonymity and the lack of accountability it affords me. Look how I can misconstrue this quote to support my argument.

Hey everyone look at me I am super cool because I can make text red and I know what a hashtag is.

Yeah its ad hom. sue me.

class dismissed. 

Clearly sgbett is better than me at this