Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[iCEBREAKER]

You're referring to a totally different post that was deleted by the author (the one about the Blockstream Business Plan). 

I referred to a post which was actually on-topic (ie, about Bitcoin and not some troll fork alt) being immediately and incorrectly regarded as "censored" when in fact the author deleted it.

Of course posts about alts are moderated in r/Bitcoin.  Duh!

You do know the difference between moderation and censorship, right?

Or are you one of the 'thermos is the epitome of authoritarianism and ready to start book burnings' drama queens busily sewing gold coins into the linings of their coats?

[cypherdoc]

You're referring to a totally different post that was deleted by the author (the one about the Blockstream Business Plan). 

I referred to a post which was actually on-topic (ie, about Bitcoin and not some troll fork alt) being immediately and incorrectly regarded as "censored" when in fact the author deleted it.

Of course posts about alts are moderated in r/Bitcoin.  Duh!

You do know the difference between moderation and censorship, right?

Or are you one of the 'thermos is the epitome of authoritarianism and ready to start book burnings' drama queens busily sewing gold coins into the linings of their coats?

iCEBLOW translation:  "i am one greedy bastard!"

[Peter R]

You're referring to a totally different post that was deleted by the author (the one about the Blockstream Business Plan).  

I referred to a post which was actually on-topic (ie, about Bitcoin and not some troll fork alt) being immediately and incorrectly regarded as "censored" when in fact the author deleted it.

But no one here claimed that post had been censored.  

These were the censored post:

It appears now that the reddit post proving censorship of the now "uncensored" reddit post (44% of hash power supports 8 MB) has itself been censored:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gm3ww/this_thread_was_removedhidden_from_front_page/

As you can clearly see, they have nothing to do the the "Blockstream Business Plan" (the post that was deleted by the author).  

[iCEBREAKER]

But no one here claimed that post had been censored.  

At least two people incorrectly assumed and falsely claimed the on-topic Blockstream business plan post had been removed by mods:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gm3ww/this_thread_was_removedhidden_from_front_page/ctzetoj

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gm3ww/this_thread_was_removedhidden_from_front_page/ctzbzuh

"censored post ?"

Moderation of off-topic posts is not censorship.  Censorship is done by governments, moderation is done by mods.  Duh!

Spare us the wailing about "censored posts" "authoritarianism" and "book burnings."  It just makes you look like a child who never heard of Godwin.

[Adrian-x]

Right, that would make sense until you realise in both cases (lightning and sidechains) these technologies need bigger blocks to scale.

But before they need to scale, they just might need some help convincing potential users they are even necessary at all.

I think it is obvious that:
 a) without new technologies we will need 24 GB blocks.  ( 10 billion transactions per/day )
 b) current technology cannot handle 24 GB blocks (and will not handle any time soon)
 c) with SC and LN bitcoin can stay decentralized and handle billions of TPS using small blocks  (maybe bigger than 1MB but we are far from reaching limits of 1 MB blocks)

so why not let the blockchain scale and have the free market adopt your proposed SC and LN solutions as needed?

[cypherdoc]

Right, that would make sense until you realise in both cases (lightning and sidechains) these technologies need bigger blocks to scale.

But before they need to scale, they just might need some help convincing potential users they are even necessary at all.

I think it is obvious that:
 a) without new technologies we will need 24 GB blocks.  ( 10 billion transactions per/day )
 b) current technology cannot handle 24 GB blocks (and will not handle any time soon)
 c) with SC and LN bitcoin can stay decentralized and handle billions of TPS using small blocks  (maybe bigger than 1MB but we are far from reaching limits of 1 MB blocks)

so why not let the blockchain scale and have the free market adopt your proposed SC and LN solutions as needed?

i can do even one better with a proposal i've made a number of times already.

lift the block cap altogether and we'll give them the spvp AND LN soft forks we know they desire and we'll see which one wins the market over.

[Adrian-x]

That's not what it means to show your work.

I'll really not waste my time to prove obvious. :-) .. this mean I'll not print you book in leather with golden letters.

"Current technology cannot handle 24 GB blocks (and will not any time soon)" :-)

that may be correct but it's not a reason to limit to 1MB and avoid a block size to the 8MB, or is it?
24GB blocks would obviously show demand with off chain solutions, I suspect you think we will never get there and want to squeeze bitcoin for what its worth to make off-chain solutions viable. 

[Erdogan]

But no one here claimed that post had been censored.  

At least two people incorrectly assumed and falsely claimed the on-topic Blockstream business plan post had been removed by mods:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gm3ww/this_thread_was_removedhidden_from_front_page/ctzetoj

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gm3ww/this_thread_was_removedhidden_from_front_page/ctzbzuh

"censored post ?"

Moderation of off-topic posts is not censorship.  Censorship is done by governments, moderation is done by mods.  Duh!

Spare us the wailing about "censored posts" "authoritarianism" and "book burnings."  It just makes you look like a child who never heard of Godwin.

You have not served your masters well by refraining from real discussion and instead produce a continous stream of poison and bile.

[Erdogan]

Chinese bourses now higher. Could it be that they expect lower renminbi in the future? I look forward to the day when the mainstreem looks to bitcoin pricing of the different currencies to decide their real value.

[brg444]

Chinese bourses now higher. Could it be that they expect lower renminbi in the future? I look forward to the day when the mainstreem looks to bitcoin pricing of the different currencies to decide their real value.

Nop, it's the new block size consensus making ripples!

[smooth]

this sounds exactly like something i'd say:
The Blockstream Business Plan (self.Bitcoin)
submitted an hour ago * by Celean

And if this is true Blockstream is making a HUGE mistake.  I don't think many people are doing multiple txns per day, every day right now.  I don't even think many people do 1 txn per week.  I doubt that people will be willing to sequester coins into the LN for significant periods (no I have no facts to back up this intuition).  

So I don't think that the lightning network solves the problem we have today which is getting people to do their FIRST txn (expand the network) and then getting them to use it periodically (use encourages merchants to accept it).

Once people are using BTC a couple times per day, LN is becomes very valuable.  Its actually WORSE if you do just one txn in a payment channel (it takes 2 blockchain txns instead of 1).

So LN won't actually solve the typical use pattern today.  And if that pattern is forced to pay high fees people will choose other payment options stagnating Bitcoin growth (or best case transforms into low velocity digital gold) to the point where we'll never need the volumes LN can offer.

Bad argument.

The current network @ 5 tps can handle 432k transactions per day. If all the high volume stuff (most of which is tied to speculation in one form or another) were moved off that would be maybe 431k people on-ramping per day which is vastly more than is needed.

[brg444]

https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gnem1/bip42_blockstream_guy_fundamentally_changed/?sort=confidence

I lolled 

[Erdogan]

Chinese bourses now higher. Could it be that they expect lower renminbi in the future? I look forward to the day when the mainstreem looks to bitcoin pricing of the different currencies to decide their real value.

Nop, it's the new block size consensus making ripples!

I agree on that, but why has the spread changed from negative to positive?

[cypherdoc]

Chinese bourses now higher. Could it be that they expect lower renminbi in the future? I look forward to the day when the mainstreem looks to bitcoin pricing of the different currencies to decide their real value.

Nop, it's the new block size consensus making ripples!

I agree on that, but why has the spread changed from negative to positive?

brg444:  "aw, c'mon Erdy.  i just wanted to be a King".

[Mengerian]

Anyways, to really understand what happens when R->0 I think we need to make a new model that takes into account what we just learned from your chart above (that miners won't necessarily be hashing all the time).

That seems to be an interesting point illustrating how the best interest of users and miners incentives could diverge.
For users, an empty block is always better than no block because it adds work to the chain and increases the security of the previous transactions.

Miners being financially motivated to shutdown for a period of time may not be an issue though.

Let's say that coinbase rewards are zero and miners live on fees only, and given a difficulty level it does not make sense to spend electricity until X number of fees/transactions are published.

In such a situation the difficulty will adjust/decrease until 10 minute blocks are restored. This might mean that after a block is found miners turn off for 5 minutes and only turn on after 5 minutes of fees are sent, but the difficulty will have adjusted so that miners are likely to find the next block 5 minutes after turning on. Yes this would also mean that if all miners keep running we would have 5 minute blocks, but they wouldn't be. And if they did then difficulty would adjust back up.

Since these issues develop slowly, I believe we would see that difficulty will continue to adjust to maintain 10 min blocks regardless of the financial incentives of the time.

Yeah, I was thinking about this too. Interesting to imagine a global network of bitcoin miners switching their hashing farms off and on as transactions build up.

Although we could expect the 10 minute block period to stay the same, it seems that the variance in the time between blocks should go down.

As you say, for the first few minutes after a block is published, very few miners would hash until a certain threshold of transaction fees could be reaped, so very few blocks would be found soon after the previous one. At the other end of the curve, the further beyond 10 minutes that a block is not found, we could expect miners to throw every last hash at the block, willing to burn lots of power to get the chance to collect the richer reward from blocks with more transactions than average. So the chances that a block takes much longer than 10 minutes would also decrease as miners frantically burn energy in the hopes of earning richer blocks full of fees.

[cypherdoc]

The Fed Is Out Of Options, "QE Is All It Can Do Here" Art Cashin Predicts

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-11/fed-out-options-qe-all-it-can-do-here-art-cashin-predicts

[tabnloz]

Have you guys seen this, a DAC gambling/prediction engine built on top of Ethereum

http://reason.com/blog/2015/08/11/augur-gambling-prediction-ethereum

I think this is the first example of a true DAC out in the wild that I've seen. Bitcoin still hasn't even gotten started yet.

Edit: the reason folks are solid libertarians but most of them still don't get bitcoin.

I've been following Augur for a while. I think the prediction markets and oracles have lots of potential.

[Peter R]

Anyways, to really understand what happens when R->0 I think we need to make a new model that takes into account what we just learned from your chart above (that miners won't necessarily be hashing all the time).

That seems to be an interesting point illustrating how the best interest of users and miners incentives could diverge.
For users, an empty block is always better than no block because it adds work to the chain and increases the security of the previous transactions.

Miners being financially motivated to shutdown for a period of time may not be an issue though.

Let's say that coinbase rewards are zero and miners live on fees only, and given a difficulty level it does not make sense to spend electricity until X number of fees/transactions are published.

In such a situation the difficulty will adjust/decrease until 10 minute blocks are restored. This might mean that after a block is found miners turn off for 5 minutes and only turn on after 5 minutes of fees are sent, but the difficulty will have adjusted so that miners are likely to find the next block 5 minutes after turning on. Yes this would also mean that if all miners keep running we would have 5 minute blocks, but they wouldn't be. And if they did then difficulty would adjust back up.

Since these issues develop slowly, I believe we would see that difficulty will continue to adjust to maintain 10 min blocks regardless of the financial incentives of the time.

Yeah, I was thinking about this too. Interesting to imagine a global network of bitcoin miners switching their hashing farms off and on as transactions build up.

Although we could expect the 10 minute block period to stay the same, it seems that the variance in the time between blocks should go down.

As you say, for the first few minutes after a block is published, very few miners would hash until a certain threshold of transaction fees could be reaped, so very few blocks would be found soon after the previous one. At the other end of the curve, the further beyond 10 minutes that a block is not found, we could expect miners to throw every last hash at the block, willing to burn lots of power to get the chance to collect the richer reward from blocks with more transactions than average. So the chances that a block takes much longer than 10 minutes would also decrease as miners frantically burn energy in the hopes of earning richer blocks full of fees.

Yes, I think you're right!  Very interesting.

[OROBTC]

...

Mengerian & Peter R

Yes, that does make sense.  When the amounts to be won from transactions are relatively higher, than I could certainly see:

"Fire that mother up, bitchez, pedal to the metal..."

As the reward amounts get bigger.  Kind of the way the PowerBall works, people really start buying when the jackpot reaches over $200,000,000.

[solex]

I'm really disappointed. Theymos is going full retard and muddying the waters by linking the 21M with the 1MB.
Just because there were two very obscure early bugs in the maintenance of the 21M supply limit does not mean that the limit is or ever was uncertain. It was always set in stone.

And lets take the beast head on. The 21 million limit. Firstly Satoshi never actually encoded that limit in hard stone, it was added by devs just last year I think. Secondly, we have not even heard of any arguments in favour of it's increase. If say in 20 years it does appear that the fees are insufficient, and for the example let us suppose we are using lightning, considering that so many coins have already been lost irrevocably and may continue to be lost, what makes you think that you can today pass judgment on what may be a different situation?

I expect pro-Increase-the-Block-Limit people like me and maybe this whole thread to be banhammered any day. So if that happens I will be over on: https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/