Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[justusranvier]

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?

This is an example of a black box understanding of Bitcoin. There is no principles or methodologies we can apply to the problem of understanding why Bitcoin works, so it's just magic and any potential change is scary because nobody knows how magic works.

[1713582732]

1713582732

[1713582732]

1713582732

[1713582732]

1713582732

[cypherdoc]

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/

There's not too many things you can do in this country to piss people  off  more than violating their First Amendment rights.

Go theymos!

[cypherdoc]

Mods moving XT threads into the altcoin sub forum to hide. Note iCEBLow in there demanding the banishment of competition:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1148679.msg12102884#msg12102884

[smooth]

Mods moving XT threads into the altcoin sub forum to hide. Note iCEBLow in there demanding the banishment of competition:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1148679.msg12102884#msg12102884

Hide? The altcoin sub forum has more traffic.

[cypherdoc]

Mods moving XT threads into the altcoin sub forum to hide. Note iCEBLow in there demanding the banishment of competition:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1148679.msg12102884#msg12102884

Hide? The altcoin sub forum has more traffic.

Well I'LL be a rats ass!

TIL!

[iCEBREAKER]

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/

Theymos has always been an extremely light-handed mod.  If he hasn't started banhammering you whining, exaggerating, self-pitying, Godwinning Gavinista SOBs by now, he not going to suddenly change that policy.

[iCEBREAKER]

There's not too many things you can do in this country to piss people  off  more than violating their First Amendment rights.

Go theymos!

You don't have a 1A right to post off-topic stuff to the wrong sub forum.

You don't have a 1A right to post on privately owned sites, period.

TIL even some highly educated professionals conflate moderation and censorship.   

[rocks]

Someone on reddit posted a limited proof of concept lightning like network, that lacks some functionality since bitcoin is missing the required op codes.

Here is the discussion on the fees, it sounds straight out of that blockstream business plan from earlier today.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gldfn/alpha_thundernetwork_a_lightning_network/ctzeppz

That's really what this is all about, creating new fee revenue streams that take fees from the main chain.

[smooth]

Someone on reddit posted a limited proof of concept lightning like network, that lacks some functionality since bitcoin is missing the required op codes.

Here is the discussion on the fees, it sounds straight out of that blockstream business plan from earlier today.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gldfn/alpha_thundernetwork_a_lightning_network/ctzeppz

That's really what this is all about, creating new fee revenue streams that take fees from the main chain.

You mean the one that got thoroughly put to shame by mostly every sane poster on there?

You are also aware that lightning is an open source project right? Nobody is forcing you to use it.

Being an open source project says next to nothing about lock-ins that are achieved by network effects on related services.


 

[brg444]

Someone on reddit posted a limited proof of concept lightning like network, that lacks some functionality since bitcoin is missing the required op codes.

Here is the discussion on the fees, it sounds straight out of that blockstream business plan from earlier today.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gldfn/alpha_thundernetwork_a_lightning_network/ctzeppz

That's really what this is all about, creating new fee revenue streams that take fees from the main chain.

You mean the one that got thoroughly put to shame by mostly every sane poster on there?

You are also aware that lightning is an open source project right? Nobody is forcing you to use it.

Being an open source project says next to nothing about lock-ins that are achieved by network effects on related services.

Lock-ins like everyone is using fiat/CC so I should feel obliged to do the same? Honestly not sure what you're getting at?

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Big middle finger to iCEBLOW, brg444, tvbcof, and MOA:

you still playing that game where you pretend any random thing that suits your delusions is confirmed true if price goes up  

maybe you should move away from the keyboard forever then, we had a nice little rally that time you went camping or w/e

This level of price change is indeed just noise. Not a good strategy to try to tie conclusions to it, especially because insofar as you succeed you just set a precedent for the other side to do the same thing. Waste of time all around.

[brg444]

how did I not find this guy's medium blog before? full of gems

https://medium.com/@allenpiscitello

Why Votes Don’t Matter
Many of the proposals for the fork include a voting mechanism for miners to signal that they are upgraded. However, miners very easily can lie about their intentions. A miner may wish to trick other miners into mining the fork, then continue to mine the small block sizes in an attempt to have less competition by having miners waste efforts on a fork that will be orphaned. Votes will be extremely hard to trust.

[iCEBREAKER]

You are also aware that lightning is an open source project right? Nobody is forcing you to use it.

Being an open source project says next to nothing about lock-ins that are achieved by network effects on related services.

You mean like how Red Hat has a lock-in on Linux related services, or Oracle with Java?

Oh wait...maybe you meant like MyMonero.com?   

[iCEBREAKER]

https://medium.com/@allenpiscitello

Why Votes Don’t Matter
Many of the proposals for the fork include a voting mechanism for miners to signal that they are upgraded. However, miners very easily can lie about their intentions. A miner may wish to trick other miners into mining the fork, then continue to mine the small block sizes in an attempt to have less competition by having miners waste efforts on a fork that will be orphaned. Votes will be extremely hard to trust.

We knew vote spoofing due to incompetence was a thing from BIP66, and predicted much more would arise (due to malice/strategy) in a contentious/gameable situation.

That quote does a good job of unpacking the immediately obvious implications.

XT is trying to lure Bitcoin into a dangerous zone of chaos, where its antifragility would be tested like never before.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Some serious vote manipulation going on in the Blockstream Business Plan thread.

[smooth]

You are also aware that lightning is an open source project right? Nobody is forcing you to use it.

Being an open source project says next to nothing about lock-ins that are achieved by network effects on related services.

You mean like how Red Hat has a lock-in on Linux related services, or Oracle with Java?

Oh wait...maybe you meant like MyMonero.com?   

All three of those are valid examples. All three likely have weaker network effects than lightning nodes. MyMonero has
weakest network effects though. It doesn't have a thicket of related and dependent products to resist substitution.

That's all arguable certainly.

[brg444]

Some serious vote manipulation going on in the Blockstream Business Plan thread.

What exactly are you referring to?

For once it seemed to me the more balanced and reasonable opinions prevailed..

[brg444]

You are also aware that lightning is an open source project right? Nobody is forcing you to use it.

Being an open source project says next to nothing about lock-ins that are achieved by network effects on related services.

You mean like how Red Hat has a lock-in on Linux related services, or Oracle with Java?

Oh wait...maybe you meant like MyMonero.com?   

All three of those are valid examples. All three likely have weaker network effects than lightning nodes. MyMonero has
weakest network effects though. It doesn't have a thicket of related and dependent products to resist substitution.

That's all arguable certainly.

Seems the centralization/network effect of lightning nodes might not hold if Rusty gets his way...



https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gmkak/the_blockstream_business_plan/ctzz2jz

[smooth]

You are also aware that lightning is an open source project right? Nobody is forcing you to use it.

Being an open source project says next to nothing about lock-ins that are achieved by network effects on related services.

You mean like how Red Hat has a lock-in on Linux related services, or Oracle with Java?

Oh wait...maybe you meant like MyMonero.com?  

All three of those are valid examples. All three likely have weaker network effects than lightning nodes. MyMonero has
weakest network effects though. It doesn't have a thicket of related and dependent products to resist substitution.

That's all arguable certainly.

Seems the centralization/network effect of lightning nodes might not hold if Rusty gets his way...



https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gmkak/the_blockstream_business_plan/ctzz2jz

I question the incentive for a client to choose random nodes in that manner. Seems like it could work initially (as implemented by Rusty, etc.) but then break as clients get smarter.

[brg444]

This needs to be read by every doomsayers here:

https://medium.com/@allenpiscitello/there-is-no-crisis-20b58e14b09c