Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

$DJI approaching Mission Critical Stage:

[1714077789]

1714077789

[1714077789]

1714077789

[1714077789]

1714077789

[1714077789]

1714077789

[Adrian-x]

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

I notice the OP there isn't adressing the issue that when Blockstream received their funding, LN wasn't yet around, so it's a bit hard to see how their business plan that got them 21 million USD could have relied on pushing people towards LN...

This was indeed pointed out to him by me and several others.

What blockstream are trying to do is the contentious issue, when they get the tools is not relevant, eg when the nuclear bomb was discovered is not important nor is when you get the nuke, what is relevant is if you intend to use it' and that's relevant.

[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.

Are you suggesting they are not?

I'm suggesting that it is putting the cart before the horse.

Let bitcoin scale. Let LN/Sidechains succeed on merit.

Have we not yet come to an agreement that raising the block size is not exactly a scaling solution?

Have we not yet come to an agreement that LN/Sidechains are not a scaling solution *without bigger blocks*

I'm not against bigger blocks. I simply disagree with the urgency suggested by some of their proponents as well as the current proposed implementations (especially the very dangerous XT fork)

Your use of the word "urgent" is misguided Gavin started the discussion with a proposal that would take over 9 month to deploy 9 month is plenty time to change 1 line of code from 1MB to 8MB, the debate is about why it should not happen befor blockstream deploy LN or SPVp sidechains.

[justusranvier]

This is a fundamental disagreement on the value of Bitcoin then which IMO is first SOV then payment network.

There is no such thing as a store of value.

You've described the religious approach to understanding money.

[Peter R]

...
Is anyone trying to find a workable compromise, or is it still everyone pushing their own agenda under the guise of bitcoin being doomed if you don't assimilate?
...

I have hopes for the "Scaling Bitcoin" Workshops.  The first will be held in Montreal in September and the second in Hong Kong possibly in December. 

https://scalingbitcoin.org/montreal2015/

The format is similar to an academic conference, in that anyone can submit a relevant paper to be considered for presentation. 

One thing I don't know though, is whether the Montreal Workshop Planning Committee has a big-block or small-block bias (that could sway which papers they accept and which papers they reject):

[cypherdoc]

softs futures crushed.  inflation?  what inflation?:

[brg444]

This is a fundamental disagreement on the value of Bitcoin then which IMO is first SOV then payment network.

There is no such thing as a store of value.

You've described the religious approach to understanding money.

I kinda knew you'd pop up with this argument.

The point is Bitcoin is nowhere near ready for adoption as retail transactional currency.

Not unlike gold, most bitcoins are currently sitting untouched in vaults paper wallets. It is by all evidence not a consumer product as it stands and we should not expect it to gain adoption because of the features of its payment network, at least not anytime soon.

[tvbcof]

This is a fundamental disagreement on the value of Bitcoin then which IMO is first SOV then payment network.

There is no such thing as a store of value.

Just because you collectivists don't like something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  This is a wonderful example of how degenerate your philosophical flights of fancy have become and how much they have degraded your understandings of reality.

You've described the religious approach to understanding money.

Pot - Kettle - Black

[brg444]

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

I notice the OP there isn't adressing the issue that when Blockstream received their funding, LN wasn't yet around, so it's a bit hard to see how their business plan that got them 21 million USD could have relied on pushing people towards LN...

This was indeed pointed out to him by me and several others.

What blockstream are trying to do is the contentious issue, when they get the tools is not relevant, eg when the nuclear bomb was discovered is not important nor is when you get the nuke, what is relevant is if you intend to use it' and that's relevant.

What you fantasize about what blockstream "are trying to do" and are actually doing is two different things you know?

Unless you have facts to verify your conjectures the courteous thing to do would be to give the runner a chance.

[justusranvier]

Just because you collectivists don't like something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  This is a wonderful example of how degenerate your philosophical flights of fancy have become and how much they have degraded your understandings of reality.

This is exactly what religious people say when you debunk their claims by pointing out contradictions or lack of evidence for their claims.

The "store of value" concept was basically invented by Aristotle two and a half millennia ago, before basically anything was understood about trade, markets, labor specialization, or any of the other factors that we now know make economies work.

I could point out some of the additional work that's been done since the bronze age, like the understanding that money is a ledger that measures delayed reciprocal altruism, but I don't even need to.

All I have to do is point out that if your claim that a store of value exists is true, then you should be able to produce a non-tautological definition for it.

Can you?

PS: I LOL'd when the socialist who's advocating centrally-planned block sizes referred to me as a collectivist. Do you not realize just how transparent that is?

[cypherdoc]

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

I notice the OP there isn't adressing the issue that when Blockstream received their funding, LN wasn't yet around, so it's a bit hard to see how their business plan that got them 21 million USD could have relied on pushing people towards LN...

This was indeed pointed out to him by me and several others.

What blockstream are trying to do is the contentious issue, when they get the tools is not relevant, eg when the nuclear bomb was discovered is not important nor is when you get the nuke, what is relevant is if you intend to use it' and that's relevant.

What you fantasize about what blockstream "are trying to do" and are actually doing is two different things you know?

Unless you have facts to verify your conjectures the courteous thing to do would be to give the runner a chance.

i did.  but look what happened:

[–]cypherdoc2[🍰] 9 points 1 year ago

I'll take the cautious side here being a stake holder in Bitcoin. Not being a dev my concerns are purely theoretical and mostly economic.

    In general, a for profit company with a low to no stake in Bitcoin should not be trusted to make changes to the protocol that facilitate its profit making. Especially if it's gone out and hired core devs and comes at the expense of the competition.
    I would like to know who these core devs are supposedly supporting the whole concept besides gmax who has gone on record saying Bitcoin needs to be "fixed". I don't understand the secrecy as I've asked for those names several times. I for one don't think Bitcoin needs fixing.
    I've always conceptualized Bitcoin as being a self contained financial system so I am concerned that it's fundamental value units will be allowed to leave its system destined for what will inevitably be a weaker sidechain from a security standpoint. In that sense I don't see them as "the first app" overlaying the protocol like Andreas likes to say. I see them as fundamentally integrated into the network. Invariably, whatever token your bitcoin is transformed into will be worth less as a result. We've spent 5 long years distributing those bitcoins throughout the blockchain in a fair and truthful manner based on free market trading. $600 million has been irreversibly spent to secure that process and the blockchain is delicately balanced as a result. Bitcoins are a fundamental value unit that was made for its network and only for that network in my opinion and now we want to let them move off that network potentially never to return. Satoshi never provisioned for this. That doesn't feel right to me.
    What knock on effects would occur to the Bitcoin network if 20-30% of these tokens get lost from a sidechain failure thus wiping out all the associated bitcoins as a result? The answer could be way more complex than just "oh, my bitcoins will be worth more".
    With merged mining it would be easier to attack and steal the tokens and thus bitcoins associated with them. What can be done to prevent this?
    What if there was an economic way to solve the problem of scamcoins without touching the protocol? I reference Peter R's proposal of Spin Offs. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563925.0
    Is there really a "problem"with Bitcoin that we need to risk the entire system like this? Why can't Bitcoin act like a reserve currency around which altcoins can orbit without touching/risking the protocol? I reference the fork we got from a simple non protocol change last year from just 0.7-0.8. The devs including gmax failed to anticipate this despite the best of intentions.
    It's important to realize that we have intentionally lived with bugs in the system all these years because we're dealing with a form of money that you can't make mistakes with. Billions are at risk and damned straight I'm protective of this. Bitcoin has worked well so far imo. It seems we always get these proposals at the bottom of a price lull so be wary of people proposing changes who have no stake in the system.

I'm willing to wait until the whitepaper comes out for final judgment as maybe I'm getting too conservative in my old age but those are my concerns.

    permalink
    embed
    save
    edit
    disable inbox replies
    delete

[cypherdoc]

Just because you collectivists don't like something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  This is a wonderful example of how degenerate your philosophical flights of fancy have become and how much they have degraded your understandings of reality.

This is exactly what religious people say when you debunk their claims by pointing out contradictions or lack of evidence for their claims.

The "store of value" concept was basically invented by Aristotle two and a half millennia ago, before basically anything was understood about trade, markets, labor specialization, or any of the other factors that we now know make economies work.

I could point out some of the additional work that's been done since the bronze age, like the understanding that money is a ledger that measures delayed reciprocal altruism, but I don't even need to.

All I have to do is point out that if your claim that a store of value exists is true, then you should be able to produce a non-tautological definition for it.

Can you?

PS: I LOL'd when the socialist who's advocating centrally-planned block sizes referred to me as a collectivist. Do you not realize just how transparent that is?

sometimes little dogs just like to bark:

[brg444]

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

I notice the OP there isn't adressing the issue that when Blockstream received their funding, LN wasn't yet around, so it's a bit hard to see how their business plan that got them 21 million USD could have relied on pushing people towards LN...

This was indeed pointed out to him by me and several others.

What blockstream are trying to do is the contentious issue, when they get the tools is not relevant, eg when the nuclear bomb was discovered is not important nor is when you get the nuke, what is relevant is if you intend to use it' and that's relevant.

What you fantasize about what blockstream "are trying to do" and are actually doing is two different things you know?

Unless you have facts to verify your conjectures the courteous thing to do would be to give the runner a chance.

i did.  but look what happened:

I'm not interested in reading your usual drivel.

What has happened since that confirmed your assumptions & previous conjectures?

Seems to me you are still very much coming up with your own delusions of what Blockstream "are trying to do" without any valid information to support your position.

Are you gonna hold the fact that they are cautious about block size increase against everything they try to do? Again, I'm gonna need some more convincing that you are actually an adult person.

[tvbcof]

sometimes little dogs just like to bark:

Gold is up lately in case you didn't notice.  Some say that the next upswing will probably take us to around $9000/oz in constant dollar terms.

[cypherdoc]

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

I notice the OP there isn't adressing the issue that when Blockstream received their funding, LN wasn't yet around, so it's a bit hard to see how their business plan that got them 21 million USD could have relied on pushing people towards LN...

This was indeed pointed out to him by me and several others.

What blockstream are trying to do is the contentious issue, when they get the tools is not relevant, eg when the nuclear bomb was discovered is not important nor is when you get the nuke, what is relevant is if you intend to use it' and that's relevant.

What you fantasize about what blockstream "are trying to do" and are actually doing is two different things you know?

Unless you have facts to verify your conjectures the courteous thing to do would be to give the runner a chance.

i did.  but look what happened:

I'm not interested in reading your usual drivel.

What has happened since that confirmed your assumptions & previous conjectures?

Seems to me you are still very much coming up with your own delusions of what Blockstream "are trying to do" without any valid information to support your position.

Are you gonna hold the fact that they are cautious about block size increase against everything they try to do? Again, I'm gonna need some more convincing that you are actually an adult person.

you do know that real ppl actually hurt themselves from severe myopia?  i can fix that for you.

[tvbcof]

...
you do know that real ppl actually hurt themselves from severe myopia?  i can fix that for you.

Word to the wise:  Don't let a guy who is preoccupied looking at economic charts operate on your eyes with a laser beam:

[Odalv]

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)" :-)

You must not understand what proof means.

The problem with your statement is that you've expressed it in terms of an unsolvable problem, which is begging the question.

Processing 24 GB of data in a 10 minute period is possible with technology that exists today. It does not require faster-than-light communication, or violating mass/energy conservation, or solving the halting problem, or anything else that's actually impossible.

Perhaps what you actually mean is that handing a 24 GB every 10 minutes would be expensive using existing technology. Perhaps even so expensive as to cost more than Bitcoin users would be willing to pay.

Expressed in those terms, you have a statement that can actually be rationally evaluated.

You'd need to establish how much it would cost to pay for the hardware and operating expenses to operate a 24 GB/10 minute network, and then estimate how much the users would be willing to pay per-transaction. If the estimated costs exceed the estimated budged, then you'd be correct to say that the network would probably be too expensive to operate.

Of course, once you've phrased the problem in a manner that allows for potential solutions, then it becomes possible to talk about productive things like, "what steps could we take to reduce the cost of operating the network?"

On the other hand, if you phrased your "obvious truth" in a form of an unsolvable problem deliberately because you have a preference for the problem remaining unsolved, then keep doing what you're doing.

Government cannot ban bitcoin if full node can be run at home => it is impossible. But having only 6 big (well known) data centers wold wide, and government can shut it down in any second.

Edit:
Bitcoin with only 6,000 full nodes is near extinction. :-(

[sickpig]

I don't know, but you are saying we shouldn't do anything, because doing something might not be quite enough?

I'm saying that the pretense that 1 MBers are playing central bankers seems funny in the light considering most block increase proponents are the ones arguing for arbitrary control of supply.

really? I must have missed something along the way, couldyou  please share pointers to evidence on which the bolded claim is based? (serious question)

[solex]

Jeff is saying that miner voting via BIP100 will be submitted (merged in the BIP library?) implemented (pull request?) within two weeks.

This is great news. I see it as compatible with BIP 101 if a mined block size conforms to the least of the prevailing maximum of 100 and 101.

http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf

Protocol changes proposed:
1. Hard fork, to
2. Remove static 1MB block size limit.
3. Simultaneously,​addanewfloatingblocksizelimit,setto1MB.
4. The historical 32MB limit remains.
5. Schedule the hard fork on testnet for September 1, 2015.
6. Schedule the hard fork on bitcoin main chain for January 11, 2016.
7. Changing the 1MB limit is accomplished in a manner similar to BIP 34, a one­way lock­in
upgrade with a 12,000 block (3 month) threshold by 90% of the blocks.
8. Limit increase or decrease may not exceed 2x in any one step.
9. Miners vote by encoding ‘BV’+BlockSizeRequestValue into coinbase scriptSig, e.g.
“/BV8000000/” to vote for 8M. Votes are evaluated by dropping bottom 20% and top 20%, and then the most common floor (minimum) is chosen.

edit: point 7 with 90% would IMHO be improved with 75% + 2 week grace period.

[lunarboy]

Jeff is saying that miner voting via BIP100 will be submitted (merged in the BIP library?) implemented (pull request?) within two weeks.

This is great news. I see it as compatible with BIP 101 if a mined block size conforms to the least of the prevailing maximum of 100 and 101.

http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf

Protocol changes proposed:
1. Hard fork, to
2. Remove static 1MB block size limit.
3. Simultaneously,​addanewfloatingblocksizelimit,setto1MB.
4. The historical 32MB limit remains.
5. Schedule the hard fork on testnet for September 1, 2015.
6. Schedule the hard fork on bitcoin main chain for January 11, 2016.
7. Changing the 1MB limit is accomplished in a manner similar to BIP 34, a one­way lock­in
upgrade with a 12,000 block (3 month) threshold by 90% of the blocks.
8. Limit increase or decrease may not exceed 2x in any one step.
9. Miners vote by encoding ‘BV’+BlockSizeRequestValue into coinbase scriptSig, e.g.
“/BV8000000/” to vote for 8M. Votes are evaluated by dropping bottom 20% and top 20%, and then the most common floor (minimum) is chosen.

Absolutely fantastic. Hopefully this will put a stop to this constant block size bickering