Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[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

[cypherdoc]

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.

so miners only vote once by signalling the next block size doubling into the Coinbase?  the progression has to be 1 to 2 to 4 to 8 to 16MB, correct?  if so, the example given above is just for illustrative purposes only as to the encoding, and not an initial ramp from 1MB to 8MB?

it's also true that these doublings can take place at any time interval as long as 90% consensus is achieved, correct?

[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.

so miners only vote once by signalling the next block size doubling into the Coinbase?  the progression has to be 1 to 2 to 4 to 8 to 16MB, correct?  if so, the example given above is just for illustrative purposes only as to the encoding, and not an initial ramp from 1MB to 8MB?

it's also true that these doublings can take place at any time interval as long as 90% consensus is achieved, correct?

There is no doubling schedule or initial ramp in BIP100. It just gives the miners the vote on any block size they like, but their consensus can't go further than double or halve the limit at any one time. So they might mostly go for a size like 1450000 then 2100000 then 1790000 depending on their capacity to handle larger blocks or the amount of fee-paying tx which are consistently in mempools.
The BV800000 is just an example but some miners are using this as a signal that they like BIP100, or that they want *something* over 1MB
The 90% is a one-off to get the process going. After that the limit chosen might be a number that has 30% support, but it is the floor of the set of votes with the extremes removed.

[lunarboy]

There is no doubling schedule or initial ramp in BIP100. It just gives the miners the vote on any block size they like, but their consensus can't go further than double or halve the limit at any one time. So they might mostly go for a size like 1450000 then 2100000 then 1790000 depending on their capacity to handle larger blocks or the amount of fee-paying tx which are consistently in mempools.
The BV800000 is just an example but some miners are using this as a signal that they like BIP100, or that they want *something* over 1MB
The 90% is a one-off to get the process going. After that the limit chosen might be a number that has 30% support, but it is the floor of the set of votes with the extremes removed.

So would this still require a further hard fork 'if and when needed' to remove the 32MB limit?

Presumably the whole industry would be more comfortable with block size changes at that point. so it would hopefully  be less controversial.

[brg444]

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)

Blocksize limit = supply.

Unless you advocate lifting it completely most block increase suggestions amounts to a control of supply based on projected demand.

(of course 1MB is an equally arbitrary quota but that is beside the point I was making)

[solex]

So would this still require a further hard fork 'if and when needed' to remove the 32MB limit?

Presumably the whole industry would be more comfortable with block size changes at that point. so it would hopefully  be less controversial.

Correct. And I really hope it would be less controversial because it is a much bigger change (in terms of software).

However, I suspect that this limit may handled in a multi-pronged manner. Leaving the 32MB as a message limit, but using a mixture of block segmentation logic, Extension blocks, and IBLT. Efficiencies in block relay may mean that a 32MB message block can handle 3GB  disk blocks or 10,000 TPS on the main-chain, leaving aside all the volume that would be on LN-type solutions at that time.

Man, I'm so tired of the block size debate.

I feel your pain.
Getting over this 1MB is really important and it leaves the way clear for massive scaling (as far as computing tech allows for what is deemed a "standard" full node user). Maybe Milly Bitcoin will have a definition of that for us by then.

[Peter R]

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)

Blocksize limit = supply.

Unless you advocate lifting it completely most block increase suggestions amounts to a control of supply based on projected demand.

(of course 1MB is an equally arbitrary quota but that is beside the point I was making)

In classical economics, one defines a "supply curve" where the unit cost of the commodity (block space) is a monotonically increasing function of the quantity produced.  If demand grows, producers increase production to meet it (at an increased price).  This is how the free market works.



Your comment that "blocksize limit = supply" is false except in the case where the supply is constrained by the protocol rather than by economics (this continues the debate we had earlier).  As long as the limit is far above the transaction demand (much greater than Q* in the figure), then the supply is constrained economically rather than algorithmically.  The limit thus serves as only an anti-spam measure--that is, it continues to serve the original purpose it was designed for.  

  

[brg444]

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)

Blocksize limit = supply.

Unless you advocate lifting it completely most block increase suggestions amounts to a control of supply based on projected demand.

(of course 1MB is an equally arbitrary quota but that is beside the point I was making)

In classical economics, one defines a "supply curve" where the unit cost of the commodity (block space) is a monotonically increasing function of the quantity produced.  If demand grows, producers increase production to meet it (at an increased price).  This is how the free market works.



Your comment that "blocksize limit = supply" is false except in the case where the supply is constrained by the protocol rather than by economics (this continues the debate we had earlier).  As long as the limit is far above the transaction demand (much greater than Q* in the figure), then the supply is constrained economically rather than algorithmically.  The limit thus serves as only an anti-spam measure--that is, it continues to serve the original purpose it was designed for.  

That is all true only if Q* stays within the range of your assumptions.

[Peter R]

That is all true only if Q* stays within the range of your assumptions.

That seems like a strange way of wording what I already said: "As long as the limit is far above the transaction demand (much greater than Q* in the figure), then the supply is constrained economically rather than algorithmically."

[lunarboy]

ZH Tyler and offshore Yuan hinting it might be a case of three strikes and you're out tonight  

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-12/theres-more-come-offshore-yuan-signals-further-devaluation-tonight

[brg444]

That is all true only if Q* stays within the range of your assumptions.

That seems like a strange way of wording what I already said: "As long as the limit is far above the transaction demand (much greater than Q* in the figure), then the supply is constrained economically rather than algorithmically."

See this is exactly what I'm talking about. Pretending you can predict future transaction demand and set an arbitrary limit "much greater". Sounds like something out of the FED.

To then go back to our previous argument, let's pretend that your 8 MBs blocks get filled a year before your scheduled doubling then what happens?

I guess my point is that modeling transactional demand based on historical growth is a surefire way to shoot yourself in the foot.

[cypherdoc]

looks like theymos just censored this post by aminok:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gsin0/call_to_theymos_please_dont_try_to_impose_your/