Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[smooth]

Of course the weapon of a mod is censorship.  Today was the day that the mods at /r/bitcoin threw their weapons. 

Moderation is not censorship.  Can't you win the argument based on facts and logic, without resorting to cheap self-pitying melodrama?

Reddit and bitcointalk are not public places where free speech applies.

I'd love to send you delicate snowflakes to a place with real censorship and watch you beg to be allowed to return to theymos' "epitome of authoritarianism."

You have a point somewhat but it is also fair to say that harping on the admittedly imprecise use of the word censorship isn't the point. When people make the censorship objection, you can reasonably interpret their concern as being over the subreddit banning or even over-aggressively moderating the topic. Either way the substance is the same.

Being moderated on a private forum is NOTHING like being suppressed by censorship.  What a nasty, horrible lie!  Why don't you just track down some Chinese dissidents and shit on their faces?  Either way the [trivializing, disrespectful] substance is the same.   

What you gloss over as "imprecise use of the word censorship" isn't accidental or mere ignorance.  It is a calculated attack on the mods' integrity (IE shaming), and a purposeful re-framing so as to paint them as victimizing brave supporters of free speech ("zomg it's a human right!!!").
el
As to their (and now your) "concern as being over the subreddit banning or even over-aggressively moderating" let us note that alt-coin discussion is explicitly subject to certain time/place restrictions by the forum/sub rules.  If you break those rules, expect to be moderated.  If you persist despite moderation, expect to be banned.  Duh!  This isn't hard, except when thou doth protest too much.

It is not honest to, by visitation and participation, implicitly agree with the existing moderation rules and their arbiters (the mods), but then act SHOCKED when playing the Censorship Card fails to win a dispute over/with them.

Sure I agree with you that an equivalence between reddit and repressive governments is absurd and offensive, I'm just not sure the mis-usage is always as calculated as you suggest. A lot of people are just somewhat sloppy and ignorant in their use of language. I know I am sometimes guilty of that.

In this case I also disagree with the interpretation of the moderation rules, since Bitcoin-XT even if it is and altcoin, certainly is also highly relevant to Bitcoin itself. That's a distinction that eliminates most altcoin discussion generally but should also allow some. For example when discussing Bitcoin's fungibility and privacy one might draw contrasts between Bitcoin and Monero. Likewise discussing issues that exist between Bitcoin and Bitcoin-XT are also relevant.

[1713293129]

1713293129

[1713293129]

1713293129

[1713293129]

1713293129

[iCEBREAKER]

I agree with you that an equivalence between reddit and repressive governments is absurd and offensive, I'm just not sure the mis-usage is always as calculated as you suggest. A lot of people are just somewhat sloppy and ignorant in their use of language. I know I am sometimes guilty of that.

In this case I also disagree with the interpretation of the moderation rules, since Bitcoin-XT even if it is and altcoin, certainly is also highly relevant to Bitcoin itself. That's a distinction that eliminates most altcoin discussion generally but should also allow some. For example when discussing Bitcoin's fungibility and privacy one might draw contrasts between Bitcoin and Monero. Likewise discussing issues that exist between Bitcoin and Bitcoin-XT are also relevant.

The absurdity and offensiveness exists regardless of the sources' intentions.  The occasional cynical calculation only compounds the offense.

Once the difference has been explained to them, people are responsible for using the proper term.  What do you make of those who refuse to acknowledge the distinction (and why it's important), to justify there persistence in being sloppy and ignorant?

In this case, your peanut gallery "interpretation of the moderation rules" is not relevant, because you and the Godwinning poo-flingers are not mods, admins, or site owners.

If you can't abide (as The Dude should) by theymos' decision wrt XT, there are plenty of other forums to patronize.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

In the remote possiblity XT becomes a matter of more importance than the hype, mirth, and scorn it generates at present, MPex and other 1MBer Elder Whales are prepared to use substantial (possibly exhaustive) portions of their extraordinarily massive war chests to repel 8MBer attacks.  To them, this is Holy War, with barbarian Gavinista hordes clamouring for a Free Shit Junta at the gates of their bespoke civilization.  They are more of a mood to impale heads atop spikes than reward with compromise Hearn's attacks on decentralization, Tor, and the consensus process.

Are you still sure you want to risk your tiny stash playing Hard Fork Poker with such ultra-high-rollers?

If you are relying on simple bullying tactics to defend your position then I fear that you are already tacitly accepting a high possibility of defeat.

I like your analagy of Gavin as Freedom Fighter (Sandinista). It is, in an oldskool fashion, quite apt.

The Sandanistas took on the american hegemony in South America, and despite the best (illegal) efforts of the CIA with the Contras, they prevailed.

Daniel Ortega is president of Nicaragua today.

Pointing out one would be foolish to attempt to undermine Bitcoin's economic majority is not "bullying tactics."

The Sandinistas are Marxist-Leninists, the "oldskool" Free Shit Army.  Do you really need me to explain what happens to freedom fighters (and everyday people) under Marxist-Leninist regimes?

The main reason Castro-wannabe Ortega seeks to be another Marxist Dictator For Life is to maintain his immunity from prosecution for the crimes of raping and abusing his daughter from the time she was 11 until 21.

From the Guardian, hardly a right-wing source:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/nov/07/thecomandantewhobecameaca

They still won.  

If they ever make a movie about the Bitcoin Fork, you should get Col. Ollie North to play you,

[Peter R]

...
Anyway, I noticed something interesting today. If you read the white paper.

1. There is nothing about block size. According to the white paper, any block of any size is valid if the contained transactions are valid.

2. The determination of validity is made by miners, expressed by mining on top of it.

As a corollary of #2, users who see a longest chain they believe to be invalid should simply be fixing/upgrading their software, not claiming that miners are misbehaving.

While perhaps a "good idea", the concept of a longest valid chain as distinct from the longest chain is not part of the design.

Whether this is a good idea is another question entirely, but it seems to me the small block side has skipped a step in their argument.

Very nice.  Is it fair then to say:

   "Bitcoin is the longest proof-of-work chain composed of valid transactions"

This is a subtle difference from the phrase that certain personas employ to label Bitcoin-XT and other larger-block clients as an "alt-coin":

  "Bitcoin is the longest proof-of-work valid chain"

According to the original design I believe so. Furthermore, I believe that a correct interoperation of the second phrase according to the original design is identical to the first, because the determination of validity is made by miners.

I think your observation is quite important.  Three arguments against changing the block size were:

   (a) that it changes Bitcoin in a fundamental way;

   (b) that changes to the consensus layer should never (or only extremely rarely) occur;

   (c) that it would lead to centralization.

According to this new interpretation, a change to the block size doesn't represent a fundamental change to Bitcoin because it was always miners that determined the validity of a block by mining on top of it anyways.  Furthermore, this re-inforces the idea we were talking about yesterday that the block size limit is not actually part of the consensus layer.  The consensus layer should only define which transactions are valid.

Point (c) may or may not be true.  But by a group of developers limiting the block size and ignoring the will of the economic majority, Bitcoin would have already lost the battle against centralization.  

[smooth]

...
Anyway, I noticed something interesting today. If you read the white paper.

1. There is nothing about block size. According to the white paper, any block of any size is valid if the contained transactions are valid.

2. The determination of validity is made by miners, expressed by mining on top of it.

As a corollary of #2, users who see a longest chain they believe to be invalid should simply be fixing/upgrading their software, not claiming that miners are misbehaving.

While perhaps a "good idea", the concept of a longest valid chain as distinct from the longest chain is not part of the design.

Whether this is a good idea is another question entirely, but it seems to me the small block side has skipped a step in their argument.

Very nice.  Is it fair then to say:

   "Bitcoin is the longest proof-of-work chain composed of valid transactions"

This is a subtle difference from the phrase that certain personas employ to label Bitcoin-XT and other larger-block clients as an "alt-coin":

  "Bitcoin is the longest proof-of-work valid chain"

According to the original design I believe so. Furthermore, I believe that a correct interoperation of the second phrase according to the original design is identical to the first, because the determination of validity is made by miners.

I think your observation is quite important.  Three arguments against changing the block size were:

   (a) that is changes Bitcoin in a fundamental way;

   (b) that changes to the consensus layer should never (or only extremely rarely) occur;

   (c) that it would lead to centralization.

According to this new interpretation, a change to the block size doesn't represent a fundamental change to Bitcoin because it was always miners that determined the validity of a block by mining on top of it anyways.  Furthermore, this re-inforces the idea we were talking about yesterday that the block size limit is not actually part of the consensus layer.  The consensus layer should only define which transactions are valid.

Point (c) may or may not be true.  But by a group of developers limiting the block size and ignoring the will of the economic majority, Bitcoin would have already lost the battle against centralization.  

I agree, although I will note that it is unclear how to determine the "will of the economic majority" objectively.

I also do not rule out that changes to the original design (such as validity being determined in some manner other than by miners building on top of blocks they consider to be valid) may be desirable or can be done in an appropriate manner. I do not believe that appropriate manner includes assuming such a change to have already been made.

[cypherdoc]

[..]

In the remote possiblity XT becomes a matter of more importance than the hype, mirth, and scorn it generates at present, MPex and other 1MBer Elder Whales are prepared to use substantial (possibly exhaustive) portions of their extraordinarily massive war chests to repel 8MBer attacks.  To them, this is Holy War, with barbarian Gavinista hordes clamouring for a Free Shit Junta at the gates of their bespoke civilization.  They are more of a mood to impale heads atop spikes than reward with compromise Hearn's attacks on decentralization, Tor, and the consensus process.

[...]

So you suggest the Elder Whales will buy up bitcoins from their stash of xtcoins? Just like a central bank would do? Well that is going to be interesting. But there is a risk of losing it all, so I would not bet that it plays out that way.

What are you smoking, crack?  Elder Whales exercising their GavinCoin Short option is nothing like what central banks do.  Your confused, sketchy understanding of the situation continues to surprise and baffle me with its surreal assumptions and bizarre conclusions.   

So how do they defend the cripplecoin. Pitchforks?

This is one way to defend Bitcoin from XTcoin: The GavinCoin Short.

i hope you don't take that simplistic attack seriously.  if MP and you Cripplecoiner's insist on it, i may have to step in and take some free coin.

[Chainsaw]

BTW: Just curious, and maybe our BIP is not needed anyways, but did you have a look at my comment with regards to not-quite hard forking?

Sorry, I spent most the day watching submissions and comments get deleted from /r/bitcoin.

I think a BIP (or something like it) is very much needed.  We have to get people to stop thinking about "Bitcoin Core" versus "Bitcoin XT," and just thinking in terms of "do I want to run software that supports bigger blocks?"  In that respect, our proposal is ideal because we could show how it would be compatible with both Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin XT.  The node operator just needs to set his block size limit to, say, 32 MB, and his node will always follow the longest proof-of-work chain composed of valid transactions.  

Moreover, we don't need 75% of the hash power to run Bitcoin XT to activate BIP101.  Instead, we need 75% of the hash power to set that flag bit.  That flag bit could be set with a patched version of Core, or by running the version of Bitcoin that we're proposing.

To answer your question about the not-quite-a-hard-fork idea, I think it's a great!  But like you said earlier, simple is better.  We need to be clear that all we're really proposing is to move the block size limit from the consensus layer to the transport layer.  

The stuff like my signalling idea and your "BSL governor" idea don't need strict consensus.  There could be several competing implementation with various degrees of interoperability.  It would still work fine.  

Peter, how do we get your voice of reason better heard amidst all this noise?
I feel like what happened today mirrors the current state of the election cycle. The masses are moths to the flame of drama, and we've been served up a heaping helping today.

You recognize the critical aspects. Wall Street, Bankers, and the rest of the world is never going to commit to a currency which is yet to prove it can solve its own problems. Bitcoin is open source, and we are at the inflection point where it stands to begin its journey to a world currency.  We must demonstrate to the world that, somehow, an open source project can solve its own problems.

A hard fork is contentious.

For months, I thought on this problem. Yeah I'm a 15-year SE, and I've followed Bitcoin closely since 2011. But I'm not in the trenches like you guys. My technical breadth may be broader, but you guys blow me away in depth.  Predictably, my voice has not been heard. 

My attempts have been at trying to find a conciliatory path.
In my mind, the only way this could ever happen would be to burn a cycle. First we'd need to deploy a mechanism which allows for an open-source voting mechanism to be embedded within the protocol. Simultaneously, that voting behavior would be used to control block size.

I find it difficult to argue against your position.  The off-the-cuff Sybil attacks, I presume, are refuted by the detailed analysis you provided in your recent, excellent paper. (Though I do have concerns about bad actors for whom monetary gain is not their primary motivator.)

It seems to me what you propose gives everyone what they want.

Nobody is discussing this today. It is all about "Is the Satoshi email real", censorship, and everyone trying to figure out whether they will be entrenching themselves on the side of "Forks are evil" or "this is necessary", making the problem worse.

What to do?

[Erdogan]

218

[smooth]

I agree with you that an equivalence between reddit and repressive governments is absurd and offensive, I'm just not sure the mis-usage is always as calculated as you suggest. A lot of people are just somewhat sloppy and ignorant in their use of language. I know I am sometimes guilty of that.

In this case I also disagree with the interpretation of the moderation rules, since Bitcoin-XT even if it is and altcoin, certainly is also highly relevant to Bitcoin itself. That's a distinction that eliminates most altcoin discussion generally but should also allow some. For example when discussing Bitcoin's fungibility and privacy one might draw contrasts between Bitcoin and Monero. Likewise discussing issues that exist between Bitcoin and Bitcoin-XT are also relevant.

The absurdity and offensiveness exists regardless of the sources' intentions.  The occasional cynical calculation only compounds the offense.

Once the difference has been explained to them, people are responsible for using the proper term.  What do you make of those who refuse to acknowledge the distinction (and why it's important), to justify there persistence in being sloppy and ignorant?

They are stupid or trolling or both.

In this case, your peanut gallery "interpretation of the moderation rules" is not relevant, because you and the Godwinning poo-flingers are not mods, admins, or site owners.

So you are saying if you disagree with a moderation policy you wouldn't express that? I'm skeptical to the extreme. We can have still opinions without authority.

[iCEBREAKER]

Pointing out one would be foolish to attempt to undermine Bitcoin's economic majority is not "bullying tactics."

The Sandinistas are Marxist-Leninists, the "oldskool" Free Shit Army.  Do you really need me to explain what happens to freedom fighters (and everyday people) under Marxist-Leninist regimes?

The main reason Castro-wannabe Ortega seeks to be another Marxist Dictator For Life is to maintain his immunity from prosecution for the crimes of raping and abusing his daughter from the time she was 11 until 21.

From the Guardian, hardly a right-wing source:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/nov/07/thecomandantewhobecameaca

They still won.  

If they ever make a movie about the Bitcoin Fork, you should get Col. Ollie North to play you,

The authoritarian Marxist-Leninist Sandinistas won, and the people of Nicaragua lost.

Ollie North kicks ass.  You pinkos are still butt-raging about his efforts to keep communism contained.  Boo hoo, you lost the Cold War!   

[smoothie]

more censorship on reddit: https://de.reddit.com/r/bitcoin/comments/3h5211

[–]evoorhees 259 Punkte 8 Stunden zuvor
I posted this about 10 min ago and my thread was deleted immediately:
Title: XT is not only On Topic, it is THE most important topic right now. Stop the censorship. (self.Bitcoin) submitted 12 minutes ago by evoorhees
Text: The discussion of XT and the fork is the most important topic in Bitcoin right now. Please stop censoring it. Regardless of one's opinion on block sizes, the debate must happen. Whichever mod/s is censoring needs to stop.

[klee]

What's up bagholders?

[iCEBREAKER]

more censorship on reddit: https://de.reddit.com/r/bitcoin/comments/3h5211

[–]evoorhees 259 Punkte 8 Stunden zuvor
I posted this about 10 min ago and my thread was deleted immediately:
Title: XT is not only On Topic, it is THE most important topic right now. Stop the censorship. (self.Bitcoin) submitted 12 minutes ago by evoorhees
Text: The discussion of XT and the fork is the most important topic in Bitcoin right now. Please stop censoring it. Regardless of one's opinion on block sizes, the debate must happen. Whichever mod/s is censoring needs to stop.

If you are adamant about XT not being an off-topic altcoin, and equally convinced r/bitcoin moderation is the same thing as censorship, this is the place for you:



Go on smoothie.  Go on evoorhees.  Fuck off to greener, censorship-free pastures where may you attempt to attack Bitcoin all you want.

Don't let me stop you.  You're free now...move into the light...   

[Zarathustra]

By the way, the point in time where a gold backed money becomes a fiat money, is when there is just a tad more paper than gold in the system than the people are comfortable with, and a run starts. The state proclaims that the been (ref example) is just as good as gold, and apply a law to support that illusion. The law is the fiat point.

We don't have fiat money. Money is backed by deposits and securities. You will not get a credit (which is money) without that.

We do have fiat money, but the extent of debt is so large that it seems that debt is the basis. It is not, it is the fiat paper, plus the electronic only fiat created in QE. Unredeemable and unbacked. The debt extends the quantum of money while it exist, and contracts the money when it is extingushed by being paid back or written off. So debt is also money, I agree with that, but it is not the base, it is an extension of the base quantum.

Fiat means 'out of nothing'. Money IS debt, and nothing different. It is not paper, and the debt is backed by deposits and securities. A bank creates money, as soon as you take a credit (backed by your deposit).

No, fiat means that the money manager states, through a law, that the paper money backed by gold, is just as good as gold, and it comes when the backing and therefore the redeemability is questioned by the market.

Anyway, my post here was to illustrate that bitcoins must be held directly with the public to the largest extent technically possible, to avoid that surrogates appear, and also galloping debt.

EDIT: (The real meaning of fiat after a while becomes nonsensical, when a gold mark is worth a million paper marks, no one believes in it, and they just forget that at some point, a paper mark was in fact worth a gold mark. So when the redeemability is removed, fiat is "out of nothing" as you say. But gold and bitcoin is also out of nothing. They are sound because there is no money manager).

Zimbabwe and Weimar printed paper out of nothing. This is overwhelmingly not the case in a property backed money environment. You have to deliver capital to the bank to get credit (money). That's the way how money is created and backed in a capitalist environment. Money (credit) was never fully linked with metal. Everything started with the first debt, which was the debt to the state/warlords, the tribute: grain, or metal for the Organized Violence to organize violence. There is no economy beyond an environment of organized violence. Beyond that environment is self-sufficiency. Anarcho capitalists dont understand that. Anarcho capitalism is an oxy moron.

[Erdogan]

By the way, the point in time where a gold backed money becomes a fiat money, is when there is just a tad more paper than gold in the system than the people are comfortable with, and a run starts. The state proclaims that the been (ref example) is just as good as gold, and apply a law to support that illusion. The law is the fiat point.

We don't have fiat money. Money is backed by deposits and securities. You will not get a credit (which is money) without that.

We do have fiat money, but the extent of debt is so large that it seems that debt is the basis. It is not, it is the fiat paper, plus the electronic only fiat created in QE. Unredeemable and unbacked. The debt extends the quantum of money while it exist, and contracts the money when it is extingushed by being paid back or written off. So debt is also money, I agree with that, but it is not the base, it is an extension of the base quantum.

Fiat means 'out of nothing'. Money IS debt, and nothing different. It is not paper, and the debt is backed by deposits and securities. A bank creates money, as soon as you take a credit (backed by your deposit).

No, fiat means that the money manager states, through a law, that the paper money backed by gold, is just as good as gold, and it comes when the backing and therefore the redeemability is questioned by the market.

Anyway, my post here was to illustrate that bitcoins must be held directly with the public to the largest extent technically possible, to avoid that surrogates appear, and also galloping debt.

EDIT: (The real meaning of fiat after a while becomes nonsensical, when a gold mark is worth a million paper marks, no one believes in it, and they just forget that at some point, a paper mark was in fact worth a gold mark. So when the redeemability is removed, fiat is "out of nothing" as you say. But gold and bitcoin is also out of nothing. They are sound because there is no money manager).

Zimbabwe and Weimar printed paper out of nothing. This is overwhelmingly not the case in a property backed money environment. You have to deliver capital to the bank to get credit (money). That's the way how money is created and backed in a capitalist environment. Money was never fully linked with metal. Everything started with the first debt, which was the debt to the state/warlords, the tribute: grain, or metal for the Organized Violence to organize violence. There is no economy beyond an environment of organized violence. Beyond that environment is self-sufficiency.

You are utterly confused - or willfully destroying the discussion for lols or whatever - or an automaton - or you sell that ...5000... book.

[Zarathustra]

the only bloatcoiner smart enough to see this clearly is Mike Hearn, and that is exactly why he has put in the effort to make XT.  Classic controlled demolition.

Excellent (and blessedly succinct) argument by analogy.  "Hostile/malicious fork" descriptive power just doesn't have the same je ne sais quoi as "controlled demolition."

Does not convince many. Not here and not there.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1144606.60

Bitcoin is explicitly non-democratic.  Populism has no power here.

Yes, the populism of the 1MBers has no power, neither in the threads of the elite nor anywhere else. That's why the limit will be raised within the next 12 month.

The "populism of the 1MBers" is not your concern.

Your concern is the multi-year duration and multi-billion-dollar magnitude of Bitcoin's current economic majority.

Are you going to be the first brave fellow to defect from that imposing majority by accepting Gavin-tainted XTcoins?  No?  Then you are just a poser.

In the remote possiblity XT becomes a matter of more importance than the hype, mirth, and scorn it generates at present, MPex and other 1MBer Elder Whales are prepared to use substantial (possibly exhaustive) portions of their extraordinarily massive war chests to repel 8MBer attacks.  To them, this is Holy War, with barbarian Gavinista hordes clamouring for a Free Shit Junta at the gates of their bespoke civilization.  They are more of a mood to impale heads atop spikes than reward with compromise Hearn's attacks on decentralization, Tor, and the consensus process.

Are you still sure you want to risk your tiny stash playing Hard Fork Poker with such ultra-high-rollers?

Before you answer, please take into account that nodes by default prioritize tx moving older coins, and the Royalty of La Serenissima possesses, in great quantities, very old coins.

What will you do when the limit isn't raised within the next 12 months?  Continue to cry wolf?  Self harm? Or admit being wrong?  

You know iCE, I also am concerned by the idea of a hostile fork, but reading your propaganda it just dawned on me that the only hostilities are coming from people like you. Everyone of any worth agrees we need to increase the block size, it's just there is a hostile minority who feel they are in power who are wanting to pick a fight.

Accommodating bigger blocks over a 12 month period given Bitcoin's exponential growth is not a hostile act, it's not rushing in a controversial change, it's a practical prudent approach.

You are part of the minority who are making it controversial and calling it hostile. I just don't see why you're opposed to letting Bitcoin grow free of manipulation and control.

Because "Monero doesn't suffer from the 1MB block limits."

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

[Erdogan]

XT is currently only a voting mechanism, like a poll here. Maybe in half a year we will see the first bigblock, maybe in a year. Gavin has been extra patient.

[smoothie]

XT is currently only a voting mechanism, like a poll here. Maybe in half a year we will see the first bigblock, maybe in a year. Gavin has been extra patient.

another spam attack couldn't get the first big block ?

or is there a time constraint on when the first > 1 MB block can be created?

[MinerHQ]

I think it is not correct because gold is always best investment and it will always grow for longer time. So it is not a good way to compare gold and bitcoin.

[smoothie]

I think it is not correct because gold is always best investment and it will always grow for longer time. So it is not a good way to compare gold and bitcoin.

OH RLY?

Does gold only go up in price?

Answer: NO

Therefore: Gold is not always best investment

Every commodity traded has its price go up and down making it just an investment not "always the best investment"