Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Adrian-x]

poor Blockstream investors.  $21M down the drain on a hair brain idea of separating the currency unit from the blockchain.

that is how you know we are not in a bubble.

yeah. poor billionaires  

they should've asked cypherdoc before trusting some of the most competent and well educated people in the sphere.

btw I will repeat, just as an attempt to maybe drive the point home one last time, that the concern is not separating the unit from the blockchain (which is technically not true of sidechains anyway) but the seperation of the value from the ledger.

Oh yes, that makes all the difference. I feel good now, I can own part of a ledger, that has been separated from it's value, how does this add more value to the ledger again?  Earlier, I was questioning the essence of your position on the SC debate, and that was, why is it assumed that we need to separating the value stored in the ledger? This argument is missing from your input.  

To be honest I like to learn, and the lessons that cost the most, have a big impact.
If you are familiar with my history in this thread, I thought Cypher was a doof (sorry cypher). I never engaged just observed for a long time. I studied everything Bitcoin, I beveled it was a digital p2p currency and going to take over the world, anyway I thought gold was for Boomers, and dead, but after reading the counter arguments here I though Gold was about to boom and I had been wrong, little did I know it was at its top. I cashed out a lot of bitcoin at about $10 and bought gold, I was sick of cypher always closing the argument by looking at the statistics. Gold collapsing. Bitcoin up. they were dependent on the time he made the claim and not relevant at the moment back then .

I was so cretin in my belief that Bitcoin was Currency, I have lots of data, I tracked the money velocity, the total trade on SR, I monitored 3 exchanges, I had analysed, and predicted each bull and bear run up until then I was convinced that based on the fundamentals that Bitcoin was going to crash down to about $3 and have a slow slide down as it worked out some economic glitches that I didn't like.

But just then Bitcoin shot up to $260, and left me behind, lots of new info was posted here and I read an article written in about 2007 it talked about Store of Value and why gold has it, and what property makes it,  I've looked for it since but never found it, it changed me thanks whoever posted it.  

The conclusion I came to was Bitcoin could be a currency or a payment network but both those are not what is going on here, what is actually happening is Bitcoin is emerging as a Store of Value, and I changed my strategy.

So when I read stuff that is dicking with the value stored on the ledger, I see people messing with stuff they don't understand, Bitcoin is going to be the SoV, and once that happens it will evolve.
The SoV comes first and foremost, and to get there you can't be tweaking with the idea of separating the value on the ledger, that threatens the very thing that makes Bitcoin grow.  

[1714133553]

1714133553

[1714133553]

1714133553

[1714133553]

1714133553

[1714133553]

1714133553

[1714133553]

1714133553

[1714133553]

1714133553

[Melbustus]

...

I like gmax and his work. I have never met him(he does not know me) but I understand what how and why he wants to say.
 => He is not techno-communists.


It is not easy to understand. It is all about math logic.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=318279.0

I am fascinated by Tim May's crypto-anarchy. Unlike the communities traditionally associated with the word "anarchy", in a crypto-anarchy the government is not temporarily destroyed but permanently forbidden and permanently unnecessary. It's a community where the threat of violence is impotent because violence is impossible, and violence is impossible because its participants cannot be linked to their true names or physical locations.

Until now it's not clear, even theoretically, how such a community could operate. A community is defined by the cooperation of its participants, and efficient cooperation requires a medium of exchange (money) and a way to enforce contracts. Traditionally these services have been provided by the government or government sponsored institutions and only to legal entities. In this article I describe a protocol by which these services can be provided to and by untraceable entities.

...

Just in case anyone's wondering (since it wasn't cited), that quote is from Wei Dai's 1998 "b-money" proposal: http://www.weidai.com/bmoney.txt

[tvbcof]

poor Blockstream investors.  $21M down the drain on a hair brain idea of separating the currency unit from the blockchain.

that is how you know we are not in a bubble.

yeah. poor billionaires  

they should've asked cypherdoc before trusting some of the most competent and well educated people in the sphere.

...

I'm sure they all subscribe to his newsletter.  I mean it's probably worth the dirt-cheap price for a good chuckle now and then.

[cypherdoc]

but the seperation of the value from the ledger.

this displays such a lack of understanding about what Bitcoin is it's laughable and sad at the same time.

let me say this loud and clear:  YOU CAN'T DO THAT.

the BTC unit is what drives the miner greed to assemble what is called the blockchain ledger in the first place.  w/o the unit, there is no ledger or blockchain.

and yes, we need that greed to exist on the MC and stay there so that tx fees can grow to a self sustainable level as block rewards decrease.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

but the seperation of the value from the ledger.

this displays such a lack of understanding about what Bitcoin is it's laughable and sad at the same time.

let me say this loud and clear:  YOU CAN'T DO THAT.

the BTC unit is what drives the miner greed to assemble what is called the blockchain ledger in the first place.  w/o the unit, there is no ledger or blockchain.

and yes, we need that greed to exist on the MC and stay there so that tx fees can grow to a self sustainable level as block rewards decrease.

Thank you! Any objections?

[cypherdoc]

yeah. poor billionaires  

they should've asked cypherdoc before trusting some of the most competent and well educated people in the sphere.

given i am probably the first VC to have ventured into the space in a significant way, yes, it probably would've been a good idea.  problem is, i don't have a need or desire to reveal or display myself out in public as an "authority" even tho my early involvement could have easily allowed me to do so given the quality of Bitcoin assessment i see from guys like you.

look at what Andreas said last night which is very true to this day:

“(It’s) a good idea. Because the truth is very few people really understand what bitcoin is exactly, and how it works,” he says.

“And I don’t mean a few politicians; I mean very few people in general really really understand bitcoin."

http://www.startupsmart.com.au/financing-a-business/gst-on-bitcoin-would-be-monumentally-stupid-says-digital-currency-expert/2014112413685.html

i've always said that "most ppl are going to lose money investing in cryptocurrencies"-cypherdoc.

that is going to be so true as i keep seeing idiots throwing their hard earned money at all the wrong places.  i can't imagine alot of these Blockstream investors really understanding Bitcoin as well as me and others in this thread.  we've been discussing the high level economic and game theories here for years.  we're not deeply technical as guys like gmax but i understand Bitcoin pretty darn well from a technical side.  and i see that as an advantage, not a liability.  experience counts as well out in the real world of finance.

this is how you tell we are NOT in a bubble.

[MalboroMan36]

very good sign IMO.

Edit : this thread is an extension of this beast:

Gold: I Smell a Trap

What gold an Bitcoin have in common is that they are both inherent storages of value, and have two fold purpose: both can be used as an investment and as a form of currency.

MalboroMan

[cypherdoc]

here's the other part of Andreas quote that i missed:

“I would count myself as one of them. I understand parts of bitcoin, but I don’t think I can predict where this thing is going. I don’t think I can predict even a fraction of the applications that are likely to be built on bitcoin. None of us know. This is unchartered territory. The reason it’s unchartered territory is because nothing like bitcoin has ever happened before."

[cypherdoc]

very good sign IMO.

Edit : this thread is an extension of this beast:

Gold: I Smell a Trap

What gold an Bitcoin have in common is that they are both inherent storages of value, and have two fold purpose: both can be used as an investment and as a form of currency.

MalboroMan

absolutely.  i've avoided the word "investment" in deference to SOV but i kinda view them the same.  clearly, i bought BTC in expectation that it would go UP in value, not just stay flat.  hence, the title of this thread.  the upside potential is enormous IF we can keep these apparatchiks from changing the source code which will screw up Bitcoin as Sound Money and change it into a WoW trading platform.  keeping Bitcoin as Money will allow us to consume the fiat Forex markets and gold itself.  we are on our way but just at the beginning.  the apparatchiks will become rich if they jump on board even now.  in the end, we want to force all outsiders to have to "buy in" to the BTC currency unit on the main blockchain which will send us to the Moon and provide badly needed revenue to our security providers, the miners.

[notme]

very good sign IMO.

Edit : this thread is an extension of this beast:

Gold: I Smell a Trap

What gold an Bitcoin have in common is that they are both inherent storages of value, and have two fold purpose: both can be used as an investment and as a form of currency.

MalboroMan

absolutely.  i've avoided the word "investment" in deference to SOV but i kinda view them the same.  clearly, i bought BTC in expectation that it would go UP in value, not just stay flat.  hence, the title of this thread.  the upside potential is enormous IF we can keep these apparatchiks from changing the source code which will screw up Bitcoin as Sound Money and change it into a WoW trading platform.  keeping Bitcoin as Money will allow us to consume the fiat Forex markets and gold itself.  we are on our way but just at the beginning.  the apparatchiks will become rich if they jump on board even now.  in the end, we want to force all outsiders to have to "buy in" to the BTC currency unit on the main blockchain which will send us to the Moon and provide badly needed revenue to our security providers, the miners.

Says the guy who wants to change the source to increase block size.

[justusranvier]

Says the guy who wants to change the source to increase block size.

The source code has already been changed - to add in the 1 MB block size limit.

We were promised it was temporary.

[cypherdoc]

very good sign IMO.

Edit : this thread is an extension of this beast:

Gold: I Smell a Trap

What gold an Bitcoin have in common is that they are both inherent storages of value, and have two fold purpose: both can be used as an investment and as a form of currency.

MalboroMan

absolutely.  i've avoided the word "investment" in deference to SOV but i kinda view them the same.  clearly, i bought BTC in expectation that it would go UP in value, not just stay flat.  hence, the title of this thread.  the upside potential is enormous IF we can keep these apparatchiks from changing the source code which will screw up Bitcoin as Sound Money and change it into a WoW trading platform.  keeping Bitcoin as Money will allow us to consume the fiat Forex markets and gold itself.  we are on our way but just at the beginning.  the apparatchiks will become rich if they jump on board even now.  in the end, we want to force all outsiders to have to "buy in" to the BTC currency unit on the main blockchain which will send us to the Moon and provide badly needed revenue to our security providers, the miners.

Says the guy who wants to change the source to increase block size.

i don't want to do anything.  but i will go along with whatever Gavin and the others decide together.  if they decide to leave it, fine.

at least it will be done on mainchain and doesn't involve breaking Bitcoins sound money function.

[NewLiberty]

Says the guy who wants to change the source to increase block size.

The source code has already been changed - to add in the 1 MB block size limit.

We were promised it was temporary.

Yes, when Satoshi put in the limit, he also reassured us on its temporary nature by describing the mechanism to change it (by adding a higher block size starting at a far future block so that there would be adequate time for upgrades and get us past the HARD fork issue.). ...I have my own ideas on the best ways to do that.  Somewhat better than Gavin's proposal, and only a little more complicated.

Its not something we've done though.  So when folks say things like "no problem if 2SHA-2 256 is cracked by quantum, we'll just change the algorithm", I cringe when I hear that word "just".  It doesn't belong, it is not a minor change and it doesn't make sense to minimize the impact and challenge.

...

In some ways, a SOFT fork such as SCs present similar challenges.  In some ways it is easier but in others it is harder.  Compatible and non-compatible software/hardware can run at the same time and on the same chain.  The security profile gets a little complicated there.  A MM'd SC can be mined by equipment that can't process an SPV (and so would accept any attempt as valid).

The economic impact is also easy to underestimate, and assumptions about things for which we have no evidence and only untested theory are simply insane.

Look at the number of times the word "will" is used to make some untested theory sound like it is a proven fact.  Doing so is likely to make any scientist (or engineer) cringe with contempt for the author.  It is something I struggle with, because although I agree with the notion of exploring the innovation of SC, and working toward adding it to the Bitcoin tool belt of possible solutions for certain problems...  We kill that possibility by making unsupportable claims about an uncertain future.  It is so easy to do bad marketing in this space because just about ALL the real "customers" are so much smarter and more knowledgeable than the marketing folks on what they are pushing.  Everyone sees when the conclusions are assumed in the argument, most are just too polite to say much about it.

The marketing folks should consider their audience when posting here.

It doesn't make sense to minimize the impact and challenge.

[sickpig]

Cypher I think you'll enjoy this one:

http://joel.mn/post/103546215249/the-blockchain-application-stack

:-)

[tvbcof]

Says the guy who wants to change the source to increase block size.

The source code has already been changed - to add in the 1 MB block size limit.

We were promised it was temporary.

We were made a variety of conflicting 'promises' by a variety of people.  Chief among these 'decentralization'.  Various less informed people probably honestly promulgated the myth that it would be a nearly free exchange medium for the masses.

I don't know about you, but I immediately spotted the scaling issues and tradeoffs that would need to be made.  I knew that some promises would be broken simply by applying a little bit of logic.

I hope that the promise which is broken is the notion that Bitcoin is to become the native layer upon which all human economic interaction is carried.  Although I think it would be ultra-cool, it will absolutely destroy other aspects of the solution that are more important to me.  Even getting 0.001% to that lofty goal would kill Bitcoin in the ways that I feel give it it's true strength.

So, why even make baby steps toward something which is not tenable?  The ONLY thing which can be accomplished is to ruin what is otherwise a solution with huge potential.

We need layers which allow Bitcoin to reach it's ultimate potential as a truly revolutionary development.  I can think of nothing more approprate for this than sidechains.

---

I actually love the idea of 'treechains', but that is simply not tenable as a core at this point.  Hopefully they can be proven on a sidechain.  Really one of the most legitimate arguments against 'sidechains' is that they could foster developments which make the Bitcoin core seem so inadequate that there is a strong incentive to simply deprecate it.  I'm not all that concerned that this will happen, and if it did it is likely that value would be imported from Bitcoin anyway due to it's valuations created by it's strong network effect.

[solex]

Says the guy who wants to change the source to increase block size.

The source code has already been changed - to add in the 1 MB block size limit.

We were promised it was temporary.

So, why even make baby steps toward something which is not tenable?  The ONLY thing which can be accomplished is to ruin what is otherwise a solution with huge potential.

We need layers which allow Bitcoin to reach it's ultimate potential as a truly revolutionary development.  I can think of nothing more approprate for this than sidechains.

---
I actually love the idea of 'treechains', but that is simply not tenable as a core at this point.  Hopefully they can be proven on a sidechain.  Really one of the most legitimate arguments against 'sidechains' is that they could foster developments which make the Bitcoin core seem so inadequate that there is a strong incentive to simply deprecate it.  I'm not all that concerned that this will happen, and if it did it is likely that value would be imported from Bitcoin anyway due to it's valuations created by it's strong network effect.

None of what you describe here, and want to happen, will mean very much if Bitcoin is not widely used.
What separates Bitcoin from all the other alts is its larger ecosystem, the network effect of many more miners, users, holders and merchants.

Allowing the transaction throughput to be crippled is the single most damaging community action that could be taken against the network, worse even than a 51% attack. At the current rate of growth this will occur in 2015. None of the sidechains, treechains or any other load balancing solution will be fully deployed, even if they are solutions to volume growth, (rather than just 2.0 applications).  Further, global bandwidth is improving at 50% per year, so the existing 1MB is not just a fixed limit but a contracting one relative to the prevailing level of technology which Bitcoin employs.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Gold? UP.

[solex]

Gold? UP.

Even Bitcoin can't do that trick.

[tabnloz]

Gold? UP.

Even Bitcoin can't do that trick.

Interesting few weeks.

This anomaly, the BoJ again buying in (and going all-in), China dropping rates, declining sentiment indicators, AUD dropping on hint of a rate cut.

Maybe the facade has lifted.

btc has had a bit of a bump and now news that Kraken may serve as the conduit to distribute Gox's (diminishing) coins.

[STT]

Gox still has coins ?  you mean the liquidators

It might have been a interesting few weeks but really you aint seen nothing yet, this all rates as quiet compared to what should really qualify as big news.  Something like swiss backing their currency with gold should make for a 50 dollar rise pretty instantly and over weeks leading back to 1600 possibly.   Thats where I start to say ok this is interesting and I would like to see how BTC compares to large dynamic changes like that.

Japan going into recession while stoking inflation mindlessly with repetitive QE doesnt really qualify, to some this is normal.   Abe failing reelection would be news, the rise of his opposite would be worth noting.  I do expect big things like yen being refused at some point, to say so now is ridiculous but that would be news for sure