Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 122. (Read 2032248 times)

Amen. They can cry all they want; the economic majority will prevail.

Your reasoning is interesting to me.  Mostly because your evaluation appears to contradict your conclusion.  And so, I suspect you have a some well thought out ideas and nuances that you've not yet communicated.

Both 100 and 101 provide a mechanism for more block size.  Choosing between the two may depend on your perspectives and assessment of different risk levels within the operating groups.

Do you see more centralized control among developers or miners?
- If development is more centralized, BIP100, (developers giving controls to miners).
- If mining is more centralized, BIP101, (developers retaining control over block size increases and schedules).

Both remain fairly centralized, though both are less so than they previously have been.  From your discourse, it would seem your evaluation would be the devs are more centralized and so would favor BIP100, (irrespective of who authored it).

"a short term hack" is how I see it, what concerns me is developers appear to be leveraging it to push through other hacks. (hacking the hack - postponing indefinably until such time as other hard fork changes could be bundled in with this one.)

BIP100 is good in that it removes the hard fork limit, my reservations though are that it does nothing to erode the centralized control system that has evolved. I prefer Bib 101 as it implies some central gate keepers need to eat humble pie, however nether are my first choice.  

At this stage I'd like to start seeing more decentralized development, the notion that Bitcoin is resilient in that if the protocol is modified the ideals will never be eroded because it is open source and can be forked to keep the original intent appears to only be valid so long as we share the same motives as the centralized development team.

The very idea of forking that was originally proposed to protect Bitcoin Values was vehemently opposed by the centralized developers who expressed disdain that they were not consulted and their process for seeking permission to propose change was not adhere too, even going so far as calling the idea of forking to remove the hard limit a threat to the very success of bitcoin.

I think there is a distortion of perception and lack of empathy all round. ultimately it is the people who put economic energy into the idea that make it viable, and while developers are important, they are not the gods who conduct this experiment, its the people who put in their economic energy.    

Most folks won't take an appeal to authority argument very seriously, but for those that might, it merits pointing out that it is not entirely clear that this means that node quantities should be expected to decline, or just that SPV users should increase at a much greater pace percentagewise.

Speaking of zero hedge as an information source, which we don't really do at the moment, anyway, I found these two near perfect articles today:

This is about mining, but the author nearly completely understands that in general, the low interest rate and money expansion distorts both production, by focusing on the investments that has a long time interval between investment and finished consumer goods, and consumption, because the consumer due to low interest has exhausted his resources in advance, and is now in a consumption reduction mode:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-07-13/miners-buried-billions-debt-after-colossal-misjudgment-demand

And this, which reveals (to me, anyway) new details about the conditions in Argentina, and how the state's intervention in just about everything reduces productivity, running all kinds of value destructive enterprises, including the traditional export industries which are now unprofitable due to the managed peso dollar exchange rate. There is only one single important difference to conditions in greece, and that is that greece have relatively sound money. If anybody think that not joining the euro in 2001, but keeping the insane regulations, the outrageous spending on welfare, and the defense spendings, would change anything for the good, this article gives food for thought:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-07-13/argentina-model-greece

Did you read the posting right above mine?  Its completely clear that he supported the idea that as the network grows the full nodes would need to be dedicated servers and most users would use SPV.  This is what you guys are calling "centralization".   But its really not, because it remains permissionless.  That's the most important thing, because if you don't like the full node choices you could always get a few people together and rent your own.

Additionally, the node centralization fear is simply stupid because we've already lost the fight.  Miners have 99% of the power in the Bitcoin network and they are much more centralized than full nodes.  You're closing the barn door after the cows have already gotten out!

@odalv: AFAIK Satoshi didn't say anything about whether increases should be pre-baked in or not.  But regardless I think the blocksize increase crowd would compromise on a static but significant (8MB or greater) increase.

I think Gold will carsh now i see in chart price want go to down same like bitcoin will goes down too

The block size limit is a short term hack.  Someday we might get beyond such a limit, but it could be quite a while.  BIP100 looks promising though.

Go dollar cash now. After Oct go dollar, PMs, crypto, and US stock market. On the blowoff peak in 2017, sell dollar, stocks, PMs, and go exclusively crypto. Dollar and stocks will peak in 2017 and into the abyss after. Gold will be heavy taxed (expropriated when you sell it by various means) and there will not be black markets (after 2017), because cash will be phased out (the banks will retire all cash and none will be printed). Anonymous crypto will be your only chance to escape expropriation after 2017. I had already explained why real estate will be destroyed as an investment.

Get out of what? Equities? Money in savings? Should we go all in on crypto and PM? Not trolling. Serious Qs

i dont think you understand what that Satoshi Quote says.

that's a compromise Gavin did for you folk, Satoshi didn't support a limit at all.

Satoshi would never trade trustlessness and resiliency for efficiency and adoption.

I have never heard that Satoshi propose exponential growth of block. (doubling size every 2 years)

I think the bull run has started and will go quite a lot beyond 300. Then I see two scenarios:

1) This is like 2012 and the price merely doubles/triples or so and then hangs fairly steady for quite a few more months, maybe gets temporarily beaten down during the so-called "2015.75" flight to safety (like gold did in 2008), finally getting into the 2013-style giant surge as we approach next year's halving.

2) This is like early 2013 and a giant rise is in progress right now, hopefully getting into something resembling that nice early-2013 steady(ish) three-week doubling time exponential growth soon, and running between 50x and 500x to the peak. I think Greece was merely the excuse, though it can add to the fire.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ch4g4/bitcoin_being_held_hostage/csvj8r2

Hilarious, I'd missed this, have a link?

The 'red zone' coincides with a Transaction Fee Market Developing Amid A Surge in Transaction Volume.

The 'red zone' coincides with Bitcoin, quietly and without much hype, starting to work as it was intended to.

User frustration?  Depends on the user in question.

Users attempting to DOS the network with crapfloods have been frustrated.

Users attempting to use the frustrated crapflooding efforts to justify pushing through larger blocks have also been frustrated.

As gmax quipped, "the attack is actually much less effective against the network itself than it is against the forums."

Users sending tx with appropriately competitive fees (IE normal people) have not been frustrated.

And I think his prediction will be correct. Anonymint has pin pointed the last 2 years or so of bitcoin movement better than anyone I know on this forum. With his help I sold before the dip to $150 and re-bought and sold again yesterday at $315. I think he should get much more credit. His macro economic predictions are probably also going to be correct. On the basis of Armstrongs models (who has been consistently correct for decades) I think it is very likely we have some very dark times ahead.

Indeed. And unfortunately, the sheer resilience of the bitcoin network in the face of a self-imposed handicap against smooth management of traffic peaks, has given oxygen to the 1MBers. They believe that bitcoin users having to put a higher fee than a spammer's known low-ball fee level is some kind of fee-market! (Matonis is clueless to claim there is a fee-market - though my estimation of him is now down to zero as he talks about monkeying with the 21M limit).

We don't have a real fee market, just one of general policy, it is pure luck that the spammer conducted his attack when the blocks were 40% full, and did not have enough money to hit out a range of higher fees that would have really disrupted the users.

So, Wladimir has pushed out the v0.11 release (full of magnificent stuff) but missing the one change more important than all the others put together: a fix like BIPs 100 & 101.

Unless v0.12 comes out soon with one of these fixes then serious delays driving thousands of users away from Bitcoin are inevitable by the end of this year. All the miners are producing 900+KB blocks now. This is an alarm going off. Even Gavin's earliest proposed trigger date of Jan 1st, 2016 looks iffy now.