Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 146. (Read 2032248 times)

These days, the only difference between you and the Buttcoiners is that you say "Cripplecoin" instead.   

You're the one who hired the guy that under oath represented you as the LeBron of BTC.

When you aggressively and egregiously misunderstand the flow and causation of tx broadcasting from clients to pools to block inclusion and then on to verification, of course we're going to have fun with that amusing apparent contradiction (however unfair it may be to confuse athletic, financial, and technical expertise).

If you don't want to be called LeBron until the day Lord Satoshi moves His Holy Coins, I suggest apologizing for accusing the core devs (who write the free code you run) of impropriety/malfeasance/obstructionism/etc.


More SPV mining, which is not an attack but rather explicitly permitted/encouraged by the protocol and arguably beneficial, is the result of larger (not "full") blocks.

Even Peter, your fellow Gavinista, has tried explaining you are full of shit, to no avail:


What's your excuse for ignoring Peter's attempt to inject you with sanity?  He's not a Cripplecoiner, nor did he mention ad hom/HF/iceblow.

Can't you just man up and admit being wrong?  Come on LeBron, the ball is in your court!   

We don't know who Satoshi was and if what 'he' said about this or that is even especially reliable.  Assuming it is, we don't know that he said exactly what he was thinking.

If Satoshi said that he wanted to build a niche monetary system for big players and insiders to use as a reserve currency, I would not have been interested and would not have gotten involved.  Only after having dwelt on it some did I come to the conclusion that in spite of the faults and somewhat distasteful nature of the solution, it is the best way to have a chance of enduring success (and thereby at least partially dislodge those who do the same under a vastly inferior monetary system design such is our current crop of fiat solutions.)  So, Satoshi may well have tuned much of his writings (and code) to play on social pressures as much as computer science ones.

From a fairly early stage Satoshi seems to have gathered a contingent of fairly small-minded adherent (in addition to some brilliant ones such as Hal.)  Lesser minds tend to be attracted to shiny and simplistic things such as the 'Bitcoin is everything to everyone always and forever' philosophical construct.  I don't find it at all difficult to believe that Satoshi may have tuned his messages to retain these folks and build a 'critical mass' using these as footsoldiers.  If it were that or nothing, that is preferable in the battle to achieve a viable solution.

do we have a detailed statement from the Chinese pools as to "why" from their perspective they are SPV mining?  unfortunately, they might not tell us.

It's been two months since I plotted the original version of this chart.  We're still tracking the dashed line, as we progress deeper into the red zone:

It is not hard to come with these understandings after a generous overview of the top 50 altcoins, reason why I'm as uninpressed with LTC market as with its innovative features (none).

that 1 tx block is f2pool

unconf tx's at 14,700   

and here we go again:

it's a Magic Number!

no, it was always meant to be a DoS prevention mechanism and Satoshi foresaw much wider and greater usage of Bitcoin as a worldwide p2p cash system to challenge the big banks:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11625671

it's is MUCH more likely these SPV mining attacks are a direct result of full blocks.

i hope ppl here can discern the fact that most or all of what the Cripplecoin ppl have to say involves ad hominems and iCEBlow.  not to mention the obfuscation that attempts to link my dispute with the HF lawyers to the block size debate and Blockstreams financial conflict of interest in core dev.

Whether 1MB is ideal or not, it's what we have.  It's pretty evident that Bitcoin would be lucky to avoid annihilation on attempts to change it in any way at this point in time.  That may or may not be the case in the future.

As it happens, 1MB seemed to have been at least quite fortuitous for us, and I wonder if it were not somewhat well considered when Satoshi made the setting as opposed to the perception promulgated by some that he pulled a random number out his ass.

 - It is/was just under the realistic limits needed to run the network behind TOR.

 - It got us all the way into mid 2015 before it became much of a stressor at all.  Had it been smaller, interest in Bitcoin may have died while at the current interest levels it is more likely that significant efforts will be made to solve any necessary engineering efforts rather than to walk away.

 - Even now that touching transaction rate limitations is within sight, the transaction body is chalk full of freeloaders who do nothing worthwhile for network support (e.g., Multibitch users) and there is much room to grow by simply allowing these users to drain away as a transaction fee market develops.

 - It looks like for some time the entire blockchain will fit on a MicroSD meaning that new nodes can be brought up with nodes which are modest in expense and a concealable bit of physical media.  There is an easily calculable and reasonable ceiling on the power and bandwidth necessary to operate this support infrastructure, and it is low enough in value that most operators can walk away from their investment if there were pressures applied from the mainstream legal and law enforcement world.

In retrospect, 1MB seems like a pretty ideal setting for the past history of Bitcoin and some distance into the future.  To me.

Exactly.  Dr. Frappuccino is letting his deranged, unreasonable hatred and fear of 1MB blocks color his thinking beliefs about completely unrelated (or, at best, merely "correlated") matters.

I'm shocked to discover how little he actually understands about technical issues on which he has such strong, stridently/frequently expressed opinions.

As Gmax was just saying, the end result of this trend is to burn up whatever is left of his tattered credibility.


The trouble with our Gavinsta friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.

gmax, you seem to think this post of yours is gospel, so let me address it pt by pt, since i don't and never have thought it was even worth my time to respond to:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/39tgno/letting_miners_vote_on_the_maximum_block_size_is/cs6rek5

I think the first assumption is that there is a non-negligible marginal cost per transaction (/byte) which miners can forgo if they choose to not include a transaction. This is essentially untrue, at least in the fundamentals. A miner has a transaction already before deciding to include it, or will have to immediately obtain it if someone else includes it. Because the transactions have been already forwarded around, once a block is found all that must be communicated is which of the already relayed transactions were actually included. This is what the block-relay-network protocol does already, and it takes 2 bytes per already-relayed transaction. This can further be reduced by the use of schemes such as the "O(1)" block relay idea, which-- if miners adopt consistent priority/censorship policies-- need only send the difference between the expected block and the actual-- with data only proportional to the difference.

this flies in the face of the current facts.  Chinese miners are SPV mining for the very fact that they believe they can earn more block rewards by NOT including tx's than including.  they've also told you that b/c of their inferior connectivity behind the GFC, they cannot accept an initial block size inc beyond 8MB.  both of these precisely have to do with their marginal costs of propagation delays despite the theoretical advantages of the relay network.  they do in fact worry about orphans related to large blocks.

Next, you're assuming that to whatever extent these proportional costs are non-negligible, miners will address them by optimizing their block size to maximize income. However, there is a superior option: Miners can prevent orphaning by centralizing the control of their hashpower to single large pools. We saw this effect after miners started producing blocks over 500K that orphaning drove miners to consolidate in large pools to reduce orphaning. Decreasing your own blocksize is not enough to reduce your orphaning, others must do so too, and larger miners would be on the winning side of the orphaning more often, reducing the size also has an unclear benefit, delays transactions, and passes up fee income. Centralizing mining results in an all cause orphaning reduction, is simple, and can reduce other operating costs. As a result we saw single parties having administrative control of over half the hashpower, completely undermining one of the base security assumptions of the system. This inspired the emergency deployment of the block relay protocol, which seems to have helped; though the distribution is still quite ugly.

i think it's a shame you continue to be stuck on the ghash incident.  you continue to ignore the fact that the double spend was done by an insider, was small in amount, and was inflicted on a dice website conducting 0 conf transacting.  you also ignore the fact that the market has subsequently punished ghash down to the level of 2%:



furthermore, you ignore the obvious fact that hashers are independently minded and will leave any pool that abuses it's power via all the shenanigans you dream up to scare everyone about how bad Bitcoin is.  this takes us back to the very first time i became concerned with your behavior.  it had to do precisely with this mining centralization issue you have ALWAYS though was a huge problem with Bitcoin.  well, i think you are wrong and i think we probably saw the very last time a single pool reaches 50% or more.  the mining market is evening out but we still have more to go.  and that would be to lift the block size limit and allow mining operations in other parts of the world to compete with Chinese miners with bigger blocks.

Finally, you're assuming that the equilibrium where fees match the costs related to verification and transmission is a viable state of affairs. The level of POW security in the system is a totally free parameter, if most of the miners income is going to pay costs related to verification and bandwidth then those funds cannot be used to provide POW security. Moreover, if the cost for verification at this equilibrium (if one exists at all, as miners can always increase their own income by breaking rank and accepting lower fees if there is no size limit) is considerable (E.g. comparable to the fee income) then how will any non-miners be able to afford to also run the verification, which is an essential part of Bitcoin's economic argument for SPV security-- that the majority of hashpower will follow the protocol because others will reject their blocks if they violate it).

here, you are talking about the fact that full nodes aren't paid like miners are.  i, and many many Bitcoiners, have said that we foresee specialized server farms that act solely for the purpose of full node verification and relay.  this is according to Satoshi's vision:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11625671

heck, I will run a specialized node if it gets to that pt.  that would be a great problem to have, all those tx's.  if so, the price will be correspondingly high and probably everyone of us could afford to run a full node.  but ignoring that level of altruism, if tx growth gets to that level, that would mean inc users-->inc merchants-->inc full nodes run by merchants.  merchants will want and have the fiduciary responsibility and financial wherewithall to run full nodes, no problem.

Yeah, I don't think it makes sense to come up with the idea that Bitcoin and precious metals would be mutually exclusive. I'm pretty sure that both will rise. Even if gold might ultimately be replaced by Bitcoin I doubt that this process will be fast enough to obstruct the general upward momentum of gold in a collapsing world economy.

After all, Bitcoin's concept is like virtual gold: The supply is limited, it's very difficult to counterfeit and you have to put in substantial effort to obtain it.

I'd like to run two statistical hypothesis tests:

1.  Is F2Pool/AntPool more likely to produce an empty block when the previous block is large?

2.  Is F2Pool/AntPool more likely to produce an empty block when mempool swells?

I think the answer to Q1 will be "yes." But I don't see why the answer to Q2 would be yes for any reason other than the previous block is more likely to be large when mempool swells (i.e., mempool is not the cause, just correlated).

Johnnybravo0311 is compiling a file that shows:


for each block in the Blockchain, which will help answering Q1.  Does anyone know where I can get comprehensive data on the typical node's mempool size versus time to help answer Q2?

1.  when an individual hasher joins a pool large or small, he will not make earn any more BTC or reduce any orphans he might have gotten otherwise while mining individually, he just smooths both of those out over time.  this assumes that both large and small pools are joining the relay network (it's open so why not) or otherwise have excellent internet connections which i have heard many miners claim.
2.  "Verifying the new tx incoming blocks contain has nothing to do with tx in mempools, which are waiting to be included in subsequent blocks."  such a statement is ignorant.  all the tx's received in the block results in the mempool being cleared of those same unconf tx's.
3.  your argument completely misses the point as well as the reality.  the answer is that it is exceedingly unlikely that Satoshi perfectly chose the point at which the network in July 2015 would consider 1MB to be "too large" to the pt that pools would start SPV creating hard forks.  that is so ridiculous on it's face it's not worth arguing.  also, it also totally ignores the fact that the top 5 Chinese pools have already gone on record stating that despite their problems with the GFC, they are perfectly ready and willing to inc the cap to 8MB and double it every 2 yr according to Gavin's proposal.  which says they are doing SPV mining for a reason other than the blocks are "large".  i can't say for sure b/c afaik, they haven't said exactly why they are SPV'ing.  i think it's b/c the cap is being continuously hit resulting in bloating unconf tx sets which is somehow affecting their willingness to include confirmed tx's in blocks.

mymy you are severely out of context considering the last 1000 or so pages you should have read here.

anyway, do not forget about how the gold market is rigged, rotten from its heart by the FED Masters, whom nonetheless deem worth accumulating/stealing shit tons of it @FortKnox.

bitcorn and popcoin is cheap now too tho

Correct.


+1 All of the above is true.

My process on "how" is in reality based on hunch, but in theory goes about as follows:

The coin needs to be the first legitimate instance of its kind, had a fair start/emission, and a market niche
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Litecoin FAIL (not the first of its kind)
Peercoin FAIL (no market niche)
Bytecoin FAIL (not fair start)
Boolberry FAIL (not the first of its kind)
Ethereum FAIL (questionable start)
All shitcoins FAIL (2-3 counts)

Only BTC and XMR fulfill all conditions, so it makes sense to invest into them (and them alone). To be fully hedged, you can keep 99.8% in BTC and set 0.2% aside in XMR. Going over this ratio, is overinvesting in XMR.

Without reading every page in this thread, I'll add my two cents worth here.

I can't see a reason why Gold can't rise along with Bitcoin at the moment, just at different rates. Whereas Bitcoin can approach $1000 again by the end of year (nearly 4x the current price) similarly Gold can approach $2000 by the end of the year (nearly 2x the current price). Neither Bitcoin or Gold are undermined by debt compared to all the trillions of dollars in stocks and bonds which are leveraged to general confidence in elite lending strategies.

It is interesting that the power vacuum opened by the inventor's ineptitude (or Bytenote's alleged) was filled by a "leaderless" organization yet this apparent victor (within CN sphere) is apparently winner-take-all.

Similar in some ways to the outcome of the power vacuum from politics, but more like a benevolent junta.

I don't really have time to contemplate a more developed political, game theory analysis at the moment.