Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 179. (Read 2032248 times)

I don't use ignore lists myself since I find it easy enough to do so in real-time.

One problem with ignore lists is that an ignoree might make an ignorer look like a jackass and the ignorer has no clue unless the injury is quoted and thus no ability to defend themselves and try to repair the damage.  I've seen what I believe to be this phenomenon a fair bit over the years.

This might be relevant. It's posted in altcoins. But still...

Ulterior States [IamSatoshi Documentary]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQGQXy0RIIo

Good stuff.

We've all seen Dr. Frappuccino

-side with [email protected] and [email protected] rather than support a specific solution
-get personal with the core devs, esp. Blockstreamers and GMax in particular
-threaten to up and leave/sell his coins
-spread FUD ("strangle/choking/Cripplecoin") about the sky falling if the block size stays at 1MB

Let's remember this thread is obviously intended to troll gold bugs with insufficiently undivided loyalty to Bitcoin, so his whining about cyber-thugs is just performative drama queening, not actual offense.

I'll still vouch for Frap.doc's character.  His premises, analysis, and conclusions are flawed but his heart is in the right place.   

You have a lot in common with Luke Jr.

This site http://bitcoinrichlist.com/charts/bitcoin-distribution-by-address?atblock=350000

reports 67,723,836 (96.97%) spam addresses -> is this true ?

interesting points.  no, i haven't done anything formal but i do know that the popularity is growing.  for instance, at the end of February 2015 the view count was approximately 800K.  four months later we're here at 1.2M.  and i'm very sure of that as i made a mental note at the time for a particular reason.  so 400K equals 3333 views per day or 2.31 views per minute.  the previous mental check, which is much more fuzzy cuz i was only roughly keeping track was from Oct 2014 to Feb 2015 when i believe the starting pt was at 400K very roughly.  i remember that time especially well b/c that was precisely when the SC WP came out and brg444 entered the thread.  all of you must remember him and how he spammed the heck out of me just like the current guys. i even remember complimenting him on driving the view rate so high so fast single handedly.  so overall the growth rate was roughly the same from Oct to now or 100K/mo.  the significant metric though is how it took from the beginning of the thread, which was March 13, 2012 all the way to Oct 2014 for it to go to 400K.  the last 8 mo the thread has grown by 200% alone.  in other words, the recent pace of the last 8 months has been increasing at a torrid rate.

Combine this 1 MB backbone with thousands of SC where you can make micro-payments instantly
  - we can handle 100,000 transaction/sec.
  - all you need is phone
  - you can run full node and 2-3 preferred fast-wallet services on tihs phone.

I pay around $10 per transaction and am happy to do it.  Bitcoin is vastly faster and less hassle than wire transfers, and more reliable than mainstream banking in my experience (having accounts silently shut down with no (written) explanation and no interaction but with a fully licensed and compliant entity (Coinbase).)  Edit:  BTW, my bank charges me $25 or so for wires.

In that case the revenue is more like a quarter-million dollars per hour, and my rough guess without researching it much is that at 1MB Bitcoin could already consume most of the world market for wire transfers.  Or at least international ones.

With these kinds of numbers, even running a pretty small mining setup solo would be better odds than playing the lottery.  If pools were attacked successfully most of the participants would fragment and those who could still obtain access to the Bitcoin network (receive transactions successfully) would likely keep right on chugging away.  In fact, in such an event the large mining farms who are not protected by the state would probably be off-line making the difficulty less.  Of course some of them might keep chugging away working on attacks (specifically, tainting.)

---

Another edit:

Hearn said famously about tainting:  'There is no difference between confiscating someone's BTC and keeping them from being spent for 20 years.'  His example was Qaddafi.  The 20 year figure comes from the Independent miners who were assumed to be priced out of the market by those operating on economies of scale and exploiting revenue streams not available to any but the largest entities on the global internet.

Non-trivial revenue from fees would throw a huge monkey-wrench into that plan, and in particular because a blacklisted (or non-whitelisted) transaction instigator could and would pay even higher fees.  I wonder (and suspect) that that is part of what is driving the desperation to not have transaction fees become a significant part of infrastructure support.

the ole S/N has been lots better since i put them all on ignore. Although there has been the odd entire page of "This user is currently ignored." looking at you TBTP. 

Not to give an opinion on the merit of the above posters, but have you weighed the benefits of page position versus the harm to the signal-to-noise ratio from continual acrimonious/low-content bickering? Even the harm to the reputation of this thread as the easiest place to quickly (i.e., without having to sort through many pages of noise) get abreast of the actually important happenings and debates in the space? Due to the existing quality the good name of the thread will only grow, pushing it ever high on the page, even without all the noise. The noise certainly helps keep the thread near the top but at the cost of threatening to ruin the main selling point of the thread.

My bank charges me $10 for international transfer.

$1 per transaction ( 250 bytes )  is $4,000 per 1 MB block.
 - 6 * $4,000 =>  $24,000 per hour
 - 24 * $24,000 => $576,000 fee/day

Actually, the best path to a safe balance is not having a public balance at all.

https://i.imgur.com/fUVBvXK.png

https://i.imgur.com/FY7q54I.png

https://i.imgur.com/MUOwbae.png

Not bad. The market is what we need.

Just FWIW, your attacks on Maxwell in particular contributed to my pulling out all the stops in going after your champions Hearn and Andresen.  Even so, I never stooped to using absurd bullshit arguments (that I can recall.)  All of my critiques have been what I felt comfortable arguing vigorously.  Perhaps for that reason they are rarely challenged (to my dismay.)

We are also using SHA-256 and RIPEMD-160 hashes to protect our balances. So even ECDSA is broken our balances can be safe and then ECDSA replaced.

That is the risk - the scheme relies on the security of ECDSA to protect the currency supply.

We're already relying on ECDSA to protect our balances from overt theft, so I'm not sure how much it actually changes the security model to also rely on it to protect our balances from covert theft via counterfeiting.

The reason I'm interested in amount blinding is that my current project is working out a multi-step plan to kill graph analysis. With the right plan and without blinded amounts we can kill graph analysis, but with blinded amounts we can drive a stake through its heart to make sure it stays dead.

I would afraid to have CT on main chain.
There may be bug (or luck to find some number) and then creating bitcoins out of nothing. And nobody can verify.

On a related note, the people whom I follow and consider the top thinkers in bitcoin, were perhaps 2 to 1 in favour of SPVP sidechains.  I've noticed that this blocksize debate has triggered several of them to reconsider, and my hunch is that this group is now 2 to 1 against.

I think it would be a tragedy for them to miss that lesson, and then lose the ability to make beneficial contributions to Bitcoin in the future.

I'd love to see the blinded output amounts from Confidential Transactions make it into Bitcoin, but I don't think their current approach to this debate is a viable way of ensuring they'll be in a position to advocate for that in the future.