Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 239. (Read 2032248 times)

Yes, you cannot be simpler than changing a constant-- but as I pointed out, changing a constant is no measure of safety, correctness, or ethics. There are plenty of one character changes that would utterly destroy the system if adopted.

And contrary to your claim, I've proposed many things--- even going back some time. For example, adjusting the limit to respect the impact on UTXO so that the costs better match the actual costs; adjusting blocks based on the 33rd percentile of miner preferences (similar to Jeff's proposal of 25th percentile), and allowing miners to mine blocks over the limit quadratically with increased effective-difficulty-- so if the network is actually backlogged with fees miners can catch up without being completely unhinged.

And then there is all the separate fundamental scaling work which I originally proposed, like the whole notion of UTXOs as a separately tracked and commutable resource, fraud proofs, etc.

Huh?  Dunno what you're talking about there!  The network has been running flawlessly.  While we're sure there are, no doubt, lots of issues-- as we optimized for adding interesting features instead of QA-- and you really really really shouldn't go create an altcoin out of it (because it will crash and burn and we will laugh)... it works quite well, and I'm not aware of any complaints to the contrary.    Are you unable to exit FUD-everything-gmaxwell-touches mode for even a moment?

Thanks. There are a couple of other angles that I think more people will be excited about once they 'click' for them.

Tying the subjects together-- for a given state of technology and amount of extra capacity (be it bandwidth, cpu, etc.) that capacity can be spent in various ways, by taking on increased load, by improving fungibility or privacy, by increasing decentralization. I happen to think we need all of these things. But a simplified understanding that only looks at one dimension isn't going to come up with a good engineering conclusion.  And sure, more X sound great if you consider it in isolation, but perhaps not when you realize it means less Y and never gaining any Z.  One of the reasons I think it's important to be cautious here is so that we can have CT (or a superior successor technology) in the Bitcoin network and not just in a sidechain.

it's certainly a lot simpler than anything you've proposed; oh wait, maybe not, that'd be nothing.

as for Adam's extension block, bless his heart, i know he's trying but at this pt it is just too complicated.  the other devs think so too.  i read the dev transcript. 

There really should be more interest in Confidential Values. That's a great technique.

Greg is hugely disappointed that the Elements thread is off the first pg of Reddit.  and rightfully so, it's a bad sign that's theres not more interest.  apparently the initial software is very buggy; not unexpected.  it's early, i know.  but i totally agree they've burned almost all their goodwill by being so obstinate and unforgiving in this debate.  unfortunately in finances and investing, the best deals are made on golf courses btwn friends and ppl you can trust.  Greg et al may the best cryptographers in the world but if no one trust their motivations on simple issues like Core code, how can they be trusted in deeply complex issues like SC Elements?  and i'm not talking about the crypto, i'm talking about the economic assumptions behind it and the business models upon which they are laid out and introduced to the community.  i wouldn't want to be investing in BS at this pt.

can you really not tell the difference between the money supply guarentee and a transaction rate limit?

The opposition to Gavin's 2000% jump proposal comes unanimously from every active technical contributor to Bitcoin Core who has spoken up. This should suggest to you that your understanding of the comparative basis likely miscalibrated.  Though there is no comparative basis, 2WP sidechains are something that just requires non-broken smart contracts, it's not something that needs a hard-fork (and the centralized fedpeg sidechain stuff is indistinguishable, uncensorable, and unblockable: you can't prevent people from using it no matter how much you think you should be able to tell them that they can manage their funds).

Considering how often cypherdoc brags about his thread here being filled with economic wisdom, it's surprising to see views like "changing a constant simple and safe", after all 21 million bitcoins is merely a constant (and, pedantically, one the system didn't originally enforce....).  Try another strawman.
 

Chesapeake also but should be able to meet drilling costs and debts but this is a guess, the shares are in a five year low even while USA begins to export worldwide LNG a first in many decades.     Low world growth and higher supplies of energy with the Saudis offering to meet any future demand just to let speculators know they have the upper hand on this price, greatly helps the case for deflation
Its quite surreal they have become so determined to keep the price low, its to do with Iran having a higher cost of production and more investment needed and Saudis dont want them to expand their influence at all.  Im told Iran have been nominated as the strong man in the room for the middle east by the powers that be, this makes no sense to me as they fight in Syria but are opposed to Isis at least I suppose

My only thought is a quote from a former president The main point being there I think that its the whipsaw effect that does most damage, the volatility of a swing between the two extremes causes most loss.  While we certainly appear to have deflation on many fronts, it is certain they have expanded the total money supply greatly and GDP has not

I hate the fact that politics must be played.  But after this debacle, sidechains had better be more awesome than the second coming of Satoshi if they want to make mods that are so much more complicated than changing a constant that there is simply no comparative basis.

My guess is that they want to delay blocksize so they can cram sidechain mods into the same fork as a negotiated compromise.  But this is turning into a huge mistake.  They are burning all the goodwill they had, and making us suspect them of not wanting what's best for bitcoin.  This reputation is going to badly affect their ability to get consensus in the future.

Agreed.

I am really puzzled as to why Adam is pushing the extension block proposal for the 1MB. It is obviously the wrong place for it, but is exactly what is needed to overcome the original 33.5MB message-size limit which still remains. Tier Nolan came up with the extension block idea about 2 years ago IIRC and it is very good, but too soon now. Also it should be coupled with IBLT as the two together will future-proof Bitcoin as far as block sizes are concerned (within Moore's Law) allowing on-chain scaling and elimination of a lot of the out-of-band block-stuffing miner spam.

I am also puzzled as to why Greg keeps wasting mind-boggingly large amounts of time spamming reddit with dead pro-1MB arguments. Surely his time is more valuable than that.

yes, the charts are primed and ready.  inevitable, imo, with halving just over a year away.

yes, it is good news that Jeff is taking a leadership role.  too bad that Adam didn't take my advice yesterday.  he could have been that person and still can be.  i told him his extension block idea was overly complex given where we are in the dispute.  everyone is worn out and just wants something simple they can understand w/o too much effort as this is a complex issue that has been debated to death with all sorts of unknown variables that ppl honestly can't keep track of anymore.  or just don't want to.  Jeff's formula is simple which is why it has got some traction.  but nothing goes down w/o /u/nullc.  and he's in a sour mood so i'm not holding my breath.  and unfortunately, Adam has taken to a somewhat confrontational rhetoric on Twitter.  i know he's worried.  but he should be as the economic majority is going to follow Gavin:

https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/609280982949187584

This is fantastic news. Jeff is the one person who can push the 1MBers in Core Dev into a reasonable compromise.
Together with the Greek slow-motion Inception-style trainwreck finally off the rails...
...BITCOIN on the launchpad at $230.
UP!

Statoshi, aka Jameson Lopp, @24:40 states he thinks there are about 20,000 full nodes out there in actuality.  can /u/nullc respond to this?  i referenced our interactive posts yesterday.  and this from a guy who actually does measurements and works for BitGo.  that's good news.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgETC2JMUBI&feature=youtu.be

Chevron, an example of a large energy provider going over the cliff.  Exxon looks just as bad.  Deflation everywhere. Bitcoin inhaling:

Bitcoin revving up:

no VAT in Switzerland.  that's good news:

http://bitcoinassociation.ch/blog/no-vat-on-bitcoin-in-switzerland/

i get the distinct sense that there is actually some competition going on btwn diff countries to attract Bitcoin.  can u believe that?  Russia on the verge of making a significant policy turn around, Switzerland no VAT, Japan allowing self regulation, UK encouraging as a financial center, Brazil & Argentina increasing usage, China continuing to allow the largest mining pool & exchanges, etc.

it's happening guys.

Goldman Sachs:  oh yeah, that Bitcoin thingy, we ain't interested in that:

http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/talks-at-gs/evolution-of-bitcoin.html

energy going off the cliff:



copper too:



emerging mkts.  no inflation here:



BHP-largest mine, sick:



ah yes, the sweet smell of deflation.

Thanks for the video that group of globalists divide into 3 categories, those invested in exploiting the Bitcoin blockchain but not invested in bitcoin the currency, those who see change, disruption coming, and those who have invested in bitcoin.

As for the quote referenced above blockstream have provided a roadmap to separating the value in bitcoin the currency from Bitcoin the blockchain. I take many of them seriously, and more of them with a pinch of salt as most don't know the difference.  

It's mostly us who refuse to see what the blockchain but not the currency folks see.

+5