iCE, here's a nice assemblage of your shrieking and it's just scratching the surface:
I wonder how Gavin stabbing his our core devs in their backs will be priced into the market...
That kind of artificial deadline based nonsense is an aggressive high-pressure promotion technique called the "hard sell." It's manipulative, dishonest, and usually indicates lack of a better argument
Gavin is mad with power and has gone completely Even Duffield. He wants to infect BTC with supernodes! You are both welcome to bugger off to the altcoin ghetto with Gavin's bloated XT fork, but please leave the rest of us (who want to keep Bitcoin diffuse/diverse/defensible/resilient) out of it.
Typical of you to invoke a violent metaphor, which entails me ruthlessly killing poor baby bitcoin asleep in its little crib. How scary! Quelle horrour!
Perhaps it would be better for the pointy-haired boss to listen to the coders and engineers responsible for fixing Bitcoin when the GigaBlocks break it?
I wish cypher, Hearn, and Gavin good luck with Bitcoin XT in the alt subs.
Who does he think he is, Linux Torvalds or Evan Duffield?
So how does Gavin the pointy-headed boss react to being unable to convince his coders and engineers?
By lobbying (*cough, panicking, cough*) the drooling masses in an attempt to overrule the experts with a stampeding mob.
The Gavin tail is trying to wag the core dev dog, which guarantees the predictable "rancor" he's whining about.
Ironically, when the wheels fall off of GavinCoin because of UXTO assplosions or whatever, these spurned core devs will be the ones Gavin and everyone else will turn to for solutions. Typical "Oops I broke it, now you fix it" pointy-headed boss behavior!
So you are an old fart like cypher. Big effing deal. In 10 years, I'll have 30 years of experience in IT. Drink an Ensure and change your Depends grandpa, because I'm not going to turn down my dubstep nor get off your lawn.
We will not be stampeded into premature hard forks because the pointy-haired boss and his mob of Redditard sycophants demands Action Now.
Gavin's absurd call for <10 minute blocks indicates he has been (internally and/or externally) compromised. You would do well to abandon that ship (and its fanboys) before it sinks...
Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 303. (Read 2032266 times)
i don't blame the short sightedness of the guy who just sold us off down to $232 given how strident iCE and his buddies have been about making any progress whatsoever on this block size issue.
It's equally likely the sell off is related to the impending Goxxing of OKCoin users. 
You can never win with the masses. They will always be wrong, for as long as they demand to organize themselves in collectives.
The Internet is essentially the mass of masses. Extrapolate the audience averaging effect in the popular game show Who Wants to Be a Millionaire:
"But there’s a third option: You can use your “Ask-the-Audience" life line. You can poll the entire studio audience on the four possible answers, and their responses are instantaneously assembled into a bar graph. Invariably, this graph shows one overwhelming choice, and with rare exceptions the audience is right. “I’ll trust the audience,” you tell Regis. “Final answer.”
Good move. But why? No person in the audience is any more likely than you to know where grapes come from, yet the collective intelligence of the group is almost always a better bet than your best guess. Psychologists are very interested in this perplexing statistical phenomenon. If the crowd is always wiser than any individual, what does that say about the way knowledge is stored and arranged in our minds? And can it help us make better choices, even beyond game shows?
...
That’s actually what Vul and Pashler found when they ran the experiment. As reported in the July issue of the journal Psychological Science, the average of two guesses for any individual participant was better than either guess alone, regardless of the time between guesses. So polling the “crowd within” does indeed yield a statistically more accurate answer. What’s more, this internal crowd gets more independent-minded with time: Contestants who were asked to second-guess themselves three weeks later benefited even more by averaging their two guesses than did those who second-guessed themselves immediately. The psychologists speculate that the cognitive pull of the original answer loses its power and allows more mental flexibility over time."
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/onlyhuman/2008/06/polling-crowd-within.cfm
@vokain You have probably seen this already, but in case not: enjoy!
BBC - The Code - The Wisdom of the Crowd
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOucwX7Z1HU
PS. Interesting how every single block size limit poll, since the first one in Feb 2013, has had majority support for the increase.
Thanks both of you for that way cook.
Here is what I think will happen when we reach the limit:
1. A short lived carnage (2 days tops). This is analogous to what happens after a dump, the market price waves a few times before a new relative stability ensues. The effect can not be computed, that is just keynesian sorcery. It's all in the heads of the bitcoin participants. We don't know yet.
2. People will know what fee is necessary to have a reasonable chance of first confirmation in less than one day.
3. The fee will be considerably lower than the current international money transfer plus conversion to and from dollar. That means, considerably less than the 10 - 50 dollar price such transactions currently have. Just guessing: Something like 2 dollars.
4. Zero confirmation payments become more risky. They will be used only for very small transactions and where the traders have a trust relationship (which is the bulk of all trade).
5. Due to high fee, bitcoin can not comfortably be used to buy a cup of coffe, for a period. So what?
6. Publicity a: The fact that fees rise will be all over the internet. Doom will be spelled.
7. Publicity b: "Why do some still use them? Is there something else?" All publicity is good publicity.
1. A short lived carnage (2 days tops). This is analogous to what happens after a dump, the market price waves a few times before a new relative stability ensues. The effect can not be computed, that is just keynesian sorcery. It's all in the heads of the bitcoin participants. We don't know yet.
2. People will know what fee is necessary to have a reasonable chance of first confirmation in less than one day.
3. The fee will be considerably lower than the current international money transfer plus conversion to and from dollar. That means, considerably less than the 10 - 50 dollar price such transactions currently have. Just guessing: Something like 2 dollars.
4. Zero confirmation payments become more risky. They will be used only for very small transactions and where the traders have a trust relationship (which is the bulk of all trade).
5. Due to high fee, bitcoin can not comfortably be used to buy a cup of coffe, for a period. So what?
6. Publicity a: The fact that fees rise will be all over the internet. Doom will be spelled.
7. Publicity b: "Why do some still use them? Is there something else?" All publicity is good publicity.
it's called Metcalfe's Law. "value" of the network is squared by every new user. iCE would rather keep it strangled down to him and his Myrcea buddies.
As you know, I am for the upgrade, but I don't think the alternative is catastrophic, only inconvenient and slows us down. Naysayers can always find limits and reasons to downplay this extraordinary invention. The size of the UTXO set is a recent example.
cypherdoc is invoking the catastrophic Death Of Bitcoin BS with wild melodramatic claims of the network "choking" and being "strangled" when it is merely relatively busy or at worst bogged down.
That kind of artificial deadline based nonsense is an aggressive high-pressure promotion technique called the "hard sell." It's manipulative, dishonest, and usually indicates lack of a better argument.
Quote
"Act now before it's too late! Demand GavinCoins from your local miners today! OR WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE."
-every GavinCoin apologist ever
-every GavinCoin apologist ever
and you're not with all the FUD and personal Gavin attacks you've been slinging around? i haven't heard any counter arguments to all the points i've made to your FUD.
Here's one you missed: you are shrieking about the network "choking" and being "strangled" when it is merely relatively busy or at worst bogged down. Lukejr doesn't see a problem here and neither do I.
Between vertoe's domination quote and UXTO overflow, the 'we need millions of direct users and MOAR tps, because Metcalfe!' proposition has been thoroughly debunked.
It's all over, except for the shouting.
Ironically, when the wheels fall off of GavinCoin because of UXTO assplosions or whatever, these spurned core devs will be the ones Gavin and everyone else will turn to for solutions. Typical "Oops I broke it, now you fix it" pointy-headed boss behavior! 
If persistent full 1mb blocks turn out to be an insurmountable problem, consensus to modify that limit would not need to be manufactured with lobbying and tales of impending dooom.
If persistent full 1mb blocks turn out to be an insurmountable problem, consensus to modify that limit would not need to be manufactured with lobbying and tales of impending dooom.
This stunt may generate the type of incalculable empirical feedback we need to ascertain how best to modify the max_block_size parameter.
Of course since it is artificial demand in the form of a stress-test that factor must be accounted for.
Of course since it is artificial demand in the form of a stress-test that factor must be accounted for.
1. You seem to not be aware that $billions in capital (a lot of it not invested in BTC but rather VC investments in the space) is invested on the future of Bitcoin, and to make the future uncertain causes capital to become risk adverse. Gavin can't wait, because capital has to plan out the future.
2. You seem to assume centralization[1] can't solve every technical issue of scaling higher transaction rates. Wasn't Visa scale the initial goal? Is Visa not centralized? ("Damn it, but we want decentralization and we will early adopters will fork and short NWOcoin" is not a logical retort)
Come on man, come back to reality.
You seem to have developed an overconfidence from your early adopter decision, which you are projecting as correct analysis of the future. But where is the logic?
The utility of early adopters to Larry Summers has now diminished. He has used you successfully and is moving on. You can be discarded now.
You early adopters were bought at a very small cost by the banksters to help them launch the NWOcoin trojan horse. You are now expendable. They have already the inertia they need.
[1] IBLT is a fancy sugar coating on centralization to make geeks wet their pants again (see their Jesus) and be fooled, as they were with the original DEEP STATE whitepaper.
Money creation is the tool that allows the 0.1% to subvert the work of the 99%. Redistribution of money to the people who understand this mechanism, and want to change it because they understand the consequences, will result in a new model, even if bitcoin was NWOcoin it would upset the system enough to change it.
In your analogy I'm think if Gavin forks with Bitcoin XT that Bitcoin Core will be the NWO coin.
This fork will force Venture capital to buy Bitcoin XT as the money invested in changing Bitcoin Core will not necessary render results.
Still this is fun to watch.
it's called Metcalfe's Law. "value" of the network is squared by every new user. iCE would rather keep it strangled down to him and his Myrcea buddies.
As you know, I am for the upgrade, but I don't think the alternative is catastrophic, only inconvenient and slows us down. Naysayers can always find limits and reasons to downplay this extraordinary invention. The size of the UTXO set is a recent example.
cypherdoc is invoking the catastrophic Death Of Bitcoin BS with wild melodramatic claims of the network "choking" and being "strangled" when it is merely relatively busy or at worst bogged down.
That kind of artificial deadline based nonsense is an aggressive high-pressure promotion technique called the "hard sell." It's manipulative, dishonest, and usually indicates lack of a better argument.
Quote
"Act now before it's too late! Demand GavinCoins from your local miners today! OR WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE."
-every GavinCoin apologist ever
-every GavinCoin apologist ever
and you're not with all the FUD and personal Gavin attacks you've been slinging around? i haven't heard any counter arguments to all the points i've made to your FUD.
it's called Metcalfe's Law. "value" of the network is squared by every new user. iCE would rather keep it strangled down to him and his Myrcea buddies.
As you know, I am for the upgrade, but I don't think the alternative is catastrophic, only inconvenient and slows us down. Naysayers can always find limits and reasons to downplay this extraordinary invention. The size of the UTXO set is a recent example.
cypherdoc is invoking the catastrophic Death Of Bitcoin BS with wild melodramatic claims of the network "choking" and being "strangled" when it is merely relatively busy or at worst bogged down.
That kind of artificial deadline based nonsense is an aggressive high-pressure promotion technique called the "hard sell." It's manipulative, dishonest, and usually indicates lack of a better argument.
Quote
"Act now before it's too late! Demand GavinCoins from your local miners today! OR WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE."
-every GavinCoin apologist ever
-every GavinCoin apologist ever
it's called Metcalfe's Law. "value" of the network is squared by every new user. iCE would rather keep it strangled down to him and his Myrcea buddies.
Not every new user needs direct access to the Mother Blockchain:
Quote
The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain".
-davout
-davout
"Strangled?"
Typical of you to invoke a violent metaphor, which entails me ruthlessly killing poor baby bitcoin asleep in its little crib. How scary! Quelle horrour!
I keep explaining your politics of fear have no power here, yet you persist in framing the 1mb limit as a death sentence despite having spent the last 4 years hyping Bitcoin's antifragility.
My "Myrcia buddies" include all the core devs, minus Gavin (who barely contributes code these days). Gavin has successfully created rough consensus among them w/r/t 20mb blocks. But it's not the consensus he wanted, so now he's staging a coup.
Gavin is mad with power and has gone completely Even Duffield. He wants to infect BTC with supernodes! You are both welcome to bugger off to the altcoin ghetto with Gavin's bloated XT fork, but please leave the rest of us (who want to keep Bitcoin diffuse/diverse/defensible/resilient) out of it.
Perhaps it would be better for the pointy-haired boss to listen to the coders and engineers responsible for fixing Bitcoin when the GigaBlocks break it?
The network isn't "choking" under this stress test. "Choking" means no air can enter the lungs, and the choking victim dies. Nothing analogous is happening here; tx are still being confirmed as usual but with some delay depending on the fee paid. If nothing was being confirmed, that would be "choking." All that happened is free tx take longer.
"Strangle?" "Choking?"
WTF is it with you stealing metaphors which portray the non-Gavin core devs as murdering their own baby? Nobody "strangling" or "choking" Bitcoin. If and when Bitcoin chokes or is strangled, please rest assured it will emerge from the conflict more resilient than before.
Why can't you take Szabo's advice to calm down and stop exaggerating?
Get a grip Doc. Your "zomg Bitcoin is literally going to dieeeeee" panic attacks are becoming unseemly.
c'mon iCE. i'm just elevating my rhetoric to meet yours.
if you doubt that, simply go back and look at your posts on entry to this topic. if you don't want to receive it, don't dish it out.
Bitcoin is the only currency still works like gold and silver when about half of humanity is an adversary.
it won't work like gold when only 0.0000001% of the world's population think like us or have any exposure to Bitcoin due to the strangulation by 1MB blocks.
This point is crucial, as others also have said. Bitcoin can compete now, with this low penetration, and for every new user the liquidity increases. That is in my view, a guarantee of success.
Compare this to just about any investment project that have a threshold of sales to be a success. Some succeed, but most don't.
it's called Metcalfe's Law. "value" of the network is squared by every new user. iCE would rather keep it strangled down to him and his Myrcea buddies.
As you know, I am for the upgrade, but I don't think the alternative is catastrophic, only inconvenient and slows us down. Naysayers can always find limits and reasons to downplay this extraordinary invention. The size of the UTXO set is a recent example.
lol, the network is STILL choked off after all this time. i don't blame the short sightedness of the guy who just sold us off down to $232 given how strident iCE and his buddies have been about making any progress whatsoever on this block size issue. i think it's a big mistake as it just gives the rest of us cheaper coins to accumulate as i think a block size increase is inevitable and soon as a result of the stress test:
Is this a TX spam attack?
essentially yes.
a handful of Reddit dudes decided to stress test the network by sending thousands of smallish tx's with fees across the network. predictably, everyone's full/mining node mempools clogged up with unconfirmed tx's. at the max yesterday, my full nodes even 1.5-2 hours after the stress test completed were clogged up with 24000 unconf tx's which usually are at around 3000-4000 iirc. the max hit was 26000 during the test.
what you're seeing in the chart is the default settings for block size for miners left at 750MB meaning full blocks are happening right now as we speak.
it's called Metcalfe's Law. "value" of the network is squared by every new user. iCE would rather keep it strangled down to him and his Myrcea buddies.
Not every new user needs direct access to the Mother Blockchain:
Quote
The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain".
-davout
-davout
"Strangled?"
Typical of you to invoke a violent metaphor, which entails me ruthlessly killing poor baby bitcoin asleep in its little crib. How scary! Quelle horrour!
I keep explaining your politics of fear have no power here, yet you persist in framing the 1mb limit as a death sentence despite having spent the last 4 years hyping Bitcoin's antifragility.
My "Myrcia buddies" include all the core devs, minus Gavin (who barely contributes code these days). Gavin has successfully created rough consensus among them w/r/t 20mb blocks. But it's not the consensus he wanted, so now he's staging a coup.
Gavin is mad with power and has gone completely Even Duffield. He wants to infect BTC with supernodes! You are both welcome to bugger off to the altcoin ghetto with Gavin's bloated XT fork, but please leave the rest of us (who want to keep Bitcoin diffuse/diverse/defensible/resilient) out of it.
Perhaps it would be better for the pointy-haired boss to listen to the coders and engineers responsible for fixing Bitcoin when the GigaBlocks break it?
The network isn't "choking" under this stress test. "Choking" means no air can enter the lungs, and the choking victim dies. Nothing analogous is happening here; tx are still being confirmed as usual but with some delay depending on the fee paid. If nothing was being confirmed, that would be "choking." All that happened is free tx take longer.
"Strangle?" "Choking?"
WTF is it with you stealing metaphors which portray the non-Gavin core devs as murdering their own baby? Nobody "strangling" or "choking" Bitcoin. If and when Bitcoin chokes or is strangled, please rest assured it will emerge from the conflict more resilient than before.
Why can't you take Szabo's advice to calm down and stop exaggerating?
Get a grip Doc. Your "zomg Bitcoin is literally going to dieeeeee" panic attacks are becoming unseemly.
lol, the network is STILL choked off after all this time. i don't blame the short sightedness of the guy who just sold us off down to $232 given how strident iCE and his buddies have been about making any progress whatsoever on this block size issue. i think it's a big mistake as it just gives the rest of us cheaper coins to accumulate as i think a block size increase is inevitable and soon as a result of the stress test:
Is this a TX spam attack?
the problem with core devs deciding any block size limit is that they essentially become central bankers, ie, unilaterally determining everyone's cost of accessing the network. by what metric can they ever determine what size is appropriate given most of Bitcoin's incentives are economically and game theoretically driven? better to let the free mkt of miners and users work that out via mutually determined fees.
hey Mom, look! creative destruction at work!:
lol, the network is STILL choked off after all this time. i don't blame the short sightedness of the guy who just sold us off down to $232 given how strident iCE and his buddies have been about making any progress whatsoever on this block size issue. i think it's a big mistake as it just gives the rest of us cheaper coins to accumulate as i think a block size increase is inevitable and soon as a result of the stress test:
take a look at how a rag tag army of volunteers can clog up the network. we're still stuck at over 23000 unconf tx's, with a peak around 25000, now about 2 hrs later:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37rwph/stress_test_for_the_next_few_hours_ill_be/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37rwph/stress_test_for_the_next_few_hours_ill_be/
Good. /grumpy catThis stunt may generate the type of incalculable empirical feedback we need to ascertain how best to modify the max_block_size parameter.
Of course since it is artificial demand in the form of a stress-test that factor must be accounted for.
But in the aggregate, we see here the ecosystem demanding/supplying a required service, so it's not completely bogus data.
It is critical for Bitcoin to grow up, not out.
Bitcoin's Mother of Blockchains needs skycraper transactions, not sprawl.
Bitcoin and its Blockchain must develop like a culture, not merely grow like cancer.
Full block pressure catalyzes development of optimal strategies for using the limited space; subsidizing artificially sparse blocks retards that process.
It's not possible to build a currency on misanthropy.
Au contraire, misanthropy is the only rational basis on which to build a currency.
That is why Bitcoins trustless Satoshi-Consensus mechanism disrupted and made obsolete all manner of weighted-trust-node-network Rube Goldberg schemes.
Bitcoin is the only currency still works like gold and silver when about half of humanity is an adversary.
btw, this stress test is also an example of how anyone (not just large miners} actively supporting a >1MB network like XT will circle back around and flood Core with small TX's in hopes of breaking what is perceived to be a competitor.
hell, i might even do that. it's so easy.
Bitcoin is the only currency still works like gold and silver when about half of humanity is an adversary.
it won't work like gold when only 0.0000001% of the world's population think like us or have any exposure to Bitcoin due to the strangulation by 1MB blocks.
This point is crucial, as others also have said. Bitcoin can compete now, with this low penetration, and for every new user the liquidity increases. That is in my view, a guarantee of success.
Compare this to just about any investment project that have a threshold of sales to be a success. Some succeed, but most don't.
it's called Metcalfe's Law. "value" of the network is squared by every new user. iCE would rather keep it strangled down to him and his Myrcea buddies.
take a look at how a rag tag army of volunteers can clog up the network. we're still stuck at over 23000 unconf tx's, with a peak around 25000, now about 2 hrs later:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37rwph/stress_test_for_the_next_few_hours_ill_be/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37rwph/stress_test_for_the_next_few_hours_ill_be/
Good. /grumpy catThis stunt may generate the type of incalculable empirical feedback we need to ascertain how best to modify the max_block_size parameter.
Of course since it is artificial demand in the form of a stress-test that factor must be accounted for.
But in the aggregate, we see here the ecosystem demanding/supplying a required service, so it's not completely bogus data.
It is critical for Bitcoin to grow up, not out.
Bitcoin's Mother of Blockchains needs skycraper transactions, not sprawl.
Bitcoin and its Blockchain must develop like a culture, not merely grow like cancer.
Full block pressure catalyzes development of optimal strategies for using the limited space; subsidizing artificially sparse blocks retards that process.
now you're just being obstinate in the face of irrefutable data. something needs to be done now as it appears any random Reddit dude can plug everything up if he wants to causing everyone's fees to rise while stalling out confirmations.
so in case you have an immediately deployable solution to your organic, resilient, vertical growth ideals, you should be on board with at least a temporary fix to give the devs some time to actually build one.
Bitcoin is the only currency still works like gold and silver when about half of humanity is an adversary.
it won't work like gold when only 0.0000001% of the world's population think like us or have any exposure to Bitcoin due to the strangulation by 1MB blocks.
This point is crucial, as others also have said. Bitcoin can compete now, with this low penetration, and for every new user the liquidity increases. That is in my view, a guarantee of success.
Compare this to just about any investment project that have a threshold of sales to be a success. Some succeed, but most don't.
Jump to: