Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 355. (Read 2032266 times)

It takes a little more than that to offend me.

You're quite full of yourself, but that's ok. You're easily provoked, that's also ok. Calling me an 'arsehole'... I can overlook it. Your whole attitude of riding into this thread on your high horse and 'prodding' people who I have come to hugely respect is pushing it, though. You're being a know-it-all and smartass and you should be clever enough to predict the reaction and you should be emotionally prepared for it. It seems you aren't and frankly name-calling is something I hadn't expected from you. Kinda sad.

If you interpret a little tease as disrespect then that's entirely on you.
[/quote]

Haha, OK I tried to think up a good visualization for this today, but came up blank.  Did you have any ideas?

The discussion has been multi-pronged, lol.  

Yeah I am a type A personality and a fighter. I hate to lose. I also talk too much for my own good. And all this ego noise in this thread is just a huge waste of time. My first posts were about technical and correcting incorrect statements. This caused a firestorm of egos and character assassination attempts.

Ah fuck it, I am outta here, it is a huge time sink.


You didn't include the scenario which I am confident is the actual outcome coming. That is ultimately (after some gyrations) Bitcoin will not only be legal, but it will be encouraged and very popular. And to run a full node you will comply with all regulations, which includes requiring signed identity to accompany every transaction (automatically done for those who use a mainstream behemoth wallet such as Coinbase, Circle, Paypal, Amazon, Facebook, etc).

The Digital Kill Switch.


You are offended by my competence and confidence on the facts. Yet you are confident that I haven't scored a seed. Should I be offended or smug.


Thanks. Sorry but I think I have more HOLISTIC experience than you. I am ~50 years old. I come from an era where the youth respected their elders. This new generation of geeks think experience comes from being smart and they expect elders to act as their peers. I am inspired to be both a mentor and to learn from interacting, but first we must begin with mutual respect and appreciation for the fact that experience comes from doing and not from just being smart nor academic cathedrals.

If you are youthful, you can do somethings better than me (e.g. I have no patience nor energy to dig up a $25 computer from the junkyard as you've stated) and in theory you have a more flexible mind than me.

Realize the above comment from me was provoked by some arsehole who was offended that I posted after I said I thought I could exit the thread. So it is not something I would have said to you if not for the general animosity towards me in the thread from numerous individuals. You and others disrespected me from the start. That is where the tone of acrimony and animosity began. Any time you want to recognize and respect my experience, I am willing to be more cordial and couth. Otherwise, I will just go pound you into submission with my code.

You can rightly say it is my fault for coming into a hive of butthurt Bitards and trying to speak against their idols.

I hate the concept of we are all equal and all this politically correct Communist bullshit. I realize I am not respected here, and I will have to go prove myself in the crypto space (even though I already proved myself numerous times probably even before you graduated high school).


Yeah when you start with the attitude of disrespect, then this is what we get. I respect myself because I know what I have accomplished in my life and where my expertise lies (and doesn't, e.g. I have to walk on eggshells when debating gmaxell because his crypto-math knowledge is superior to mine).


Sorry but I emphatically disagree. Cyperdoc makes incorrect statements in nearly every post he writes and is causing a lot of disinformation. I don't subscribe to the Communist bullshit of telling people they are worthy when they are not.

He could learn to respect more the experts instead of speaking about that which he is in unqualified to speak about. His lack of humility is Dunning-Kruger-ish. I would be more compassionate towards him if he wasn't such a presumptuous arsehole. My humbleness depends on yours.

But I disgress again...wasting time on shit that doesn't matter... it is better for me to STFU... I will see you in codeland...

After Gavin's IBLT proposal is implemented, there will be no need to re-transmit transactions in a block, and miners will be incentivized to include ALL transactions in their mempool into a block (since this reduces the likelihood of the diff being too large).

The last analysis of miner incentives and transaction fees that I've seen (it has been a bit though) showed that an average transaction needed a 0.0008 BTC  fee to make it worthwhile to include in a block (which is higher than the current 0.0001 BTC min fee). The reasoning was the extra time required to transmit a transaction's data slowed down propagation of the block and increased the possibility of another block mined near the same time propagating faster. Most miners will include 0.0001 BTC fee transactions though, even though the math showed none of them should.

So the way I've seen it: 1) the upcoming changes to block transmission align miner incentives to include more transactions and 2) miners have already demonstrated behavior that shows they will include unprofitable transactions in order to support the network (because it's in their interest).

I absolutely agree that Bitcoin should always be very careful about changing, especially regarding the incentive structures and maintaining it's censorship resiliancy.  But ecosystem growth with direct usage is also essential to it's success, and in the blocksize case I only see ecosystem growth pros and immaterial cons.

The future is bifurcated.  If Bitcoin continues to be legal in any jurisdiction, it will be very popular so we will need these high powered computers.  If it is outlawed to the point where you can't even be part of the network then running in your home computer over TOR will be fine.  But BTW TOR will likely be outlawed first.

If is illegal in some jurisdictions, you won't be able to run a full node there.  But you'll be able to do stuff like hide txns in image files and upload them out of the jurisdiction.


This kind of comment is the exact reason why you head over to a forum topic full of early adopters and you can't even score 10-20k seed.  Your technical "hints" don't suck which makes me think you might have some ideas in there (I mean I only have time to read 1% of your walls of text), but you somehow think that you are the end-all-be-all of BTC and economic knowledge and you need to "prod" me from backsliding.  

The truth is that I haven't learned a single thing from you, possibly because you don't share your ideas, possibly because there is nothing there.  We'll never know.  But from my perspective reading your stuff is just a waste of time so I only read it when someone else quotes you.

And it is simply rude to be so holier-than-thou to non-programmers like cypherdoc about technical issues.  They make great contributions here by distilling the gestalt of today's markets into something that readers can understand quickly.  I try to do the same for the technical side.

my apologies, from the tone of your posts, and the your boxing videos I wasn't sure if you were having a technical conversation either, I'll have to have another look. 

I agree with you totally, but it does have a relation and that part of the incentive structure, miners are incentivized to find blocks as fast as possible, and have there blocks propagate through the network as fast as possible so to secure their work, this is an incentive to make small blocks, as larger blocks take longer to propagate and pose a risk of being orphaned.

this becomes important and the marginal cost of utility plays out when rewards diminish. on the other hand nodes are just incentivized to store the transaction history and keep the protocol intact, IMO this block size debate is not about block size but other interests.

Replacing credit card internet transactions was a part of the initial vision.

it seems to me that the Nasdaq is not only going to want it but demand it if they want to transact shares off the blockchain.  seems to me that Goldman Sachs is not only going to want it but demand that Circle be able to act as a MSB so they can get a return.  seems to me that the NYSE is not only going to want it but demand that Coinbase be able to act as a MSB so they can get a return.  i also think that guys like Arthur Levitt, Vikram Pandit, Eric Schmidt, Reid Hoffman, Li Ka Shing, Richard Branson, the Winklevii, Andresen, Sheila Bair, Blythe Masters are NOT going to take kindly to their millions of investment capital being vaporized by some politicians.

i also highly doubt that the Chinese Mandarins are going to cooperate with the USG apparatchiks to prop up a sinking USD.  not to mention Iran & Russia.

I wrote "I think". Apparently there were a few more points that needed to be finished. thezerg expressed comprehension. That inspires me. I acknowledged it. Then he backslid a bit. I prodded him again. I know he will get it.

what happened to this?

Centralization isn't avoided by such shell games.

It is no longer permission-less when your hosting company requires you to be compliant with coming global (G20) regulations on crypto as the war on cash advances.

Having such an extreme bandwidth, connectivity, and processing power footprint means it is unlikely you can obfuscate your activity on a home internet connection over Tor or other anonymity network (preferably a high-latency anonymity network so it doesn't have Tor's vulnerability to timing analysis attacks).

Anonymity comes from blending normal activity with targeted activity.

---

And you haven't understood the technical conversation then.

And that is a problem with having any discussion here.

The simple reason why I still do not understand the concerns over increased blocksize and scalability, is because the mining mechanism is not impacted by blocksize at all.

We could end up with 100-1000 very large centralized blockchain maintainers on the P2P network (pools, universities, CBs, paid services, etc), but the mining mechanism would be just as distributed as it would be if we have 10KB blocks and nodes were run on every phone in the world. And this mechanism is very decentralized today.

The scaling concerns are just related to centralization of nodes on the P2P network, but these are just maintainers of a database, a database secured by miners.

So... we just need a great visualization of this. If an idea is good enough AND people can understand it easily and quickly, it spreads faster than others and takes over.

another way of saying it is "you can't have a universal money if it's not universal".

precisely.

Foreign governments are draining their gold out of the FED and back to their home countries, it's dropped below 6,000 tons for the first time since WWII. Coincidence? I think not.

Also notice that the last set of withdraws starting in 2007 before the big crash.

Yes, and this is why I was in favour of Gavin's original 20MB + 40%/year growth.  Many people were concerned about the exponential growth of the blocksize limit under this proposal, but in my mind it was just a sensible way to slowly transition from a hard limit to this "Nash equilibrium" limit.  Whether 40% was the *perfect* number to match BW and storage growth was never really that important in my mind.

Let's allow the network to grow!

Excellent. So now if an altcoin is released with this direction, then no one will know if it was me or not, because it is clear that others visualize the concept.

In fact, I was not even the first person thinking along this direction. At least bytemaster and the author of Decrits were doing delegation in their designs.

yes, the block subsidy and relay delay basically makes all these shenanigans unprofitable.  But doing my suggestion really closes the hole, and closes for the future when the block subsidy is low.  It closes a whole class of loopholes we haven't yet considered. 

I mean, txn fees are the basic way to discourage spam generated for any reason (by definition its not spam if someone is willing to pay the going rate for it).  The design relies on that and it relies on the idea that although the real cost of a block is socialized (ie borne by all full nodes), its ok for the subsidy and txn fees to just benefit a single miner.  This idea is that the cost to the spammer will keep spam down so all nodes benefit.  But that does not happen in the case where a miner is generating spam blocks.