Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 385. (Read 2032266 times)
marcus, the above poll results and the general tenor of support on reddit for Gavin's proposal clearly indicates that it is you who doesn't get it.
Excellent. Any serious Bitcoin business will have this view because retaining the 1MB will not only cripple the network but also cripple dependent business models.
Except if the business model includes profiting from off-chain transactions.
It's good to see coinbase support bigger blocks. I wouldn't have bet on it. What about circle?
But, but marcus says Coinbase is the big bad boogie man of Bitcoin. Aren't they supposed to want what's best for themselves which should be small 1mb blocks so that offchain TX's become the thing?
They couldn't possibly want what's best for Bitcoin which is involves supporting Gavin could they?
You really, really don't get it do you? You can't see past your blind greed I'm afraid. Of course coinbase wants more centralisation ... how hard is that to understand?
cypherdoc : your personal vendettas have just become toxic. Play the ball not the man, it is just becoming a continual string of ad hominem and character smearing (or cheering) with you. Take a vacation or bitcoin burn-out might get you ...
Excellent. Any serious Bitcoin business will have this view because retaining the 1MB will not only cripple the network but also cripple dependent business models.
Except if the business model includes profiting from off-chain transactions.
It's good to see coinbase support bigger blocks. I wouldn't have bet on it. What about circle?
But, but marcus says Coinbase is the big bad boogie man of Bitcoin. Aren't they supposed to want what's best for themselves which should be small 1mb blocks so that offchain TX's become the thing?
They couldn't possibly want what's best for Bitcoin which is involves supporting Gavin could they?
Excellent. Any serious Bitcoin business will have this view because retaining the 1MB will not only cripple the network but also cripple dependent business models.
Except if the business model includes profiting from off-chain transactions.
It's good to see coinbase support bigger blocks. I wouldn't have bet on it. What about circle?
i suspect he never invested significantly in BTC
He has mined from (almost, if not) the very beginning. I don't know how much, but I would guess a significant amount.
Maybe that gives a different perspective than investing hard-earned money out of pocket. If that is a good or bad thing, I don't know.
luke-jr gmaxwell ptodd have done nothing to deserve the opprobium being dished up here, most of them have worked for free for years already, such ungrateful ignorance on display here is dismaying. There are many other quieter devs who disagree with gavin/hearn on this one but afraid of speaking out because of the risk of the kind of pillorying from the loud-mouths that might result. Wumpus is actually the lead dev now, gavin has been a figurehead for the last 2 versions ... and I haven't seen anyone question his role in the Bitcoin Foundation fiasco?
There is zero opprobrium on my part, just dismay and puzzlement at seeing people who have done so much for Bitcoin become willing to let it slide into a high-risk state, when that is what they have strived to avoid all along. Trying to reduce spam by block-space rationing, forcing up fees, pricing users away to 3rd party off-chain services (like Coinbase?!) is a radical economic experiment on top of what is a nascent revolution in money, taking the robustness of its ecosystem for granted.i suspect this is too much logic for the skeptics.
See if you can spot the parallel between this example and the number of nodes in the Bitcoin network:
https://mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarian
https://mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarian
Quote
In the face of the combination of price controls and shortages, the effect of a decrease in the supply of an item is not, as it would be in a free market, to raise its price and increase its profitability, thereby operating to stop the decrease in supply, or reverse it if it has gone too far. Price control prohibits the rise in price and thus the increase in profitability. At the same time, the shortages caused by price controls prevent increases in supply from reducing price and profitability. When there is a shortage, the effect of an increase in supply is merely a reduction in the severity of the shortage. Only when the shortage is totally eliminated does an increase in supply necessitate a decrease in price and bring about a decrease in profitability.
As a result, the combination of price controls and shortages makes possible random movements of supply without any effect on price and profitability. In this situation, the production of the most trivial and unimportant goods, even pet rocks, can be expanded at the expense of the production of the most urgently needed and important goods, such as life-saving medicines, with no effect on the price or profitability of either good. Price controls would prevent the production of the medicines from becoming more profitable as their supply decreased, while a shortage even of pet rocks prevented their production from becoming less profitable as their supply increased.
As a result, the combination of price controls and shortages makes possible random movements of supply without any effect on price and profitability. In this situation, the production of the most trivial and unimportant goods, even pet rocks, can be expanded at the expense of the production of the most urgently needed and important goods, such as life-saving medicines, with no effect on the price or profitability of either good. Price controls would prevent the production of the medicines from becoming more profitable as their supply decreased, while a shortage even of pet rocks prevented their production from becoming less profitable as their supply increased.
Hmm. It seems to be a variation of Mises' "Calculation problem" and individuals trying to know better than markets.
i too have read most of gmax's posts over the years. i honestly believe he doesn't fully believe in Bitcoin. reread this post he made today. it's almost as if, when backed into a corner by this Gavin proposal, he gives tortured platitudes to Bitcoin's fundamentals. i've never heard him talk like this before:
"I do have something to gain by being careful and thoughtful about the block size though, the same thing I had to gain in 2011 when I wrote the above link: I gain Bitcoin continuing as an interesting secure and decentralized system, an ongoing interest that is worthy of the worlds attention; hopefully the same as you. I start from the premise that Bitcoin is worth having-- that it's something better than paypal or some centeralized service (which could scale much better!) because it's decentralized. That is Bitcoin's fundamental advantage; and we must take great care to not undermine it or allow it to continue to fade out-- as we've seen with mining where compromising a half dozen computers/companies could quite possibly rewrite the chain today."
but following this, he launches into his usual stance of identifying all the problems he sees with Bitcoin once again. those which i don't see as particularly problematic or insolvable going forward.
for even more than the last 2 yrs he has always focused on the negatives of Bitcoin esp when it comes to centralization. i suspect he never invested significantly in BTC, altho since the Blockstream controversy, he claims to have done so. i highly doubt it. his venture into Blockstream would allow him to profit from a second chance via SC's but would endanger Bitcoin, imo. that may be harsh but it says right there in the WP that Bitcoiners may be forced to migrate to a superior SC which would in essence destroy all the early adoption in Bitcoin itself. and $21M of high powered investment money is expecting a 10x return at least and will effect one's decision making.
Hmm. It seems to be a variation of Mises' "Calculation problem" and individuals trying to know better than markets.
Without working price discovery, the function that relates supply with demand is a random function.That's why the number of full nodes appears to have no correlation with the number of Bitcoin users, number of transactions, or any other intuitive metric.
Until the price discovery problem is solved, we have no reason to assume the function will become non-random.
Ah! Absolutely. Particularly for non-mining nodes.
Hmm. It seems to be a variation of Mises' "Calculation problem" and individuals trying to know better than markets.
Without working price discovery, the function that relates supply with demand is a random function.That's why the number of full nodes appears to have no correlation with the number of Bitcoin users, number of transactions, or any other intuitive metric.
Until the price discovery problem is solved, we have no reason to assume the function will become non-random.
luke-jr gmaxwell ptodd have done nothing to deserve the opprobium being dished up here, most of them have worked for free for years already, such ungrateful ignorance on display here is dismaying. There are many other quieter devs who disagree with gavin/hearn on this one but afraid of speaking out because of the risk of the kind of pillorying from the loud-mouths that might result. Wumpus is actually the lead dev now, gavin has been a figurehead for the last 2 versions ... and I haven't seen anyone question his role in the Bitcoin Foundation fiasco?
There is zero opprobrium on my part, just dismay and puzzlement at seeing people who have done so much for Bitcoin become willing to let it slide into a high-risk state, when that is what they have strived to avoid all along. Trying to reduce spam by block-space rationing, forcing up fees, pricing users away to 3rd party off-chain services (like Coinbase?!) is a radical economic experiment on top of what is a nascent revolution in money, taking the robustness of its ecosystem for granted.I make a point of reading gmaxwell's posts as they are always insightful, but one thing he has done remarkably well is fence-sit for over 2 years on the 1MB issue. If he dislikes Gavin's approach then where is his solution? How are crippling confirmation delays going to be avoided if core dev sits back and does nothing about the limit?
Wumpus has not ventured his solution, but neither has he been on reddit actively wanting to delay action on what is the No.1 issue for Bitcoin.
See if you can spot the parallel between this example and the number of nodes in the Bitcoin network:
https://mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarian
https://mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarian
Quote
In the face of the combination of price controls and shortages, the effect of a decrease in the supply of an item is not, as it would be in a free market, to raise its price and increase its profitability, thereby operating to stop the decrease in supply, or reverse it if it has gone too far. Price control prohibits the rise in price and thus the increase in profitability. At the same time, the shortages caused by price controls prevent increases in supply from reducing price and profitability. When there is a shortage, the effect of an increase in supply is merely a reduction in the severity of the shortage. Only when the shortage is totally eliminated does an increase in supply necessitate a decrease in price and bring about a decrease in profitability.
As a result, the combination of price controls and shortages makes possible random movements of supply without any effect on price and profitability. In this situation, the production of the most trivial and unimportant goods, even pet rocks, can be expanded at the expense of the production of the most urgently needed and important goods, such as life-saving medicines, with no effect on the price or profitability of either good. Price controls would prevent the production of the medicines from becoming more profitable as their supply decreased, while a shortage even of pet rocks prevented their production from becoming less profitable as their supply increased.
As a result, the combination of price controls and shortages makes possible random movements of supply without any effect on price and profitability. In this situation, the production of the most trivial and unimportant goods, even pet rocks, can be expanded at the expense of the production of the most urgently needed and important goods, such as life-saving medicines, with no effect on the price or profitability of either good. Price controls would prevent the production of the medicines from becoming more profitable as their supply decreased, while a shortage even of pet rocks prevented their production from becoming less profitable as their supply increased.
Hmm. It seems to be a variation of Mises' "Calculation problem" and individuals trying to know better than markets.
Ouch: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/34zj70/fincen_fines_ripple_labs_inc_in_first_civil/
Edit: see that was already discussed above.
Edit: see that was already discussed above.
Excellent. Any serious Bitcoin business will have this view because retaining the 1MB will not only cripple the network but also cripple dependent business models.
I think the problem that luke, gmaxwell, todd etc have is that they are too close to the tech. They think that the decay in confirmation times can be managed (when it will be a PR disaster), they think that the 1MB has relevance to the fees market, they ignore that node quality is improving even though node quantity declines, (but the decline should eventually be arrested by a growing ecosystem, and increasing price).
They basically need to get out of the woods and see the whole landscape: like Coinbase clearly does.
coinbase looks to me like the next mt. gox waiting to happen ... can't see why you guys always rally behind centralised organisations for your self-affirmation. coinbase will be hacked or corrupted in some way, will you be singing their praises for what that brings?
Not sure how to feel about the hardfork
Excellent. Any serious Bitcoin business will have this view because retaining the 1MB will not only cripple the network but also cripple dependent business models.
I think the problem that luke, gmaxwell, todd etc have is that they are too close to the tech. They think that the decay in confirmation times can be managed (when it will be a PR disaster), they think that the 1MB has relevance to the fees market, they ignore that node quality is improving even though node quantity declines, (but the decline should eventually be arrested by a growing ecosystem, and increasing price).
They basically need to get out of the woods and see the whole landscape: like Coinbase clearly does.
coinbase looks to me like the next mt. gox waiting to happen ... can't see why you guys always rally behind centralised organisations for your self-affirmation. coinbase will be hacked or corrupted in some way, will you be singing their praises for what that brings?
luke-jr gmaxwell ptodd have done nothing to deserve the opprobium being dished up here, most of them have worked for free for years already, such ungrateful ignorance on display here is dismaying. There are many other quieter devs who disagree with gavin/hearn on this one but afraid of speaking out because of the risk of the kind of pillorying from the loud-mouths that might result. Wumpus is actually the lead dev now, gavin has been a figurehead for the last 2 versions ... and I haven't seen anyone question his role in the Bitcoin Foundation fiasco?
Greece has revealed it is to introduce a surcharge for all cashpoint withdrawals and financial transactions in a desperate attempt to prevent citizens withdrawing their money from the country's beleaguered banks.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3068975/Greece-introduces-mandatory-surcharges-cashpoints-desperate-attempt-raise-money-stop-panicked-citizens-withdrawing-life-savings-country-s-beleaguered-banks.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3068975/Greece-introduces-mandatory-surcharges-cashpoints-desperate-attempt-raise-money-stop-panicked-citizens-withdrawing-life-savings-country-s-beleaguered-banks.html
even though node quantity declines, (but the decline should eventually be arrested by a growing ecosystem, and increasing price).
Here's a quote from an essay I'm using as a source for my next article about Bitcoin economics. See if you can spot the parallel between this example and the number of nodes in the Bitcoin network:
https://mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarian
Quote
In the face of the combination of price controls and shortages, the effect of a decrease in the supply of an item is not, as it would be in a free market, to raise its price and increase its profitability, thereby operating to stop the decrease in supply, or reverse it if it has gone too far. Price control prohibits the rise in price and thus the increase in profitability. At the same time, the shortages caused by price controls prevent increases in supply from reducing price and profitability. When there is a shortage, the effect of an increase in supply is merely a reduction in the severity of the shortage. Only when the shortage is totally eliminated does an increase in supply necessitate a decrease in price and bring about a decrease in profitability.
As a result, the combination of price controls and shortages makes possible random movements of supply without any effect on price and profitability. In this situation, the production of the most trivial and unimportant goods, even pet rocks, can be expanded at the expense of the production of the most urgently needed and important goods, such as life-saving medicines, with no effect on the price or profitability of either good. Price controls would prevent the production of the medicines from becoming more profitable as their supply decreased, while a shortage even of pet rocks prevented their production from becoming less profitable as their supply increased.
As a result, the combination of price controls and shortages makes possible random movements of supply without any effect on price and profitability. In this situation, the production of the most trivial and unimportant goods, even pet rocks, can be expanded at the expense of the production of the most urgently needed and important goods, such as life-saving medicines, with no effect on the price or profitability of either good. Price controls would prevent the production of the medicines from becoming more profitable as their supply decreased, while a shortage even of pet rocks prevented their production from becoming less profitable as their supply increased.
Excellent. Any serious Bitcoin business will have this view because retaining the 1MB will not only cripple the network but also cripple dependent business models.
I think the problem that luke, gmaxwell, todd etc have is that they are too close to the tech. They think that the decay in confirmation times can be managed (when it will be a PR disaster), they think that the 1MB has relevance to the fees market, they ignore that node quality is improving even though node quantity declines, (but the decline should eventually be arrested by a growing ecosystem, and increasing price).
They basically need to get out of the woods and see the whole landscape: like Coinbase clearly does.
given what has happened to Ripple today, i am forced to haul out one of my old time memes which i have now taken up to 70% probability in my own mind:
"The blockchain may only ever be applicable to Bitcoin as Money".
i've written several posts over the years detailing how CEO's and founders of Bitcoin financial startups are identifiably known targets for law enforcement. they are almost irresistible targets as they are treading on the foundations of our financial system and incumbent interests. this applies to every Bitcoin 2.0 company and every altcoin that has a known founder.
Bitcoin, as the only purely decentralized POW protocol designed specifically to be Sound Money, has none of these problems. this is exactly why Satoshi disappeared. sure, you can bring up the age 'ol argument that the USG can try to shutdown Bitcoin here in the US but then there will be many countries who will simply allow Bitcoin to route around the damage. there is too much to be gained.
fiat investment is going to start being forced into the BTC currency unit as the only safe option.
edit: here's one guy starting to get it:
https://twitter.com/kristovatlas/status/595740095036182532
"The blockchain may only ever be applicable to Bitcoin as Money".
i've written several posts over the years detailing how CEO's and founders of Bitcoin financial startups are identifiably known targets for law enforcement. they are almost irresistible targets as they are treading on the foundations of our financial system and incumbent interests. this applies to every Bitcoin 2.0 company and every altcoin that has a known founder.
Bitcoin, as the only purely decentralized POW protocol designed specifically to be Sound Money, has none of these problems. this is exactly why Satoshi disappeared. sure, you can bring up the age 'ol argument that the USG can try to shutdown Bitcoin here in the US but then there will be many countries who will simply allow Bitcoin to route around the damage. there is too much to be gained.
fiat investment is going to start being forced into the BTC currency unit as the only safe option.
edit: here's one guy starting to get it:
https://twitter.com/kristovatlas/status/595740095036182532
Maybe the entire point of Ripple was to show bitcoin's superiority to the idea of "modernizing" the traditional money system.
I'll just leave this here...If FinCEN loses they say "hmm well now we know" and there is absolute no consequence. Even the cost of the trial was simply paid for by taxpayers (including Mike indirectly). If Mike loses they judicial system could take everything he owns, include his freedom for the next thirty years. Not really worth it.
Imagine we played a game of poker and if you win I have to say "I was wrong" in public, if I win you get executed. Now you are 80% sure you can beat me in poker, everyone says you have a very sold game. Would you play? How about if you were 99.9% sure?
Everybody thought I was exaggerating. "It's no problem - we'll talk to the regulators and do what it takes to become compliant like a good citizens and everything will be fine," they said.Imagine we played a game of poker and if you win I have to say "I was wrong" in public, if I win you get executed. Now you are 80% sure you can beat me in poker, everyone says you have a very sold game. Would you play? How about if you were 99.9% sure?
Future Bitcoin services need to be run as if they are illegal enterprises, like Silk Road, even if what they are doing is apparently legal.
Why:
The solution is to run all services in the darknet, not tied to any physical location or legal jurisdiction, and without any explicit connection to a real-life identity.
Why:
- Laws change.
- Regulations are vague and open-ended, and it's probably impossible to operate a business without accidentally violating one.
- Even if you do manage to operate without violating any rule law enforcement agencies do not always limit themselves to the letter of the law when deciding to begin an enforcement action.
- Governments are not the only threats to a successful business. Non-governmental organized crime is almost equally capable of extortion.
The solution is to run all services in the darknet, not tied to any physical location or legal jurisdiction, and without any explicit connection to a real-life identity.
Jump to: