Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 56. (Read 2032247 times)

@Peter R: Having followed the discussion on this thread, I must say that I'm quite impressed by the work done for this paper. Bravo !
I still have to read the end of the paper but I've got a question related to the impossibility of an unhealthy fee market (chapter 7).
According to you, what would be the consequences of a new propagation mechanism like IBLT (see https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/e20c3b5a1d4b97f79ac2) ?

OK my memory on the names was wrong, who cares, that doesn't change the point that his fundamental sentiment is that bitcoin is decided by a small group of people, which is horrible.

That post you included above is utter nonsense as a reply. Thermos being downvoted into the ground is valid to point out because it demonstrates just how much the community disagrees.

And that is the thing you don't seem to understand, bitcoin is a community defined construct, it is whatever its users want it to be. Is is not defined by a FOMC like entity.

Thank you I will enjoy my bitcoin with millions of other users, you enjoy you blockstream fork away from satoshi's vision that we all signed up for.

The house I've got on the market has not sold yet so I don't really care one way or another.  It would be nice to get one big giant push downward in PMs when I get a wad of cash which needs a home as long as the price decline was reflected in physical.

It's up, but I'd rather it be down. 

Gold up.  Cypherdoc collapsing.

I now agree that when I said "we are no longer making progress," that I was being rhetorical.  It can be difficult to catch one's self doing this; for example, a reviewer edited out rhetoric in the proof for my paper which I didn't initially even see until it was pointed out to me.

That being said, I stand by my claims that:

1. The debate is mostly ideological at this point.

2. Whether we moved forward with BIP100, BIP101, BIP102, etc., the technical risk would be very low in all cases.

I'm defining the threshold for "low technical risk" to mean that in my opinion the chance that Bitcoin fails for another reason (e.g., lack of adoption due to a reduced block size limit) is significantly greater than the risk of a technical failure (again, based on my own assessment of the probabilities).  

All things considered, I see BIP101 as the lowest risk option (and much lower risk than doing nothing), if I factor in all failure modes.    

Fork to XT Gavinblocks with 2% of the nodes?  Bad Idea Jeans.

https://www.reddit.com/r/xt

lol rekt

After checking he actually says "Wladamir, Greg, and Pieter are opposed to it". But yeah nice try of you to throw LukeJr in there  

PS. I expected you to be above the all too common argumentum ad populum found amongst Gavinistas.

For future reference here's a post I digged up from reddit today that sums up well the idiocy behind juvenile comments such as "Thermos has been down voted into the ground on reddit"



Oh and btw good luck and have fun with your XTcoin

Who said anything about let's "force people to pay attention to what you have to say?"  Nobody, that's who.  I'll take my "sophism" over your "making shit up" anyday.   

I was discussing the marketplace of ideas, and your lack of faith in its ability to reward truth and penalize fallacy.  Alone, you certainly do not have the capacity to bear the cognitive burden of dealing with "reading, parsing, evaluating and responding to" every idea in that market.  But it is easier to create new proxies (Sybil attack) than arguments, so by ignoring the particular alleged identies of the multitudes of individual messengers (instead of running ID verification/background checks on each one) we can better focus our limited resources on the general/aggregate content their messages.

Of course there are trade-offs with anonymous communication.  Satoshi, Citizenfour, and Publius demonstrate those trade-offs are ultimately desirable.

Still nothing to say about defining decentralization being prioritized higher than overcapacity?  I guess we don't need to worry about defining our crypto-terms so much after all.  Your throwaway reference to the economic (IE non-software, non-bitcoin) sense of "overcapacity" doesn't count (unless you really meant to imply any rise in tx fee indicates shortage of capacity).   

WTF???

I count two in favor, three against. How could that possible be viewed as the sort of consensus the core developers would need to act?

(I think you have the names slightly wrong, but that's not the point.)


Yuck. If you're going to fork, at least fork in a clean way.

Thermos has been down voted into the ground on reddit for his behavior.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gdad5/meta_on_hardforking_if_bitcoin_is_so_vulnerable/ctx6rgs

In another post he claims that consensus has not been achieved simply because Greg Peter and luke Jr do not agree and that is enough to out vote Gavin and mike. How seriously fucked up is that view.

I say XT should do away with waiting for 75% now, and simply fork at some block 3 months out and let people pick the vision they want to support. In the end the ecosystem will gravitate to one winner.

I'm done rewarding your sophism for now.

You're conveniently ignoring the reality that reading, parsing, evaluating and responding to ideas requires an expenditure of scarce resources.

When people use sockpuppets, they can increase the resource expenditure of the people they are debating without increasing their own.

Debates involving anonymous parties is highly susceptible to denial of service attacks.

A person using anonymous sockpuppets can bombard the debate with multiple, contradictory positions in a way that they wouldn't be able to get away with if they had to attach the same identity to all their arguments.

It's a bullshit way to engage in a debate of this nature, and shows a profound disrespect for the positions they argue against, as well as insulting the intelligence of everyone involved by pretending that what they're doing isn't obvious.

You are free to use all the anonymous communication you want. You don't get to force people to pay attention to what you have to say.

If you're not willing to pay an accountability price for your arguments, then don't be surprised when other people are not willing to take on the cognitive burden of paying attention to them.

Your distrust in the marketplace of ideas is noted, so too is your reluctance to accept that truth will withstand scrutiny on its own merits as fallacy will fail on its lack of them.

I commend your extreme ("weaponized") cynicism in using Citizen Four (aka Snowden) revelations to further the anonymity-implies-something-to-hide meme you seek to promote.


During the 'stress tests, did you somehow manage to overlook Frap.doc & Co's constant, breathless declarations that the Bitcoin network was "overcapacity?"  (And thus Dooomed unless we Gavincoin ASAP, decentralization be damned.)

It's strange you would miss them, as the "overcapacity" question was/is far more pertinent/pressing than the concurrent pleasantly futile academic abstractions about decentralized angels dancing on 20MB pinheads.

All I ask is sauce for the goose be sauce for the gander.  IE:

I'm not sure why getting this simple point (requesting consistency in the insistence we define crypto-terms) across to you is like pulling teeth.  

Well said.  In solex's "the whole project is royally screwed" quasi-buttcoiner BS, his unsubstantiated claim of heretofore unobserved emergency Soon relies on completely warped misreading and misapplication of Bitcoin history (which you graciously correct with an apt summary of the actual facts and logic involved).

Economic consensus will exist IFF it is no longer in the economic interest of anyone possessing economic veto power to maintain their major objection to the proposed hard fork.  EG, in "a huge emergency" that threatens the present and future value of their coins, even MPEX & Co will (tend to) support (or at least not object to and actively attack/sabotage) the leading proposed solution.

As for

That is a claim that certainly can be made.

On the other hand, it is a known fact that the same technique can be weaponized:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/

In the current environment. I'd say that the onus to prove honest dealing lies with the one using the technique.


No. You're so far off that you aren't even wrong.

Before we can talk intelligently about decentralization:

Step 1: Define what the word means
Step 2: Establish that decentralization is, in fact, desirable, and why

I haven't seen much in the way to establish either one of those points, just a lot of begging the question by assuming that "decentralization" has a coherent and stable meaning, and that it (whatever it is) is obviously good.

I'm still not sure what you're going on about with "overcapacity", as I've never used that term.

Are you talking about well-known and understood principles of economics?

Well said, BTW great paper last week.

The devs represent probably less than 0.01% of the effort spent getting bitcoin to where it is today.heck they didnt even come up with the original concept, and more and more don't even seem to understand it.

Unlike in a democracy, where decisions are coercively imposed by a numerical majority, in a system ruled by economic majority there's no coercion; the economic majority goes its own way and breaks free from anyone who seeks to impose a measure that is judged detrimental to its interests.

This obviously doesn't apply because Bitcoin development has not needed 100% support for "doing something". Compare Bitcoin today to Bitcoin 0.1 and you will see that quite a lot has been done, and probably not one single thing has ever had 100% support (there is always someone...)

What Bitcoin development has done up to this point is push through contentious hard forks. There is a perfectly reasonable view that hard forks should never be done at all, or at least not unless there is a huge emergency. "I think this is a good idea" doesn't count.

Accepting for the moment that point of view, development on a great many things that don't require hard forks (contentious or otherwise) can continue, and scalability can be built outside the core. That may not be everyone's preferred solution but it hardly means the whole project is royally screwed.

EDIT: added missing word "not"

Do I really have to explain (like you are 5) why puffery "about censorship" is the most lulzy of all, because it highlights the self-righteous whiny immaturity and fundamental ignorance of the ReddiTard mob?

OK, fine.

The lulz are a result of the drama queen reactions which declare theymos and bashco to be Literally Hitler^®.  EG:




TIL moderating a subreddit is actually "censorship" and "the epitome of authoritarianism."