Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 57.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: solex on August 09, 2015, 11:07:01 PM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 09, 2015, 10:58:40 PM

The debate is settled; the consensus is 'we don't have a consensus.'

I would love to see the current definition of "consensus" for Bitcoin changes because if that means 100% support for doing something then the whole project is royally screwed. There has been no endeavor of importance in human history where unanimity was required on all decisions.

Satoshi is a pragmatist because he has >50% majority baked into deciding how the blockchain grows. That is the consensus he came up with and anything better is a "nice-to-have".

Yes, we know, you'd like it to be a democracy. Fortunately Bitcoin works exactly against that principle.

solex

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1006

100 satoshis -> ISO code

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 09, 2015, 10:58:40 PM

The debate is settled; the consensus is 'we don't have a consensus.'

I would love to see the current definition of "consensus" for Bitcoin changes because if that means 100% support for doing something then the whole project is royally screwed. There has been no endeavor of importance in human history where unanimity was required on all decisions.

Satoshi is a pragmatist because he has >50% majority baked into deciding how the blockchain grows. That is the consensus he came up with and anything better is a "nice-to-have".

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: smooth on August 09, 2015, 10:44:56 PM

Quote from: Peter R on August 09, 2015, 09:56:40 PM

[ Gavinista blatherings ]

I don't agree that we "are no longer making progress". Just a few days ago you released a paper that was insightful, comprehensive, generally well-received, and raised new questions for follow up research. How can you say that with a major step forward having occurred only a few days ago, there is no longer any progress? Could the same be said a week or two ago, before you paper was released?

I can only imagine this perspective comes from the hubris of thinking that now that your paper is out, everyone should just shut up and get in line behind your conclusions.

Even prior to Peter's paper's public publishing, it was obvious it was intended to 'settle' the debate, via the browbeating process of producing more ostensibly conclusory content than the other side could reasonably be arsed to GAF about.

But he's still right, in roundabout way. The debate is settled; the consensus is 'we don't have a consensus.'

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 09, 2015, 10:45:34 PM

Quote from: justusranvier on August 09, 2015, 09:33:49 PM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 09, 2015, 07:11:52 PM

Yes, how dare anyone take care to insulate debates from ad hom fallacies and protect their families/careers from internet whackjobs?

Fuck Satoshi Nakamoto for being an anonymous coward! Nobody ever said disrupting gold, central banks, and fintech settlement would be safe or easy! Man up and make sacrifices! The revolution needs martyrs!

And fuck Publius for writing all those mean things about how the King of England treats his American Colonies. Such a gutless terror-symp, am I right?

The purpose of anonymous speech is, as you mentioned, to avoid adverse consequences of speaking.

In general you can divide this further into two categories:

1. Avoiding the adverse consequences of telling the truth
2. Avoiding the adverse consequences of telling a lie

1. Is admirable, 2. is contemptible.

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 09, 2015, 07:11:52 PM

PS Still waiting for your concern over lack of an objective, precise definition for Bitcoin network "overcapacity" to result in some amazing new concepts and dimensionless numbers.

After all the hand wringing you performed over our unforgivably sloppy use of "decentralized" I'm sure such research is your top priority. Grin

I have no idea what you're talking about now.

You are half right. Here, let me help:

Quote

The purpose of anonymous speech is to to avoid adverse consequences of speaking and ensure an abstract debate of the issue's merits in a vaccuum, free from nonsense about personalities and biographies.

Fixed ^it^ for you. Cool

I didn't *only* mention avoiding adverse consequences of speaking, although that is the part of my main comment to which you responded.

The neglected other half was about insulating debates from ad hom fallacies ("GMAX BACKAMOTO = THE BLOCKSTREAM CONSPIRACY!!1 PLUS PETERTOAD VIACOIN WTF?!?").

I understand that consequence, which is to the benefit of the audience as much as (or more than) the speaker, does not further the anonymity-implies-something-to-hide meme you seek to promote, so small wonder you ignored it.

The PS is fairly simple. Given your Great Concern about a rigorous definition of decentralization, your silence about the same issue with 'overcapacity' is deafening.

You say we can't (usefully and without concern trolling) discuss decentralization without assigning it a number from 1 to 10 (with 20 decimals places for precision).

Fair enough, let's attempt to define our crypto-terms. Now, where is the same demand when Frap.doc starts hyperventilating because the network is "choking" and "overcapacity?"

You don't get call out sloppy "I know it when I see it" use of one crypto-term while ignoring another. Wink

just stop with all the iCEBLOW. admit it. you're greedy.

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: justusranvier on August 09, 2015, 09:33:49 PM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 09, 2015, 07:11:52 PM

Yes, how dare anyone take care to insulate debates from ad hom fallacies and protect their families/careers from internet whackjobs?

Fuck Satoshi Nakamoto for being an anonymous coward! Nobody ever said disrupting gold, central banks, and fintech settlement would be safe or easy! Man up and make sacrifices! The revolution needs martyrs!

And fuck Publius for writing all those mean things about how the King of England treats his American Colonies. Such a gutless terror-symp, am I right?

The purpose of anonymous speech is, as you mentioned, to avoid adverse consequences of speaking.

In general you can divide this further into two categories:

1. Avoiding the adverse consequences of telling the truth
2. Avoiding the adverse consequences of telling a lie

1. Is admirable, 2. is contemptible.

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 09, 2015, 07:11:52 PM

PS Still waiting for your concern over lack of an objective, precise definition for Bitcoin network "overcapacity" to result in some amazing new concepts and dimensionless numbers.

After all the hand wringing you performed over our unforgivably sloppy use of "decentralized" I'm sure such research is your top priority. Grin

I have no idea what you're talking about now.

You are half right. Here, let me help:

Quote

The purpose of anonymous speech is to to avoid adverse consequences of speaking and ensure an abstract debate of the issue's merits in a vaccuum, free from nonsense about personalities and biographies.

Fixed ^it^ for you. Cool

I didn't *only* mention avoiding adverse consequences of speaking, although that is the part of my main comment to which you responded.

The neglected other half was about insulating debates from ad hom fallacies ("GMAX BACKAMOTO = THE BLOCKSTREAM CONSPIRACY!!1 PLUS PETERTOAD VIACOIN WTF?!?").

I understand that consequence, which is to the benefit of the audience as much as (or more than) the speaker, does not further the anonymity-implies-something-to-hide meme you seek to promote, so small wonder you ignored it.

The PS is fairly simple. Given your Great Concern about a rigorous definition of decentralization, your silence about the same issue with 'overcapacity' is deafening.

You say we can't (usefully and without concern trolling) discuss decentralization without assigning it a number from 1 to 10 (with 20 decimals places for precision).

Fair enough, let's attempt to define our crypto-terms. Now, where is the same demand when Frap.doc starts hyperventilating because the network is "choking" and "overcapacity?"

You don't get call out sloppy "I know it when I see it" use of one crypto-term while ignoring another. Wink

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: Peter R on August 09, 2015, 09:56:40 PM

Quote from: smooth on August 09, 2015, 09:54:53 PM

Yes I do believe that it could. I believe that a major or even near-total (much less total) collapse of decentralization is a technical failure, and is a possible (and not outrageously implausible) outcome of BIP 101.

I agree that a major or near-total collapse of decentralization would be a technical failure.

I guess we just assign very different probabilities to that happening under BIP101.

I never stated probabilities. Unless you believe you can support that the probabilities are "outrageously implausible" (and if so based on what???) we don't necessarily disagree at all.

Furthermore, getting back to your original post, I don't agree that we "are no longer making progress". Just a few days ago you released a paper that was insightful, comprehensive on the matter of fee markets over the next 10-20 years (though to be clear that is only a portion of the overall block size debate), generally well-received, and raised new questions for follow up research. How can you say that with a major step forward having occurred only a few days ago, there is no longer any progress? Could the same be said a week or two ago, before you paper was released?

I can only imagine this perspective comes from the hubris of thinking that now that your paper is out, everyone should just shut up and get in line behind your conclusions.

EDIT: edited to clarify that the paper is, by its own stated conclusions, relevant to the next 10-20 years. No one seems interested in my observation that the final paragraph of the paper is in fact highly relevant beyond 10-20 years. I guess we will have all cashed out by then?

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

tvbcof: "woof, woof":

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4760

Merit: 1283

Quote from: cypherdoc on August 09, 2015, 09:31:59 PM

testing versions of XT available on the nodes monitor:

http://xtnodes.com/

Justusranviar and cypherdoc describe the XT system and infrastructure footprint:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE17sNjmW7c

HeliKopterBen

hero member

Activity: 622

Merit: 500

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 09, 2015, 10:12:18 PM

Quote from: Peter R on August 09, 2015, 09:56:40 PM

Quote from: smooth on August 09, 2015, 09:54:53 PM

Yes I do believe that it could. I believe that a major or even near-total (much less total) collapse of decentralization is a technical failure, and is a possible (and not outrageously implausible) outcome of BIP 101.

I agree that a major or near-total collapse of decentralization would be a technical failure.

I guess we just assign very different probabilities to that happening under BIP101.

So much for the technical debate being "over." Tongue

In other words - The technical debate is over. There will be NO catastrophic failure of decentralization with BIP101.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Peter R on August 09, 2015, 09:36:41 PM

From: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gdj7j/a_better_way_to_govern_bitcoin_block_size_open/ctxb53s

Quote from: Peter R

Quote from: marcus_of_augustus

You are really going all out on the attack FUD on this one aren't you?

I think the analogy to the Fed's FOMC is fairly accurate. Part of the ideology behind central banking is that a group of educated men can make better decisions for what is best for the economy (by choosing the interest rate that balances "inflation expectations" with "employment") than allowing the free market to solve the same problem.

This is similar to the block size debate. Part of the ideology behind limiting the block size is that a group of talented coders can make better decisions for what is best for Bitcoin, by choosing a limit that produces what they see as a better balance between "decentralization" and "blockchain access," than what would happen if the limit were slowly removed according to Gavin's BIP101 proposal.

Isn't this what the debate really comes down to now? The technical debate is over; It's ideology at this point. Do we want a Bitcoin that has a dual mandate of balancing decentralization with blockchain access? Or do we want a permissionless Bitcoin where blockspace is governed by the fee market?

The debate is really just about ideology at this point, and that's why we're no longer making progress. The technical debate is over. Some people want Bitcoin to be free to grow, while others want to control the growth process to attempt to balance "decentralization" with "block space access."

it's time to vote with your feet.

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: Peter R on August 09, 2015, 09:56:40 PM

Quote from: smooth on August 09, 2015, 09:54:53 PM

Yes I do believe that it could. I believe that a major or even near-total (much less total) collapse of decentralization is a technical failure, and is a possible (and not outrageously implausible) outcome of BIP 101.

I agree that a major or near-total collapse of decentralization would be a technical failure.

I guess we just assign very different probabilities to that happening under BIP101.

So much for the technical debate being "over." Tongue

Peter R

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1007

Quote from: smooth on August 09, 2015, 09:54:53 PM

Yes I do believe that it could. I believe that a major or even near-total (much less total) collapse of decentralization is a technical failure, and is a possible (and not outrageously implausible) outcome of BIP 101.

I agree that a major or near-total collapse of decentralization would be a technical failure.

I guess we just assign very different probabilities to that happening under BIP101.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: Peter R on August 09, 2015, 09:52:16 PM

Quote from: smooth on August 09, 2015, 09:44:33 PM

Quote from: Peter R on August 09, 2015, 09:36:41 PM

The debate is really just about ideology at this point, and that's why we're no longer making progress. The technical debate is over. Some people want Bitcoin to be free to grow, while others want to control the growth process to attempt to balance "decentralization" with "block space access."

That's frankly bullshit Peter R and I'm surprised to see that kind of rhetoric from you.

Bitcoin the technology is by its nature a decentralized and peer-to-peer system, but also one that "should" scale. The trade offs between decentralization and scaling are very much part of that technology and therefore part of the "technical debate". The only thing ideological here are people who want to move it from that realm to something else, and give people who are neither technologists nor directly involved with building the technology any input at all. That includes opinions on whether the debate is technical or not.

I should have said "between BIP100, 101, 102, etc., the debate is not technical but ideological at this point."

Do you believe that moving forward with BIP101 (Gavin's proposal) could destroy Bitcoin for technical reasons?

Yes I do believe that it could. I believe that a major or even near-total (much less total) collapse of decentralization is a technical failure, and is a possible (and not outrageously implausible) outcome of BIP 101.

Peter R

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1007

Quote from: smooth on August 09, 2015, 09:44:33 PM

Quote from: Peter R on August 09, 2015, 09:36:41 PM

The debate is really just about ideology at this point, and that's why we're no longer making progress. The technical debate is over. Some people want Bitcoin to be free to grow, while others want to control the growth process to attempt to balance "decentralization" with "block space access."

That's frankly bullshit Peter R and I'm surprised to see that kind of rhetoric from you.

Bitcoin the technology is by its nature a decentralized and peer-to-peer system, but also one that "should" scale. The trade offs between decentralization and scaling are very much part of that technology and therefore part of the "technical debate". The only thing ideological here are people who want to move it from that realm to something else, and give people who are neither technologists nor directly involved with building the technology any input at all. That includes opinions on whether the debate is technical or not.

I should have said "between BIP100, 101, 102, etc., the debate is not technical but ideological at this point."

Do you believe that moving forward with BIP101 (Gavin's proposal) could destroy Bitcoin for technical reasons?

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: Peter R on August 09, 2015, 09:36:41 PM

The debate is really just about ideology at this point, and that's why we're no longer making progress. The technical debate is over. Some people want Bitcoin to be free to grow, while others want to control the growth process to attempt to balance "decentralization" with "block space access."

That's frankly bullshit Peter R and I'm surprised to see that kind of rhetoric from you.

Bitcoin the technology is by its nature a decentralized and peer-to-peer system, but also one that "should" scale. The trade offs between decentralization and scaling are very much part of that technology and therefore part of the "technical debate". The only thing ideological here are people who want to move it from that realm to something else, and give people who are neither technologists nor directly involved with building the technology any input at all. That includes opinions on whether the debate is technical or not.

Peter R

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1007

From: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gdj7j/a_better_way_to_govern_bitcoin_block_size_open/ctxb53s

Quote from: Peter R

Quote from: marcus_of_augustus

You are really going all out on the attack FUD on this one aren't you?

I think the analogy to the Fed's FOMC is fairly accurate. Part of the ideology behind central banking is that a group of educated men can make better decisions for what is best for the economy (by choosing the interest rate that balances "inflation expectations" with "employment") than allowing the free market to solve the same problem.

This is similar to the block size debate. Part of the ideology behind limiting the block size is that a group of talented coders can make better decisions for what is best for Bitcoin, by choosing a limit that produces what they see as a better balance between "decentralization" and "blockchain access," than what would happen if the limit were slowly removed according to Gavin's BIP101 proposal.

Isn't this what the debate really comes down to now? The technical debate is over; It's ideology at this point. Do we want a Bitcoin that has a dual mandate of balancing decentralization with blockchain access? Or do we want a permissionless Bitcoin where blockspace is governed by the fee market?

The debate is really just about ideology at this point, and that's why we're no longer making progress. The technical debate is over. Some people want Bitcoin to be free to grow, while others want to control the growth process to attempt to balance "decentralization" with "block space access."

justusranvier

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1013

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 09, 2015, 07:11:52 PM

Yes, how dare anyone take care to insulate debates from ad hom fallacies and protect their families/careers from internet whackjobs?

Fuck Satoshi Nakamoto for being an anonymous coward! Nobody ever said disrupting gold, central banks, and fintech settlement would be safe or easy! Man up and make sacrifices! The revolution needs martyrs!

And fuck Publius for writing all those mean things about how the King of England treats his American Colonies. Such a gutless terror-symp, am I right?

The purpose of anonymous speech is, as you mentioned, to avoid adverse consequences of speaking.

In general you can divide this further into two categories:

1. Avoiding the adverse consequences of telling the truth
2. Avoiding the adverse consequences of telling a lie

1. Is admirable, 2. is contemptible.

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 09, 2015, 07:11:52 PM

PS Still waiting for your concern over lack of an objective, precise definition for Bitcoin network "overcapacity" to result in some amazing new concepts and dimensionless numbers.

After all the hand wringing you performed over our unforgivably sloppy use of "decentralized" I'm sure such research is your top priority. Grin

I have no idea what you're talking about now.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

testing versions of XT available on the nodes monitor:

http://xtnodes.com/

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

about the lightning "vaporware" https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ge122/sidechain_elements_lightning_protocol_testbed/?sort=confidence

is there a more exciting development in Bitcoin right now than the progress on Sidechains Elements™ & Lightning™ all brought to you by Blockstream™?

I don't think so!

majamalu

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 1000

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 09, 2015, 08:33:20 PM

The puffery "about censorship" is the most lulzy of all, because it highlights the self-righteous whiny immaturity and fundamental ignorance of the ReddiTard mob.

What a great thread. Such epic Gavinista buttburn. Well done Thermos! Cheesy

As usual, not a single argument - just a cheap and dull imitation of MP.

Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 57. (Read 2032266 times)