Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 70.

Chainsaw

hero member

Activity: 625

Merit: 501

x

Quote from: lunarboy on August 04, 2015, 11:49:23 AM

Satoshi moves some coin Huh

..... from 2009-01-09 02:54:25

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3frht4/satoshi_nakamoto_moved_today_for_the_first_time/

https://blockchain.info/en/address/12c6DSiU4Rq3P4ZxziKxzrL5LmMBrzjrJX

Debunked. It's a blockchain.info exploit.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3frn1d/satoshis_coins_have_not_moved_blockchaininfo_is/

lunarboy

hero member

Activity: 544

Merit: 500

Satoshi moves some coin Huh

..... from 2009-01-09 02:54:25

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3frht4/satoshi_nakamoto_moved_today_for_the_first_time/

https://blockchain.info/en/address/12c6DSiU4Rq3P4ZxziKxzrL5LmMBrzjrJX

edit seems like a blockchain.info problem

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Peter R on August 04, 2015, 01:32:22 AM

I’d like to share a research paper I’ve recently completed titled “A Transaction Fee Market Exists Without a Block Size Limit.” I formalizes the ideas from Cypherdoc, Adrian-X, thezerg, Rocks, ZB, Justus Ranvier, Solex, Melbustus, Majamalu and many others here. In addition to presenting some useful charts such as the cost to produce large spam blocks, I think the paper convincingly demonstrates that due to the orphaning cost, a block size limit is not necessary to ensure a functioning fee market.

Looking forward to reading it, just finished reviewing the r/bitcoin comments just want to say well done too.

I love the way you introduced it, it's fascinating to see the r/bitcoin community contribute like this. Even the "trolls" have some valuable feedback.

And it's attracted the attention and participation of developers too.

Nice work and flattered to see ideas discussed here credited to the foundation of what appears to be such superior analysis. (Should read befor commenting :-)

Zarathustra

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1004

Quote from: Zangelbert Bingledack on August 04, 2015, 07:25:17 AM

Just finished Peter R's paper. Really excellent, clear, and much-needed formalization of an important aspect of the debate often mentioned here.

Is that the sound of the tide turning I hear?

Yes. Peter R. definitely turns the tide. And this is the tide-is-turning-sound, my tribute to Peter, as brilliant as himself:

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

uvwvj

full member

Activity: 145

Merit: 100

Most important thing dropping?

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-a-deeper-dive-by-apple-could-crush-this-market-2015-08-04

inca

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1000

Quote from: sgbett on August 04, 2015, 07:53:30 AM

Quote from: Zangelbert Bingledack on August 04, 2015, 07:25:17 AM

Just finished Peter R's paper. Really excellent, clear, and much-needed formalization of an important aspect of the debate often mentioned here.

Is that the sound of the tide turning I hear?

I don't think the actual tide was ever in doubt, just a few noisy ego's yelling King Canute style. Wink

Excellent work Peter R. Congratulations on the paper.

nby

newbie

Activity: 27

Merit: 0

Quote from: Peter R on August 04, 2015, 01:32:22 AM

I’d like to share a research paper I’ve recently completed titled “A Transaction Fee Market Exists Without a Block Size Limit.” I formalizes the ideas from Cypherdoc, Adrian-X, thezerg, Rocks, ZB, Justus Ranvier, Solex, Melbustus, Majamalu and many others here. In addition to presenting some useful charts such as the cost to produce large spam blocks, I think the paper convincingly demonstrates that due to the orphaning cost, a block size limit is not necessary to ensure a functioning fee market.

Just finished reading it. Well done.

sgbett

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1087

Quote from: Zangelbert Bingledack on August 04, 2015, 07:25:17 AM

Just finished Peter R's paper. Really excellent, clear, and much-needed formalization of an important aspect of the debate often mentioned here.

Is that the sound of the tide turning I hear?

I don't think the actual tide was ever in doubt, just a few noisy ego's yelling King Canute style. Wink

Zangelbert Bingledack

legendary

Activity: 1036

Merit: 1000

Quote from: rocks on August 03, 2015, 08:46:18 PM

The incentive structure does not need to be put into the protocol, market dynamics on their own will create the proper incentive structure. In other words if it becomes too difficult for your average person to run a node or if there are not enough nodes to provide data upload for free, then a market will create on its own to fulfill this need.

The ignorance of Bitcoin's current crop of "board of director" types regarding the nature of free markets is both highly ironic and sad.

I suspect this is true as well. And if it is, imagine how funny it will be to look back on these times when there is a nice node market because of no blocksize cap.

Zangelbert Bingledack

legendary

Activity: 1036

Merit: 1000

Just finished Peter R's paper. Really excellent, clear, and much-needed formalization of an important aspect of the debate often mentioned here.

Is that the sound of the tide turning I hear?

sgbett

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1087

Quote from: Peter R on August 04, 2015, 01:32:22 AM

I’d like to share a research paper I’ve recently completed titled “A Transaction Fee Market Exists Without a Block Size Limit.” I formalizes the ideas from Cypherdoc, Adrian-X, thezerg, Rocks, ZB, Justus Ranvier, Solex, Melbustus, Majamalu and many others here. In addition to presenting some useful charts such as the cost to produce large spam blocks, I think the paper convincingly demonstrates that due to the orphaning cost, a block size limit is not necessary to ensure a functioning fee market.

The paper does not argue that a block size limit is unnecessary in general, and in fact brings up questions related to mining cartels and the size of the UTXO set.

It can be downloaded in PDF format here:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/43331625/feemarket.pdf

Or viewed with a web-browser here:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/273443462/A-Transaction-Fee-Market-Exists-Without-a-Block-Size-Limit

And here is its Reddit thread:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3fpuld/a_transaction_fee_market_exists_without_a_block/

Hero member indeed! A functioning bitcoin economy without a(n artificial) block size limit and not a sedition in sight. Marvellous.

sgbett

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1087

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 03, 2015, 07:45:52 PM

Quote from: sgbett on August 03, 2015, 03:41:48 PM

I've tried really hard to try and see the opposing POV but I come up short every time, and I think that's because I can't understand the philosophy behind making BTC some elitist tool when it seemed right from the outset that it was anything but.

If that makes me part of the "free-shit" army, then so be it. I'm not (yet) so morally bankrupt that I think that my well being can only come at the expense of others. That's what cripplecoin sounds like, thats why I don't want any part of it.

You aren't trying that hard if you can't read and understand this fairly simple, single sentence summation of the opposing POV:

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".

Where in Davout's statement is the "moral bankruptcy?" All I see is economic literacy and an understanding of the technical limitations of scaling Bitcoin I/O.

Where in Davout's statement is the desire for well being coming "at the expense of others?" All I see is a workable plan for radical inclusion ("everyone gets to benefit"), albeit not in the manner preferred by those with atrociously paltry understandings of Bitcoin and economics.

Who are these financial institutions, and why do assume they are necessary. You seem to ignore the fact that bitcoin is money. Its a medium of exchange, a unit of account, a store of value. The blockchain facilitates these things. Your financial institutions are an unnecessary complexity, the blockchain doesn't need financial institutions it *is* the institution.

Your summation quite clearly reveals some other agenda. You know that increasing the block size undermines it, so you are fighting tooth and nail to try and prevent it.

Zarathustra

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1004

Quote from: conspirosphere.tk on August 04, 2015, 05:42:39 AM

Quote from: Zarathustra on August 04, 2015, 03:48:21 AM

Debt is not paper. Debt is debt (= money), and that has always been the basis of every economy. Whether debt is written on paper or on clay tablets (mesopot) makes no difference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_First_5000_Years

Debt can be money until it's not (default / no CONfidence). Serious/sound money is only commodity-money. And then there is pure fiat which is another big "irredeemable" con, but not debt.

No man's credit is as good as his money.

Commodities are not money. Commodities are commodities.
Commodities are always valued in debt, which is money.
Beyond a debt economy (stateless rain forest communities), gold is not money and has no value.

conspirosphere.tk

legendary

Activity: 2352

Merit: 1064

Bitcoin is antisemitic

Quote from: Zarathustra on August 04, 2015, 03:48:21 AM

Debt is not paper. Debt is debt (= money), and that has always been the basis of every economy. Whether debt is written on paper or on clay tablets (mesopot) makes no difference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_First_5000_Years

Debt can be money until it's not (default / no CONfidence). Serious/sound money is only commodity-money. And then there is pure fiat which is another big "irredeemable" con, but not debt.

No man's credit is as good as his money.

Natalia_AnatolioPAMM

full member

Activity: 280

Merit: 100

Quote from: majamalu on August 04, 2015, 12:13:56 AM

Quote from: rocks on August 03, 2015, 08:46:18 PM

The ignorance of Bitcoin's current crop of "board of director" types regarding the nature of free markets is both highly ironic and sad.

Indeed. They remind me of those goldbugs who think we don't need a market in money because gold already won.

Bitcoin has a long way before becoming the world settlement layer. That shit is not free

and I'm not even sure bitcoin is capable of going through that

Zarathustra

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1004

Quote from: conspirosphere.tk on August 04, 2015, 03:37:03 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on August 03, 2015, 05:01:09 PM

Quote from: conspirosphere.tk on August 03, 2015, 04:51:26 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on August 03, 2015, 12:50:56 PM

and gold will be at $400

maybe paper gold. You'll never get any gold that you can hold nowhere near that price.
In fact if BTC goes todamoon again and PM stay depressed I will stack some more phyzz.

still a gold bug?

since when can you get a better price at your local bullion dealer than what's priced on comex?

more than a gold bug, a paper bear :-D. An interesting thing is that premiums on physical are increasing the more they push comex price down. At this rate soon they will break their toy and they will decouple, possibly (hopefully) forever. And it's interesting especially because they could play the same crooked game with bitcoins.

Debt is not paper. Debt is debt (= money), and that has always been the basis of every economy. Whether debt is written on paper or on clay tablets (mesopot) makes no difference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_First_5000_Years

conspirosphere.tk

legendary

Activity: 2352

Merit: 1064

Bitcoin is antisemitic

Quote from: cypherdoc on August 03, 2015, 05:01:09 PM

Quote from: conspirosphere.tk on August 03, 2015, 04:51:26 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on August 03, 2015, 12:50:56 PM

and gold will be at $400

maybe paper gold. You'll never get any gold that you can hold nowhere near that price.
In fact if BTC goes todamoon again and PM stay depressed I will stack some more phyzz.

still a gold bug?

since when can you get a better price at your local bullion dealer than what's priced on comex?

more than a gold bug, a paper bear :-D. An interesting thing is that premiums on physical are increasing the more they push comex price down. At this rate soon they will break their toy and they will decouple, possibly (hopefully) forever. And it's interesting especially because they could play the same crooked game with bitcoins.

Zarathustra

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1004

Quote from: tvbcof on August 03, 2015, 07:18:02 PM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 03, 2015, 06:51:50 PM

By promoting equality of outcome and denigrating equality of opportunity, you appoint yourself Generalissimo Frappuccino of the Free Shit Army. ...

I have to beg forgiveness for employing the (rather hilarious) term 'generalissimo' in association with the 'Free Shit Army' without looking up the definition. A 'generalissimo' is actually the supreme commander of all forces; not just the 'army' so the word doesn't make sense in this context.

So our dear friend cypherdoc would be more accurately described as 'Generalissimo Frappuccino of the Free Shit Nation' since clearly that is how he imagines himself. In reality he's just another pinko as you correctly describe, and a slimy shill for at least one entity and possibly more.

You're still a stalker without charisma. That's why you're here and not elsewhere.
A primitive anonymous pseudonym abusing his anonymity to harass individuals and their privacy. A low life at its best.

Zarathustra

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1004

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 03, 2015, 07:11:45 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on August 03, 2015, 11:55:55 AM

growth? what f*cking growth?:

Weren't you listening when Gavin told us "the financial crisis is over" thanks to binge-watching of Broadchurch...

On what planet do you live?
It is over. For the time being. As always. Recessions, crises, depressions appear cyclically. As everybody knows. The economy has been growing since 2010.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Peter R on August 04, 2015, 01:32:22 AM

I’d like to share a research paper I’ve recently completed titled “A Transaction Fee Market Exists Without a Block Size Limit.” I formalizes the ideas from Cypherdoc, Adrian-X, thezerg, Rocks, ZB, Justus Ranvier, Solex, Melbustus, Majamalu and many others here. In addition to presenting some useful charts such as the cost to produce large spam blocks, I think the paper convincingly demonstrates that due to the orphaning cost, a block size limit is not necessary to ensure a functioning fee market.

The paper does not argue that a block size limit is unnecessary in general, and in fact brings up questions related to mining cartels and the size of the UTXO set.

It can be downloaded in PDF format here:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/43331625/feemarket.pdf

Or viewed with a web-browser here:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/273443462/A-Transaction-Fee-Market-Exists-Without-a-Block-Size-Limit

And here is its Reddit thread:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3fpuld/a_transaction_fee_market_exists_without_a_block/

Very much looking forward to reading in the morning.

Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 70. (Read 2032247 times)