Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 91. (Read 2032266 times)

Its almost as if they don't understand how much this market panic this state support causes.  Especially given its temporary and sporadic nature, the pro move is to sell now and buy back after the even worse crash when it ends.

getting critical now.  just broke near term support and approaching red line of death:

The Chinese average joes are so gullible.  Did it never occur to them that Bejing and the PBOC took up sizable market positions years ago, engineered the recent market bubble, then dumped on the retail investors?  

So their Chinese gov't has no intention of doing anything except continuing to play the market right now, as they ARE the whale traders in their market right now.

At the request of Smoothie, here is an updated chart of the average block sizes.  With the spam coming to an end, we've dropped out of the red-zone:



In other news, I'm presently in Paris and looking to meet up over coffee or wine with any nearby Bitcoiners.  I'm meeting some people from Ledger Wallet on Tuesday at La Maison du Bitcoin, but if there's any readers/posters from Paris who'd like to chat bitcoin…send me a PM!

They were lying to you then, and they're lying to you now:

“I am positive that we will see state support emerging again in the next two days,” said Zhang."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/asian-stocks-fall-pressured-by-weak-earnings-overseas-1437961185

That was beautiful:  putting Rusty in his place.

Sure there's a big difference and I was not endorsing any particular proposal on the table, be it BIP 100, 101, 102 you name it.

I just wanted to make clear that all the parties (modulo MP) agree on the fact that in a way or another the 1MB max block size has to be changed.

 

Yes I am.

If I used reddit I would. Even the 1MB foreva mantra leaves joe blow public with unreasonable hardware demands given enough time.

Edit: For context, I think a fee market for block space is an absolute necessity... eventually. But not when we get 25 btc every ten minutes. At this point in the distribution curve, incentivizing more transactions and more use is paramount. And as long as my 5 year old amd machine can easily handle 2-8MB blocks, and we have a statement from major miners saying they can too, I'm for it.

Then you should tell your friend over there on reddit that he should cancel his order while there is still time 

oh hai



Less than 3 tps isn't going to cut it on the main chain, even in the reasonably near future, let alone forever.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3eprag/this_little_kit_has_everything_i_need_to_run_a/cth8v9s

Fantastic representation of redditards ass-backward logic. 

That's incorrect, and I think someone (Adam?) recently wrote up some good stuff about the role of "nodes"

In order to matter, policies have to be enforced by either:

1. The node you are using, with respect to your own coins (your own node validates your coins, so you can't be fooled). Of course this only matters if others agree with you, or you have created an altcoin with a userbase of one (useless)

2. All nodes, or essentially all nodes.

"A majority of nodes" accomplishes essentially nothing. That is the entire point of the bitcoin design ("majority of nodes" is not sybil-resistant).

Policy which is observed by a super-majority of nodes is effectively a consensus. Also the message size limit is anti-DoS

False. The dust limit and fee policy are not part of the consensus code (which the 1 MB limit is).

So the answer is in fact yes: There is no other anti-DoS mechanism in the consensus code after 5 years.

Proposing to add one is one possibility. Have at it.

There is a huge difference between "a bigger block" and proposing to scale block sizes upward to the moon in an attempt to meet the core scaling demands of the system that way.

Yes, absolutely. That's what I think is the central plank of the informed pro-1MB opinion.
This question can be turned around: "After 5 years is the 1MB hard-limit the best anti-DoS mechanism that Bitcoin dev can come up with?"
Answer no, because the real anti-DoS protection comes from the consensus dust-limit and fee policy. This is what has kept the average block size to something reflecting real market demand, otherwise blocks would have been constantly bumping the 1MB since 2011/12 where real ecosystem traffic would have to crowd out spam with fee pressure alone, as a "normal" state of affairs. Effectively, this is 5 years of proof that a hard block limit is not needed, with the 32.5MB message size limit still remaining as a sanity check.

The market for node services will certainly be a major feature of successful cryptocurrency in the years ahead, but again, requires more time to develop, and co-ordination than can quickly be expected. Also, I suspect that work on SC and LN has potentially more scope for individual profit than work on a real free market for node services. TBH, that is OK, it is human nature to work on what has the most scope for individual gain, especially for long periods of time.
The solution to accelerating work on node services payment channels is indirect incentives for the developers of it. Monetizing it.

I've mentioned this before. Two years ago during the San Jose conference, I made this prediction in one of my newsletter posts. Glad to see other mainstream news organizations beginning to recognize this:

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21659745-silicon-valley-should-be-celebrated-its-insularity-risks-backlash-empire-geeks

Nice!

BTW, were you the same Dusty that responded in Rusty Russell's last  blog post?

There goes the argument by Cripplecoiners of not being able to run a full node from behind Tor with bigger blocks:

http://bitcoinist.net/hornet-combines-user-privacy-high-speed-internet-bitcoin-implications-possible/