Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 99. (Read 2032266 times)
all of them have that sick top left to bottom right long term year chart...
these are really bad signs for the economy in general:
I wonder if the continuing GLD downtrend (with no near or medium-term end in sight) will spur some goldbugs to jump into BTC as they see it rise while their beloved PM falls. Could be one of the many contributing factors in the inevitable coming BULL run.
Satoshi clearly didn't have a plan to manage the core devs, or even a code of conduct as it seems. We need a Bitcoin-equivalent Hippocratic Oath for the core devs, as well as a way to tell them to buzz off. Maybe the Foundation can get to work on that.
They signed the Hippocratic Oath equivalent when they joined Blockstream - at least that is what was presented in the media, that they would never hurt bitcoin because of their work contracts.
how effective do you expect them to be when they depend on self determination? how much does money & stock options affect their decision making? what does talking with your VC investors everyday do to one's view of the world? since bigger blocks is a no brainer even for SC's & LN, why the delay/stalling?
$DJT doing the next roll:
Satoshi clearly didn't have a plan to manage the core devs, or even a code of conduct as it seems. We need a Bitcoin-equivalent Hippocratic Oath for the core devs, as well as a way to tell them to buzz off. Maybe the Foundation can get to work on that.
They signed the Hippocratic Oath equivalent when they joined Blockstream - at least that is what was presented in the media, that they would never hurt bitcoin because of their work contracts.
"What have the core devs ever done for us?"
It doesn't matter.At all.
This isn't academia - there is no tenure in Bitcoin.
Their position is contingent every single day on their continuing ability to produce new value.
They can choose to embrace that reality, or they can choose to pout about it. Bitcoin will be fine with or without them.
well put JR. i hadn't even thought about it that way.
and what we absolutely don't want is core dev thinking that Bitcoin "owes them" something.
you do know that also goes for Satoshi and Gavin ?
Yep, but how to get rid of the "bad actor" core devs that are now clearly trying to push their own agendas and self interests? Why are they now 'indoctrinated' and unfire-able? Even Hitler could be said to have added value.
Satoshi clearly didn't have a plan to manage the core devs, or even a code of conduct as it seems. We need a Bitcoin-equivalent Hippocratic Oath for the core devs, as well as a way to tell them to buzz off. Maybe the Foundation can get to work on that.
Multiple groups coding to the protocol is likely to be a good development for Bitcoin... Unless it turns into some red vs blue turf battle, which is a big risk with all the xxxJ personalities.
LOL, the Gavinistas are furiously scribbling their little manifesto. This gonna be good. 
Exactly like the Peoples' Front of Judea (or was it the Judean Peoples' Front?)
"What have the core devs ever done for us?"
Exactly like the Peoples' Front of Judea (or was it the Judean Peoples' Front?)
"What have the core devs ever done for us?"
I'm grateful to the developers, but this is not about them, I'm also happy that not everyone at central control is part of the heard, everything in this post is good news. if you read that tweet again, it looks like a critique of the mainstream circle jerk.
Ah, but BitcoinSX is about the developers. Specifically, SX's lack of them and predictable GFY response from Team Core when larger blocks break something Gavin failed to account for (like upstream bandwidth being ~order-of-magnitude less than down, or catastrophic consensus failure).
XT could be an interesting pseudo-test of the thought experiment i've made a coupla times about perhaps Bitcoin needing nothing more than a big enough block size increase with built in upgrades from now until eternity. or at least until an emergency patch is needed for an extraordinary event.
LOL, the Gavinistas are furiously scribbling their little manifesto. This gonna be good.
Exactly like the Peoples' Front of Judea (or was it the Judean Peoples' Front?)
"What have the core devs ever done for us?"
Exactly like the Peoples' Front of Judea (or was it the Judean Peoples' Front?)
"What have the core devs ever done for us?"
I'm grateful to the developers, but this is not about them, I'm also happy that not everyone at central control is part of the heard, everything in this post is good news. if you read that tweet again, it looks like a critique of the mainstream circle jerk.
Ah, but BitcoinSX is about the developers. Specifically, SX's lack of them and predictable GFY response from Team Core when larger blocks break something Gavin failed to account for (like upstream bandwidth being ~order-of-magnitude less than down, or catastrophic consensus failure).
interesting. looks like GavinMike are going to pull the trigger soon:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3e64dk/time_to_end_bitcoin_reliance_on_core_and_end_this/ctce5cu?context=3
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3e64dk/time_to_end_bitcoin_reliance_on_core_and_end_this/ctce5cu?context=3
^ Confirmed.
LOL, the Gavinistas are furiously scribbling their little manifesto. This gonna be good.
Exactly like the Peoples' Front of Judea (or was it the Judean Peoples' Front?)
"What have the core devs ever done for us?"
I'm grateful to the developers, but this is not about them, I'm also happy that not everyone at central control is part of the heard, everything in this post is good news. if you read that tweet again, it looks like a critique of the mainstream circle jerk.
gmax thrown under the bus with lotsa upvotes:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3e8a4v/jeff_g_throwing_the_hammer_down_today_on_devlist/ctckf5l
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3e8a4v/jeff_g_throwing_the_hammer_down_today_on_devlist/ctckf5l
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009538.html
Jeff knows damn well he doesn't have network consensus
edit: but yes, this is basically what is going to happen.
Quote
Jeff Garzik jgarzik at gmail.com
Wed Jul 22 22:30:59 UTC 2015
Previous message: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Core and hard forks
Next message: [bitcoin-dev] BIP: Short Term Use Addresses for Scalability
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
....
So I respectfully disagree with "core devs don't control the network" and
"core devs control the network" both.
There are checks-and-balances that make the system work. Consensus is most
strongly measured by user actions after software release. If the
developers fail to reflect user consensus, the network will let us know.
Wed Jul 22 22:30:59 UTC 2015
Previous message: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Core and hard forks
Next message: [bitcoin-dev] BIP: Short Term Use Addresses for Scalability
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
....
So I respectfully disagree with "core devs don't control the network" and
"core devs control the network" both.
There are checks-and-balances that make the system work. Consensus is most
strongly measured by user actions after software release. If the
developers fail to reflect user consensus, the network will let us know.
Jeff knows damn well he doesn't have network consensus
edit: but yes, this is basically what is going to happen.
"What have the core devs ever done for us?"
It doesn't matter.At all.
This isn't academia - there is no tenure in Bitcoin.
Their position is contingent every single day on their continuing ability to produce new value.
They can choose to embrace that reality, or they can choose to pout about it. Bitcoin will be fine with or without them.
well put JR. i hadn't even thought about it that way.
and what we absolutely don't want is core dev thinking that Bitcoin "owes them" something.
you do know that also goes for Satoshi and Gavin ?
yep. which is why apparently Satoshi disappeared w/o wanting to remain at the helm and why Gavin is refusing to accept lead core dev responsibility for XT despite being accused endlessly of wanting to be a benevolent dictator.
"What have the core devs ever done for us?"
It doesn't matter.At all.
This isn't academia - there is no tenure in Bitcoin.
Their position is contingent every single day on their continuing ability to produce new value.
They can choose to embrace that reality, or they can choose to pout about it. Bitcoin will be fine with or without them.
well put JR. i hadn't even thought about it that way.
and what we absolutely don't want is core dev thinking that Bitcoin "owes them" something.
you do know that also goes for Satoshi and Gavin ?
"What have the core devs ever done for us?"
It doesn't matter.At all.
This isn't academia - there is no tenure in Bitcoin.
Their position is contingent every single day on their continuing ability to produce new value.
They can choose to embrace that reality, or they can choose to pout about it. Bitcoin will be fine with or without them.
well put JR. i hadn't even thought about it that way.
and what we absolutely don't want is core dev thinking that Bitcoin "owes them" something.
"What have the core devs ever done for us?"
It doesn't matter.At all.
This isn't academia - there is no tenure in Bitcoin.
Their position is contingent every single day on their continuing ability to produce new value.
They can choose to embrace that reality, or they can choose to pout about it. Bitcoin will be fine with or without them.
you just want to make sure we're not getting into a contraction cycle that we can't pull out of. i'd much rather see us with momentum in the other direction with increasing user base that would undoubtedly drive price.
The point is, there is no 'momentum' on transactional use. There is some use, but it is (and always has been) small and declining (I haven't seen actual data but I would guess the decline is simply in line with the declining mania since the 2013 price peak). Maybe it will come, someday, but for now worrying about that or about people having a poor experience because their low fee zero cons transactions don't work very well is a complete waste of time.
Somehow, tx fees rising from 1/8 to 1/4 of a pittance is 'harmful to UX' but catastrophic consensus failure is not.
Mark my words, if Bitcoin's antifragility is overwhelmed by the chaos created by the Gavinista social-engineering putsch, the blame will rest solely upon Hearn, Gavin, and Frap.doc.
They will try to make it MPEX's fault, and the drooling Redditard mob will believe them, because they will be jealous of the profit made from shorting Gavincoins.
Not that I think it's likely. Luckily, the Gavinista Manifesto is already being mocked and made the subject of ridicule.
If nothing else, poor orphaned BitcoinSX is poised to become a fertile new source of FAIL and REKT memes.
you just want to make sure we're not getting into a contraction cycle that we can't pull out of. i'd much rather see us with momentum in the other direction with increasing user base that would undoubtedly drive price.
The point is, there is no 'momentum' on transactional use. There is some use, but it is (and always has been) small and is declining (I haven't seen actual data but I would guess the decline is simply in line with the declining mania since the 2013 price peak). Maybe it will come, someday, but for now worrying about that or about people having a poor experience because their low fee zero conf transactions don't work very well is a complete waste of time.
this really isn't good and is reason for us to want to increase the growth of new users by whatever means necessary:
Despite a decline of approximately 40% in bitcoin purchases, Connie Chung, senior payments product manager at Expedia, says the option to pay with the digital currency will remain as long as there is a demand for it.
Chung noted other merchants had been more affected by what she called a recent decline in bitcoin payments – with some reporting a decrease of up to 90% at various industry events.
According to the report, the fundamental challenge facing bitcoin as a medium of exchange of legal goods continues to be low consumer adoption and a lack of advantages over credit and debit cards.[/b]
http://www.coindesk.com/expedia-exec-purchases-with-bitcoin-are-down-40/?utm_content=buffer59a4e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Despite a decline of approximately 40% in bitcoin purchases, Connie Chung, senior payments product manager at Expedia, says the option to pay with the digital currency will remain as long as there is a demand for it.
Chung noted other merchants had been more affected by what she called a recent decline in bitcoin payments – with some reporting a decrease of up to 90% at various industry events.
According to the report, the fundamental challenge facing bitcoin as a medium of exchange of legal goods continues to be low consumer adoption and a lack of advantages over credit and debit cards.[/b]
http://www.coindesk.com/expedia-exec-purchases-with-bitcoin-are-down-40/?utm_content=buffer59a4e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Yeah, I like the way Expedia et al acknowledges this and yet still offers ZERO incentive (e.g., NO discounts) over using a credit card.
Also from what I know, they still limit bitcoin to just hotel purchases???
Jump to: