All posts made by smooth in Bitcointalk.org's Wall Observer thread
1.
Post 13579923 (copy this link) (by smooth) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.41h):
I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list. .....
Satoshi Nakamoto
I had not seen that letter until now, but it looks like a lot of vague bla-bla without even a hint of a technical argument.
I'll eat my hat if that was written by any of the very skilled mathematician/cryptographer(s) that designed bitcoin.
That letter is fake. It was not know at the time, but Satoshi's mail account has been taken over -- no one knows how or when. That was proved last September, when "Satoshi" sent a dox extorsion email from that address to some prominent bitcoiner.
Anyway, the phrase "in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics" is a dead giveaway of its source. I only cannot guess who wrote it because there are several people at Blockstream, and many more among its supporters, who would have used those words, would not have any scruples in sending a forged message to support their agenda, and are naive enough to think that the trick would work.
The second paragraph, moreover, is totally at odds with the very idea that makes the protocol work.
Satoshi's writing and that particular letter have something in common: Two spaces after a sentence ends. That's the "old" way of writing in the typewriter era where you hit space twice - and you carry over that habit to the PC keyb into the late 80s/90s. You do it too because you are of the "old guard". Younger people, hackers, script-kiddies, well... not only don't they know these things but they won't even spot the difference in order to emulate it. The two spaces, for me, increases the chance that it was original. As for IPs, mail spoofs, hacked accounts, I can't tell you who controls what. The writing style is quite neutral and it feels ok'ish though and in line with what Satoshi has said in the past.
That pattern has been so widely reported I can't imagine any attempt at a fake not using it.
Does not prove that it is fake, but I consider that particular stylistic pattern to carry no information.
2.
Post 13590929 (copy this link) (by smooth) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.41h):
Nothing is going to stay in some fixed microcosm when it is projected to grow. Satoshi himself said that Bitcoin was going to be big or nothing, so there was no vision that Bitcoin would remain some niche experiment as it, of course, had to start out small before it could become bigger.
Again: once, while discussing future user base growth, Satoshi considered 20% per year (doubling every 4 years) a "crazy" rate of growth. That would be consistent with his chosen block reward schedule (halving every four years). With a "non-crazy" growth rate of less than 20%/year, the USD value of the block reward would have deceased with time, forcing the system to transition gradually to fees.
Surely he was too smart to risk actual predictions, but on the other hand he cannot have expected the price to rise by a factor of 10 every year for 5 years. So the USD value of the block reward too
increased by almost he same factor, instead of decreasing as he may have expected.
The price rose so fast because of speculative investment and trading, fueled by predictions that it would one day replace VISA. That surely is a use for bitcoin that he did not expect. If there is something that the world did not need in 2009, and will never need, is another penny stock. He would not have bothered creating bitcoin, if he knew that it would turn into that.
If he did not expect that to be part of the behavior, then he was completely stupid about markets, and I rather doubt that.
Once the possibility that it can someday replace VISA exists (or alternately function alongside VISA at a similar scale), people will speculatively trade on that possibility. Markets do not function in a manner where the value is in any way proportionate with number of
current users. To the extent that value is proportionate with number of users at all, the basis for that proportionality is
expected future users, a quantity that will certainly be highly volatile as current developments influence market consensus expectations of future outcomes.
How people on a trading thread could be so completely clueless about that is a mystery to me.
Anyway, block rewards will not necessarily increase nor decrease in USD value, it just depends on future market conditions. Either is possible. I certainly expect that this upcoming halving will see a decrease in USD value, but I can't be sure of that of course. As for future ones, nobody has any clue, whether they claim to or not.
Regarding signatures, I agree with JorgeStolfi that the simple measure of just limiting transactions to some reasonable size (at least temporarily) is easy and sufficient.
EDIT: He seems not clueless about markets, so we can rule out that he didn't expect and accept that speculation would occur
A rational market price for something that is expected to increase in value will already reflect the present value of the expected future increases. In your head, you do a probability estimate balancing the odds that it keeps increasing.
3.
Post 13591007 (copy this link) (by smooth) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.41h):
I think he anticipated (possibly) being bigger than VISA
Once it gets bootstrapped, there are so many applications if you could effortlessly pay a few cents to a website as easily as dropping coins in a vending machine.
Eventually at most only 21 million coins for 6.8 billion people in the world if it really gets huge.
etc.
He did anticipate that the block rewards would become insignificant though, long before they actually reach zero in 100+ years.
In a few decades when the reward gets too small, the transaction fee will become the main compensation for nodes
4.
Post 13591048 (copy this link) (by smooth) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.41h):
TL;DR? Bullish?
Cautiously bullish at the moment. I think the Hearn-Crypsy dump was overdone, but Im not a very good short term trader.
5.
Post 13603513 (copy this link) (by smooth) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.41h):
Even more: Adam once claimed that the LN would achieve 10'000 transactions for every blockchain transaction. Leaving aside what that would mean for the coin lock-in periods of the channels, the rate of 1:10'000 is so close to 0:10'000 that no one would notice if the LN just dropped bitcoin altogether, and from then on just shuffled its "cryptochecks" around indefinitely, without ever settling them.
Of course, LN users would never accept that. It would be like that time when the US government decided that dollars would no longer be convertible to gold or silver. We all remember the revolts in the streets, and the huge bonfires where enraged dollar holders burned their then-worthless bills. Right?
Conversely 1:10000 is so close to 0:10000 that you might as well just leave it on the Bitcoin blockchain. The benefit of not doing so would be negligible.
BTW, I'm pretty sure the LN people have stated that block size increases of some sort would be needed. I don't know where Blockstream stands on this. Maybe they want people to anchor their channels on their Improved Bitcoin Sidealtchain instead of Bitcoin.
6.
Post 13603757 (copy this link) (by smooth) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.41h):
Even more: Adam once claimed that the LN would achieve 10'000 transactions for every blockchain transaction. Leaving aside what that would mean for the coin lock-in periods of the channels, the rate of 1:10'000 is so close to 0:10'000 that no one would notice if the LN just dropped bitcoin altogether, and from then on just shuffled its "cryptochecks" around indefinitely, without ever settling them.
Of course, LN users would never accept that. It would be like that time when the US government decided that dollars would no longer be convertible to gold or silver. We all remember the revolts in the streets, and the huge bonfires where enraged dollar holders burned their then-worthless bills. Right?
Conversely 1:10000 is so close to 0:10000 that you might as well just leave it on the Bitcoin blockchain. The benefit of not doing so would be negligible.
I don't follow, smooth. Are you being sarcastic?
Not at all. JorgeStolfi was saying that if you settle to the Bitcoin blockchain only 1/10000 of your tx then you might as well not do it at all and use a fiat LN system. I'm saying that at 1/10000 of your tx, the cost of using real Bitcoin (even with, hypothetically, expensive BTC transactions) would be so low there is no reason not to just stay with Bitcoin. I don't think people will want fiat LN.
7.
Post 13610722 (copy this link) (by smooth) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.41h):
What's with the Antpool blocks of 1 transaction at .2 kB???
It happens a lot with Antpool. My guess is they filter transactions with low fees. But i also heard about spv mining, not sure of what it is.
Look at the timing. They are right after the previous block. Many miners will SPV mine until the previous block is verified and it then possible to determine which new transactions are safe to include.
It is also possible in some cases with back-to-back blocks that the mempool is empty or nearly empty with no backlog.
8.
Post 13610752 (copy this link) (by smooth) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.41h):
Kraken+Coinsetter
What do you think? Huge or so so?
Significant but not huge. US already has Coinbase and Gemini.
9.
Post 13610996 (copy this link) (by smooth) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.41h):
Just think it through. Is the precedent of a violent hard fork (and the knowledge that at any time the currency can split into two currencies / diluting the money supply
This is one of the biggest myths in the Bitcoin space. Splitting a currency unit into two does not dilute the currency any more than moving the decimal point does.
In order to dilute you would need to create new units
and issue them to someone other than existing holders.
10.
Post 13611340 (copy this link) (by smooth) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.41h):
Is SegWit really just an ugly hack to accommodate LN? Is this true? Because nobody knows if anybody will use LN yet...
No. It fixes transaction malleability. Stupid.
This.
It is questionable to put it on a "scalability" roadmap though, and try to push it through on an accelerated schedule despite malleability having been an unaddressed issue for years. That seems more political than anything else.
11.
Post 13611361 (copy this link) (by smooth) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.41h):
The LN would want to disable bitcoin settlements for the same general reasons that the US government decided to end the convertibility of the US dollar to gold or silver.
Hey, it is possible. That is another way of saying Bitcoin fails, which I don't consider unlikely necessarily.
I do think there is a significant incentive on the part of payment recipients to mitigate counterparty settlement risk by accepting payment on collateralized channels. In finance (outside of low-value consumer, and sovereign debt), collateral is the rule not the exception. Naked credit is the exception.
Well see how it works out. It is a certainty that LN will be deployed. It is not a certainty that it will work well or that people will use it.
12.
Post 13611396 (copy this link) (by smooth) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.41h):
Splitting a currency unit into two does not dilute the currency any more than moving the decimal point does.
In order to dilute you would need to create new units and issue them to someone other than existing holders.
Well mining does create new units, doesn't it? And instead of having +6mn coins, you then have +12mn due to parallel mining of +3600 coins on each fork.
No difference than moving the decimal still. Miners will mine in proportion to the market value of each new coin which means the share of supply held by each existing holder and each miner who spends a given amount of resources on mining will remain the same.
Or to put it another way. If 75% of the total Bitcoins are now mined and held by existing holders, then 75% of the
total of GregBitcoins and GavinBitcoins will also already be mined and held by existing holders. So again there is no dilution of any existing holder.
Regarding existing holders, if you have your own keys you are relatively ok (minus the obvious destruction of USD value), but the situation with coins in online exchanges and wallets will be "problematic" if say an exchange with 500k BTCs, say 'ok my clients, now you have 500k BTCCs because we adopted this fork' (and we are keeping 500k BTCs of the other fork for ourselves). It would be like stealing BTCs and exchanging them for Gavincoins.
People need to do a bank run in every exchange (maybe even online wallets too) well before we reach the point of the hard fork, to ensure that they have control of their BTCs.
Yes, there are infrastructure issues and issues of fairness with respect to third party custody. Although likely irrelevant now, Cryptsy had something in their Terms of Service that
explicitly gave them ownership. That's nuts.
Very real issues, but not the same as dilution.
13.
Post 13611462 (copy this link) (by smooth) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.41h):
Well mining does create new units, doesn't it? And instead of having +6mn coins, you then have +12mn due to parallel mining of +3600 coins on each fork.
No difference than moving the decimal still. ...
Money creation is no different than moving the decimal point? Is printing filthy fiat out of thin air also no different from moving the decimal point?
If it is given to existing holders in proportion to their holdings, yes, it is the same.
If you print fiat out of thin air and give it to Jamie Dimon then no.
14.
Post 13611581 (copy this link) (by smooth) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.41h):
Well mining does create new units, doesn't it? And instead of having +6mn coins, you then have +12mn due to parallel mining of +3600 coins on each fork.
No difference than moving the decimal still. ...
Money creation is no different than moving the decimal point? Is printing filthy fiat out of thin air also no different from moving the decimal point?
If it is given to existing holders in proportion to their holdings, yes, it is the same.
If you print fiat out of thin air and give it to Jamie Dimon then no.
But mining doesn't distribute the money to existing holders -- mined coin goes to the miners. Or are we not talking about Bitcoin here?
25% of the remaining supply is designated to go to miners. It still does after any such fork (as long as the issuance rules are not changed).
If you 1 BTC now, then you own 1/21m of the total that will ever exist. You still do if one such fork is created or 100 such forks. No difference. No dilution.
15.
Post 13611590 (copy this link) (by smooth) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.41h):
People need to do a bank run in every exchange (maybe even online wallets too) well before we reach the point of the hard fork, to ensure that they have control of their BTCs.
AlexGR raises an excellent point. If there is an upcoming contentious hardfork scheduled then the first things people are going to do is withdraw ALL their coins off the exchanges and out of any custodial services.
All those bitcoin alliance folks and corporates that have made their businesses out of holding on to other people's coins in custody should keep that mind whilst they are pushing for contentious hardforks.
Think of it as a hidden fractional reserve canary. The ones most opposed are the ones you should be most worried about. Maybe that's why they don't speak up.
16.
Post 13611644 (copy this link) (by smooth) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.41h):
Well mining does create new units, doesn't it? And instead of having +6mn coins, you then have +12mn due to parallel mining of +3600 coins on each fork.
No difference than moving the decimal still. ...
Money creation is no different than moving the decimal point? Is printing filthy fiat out of thin air also no different from moving the decimal point?
If it is given to existing holders in proportion to their holdings, yes, it is the same.
If you print fiat out of thin air and give it to Jamie Dimon then no.
But mining doesn't distribute the money to existing holders -- mined coin goes to the miners. Or are we not talking about Bitcoin here?
25% of the remaining supply is designated to go to miners. It still does after any such fork (as long as the issuance rules are not changed).
If you one 1 BTC now, then you own 1/21m of the total that will ever exist. You still do if one such fork is created or 100 such forks. No difference. No dilution.
That's ... don't even know what to start.
Let's assume I knew the grand sum total of all filthy fiat to be printed before the universe succumbs to entropy is X. My $1 is 1/X, just like your bitcoin is 1/21m.
Does this mean that printing doesn't debase filthy fiat?
As I said, it does
if it is distributed to you, meaning your 1/X remains the same.
It does not if it is distributed to Jamie Dimon, meaning your 1/X declines.
Example.
USD supply is $1 trillion. I don't know if that number is correct -- it is hypothetical.
Your 1/X for $1 is 10^-9
If that is increased to $10 trillion and you are given another $9, then your 1/X remains the same (now 10/10^-10 or still 10^-9) and you have not been diluted.
If $9 trillion is given to Jamie Dimon and $0 is given to you, then you have been
severely diluted. Your 1/X is now at 10^-10.
17.
Post 13611685 (copy this link) (by smooth) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.41h):
Regarding existing holders, if you have your own keys you are relatively ok (minus the obvious destruction of USD value), but the situation with coins in online exchanges and wallets will be "problematic" if say an exchange with 500k BTCs, say 'ok my clients, now you have 500k BTCCs because we adopted this fork' (and we are keeping 500k BTCs of the other fork for ourselves). It would be like stealing BTCs and exchanging them for Gavincoins.
This is a legit concern. However, there will be plenty of notice. Anyone who is genuinely worried about this should ensure their Bitcoins are withdrawn to keys they hold themselves, as always (and as you say. Missed that bit).
This might be a dumb question, but: have we ever had a
contentious hard fork before? What will plenty of notice look like?
No the only hard forks have been uncontroversial development issues or bugs.
18.
Post 13612136 (copy this link) (by smooth) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.41h):
Regarding existing holders, if you have your own keys you are relatively ok (minus the obvious destruction of USD value), but the situation with coins in online exchanges and wallets will be "problematic" if say an exchange with 500k BTCs, say 'ok my clients, now you have 500k BTCCs because we adopted this fork' (and we are keeping 500k BTCs of the other fork for ourselves). It would be like stealing BTCs and exchanging them for Gavincoins.
This is a legit concern. However, there will be plenty of notice. Anyone who is genuinely worried about this should ensure their Bitcoins are withdrawn to keys they hold themselves, as always (and as you say. Missed that bit).
This might be a dumb question, but: have we ever had a
contentious hard fork before? What will plenty of notice look like?
No the only hard forks have been uncontroversial development issues or bugs.
According to BitcoinHistory, a hardfork occurred March 12, 2013.
http://historyofbitcoin.org/Yes due to a bug. There was no meaningful contention over fixing it.
19.
Post 13613110 (copy this link) (by smooth) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.41h):
<<Sorry for the horkedattribution>>
Not at all. JorgeStolfi was saying that if you settle to the Bitcoin blockchain only 1/10000 of your tx then you might as well not do it at all and use a fiat LN system. I'm saying that at 1/10000 of your tx, the cost of using real Bitcoin (even with, hypothetically, expensive BTC transactions) would be so low there is no reason not to just stay with Bitcoin. I don't think people will want fiat LN.
Doesn't make much sense. While 1/10000 of the transaction represents only 0.01% of the customer's transaction cost, it represents 100% of the tranasaction aggregator's cost - and that is the party tasked with selecting the ultimate settlement network.
And what makes the customer choose that aggregator? LN nodes are permissionless and will compete on the basis of the attributes of their service offering (reliability,etc.). Being collateralized or not is a differentiator that will form the basis of customers' decisions over which network/nodes to use.
Saying that customers will choose uncollateralized providers given the choice is equivalent to saying they don''t want Bitcoin, which may be the case.
20.
Post 13613355 (copy this link) (by smooth) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.41h):
Conversely 1:10000 is so close to 0:10000 that you might as well just leave it on the Bitcoin blockchain. The benefit of not doing so would be negligible.
No. Makes no sense whatsoever.
True, the choice of settlement platform is leveraged 10,000:1 in this scenario for the transacting party. As such, it probably does not much matter to the transaction party whether the underlying settlement platform is Bitcoin or a vastly cheaper alt.
It certainly does matter to the customer. Customers will chose a BTC LN over an alt LN for the same reasons they (usually) choose BTC over alts. Those are well known so I will not repeat them.
Regarding the idea of a completely uncollateralized fiat payment network, I already answered that, twice. If people want that they will just use existing fiat networks. LN offers nothing special to them at all (nor does Bitcoin in any form, or alts).
21.
Post 13613707 (copy this link) (by smooth) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.41h):
<<Sorry for the horkedattribution>>
Not at all. JorgeStolfi was saying that if you settle to the Bitcoin blockchain only 1/10000 of your tx then you might as well not do it at all and use a fiat LN system. I'm saying that at 1/10000 of your tx, the cost of using real Bitcoin (even with, hypothetically, expensive BTC transactions) would be so low there is no reason not to just stay with Bitcoin. I don't think people will want fiat LN.
Doesn't make much sense. While 1/10000 of the transaction represents only 0.01% of the customer's transaction cost, it represents 100% of the tranasaction aggregator's cost - and that is the party tasked with selecting the ultimate settlement network.
And what makes the customer choose that aggregator? LN nodes are permissionless and will compete on the basis of the attributes of their service offering (reliability,etc.). Being collateralized or not is a differentiator that will form the basis of customers' decisions over which network/nodes to use.
Saying that customers will choose uncollateralized providers given the choice is equivalent to saying they don''t want Bitcoin, which may be the case.
With the indirection of the aggregator in between, I don't think most customers will give it a second thought. Quick - what actual bank underwrites your 'Best Buy' or 'Frontier Airlines' credit card?
There is no indirection here, unless customers decide they don't care about BTC and will happily accept jbrehercoin channel payments instead. A LN channel is a claim on BTC, which can be reassigned to another chain endpoint. You literally can not construct that transaction on a different chain.
You
can construct cross chain channels but the customer would have to want that service. I can't ask for BTC as a payment and you send me LTC and expect my endpoint to accept it. It won't.
22.
Post 13613777 (copy this link) (by smooth) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.41h):
Apparently the only one who got trolled by Luke-Jr was you because
he wasn't trolling. He has been proposing this for some time and it has always been on the table.
I know it doesn't fit your narrative about how miners control everything, but it has always been, and always will be, the option of users to opt for a PoW-reset if miners are viewed by the consensus of economic majority as misbehaving. (I don't know that there is any such consensus and probably Luke-Jr does not either, but who knows, maybe there is or will be.)
23.
Post 13613805 (copy this link) (by smooth) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.41h):
Just read that thread for amusement. Saw this
postOne of them is that he may have realized that bitcoin was quickly becoming a speculation instrument rather than the payment system he had set out to design; and that people were using MtGOX as a bank and intermediary, which defeated the goal of bitcoin. A rational person like him should have seen that things would only get worse -- and would have lost intrest.
This isn't really accurate. Satoshi knew exactly where it would go and he never dismissed Hal's outlandish predictions about the value of Bitcoin's either during the conversation in the
cryptography mailing list.The fact that new coins are produced means the money supply increases by a
planned amount, but this does not necessarily result in inflation. If the
supply of money increases at the same rate that the number of people using it
increases, prices remain stable. If it does not increase as fast as demand,
there will be deflation and early holders of money will see its value increase.
It isn't accurate because JorgeStolfi was either trolling or stubbornly ignoring facts. I already explained to him a few days ago, complete with numerous quotes (though I missed that one -- thanks for finding it), that satoshi was well aware that Bitcoin not only would be a speculative asset but that it was absolutely expected and even required that it would function that way.
24.
Post 13614445 (copy this link) (by smooth) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.41h):
I could do that myself now: make a copy of core, change the PoW formula, and presto: a hard fork happened, and the coin has split. If the 1000 PH/s is not important, what is the difference between my bitcoin and their bitcoin?
For a start, the PoW.
After that, it depends.
25.
Post 13614456 (copy this link) (by smooth) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.41h):
People need to do a bank run in every exchange (maybe even online wallets too) well before we reach the point of the hard fork, to ensure that they have control of their BTCs.
AlexGR raises an excellent point. If there is an upcoming contentious hardfork scheduled then the first things people are going to do is withdraw ALL their coins off the exchanges and out of any custodial services.
All those bitcoin alliance folks and corporates that have made their businesses out of holding on to other people's coins in custody should keep that mind whilst they are pushing for contentious hardforks.
Ah, AlexGR's FUD sidekick...
Which idoits are going to leave their coins on an exchange or with Coinbase or BitGo or Bitpay before a hardfork?
Why leave the vote with them which fork your coins will end up on when you can keep your options open and hedge bets by holding them in cold storage?
Not really clear why people leave quiet coins there in the first place.
26.
Post 13614608 (copy this link) (by smooth) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.41h):
I could do that myself now: make a copy of core, change the PoW formula, and presto: a hard fork happened, and the coin has split. If the 1000 PH/s is not important, what is the difference between my bitcoin and their bitcoin?
For a start, the PoW.
After that, it depends.
Depends on what? If the hashpower is not important, and preserving the PoW is not important, then what is the magic factor that would cause all the value to go to the CoreCoin branch instead of the CartelCoin branch?
Whatever it is that the economic majority thinks is more important. If it is sticking with the existing miner fleet, that's where the value ends up. If it is firing the existing miner fleet, that's where the value ends up. There is no answer you or I can state without that information that is more correct than another.
27.
Post 13614822 (copy this link) (by smooth) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.41h):
Whatever it is that the economic majority thinks is more important. If it is sticking with the existing miner fleet, that's where the value ends up. If it is firing the existing miner fleet, that's where the value ends up. There is no answer you or I can state without that information that is more correct than another.
OK. But note that the Core devs cannot "fire the miners", just as I cannot fire the Core devs or the miners. They have no power to stop or hamper the CartelCoin, nor the OldCoin. All they can do is what I can do create the CoreCoin (or StolfiCoin) and hope that people will use it. They cannot even ask people to choose between the two: each client will start with the same coins on each branch, and can move them independently.
I never mentioned the Core devs.
28.
Post 13615385 (copy this link) (by smooth) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.41h):
People need to do a bank run in every exchange (maybe even online wallets too) well before we reach the point of the hard fork, to ensure that they have control of their BTCs.
AlexGR raises an excellent point. If there is an upcoming contentious hardfork scheduled then the first things people are going to do is withdraw ALL their coins off the exchanges and out of any custodial services.
All those bitcoin alliance folks and corporates that have made their businesses out of holding on to other people's coins in custody should keep that mind whilst they are pushing for contentious hardforks.
Ah, AlexGR's FUD sidekick...
Which idoits are going to leave their coins on an exchange or with Coinbase or BitGo or Bitpay before a hardfork?
Why leave the vote with them which fork your coins will end up on when you can keep your options open and hedge bets by holding them in cold storage?
Not really clear why people leave quiet coins there in the first place.
Because many people think that those are the best places to keep their own bitcoin, not everyone knows all the implications of leaving coins there.
The Bitcoin world is not only made by people from this forum: I think most of the people who use BTC don't even come here to understand what it is.
We have to be realistic: for the majority of the people BTC = speculation (and we are writing in a speculation thread)
Speculation (intelligently) means understanding the bets you make, and maximizing your expected returns, which includes not getting Goxed. But then, not all speculators are good speculators. It's pretty much zero sum after all, and most lose.
29.
Post 13616171 (copy this link) (by smooth) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.41h):
I could do that myself now: make a copy of core, change the PoW formula, and presto: a hard fork happened, and the coin has split. If the 1000 PH/s is not important, what is the difference between my bitcoin and their bitcoin?
For a start, the PoW.
After that, it depends.
Depends on what? If the hashpower is not important, and preserving the PoW is not important, then what is the magic factor that would cause all the value to go to the CoreCoin branch instead of the CartelCoin branch?
Whatever it is that the economic majority thinks is more important. If it is sticking with the existing miner fleet, that's where the value ends up. If it is firing the existing miner fleet, that's where the value ends up. There is no answer you or I can state without that information that is more correct than another.
ELI5 the mechanism for the the "economic majority" to make its wishes known & relevant?
The market.
Assuming I hold 90% of all the coins mined to date (I'm economic majority), how do I go about this shit?
If you own 90% of the coins, you are the market. Obviously not realistic. In reality there are many participants, and they'll trade with one another and work it out. One fork will be worth more than the other, probably a lot more, but who knows.
30.
Post 13616178 (copy this link) (by smooth) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.41h):
Splitting a currency unit into two does not dilute the currency any more than moving the decimal point does.
In order to dilute you would need to create new units and issue them to someone other than existing holders.
Well mining does create new units, doesn't it? And instead of having +6mn coins, you then have +12mn due to parallel mining of +3600 coins on each fork.
Regarding existing holders, if you have your own keys you are relatively ok (minus the obvious destruction of USD value), but the situation with coins in online exchanges and wallets will be "problematic" if say an exchange with 500k BTCs, say 'ok my clients, now you have 500k BTCCs because we adopted this fork' (and
we are keeping 500k BTCs of the other fork for ourselves). It would be like stealing BTCs and exchanging them for Gavincoins.
People need to do a bank run in every exchange (maybe even online wallets too) well before we reach the point of the hard fork, to ensure that they have control of their BTCs.
Alex, what have you been smoking dear boy? I'd like some.
Exchanges would be in court for years, well the ones that didn't have their doors smashed in, if they tried a slight of hand like that
Karpeles got away with 700k BTCs and said "oops, malleability bug".
They could easily say "well... you know... hard fork... force majeure! Not our fault".
Why would anyone risk this instead of pulling their money out.
Because the maintainance of the ledger IS NOT the ledger itself. There is no risk in holding any amount of bitcoin on both forks.
BTW: I hope you guys pull out all your money before the fork. This will be an epic buy opportunity!
He didn't say sell, he said pull it out of the exchange and hold the fucking keys yourself.
31.
Post 13616503 (copy this link) (by smooth) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.41h):
I could do that myself now: make a copy of core, change the PoW formula, and presto: a hard fork happened, and the coin has split. If the 1000 PH/s is not important, what is the difference between my bitcoin and their bitcoin?
For a start, the PoW.
After that, it depends.
Depends on what? If the hashpower is not important, and preserving the PoW is not important, then what is the magic factor that would cause all the value to go to the CoreCoin branch instead of the CartelCoin branch?
Whatever it is that the economic majority thinks is more important. If it is sticking with the existing miner fleet, that's where the value ends up. If it is firing the existing miner fleet, that's where the value ends up. There is no answer you or I can state without that information that is more correct than another.
ELI5 the mechanism for the the "economic majority" to make its wishes known & relevant?
The market.
Assuming I hold 90% of all the coins mined to date (I'm economic majority), how do I go about this shit?
If you own 90% of the coins, you are the market. Obviously not realistic. In reality there are many participants, and they'll trade with one another and work it out. One fork will be worth more than the other, probably a lot more, but who knows.
90% was chosen at random. Let's say I own 5%, and keep in in cold storage, as a "store of value." How do I make my voice count?
Keep in mind, you edited out the important part:
<>If I'm just holding the coin (not solding), why do my wishes matter to the miners (I do not buy, only hodl)? To the exchanges (I do not trade, only hodl)?
According to your reasoning, by not trading (hodling the coin in cold storage), I effectively make myself irrelevant. Correct?
Hell no, holding is what gives it value.
If you simply hold both, the split of value between the forks does not matter to you at all.
Assuming anyone else values this Bitcoin shit at all of course. If no one does, then you're screwed, same as if we wake up tomorrow and no wants Bitcoin any more.
If you want guaranteed store of value,
independent of what other people value, too fucking bad. That doesn't exist. About the best you can do is buy a chocolate bar, at least you can eat it.
32.
Post 13616540 (copy this link) (by smooth) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.41h):
I'd advise trader here to secure their long position.
We have consensus.
When did this royal "we" come to this result?
Should I act quickly, or do I have a few days of down before the up comes?
Not long ago.
I'd advise you act quickly.
^^
Hell of a call right there I would say
33.
Post 13616761 (copy this link) (by smooth) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.41h):
I could do that myself now: make a copy of core, change the PoW formula, and presto: a hard fork happened, and the coin has split. If the 1000 PH/s is not important, what is the difference between my bitcoin and their bitcoin?
For a start, the PoW.
After that, it depends.
Depends on what? If the hashpower is not important, and preserving the PoW is not important, then what is the magic factor that would cause all the value to go to the CoreCoin branch instead of the CartelCoin branch?
Whatever it is that the economic majority thinks is more important. If it is sticking with the existing miner fleet, that's where the value ends up. If it is firing the existing miner fleet, that's where the value ends up. There is no answer you or I can state without that information that is more correct than another.
ELI5 the mechanism for the the "economic majority" to make its wishes known & relevant?
The market.
Assuming I hold 90% of all the coins mined to date (I'm economic majority), how do I go about this shit?
If you own 90% of the coins, you are the market. Obviously not realistic. In reality there are many participants, and they'll trade with one another and work it out. One fork will be worth more than the other, probably a lot more, but who knows.
90% was chosen at random. Let's say I own 5%, and keep in in cold storage, as a "store of value." How do I make my voice count?
Keep in mind, you edited out the important part:
<>If I'm just holding the coin (not solding), why do my wishes matter to the miners (I do not buy, only hodl)? To the exchanges (I do not trade, only hodl)?
According to your reasoning, by not trading (hodling the coin in cold storage), I effectively make myself irrelevant. Correct?
Hell no, holding is what gives it value.
Assuming anyone else wants to buy, they can only buy from miners which is a limited supply. Welcome moon.
If no one else wants to buy any sort of Bitcoin, then you're screwed. Same as would happen tomorrow if we woke up and no one wanted to buy Bitcoin without a fork. No guarantee that won't happen.
If you want guaranteed store of value, independent of what other people value, too fucking bad. About the best you can do is buy a chocolate bar, at least you can eat it.
Perhaps I'm not making myself clear.
You claim: "Whatever it is that the economic majority thinks is more important [will be implemented]."
I ask: Via what mechanism?
You reply: The market, dur!
I ask: What does that mean? I hold 5%, I don't trade it, what mechanisms are available to me to make my opinion count?
Sure, I can
try to sell my hodlings, but only post factum. The "economic majority" is not the BTC long-term hodlers, but the*fiat hodlers*, those willing to *buy* BTC.
The miners aren't selling BTC to me, they're selling BTC to people with fiat, those are the opinions that matter, not mine (I'm not buying, remember?)
The interests of buyers != the interests of hodlers != interests of miners.
Those same participants (fiat buyers, BTC holders/speculators, miners, merchants, users, etc.) are there now, determining the value of the coins you hold.
All of those participants will be there later, determining the value of the coins you hold.
If you disagree with the economic majority (market consensus) then by definition you trade, and thereby your opinion matters.
If you don't trade, then your opinion matches the market consensus.
34.
Post 13617530 (copy this link) (by smooth) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.41h):
I could do that myself now: make a copy of core, change the PoW formula, and presto: a hard fork happened, and the coin has split. If the 1000 PH/s is not important, what is the difference between my bitcoin and their bitcoin?
For a start, the PoW.
After that, it depends.
Depends on what? If the hashpower is not important, and preserving the PoW is not important, then what is the magic factor that would cause all the value to go to the CoreCoin branch instead of the CartelCoin branch?
Whatever it is that the economic majority thinks is more important. If it is sticking with the existing miner fleet, that's where the value ends up. If it is firing the existing miner fleet, that's where the value ends up. There is no answer you or I can state without that information that is more correct than another.
ELI5 the mechanism for the the "economic majority" to make its wishes known & relevant?
The market.
Assuming I hold 90% of all the coins mined to date (I'm economic majority), how do I go about this shit?
If you own 90% of the coins, you are the market. Obviously not realistic. In reality there are many participants, and they'll trade with one another and work it out. One fork will be worth more than the other, probably a lot more, but who knows.
90% was chosen at random. Let's say I own 5%, and keep in in cold storage, as a "store of value." How do I make my voice count?
Keep in mind, you edited out the important part:
<>If I'm just holding the coin (not solding), why do my wishes matter to the miners (I do not buy, only hodl)? To the exchanges (I do not trade, only hodl)?
According to your reasoning, by not trading (hodling the coin in cold storage), I effectively make myself irrelevant. Correct?
Hell no, holding is what gives it value.
Assuming anyone else wants to buy, they can only buy from miners which is a limited supply. Welcome moon.
If no one else wants to buy any sort of Bitcoin, then you're screwed. Same as would happen tomorrow if we woke up and no one wanted to buy Bitcoin without a fork. No guarantee that won't happen.
If you want guaranteed store of value, independent of what other people value, too fucking bad. About the best you can do is buy a chocolate bar, at least you can eat it.
Perhaps I'm not making myself clear.
You claim: "Whatever it is that the economic majority thinks is more important [will be implemented]."
I ask: Via what mechanism?
You reply: The market, dur!
I ask: What does that mean? I hold 5%, I don't trade it, what mechanisms are available to me to make my opinion count?
Sure, I can
try to sell my hodlings, but only post factum. The "economic majority" is not the BTC long-term hodlers, but the*fiat hodlers*, those willing to *buy* BTC.
The miners aren't selling BTC to me, they're selling BTC to people with fiat, those are the opinions that matter, not mine (I'm not buying, remember?)
The interests of buyers != the interests of hodlers != interests of miners.
Those same participants (fiat buyers, BTC holders/speculators, miners, merchants, users, etc.) are there now, determining the value of the coins you hold.
All of those participants will be there later, determining the value of the coins you hold.
If you disagree with the economic majority (market consensus) then by definition you trade, and thereby your opinion matters. If you don't trade, then your opinion matches the market consensus.
I'm gonna try ELY5:
I own a house (my part of the economy), one of the many houses in Bitcoinia (the economy), which, in turn, is conveniently situated below a levee.
Mayoral election coming up. Mayor A wants to nuke the levee (is Socialist, presumably), mayor B doesn't (is Ron Paul).
I ask you: How do I vote for Ron Paul, I don't want to live with communists, underwater!
You reply: Vote with your wallet. If you don't like the Mayor who gets elected, sell the house.
I sputter: Buh...but wouldn't that be too late? My underwater house won't be worth shit, because in a socialist town! I don't want to watch the elections and leave if the commies win, I want a voice. How do I vote? You said I could, because economic majority. But clearly you didn't mean me, I could only react, sell my house when it becomes aquatic.
You: The market will take care of it, invisible hand.
@oda.krell: feel free to field this.
Your whole example is whack because trading markets and voting are two different things. Fail.
If there enough people (economic majority) who want a fork, the fork is going to happen, because it only takes a Gavin or a Mike or a Jon to create one and then it is up to the market whether to put value behind it or not.
If Gavin/Mike/Jon create a fork and no economic value is behind it (XT for example), the fork will wither and die, either before or after birth.
35.
Post 13618124 (copy this link) (by smooth) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.41h):
I could do that myself now: make a copy of core, change the PoW formula, and presto: a hard fork happened, and the coin has split. If the 1000 PH/s is not important, what is the difference between my bitcoin and their bitcoin?
For a start, the PoW.
After that, it depends.
Depends on what? If the hashpower is not important, and preserving the PoW is not important, then what is the magic factor that would cause all the value to go to the CoreCoin branch instead of the CartelCoin branch?
Whatever it is that the economic majority thinks is more important. If it is sticking with the existing miner fleet, that's where the value ends up. If it is firing the existing miner fleet, that's where the value ends up. There is no answer you or I can state without that information that is more correct than another.
ELI5 the mechanism for the the "economic majority" to make its wishes known & relevant?
The market.
Assuming I hold 90% of all the coins mined to date (I'm economic majority), how do I go about this shit?
If you own 90% of the coins, you are the market. Obviously not realistic. In reality there are many participants, and they'll trade with one another and work it out. One fork will be worth more than the other, probably a lot more, but who knows.
90% was chosen at random. Let's say I own 5%, and keep in in cold storage, as a "store of value." How do I make my voice count?
Keep in mind, you edited out the important part:
<>If I'm just holding the coin (not solding), why do my wishes matter to the miners (I do not buy, only hodl)? To the exchanges (I do not trade, only hodl)?
According to your reasoning, by not trading (hodling the coin in cold storage), I effectively make myself irrelevant. Correct?
Hell no, holding is what gives it value.
Assuming anyone else wants to buy, they can only buy from miners which is a limited supply. Welcome moon.
If no one else wants to buy any sort of Bitcoin, then you're screwed. Same as would happen tomorrow if we woke up and no one wanted to buy Bitcoin without a fork. No guarantee that won't happen.
If you want guaranteed store of value, independent of what other people value, too fucking bad. About the best you can do is buy a chocolate bar, at least you can eat it.
Perhaps I'm not making myself clear.
You claim: "Whatever it is that the economic majority thinks is more important [will be implemented]."
I ask: Via what mechanism?
You reply: The market, dur!
I ask: What does that mean? I hold 5%, I don't trade it, what mechanisms are available to me to make my opinion count?
Sure, I can
try to sell my hodlings, but only post factum. The "economic majority" is not the BTC long-term hodlers, but the*fiat hodlers*, those willing to *buy* BTC.
The miners aren't selling BTC to me, they're selling BTC to people with fiat, those are the opinions that matter, not mine (I'm not buying, remember?)
The interests of buyers != the interests of hodlers != interests of miners.
Those same participants (fiat buyers, BTC holders/speculators, miners, merchants, users, etc.) are there now, determining the value of the coins you hold.
All of those participants will be there later, determining the value of the coins you hold.
If you disagree with the economic majority (market consensus) then by definition you trade, and thereby your opinion matters. If you don't trade, then your opinion matches the market consensus.
I'm gonna try ELY5:
I own a house (my part of the economy), one of the many houses in Bitcoinia (the economy), which, in turn, is conveniently situated below a levee.
Mayoral election coming up. Mayor A wants to nuke the levee (is Socialist, presumably), mayor B doesn't (is Ron Paul).
I ask you: How do I vote for Ron Paul, I don't want to live with communists, underwater!
You reply: Vote with your wallet. If you don't like the Mayor who gets elected, sell the house.
I sputter: Buh...but wouldn't that be too late? My underwater house won't be worth shit, because in a socialist town! I don't want to watch the elections and leave if the commies win, I want a voice. How do I vote? You said I could, because economic majority. But clearly you didn't mean me, I could only react, sell my house when it becomes aquatic.
You: The market will take care of it, invisible hand.
@oda.krell: feel free to field this.
Your whole example is whack because trading markets and voting are two different things. Fail.
Of course they're different things. It's what grownups call
an analogy. ELY5 clearly over your head, I'll shoot for ELY3, buddy.
If there enough people (economic majority) who want a fork, the fork is going to happen, because it only takes a Gavin or a Mike or a Jon to create one and then it is up to the market whether to put value behind it or not.
If Gavin/Mike/Jon create a fork and no economic value is behind it (XT for example), the fork will whither and die, either before or after birth.
Economic value for miners != economic value for hodlers ("economic majority"). Miners don't care how they make their filthy fiat, by mining 25 coins & selling those @$400, or by mining 50 coins, and selling them @$200. Hodlers care what their coins are worth tho.
Get it, Tiger?
In the case you described, your coins are worth the same too, just like the miners. Your 25 coins become 50 (25 Gavcoins@200 + 25 Gregcoins@200). No change here. Keep trying.
36.
Post 13622750 (copy this link) (by smooth) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.41h):
the economic majority on the chain with less hash power
If you are on the weak/shorter chain, you are already the economic minority. You can convince yourself otherwise - that big bags of coins will redress the imbalance - but it wont. Only deliberate fraud and criminal actions will delay the inevitable - and I'm sure you are not really proposing that.
This is pretty much right, except that you can't entirely determine which chain that will be until after the fact. During some unspecified time horizon there may be ambiguity.
People are all entitled to their beliefs about which path forward is the best or will actually happen, but talk is cheap. Only real trades matter.
37.
Post 13624629 (copy this link) (by smooth) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.41h):
It's the
FULLBLOCALYPSETMHere's what going to happen. Fees will go up. A little. A tremendous amount of stupid spam and crap transactions will be forced off the chain. People who actually have a reason to use it will pay a bit more. Over time, improvements will be made in capacity and throughput, allowing for further growth.
The sky will stay up there. You can put the umbrella down now.
38.
Post 13624755 (copy this link) (by smooth) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.41h):
It's the
FULLBLOCALYPSETMHere's what going to happen. Fees will go up. A little. A tremendous amount of stupid spam and crap transactions will be forced off the chain. People who actually have a reason to use it will pay a bit more. Over time, improvements will be made in capacity and throughput, allowing for further growth.
The sky will stay up there. You can put the umbrella down now.
The sky may stay there, but it will become toxic with all the alternate blockchains sucking out all the
oxygen value.
Eventually yes, that would happen. Not right away because there is a lot of headroom of spam, crap, and low-value uses that will be forced off, ensuring that capacity is available, allowing ample time for improvements in capacity and throughput.
39.
Post 13625256 (copy this link) (by smooth) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.41h):
Eventually yes, that would happen. Not right away because there is a lot of headroom of spam, crap, and low-value uses that will be forced off, ensuring that capacity is available, allowing ample time for improvements in capacity and throughput.
Fees rise, transactions stall, businesses, suddenly providing poor user experience go into reverse adoption. Nothing happens for months and months since there is no room for growth and then the halving happens, miners switch off and our transaction volume drops to 1/3 or less because you can't compensate for slower blocks by increasing the transactions per block and difficulty moves out to 30 days and then longer as declining value causes more miners to switch off.
u short bro?
40.
Post 13635346 (copy this link) (by smooth) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.41h):
"Socialism" is loosely defined as "social ownership and democratic control of the means of production."
That is more like the definition of "communism".
It is the dictionary definition of socialism in English.
If you want a different meaning, use a different word, or qualify your usage.
Socialism definitely does not imply state ownership
The above quote states control, not necessarily ownership. "Control or regulation" would also be an okay definition, but this seems redundant to me.
41.
Post 13637623 (copy this link) (by smooth) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.41h):
Judging by your product (college grads) you are overcharging. Those surveys that test graduates basic knowledge of history or government should be embarrassing to you.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/19/politics/judge-judy-supreme-court-poll/
42.
Post 13657881 (copy this link) (by smooth) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.42h):
Vitalik just got finished describing SegWit as basically an ugly kludge of code. Doesn't he know about the transaction malleability? Mt. Gox? Kittens??
There is no need for that ugly kludge -- split transactions and blocks into two records -- to fix transaction malleability. It would sufflice to skip the signatures when computing the transaction id.
Blockstream's reasons to want that kludge, ignoring all objections, are obscure. It is not necessary or helpful for fixing malleability, and does not reduce bandwidth or storage costs. On the contrary, there are alternative solutions to save bandwith from miners to clients that are simpler and more effective.
One possiblility is that they want the freedom to muck around with the signatures withot having to justify or explain to anyone, since they could claim that the "main" record contains the information that other ordinary wallets need, while the contents of the extension block neeed to be understood only by them.
Ot perhaps the LN will require some horrendoulsy complicated signatures; then SegWit would be a way to accomodate such transactions without impacting the bandwidth or requiring an an increase in the block size limit. Ans maybe also a way to keep the LN fees down: Pieter suggested that the fee rate (mBTC/kB) for the signature record would be a fraction of that of the main records, ostensibly to encourage use of the SegWit format.
So assuming there are no scaling advantages, what is the point exactly of separating signatures from transaction chains or whatever?
There is a modest scale advantage, but it is equivalent to a one-time increase in the block size (different numbers have been cited as for how much, depending on various assumptions). There is no
scaling advantage, as it doesn't help with ongoing increases in bandwidth, storage, or anything else.
The benefits are:
1. Can introduce a new signature format.
2. Fixes malleability
3. New nodes don't need to download signatures below a checkpoint, since they aren't going to verify them anyway.
4. One time effective block-size increase.
All of these could also be achieved other ways.
43.
Post 13659457 (copy this link) (by smooth) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.42h):
More precisely it looked like around 10K coins being broken up into 2.5 coin outputs, with only two outputs per transaction (one 2.5 and one huge change). Why that would be done rather than simply creating a whole bunch of 2.5 outputs in one tx (with much lower fees) I have no idea, other than maybe some sort of mempool type attack, or stupidity.
44.
Post 13660068 (copy this link) (by smooth) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.42h):
tldr 5 million BTC did not move. Someone with 10k BTC moved it 500 times.
45.
Post 13667506 (copy this link) (by smooth) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.42h):
You know, I cant remember the actual point I switched to google from AltaVista, despite having convinced myself that I never would. Funny, no matter how entrenched we think we are, we are liableto change in a heartbeat. Bitcoin core could learn that lesson.
Altavista started going down that whole "portal" route (as were others). An object lesson in having to watch your step when it comes to monetizing things. I probably would have stuck with Altavista if they hadn't gone that way (though they would have had to have stepped up their search algorithm efforts too)
That is, I suspect, the main reason that google won. Their search algorithm was better, but not
that much better. The "portal" concept was shoving a lot of revenue-focused crap in your face that you didn't want or need every time you just wanted to do a search. There were also large differences in load time even on what passed for "high speed" connections at the time. Google was faster and easier.
46.
Post 13690790 (copy this link) (by smooth) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.42h):
As for the segwit thing, I am still quite opposed to the excision of cryptographic signatures from the holy ledger (also implying the introduction of 3rd trusted parties)..
It does no such thing. Every node that receives a block will receive the segwit data as well, with the exception (eventually) of new pruned nodes that are syncing below a checkpoint and would ignore the signatures anyway. The segwit data is referenced by a hash committed to the block and can't be changed, making it part of the ledger for all practical purposes.
47.
Post 13691537 (copy this link) (by smooth) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.42h):
Eh, to me they are introducing further points of failure and security breach (centralization, 3rd parties, etc...) whilst over-complexifying Bitcoin's code.
What centralization do you see in segwit? It simply isn't there.
48.
Post 13691959 (copy this link) (by smooth) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.42h):
Do people have insider information on Eth? --
It appears the entire black market / shady soviets are moving to altcoins till post-bitcoin classic armageddon is resolved with a single chain.
Moving to altcoins...that aren't named Monero! Why XMR and ETH only alts in deep red today? So crazy. Is it International Pump A Shitcoin Day?
Indeed it was. Many of the coins pumped were <$100K market cap, some under $10K. Many unmaintained coins, etc. Crazy action.
49.
Post 14011744 (copy this link) (by smooth) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.46h):
Why would a governance change be appropriate?
You want a governance change, here's how you do it:
Fork the
project without proposing a chain fork. Attract developers and community support, under a new project with new governance rules.
50.
Post 14011862 (copy this link) (by smooth) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.46h):
It seems to be much better for bitcoin to grow slowly and also much better not to be too rash in attempts to change governance...
I'm curious how bad/urgent a problem would have to be before you thought a change in governance was appropriate.
Maybe to the extent to which governance is broken, is a problem that has recently been attempted to be created.
Maybe yes, maybe no. It is certainly possible that the governance issue is being used as a vehicle to promote some other political agenda.
The way to find out is the separate the issue from others and see whether a change in governance, by itself, and without the baggage of simultaneously proposing immediate changes to the software or chain rules, has any support.
51.
Post 14011995 (copy this link) (by smooth) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.46h):
It seems to be much better for bitcoin to grow slowly and also much better not to be too rash in attempts to change governance...
I'm curious how bad/urgent a problem would have to be before you thought a change in governance was appropriate.
Maybe to the extent to which governance is broken, is a problem that has recently been attempted to be created.
Maybe yes, maybe no. It is certainly possible that the governance issue is being used as a vehicle to promote some other political agenda.
The way to find out is the separate the issue from others and see whether a change in governance, by itself, and without the baggage of simultaneously proposing immediate changes to the software or chain rules, has any support.
TL;DR: Let's organize a series of well-spaced Satoshi Round Tables, where we can propose governance changes, and chat about it for a ya=ear or two. In the mean time, you can start an altcoin of your own.
That pretty much what you're saying?
No
52.
Post 14012007 (copy this link) (by smooth) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.46h):
It seems to be much better for bitcoin to grow slowly and also much better not to be too rash in attempts to change governance...
I'm curious how bad/urgent a problem would have to be before you thought a change in governance was appropriate.
Maybe to the extent to which governance is broken, is a problem that has recently been attempted to be created.
Maybe yes, maybe no. It is certainly possible that the governance issue is being used as a vehicle to promote some other political agenda.
The way to find out is the separate the issue from others and see whether a change in governance, by itself, and without the baggage of simultaneously proposing immediate changes to the software or chain rules, has any support.
Call for a vote of no confidence in Wladimir? I'm down.
There is no way to hold such a vote because the existing project organization has no governance rules that would allow it. To change the governance procedure, you have to fork the project and propose a new organization with different governance rules (
and get support otherwise you are forking nothing but your own mind), but that doesn't mean you have to fork the chain.
53.
Post 14012559 (copy this link) (by smooth) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.46h):
It's not an "attack." Core supporters are merely voting with their packets.
If that happens to disturb f2pool's existing datagram consensus with a more contentious version, well too bad.
Majoritarian Democracy > Nork Sensor Ships
I'm sure Wang Chun views it the same way, you lot are a charming bunch.
Charming or not, the world is as it is, and it doesn't owe Wang Chun a living.
I'm not supporting "voting with their packets" but the way the internet operates, it can't be prevented in practice and needs to be accepted as reality if one would like to engage in realistic decision making.
54.
Post 14766948 (copy this link) (by smooth) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.50h):
Impressive ability to write backwards.
