Bitcoin has survived for 6 years without the block size limit effectively constraining the block size, why will this established pattern suddenly reverse if the limit is maintained high enough to not constrain the block size (or removed entirely?) Do you think the hashing power that is currently protecting the bitcoin chain would be the same if the 25 BTC subsidy wasn't there? Because eventually it won't be. I find it hard to believe that you don't know this. That would certainly be the case, if multiplication didn't exist.
Fee revenue is (number of transactions) * (transaction fee)
Because of the magic of multiplication, having high transaction fees isn't the only way to have high fee revenue.
As a matter of fact, the producers of every product and service in the economy (except a few minor corner cases) maximize their revenue by increasing volume, not price.
The recent oil price development is a good example of how wrong your simple minded economic model can be. I advice you to look up the term price elasticity. |
|
|
|
Hey I'd be fine with a 5 MB block size limit, and some percentage increase every year afterward. I think 20 MB would probably be better, but that's far less important than putting in place some dynamic hard limit, ANY dynamic hard limit, that steadily increases, year by year, so that we never have to do a hard fork again to change the limit. If this limit increases faster than than the interest in spending money for transactions then it will kill Bitcoin. It has to cost quite a lot to do transactions. If it doesn't there will be too little interest in mining, and a 50% attack will be cheap. Currently the interest is going down, so there is a fairly large chance that any changes will do more harm than good. What's certain is that if there is a fork then all kinds of problems and scams will follow, and the Bitcoin critics will have a field day in the media. |
|
|
|
We don't need to distinguish between entities. We only need to allow them to exist. That's all.
If there is no way to distinguish between them then everyone can just tell the miners that they want to use the free alternative. I already told you that there will be services that will be willing to pay some sort of fees for various reasons. If your only argument is that everyone will want to use the free alternative then I think we are done here. I don't have the time or the crayons to explain it to you. So you already know that 12 BTC + whatever fees will not be enough. Ok. Please tell me what will the exchange rate be in 2 years. Oh wait you don't know shit.
And neither do you. Well I never claimed that I do, but I am not trying to push things on what I think it will happen or not like you are trying to do. I just want Bitcoin to have endless possibilities for everyone, not only for those willing to pay a higher fee. In the first paragraph you make a claim that requires you to know what will happen, and in the second you claim that you have never claimed such a thing. The fact that you can't even see this makes it obvious that trying to explain anything to you that contradicts what you want to believe is futile. |
|
|
|
We don't need to distinguish between entities. We only need to allow them to exist. That's all.
If there is no way to distinguish between them then everyone can just tell the miners that they want to use the free alternative. So you already know that 12 BTC + whatever fees will not be enough. Ok. Please tell me what will the exchange rate be in 2 years. Oh wait you don't know shit.
And neither do you. |
|
|
|
I'm not deciding it, I'm just telling you how it works. The reward is what makes miners protect bitcoin. If there is no reward there is no protection. What reward? Isn't a 25BTC reward enough to protect the network right now? You know that will be reduced, right? Or are you cherry picking which elements you want to be forward thinking about? Again you only see one single version of what could possibly happen. Why can't we have services that are willing to pay a fee for various reasons? It seems that you are ignoring services like GreenAddress who might be willing to pay a higher than normal fee to protect against double spends or for whatever reason they come up? Let me get back to the Internet analogy. I am sure that Google or Facebook pay a shit tons of money for their internet connections while you pay only dimes compared to them. You can not pay anything if you connect through one of the many available WiFi hotspots. Why can't we have this with the blockchain too? Because it's distributed and anonymous. There's no way to distinguish between different kind of entities. Your free wifis are always severly limited. So much so that I've never bothered using it. They can be limited this way because they are controlled by central entities. There is really very little in the real world that can be used for analogies in the bitcoin world. |
|
|
|
And how many times has this actually been a problem? |
|
|
|
Have you even read about the Lighthouse project? One of the main points for the fork is that with the current cap we are not only limiting the amount of transactions but the development of possible services.
I did, and I found no evidence for what you are saying. Making a change that will have easily identifiable and very negative effects does not seem like a good idea to me, particularly when the only reason for doing it is a promise of more pies in the sky. |
|
|
|
Why do people always want to have it their way? Who are you to decide that using the blockchain can't be free?
I'm not deciding it, I'm just telling you how it works. The reward is what makes miners protect bitcoin. If there is no reward there is no protection. I think that the blockchain should be free for regular users and shouldn't be free for the ones that are using the blockchain for running a service/project/business/etc. We can have them both (free and paid), but we need to be open and not be horse-sighted.
That's only possible if mining is monopolized and they require registration before using. I hope you don't get your way. |
|
|
|
Microtransactions aren't the only thing that will get pushed off the chain. I already mentioned about the Lighthouse project being hindered by a 1MB block limit. Why not discuss that? Stop with the microtransactions already. Those will be free and not relevant. What is relevant is to allow services to run on the blockchain!
Using the block chain can't be free if Bitcoin is to survive in the long run. Lighthouse does not even use the space that is currently available so it's not what's stopping it. |
|
|
|
Gavin perfectly understand the economics of the block fee. You do not seem to understand that a block size of 1MB hinders and blocks services from running on top of blockchain. I have already pointed out that project Lighthouse is having issue because of the 1MB block size limit. Nobody seems to talk about the subject and I don't understand why. Are you happy that the Lighthouse project is hindered? I'm definitely not!
There is currently room for up to 500 KB, which is enough for most kind of contracts. As long as the current usage does not even fill the blocks it's unlikely that increasing the available space by 20x is going to increase the use by more than 20x. This has not been Gavin's argument for increasing the size either. Increasing the size may be a good idea some time in the future but, until the usage actually increases, it's a bad idea. |
|
|
|
|
Gavin does not seem to understand the economics of the block fee. He says that it doesn't matter if there are room for many or few transactions, but in reality it's the equivalent of a Dutch auction. Nobody has to pay more than the lowest winning bid to enter the block, so nobody really has to pay as long as there is room for all the transactions. Even if there is a cost, the cut off price will most likely be less than 1/20 if there is room for 20x more transactions. Personally I never pay unless I'm in a hurry. Unfortunately this means that a 50% attack will become dirt cheap if the price of Bitcoins continues to go down, and/or the block reward has halved a few more times.
Regarding the previous forks they made the whole community scramble in panic to fix it and get everybody to use the same branch. I really don't understand how they can be used as proof that forks are ok.
|
|
|
|
Eg ser ikkje korleis eg kan komme utanom. Å gå til rettssak mot Skatteetaten og køyre saka sjølv i retten, trur eg ikkje er ein god plan.
Skatteetatens jurister bryr seg lite om hva andre jurister måtte mene. Hvis de tror de har rett så går de til sak. Husk at de er statsansatt, og de taper ingenting på å ta feil. For de fleste av dem vil det bare gjøre jobben deres tryggere, siden de får mer å gjøre. Kanskje gir det også mulighet til å skrive overtid. |
|
|
|
Eg har forresten fått eit tilbod frå eit stort advokatfirma med mva som spesialfelt på ein juridisk gjennomgang av konklusjonen til Skattetaten om mva på bitcoin. Det kostar 30000 kroner + mva. Om fleire er med og spleisar, slår eg til.
Vil bare advare om at du ikke vil være spesielt mye lengre med en slik gjennomgang. Det eneste som har reell verdi i en krangel med Skatteetaten er en dom som de ikke anker. |
|
|
|
|
I did some years ago, but I've realized that it was a stupid thing to do. They all get hacked or turn rogue, and then they can use it to steal your identity.
|
|
|
|
Jeg fortsetter å se etter feil og melder ifra da jeg finner dem. Det er viktig for meg at vi ikke blir hacket da miljøet er så lite og vi vil faktisk kun ha lokalbitcoins igjen (eller han http://bitmynt.no/ som ikke tilbyr mer enn lokalbitcoin, prøv å få min far til å handle der. Never going to happen). Jeg vil veldig gjerne at en plattform som virker litt mer proff, som vi kan trade på og sette inn penger fra norsk bank skal eksistere, uavhengig av dine personlige meninger om ledelsen. Hvordan kan man selge bitcoin ideen om man må på en kaffe, møte en shady kar man aldri har sett før for å gi han cash. Problemet er at de er ikke proffe bare fordi du har hjulpet dem med å fikse et sikkerhetshull som ikke burde vært der. Som person er Sturle langt mer proff og tar kundene sine langt mer serøst enn de som driver Bitcoinsnorway. De synes det er helt greit at man kan tape mange tusen kroner på å trykke på en stor grønn knapp som er utformet slik at det virker som man må trykke på den for at noe skal skje, og dette er utrolig useriøst. Da hjelper det ikke at innpakningen er pen. |
|
|
|
There is no real need for a 51% attack, why would you gain a 51% hashing power to destroy the network instead of profiting from it? The 51% attack is highly theorized as a Bitcoin "killer" but in reality the investment cost is too high and to create an attack is very complicated .
There are lots of ways to profit from crashing the Bitcoin price. Start an exchange, sell more bitcoins than you have. Sell bitcoins with a delivery date in the future. Start a bitcoin ETF, sell all the coins as shares. Short a bitcoin ETF started by someone else. Short bitcoins. |
|
|
|
|
They aren't good enough for spying yet, but eventually they will be used for filming people having sex. Fortunately that won't be a problem to most Bitcoin users.
|
|
|
|
There's an Einstein quote along the lines of "Insanity is repeating the same behaviour and expecting different results".
It applies in Bitcoinland as well as irl.
Look at the number of victims of PB who have gone straight out and "invested" in other totally unverfiable, too-good-to-be-true scams waiting to happen.
It's because they are the cargo cult of the investment trade. They have heard about investments, risk and diversification and think they understand what it means, but in reality they have no clue at all. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
