|
It remains to be seen whether people and wallets will start including additional fees to get quick confirmation during the ongoing stress tests, and whether miners will start posting fee schedules, etc. Despite being for a blocksize limit increase/removal, it's undeniable that there is still a lot of space in blocks at only slightly higher fees if the market rationalizes in time. There will be an interesting interplay as blockspace fills up, especially if these stress tests continue. If the fee market rationalizes, this could become a very protracted debate because the small-blockers will gain ground or at least stop the bleeding for long enough to regroup and launch some intellectual counterattack.
|
|
|
|
|
Pain = Actual major problems in the network, heavy complaints from users, use cases hindered, and most importantly a stalled rally where blocksize gets the blame.
|
|
|
|
I think that if we see blocks fill up and the network starts functioning poorly, we are going to see a change pushed out far quicker then any of us ever imagined.
Indeed. Theory is theory, lips will flap endlessly while they can. First sign of pain, opinion will go way lopsided. |
|
|
|
|
This stuff has been a long time in brewing. Most people are only able to pay attention to whatever the current events are, not seeing the big picture or the long drawn-out processes. We wait. And wait and wait and wait. It seems like we'll wait forever. Then one day...
|
|
|
|
Looks we are at the start of Wave 3. The top should be around $126,000 USD/BTC. Not sure on time frame...maybe by 2018?
Sounds about right. |
|
|
|
|
How's the old volatility index?
|
|
|
|
This was a long time in coming. The spring is damn tightly coiled...  |
|
|
|
Thinking too small. We can do better. Even without a blocksize increase, but we will get one anyway. What people don't seem to realize is this debate is actually fueling the changes in dev culture and implementation monoculture that we need in order to be robust enough to meet the challenges that will assail Bitcoin when it is in the quintuple digits. Fee markets play a role, too, and perhaps even things like LN. Honey badger was like, "Grow to take on larger adoption? Sure but I want more: I also want laser eyes and telekinesis." This debate ensures we get not only the scheduled blocksize increase, but that we get it all. Whatever Bitcoin needs to get to the next level of price, chaos will be created to show the way to the ladder that gets it there. |
|
|
|
This would be the final arbiter. But, like the fork in 2013, I think miners would solve it before trading on classic vs new began. Yup. It's the silent ace up investors' sleeves that prevents any funny business by the miners, devs, or other stakeholders. This is incomplete logic thus illogical. The essay forgets: 1. A 51% attack can enforce a protocol, but not including minority blocks in the longest chain. I already obliterated rocks' argument upthread that anyone could prove this is happening and thus get the masses to act on it by pulling their mining nodes (the masses don't mine). There is no way to prove that a minority chain is the honest one when it comes to censoring transactions. 2. Mining income is not the only potential profit motive from some entity aggregating hashrate for the purposes of censoring transactions. 3. Asymmetries in the impacts on profitability of different classifications of miners due to protocol changes, potentially change the dynamics in ways that the author's simpleton analysis miss. I don't think you see the full extent of the paradigm shift the author hints at (perhaps the author doesn't, either). A 51% attack is one thing, sure, if that's your concern it gets more complicated but certainly not impossible to tell that, for example, there is widespread inability to get transactions through. In the worst case, a nuke (spinoff to protocol with a different mining algo, retaining the ledger) can be made to be very easy to do. No proof of miner malfeasance is needed, mere suspicion will do if it is easy enough to go through the spinoff process. If it needs to be a regular thing, it can soon be done without the user even noticing by having the wallet software be advanced enough. Let that sink in. Investors always hold the final card. Miners make investors jumpy at their own peril, no matter what the miners' motivations are. Certainly there are tradeoffs, as investors know not to piss miners off too much or else alienate their hashing security team, but if this is just going to be another "Bitcoin is broken because 51% attack" argument where you are saying your system fixes this, well, that's cool but only once you show it. It doesn't mean anything to anyone just saying you have a better solution. We have no way of knowing you're right or wrong, and there are too many claiming the same. Now if you'll say everyday users/sheep will just go with the flow, sure, they may and they will have their transactions censored, then, but with wallet software that makes it a snap - even unnoticeable, default - to switch to spinoffs at will so that the ledger is always maintained, the friction is reduced to practically zero. At worst we are back to a situation where people "don't realize they should be using Bitcoin," but this time it's little more than a single click on an interface to fix that. |
|
|
|
This would be the final arbiter. But, like the fork in 2013, I think miners would solve it before trading on classic vs new began. Yup. It's the silent ace up investors' sleeves that prevents any funny business by the miners, devs, or other stakeholders. |
|
|
|
The spring appears to be coiling for a massive, long-overdue move. A mere 10x-ing might be too tame this time around; we have a lot of catching up to do. Greece implementing capital controls enforced by a week-long bank holiday, right on cue.  |
|
|
|
tvbcof, TPTB, iCEBlow, MOA, kazukiPIMP?
i know they gotcha on Ignore but that's beside the point. the point is for you to help me generate even more views and keep the thread front and center so more and moar ppl can view the poll results and so you can reinforce my importance and this thread to the community.
get with the character assassinations you thugs.
Not to give an opinion on the merit of the above posters, but have you weighed the benefits of page position versus the harm to the signal-to-noise ratio from continual acrimonious/low-content bickering? Even the harm to the reputation of this thread as the easiest place to quickly (i.e., without having to sort through many pages of noise) get abreast of the actually important happenings and debates in the space? Due to the existing quality the good name of the thread will only grow, pushing it ever high on the page, even without all the noise. The noise certainly helps keep the thread near the top but at the cost of threatening to ruin the main selling point of the thread. |
|
|
|
|
It doesn't seem like he's talking about whether the financial crisis actually is over (does that even seem like something Gavin would say??). As I read him, he's merely saying that companies perceive the financial crisis to be over and are making investments, which is true.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
