Another three nobodies to go with you, the fourth. Bitcoin is faceless, which is the whole point.
yup Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto. |
|
|
|
I downloaded and ran an XT node, but it was DDoS'd. More accurately, my ISP was DDoS'd and my neighbors suffered collateral damage. #REKT confirmed. Mwah-haw-haw-ha. I love these stories of genuine surprise that XT's hostility would be returned in kind. Did you inform your ISP/neighbors the reason they suffered collateral damage is you were attacking Bitcoin with only an infinitesimal fraction of the power required for success? I warned you Gavinistas what would happen if you started a hot war with the socioeconomic majority. You didn't listen. Who are you? Nobody. Nobody out there discusses your 'visions'. We are discussing Gavin, Mike, Peter R.  Discussions about Peter R "visions": https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3nudkn/bigger_blocks_higher_prices_visualizing_the_92/#REKTTT |
|
|
|
Aha! The dynamic duo trying to bring the conversation right back around to exactly where they want it! You can continue that conversation on your "xt is rekt" thread. I'm not really that interested in 'reasons why smallblocks' I already said that people will use whatever reasons they can to justify there preconceived opinion (just as I might do). However, You are still falling foul of this....
Concerns about centralisation are being used as a way to justify not increasing block size.
The common theme is that in both cases these are just hypothesis. They are predictions of the future and they are fragile. brg444 said something on reddit earlier about Taleb's black swan, and how humans are bad at predicting. So lets assume that in both the statements above "concerns about X" are likely to be invalidated by a black swan event.
A fee market doesn't help adoption, its a barrier to entry. Its the *opposite* to helping adoption. You two can keep posting night and day about what you think is going to happen, but what will actually happen? that is another thing. When that black swan hits, everything you've argued turns to dust. I am a bit dumbfounded as to what your argument is... It seems you are proposing we cannot predict future events but that on the other hand we should act now to prepare for them. From where I stand it appears you are making an attempt at interpreting what the "black swan" will be? |
|
|
|
Bitcoin does not scale efficiently on it's own. This is correct, and some developers have even stated this or something of similar meaning. This does not mean that we should not scale Bitcoin. This does not mean that we should only scale Bitcoin via block size increase either. You'd have to look into block propagation times and orphan rates to get a better insight. There were good presentations in the recent workshop. What Bitcoin needs is a dynamic block size in a combination with the Lightning Network, sidechains, etc. Only then will Bitcoin be able to be used by the majority.
Please move beyond the simplistic 'every-coffee-and-bagel-on-the-Blockchain' paradigm. That POV is so three-years-ago, and was rubbished once and for all by a single domination post.
I concur. This is pretty much impossible due to the two things listed above (propagation times and orphans); impossible without the Lightning Network or something else. I agree, we need a lightning network. So that when it becomes uneconomical to transact on chain, there is a backup. What I don't agree with is that uneconomical should be forced. Let the free market decide. Give the miners the headroom to discover the most cost effective block size. The stepped approach in BIP101 goes someway towards it, but really the system should be self regulating. No cap. Propogation, orphan rates etc are engineering issues that will be solved when its worth solving them. Free market. Lightning network will be implemented when its worth doing so. Free market. Capitalism works, Unbridled it fails. Bitcoin is the reigns. Consequences of "mass adoption" & failure to enforce centralized limits and account for market incentives.  |
|
|
|
You've got it all wrong, just like back when you were suffering under the delusion BIP101 blocks were necessarily being mined by RealXT nodes. In case you forgot about that, here's a reminder you often assume you know WTF you're talking about even when you actually do not. Pseudo nodes aren't mining blocks. Remember that? And then slush came out and disclosed yes indeed, his 101 blocks were being spoofed? Good times! I like the part where you were wrong. Please don't try to (once more) generalize this as me claiming I'm smarter than you; I'm only saying I know how Bitcoin works and you don't. Generic IQ comparisons have little to do with it. The XTurds haven't forgiven slush for that BTW. They still call him a coward for shutting down the 101 port to avoid more DDOS, while simultaneously begging him to reopen it. How dare he not support their agenda at his expense! Bigger blocks do not provide the scaling ability you're looking for. 8MB or 20MB will do NOTHING to help in the case of actual widespread adoption, which is exactly why it is imperative fee markets be developed ASAP. Even if we tried to make bigger blocks, SPV-type mining incentives would simply create more empty ones and defeat the entire purpose (while still incurring the costs of increased externalities and decreased survivability). Please move beyond the simplistic 'every-coffee-and-bagel-on-the-Blockchain' paradigm. That POV is so three-years-ago, and was rubbished once and for all by a single domination post. The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain". Like PR's considerations of spherical blockchains, your voluminous hypothetical nonsense ignores the fact no first mover will ever be able to defect from and thereby subvert Bitcoin's socioeconomic majority. Anyone so foolish will be crushed by DDOS, Gavincoin shorts, and more. Thus, everybody expects everyone else to go first. And of course, nobody does. Game over, newb...BIP000 wins! We'll get larger blocks when Satoshi said we should - "eventually." But "I really want them" isn't a good enough reason. So ' Not Tonight, Dear!' or "please, please, don't increase block size now because ....?" Because it's already a hassle to run a full node. |
|
|
|
I agree but miners that mine on a pool are not affected by larger blocks if I am not mistaken so they can stay anonymous fairly easily. On the other hand, how can bitcoin become so big that it threatens governments with artificial limitations that makes it uncompetitive (if we consider that blocks are being full and fees/delays rise a lot)?
Because Bitcoin does not compete on cost but monetary sovereignty, you doofus. |
|
|
|
How dare you!? I am most certainly in the "just you wait until december" camp, my xt-nodes blazing as a futile show of dissent!
Alright, fair enough. You are in a (supremely nutty) third camp, which believes both 'XT died for our 1MB sins' and 'XT will return for the Gavinista rapture.' Alas, if only you could understand the superlinear relationship between tx size and verification time, we could put this civil war behind us. Unless you are determined to destroy Bitcoin's decentralization-cum-survivability, and thus subvert the engineering requirement that it be above the law... XT opened a debate, you are the person that thinks its dead  Sure its a bit beat up right now, but just you wait till xmas, remember we hit $560k in november so we are bound to need a little more room! XT stifled the discussion, please spare us your revisionist history. The whole act has been a huge drain on the attention and focus of the developing community. |
|
|
|
The common sense says that if bitcoin becomes uncompetitive and there is no other secure and decentralized alternative, then it will just give economic incentives to create such a system. From there it is just a matter of time that such a system will be created.
Regardless of technology improvement and development progress, bitcoin can't afford in any ways to become uncompetitive to remain relevant.
It's been 5 years since Bitcoin was introduced, and countless forks have appeared, some of them very interesting. There were low fees, fast blocks, different crypto, PoS and so on... None of these have succeeded at (or even got close to) challenging Bitcoin. I can't imagine a scenario where Bitcoin is being overtaken by another cryptocurrency, unless it's a real breakthrough in terms of design, and it still retains Bitcoin's properties. But in this case, it can be adopted by Bitcoin as well... If you can define what kind of competitiveness you mean and picture a scenario, I'd be interested in reading that. The competitiveness I am referring is mostly in terms of fees and delays. Right now there is no point of using an altcoin unless you are chasing pump n dump speculative bubbles but if using bitcoin becomes too expansive then it will make a lot of sense to start using some altcoins. Not because of technological breakthrough but simply because of economic pressures. But none of these alt coins are as decentralized.. they run the risk of miner regulation the same as bitcoin but with much smaller network security. So we won't know unless there are some that offer high security/decentralization and lower fees, which may be just a short term play before those fees rise to meet bitcoins Unless an altcoin proves that good enough decentralization is good enough and being overly decentralized is being proven unnecessary and only hurts competitiveness. I think this is important for bitcoin to find a balance with enough decentralization to keep the system secure AND competitive. Otherwise another altcoin will find that balance in the long run. no the system MUST remain fully decentralized or it breaks the strength of cryptographic encryption. There is no balance you speak of, there is innovation however. @adamstgBit: what level? well aslong as miners are susceptible to a regulation attack then I'd say its sufficiently decentralized. The rest of the problems can be solved over time, but this one would be the end of it if we don't solve. I'd imagine that if mining remained decentralized and the powers-that-be realized "it just ain't gonna" happen that they would be incentisized to keep full-nodes up and transfered their wealth into bitcoin at that point because they know their wealth would be preserved. If these incentivesized full nodes are running (as I translated Satoshi's message IMO) that's fine because we have powerful players supporting the nodes we know the network won't be "not" relaying/securing blocks for a long time. Everything hinges around mining decentralization. If this is possible then having full-nodes won't be a problem. And how many nodes does that represents exactly being fully decentralized? If 1000 nodes is enough, then can we consider 1M nodes to be unnecessary? No? How many time does it need to be repeated that the number of node is irrelevant, it's about the cost of running one. |
|
|
|
that sounds perfectly sane to me. Me too. If we start using bitcoin like real money, other people might get the wrong idea and start using it like money, and then where would we be? of course. cause everyone knows money burns a fucking hole through your pocket and you absolutely HAVE to spend it. Right? |
|
|
|
that sounds perfectly sane to me. |
|
|
|
That's a circular argument. Lots of people are reluctant to adopt a technology that isn't scalable. In't isn't exactly the Field of dreams. If you build it, they may not come BUT if you DON'T build it, they certainly won't.
This. I was talking to the owner of the bar I was at the other day and was explaining Bitcoin to the owner. I almost had him convinced to start accepting bitcoins for payment when he stopped and was like "wait a minute, what are the block size parameters and transactions per second?". Needless to say he was displeased that in 2 years the code would need to be changed if current transaction volume continued to increase at the current rate. He then started asking me about alt coins like Doge. He decided to start accepting Doge instead because he thought it had a funny picture with the dog and he was like "you has doges?". A SNARK IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. THE PEOPLE WHO BUILT SOFTWARE INFRASTRUCTURE ARE NOT GOING TO LAYER ON TOP OF A NON-SCALABLE BLOCKCHAIN. It's too much work for too little reward. The people who finance the infrastructure are not going to pay for it. Speculators like me are not going to invest when the expected future returns are based on the utility of only a settlement network. We don't have two years. Bitshares 2.0 is going to launch literally in a week. Altcoins can take all your good code and build a chain on top of it now. Many have and a billion-dollars to launch a real competitor is chump change for Silicone Valley or Wall Street. I understand you want an armored truck and not a sports car, but even a Brinks truck has to keep up with traffic. If you want Bitcoin to be the MySpace of crypto, keep doing what you're doing. how old are you again? You guys still bother to engage in discussions with THIS guy? How's that supposed to work? How many "blockspace" do I get for 1 bitcoin?
Easy. 1/21,000,000th of the whole chain. I answered your question, now you answer mine. If I'm not buying space on the blockchain when I'm buying bitcoin, what am I buying?So for 1 bitcoin I get 1/21,000,000th of the whole chain? Are you for real? Were you hit over the head with something?
Nope. I get one twentyone millionth of the whole damn chain. 4 eva. If you think that's too much, then perhaps you are selling your coins too cheaply. If I'm not buying blockspace when I'm buying bitcoin, then what the hell am I buying?
|
|
|
|
There's a new piece of LULz titled "bigger blocks = higher prices", I shit you not. Guess who made it.
I do believe this is a new low for him. |
|
|
|
Sorry, I read the September ones as all being October for some reason (looked like you posted 12 posts from October and 1 from August). Oh well, I only wasted about 30 seconds looking, so things could be worse There's still a bit of a balance problem, even in those posts, if you want to actually maintain that a compromise is what you want or what you're promoting. The content of those posts suggests otherwise, and lets be fair, you've written one or two more posts than that in the last 6 weeks. I have said and I repeat that I will adopt a third alternative as soon as it is implemented. A third alternative has not been implemented yet, therefore my position is not contradictory. I don't think you mean just any third alternative? Not meaning to split hairs, but it explicates my criticism of what I recall about your position, which was that you thought BIP101 was an acceptable option, for the reason that it was the only alternative proposed at all. "Political realism" he called it. |
|
|
|
Ahahah... That brings it to a whole new level. I did follow that debate, and the only one opposing soft-forks at the time was Mike, and then Peter R came with his GIFs. I wonder how it got to 'a lot of opposition'. Need to read some new postings.
Maybe you should listen to the arguments why people are opposed to soft forks. There are sound technical reasons having to do with the dynamics of the block chain under various scenarios. With multiple types of fork there are additional failure modes in the distributed system and this makes understanding and managing fault tolerance more difficult. Allowing only hard forks is a much more conservative design. People with serious experience in distributed systems and computer networking will have no problem appreciating this argument. Some of us have personal experience with complex failure modes that seemed unlikely or were entirely unanticipated, but yet happened. soon enough we will have sidechains so this is a nonissue How does sidechains solve the block size again?  Read the previous post stupid. Noone is talking about the block size. |
|
|
|
You mean companies with a big fat 0 next to the revenue line in their balance sheet? "Start-ups" burning through VC money to stay afloat? Market makers ? You mean stream blocking inc.? Blockstream is churning out code. Your "market-makers" are an amalgam of broken wallets, incompetent payment processors and typical banking parasites. |
|
|
|
Ahahah... That brings it to a whole new level. I did follow that debate, and the only one opposing soft-forks at the time was Mike, and then Peter R came with his GIFs. I wonder how it got to 'a lot of opposition'. Need to read some new postings.
Maybe you should listen to the arguments why people are opposed to soft forks. There are sound technical reasons having to do with the dynamics of the block chain under various scenarios. With multiple types of fork there are additional failure modes in the distributed system and this makes understanding and managing fault tolerance more difficult. Allowing only hard forks is a much more conservative design. People with serious experience in distributed systems and computer networking will have no problem appreciating this argument. Some of us have personal experience with complex failure modes that seemed unlikely or were entirely unanticipated, but yet happened. soon enough we will have sidechains so this is a nonissue |
|
|
|
Consequences of "mass adoption" & failure to enforce centralized limits and account for market incentives. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
