I see your logic. It would be good logic in a world full of robots. Unfortunately our world is populated with human beings. It's like a political candidate that promises to solve everyone's problems, when he doesn't deliver no one is worse for it, they are just in the same place they were before, EXCEPT that some people stopped trying so hard to solve their own problems in expectation that the candidate would do it for them. Maybe your study of engineering has caused you to forget about flesh and blood people and what they are like.

If we had told the community that "everything is fine, there is no need to worry, we will just increase the block size every time" people would have stopped worrying about a problem that was still there, a problem that hadn't fundamentally been solved. The community having that sort of mindset could have been a recipe for disaster. We would have risked losing all of what precious decentralization we still have in the bitcoin network.

Instead a general consensus was reached that: no, we were going to innovate or die, not just brute force it like a bunch of neanderthals. This was a gamble, it could have been a mistake if no solution was developed. You can debate about whether it was a good idea to make this gamble or not, but that is in the past, the gamble was made and it is beginning to bear fruit. We are beginning to see good evidence that in hindsight it was actually a good gamble. We are seeing amazing second layer innovations right before our eyes. Innovations that almost certainly would not have come about if the community had taken the attitude of "just hit the problem over the head with that hammer again".

Now that we have pushed ourselves to develop real solutions I think it is a good time to go back and discuss a responsible conservative block size increase schedule.

Also, I think perhaps you might be stuck in an unhelpful mindset. You think that the gamble I spoke of earlier was a bad one to make. Let's concede for the sake of argument that it was. Perhaps if that was true than bcash would have been meritorious at the time. However, now that we have evidence showing that the gamble is paying off, is it wise to financially back bcash on the grounds that it made sense at the time? Perhaps it is time to reconsider your allegiance to a project that may have made sense at the time but in light of new evidence no longer does.

Sorry I know I didn't respond to everything you said here but I really don't believe in anonymint style posts. I think this one is already getting a bit long in the tooth.

Nice strawman. Please give the actual quote word for word where he said that, instead of just saying that he said it.



Okay... So what did he change on wikipedia that was "vandalism"?

Oh. It is indeed. His English doesn't seem to be very good. Perhaps he thought that by copying you word for word he would nail the English a lot better than if he tried to write a similar question himself.

Sure. Again that's just simple math (the thing that bcashers don't seem to be able to do). So opening a lightning channel is bigger than a regular transaction. Let's call it 0.0005mb. Now let's see how much space is required for 9 billion people to do that same thing 9billion*0.0005mb=4,500,000mb. Next lets figure out how many bitcoin blocks will be produced in three decades 10*24*30*12*10*3=2592000. Finally let's divide the total amount of space needed by the number of blocks to figure out how large each block would need to be 4,500,000mb/2,592,000=1.736mb.


So, hilariously enough, you just happened to pick the perfect example where what we would need is roughly what we have right now!

Yeaaaaa no I don't.

Average bitcoin transaction 0.00000025gb
Half the people on earth use bitcoin 3.5billion
Each person does about 5 transactions a day
144 blocks in a day
 
0.00000025*3.5billion*5/144=30gb blocks. 30 gb every 10 minutes people would need to download. Do you have any clue just how far away from that we are? Moore's law or not? That would be 1.5petabytes per year. That's ~16 yeas IF Moore's law holds. Which, by the way, it hasn't been lately. And even then, that's only regular transactions. That's at best only replacing traditional finance. No innovation there. No pay as you go. No IOT markets. No decentralizing the internet. No micro transactions. It's a piss poor vision for the future.

+/2

It would need to be industrial and concrete AF. As solidly constructed as a prison cell. Homeless in the us would be far less respectful towards private property than the Japanese and it would need to stand up to daily pressure washing with scalding water. Also we don't need to conserve space QUITE as much as in Tokyo. But yea. Those capsule rooms from Tokyo were my original inspiration for the idea.

I should ICO it. Tokens could entitle one to one night of use. No need to even share profit or anything.

I don't understand bcashers. You can not scale on chain. It's complete madness. The math is so simple. Are they completely math illiterate or do I misunderstand their movement and ideas in some way?

And I was so sure it was TSLA that was going to puke its brains out first and kick this thing off.

Well there's my answer. Gay. You couldn't put bitcoin ATMs in these places. They would get robbed like every day.

---

I actually do have one other business idea that I've been mulling around for a while that would be particularly suited for these sorts of areas. An idea for how to house people at a rate that the homeless could afford and would prefer to the street. Basically a very small room that essentially worked like the inside of a dish washer, so that you wouldn't need to pay staff for cleaning, coupled with leveraging biometrics and reputation to ensure that customers couldn't get away with too much abuse of the facilities.

What do you guys think? I can never tell if I'm a genius or completely mad.

Your avatar matches this post so perfectly. I can just see you with that face going "meyh" at the end.

---

Bro, I for one couldn't even figure out what the heck you were talking about. Just try to write more clearly and concisely and fit all of the points into one post without quoting yourself over and over again.

Any idea if I could put the headquarters of a bitcoin ATM company in an economic zone and claim it that way or would all of the actual ATM machines themselves have to be in economic zones too? I actually have been thinking about starting a little bitcoin ATM business for a while.

Yea... I'm beginning to question the validity of some of my earlier arguments and positions. New developments, particularly around lightning, and the settling down of internal political strife, have made me more bullish on bitcoin dominance. I am still skeptical of the ability of the DLT sector to replace gold unless the DLT sector is firmly dominated by a single project over a long period of time. But I am a lot less skeptical of the idea that the DLT sector will actually be dominated by a single project for a long period of time (bitcoin).

Hey now. My question was different. I didn't word it that well but really I just wanted to know if there were any free services that would open a channel out so that one could start receiving funds. I didn't mean without having to pay for blockchain transaction fees. Just that maybe a service that was free.

Channel factory still requires the use of an on chain transaction to get into the factory. So for the purposes of his question, he can't get onto lightning for free even with channel factory tech.

You have to make an on chain transaction in order to open a LN channel.

To the extent that most alts had any merit at all it was as a way to scale crypto payments laterally to compensate for the inability of bitcoin to serve as a payment vehicle. With LN rolling out I would say a lot of them have no reason to exist. All things being equal then we should expect to see dominance rise. Of course, in the real world, all things are never equal.

I think maybe you are thinking about it wrong. It's a 0 sum game. People think of bcash as relative to bitcoin not dollars. If bcash goes up marginally in dollar terms while bitcoin explodes in dollar terms no one calls that a bull market for bcash. So maybe bitcoin goes up giving him more money to pump into bcash, but at the same time bcash requires more and more funds in order to keep up with bitcoin if bitcoin has gone up.

Gets a few hundred million and turns into an egomaniac. He may be a big fish in this pond but the dude is a guppy on the global game of thrones. He doesn't seem to have any idea just how small he is compared to people with, not just wealth, but wealth that comes as a byproduct of real power. If he did, he wouldn't act like such an arrogant asshole all the time. I wish he would just fall into the ocean or something so I would never have to see his smug face again.

*edit* I know it's stupid. I should say something more substantive. But the way he speaks and acts bugs me more than any other human being alive. That perfect mix of autism and narcissism is like a cheese grater on my senses.

/rantoff

I understand a lot. Everything short of the deeper math and cutting edge proposals. Honestly, I still never read any of your ridiculously verbose (and presumably the technical) posts. I decided a little while back, when I found out that you were the real anonymint (someone I have positive impressions of from the early days of bitcoin talk for reasons I no longer remember), that if I saw another one I would actually read it this time but I haven't seen one since and I haven't felt inclined to go searching through the thousands of wall observer pages to dig one up.

I was just finally starting to develop a comfortable defensive layer of Stockholm Syndrome!