|
why do u think miners sell all their BTC?
|
|
|
|
There's a 3rd reason for that patent that everyone misses...it's called a pinch, and is probably the most important of the 3.
Assume that our patent ISN'T granted.
Later some bank, or corporation, files a patent that infringes on our tech, and it DOES get granted. It happens, maybe they worded something slightly differently, had better lawyers due to more money, etc
Then they decide "Hey, lets go sue those Radix guys and destroy the business they have built, cus, y'know, we own their tech now!"
So they come along with a law suit and they have us dead to rights...
But they don't, we can show our patent submission and it's refusal. So if we really are infringing on their patent, then our patent should have been granted as it has an earlier date and theirs should have been refused.
Law suit dismissed!
With so many banks and corps filling patents and getting them granted, with tech that is arguably public domain in some cases, it made total sense as a defense.
I don't know why so many people have an issue with the patent, it's clearly defensive and allows us to monetise the tech to continue development long term from private licenses, regardless of the open source status for public, non-profit deployments.
Exactly right, this is a very smart rear guard action it will make it soooo much easier to being "shut" down by legal threats. See Banks even if they have little grounds can bury you with the costs of a law suits and perhaps stop you in the intermi with injunctions. So this is a very *very* smart move by Dan inmho. |
|
|
|
As of now there were more price predictions stating that the price will reach at least $20k by this year. We don't know to what extent this is gonna happen in reality, and if such a growth gets carried forward to the next year surely we can experience a much higher price as the halving is gonna take place by 2020 which is one of the biggest event of bitcoin network. There will be corrective growth causing drop in price and further the resistance gained might push it to reach $15000.
if we go to 20K, I think its going to shoot way past....... |
|
|
|
|
At best
no one outside of the libra consortium is going to trust libra (and likely inside)
Alipay, Tencent or whatever will need a bridge to them ....
Large transfers between various systems will need to be done through a trusted zero counterparty risk with market depth ..... can any one say bitcoin....
I see that libra will somehow become associated with a BTC holding company to allow low friction to BTC then those that want withdraw to their private wallet.
So its hard to see how libra will not help BTC and be a massive on ramp,
Plus BTC has near a decade head start and a lot of dev and infrastructure in place.
|
|
|
|
We are all thinking that true mainstream adoption is needed for bitcoin's value to have big price levels but practically those big price levels ALONE will make mainstream adoption happening. Main stream adoption is NOT needed for reaching big values but for having sustaining values.
Now, based on how bitcoin had recovered from the 2018 downfall, it may test $1M levels in less than 18 months given that how intensively mainstream media may keep on inducing FOMO among all types of investors.
I believe bitcoin may test $100k levels before end of 2019. DO NOT ASK me any technical proof. Your FOMO will not obey any mathematical formula. Reach of awareness on the future of bitcoin is purely random hence I am not involving any analysis for this speculation but based on how bitcoin prices had traded in the past and where it is right now.
Already LIBRA, BAKKT and various ETFs are doing enough media things to spread words on cryptos and bitcoins. These (and other related positive news like Wall street listing bitcoin futures etc.) will result in RECURSIVE FOMO which is all, we need. By mid of 2020, we are about to experience another halving which will be the finisher-catalyst to test $1M before end of 2020.
Finally, in my speculation bitcoin may value $1 Billion in next few decades but before that get ready for experiencing many roller-coaster rides.
I suppose at some point there will be an Eternal September at some point for crypto. At that point fiat goes to legacy and maybe near zero or sort of like post, vs email or some such. That will be the critical mass. I feel the killer app/device that somehow you can prove is secure and not lose and pass on needs to happen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September |
|
|
|
|
Some time ago ... I think I suggested in this tread normalising the curve for by the increase of market that the Alts represent.
Eg say the whole market cap at (t) it on the beti curve, then the bt % or that must be the actual beti value.
This may also have some sort of volume weighting as a second cut.
That is beti from day one can not really be applied to now as BTC was the whole market cap.
clearly now it is not.
|
|
|
|
|
This is going to turn into a massive on ramp for Norminton/NPC to get into crypto and BTC.
It really makes Normintgton/NPC go huh but why BTC died right?
The FB consortium will have their peg broken by by traders and bank actors.
However it's another nail in the coffin for GOV and Banks.
|
|
|
|
Not really.
Imagine a blocksize of 1000 MB.
Imagine the blocks are filled with 1MB regular transactions (without spam).
Now an attacker can fill the remaining 999MB of the block with 1 sat/B transactions.
He couldn't create 999MB traffic with 1sat/B transactions with a block size limit of 1MB. This would require him to have 999 blocks completely filled with his 1sat/B transactions.
A much higher fee (actually highest paying fee relative to all other transactions) would be necessary to generate 999MB traffic in this case.
It is cheaper to fill large blocks, than to fill small blocks.
You assume a static demand of just one user, where it cheaper many more people can use so harder to fill and mor fees for miner, and more security. thats win, win and win. |
|
|
|
We need a pull back and then, on?
I'm surprised you are asking for a pull back rather than a continuous bull. The market is green and the ride is good for people who bought earlier. I'm guessing you want to buy and expecting price to drop back  Well I just feel you can have a longer bull run, and higher floor on the bear when you have a good few pull backs. I am a perma bull and hodl. |
|
|
|
Ok, there will be a halving for Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash ABC next year. Let's observe which network is more affected by it, the one with the smaller blocks, or the one with the bigger blocks.
In your own theory, the one with bigger blocks should have no problems because it could fit many more transactions than the one with smaller blocks, correct?
No I say there is a optimum blocksize and 1MB is not it. there is no reason or theory or maths or anything behind 1MB except just temp hold I thinks it bigger than that. But I am not saying bigger blocks are always better. 16 mb may not be better than 8mb I am saying that somewhere in there there is a band of optimal blocksize that is a function of hardware, market friction, decentralisation, and I think it seems to be in the form of g(x) = scurve + c. at least in the forseable or near future. Satoshi, it seems said do not care about larger blks in the future as the need arises.  |
|
|
|
|
We need a pull back and then, on?
|
|
|
|
How will Re-orgs be stopped by financial incentive when the on-chain blocksize is to small even when full and your only geting 1 or say 1/4 of a btc per block rewards?
Without onchain blocksize increase the network becomes more vulnerable to re - orgs by financial insentive.
Eg
hack of $300M or some such large number.
miners only getting 0.25 btc a block and fees which will be limited in number by blocksize
So if you get
[1] a "HACK"
[2] BTC price drops a lot
[3] Block reward is very low
then you have removed large barrier's to an actors ability to bribe miners to re-org and thus destroy credibility of the BTC network.
Does this not force you to have larger blocks to get enough fees to defend this case?
But the fees are not "limited" by the block size. There's a fee market, that goes up and down, depending on user demand of having their transactions included in the blocks. What am I missing? How big is your market is what your missing.... is it big enough to fill the void of the block subsidy? How do attract enough people to your market give them a utility with low enough friction.... |
|
|
|
Sure you can scale off chain but that does not mean you can have a different type of scaling onchain.
Never said that. I said you don't need to increase the blocksize. Never said that you shouldn't under any circumstances. Neither did i said that purely off-chain is the best solution. On-chain scaling solutions are good, as long as it's not about purely increasing the blocksize. My point was at you made a false equivalence. you said and I quote Segwit is necessary for further scaling, yes. But bigger blocks are not.
There are way better scaling options available than just increasing the blocksize, therefore it is not necessary (not saying slightly increased blocksize would hurt BTC). You failed to address there are different types of scaling. You made the false equivalence of segwit LN scaling and On chain scaling, which are completely different things. Then you went without any reason to say because you have LN you don't really need the onchain scaling. They are very different things and their purposes somewhat orthogonal. You now try and resile from that. I agree though there must be some increase in blocksize. |
|
|
|
The argument I make is when the block subsidy is very low versus the value of the fees and the value of BTC is high, the block size will have an impact on how secure the chain is.
That's just an assumption you make. There is nothing to prove that point of view. No, there must be limits. why not have a 1kb block why not have a 10 terabyte block. There must be a maximum utility in there some where How is this related to your statement that a higher blocksize increases the security (which i replied to) ? You indicated 1MB was ok. I put why and used absurdo reducto, to show no its not necessarily ok. I proved my pint of view by pointing out 1KB is too small and 10TB is to big. why is 1MB the most "secure". Because you assert it? So in there somewhere is a best maxima, and why would ut be 1MB and even if it was then it must scale up with hardware capacity increase. |
|
|
|
Ok my error in so far as the whole history, the 1MB a temp measure if I recall.
also I hold there can be no spam on a blockchain as the "spammer" as long as they can pay is as valid as anyone else. Your just calling them a spammer, but a larger blocksize make it much more expensive to "spam"
This is not to prevent block chain spam, it was to prevent a DOS vector which would allow an attacker to create big blocks and flood the network. Ok if that is the reason then what is the max block permissible to avoid this as hardware gets better? |
|
|
|
The argument I make is when the block subsidy is very low versus the value of the fees and the value of BTC is high, the block size will have an impact on how secure the chain is.
That's just an assumption you make. There is nothing to prove that point of view. No, there must be limits. why not have a 1kb block why not have a 10 terabyte block. There must be a maximum utility in there some where 1mb or 4 via segwit seems to low.
[...]
Bitcoin needs both larger blocks and segwit. Both main camps have failed to accept this and the whole projects and society suffers.
No it doesn't. Segwit is necessary for further scaling, yes. But bigger blocks are not. There are way better scaling options available than just increasing the blocksize, therefore it is not necessary (not saying slightly increased blocksize would hurt BTC). You confusing scaling, by logical and nomclature error of making and calling all scaling the same. Sure you can scale off chain but that does not mean you can have a different type of scaling onchain. Why do you try and hold out they are of the same species when clearly they are not in anyway and serve different use cases. For reference Satoshi had 32 MB blocks and he calculated hardware would keep up with bigger blocks.
No, he didn't. He released bitcoin without any block size limit. Due to the network design, the messages allowed to be send were limited to 32 mb. Therefore creating some kind of a block size limit. In september 2010 he set a blocksize limit of 1MB to prevent spam / useless transactions filling up the blocks unnecessarily. Ok my error in so far as the whole history, the 1MB a temp measure if I recall. also I hold there can be no spam on a blockchain as the "spammer" as long as they can pay is as valid as anyone else. Your just calling them a spammer, but a larger blocksize make it much more expensive to "spam" |
|
|
|
[2] Does not change anything as the incentive system just means [1] again happens.
So the hacker has unlimited funds to finance 2x 51%/re-org attacks and indemnify the miners for their hardware that would be trash in this case? Then he must steal the coins to Satoshi, at least  [A.] No. they do not need unlimited funds. Just that the value of the funds in the block or number of blocks is greater than the block reward and fees. [B.]. No. Just that they can benefit more from the disruption eg by short, where fees and blockreward are too little versus benefit from disruption. Noteing they only have to achieve disruption once to discount all future value of the blockchain/BTC. [C.] Yes, there is unlimited money, it keeps getting printed and will always be funneled to this type of project. |
|
|
|
[1] Does not matter to a malicous attacker, eg short btc 50x on bitmex or whatever, or govt or corp or whatever
Then Bitcoin is flawed now, already. And BCH and BSV too Because the "50x shorting attack" is already possible. With Bitcoin and all altcoins, including Proof-of-stake ones. Maybe centralized ones like Ripple could save themselves but I don't consider them really competitors for BTC, more for PayPal  As I wrote, the bribing attack would have costs of a similar magnitude than a regular 50+1% attack. You seem to have omitted that part of my post, and also bones261's stance that transaction fees could be even higher with smaller blocks because the "confirmation panic" (*F*CKSOMANYTRANSACTIONSLETSPAY1000SATOSHIPERBYTEH!!!*), which drives fees to da moon in highly congested times, would arrive much later. Big blocks would not change anything. If any, they would magnify the problem, because lesser mining actors (pools and solo mining farms) would exist and thus the briber would have to deal with less parties. No. They are not flawed. The argument I make is when the block subsidy is very low versus the value of the fees and the value of BTC is high, the block size will have an impact on how secure the chain is. At some point these function come close to a "minima" were there are not enough fees to secure the miners as the subsidy will be too low to protect the value of the coins in the block. 1mb or 4 via segwit seems to low. BCH and BSV clearly allow for more onchain traffic thus fees. So for this vector it is less of an attack surface. However they may face centralisation vectors due to too large blocks. I main maintain the must at a minimum be a g(x) = s-curve where the g(x) = a function of supply, as supply from g(x) increases. This provides a basal offset an pathway to blocksize perhaps g(x) should also have some type of usage like bitpays bip for adaptive size blocks https://medium.com/@spair/an-adaptive-block-size-for-bitcoin-947fbc620c9b as well. I fear that Core is politically wedded to 1MB and I have no issue with the 2X thing happening again. GMAXWELL had no answer to this when I put it to him a few years ago and his silence has been deafening since. For reference Satoshi had 32 MB blocks and he calculated hardware would keep up with bigger blocks. Bitcoin needs both larger blocks and segwit. Both main camps have failed to accept this and the whole projects and society suffers. The both need to swallow their pride independently. Core has no technical or valid political argument against a s curve increase of small% |
|
|
|
your missing the point thats a one of collateral effect of segwit it is not g(x) = s curve function that addresses block size over time. |
|
|
|
There are incentives in place that this doesn't happen:
- First, the price would most likely crash, so miners' income would be drastically less. They could short coins to hedge against that, but that would have to be an extremely massive operation and certainly would drive up the price for borrowed Bitcoins.
- Second, the community could decide to hard fork with another mining algorithm, reverting the double spends. In this case, most users would switch to the new chain, and miners would lose not only the rewards they didn't convert to fiat, but almost all of their investment in hardware and infrastructure (they could mine the old chain and lesser SHA256 coins, but their income from these sources would be worth only a little fraction of the amount they achieved with Bitcoin).
In the "bribing attack" scenario, the general situation would be very similar to that of a "regular" 51% attack, because the hacker must convince a majority of miners to take these two risks related to dishonest behaviour. It may be a little bit cheaper, but not really so significantly that the situation would be likely to happen.
So the hack must be really an extremely big one (e.g. Satoshi's coins) for the hacker to be able to really do harm in this case.
Anyway, I also agree with bones261: bigger blocks would not necessarily mean "more fees". Second-layer technologies could even lead to more transactions than big blocks, and thus to more demand, and higher fees.
[1] Does not matter to a malicous attacker, eg short btc 50x on bitmex or whatever, or govt or corp or whatever [2] Does not change anything as the incentive system just means [1] again happens. There is not reason not 2 2x blocksize now. I think core is politically wed to 1mb, because if the increase blksize it admits defeat to BCH and BSV |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
