Which is?
Meanwhile some people are expecting that somehow a massive amount of nodes (thanks to the artificially kept small blockchain) will be run on a network that nobody can really use but a few niche areas.
Basically, who will care running a node at all? Oh... that... well..it would be a legitimate point if it made any sense at all..unfortunately it doesn't. Without nodes there's no Bitcoin and without Bitcoin there is no payment channels, sidechains, off-chain services, nothing. So basically by running a node you are not only supporting Bitcoin but all of its ecosystem. Imagine when nodes get commoditized and every one can set easily set up one and maintain it a little to no cost, the ultimate decentralization! Of course that can't happen if you bloat the blockchain so much that you'd need specialized hardware/datacenters to run it. |
|
|
|
iam pretty sure people will think again when they have to pay 1 USD for each transaction  Why? The masses cannot use Bitcoin for buying coffee (it simply can't scale for that) and even the increased blocksize idea in XT would not scale up to the same size as something like Visa for many years (so even if XT became the main chain it won't be replacing the current payment systems for many years if ever). So the only txs that most are going to make are going to be larger ones where 1 USD per tx might not be much at all (especially compared to something like Western Union). The most logical area that Bitcoin can *own* is remittance and anyone thinking otherwise is just not looking at the reality. I think it makes the most sense to first take on remittance and get rid of the ridiculous fees that are having to be paid currently in that area (how about we solve that first before worrying about people buying their coffee with Bitcoin?). So basically you are suggesting to get rid of all the companies that got into bitcoin for other things than remittance? We should tell people to outright stop investing and innovating on top of that open network because we don't really want it to be THAT open after all because we fear it cannot scale while in fact it perfectly can? Meanwhile some people are expecting that somehow a massive amount of nodes (thanks to the artificially kept small blockchain) will be run on a network that nobody can really use but a few niche areas. This makes absolute no sense to me. Get rid? No. We should just be realistic and tell people it isn't conceivable nor desirable to put all their transactions on the main chain. Bitcoin will scale using payment channels, side chains & off chain services so that we can guarantee the robustness of the foundation layer  You didn't address my point at all. Which is? |
|
|
|
iam pretty sure people will think again when they have to pay 1 USD for each transaction Why? The masses cannot use Bitcoin for buying coffee (it simply can't scale for that) and even the increased blocksize idea in XT would not scale up to the same size as something like Visa for many years (so even if XT became the main chain it won't be replacing the current payment systems for many years if ever). So the only txs that most are going to make are going to be larger ones where 1 USD per tx might not be much at all (especially compared to something like Western Union). The most logical area that Bitcoin can *own* is remittance and anyone thinking otherwise is just not looking at the reality. I think it makes the most sense to first take on remittance and get rid of the ridiculous fees that are having to be paid currently in that area (how about we solve that first before worrying about people buying their coffee with Bitcoin?). So basically you are suggesting to get rid of all the companies that got into bitcoin for other things than remittance? We should tell people to outright stop investing and innovating on top of that open network because we don't really want it to be THAT open after all because we fear it cannot scale while in fact it perfectly can? Meanwhile some people are expecting that somehow a massive amount of nodes (thanks to the artificially kept small blockchain) will be run on a network that nobody can really use but a few niche areas. This makes absolute no sense to me. Get rid? No. We should just be realistic and tell people it isn't conceivable nor desirable to put all their transactions on the main chain. Bitcoin will scale using payment channels, side chains & off chain services so that we can guarantee the robustness of the foundation layer |
|
|
|
Damn, I wish my old pal cypherdick was around to enjoy the laughs but he ran away with his tail between his legs and leaving a yellow trail some time ago. So sad Him and his cargo cult are still entertaining the no block size cap idea in their new forum  |
|
|
|
Herr Hearn : WRT adoption - Gavin and I will go talk to some miners next week. I suspect having the possibility of more power dangled in front of them by BIP 100 means they aren't going to support any other option now regardless of what the economic majority thinks. But we can try anyway.
Dude is still convinced he's got the support of "the economic majority" Wonder the amount of USD he was granted by USG to "dangle" in front of the miners. |
|
|
|
Interesting idea. Unfortunately it gives an incentive to depend more on third party services...  It is kind of trade off, you can rely on third party services to get better day to day user experience, but you can not rely on them to do mission critical transactions. However, it is the day to day small casual spending that created most amount of transactions, so settlement based design will dramatically reduce those transactions on blockchain There are many brilliant idea from traditional financial systems, not every thing is bad. If you avoid taking too much risk on them, they still can provide better service. You only need to avoid two things from legacy financial system: fiat money and fractional reserve banking. In this case, centralized service platform indeed have the ability to do fractional reserve banking (like MTGOX), so it is important only put small amount of bitcoin there Why should I take this trade off? To unload the blockchain? I'm just a drop in the ocean... What guarantees others will also take this trade off? Sorry being so skeptical. But although this is a good idea in theory I think it wouldn't work in practice. I don't see myself stop relying on my online wallets to start relying on third party services to hold my coins. We can avoid taking risks... But the risk is still there. Even with small amounts. Small amounts from many of us make quite a big cake what if another Mt. Gox comes on stage?
Everyone would be screwed. Again. Coinbase offers multi-signature where you hold your keys but can transact using their platform. We need to accept the idea that regular joes won't care about holding their key. Not everyone wants to "be their own bank". |
|
|
|
Well off-shores are only used by influential and powerful people, and we know that everyone is equal before the law except those that are not. I doubt if a regular person tries with an ofshore scheme he will be caught quickly and punished, but not if he is an oligarch. Bitcoin's economy is dictated by the establishment weather you like it or not, because even though the people might be anonymous, the businesses are not. It would be really hard or impossible to run a Coinbase or Bitfinex or Bitpay anonymously, and it would have 1/10 of the users it has now. So they make the laws for the businesses, and all businesses have to comply. After bitcoin gets more "political power" that might change, but for now, we are bound to that. But its funny that if the establishment will feel crumbing ground beneath them, they will invest in bitcoin, in fact I think they already hedge it, so that either way they will be the next elite aswell I really doubt the elite were so dumb to not hedge themselves agains all types of risks, so they will always be the elite. That's the point! I want influential and powerful (read: rich) people to adopt Bitcoin and we both know there is no such thing as an "establishment" stopping them. That is where Bitcoin's value will grow from, not the "regular person". I couldn't care less if "the regular" person has to jump through some hoops to buy Bitcoin. That doesn't mean Bitcoin needs "the establishement" to exist, survive and thrive. Where did you get the idea that "Coinbase, Bitfinex or Bitpay" = Bitcoin anyway ? |
|
|
|
could we stop with this legalize ting?
bitcoin is not subject to any kind of legal approval..
If bitcoin doesnt reach a critical mass before they start to ban it then nobody is stopping them to destroy btc. Parlaments tend to vote 90%-10% against the wish of 90% of the people, and if no public reaction is to this, then they get away with betraying their voting herd. It does need legal approval unfortunately, because an underground currency wont really matter, but if its legalized then businesses can build on it and everyone would be better off with. I`m sorry that soon we will need government approval to pee, but this is the world we`ve been born into.Fuck "critical mass". Fuck "businesses". Fuck "parliaments". Fuck "government approval". Fuck your world. Fuck you statist idiot. This is Bitcoin. This is Freedom. What the fuck is wrong with people today, i get insulted for no reasons. So please stop insults and lets be civilized here. You probably mis-interpreted my post, i like freedom, but i`m just saying that this world wont be free because people are too dumb and have a herd mentality. Parlaments always vote agains their constituents, and they always get away with it. If people are that dumb and uncaring, then who will bring justice here? Look I'm not sure what you're talking about but Bitcoin is sovereign and needs the approval of no government or any other institutions to exist, that much is clear. Thats the problem, first you insult and then you dont even know what i`m talking about. I was talking about the adoption being massively obstructed if it were illegal. The whole point for bitcoin is to be a global currency, if people are faced with the thread of jail they will be discoruaged to use it, and only mobs will use it which will make it more dark than it currently is. For bitcoin to be succesful, it must be legal, and it has to comply with regulations too. Sorry but it will take a long time until bitcoin becomes really independent, currently it's economy is dictated by the establishment. So it would be better if it remains legal so that bitcoin metchants can expand and prosper. Dont worry in 5-10 years bitcoin will be really unstoppable, but until then we need to work with the establishment.  The use of off-shore bank accounts and tax heavens are considered illegal in most countries. Did that stop their adoption? Have you ever heard of the 100T$ shadow banking industry? For Bitcoin to be succesful we don't need the common people to use it as a currency. That's where you logic is broken. Bitcoin is a financial instrument akin to gold, diamonds, SDRs, etc. How is the economy of Bitcoin dictated by the establishment !? Again, your whole theory rests on the premise that Bitcoin's value comes from "bitcoin merchants", it really isn't so. The establishment can go fuck themselves for all I care the instant they realize they have something to do about this Bitcoin thing the ground will be crumbling under their own feet. |
|
|
|
could we stop with this legalize ting?
bitcoin is not subject to any kind of legal approval..
If bitcoin doesnt reach a critical mass before they start to ban it then nobody is stopping them to destroy btc. Parlaments tend to vote 90%-10% against the wish of 90% of the people, and if no public reaction is to this, then they get away with betraying their voting herd. It does need legal approval unfortunately, because an underground currency wont really matter, but if its legalized then businesses can build on it and everyone would be better off with. I`m sorry that soon we will need government approval to pee, but this is the world we`ve been born into.Fuck "critical mass". Fuck "businesses". Fuck "parliaments". Fuck "government approval". Fuck your world. Fuck you statist idiot. This is Bitcoin. This is Freedom. What the fuck is wrong with people today, i get insulted for no reasons. So please stop insults and lets be civilized here. You probably mis-interpreted my post, i like freedom, but i`m just saying that this world wont be free because people are too dumb and have a herd mentality. Parlaments always vote agains their constituents, and they always get away with it. If people are that dumb and uncaring, then who will bring justice here? Look I'm not sure what you're talking about but Bitcoin is sovereign and needs the approval of no government or any other institutions to exist, that much is clear. |
|
|
|
I really find these responses completely inadequate. You're basically just quoting what I've said, incorrectly throwing around phrases like "factually incorrect" and "logical fallacy," before delivering the grand finale: we should do the best we can just because we cannot test something does not mean we should not do it some things need to happen this way if they are to occur at all I support BIP101 for reasons of political realism I really can't spend any more time on this. It would be more convincing if you actually argued why I am incorrect in saying that the fork is not taking place now. Or if you argued why specifically you are not committing a logical fallacy in this case. Just because you disagree with me and do not think you can respond to my arguments, does not mean that I am wrong. This last post you have made also does not make any counter arguments whatsoever. My position is supported by reason. Your position is supported by nothing but your tireless political word salad. That's why no one bothers arguing with you for longer than a couple of posts. |
|
|
|
I really find these responses completely inadequate. You're basically just quoting what I've said, incorrectly throwing around phrases like "factually incorrect" and "logical fallacy," before delivering the grand finale: we should do the best we can just because we cannot test something does not mean we should not do it some things need to happen this way if they are to occur at all I support BIP101 for reasons of political realism I really can't spend any more time on this. "Political realism"  |
|
|
|
could we stop with this legalize ting?
bitcoin is not subject to any kind of legal approval..
If bitcoin doesnt reach a critical mass before they start to ban it then nobody is stopping them to destroy btc. Parlaments tend to vote 90%-10% against the wish of 90% of the people, and if no public reaction is to this, then they get away with betraying their voting herd. It does need legal approval unfortunately, because an underground currency wont really matter, but if its legalized then businesses can build on it and everyone would be better off with. I`m sorry that soon we will need government approval to pee, but this is the world we`ve been born into.Do you have any idea of the size of the "underground" economy? I've told you in your other thread to stop trying to pander to the mass of puppets, they are irrelevant and have no impact over Bitcoin's success. |
|
|
|
You are getting close...
Bitcoin will be adopted by rich and wealthy long before "maintstream" catches on to it. By all account this accumulation has already started and should continue.
Don't be concerned with selling Bitcoin to the masses as if somehow that is what will give it value. The masses in general are not so wealthy and even combined the capital they can trust into Bitcoin is infinitely small compared to the 1%.
The 1% don't need apps, promotions campagains, newbie guides, search engines or MORE TRANSACTIONS. Bitcoin as it exist now, as a deflationary censorship resistant store of wealth will serve their interest perfectly as the existing economy erodes and they make their way for the exit.
Good point there, i forgot the herd mentality. Its obvious that the rich will join the boat first, they always do, they are opportunists, thats why they are rich. And after they made alot of money, the sheep will then follow their leaders too and join. However we can accelerate this process, i dont really want to wait 20 years for bitcoin to start, when it can be done in 3-7 years. Seeing as the current financial system is likely headed for a collapse in the coming years you won't have to wait that long. Be careful overselling people on Bitcoin as we are now experiencing the damage false expectations can have in regard to the block size debate and the anger of those who thought Bitcoin was a replacement for VISA. Undersell, overdeliver. |
|
|
|
Promotion campaigns.... will you people stop trying to turn Bitcoin into a startup ?
Bitcoin as a consumer retail product is currently incapable of competing with traditional alternatives and it will remain so for a couple of years.
Stop trying to sell regular joes onto Bitcoin it will never work. They really don't care and they are very happy with their fiat.
then the only hope to turn average joe to bitcoin, is waiting in the fiat collapse, i'm sure there is something around other than the hope route primarily you do not need to export all people from fiat to bitcoin, but you need to catch the interest of the most influent, the minus ones will follow
secondarily bitcoin can aim at being a simply good and effective alternative, for those who hate fiat, which i'm sure will grow in number You are getting close... Bitcoin will be adopted by rich and wealthy long before "maintstream" catches on to it. By all account this accumulation has already started and should continue. Don't be concerned with selling Bitcoin to the masses as if somehow that is what will give it value. The masses in general are not so wealthy and even combined the capital they can trust into Bitcoin is infinitely small compared to the 1%. The 1% don't need apps, promotions campagains, newbie guides, search engines or MORE TRANSACTIONS. Bitcoin as it exist now, as a deflationary censorship resistant store of wealth will serve their interest perfectly as the existing economy erodes and they make their way for the exit. |
|
|
|
|
Promotion campaigns.... will you people stop trying to turn Bitcoin into a startup ?
Bitcoin as a consumer retail product is currently incapable of competing with traditional alternatives and it will remain so for a couple of years.
Stop trying to sell regular joes onto Bitcoin it will never work. They really don't care and they are very happy with their fiat.
|
|
|
|
I'm disappointed that no one is taking this opportunity to discuss solutions to spam attacks (dust transactions w/ maximum outputs). That's actually the issue that is forcing this debate -- not organic growth in transaction volume, which on average, is nowhere near the limit.
Indeed actual p2p transactions between users is a marginal amount of the actual transaction volume. |
|
|
|
I agree that miners will form pools (like we see today) if doing so gives them an economy of scale. This is similar to the production of most commodities. For example, men panning solo for gold in a creek can no longer compete with the billion-dollar+ gold miners like Barrick.
I also agree that if Bitcoin becomes wildly successful and TX volume increases 1000 times, that people will require specialized hardware and high-end internet connections to run full nodes (I'll just use an SPV wallet on my phone).
What I don't agree with is that this will lead to a negative result: quite the opposite in fact! If we allow Bitcoin to grow, I expect to see vastly more user, more miners, probably more nodes, but definitely more security in numbers. I can't prove this, but no one can prove the opposite either.
My problem with the small-blockers is that they don't want to take the chance of success and instead want to commit us to failure. You are proposing adding a quota to block space production:
My problem is these are a lot of assumptions. To begin, the demand for transaction and space on the block chain can be considered infinite. From this reasoning we can infer that by specialized hardware & connections we really mean high-end datacenters . Don't even think about giving me that bs that I won't allow Bitcoin to grow. Bitcoin doesn't grow only in transactions and transactions don't necessarily mean more users. Miners, until we are able to commoditize mining into consumer hardware, will inherently be lead into giant economies of scale. "Probably more nodes" doesn't cut it either seeing the existing decrease in node count as compared to a couple years ago when Bitcoin had much less users. Finally yes, you can't prove this. What you call a transaction quota I call a check on centralization. Remember that free market is not inherent to Bitcoin as it works under specific rules to carefully assign the players incentive. I suggest an irresponsible block size policy can change these incentives for the worst. |
|
|
|
What Where Bitshares, Ethereum, Dash. There are many more projects like this that are also very inovative. You're joking right? Bitcoin does not exist in a vacuum, you might be willing to spend $100 per transaction but I do not believe that the majority would do so. The majority doesn't matter, I know your brain is poisoned with democracy but that's not how it works. In an economy the people holding the wealth, the rich, decide, whether you like it or not. I do not think that the economic majority would want to pay $100 per transaction that is my point.[/quote] WTF!? NO!! Bro you need counselling, are you w/ the USG? Stop trying to stick democracy on everything you see. The economic majority is the 1% of Bitcoin that owns 75% of it. I'm sure they don't have issues with 100$ because they know better, they spend fiat, not bitcoins. Especially considering that alternatives do exist where we can transact much cheaper and also with much more anonymity. Therefore it is not a irrational fear to think that Bitcoin should compete with any other alternatives in the real world. Again I ask: What Where (okay maybe Monero for anonymity but their adaptive block size is still very much an experiment AFAIK) Monero, Shadow Cash, Dash and many more.[/quote] Most people do not even run full nodes today, and personally I would be able to continue to run my full nodes even with the larger blocksize. It would be better if most people would be reliant on SPV wallets, as opososed to being reliant on third parties, which is what would happen if we do not increase the block size, and if we did need third parties to transact on the Bitcoin blockchain directly what would even be the point in running a full node in the first place. SPV relies on third parties and is not private! "Most people do not run full nodes today" is absolutely not a reason to make it harder than it is. The point is to spread governance as wide as possible to people from all nationalities, creeds, regions and economic classes. I really don't care if a majority of people cannot directly access the Bitcoin blockchain, if we, the people, can hold control and enforce a sound monetary policy. Only banks will use it for all I care. At that point they'll be software companies competing on the open market with open source solutions. |
|
|
|
So I have been following the recent block size limit discussions going on and one thing I noticed is that people say we shouldn't raise blocks to allow a fee market to develop. Another is that BIP 100 allows miners to continue to lower the block size limit in order to force a fee market.
From what I understand, the idea is that once there are enough transactions to fill blocks up completely and have a backlog, resulting in some transactions not being confirmed in the next block. Then, in order to get into the next block, transactions will begin to have higher fees.
While this might be good to increase fees slightly, I don't understand why people say that small block sizes will force a super competitive fee market. Wouldn't people just ditch Bitcoin and go to some other altcoin (like litecoin) instead of paying ridiculous fees? Why would miners (in the case of BIP 100) lower the block size limit to increase fees if it drives away people thus decreasing their earnings?
Fck altcoins. If you don't wanna pay the high fees required to maintain the Bitcoin network the alternatives are lightning, other payment channels or off-chain methods. In fact if you can't pay for it you most likely don't actually need it that bad enough |
|
|
|
In order to produce larger blocks in the future, we'll need miners to come up with more efficient communication schemes similar to the relay network. This just allows them to produce block space for cheaper and for us to enjoy lower-cost transactions. Win-win.
(Note also that what matters is the network average, and not a few fast connections [although those fast connections do help to lower the network average.])
Peter, you know exactly what that means: centralization... Before I respond to this, can you admit that both Greg and you were wrong (at least about the particular detail you called me out on above)? To be quite honest I didn't bother considering the math from the post I quickly digged up. I'm sorry my example was poorly chosen but to be clear that was Greg's point. It sounds you may have been right, about this particular factor. My point was to demonstrate that miners are increasingly tending towards schemes and centralization that can diminish their relaying costs and create possible unfair advantage which could be precipitated by an inconsiderate block size increase. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
