Now lets discuss the properties of spherical chickens in a vacuum!  Dyson or Hoover? Well, I think a more fundamental question is "bag or bag-less"?  |
|
|
|
when people start basing their arguments on "all the in the universe" time to hit the bottle
what's next? in all of the universes?
good point. Pig production is limited by the amount of matter in a FINITE universe. Now lets discuss the properties of spherical chickens in a vacuum! |
|
|
|
all you have to do to increase pig production is ...breed more sows, instead of butchering them.
And those sows will birth 5 sows, and those five will birth 25, 125, etc., etc.
Come on. You can't even imagine a scenario where demand outstrips potential supply? What if aliens demanded we give them a huge and ever increasing number of pigs to feed their exponentially growing space empire? A ridiculously high limit is still a limit. If the demand is high enough, pigs will be bred in penthouse bathtubs, planets will be colonized, made habitable, and turned into pig farms. What I'm trying to say is there's no artificial scarcity, no hard limit of 21 million, as is the case with bitcoin and Beanie Babies.As I said, scarcity, in this case, is simply a product of demand, as in "I can't make more money by breeding more pigs." Only if time is not a limiting factor. If a pig farmer Get's a fill-or-kill order for a million pigs and he has a month to fill it, and he has only two breeding pigs, then it doesn't matter how much the buyer is willing to pay. Please refer to the red, bold text. ty. Actually there IS a hard limit. What has not yet been pointed out in this conversation is that producing more pigs is not free, and as your pig production increases, costs will increase as well, at some point exponentially. And at that point lies your hard limit. Even reductio ad absurdum doesn't help you here. Exponential cost increase can always be matched by exponential cost (price). Care to take this further? Perhaps suggest that the amount of energy/matter in the universe is the hard limit? There is a hard limit on how many pigs you can economically supply to the market, as the price your pork-loving customers are willing to pay is not without bound. If you can't afford to produce them => limit. |
|
|
|
all you have to do to increase pig production is ...breed more sows, instead of butchering them.
And those sows will birth 5 sows, and those five will birth 25, 125, etc., etc.
Come on. You can't even imagine a scenario where demand outstrips potential supply? What if aliens demanded we give them a huge and ever increasing number of pigs to feed their exponentially growing space empire? A ridiculously high limit is still a limit. If the demand is high enough, pigs will be bred in penthouse bathtubs, planets will be colonized, made habitable, and turned into pig farms. What I'm trying to say is there's no artificial scarcity, no hard limit of 21 million, as is the case with bitcoin and Beanie Babies.As I said, scarcity, in this case, is simply a product of demand, as in "I can't make more money by breeding more pigs." Only if time is not a limiting factor. If a pig farmer Get's a fill-or-kill order for a million pigs and he has a month to fill it, and he has only two breeding pigs, then it doesn't matter how much the buyer is willing to pay. Please refer to the red, bold text. ty. Actually there IS a hard limit. What has not yet been pointed out in this conversation is that producing more pigs is not free, and as your pig production increases, costs will increase as well, at some point exponentially. And at that point lies your hard limit. |
|
|
|
Most society currently greatly overemphasizes the collective/cooperative, and largely ignores the value of the individual/competitive aspect. Both are important and necessary components of a healthy society.
(Thanks for replying to him. I wasn't going to feed the troll). A lot of the problem is that many in modern society mistake cooperation with getting a bunch of government goons to force your opinions on others. I'm all for cooperation and voluntary collective action. Though even from a purely utilitarian standpoint, government is both hugely wasteful and really doesn't "care". At least with voluntary support, if you find this to be the case, you can switch to an alternative. +1 Couldn't agree more. The paper I linked in my original reply really is worth reading, btw, if you haven't seen it before. Isaiah Berlin was a brilliant man. |
|
|
|
The DIY ethic only takes you so far, life is a collective/cooperative, not individual/competitive, sport.
Actually, it's both. You should read this to understand more. Most society currently greatly overemphasizes the collective/cooperative, and largely ignores the value of the individual/competitive aspect. Both are important and necessary components of a healthy society. |
|
|
|
yeah, how do you even pronounce etherereum in chinese?
efferim?
奇怪的邪惡的銀行家鏈 lol |
|
|
|
No one who wants to use Bitcoin is sitting on the sidelines saying "Oh, I'd like to buy this with bitcoin, but darn... Their blocks are just too darned small!".
uhrm... ever heard of the fidelity problem? Yeah, I have... You realize that is just a term he made up for this presentation of some of his ideas, right? It's not like a recognized Law of Economics or something. In real life, if you produce a product that people want, they will run over you to get it, and they don't give a damn what your theoretical production limits are.. They will use all your capacity and demand more. |
|
|
|
I don't really think that the people resisting block-size increase are just interested in creating a transaction-fee market.
I don't work for Blockstream, nor am I a Core developer - but even I can see that there is potentially a heavy price to be paid (in terms of Bitcoin decentralization) if we rush head-long down the path of block-size for scaling - and this could turn out to be a mistake that can't be undone, AND one that does not really solve the problem in the long-term.
I don't see the urgency you do for raising blocksize right now. Full blocks are still uncommon (except during "stress-tests").
We want users now, we plan to let them join in 3 months stalling block size growth because we dont want centralized nodes 20 years from now is damaging bitcoin - its myopic. If we hit a growth spurt like in 2013 well see a minimum of 10X transaction growth and the fee pressure will increase disproportionately, limited transaction volume will push feed over $1.00 in value for the smallest transactions. Fees will kill the competitive advantage bitcoin is offering. small blockests think the fee should be around $7. We the users are paying for low fees by subsidizing miners with inflation of 25BTC every 10 minus. we need economics of scale - more users to reduce fess as inflation subsidies diminish. Centralization is a concern, but we have 90% of nodes running centralized code the number is actually irrelevant when the code changes are controlled by a centralized few who believe bitcoin can't scale and want to change it to accommodate off block chain transactions. Again - full blocks are, as of this writing, still fairly rare. No one who wants to use Bitcoin is sitting on the sidelines saying "Oh, I'd like to buy this with bitcoin, but darn... Their blocks are just too darned small!". Raising the blocksize now is NOT going to cause a stampede of new users. Bigger blocks MAY be necessary soon, to accomodate new use - if it comes. Or maybe another solution will be found before that is necessary. I agree that we need to scale capacity AS NECESSARY - even if that means raising the blocksize somewhat in the short term, due to no other solution being at-hand. I just don't want to see panic drive the community to prematurely choose a path that does not really solve the bigger problem, and potentially hurts Bitcoin decentralization forever. |
|
|
|
If Core can't find a way to scale the network with a reasonable amount of safety and security in TWO YEARS, then they are incompetent and need to make way for better developers.
How much time is a reasonable amount of time for you? I really want to know. Give me an actual number.
That is a pretty bold statement about solving a non-trivial computer science problem. I'm sure your patches will be accepted if you have a solution. I think the problem is that you assume that increasing the blocksize fixes the problem. I imagine a future where all manner of services that are currently ad-supported or subscription-based might instead be payed for with bitcoin microtransactions, seamlessly and transparently. There could be millions, or maybe even billions of transactions per day from all these page views/minutes of video/etc. - vastly more than even Visa handles at peak capacity. And add to that all the microtransactions that might be generated by devices on the Internet of Things, that none of us know the extent or nature of yet. I don't see how increasing blocksize will handle this. Even data-center sized nodes may not be able to handle all those microtransactions. I don't claim to know what the answer is, but I am pretty sure that block-size alone won't do it - and lurching down that path in a non-judicious way could lead to permanent problems that will be painful to work around in the long term, after a real solution is found. I'm certain blocksize alone WON'T fix all scaling problems, but it would buy us time. All it would take right now is a doubling of transactions to crash the network. This problem was important, but now it's urgent as well. A doubling is well withing the realm of possibility in mere months and is approaching the probable. Creating a market for transaction fees needs to happen AFTER we reach mainstream adoption or we will never reach it. Yahoo mail, Facebook, Google all knew not to monetize too early. That's why they're still around. I hope we'll be around when billions of cryto microtransactions becomes an issue. I don't really think that the people resisting block-size increase are just interested in creating a transaction-fee market. I don't work for Blockstream, nor am I a Core developer - but even I can see that there is potentially a heavy price to be paid (in terms of Bitcoin decentralization) if we rush head-long down the path of block-size for scaling - and this could turn out to be a mistake that can't be undone, AND one that does not really solve the problem in the long-term. I don't see the urgency you do for raising blocksize right now. Full blocks are still uncommon (except during "stress-tests"). |
|
|
|
Your response did not address anything I posted. It addressed the content of BTCDrak's post, which I simply provided a link to.
Well, in that case, I guess I can only compliment you on your link posting capabilities. Uhm, thanks (?) |
|
|
|
That's correct, but that is not what his post addressed. I don't think anything in his post even suggests that BTCDrak's response was not well-reasoned - just that he personally disagrees with the content of that post.
He obviously wanted to talk about the post you firmly supported; and you decided to shut him down. I didn't "shut him down" - you credit me with far more power here than I possess, I think  I just suggested that if he really wanted to respond to Mr. BTCDrak he should probably do so in the forum where Mr. BTCDrak might actually see his reply. |
|
|
|
... but we cannot act as if there is NO significance because in fact, the exchange is including the use of fiat currencies.
Just explaining what people usually mean when talking about 'velocity of money,' NOT telling you how to act, not bothering NObody, just mending my Primus. If you do NOT like the conventional definition, you do NOT have to use it, which is to say, feel free to NOT use it if you do NOT like it. Wow - NLC replying to JJG while channelling JJG - that is funny That sinking feeling when one NOT NOT capitalized  Ok, now you made me spit coffee on my monitor! Happy NOW??? |
|
|
|
... but we cannot act as if there is NO significance because in fact, the exchange is including the use of fiat currencies.
Just explaining what people usually mean when talking about 'velocity of money,' NOT telling you how to act, not bothering NObody, just mending my Primus. If you do NOT like the conventional definition, you do NOT have to use it, which is to say, feel free to NOT use it if you do NOT like it. Wow - NLC replying to JJG while channelling JJG - that is funny |
|
|
|
If you want to reply to BTCDrak, you should probably do it in the same forum he posted in. I don't know if he will read your response here.
I don't. I was addressing a comment that was posted in this forum. Neither when I get into a discussion about the Affordable Care Act, do I get on the phone to Obama. Your response did not address anything I posted. It addressed the content of BTCDrak's post, which I simply provided a link to. ...? You posted a link and referred to it as "a well-reasoned response". That's a statement. Don't be surprised if someone here has an opinion about it. That's correct, but that is not what his post addressed. I don't think anything in his post even suggests that BTCDrak's response was not well-reasoned - just that he personally disagrees with the content of that post. |
|
|
|
If you want to reply to BTCDrak, you should probably do it in the same forum he posted in. I don't know if he will read your response here.
I don't. I was addressing a comment that was posted in this forum. Neither when I get into a discussion about the Affordable Care Act, do I get on the phone to Obama. Your response did not address anything I posted. It addressed the content of BTCDrak's post, which I simply provided a link to. |
|
|
|
If Core can't find a way to scale the network with a reasonable amount of safety and security in TWO YEARS, then they are incompetent and need to make way for better developers.
How much time is a reasonable amount of time for you? I really want to know. Give me an actual number.
That is a pretty bold statement about solving a non-trivial computer science problem. I'm sure your patches will be accepted if you have a solution. I think the problem is that you assume that increasing the blocksize fixes the problem. I imagine a future where all manner of services that are currently ad-supported or subscription-based might instead be payed for with bitcoin microtransactions, seamlessly and transparently. There could be millions, or maybe even billions of transactions per day from all these page views/minutes of video/etc. - vastly more than even Visa handles at peak capacity. And add to that all the microtransactions that might be generated by devices on the Internet of Things, that none of us know the extent or nature of yet. I don't see how increasing blocksize will handle this. Even data-center sized nodes may not be able to handle all those microtransactions. I don't claim to know what the answer is, but I am pretty sure that block-size alone won't do it - and lurching down that path in a non-judicious way could lead to permanent problems that will be painful to work around in the long term, after a real solution is found. |
|
|
|
"Lost" Bitcoin XT was around well before BIP-101 and, those that found it useful (of whom I am not one, FWIW) will no doubt continue to use some incarnation of it, whatever happens. Meanwhile, BIP-101 is out there and has forced the issue of actually addressing the blocksize instead of hoping nobody notices that we're heading toward a brick wall and the guy who runs the repair shop has not been servicing the brakes. Before you declare "won" or "lost" be sure you know which game you're playing. If you want to reply to BTCDrak, you should probably do it in the same forum he posted in. I don't know if he will read your response here. |
|
|
|
This is not a reasoned response. Just one example: "The Scaling Bitcoins conferences are not specifically about blocksize, but about how to scale bitcoin efficiently and without risk." ALL change carries a certain amount of risk. To claim that NO risk is the standard, then you are advocating NO CHANGE just as Mike Hearn has claimed. The relevant issue is whether or not the risk of increasing blocksize outweighs the risk of not doing so. The risk of waiting vs. the risk of acting in a timely manner. You should get the idea. You are just making a semantic argument. I'm sure BTCDrak did not mean literally entirely without risk, and no reasonable reader would interpret it that way. , I am not convinced that he did not literally mean it. I'm being serious. What exactly did Mr. BTCDrak do (or not do) to make you feel that way? |
|
|
|
This is not a reasoned response. Just one example: "The Scaling Bitcoins conferences are not specifically about blocksize, but about how to scale bitcoin efficiently and without risk." ALL change carries a certain amount of risk. To claim that NO risk is the standard, then you are advocating NO CHANGE just as Mike Hearn has claimed. The relevant issue is whether or not the risk of increasing blocksize outweighs the risk of not doing so. The risk of waiting vs. the risk of acting in a timely manner. You should get the idea. You are just making a semantic argument. I'm sure BTCDrak did not mean literally entirely without risk, and no reasonable reader would interpret it that way. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
