It doesn't take much brains to figure out why the speed of increase of avg block has accelerated from days where Bitcoin had 10,000 users and how it projects to pickup even more speed as adoption and awareness grows.
"Supply creates its own demand"
This is false. The growth rate of the average block size was fastest in early 2011. Well that sort of makes sense considering it started from barely anything but the point still stand. Do you propose the growth rate of blocksize to decrease with time. I'm pretty convinced it won't until we start serving half of the transactions on earth (if we do insist on keeping them all on blockchain) I propose it will grow somewhere between the HIGH and the MODERATE curves in this chart (that I feel I've posted ten times recently):  This would be a very good thing! I find that quite bearish actually  It took Paypal more or less 15 years to get to where they're at. 9 more years for Bitcoin to get there? I propose this is quite unlikely Consider that some of the industry heads many of you have used to support your positions believe Bitcoin could turn into the reserve currency of the world within the next 10 years. Guess we're shit out of luck if that happens heh |
|
|
|
Side chains are certainly altcoins.
Maybe in your universe. Lol how are they not? They are essentially watered down versions of Bitcoin lol with a separate block chain. Sidechains are not altcoins, nor are they "watered down," nor are their block chain's "seperate." Do you guys know what the phrase "TWO WAY PEG" means?  Yes, something that is impossible. Ask the SNB (down) or PBOC (up). There is a world of difference between an economic peg (fiat) and a technical peg (sidechains) |
|
|
|
It doesn't take much brains to figure out why the speed of increase of avg block has accelerated from days where Bitcoin had 10,000 users and how it projects to pickup even more speed as adoption and awareness grows.
"Supply creates its own demand"
This is false. The growth rate of the average block size was fastest in early 2011. Well that sort of makes sense considering it started from barely anything but the point still stand. Do you propose the growth rate of blocksize to decrease with time. I'm pretty convinced it won't until we start serving half of the transactions on earth (if we do insist on keeping them all on blockchain) |
|
|
|
Increasing the limit does not mean that blocks will be that size immediately. He doesnt really define the scales he is talking about. Satoshi's 1mb limit was an order of magnitude greater than the average block size of the time. 5 years later we are only getting near to it. Yet there has been no talk of security risk up to this? It doesn't take much brains to figure out why the speed of increase of avg block has accelerated from days where Bitcoin had 10,000 users and how it projects to pickup even more speed as adoption and awareness grows. "Supply creates its own demand" |
|
|
|
Without a hard block cap, a pool could send millions of small transactions(spam - with a transaction fee too low for other pools) and mine it in their own block. Thus increasing the propagation time and having a small edge on their own mining for the next block. Just a thought, that came to my head a minute ago.
Could this really cause problems in that scenario ?
Publishing a large block has a cost to the miner. I tried to illustrate this effect in Fig. 8:*skip* Even with a propagation impedance of 2 sec/MB (which I'm confident is faster than the present network average), it still costs 1,000 BTC to produce a single 1 GB spam block. Indeed, you get a small head start on the next block but it won't balance out the orphan cost. Furthermore, other miners can SPV mine on your block header (while downloading and verifying the rest of the block) to take away this advantage. Thank you Peter, it's always a great pleasure to read your posts. But I just don't understand the cost of 1000 BTC for a 1 GB spam block. In my example a mining pool could create the spam on their own and include the transactions in their own block, thus mining their own transaction fees. This action should cost them almost nothing. (But when mining just on the block header works without any disadvantages, then this is anyway a non issue.) It costs them 1000 BTC because, according to the laws of statistics, they would have to attempt it 40 times before one "stuck." On average, a 1 GB block (at 2 sec/MB) will be orphaned 39 out of 40 times. Does that make sense? This is still true with SPV mining. Say the other miners receive the header for my spam block slightly before they received a smaller block in full. As soon as they receive the smaller block in full, they'll switch to mining on this one because there's a 100% chance that that block is valid while my spam block is risky because it could include an invalid TX. I'm curious how this holds in a scenario where block propagation is constant because of inverted bloom filters? |
|
|
|
TIL theymos represents and speak for all "small blockers"
Sorry, you quoted my text before I changed it to "r/bitcoin mods" to be more accurate. Doesn't change anything. You people's insistance on misrepresentating, or outright ignoring, your "enemy",their count and their resources is what may lead you to your downfall. I expect a smart guy like you to recognize the small, yet powerful and knowledgeable minority that is above or simply don't have time for the childish arguments and posturing of reddit and the seemingly one sided debates occuring on every forums of discussion. Reddit mob making a lot of noise doesn't make their opinion more valuable I'm getting interested to know what planet you are living on. Is it one of those Earth II's recently found by NASA, or is it a strange alternate reality that you inhabit where economics works in reverse, and the smaller a minority is the more it can rightfully claim the moral and intellectual high ground regardless of any other opinions? I live in a place where we are mostly careful about pretending that our own little circlejerk is a just representation of what the world looks like. The problem in your little zanity is you are convinced that reddit and this forum is a reasonable approximation of the community's opinion. The barriers of entry here and there being extremely low, everyone and their sheep can voice their "opinion" and claim it to be as valuable as any others when realistically there couldn't be anything further from the truth. |
|
|
|
TIL theymos represents and speak for all "small blockers"
Sorry, you quoted my text before I changed it to "r/bitcoin mods" to be more accurate. Doesn't change anything. You people's insistance on misrepresentating, or outright ignoring, your "enemy",their count and their resources is what may lead you to your downfall. I expect a smart guy like you to recognize the small, yet powerful and knowledgeable minority that is above or simply don't have time for the childish arguments and posturing of reddit and the seemingly one sided debates occuring on every forums of discussion. Reddit mob making a lot of noise doesn't make their opinion more valuable There is no enemy, just a few egos trying to pick a fight. The facts are there for everyone to review, for the lessor people they can follow loud egos where ever they are. I supposed you have censused every Bitcoin owner to be able to present that as fact? |
|
|
|
TIL theymos represents and speak for all "small blockers"
Sorry, you quoted my text before I changed it to "r/bitcoin mods" to be more accurate. Doesn't change anything. You people's insistance on misrepresentating, or outright ignoring, your "enemy",their count and their resources is what may lead you to your downfall. I expect a smart guy like you to recognize the small, yet powerful and knowledgeable minority that is above or simply don't have time for the childish arguments and posturing of reddit and the seemingly one sided debates occuring on every forums of discussion. Reddit mob making a lot of noise doesn't make their opinion more valuable |
|
|
|
It feels to me like a major shift occurred today. It was caused in part by Gavin and Mike completing the patch to support larger block sizes, but I think it was actually caused more so by a foolish move made on the battlefield. In an act of desperation, the small blockers threw their swords. What do I mean by "throwing one's sword?" I'll have to explain it with a story about my childhood… ...The town I grew up in (about an hour outside of Vancouver) seemed perfectly normal to me as a kid, but when I look back now, it was actually pretty rough. It was home to hundreds of Hell's Angels and it served as a sort of distribution center in the drug trade. Anyways, there were lots of fights between groups of boys when I was growing up. I was never really a part of it, but I was fascinated and paid attention to the dynamics of the process. One strange behaviour I witnessed was that the last act of the losing faction of boys was always to throw their weapons. It was such a stupid thing to do, because the baseball bat or hockey stick would rarely hit the intended target, and in the few times that it did, it would be travelling at such a reduced velocity that the impact imparted to the victim was superficial at best. And then the weaponless boys would get their butts kicked. It turns out that this is a sort of a natural human reaction to severe stress. As a last resort, we throw whatever we have left and hope for the best. In the movies, it always works; in real life, the opposite is true. Of course the weapon of a mod is censorship. Today was the day that the mods at /r/bitcoin threw their weapons. TIL theymos represents and speak for all "small blockers" Meanwhile you can have a look here at the reaction of actual "small blockers" : http://log.bitcoin-assets.com/hint : not a care in the world |
|
|
|
Big middle finger to iCEBLOW, brg444, tvbcof, and MOA:  You know I couldn't wait for this one heh  Market reaction to XT fork   |
|
|
|
This is very likely fake but imagine the butthurt on reddit if Satoshi came out against block increase |
|
|
|
It would be nice if Satoshi would weigh in on the debate now that it has come to a head with Mike's release of XT. The last time he did was in response to the media potentially using the Dorian Nakamoto story to discredit Bitcoin in a big way. This issue seems more pressing.
I'm sure he's out there watching closely. Maybe his silence says it all.
That was a hoax - someone having a laugh using an account that had become dormant and hackable. Another hoax? http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.htmlBring out the popcorn |
|
|
|
It would be nice if Satoshi would weigh in on the debate now that it has come to a head with Mike's release of XT. The last time he did was in response to the media potentially using the Dorian Nakamoto story to discredit Bitcoin in a big way. This issue seems more pressing.
I'm sure he's out there watching closely. Maybe his silence says it all.
Satoshi returning to weigh in on ANY debate is the WORST possible outcome and would do nothing but reinforce lazy appeals to authority. |
|
|
|
Brg444, what do you think of my last response to your comment about moving the block size limit out of the consensus layer?
It is an interesting idea but I'm still thinking it through. Should get you a reply by this weekend. As a quick thought: I'm worried about centralization issue. (yes :/) First thought is what you are proposing could effectively creates an arm race in mining and node connectivity which will most likely prove to be out of reach of regular users. Possibly centralizing these nodes farms & miners geographically because of internet politics. Thanks for the feedback. Again, I think this illustrates an ideological difference between us. I read what you wrote as: "By making it easier for node operators to exercise the power they already have (i.e., they can already increase their block size limit), I'm worried that the network as a whole would make a worse decision balancing centralization with Blockchain access than the decision a group of talented developers would make." Then I presume you will not support Bitcoin XT? |
|
|
|
...Peter R had his own transactions version. That seemed like it could work back in 2014. In both cases I believe we've seen at least 100% increases while the market cap has not quite followed.
I'm curious what both charts would look right about now but I'm afraid it would invalidate both theories. The reason might be that no one knows exactly how to quantify the amount of users in the network.
Sure.   Brg444, what do you think of my last response to your comment about moving the block size limit out of the consensus layer? It is an interesting idea but I'm still thinking it through. Should get you a reply by this weekend. As a quick thought: I'm worried about centralization issue. (yes :/) First thought is what you are proposing could effectively creates an arm race in mining and node connectivity which will most likely prove to be out of reach of regular users. Possibly centralizing these nodes farms & miners geographically because of internet politics. |
|
|
|
...Peter R had his own transactions version. That seemed like it could work back in 2014. In both cases I believe we've seen at least 100% increases while the market cap has not quite followed.
I'm curious what both charts would look right about now but I'm afraid it would invalidate both theories. The reason might be that no one knows exactly how to quantify the amount of users in the network.
Sure. Brg444, what do you think of my last response to your comment about moving the block size limit out of the consensus layer? It is an interesting idea but I'm still thinking it through. Should get you a reply by this weekend. |
|
|
|
Not at all. It's not hard to understand really..
The thing holding other crypto back is the amount of capital people are willing to trust to them. Not necessarily the amount of users. The increasing ecosystem size is a result of capital, speculative or not, being stored into Bitcoin. As far as the nature of the speculation this is beside the point which is that Bitcoin is not used, as we speak, as a medium of exchange to purchase goods or services.
People are not buying Bitcoin because the number of transactions or users is seemingly increasing. They are buying because it attracts wealth unlike what most other coins can claim.
I've stated this repeatedly but I honestly believe it to be true: we are talking about a money protocol, a money network effect. the unit concerned is not number of users but amount of capital.
Think of it like this : if the 1% of the world's population who apparently controls around 40% of the world's wealth moved that money into Bitcoin it would do more to strengthen & grow the ecosystem than if 25% of the other people on earth invested all of their savings.
Capital flowing into Bitcoin is absolutely about expected future growth, in users, transactions, market cap, and in usefulness. Hard for me to comprehend how you can even divorce these metrics. Remaining the domain of 10,000 geeks sitting on hordes of coins in paper wallets, occasionally trading some back and forth with each other... means failure to me. Not that it would fail to work, but that it would fail to reach its potential. This is not to say that user/transaction growth is some kind of panacea to be pursued at all costs, just that it shouldn't be ignored. Yes. And much like the others your mischaracterize the only growth we are really concerned about : market cap, or how much of the fiat economy we have absorbed. As I've said previously I couldn't care less if it comes from the pockets of the 1% or the 99%. More fiat capital trusting Bitcoin as money is exactly how it grows until it consumes all of wealth in the world. Users, transactions are secondary. They will follow the money because like any thing worth a lot in this world people will want a piece of it. Velocity of transactions will pickup once an actual Bitcoin economy develops. Meanwhile people will hoard Bitcoin and get rid of fiat. Some might not agree but this is pretty much Gresham's law in action. While you may not consider them "panacea to be pursued at all costs", others have outright stated this is the ONLY goal to be pursuing and that it should be done as quickly as possible. They would like to run Bitcoin like a startup. This is IMO the wrong way to go about it. You say I mischaracterize the importance of market cap growth, I say I simply try to describe some of the forces behind market cap. Do you see a scenario where market cap goes up while the number of users, transactions, applications, and merchants... goes down? I did not say anything about your characterization of market cap but of growth. Or more precisely, the driver of growth. No I don't see a scenario where that happens. What I am observing though is market cap going up and users, transactions and merchants following. So AAPL's market cap growth is a feedback loop in which it ultimately consumes the entirety of global wealth... before bitcoin! Yikes!  Is AAPL competing with fiat as money? Sorry but that's such a stupid thing to say. I'm sure you can do better than this... Let me ask you. Did the current 1B$ ecosystem investment, equivalent billion dollar mining infrastructure, incremental userbase and increasing transactions come about before or after the price increase? You wouldn't argue the other way around would you? Just so you know brg444 the market cap is not a valid metric, its a shortcut to understanding the value stored in bitcoin, its not a leading metric but a wagging tail, here oda.krell illustrates the point nicely. unfortunately the real insight was only intended for those who pay attention it's been deleted on porous :-( . While that is a perfectly valid observation. Market cap is at least the most precise indicator of historic growth in the value of network we have at hand. Not users, not nodes, not transactions.
So as you can see selling 1% of Bitcoin has a distorting ability to reduce the market cap by a whopping 96.23% (and this is the metric you feel is the most accurate metric to measure bitcoin's value and growth?) So in other words if Satoshi tried to liquidate 20% of his holdings he would reduce the value of the remaining 80% by about 99.62%. the reason big holders are holding is because of game theory, market cap is not the metric invested interests are watching, its a mirage.
For how long? From what I understand the issue you are describing is a lack of liquidity in the market and poor information on actual trades. With time this supply will be absorbed by the market until equilibrium is reached again. I do appreciate the point you are making and it is true that as it stands the price signal is not necessarily clear enough to make it a valid indicator of the network value. Price discovery still? I'm not sure why your strokethrough "nodes" though. I don't see any way you could suggest they are somewhat an indicator of network growth... |
|
|
|
Every intimation that put gold in front of bitcoin is a pure speculation. Are separate entities that have totally different duties. It is enough to tell that gold is not currencies (and never will be) and that bitcoin is currency (even not full as such by some) and maybe will be a reserve toll. Being totally different make them incomparable. So put in one thread both of them with the intent to compare those with each other is not correct in my point of view.
Bitcoin picked up gold's duty which it could never successfully fulfill anyway. You haven't been paying any attention if you actually attempt to step into this thread and claim with any credibility that gold and Bitcoin are totally different? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
