But you have again sidestepped the question:
Why do you think non-mining validator count has any bearing on a measurement of 'economic majority'?
I did not sidestep the question. I answered you before and I will give you the same answer again. The network needs non-mining full nodes to economically enforce the rules on the miners, and the more the better to make the network more resilient. If there are no non-mining full nodes running in the network, then we only have a network with the miners making their own rules. You may think you have not sidestepped the question, but you certainly have not answered it. Nothing in your paragraph about needing non-mining nodes says anything whatsoever about the economic majority. I will try one last time to rephrase. If you answer with yet another non-sequitur, then I am done with this conversation. Why do you think that the number of non-mining validators is a measure of the economic majority? Because if each real user and each real merchant ran a Bitcoin full validating node, it is, because they all validate and enforce the rules. If they did not run one for reasons like "the only nodes that matter are the mining nodes" then what is stopping the miners from changing the rules? But you are sidestepping my question too. Why do you believe that a higher count of non-mining nodes have no bearing on the network? Would it not centralize all power towards miners if there are no non-mining full nodes? No. I have answered many of your questions. I am not answering this new one until you address the question I have repeatedly posed to you. Which you have not. "If." if if if. Not an answer. Yet another non-sequitur. Tell me a reason you believe that a measure of non-mining validators is in any way a measure of economic majority. |
|
|
|
I researched Puerto Rico quite thoroughly a while ago. I think it ended up being 0% capital gains taxes all the way around.
The problem is, you still pay full capital gains taxes on anything you've purchased up to the point of becoming a resident. It's only the capital gains taxes you accrue after becoming a resident that are tax free.
Takes half-year+1day to establish residency. Not too onerous, for someone sitting on a pile of cap gains. Not by half. But you still have to pay taxes on those capital gains. Only the capital gains you accrue after officially becoming a resident become tax free. I believe that you are incorrect. As long as you have not had a taxable event (i.e. cashed out), your cost basis is irrelevant. If you think I am mistaken, a cite would be helpful. |
|
|
|
But you have again sidestepped the question:
Why do you think non-mining validator count has any bearing on a measurement of 'economic majority'?
I did not sidestep the question. I answered you before and I will give you the same answer again. The network needs non-mining full nodes to economically enforce the rules on the miners, and the more the better to make the network more resilient. If there are no non-mining full nodes running in the network, then we only have a network with the miners making their own rules. You may think you have not sidestepped the question, but you certainly have not answered it. Nothing in your paragraph about needing non-mining nodes says anything whatsoever about the economic majority. I will try one last time to rephrase. If you answer with yet another non-sequitur, then I am done with this conversation. Why do you think that the number of non-mining validators is a measure of the economic majority? |
|
|
|
Upon closer inspection it appears that it only defers taxes for 8 years and then reduces them by a paltry 15%.
I don't think that is true: (c) Special rule for investments held for at least 10 years
In the case of any investment held by the taxpayer for at least 10 years and with respect to which the taxpayer makes an election under this clause, the basis of such property shall be equal to the fair market value of such investment on the date that the investment is sold or exchanged.Of course, IANAL. I don't understand how this interacts with the 2026 date. |
|
|
|
I researched Puerto Rico quite thoroughly a while ago. I think it ended up being 0% capital gains taxes all the way around.
The problem is, you still pay full capital gains taxes on anything you've purchased up to the point of becoming a resident. It's only the capital gains taxes you accrue after becoming a resident that are tax free.
Takes half-year+1day to establish residency. Not too onerous, for someone sitting on a pile of cap gains. Not by half. |
|
|
|
Thanks for that. From the FAQ, it appears that one may be a passive investor in a Qualified Opportunity Fund, and get all the tax benefits of creating your own business in an Opportunity Zone. The benefit I see here is that one Bitcoiner who has a great idea for a biz on an OZ, but requiring more capital, may be able to bring in other Bitcoiners with no particular entrepreneurial spirit in as silent partners, and all would gain the tax advantages. From the FAQ: Q. Do I need to live in an Opportunity Zone to take advantage of the tax benefits?
A. No. You can get the tax benefits, even if you don’t live, work or have a business in an Opportunity Zone. All you need to do is invest in a Qualified Opportunity Fund. |
|
|
|
Or I go die alone on an island in middle of nowhere. Perhaps a floating island. Though I won't be alone. There will be others who want to swim out past the breakers and watch the world die.
But you'll still be living with our ghosts... |
|
|
|
Are we talking about representation of the economic majority by running full nodes or economic power?
No. The economic majority wields economic power. My fault for introducing a new term, albeit meant to be a synonym. But you have again sidestepped the question: Why do you think non-mining validator count has any bearing on a measurement of 'economic majority'? |
|
|
|
it is only a matter of time before the difficulty drives away all GPU miners.
You say that as if it is a bad thing. While it is unfortunate for those that have bought GPUs to mine, it is good for the system as a whole. We will not have this issue.
You have had it before. To the extent that your coin retains or gains value, it will likely have it again. |
|
|
|
No. I never claimed that "only miners should run nodes". I never said you did. But maybe I assumed that you agreed with it because you support Roger Ver, Craig Wright, and Bitcoin Cash. You know what I find hilarious? The apparent OCD need that small blockers have to insert personalities such as Roger and Craig (and the other favorite boogieman, whom you missed - Jihan) into every conversation about Bitcoin Cash. I do not 'support' such personalities. Their existence is completely irrelevant to my 'support' of Bitcoin Cash, which I support for its superior properties. Just. Get. Over. It. Sorry. But do you believe that only miners should run full nodes?
No. I believe that nobody should be barred from running non-mining validators. As an example, I am not a miner, and I run a non-mining validator. Several actually. But I am not laboring under any false pretense that my running of these non-mining validators brings any benefit to the Bitcoin network. They might benefit me as an end user in my ability to transact purely permissionlessly, but they do nothing for the network as a whole. And again, you have not answered the question:
Why do you think non-mining validator count has any bearing on a measurement of 'economic majority'?
Because it gives the economic majority, merchants, exchanges and users all together to enforce the rules of the network. Do you believe you have answered the question with the statement above? Because you have not. I don't know whether you are being intentionally obtuse, or if you are just suffering some cognitive dissonance. Let me try again. There is a concept of 'economic power' it is measured in actual holdings of Bitcoin (whether BTC or BCH as appropriate per network) - fundamentally, after stripping away all the bullshit, this is a scalar quantity. There is also an absolute count of the number of non-mining validators - another integer. The question is: Why do you think that knowledge of the integer number of non-mining validators has anything whatsoever to do with the integer that is a measure of economic power? |
|
|
|
Currently there is no need for 9 billion people to open a single Lightning Network channel. When the need arises, the protocol will evolve and scale as necessary, and in ways smarter than a mere change of a constant in a piece of code.
Don't confuse 'smarter' with 'cleverer'. The users care about the user experience, not the grandiosity of the underlying complexity. |
|
|
|
Bbut... but Anon, it's like when you want a car engine to 'scale' to higher horsepower and speed, the most straightforward way is to simply add more cylinders! V32 engines for everyone so we can get places faster, amiright? /s
Stupid analogy is stupid. If you want a transportation analogy, a closer analog would be passenger demand for a certain train route exceeding capacity solved by adding more passenger cars to the train. Still a stupid analogy, but an order of magnitude closer to the situation at hand. |
|
|
|
I see your logic.
At least there is that. Thank you. 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.
Reevaluation is constant and ongoing. I’m quite happy with my current position. I am hedged to survive an implosion of either BCH or BTC. I might posit that it is (the collective) you who might be getting a bit ahead of yourself. Lightning Network currently consists of somewhere on the order of 2050 participants, with a total value merely sufficient to purchase a single pretty nice house in most markets - in the aggregate. This is nowhere near the scale necessary to support the promised conveyance of all the world’s financial transactions. Nay, this is merely the scale of an early prototype proof of concept. And what about that permissionless, anonymous, trustless, decentralized routing issue? “The probability of a successful payment operation with no more than a few dollars is 70 percent, while the success rate for a payment of less than $200 is 1 percent.” (disclosure: quote is a month old - maybe things have improved since then?) Fact of the matter, a working LN — as per the shared vision — relies upon fundamental invention in networking theory that isn’t even currently on the horizon. Further, I see no evidence that anybody is investigating things in any direction that might lead us to such a unicorn. Meanwhile, we have the Core faithful expounding as GWB on the deck of some aircraft carrier, crowing ‘Mission Accomplished’. We Just Ain’t There Yet. Sure, some of these issues — leadingly aggregate volume and transactional capacity — will work themselves out with time, toil, and treasure. But the routing may never be solved. So, no. Shoulda done the simple block size increase first. Oh well, at least I have beeee cash. What's in your wallet? |
|
|
|
You explain to me how 9 billion people are able to merely open a single Lightning Network channel in under three decades
Sure. Again that's just simple math (the thing that bcashers don't seem to be able to do). Though for an apples to apples comparison to what I said before we would need 3.5 billion people to open a single lightning channel. 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 exactly what we have right now! Of course I did. That is exactly the point. Onboarding the world to LN will take on the order of three decades. And that is merely for each person to fund a single channel - once and only once. Sure, by combining channel openings for multiple people into single transactions you can cut down this multi-generational time figure. You'll need to work out the UX issues first. Obviously, lacking innovations not yet envisioned, larger blocks will be needed. In the meantime, bigger blocks is the easy solution. In industrial-class engineering, the simple thing is done before the complicated thing. Period. And as long as block size stays ahead of adoption, there are no untoward effects. This is what the big blockers understand. |
|
|
|
Perhaps I oversimplified my idea? The seastead dwellings would not be assembled in an O-zone;
No, I was being simple minded. infofront, at least, caught it. The O-zone (numa numa) reference pertains to a romanian band which had an extremely popular hit single called "Dragostea din tei" which was referred to as the "Numa Numa" song in the US. It was the only other time i had seen the term O-zone; perhaps i'm alone in that respect.
Well, I'm still lost here, though it seems tangential to your point. |
|
|
|
So why don't you take your "response to the ratio of the time derivative of adoption to the time derivative of technology's capacity for transactions blah blah blah" and shove it up your arse.
Because it sounds like an unpleasant experience. |
|
|
|
Haha. You found a few play projects. Most of my code is not open source. And most of my FOSS stuff was written before git was conceived , let alone github. The point of the initial comment is that JJG, in his/her technical ignorance, is in no position to judge the capability of various engineers. Let alone his/her making of blanket statements about a group of folk, without even being able to identify one or two of said group. |
|
|
|
They probably could not code their way out of a wet paper bag
Haha. There's a better than 50-50 chance that your computer -- yes the very one on which you are writing your ignorant missive -- is utterly dependent upon my code. What have you coded, JJG? In the interest of full disclosure, it should be admitted that I have not contributed code to any cryptocurrency project. What code did you write? Figure it out. Others (presumably) lesser than you have had no problem in discerning. |
|
|
|
They probably could not code their way out of a wet paper bag
Haha. There's a better than 50-50 chance that your computer -- yes the very one on which you are writing your ignorant missive -- is utterly dependent upon my code. What have you coded, JJG? In the interest of full disclosure, it should be admitted that I have not contributed code to any cryptocurrency project. |
|
|
|
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?
You merely misunderstand the ratio of the time derivative of adoption to the time derivative of technology's capacity for transactions. 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. With all due respect, blah blah blah. You explain to me how 9 billion people are able to merely open a single Lightning Network channel in under three decades, and we have the start of a conversation*. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke. AAR, you are certainly not responding to the ratio of the time derivative of adoption to the time derivative of technology's capacity for transactions. *and then we can move on to the more interesting topic of how permissionless, pseudonymous routing can be done in a network where participants can come and go as they please |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
