surely Bitcoin could displace fiat.  it might not have to to become highly successful.  nor might it even be desired.  but surely it could.

if every person in the world used Bitcoin, that would be the ultimate in decentralization.  surely not ubiquitous full node implementation.

Crappy but rather illuminating. Such bullshit.

Is 8mb better than no limit? I don't know and I don't care much ( ) :  I think Bitcoin adoption is a slow, hard process and we'll be lucky to increase average usage 8x over the next couple of years. So if 8mb+ is better for others, that's OK by me.

if everyone on the planet were using Bitcoin, it's not hard to imagine that most merchants would be running their own full nodes for security and fiduciary responsibility reasons.  also, gvts and banks would probably being doing it too and that wouldn't be a bad thing given that there would be 100,000 worldwide run by a diversity of gvts, banks, and everyone else.   taking it down to the individual, maybe it won't be practical but maybe it will assuming the price of Bitcoin increases proportionately making the cost of such a thing similar to what it is today in USD.  and then there is always pruning.  i'm not worried about enough decentralized full nodes at all.

most merchants would be running their own full nodes for security and fiduciary responsibility reasons.  also, gvts and banks would probably being doing it too and that wouldn't be a bad thing given that there would be 100,000 worldwide run by a diversity of gvts, banks, and everyone else.

gvts, banks, and everyone else.

well yeah.  given that it was my theoretical argument, yes, i get to define the conditions.  but those aren't unreasonable conditions i've defined.  all i'm assuming is that the motivations behind user growth and running full nodes don't change from what they are today:  users use Bitcoin b/c it's cheap, apolitical, a SOV, and relatively easy to use and access; full nodes are run by volunteer enthusiasts, merchants, tech oriented ppl & early adopters.  all i'm doing is extrapolating those conditions forward towards a world where 100,000 full nodes and every person in the world using Bitcoin would clearly be a way more valuable and secure decentralized system than the reverse.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WL3Zf_-knL4
I can watch this video all day.
How stupid can you be to buy in this ponzi scam.
Isnt this illegal?
Fucking sad.

I kinda agree with you... When I started learning about Bitcoin I was also like: "Fuck this is going to take over the hole universe, here you have all my worthless FIAT money..."

But the more you understand the world around bitcoin, the more you should become disillusioned about bitcoin as a competitor to the traditional finance system. It is maybe better for a online payment system... But there is no REAL problem with the traditional Kredit-Card / PayPal /Skrill / SEPA system...

Sure Bitcoin is currently cheaper from a retailer point of view but someone has to pay the system in order to maintain it. I mean if you leave out the Blockreward subvention a TX would cost about 50$...

The main things that Bitcoin offers over the traditional fiat monetary instruments are: a fixed economic base3, uninterdictable transactions and unfreezable funds, and an immutable history of all transactions that have ever taken place, secured by proof of work on the technical side and mutually-assured-destruction on the game theory side.

Bitcoinating very specifically has nothing to do with: making people rich by virtue of holding bitcoin keys, "banking the unbanked", processing as many transactions as Visa, or any of the other entirely orthogonal concerns USG muppets routinely trot out in vain attempts to undermine the thing in the way they've become accustomed to coopting other "open source" projects like GPG and OpenSSL.

You said "everyone", the link you posted said 93 of 6199. What is your problem? Tourettes syndrome?

for example; Todd has 0 pts while Gavin has 20 upvotes and MOA is just off in his own thuggish world.  i'd bet Todd has even downvotes for this by now.

To be clear, this is one of 3+ possible proposals in the works among Blockstream developers. There is no "party line" where the company can tell the developers what they should believe.

There is a lot of merit to Pieter's draft BIP. We should openly discuss it in public alongside the other draft BIP's.

Others are in favor of an entirely different approach to increasing the block size that would more in line with actual transaction demand while making no guesses about what things will look like in the future. This proposal is a bit more complex and is currently under development. I'm personally working on getting this stuff written down so it would be easier for everyone to understand, to enable developing this approach with the global developer community.

Some hope the drama can calm down to allow for a return to a constructive, collaborative technical process as is common in Open Source development. The recent environment of incivility and personal attacks has led them to be highly reluctant to agree to any controversial changes while under duress. A meta-solution in favor of bringing professionalism and academic discipline to the questions surrounding Bitcoin Scalability is currently under proposal between developers, academics and commercial stakeholders. Hopefully an announcement about this will be ready by early next week.

Greg has made it abundantly clear that he is a Bear on Bitcoin.  he should step down as a core dev.

and what's this about him not thinking Bitcoin can be used on small devices?  smartphones are KEY to Bitcoin's long term success.

i find it amusing that you bash Satoshi on the one hand but when you find a morsel quote of his (which you've misread) you latch onto it as gospel.

if you read the actual link you posted, Satoshi was talking about how Bitcoin should not be combined with BitDNS.  he's not even talking about tx's.  he wanted them to be separate with their own fates.  he also drew an extreme example of how BitDNS might want to include other huge datasets while Bitcoin might want to keep it small as an example of how the decision making might diverge btwn the two.  not that Bitcoin users wanted to keep a small blockchain.

Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.

Mike H just wrecked Eric on bitcoindev.

Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell at gmail.com
Wed Jul 29 16:53:54 UTC 2015
Previous message: [bitcoin-dev] Why Satoshi's temporary anti-spam measure isn't   temporary
Next message: [bitcoin-dev] Personal opinion on the fee market from a worried   local trader
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I do love history lessons from people who weren't actually there.

I doubt the rest of us really enjoy hearing these "lessons" from from
you where you wildly distort history to reflect your views.

> Satoshi explicitly envisioned a future where only miners ran nodes, so it
> had nothing to do with this either.

As others have pointed out-- even if this were true, --- so what?
Many errors were made early on in Bitcoin.

But in this case it's not actually true and I'm really getting fed up
with this continued self-appointment of all that the creator of the
system thought. Your position and knoweldge is not special or
priveleged compared to many of the people that you are arguing with.

It was _well_ understood while the creator of the system was around
that putting every consensus decision into the world into one system
would not scale; and also understood that the users of Bitcoin would
wish to protect its decenteralization by limiting the size of the
chain to keep it verifyable on small devices.

Don't think you can claim otherwise, because doing so is flat out wrong.

In the above statement you're outright backwards-- there was a clear
expectation that all who ran nodes would mine. The delegation of
consensus to third parties was unforseen. Presumably Bitcoin core
making mining inaccessable to users in software was also unforseen.

> Validators validate for themselves. Calculating a local UTXO set and then
> not using it for anything doesn't help anyone. SPV wallets need filtering
> and serving capability, but a computer can filter and serve the chain
> without validating it.
>
> The only purposes non-mining, non-rpc-serving, non-Qt-wallet-sustaining full
> nodes are needed for with today's network are:
[...]
> Outside of serving lightweight P2P wallets there's no purpose in running a
> P2P node if you aren't mining, or using it as a **trusted node for your own
> operations**.

You wrote a long list of activities that are actually irrelevant to
many node users with the result of burrying the main reason any party
should be running a node (emphasis mine).

The incentives of the system demand as it exist today that many other
economically significant parties run nodes in order to keep the half
dozen miners from having a blank check to do whatever they want
(including supporting their operations through inflation)-- do not
think they wouldn't, as we've seen their happy to skip verification
entirely.

(Which, incidentially, is insanely toxic to any security argument for
SPV; ---- and now we see the market failure that results from your and
Gavin years long campaign to ignore problems in the mining ecosystem:
The SPV model which you've fixated on as the true nature of bitcoin
has been demonstrated in practice to have a potentially empty security
claim.)

> Miners who don't validate have a habit of bleeding money:   that's the
> system working as designed.

The information I have currently is that the parties engaging in that
activity found it to be tremendously profitable, even including losses
from issues.

Gold is unique and was the most efficient soln for thousands of years cementing its social perception of value.  Bitcoin at 1mb is more like the iphone.  It will be outcompeted in price (efficiency) before the majority of the world was even introduced to smartphones with the obvious result that the majority of phones are android.

Obviously I know you are not in a position to effect change.   But my point is that if you were your decision to force a fee market is a centralized solution.   Real markets evolve spontaneously and in a P2P manner to address real issues.

if you just look at the chart BTC is currently for the first time really in a bullish phase...

The problem is there is nothing fundamental backing this Bull-trend up like Interest rate decision etc. pp.

Wall observer economists (but in particular in reminds me of ponzielita):

There's also this entry:

July 22, 2015 (TR-CRB)
GEMINI TRUST COMPANY, LLC
30 West 24th Street, 4th Floor, New York, New York 10010

Application for exemption from the deposit insurance requirements of Section 32 of the Banking Law received.

Uh oh. Potential fraud alert.