Why not just decide an acceptable rate of growth for the blockchain per annum, limit block sizes accordingly, assume all blocks will potentially be completely filled up, and be done with it?
This seems to directly address the fundamental issue (the concern about too much data in the block chain).
no that would be deflationary. we need to cut the block size in half every 8 years, its creates incentives for the miner to only include huge fee transactions. |
|
|
|
Are you seriously saying that you should be able to commit violence on anyone you want without repercussions?
i did not say that. i expect repercussions and thats why i don't do violence(im forced not to do violence, by thread of violence). It's impossible to reason with these guys, kokjo. They've got it jammed into their heads that the "one line" non-aggression 'principle' is the holy grail of laws. They keep playing out the same illogical debating style: - Non An-Cap person disputes X for whatever reason (e.g.: that in practice the NAP would be just like government laws, but with trigger-happy lynch mobs in charge who have no respect for fair trails or due process, or literacy for that matter.)
- An-Cap person responds with an appeal to hypocrisy. Despite "the one" NAP being summarised in a lengthy Wikipedia page, they cherry-pick a snippet from Myrkul's personal interpretation, point to it and say things like "are you seriously suggesting that you would prefer to be violent? Because if you reject 'X' that means you must be in favour of 'Y'."
- Whenever the non-An-Cap person responds, the An-Cap person -- instead of defending the NAP -- again goes on the attack. They basically believe that governments are universally bad, and that the NAP is universally good or (or at least much better). And when the NAP is deified like that, you know they could never be 'convinced'. They've made up their mind and their
opinion perma-view is final! I think the term "calcified mind" fits nicely (thanks Myrkul!)
+10 ! |
|
|
|
To be honest the thread has really run its course. My only goal was to get a response from someone in the dev community to address this issue. It was done and everyone should be clear by now what can be put in the blockchain. This thread should be closed by a mod.
your goal?! this is not your thread. |
|
|
|
No, nobody's going to be crying in a corner. Except maybe you. Because you are a bad person, and you should feel bad about that, you evil, parasitic, lazy, immoral bastard.
you too. (im soon gona hit the ignore button, nothing constructive is coming from you going ad hominem) |
|
|
|
How did it go from "Stefan Molyneux has Lymphoma" to this?
The troll twins, blablahblah and kokjo. mostly blablahblah... |
|
|
|
if i lived in a NAP based society i would feel that a gun was pressed against my head, while telling me that violence and threat of violence is bad. and that is hypocritical.
the state is at least honest about their use of violence.
The opinions of crazed folk who want to commit violence and are only prevented from doing so by threat of force is of no value here. +1 and i could say the exact same thing about you. you wants to give people a destructive amount of freedom, no good man. |
|
|
|
if i lived in a NAP based society i would feel that a gun was pressed against my head, while telling me that violence and threat of violence is bad. and that is hypocritical.
the state is at least honest about their use of violence.
The opinions of crazed folk who want to commit violence and are only prevented from doing so by threat of force is of no value here. okay. go over in the corner and cry, because im a bad person. if i lived in a NAP based society i would feel that a gun was pressed against my head, while telling me that violence and threat of violence is bad. and that is hypocritical.
the state is at least honest about their use of violence.
The state is people. People are either honest, or they are not. Thus you will either be in a state of honest people, or in a NAP community of honest people. The end result regarding feeling threatened will be the same. nope. the state are able to achieve a higher sense of honesty then the sum of its citizens. |
|
|
|
you can't compare them on that point. bitcoin's consumption of energy is useful and constructive, while Decrits' is just destructive. not good man not good. |
|
|
|
|
if i lived in a NAP based society i would feel that a gun was pressed against my head, while telling me that violence and threat of violence is bad. and that is hypocritical.
the state is at least honest about their use of violence.
|
|
|
|
Are you seriously saying that you should be able to commit violence on anyone you want without repercussions?
i did not say that. i expect repercussions and thats why i don't do violence(im forced not to do violence, by thread of violence). I see, if the cops didn't stop you, you would commit violence on your fellow human beings. Only the state cops can prevent you, and if it ain't state cops, you'll go out and commit unprovoked attacks. You suck. i would not. but i would have a choice(FREEDOM!!!). |
|
|
|
Are you seriously saying that you should be able to commit violence on anyone you want without repercussions?
i did not say that. i expect repercussions and thats why i don't do violence(im forced not to do violence, by thread of violence). |
|
|
|
In theory this is not a protocol change, but in practice it is.
Miners running this fork of the software will not only not process small transactions, but they will not even relay them. Which means that miners running legitimate clients will not be able to process small transactions because these transactions will never be relayed to them.
Bitcoin is no longer sufficiently divisible to be the global currency. This really changes the potential maximum valuation.
Anyone blaming Satoshi's Dice is not contributing to the conversation. The block size is limited to 1 MB, which is not too big. If you don't want SD transactions in the chain feel free to out-compete them by making transactions with larger fees.
fuck you! you should not decide what my computer send and what it does not send. if i don't want to relay transactions under a certain value, i don't relay them. fork the client, and stop crying. |
|
|
|
Then how can you support the state, given how likely it is that "bad" people will gain positions of power, and oppress the "good" minority?
democracy. So, you want to guarantee that the "bad" majority will oppress the "good" minority? can't beat them, join them. In other words, you include yourself in that "bad" majority. and it would then be "good".  So now you're part of the "good" majority. Since most people are "good," and the odds of winning a fight are equal between the "good" and "bad," What problem do you have with arming everyone? i don't like bad people to have guns, they are much harder to kill if they have them. |
|
|
|
|
pay taxes or be put in jail, not really a choice...
respect the NAP or die, again not really a choice...
they are at least equally bad, and NAP might be worse.
|
|
|
|
There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint. [/quote] [/quote] but its not at gunpoint. if you are saying that the state forces me at gunpoint to pay my taxes. i can say that you at gunpoint is forcing me to respect NAP. and they are therefor both equally bad. |
|
|
|
|
so all you people are talking about financial freedom and how banks are evil, but are not willing to accept simple supply and demand?
shut up whines! and just include a fee.
|
|
|
|
I agree that there are circumstances where i would be willing to commit acts of aggression. As i said non-aggression is not an moral imperative for me, it is just one of my preferences. Sometimes stronger more pressing preferences over-ride that one. (i think this is where myrkul and myself part ways) It is a moral imperative for me, but there are times when I would, for pragmatic reasons, violate someone's rights so as to prevent greater harm. Stealing a boat to save a drowning victim, for instance. The difference is, I would then attempt to compensate the boat owner for my theft, acknowledging that I have wronged him. oh my hero. |
|
|
|
Then how can you support the state, given how likely it is that "bad" people will gain positions of power, and oppress the "good" minority?
democracy. So, you want to guarantee that the "bad" majority will oppress the "good" minority? can't beat them, join them. In other words, you include yourself in that "bad" majority. and it would then be "good". |
|
|
|
Then how can you support the state, given how likely it is that "bad" people will gain positions of power, and oppress the "good" minority?
democracy. So, you want to guarantee that the "bad" majority will oppress the "good" minority? can't beat them, join them. |
|
|
|
good too, but in the movies its always the good guys that wins. in reality i would say that its 50/50, which sucks.
OK, let's take that assumption. In an armed conflict, the good guys win half the time, the bad guys win the other half. Do you think that there are more bad guys, or good? mostly egotistic idiots. Do you think that there are more bad guys, or good? most bad. Then how can you support the state, given how likely it is that "bad" people will gain positions of power, and oppress the "good" minority? democracy. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
