the whole purpose of using currency is that it has no value in itself Indeed, the great paradox of money is that the less useful it is economically, the better it is as money. This is why grains and salt gave way to silver and gold, and aided a second stage in the evolution of monetary theory: of these useless materials, the better is that which is best at being itself (i.e. durability). Paper money, of course, embodies the uselessness property almost perfectly, explaining partly it's attraction. Bitcoin comes even closer to truly useless than any other money so far, not least because economic uses for the others gradually emerged over time. I don't think you've quite grasped the consequences of this, however: the desired uselessness of money is a true and pure paradox, as it's precisely gold or fiat bill's relative uselessness that made them so useful. Hence why their value was more stable than that of the monies that came before them. Isn't that the exact opposite of what Nash is saying in his Ideal Money paper? The ideal currency would be of the highest transfer utility and that is solved by linking it to a metric that is publically auditable (GDP, energy efficiency etc) some kind of economic unit would create inflation/deflation scenario's to achieve economic stability through the monetary unit. The uselessness idea is new since the gold standard and has led us to this massive bubble where prosperity has not really been achieved because it has been on on the backs of future work. Central bank inflation targetting is asymptotically closer ideal than what gold was just because they had the ability to target inflation/deflation gauging econonmic activity, however it is nor publically auditable nor trustless and thus crypto-currency is a better and asymptotically more ideal than fiat today. Money is conceived and used as a universal good. And that's the paradox: paper with people's faces printed on is universally useless, as a good. It has no purpose. Except as money. Useful, because it's useless. However, having not read Nash (yes, I'm currently bracing myself...), it's possible that he alighted on a revolutionary idea: that in actual fact, a genuinely universal good (such as energy itself, of which all other goods are patterns of composition) is in fact ideal money. trainscarwreck?  |
|
|
|
The 95% constant segwit signaling required for activation must have been set that high for a reason. I would think it is more for a transitional security reason than for winning a popular vote contest.
Good guess. It's not security, but stability, that informed the choice of a 95% activation threshold. Specifically, stable coherency of the Bitcoin network as a whole. If the threshold were set lower, there is a risk that those miners running software that cannot handle the fork would reject blocks featuring whatever new feature the fork enables. Regular users also running pre-fork full-nodes could reject the same block too, and an actual ongoing blockchain fork could occur, totally unplanned and unwanted. The idea with soft forks is to make sure older nodes can continue to use the old feature set on the same chain as the new feature set. |
|
|
|
the whole purpose of using currency is that it has no value in itself Indeed, the great paradox of money is that the less useful it is economically, the better it is as money. This is why grains and salt gave way to silver and gold, and aided a second stage in the evolution of monetary theory: of these useless materials, the better is that which is best at being itself (i.e. durability). Paper money, of course, embodies the uselessness property almost perfectly, explaining partly it's attraction. Bitcoin comes even closer to truly useless than any other money so far, not least because economic uses for the others gradually emerged over time. I don't think you've quite grasped the consequences of this, however: the desired uselessness of money is a true and pure paradox, as it's precisely gold or fiat bill's relative uselessness that made them so useful. Hence why their value was more stable than that of the monies that came before them. |
|
|
|
But then I was worried if the fee is too high for them. I then searched the current fee to have your transaction accepted fast, and it seems to be 45,200 satoshis https://bitcoinfees.21.co/If the purpose is remittance, why would someone choose a fee so high that it gets accepted in less than 1 hour? Equivalent remittance services don't process transactions that fast. You're not comparing like with like. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin Core 0.14 will deactivate this priority mechanism. (I only read this recently, I can't find back the source, so don't hang me on it)
0.14 makes removes some parts of age-based priority from the code, 0.15 will remove all of it. 0.15 will be out sometime summer 2017. |
|
|
|
Some say that it was the Willybot.
That was attributed to the 2014 spike, not 2013's. Zero evidence was ever presented for in-house Gox trading bots, just people mindlessly repeating it. |
|
|
|
I'm considering the "none" option far more carefully, given the information you're eliciting.
Yes, which is partially intuitive to you but you didn't have the argument to really nail it down. My claim is others will agree when they hear the argument. This suggests too, that while both sides are crying of censorship and bad communication practice, both sides have drowned out the relevant argument by the old man himself. It's a very good starting point for getting people to actually come to the table and LISTEN to each other because each side is forced to concede to having some ignorance. No? Yes. It's not so much that I didn't have any arguments (although certainly not Nash's), it was more a case of disinclination to heighten the (already raucous) discord, Danda essentially makes this point. Could it be that Gavin and Mike's plan was not just to invoke a dialectic that pushes people to accept a small increase, but to blindside all to the fact that all increases are foolish? |
|
|
|
Again, calm yourself. You're not the shoutiest contingent by a long stretch, there's only 2 of you so far.
Both sides are pushing for an irrational means to an irrational ends, that's why the debate is unending. Well, as I've said, I privately preferred a more conservative blocksize increase anyway (between none and 1), 4MB was a compromise I mistakenly believed would end the debate. I'm considering the "none" option far more carefully, given the information you're eliciting. |
|
|
|
It's possible we could build community consensus around 1MB segwit. I won't be the voice in the wilderness shouting about it though, we've got enough of that as things are.
The reason we have all the shouting is because no body is basing their understanding or beliefs on the rational well founded argument which is the pursuit of a stable metric of value. Nash shows that if we guard bitcoin's qualities in the Nashian sense, then our legacy institutions will naturally levate a stable metric of value. Then all founded proposals must speak to this end. If they do not, then they do not serve the world thus they are not founded. Again, calm yourself. You're not the shoutiest contingent by a long stretch, there's only 2 of you so far. |
|
|
|
That is why we need to fight the NYDFS ....
Fighting a gangster turf protection model on it's own terms isn't going to work IMO. Either outcompete them till they beg you to return to New York, or make them permanently irrelevant. That will get their attention, but it won't matter anyway, because they'll no longer be relevant either way. |
|
|
|
carlton, speak to the REAL proposal on the table TODAY.
I was talking about something else. You have everything in your hands to tell core that they need to change their proposal to yours. It's possible we could build community consensus around 1MB segwit. I won't be the voice in the wilderness shouting about it though, we've got enough of that as things are. |
|
|
|
carlton, speak to the REAL proposal on the table TODAY.
I was talking about something else. |
|
|
|
of course it does. if it did not, there would be no debate, no soft fork proposal. any client could just do it. Or at least I am advocating against any changes to the consensus level code.
Segregated witness without tps increases doesn't change the consensus parameters. I don't know how much more plainly to say that. 1MB segwit is no problem. No. Consensus rules are not the only aspects of the protocol that forks can affect. For instance, the additional opcodes added in BIP 65 and 66 are not part of the consensus rules, but were still implemented as soft forks. Whether it's a part of consensus rules or not, certain additions need soft forks so that older versions of the client can interpret blocks made by newer clients using those additions safely, i.e. without causing hazardous network splits between old nodes and new nodes should the old nodes reject blocks with the additional features. |
|
|
|
Or at least I am advocating against any changes to the consensus level code.
Segregated witness without tps increases doesn't change the consensus parameters. I don't know how much more plainly to say that. 1MB segwit is no problem. |
|
|
|
Obviously the limit is in the codebase
And your quote from bitcoinunlimited.info contradicts that very basic fact. |
|
|
|
|
Do you understand the concept of separating the signatures into a separate block structure? The discussion relevant to your Nashian prespective is about the concept, not instantiations of the concept.
I wouldn't attempt to interest you in anything that involved tps increases, it's outside the useful bounds of this discussion, we both agree that. Segregated witness blocks need not increase tps.
|
|
|
|
I didn't cite Core's roadmap, I cited the overall concept. You're conflating the implementation with the root concept.
I'm talking about reality, the real proposal on the table, you are speaking about air/nothing. Abstract concepts are the most real and true knowledge there is. Have you read Plato? |
|
|
|
Segregated witness is a concept, like Lightning. Like Lightning, it can be implemented in different ways. You're quoting the implementation that exists now, but as I've explained, the blocksize increase doesn't have to be a part of that.
I cited core's roadmap, and as it stands it seems to me it is an attempt to CHANGE the implied tps. I didn't cite Core's roadmap, I cited the overall concept. You're conflating the implementation with the root concept. No tps changes are a part of the concept of segregating witness information. |
|
|
|
Segwit speaks to an effective capacity change (change), does this not affect the tps?:
Segregated witness is a concept, like Lightning. Like Lightning, it can be implemented in different ways. You're quoting the implementation that exists now, but as I've explained, the blocksize increase doesn't have to be a part of that. |
|
|
|
To quote BU:
We believe that the block size is NOT part of blockchain consensus...
Then they're out of their tiny little minds. From the Bitcoin source code, consensus.h:/** The maximum allowed size for a block excluding witness data, in bytes (network rule) */
static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE = 1000000;
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
