We obviously need a bigger block size if we want to challenge the big payment electronic systems. My main concern is that the people running nodes could be severely decreased due the blockchain being bigger than ever.
If we wanted to challenge the big payment electronic systems it would not be decentralised because the multi-node redundancy scales like O(N), N- number of node sites, i.e. it gets expensive rapidly. Compare with SWIFT or Fedwire for something relevant, at this stage of technological development (one day it may be possible that all google's data is stuffed into the blockchain, not today). |
|
|
|
|
Nice list ... like the beginnings of Alibaba for bitcoin.
Wonder what wallet s/ware, services etc these businesses are using for shifting btc around and how much it touches fiat in the background, or if at all?
|
|
|
|
maybe the anti-Gavin crowd is just whining about something they don't fully understand. yeah, sipa and jgarzik are just a bunch of whiners who don't fully understand bitcoin ... as well as you, I'm supposing you were implying? recall we were spoon-feeding you UTXO's knowledge for free just last week? That is a very good reason to oppose increasing the maximum block size. - Gavin Andresen You don't have to be such a full time abrasive jerk to make your point, the pointless, incessant snark, insinuations and character assassination is nauseating not to mention it adds nothing to understanding. It was the same with the sidechains 'debate' on here ... you didn't want to listen to counterpoints but just blasted the volume of FUD for your chosen position on some kind of 1 man PR propaganda campaign. I don't know about net benefits surrounding sidechains, they seem interesting and there is no implementation in the wild, but I do know you did absolutely nothing to advance understanding, yours and anybody reading your emotive blather ... I just scrolled on most of your SC stuff, 1 level above ignore tbh. God gave you 2 ears and 1 mouth ... |
|
|
|
NotLambChop keeps spamming the same image from multiple accounts.   Here are a bunch of recent NotLambChops: stoick rmbku UnholyTrinity ricmi Bummeryc fakecovers Gnppnx niiisj That's totally indicative of an attention starved whore that no one wants a piece of cause she is annoying and stanks. Yeah, I think someone already doxxed her a while back, some kind of mentally-deranged, stalker, "fatal attraction", "other woman" freak obsessed with rich, handsome, intelligent, hard-working bitcoiners ... |
|
|
|
These guys have worked themselves to the point of mental exhaustion in some cases to keep this thing scaling up to handle the transaction growth rate thus far and have made huge advances. They would all simply agree (ya know, a consensus) to raise the limit if it was such an obvious 'fix', it is not and there are no obvious fixes, that is just wishful thinking by the unthinking majority. Raising the limit is the last ditch 'suck it and see' hail mary pass when everything else has been optimised as much as possible ...
If the limit gets raised substantially above the technological improvements growth rate I'll be pulling the vast majority of my investment out because it is not going to be operating like we thought it would, i.e. it won't be a clearing and settlement digital gold network but a paypal2.0, fun internet googlesque reversable, traceable payments network
You are doing the same thing you are accusing others of doing. There is no consensus or even an easy answer, whether Bitcoin should be a "clearing and settlement digital gold network" or a "payments network" (I don't think too many want it to be reversible and traceable but you are injecting that as a form of commentary). If there were an easy answer, it would already be accepted as consensus, but there isn't and it isn't. Implicitly, decentralised => clearing and settlement digital gold network centralised => reversable, traceable payments network (without thinking that is not well-known by now). |
|
|
|
BTC intrinsic value IS its ease of worldwide cheap txns and large network. Wrong, you could get that with Ripple. The utility value of bitcoin is decentralised, irreversible, permissionless settlement and clearing, (trust no-one consensus) ... like SWIFT but better. Bitcoin will get more valuable the less people can use it but want to, like any desirable scarce resource commodity. The demand already exists and the miner's are providing the secure commodity. The days of people writing graffitti and spam into the blockchain ending will be the evidence that it is finally useful only as a monetary network, not some kind of toy ... who would use SWIFT to message banal profanities? |
|
|
|
 ^ Here's a chart that shows the historical blocksize growth along with the limits, the "block fullness," and some commentary on how the limits have changed in the past and may change in the future. Credit to Solex for the 1MBCON Advisory System Status and DeathAndTaxes for digging up the GitHub commits that introduced the blocksize limits. Wow! Very informative graphic, Peter. This needs to be seen more widely. 20/20 hindsight is always easy, and we can see that three things went wrong. Satoshi implemented the limit back-to-front i.e. it should have required consensus to renew it, not remove it: If block-height < 123,456 max-block-size = 1MB He disappeared before he could use his authority to modify the change. He did not expect it to become a sacred cow:  C'mon that's totally unfair to the majority of developers (again). It is not simply a 'sacred cow' and that totally over-simplifies the problem while casting negative aspersions against most of the developers. These guys have worked themselves to the point of mental exhaustion in some cases to keep this thing scaling up to handle the transaction growth rate thus far and have made huge advances. They would all simply agree (ya know, a consensus) to raise the limit if it was such an obvious 'fix', it is not and there are no obvious fixes, that is just wishful thinking by the unthinking majority. Raising the limit is the last ditch 'suck it and see' hail mary pass when everything else has been optimised as much as possible ... If the limit gets raised substantially above the technological improvements growth rate I'll be pulling the vast majority of my investment out because it is not going to be operating like we thought it would, i.e. it won't be a clearing and settlement digital gold network but a paypal2.0, fun internet googlesque reversable, traceable payments network |
|
|
|
|
no-ice-please definitely nsa plant counter-psyche trolling ... just-shut-up-already and go-away-please, thnx.
|
|
|
|
If I could sell and then use the proceeds to quickly and easily purchase more BIT shares at NAV then of course but there's nothing quick and easy about it. It's the timing that hurts the most. The extra work of proving I am accredited again would be worth it I suppose. But if I miss a rise while out of BIT shares messing around with this game isn't worth the risk to me. How much can BIT shares (Bitcoin) rise in the couple of weeks or more that it would take to move my proceeds back in? I don't want to miss the big party trying to grab a fast gain. I understand. If I was doing arbitrage on bitcoin, I would try to set it up so I can buy and sell at the same time. (I didn't realize you were talking about delays between selling and buying.) If the situation were different, i.e. trivially quick and easy, than I'd arbitrage the hell out of GBTC until it was at parity (taking into account the ~0.1 factor) with BTC. Thanks for your view-from-the-cockpit accounts on this ... makes the seemingly mysterious GBTC pricing more understandable hearing incentives, practicalities, etc for trading this instrument. Now I'm wondering if GBTC is actually closer to the true price of bitcoin, i.e. on a fully regulated exchange without all the quote stuffing, order spoofing and crazy manipulation rampant on stamp, finex, OKCoin, etc. Sometimes those prices on existing exchanges look totally fabricated, all moving exactly in lockstep, $10 step changes up or down ... |
|
|
|
Legal documents and 'official' certificates now look like some kind of hokey toys or historical artifacts lacking relevance in the e-world, hard to take them seriously after seeing how much BS backs up the broken legal/political system behind them versus a digitally-signed notarised hashed-into-blockchain permanence. |
|
|
|
Yes, the uptime requirements for nodes, concurrency of hot-swappable redundant servers with loaded hot wallets and signing keys, etc. Tough problems. Sounds almost like real banking and payments Except these are engineering problems for a key management system. Key management can be permanently isolated and offline. You make it sound like "engineering problems" are not tough problems. Note how Bitcoin is hard in theory, even harder in practice. |
|
|
|
How did the prototype feel in hand ? Coarse? Sharp edged? Tinny? Light? Flimsy? Rough?
Really solid  quite heavy as well.. Looks neat. Maybe drill a hole so it can have a padlock keep it closed ... then try to remember where you hid the key for the padlock |
|
|
|
marcus, the above poll results and the general tenor of support on reddit for Gavin's proposal clearly indicates that it is you who doesn't get it.
Your opinion is mostly worthless at this point, so I'm not sure why you create so much noise instead of solutions? Why do you post comments on github commits, are you making code commits? Seems pretentious. |
|
|
|
Excellent. Any serious Bitcoin business will have this view because retaining the 1MB will not only cripple the network but also cripple dependent business models. Except if the business model includes profiting from off-chain transactions. It's good to see coinbase support bigger blocks. I wouldn't have bet on it. What about circle? But, but marcus says Coinbase is the big bad boogie man of Bitcoin. Aren't they supposed to want what's best for themselves which should be small 1mb blocks so that offchain TX's become the thing? They couldn't possibly want what's best for Bitcoin which is involves supporting Gavin could they? You really, really don't get it do you? You can't see past your blind greed I'm afraid. Of course coinbase wants more centralisation ... how hard is that to understand? |
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc : your personal vendettas have just become toxic. Play the ball not the man, it is just becoming a continual string of ad hominem and character smearing (or cheering) with you. Take a vacation or bitcoin burn-out might get you ...
|
|
|
|
Annualised inflation rate for bitcoin is now consistently less than 10%.
E.g, yesterday was 9.2% annualised.
I wish we knew exactly how much BTC is forever out of circulation due to private key loss, etc. some estimates have it at 1.5-2.5 million including satoshis (dropped into the bottom of the mariana trench) |
|
|
|
Yes, the uptime requirements for nodes, concurrency of hot-swappable redundant servers with loaded hot wallets and signing keys, etc. Tough problems. Sounds almost like real banking and payments |
|
|
|
Whatever happened with Laszlo? He hasn't been active
pizza overdose |
|
|
|
|
seems like even localbitcoins might have more reliable pricing than this thing ??
|
|
|
|
Excellent. Any serious Bitcoin business will have this view because retaining the 1MB will not only cripple the network but also cripple dependent business models. I think the problem that luke, gmaxwell, todd etc have is that they are too close to the tech. They think that the decay in confirmation times can be managed (when it will be a PR disaster), they think that the 1MB has relevance to the fees market, they ignore that node quality is improving even though node quantity declines, (but the decline should eventually be arrested by a growing ecosystem, and increasing price). They basically need to get out of the woods and see the whole landscape: like Coinbase clearly does. coinbase looks to me like the next mt. gox waiting to happen ... can't see why you guys always rally behind centralised organisations for your self-affirmation. coinbase will be hacked or corrupted in some way, will you be singing their praises for what that brings? luke-jr gmaxwell ptodd have done nothing to deserve the opprobium being dished up here, most of them have worked for free for years already, such ungrateful ignorance on display here is dismaying. There are many other quieter devs who disagree with gavin/hearn on this one but afraid of speaking out because of the risk of the kind of pillorying from the loud-mouths that might result. Wumpus is actually the lead dev now, gavin has been a figurehead for the last 2 versions ... and I haven't seen anyone question his role in the Bitcoin Foundation fiasco? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
