- it is sold to open many 2nd layer applications, but if there is only one (related to bitcoin for outer world!) is crashing / scam you name it -> entire Bitcoin gets the shit in the world press you name it - do we want to risk Bitcoins entire reputation because a stupid 2nd layer shit is failing hard? Who does professional due-diligence here ?
That's not how 2nd layer scaling solutions work. They are all decentralized, not some central thing that can crash or scam or whatever. In the german subforum i explained this fact to hv_ numerous times - he has his own beliefs. Even if it were a centralized payment channel system - hub cannot steal your bitcoins. Thx for your help, but I m about the general issues that are coming in with 2nd layer scaling and the variety of security models and peoples agendas behind these. If you are fine and see no issues with all that, so would you back up your sales manners with your own money, your own resources and your own reputiation? Means if harm comes in from these, you will compensate? Sure you would never, this shows it has more risks as on chain, where miners back up with their multi million investments front up. Further you put exacly miner's investments on risk or would you back up this as well with your money? |
|
|
|
Yes. It is a well-known attribute of SegWit. It is a well-known stupidity of people claiming this. Well, you can pretend that an 'anyone can spend' transaction is something other than an 'anyone can spend' transaction. But of course that would be tautologically impossible. Jbreher: You and some of the big blocker nutjobs seem to have tendencies to cry wolf so much that if there did happen to be a real issue or a real problem, then it is possible that people might not believe you because they have been exposed to too many exaggerations, made up facts and made up conclusions, right? Wrong. Sometimes, I state facts, and sometimes, I render opinions. I try not to exaggerate, I don't make up facts, and I try to keep my conclusions rational. When challenged, I produce rationale for my statements. Sometimes, I even get things wrong, but I always try to be truthful. You, OTOH, tend to repeat dogma as if it were settled truth, and avoid providing any basis for your utterances. Issue in a nutshell: - On a network where miners do not honor SegWit, all segwit transactions are 'anyone can spend' transactions - On such a network, each successful miner can spend any 'anyone can spend' transaction to himself - As segwit is used (e.g., on a segwit-honoring network), more value gets locked up in segwit/'anyone can spend' transactions - As more value is built up in segwit/'anyone can spend' transactions, this increases the incentive for miners to flip the network from segwit-honoring to non-segwit - This pressure increases with increasing use of segwit. Even if initially stable, the system tends further toward instability. The net is that smallblockers need to trust the miners -- whom they seem to already believe to be evil -- to not steal their segwit transactions. Of course, one can convert a segwit coin back to a bitcoin by spending it to yourself in a non-segwit transaction. But that also mandates a second transaction, thereby nullifying and even reversing segwit's so-called capacity increase. So you say, miners are just stupid by blocking SW, since they could 'earn' a lot of more with it ?  |
|
|
|
Doch natürlich soll der (End)Nutzer das Protokoll, bzw. am Ende alle Layer, nutzen. Wer, wenn nicht ich, sollte denn heute sonst z.B. IPv6 einsetzen. Wenn ich warte bis es mir einer vorsetzt/aufzwingt, dann nutze ich es auch in den nächsten 30 Jahren nicht. Es ist sicher nicht perfekt, hat aber einen breiten Konsens gefunden und es erledigt den Job. Warum sollte ich irgendein Nischenprotokoll einer Einzeperson / kleinen Gruppe nutzen wollen, dass mir ein komplette Umstellung aufzwingt?
Und genau diese Vorgehensweise kann ich auch auf Bitcoin übertragen. Wenn etwas aktuell nicht passt, dann ist jeder willkommen, 1. bessere Lösungen zu erarbeiten, 2. einen Konsens darüber herzustellen und 3. die neue Lösung umzusetzen. Im Augenblick gerät die Reihenfolge bei manchen Lösungen allerdings etwas durcheinander. Glücklicherweise muss man diese "Lösungen" dann auch nicht unterstützen.
Ich meine ja Nutzer sollen fröhlich nutzen - aber um Basis-Details nicht wirklich kümmern müssen. Wir sind uns einig, dass es vereinzelt Ausnahmen gibt, die mächtigen Nutzer, mit viel Investments und hohem Eigeniteresse. Ich und wohl auch viele anderen lassen gerne die Details von diesen Mächtigen untereinander ausmachen. Ich kann fast nix - ausser analysieren und auf Mängel von Ansätzen hinweisen. Viele solche mächtige Nutzer haben entweder Punk 1 verpennt oder wurden z.B. auch hier im Forum oder noch wichtigeren mailings weggeblockt. (dies sollte der unstrittigste Punkt sein, da Basis für 2) Punkt 2 wurde damit und durch mangelnde Einbeziehung der Miner (mächtig) nahezu unmöglich. Punk 3 : Salat mit Sosse Jetzt haben wir den Salat und obendrein noch BCH... |
|
|
|
Bsp smtp: Am Anfang gegen 1995 war mir das eMail fast egal, und ich hab bissel Text rumgeschickt, soweit jmd es auch hatte.
Aber: Bilder, dicke ZIPs - vergiss es - keine Skalierung. Irgendwann konnte man GMX haben (free) aber dicke Mails senden / empfangen / speichern kostet extra. Als User hab ich mich nicht die Bohne um das Basis-Protokoll kümmern müssen, nein es wäre wohl eher hinderlich gewesen, wenn ich einen USER-Aufstand zusammengetrommelt hätte, oder? Oder zum PC Bus Protokoll ? .. ? Quatch oder?
Das Beispiel Netzwerk-Layer ist sehr gut, weil Interessante Aspekte liefert. SMTP ist bereits Layer 5+. Die unteren Layer sind Ethernet/IP. Diese sind massiv begrenzt, werden aber über die höheren Layer um die entsprechende Funktionalität erweitert. Gerade bei IPv4 hat der "Fork" IPv6 jetzt 30 Jahre gebraucht und er ist immer noch nicht durch. Dabei waren sich hier (fast) alle einig und haben mit IPv6 einen gemeinsamen Konsens gefunden. Genau betrachtet ist IPv6 allerdings eher ein Soft-Fork, da IPv4 und IPv6 nebeneinander koexistieren können. Bei einem Hard-Fork wäre dies nicht der Fall. Jo - aber jetzt kommt hoffentlich bald IPFS = dezentral und dann ist der Krempel obsolet. Ist aber HF und besser  Egal - es ging mir darzustellen, wer sich bei Basis-Protokoll-Changes auf den Weg machen sollte. Sicher nicht der Endnutzer. Bitcoin ist noch in den Kinderschuhen und viele Coinhodler fühlen sich (sicher auch berechtigt) nicht nur als einfache Endnutzer, sonder wollen selber die Clients / Routers (GMX - Äquivalent) laufen lassen. Der Scheideweg ist jodoch sichtbar, denn die Adoption bringt viele neue aber auch Grosse mit, die das viel Sicherer und besser erledigen können und genause dezentral wie die Masse 'kleiner Nutzer'. Als ebenso Kleiner erfreue ich mich der Grossen und nutze meist nur noch (und kaufe mir statt die Node paar Bitcoin). Das Protokoll muss aber total einfach sein - sonst gehen die Grossen wieder oder kommen erst gar nicht. |
|
|
|
- it is sold to open many 2nd layer applications, but if there is only one (related to bitcoin for outer world!) is crashing / scam you name it -> entire Bitcoin gets the shit in the world press you name it - do we want to risk Bitcoins entire reputation because a stupid 2nd layer shit is failing hard? Who does professional due-diligence here ?
if that happened it would only be core's reputation that suffered, not bitcoin's in the long run. No - that's not realistic. We think of mass adoption here and the (uninformed) mass-press and the outer (poor) world will disrupt Bitcoin to be not working. As simple as usual. |
|
|
|
Still SW looks not like a good Scaling Work rather like a Split Wedge  You mean that if no one runs segwit, then it is not going to do anything? I think that a lot of folks will just run segwit and attempt to take advantage of its various features. I agree that we have to see how it plays out, but if we do not really have sophisticated technical knowledge then it might take a bit of time to see whether there are any concrete applications that are built upon segwit that empowers the whole bitcoin system? Yep - I guess in the end we want the same thing - get Bitcoin around the world - to all poor and rich. My concerns esp with SW are - it takes really longer time to get into proper and wished scaling mode (also achow101 says this upthread) - we could lose the race with poor Asian's BCH - it is complex code (this is a reason for ^) - on-chain's safety (-SW) we know for 8+ year, why give that away? - it is sold to open many 2nd layer applications, but if there is only one (related to bitcoin for outer world!) is crashing / scam you name it -> entire Bitcoin gets the shit in the world press you name it - do we want to risk Bitcoins entire reputation because a stupid 2nd layer shit is failing hard? Who does professional due-diligence here ? - miners don't like it (this might b a reason ^ since all miners will suffer from that) - too much splitting of community ^^^^ |
|
|
|
The greatest danger now is not what solution actually ends up being chosen, it is actually the motivations behind those who propose that solution. This is true not only for core, but all proposed solutions.
You come off as a bit pie in the sky with your fairly lengthy attempt at a justification of bitcoin based on some supposed vision of satoshi 8 years ago. The fact of the matter is that seg wit has already been chosen and has been in the works for a couple of years and appears to be in the final stages of locking in then soon thereafter activation, so your statement "what solution actually ends up being chosen" is either out of touch with actual facts and/r is striving to paint bitcoin to be something that it is not likely - based on some narrow preference that you have and possibly some other out of touch folks from r/btc. You're missing the 'little' fact here that SW was not really ordered and also liked by the major hardware investors, the system runners, who finally have to buy and install that code... So finally it doesn't matter at all how long and who was developing what. I'm not sure if I get you. I thought the activation of segwit does not require changes in code. In other words, nodes and miners do not have to run it, if they prefer not to run it. In that regard, are there some kind of implications that negate my points that segwit is nearly a done deal at this point? We both know how status is for now Most node runners bought core's SW from shelf because they ever did Most miners did not buy SW, until UASF came up with stupid force to split Bitcoin and break Satoshi consensus. They did the only right move and compromis to not let it shit-split and keep consensus near 100%. You are right - miners still can skip mining SW-TX, despite SW2x is more or less live. We will see how this plays out. Still SW looks not like a good Scaling Work rather like a Split Wedge |
|
|
|
Wer darf denn sagen, wie genau der Computer imDetail funzen soll?
Derjenige, der den Computer bezahlt natürlich. Der Nutzer kann aus dem Angebot auswählen, welchen Computer er haben will. Wenn die Computer nicht dem entsprechen, was die Nutzer wirklich brauchen, dann ist es nur eine Frage der Zeit, bis es einen Hersteller geben wird, der das herstellt, nach dem die Nutzer verlangen, oder die Nutzer weichen auf andere Produkte aus (Smartphone, Tablet, Stift und Papier). Genau das gleiche bei Bitcoin. Miner können sich aussuchen, was sie produzieren - und auch wieviel (Blockspace), sie müssen eben mit den Konsequenzen leben. Wenn die Miner versuchen ein Produktionskartell und Vertriebskartell aufzubauen, werden die Miner Probleme haben, wenn da nicht alle mitmachen. Dann gehen die Nutzer eben zu dem, der das produziert, was Sie haben wollen. Also, ob die Nutzer das abkaufen, was die Miner produzieren ist eine andere Sache. Die Besonderheit bei Bitcoin ist, dass die Nutzer auch später noch auf die Produzenten angewiesen sind und die Miner die Sicherheit herstellen. Sobald die Miner die Sicherheit versuchen zu unterhöhlen, werden die Miner allerdings zum Problem für die User und die Nutzer werden Gegenmaßnahmen einleiten. Die Abhängigkeit ist zudem weiterhin nur eingeschränkt, da man immer die Software anpassen kann. Bitcoin funktioniert grundsätzlich auch ohne (die alten) Miner, aber ohne User ist Bitcoin wertlos. Irgendwo geisterte dies noch in meinem Hirn rum und suchte sich die Worte ... Achja: Das Bitcoin Protokoll ist ein Basis-Protokoll - und muss zu Skalierungs- und Massenadoptionszwecken auch so behandelt werden, ähnlich wie HTML, SMTP, TCP/IP oder auch vergleichbar mit den Bus Protokollen auf Betriebssystem-Ebene eines PCs. Hierum kümmert sich dein sog User nicht, er soll auch nicht! Hier kümmern sich ein paar wirklich involvierte darum (Chip-, PC-Hersteller, Telekom) , so dass die 'User' ihre wichtigsten Features bekommen und glücklich 'usen' können - Details sind eher irrelevant, verwirren user oder kosten extra. Bsp smtp: Am Anfang gegen 1995 war mir das eMail fast egal, und ich hab bissel Text rumgeschickt, soweit jmd es auch hatte. Aber: Bilder, dicke ZIPs - vergiss es - keine Skalierung. Irgendwann konnte man GMX haben (free) aber dicke Mails senden / empfangen / speichern kostet extra. Als User hab ich mich nicht die Bohne um das Basis-Protokoll kümmern müssen, nein es wäre wohl eher hinderlich gewesen, wenn ich einen USER-Aufstand zusammengetrommelt hätte, oder? Oder zum PC Bus Protokoll ? .. ? Quatch oder? Jetzt geht smtp prima, und alle haben vergessen wie das war. Jeder kann seinen smtp Client auch bauen und mitmachen; smpt ist 'recht' einfach. HTML genauso PC Bus Protokolle ? Naja Jetzt ist das 1M Limit nicht mal wirklich Protokoll-relevant - ein reiner OptionsParameter / Setting / Config - ein Extra. Ohne diesen funzt Bitcoin sogar noch besser, einfacher zu bauen. Hierüber einen User-Aufstand zu generieren ist ....... mist! |
|
|
|
The greatest danger now is not what solution actually ends up being chosen, it is actually the motivations behind those who propose that solution. This is true not only for core, but all proposed solutions.
You come off as a bit pie in the sky with your fairly lengthy attempt at a justification of bitcoin based on some supposed vision of satoshi 8 years ago. The fact of the matter is that seg wit has already been chosen and has been in the works for a couple of years and appears to be in the final stages of locking in then soon thereafter activation, so your statement "what solution actually ends up being chosen" is either out of touch with actual facts and/r is striving to paint bitcoin to be something that it is not likely - based on some narrow preference that you have and possibly some other out of touch folks from r/btc. You're missing the 'little' fact here that SW was not really ordered and also liked by the major hardware investors, the system runners, who finally have to buy and install that code... So finally it doesn't matter at all how long and who was developing what. |
|
|
|
Warum? ... abgesehen davon, dass es möglicherweise irgendwie vom Mining-Mogul Bitmain initiiert wird. Was gefällt dir inhaltlich nicht an BCC?
Das reicht eigentlich schon. Aus genau diesem Grund lehne ich auch die Nutzung von Altcoins ab. Die Vorgeschichte ist eben nicht völlig egal, denn sonst wird Geld beliebig und wir könnten ... ... auch gleich zurück zu Fiatgeld gehen ...
Jo, und hier schliesst sich der Kreis, zumindest für mich als 'BigBlocker' - aber eben auch 'BigBitcoiner'. Alts sind absoluter Mist, und m.M. nach nur zur Flankierung, Feature-Testen und für viele noch zum Casino-Zocken nötig - niemals als sicherer Store of Value für die Massen nutzbar. BCC oder BCH jetzt ? ist hoffentlich auch nur eine Flankierung / Drohung damit BTC auch wie abgemacht bei NYA skaliert (dann ist BCH obsoltet). Eine schlaue Einheit der Verantwortlichen, aber auch genügend Freiheitsgrade zum Skalieren in BTC, ist also eine gute Waffe gegen BCH. Man kann nur hoffen, dass sich nicht viele (Asiaten) darauf stürzen - wegen billigeren TX, sonst haben wir am Ende wirklich 2 Bitcoin (West/Ost?).. mist! Es bleibt spannend. Edit: Zum Thema Skalierung / wie schnell BTC skalieren kann, ist das hier ein sehr guter Post von jmd der extrem viel weiss und macht: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1682183.msg20432939#msg20432939Demnach wird auch mit SW die Skalierung recht zäh und langsam vorankommen....  . |
|
|
|
WTF? I initially thought Satoshis Bitcoin was about economic, tech and game theory... -> perfect eCash for ALL. Now I see here its rather about people and soap opera? Looks like that many 'users' are mostly active in posting nonsense and horsing around, rather not in directing all our power and brains in a better solution, community and most important Bitcoin's REPUTATION to the inner and outer side this entire opera is seen in the end ...? Back to work! Make Bitcoin great again - not soapy!  My work here is to do pure analysis of WHY we have this opera: Its all about a single line of the protocol Where many would agree about, it is not a consensus pillar Rather a user specific setting to allow free optimization and adjustments to market reactions Such a minor param, that even Satoshi lost not much brain upon, rather sth like, it needs to be lifted when time is near and Moores law helps for the rest. And due to growth and work scaling issues Satoshi resigned, not to be seen as a person, a king like leader, not to be a single point of failure and he diversified himself to a bunch of new dev persons. Carrying the responsibilities to next levels. Now we need to do the next level, which is clearly diversifying TEAMs to spread responsibilites. If core does like Satioshi did and showed it works, they need to step back (from behaving like a king) and lets diversify ideas, work and responsibilities through many, but friendly competing teams. This is the big future for Satoshi Bitcoin! Satoshi showed us all and we know, he will never come back as Satoshi, or this diversification mechanics will be obsolete. Satoshi clearly said he didn't want his software forked and he didn't believe in several implementations of bitcoin:
I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network. The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.
Why are we even still disusing this? It's clear that the game theory behind how bitcoin works does not benefit from "several competing bitcoins". If your ideas don't make the cut in the main branch it's because they aren't good enough. If you want to compete, then make your own altcoin and if people think it's better than the existing Bitcoin, then people will sell their Bitcoins for your supposed "better-than-current-Bitcoin" altcoin, but don't pretend to cause this hardfork drama every now an then thinking you are doing a favor to anyone, because you are just making the price crash, all for nothing because at the end of the day, people aren't going to trust hardforking amateurs with their money. Im still waiting for a clear statement of Roger Ver claiming that he will sell all of his BTC for BCC. If he really thinks BCC is better than BTC, he surely will dump them right? I said nothing about different Bitcoins. Only about different teams. Anyone can create their own different repositories, a lot of people run their own bitcoin full node software, but these guys don't want that, they want to change consensus rules, creating a hardfork and thus creating a price crash, uncertainty, and all the hell that breaks loose during a god damn hardfork. Mark my words: In november or so, we will have another price crash thanks to btc1/segwit2x hardfork attempt. If they did just shut the fuck up and let segwit run for an entire year then talk about a blocksize increase, but no, their ego says that the fork must happen in 3 months. Well good luck with that. Changing the code to SW is much more risky than change a 1 -> 2 . You are just trapped by the invisible HF monster. Buuaaaaa.  Segwit is opt in. If you don't like segwit then just get another client. The market OBVIOUSLY wants segwit, look at how we went from $1800 to $3000. The market OBVIOUSLY does not want two tokens. Look at XT crash, look at Classic crash, look at Unlimited crash, look at segwit2x/BIP148 crash. We don't want two fucking bitcoins, it's not that hard to understand. Yeah, its hard to understand. And markets are hardest to. Could you think of a premium for BCC that IS traded? Hm.... Maket wants SW... Hm.. Not so sure But finally market will tell us and make everybody understand but rather the hard way, thats for sure. |
|
|
|
WTF? I initially thought Satoshis Bitcoin was about economic, tech and game theory... -> perfect eCash for ALL. Now I see here its rather about people and soap opera? Looks like that many 'users' are mostly active in posting nonsense and horsing around, rather not in directing all our power and brains in a better solution, community and most important Bitcoin's REPUTATION to the inner and outer side this entire opera is seen in the end ...? Back to work! Make Bitcoin great again - not soapy! My work here is to do pure analysis of WHY we have this opera: Its all about a single line of the protocol Where many would agree about, it is not a consensus pillar Rather a user specific setting to allow free optimization and adjustments to market reactions Such a minor param, that even Satoshi lost not much brain upon, rather sth like, it needs to be lifted when time is near and Moores law helps for the rest. And due to growth and work scaling issues Satoshi resigned, not to be seen as a person, a king like leader, not to be a single point of failure and he diversified himself to a bunch of new dev persons. Carrying the responsibilities to next levels. Now we need to do the next level, which is clearly diversifying TEAMs to spread responsibilites. If core does like Satioshi did and showed it works, they need to step back (from behaving like a king) and lets diversify ideas, work and responsibilities through many, but friendly competing teams. This is the big future for Satoshi Bitcoin! Satoshi showed us all and we know, he will never come back as Satoshi, or this diversification mechanics will be obsolete. Satoshi clearly said he didn't want his software forked and he didn't believe in several implementations of bitcoin:
I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network. The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.
Why are we even still disusing this? It's clear that the game theory behind how bitcoin works does not benefit from "several competing bitcoins". If your ideas don't make the cut in the main branch it's because they aren't good enough. If you want to compete, then make your own altcoin and if people think it's better than the existing Bitcoin, then people will sell their Bitcoins for your supposed "better-than-current-Bitcoin" altcoin, but don't pretend to cause this hardfork drama every now an then thinking you are doing a favor to anyone, because you are just making the price crash, all for nothing because at the end of the day, people aren't going to trust hardforking amateurs with their money. Im still waiting for a clear statement of Roger Ver claiming that he will sell all of his BTC for BCC. If he really thinks BCC is better than BTC, he surely will dump them right? I said nothing about different Bitcoins. Only about different teams. Anyone can create their own different repositories, a lot of people run their own bitcoin full node software, but these guys don't want that, they want to change consensus rules, creating a hardfork and thus creating a price crash, uncertainty, and all the hell that breaks loose during a god damn hardfork. Mark my words: In november or so, we will have another price crash thanks to btc1/segwit2x hardfork attempt. If they did just shut the fuck up and let segwit run for an entire year then talk about a blocksize increase, but no, their ego says that the fork must happen in 3 months. Well good luck with that. Changing the code to SW is much more risky than change a 1 -> 2 . You are just trapped by the invisible HF monster. Buuaaaaa. |
|
|
|
trotzdem unglaublich wie hier mal so eben eine der ältesten und bekanntesten exchanges dichtgemacht wird und der Kurs eiert auf top 20 niveau, kurz unter ATH und scheint nicht im geringsten beeindruckt.
imho bullish.
Grundsätzlich bullish, ja. Weil, ähnlich wie nach SilkRoad close, ist es wieder ein gesunder CleanUp in Bitcoin! Es wird immer deutlicher, wer mit Bitcoin dunkle Machenschafen betreibt, wird irgendwann gefasst, weil es eben NICHT anonym ist. Daher, gut für die Reputation und Massentauglichkeit! Ich wäre wirklich überrascht, wenn die Massenmedien das SO kolportieren würden. Die Massenmedien sind immer langsamer als die wachen Investoren... (sell on good news.. buy.. hä, wann?) |
|
|
|
trotzdem unglaublich wie hier mal so eben eine der ältesten und bekanntesten exchanges dichtgemacht wird und der Kurs eiert auf top 20 niveau, kurz unter ATH und scheint nicht im geringsten beeindruckt.
imho bullish.
Grundsätzlich bullish, ja. Weil, ähnlich wie nach SilkRoad close, ist es wieder ein gesunder CleanUp in Bitcoin! Es wird immer deutlicher, wer mit Bitcoin dunkle Machenschafen betreibt, wird irgendwann gefasst, weil es eben NICHT anonym ist. Daher, gut für die Reputation und Massentauglichkeit! |
|
|
|
quote]ya im sure he's confused. nonetheless your argument can't be it worked in the past so it will work in the future.
like its not my fault so many of the people that have been arguing you don't know what they are talking about.
As for economics, you are the (anonymint's favorite word) myopic user of the century. Debt based currencies require infinite growth to not collapse because the interest due is always higher than the principal. Since demographics have peaked in every nation that matters and energy output has also peaked while EROI is simultaneously collapsing, this means growth is over and all debt based currency is doomed to implode. The system will be forced to move to a non-debt based currency whether it's issuing debt free paper like the greenback or changing back to metals. Regardless of what happens, the dollar dies and metals skyrocket in the process. There is no fucking scenario on this planet in which metals don't skyrocket because they are the Schelling point when debt based currencies blow up. You can live in some alternate dimension pontificating on some random bullshit Nick Szabo said, but none of that changes this objective reality that will occur. Stocks are also garbage in this paradigm because they're mostly based around infinite consumer growth as well, but the govt may or may not manipulate that market to whatever number they choose before it all blows up. There is no black or white. There is no ideal. Not in real world. Its only in our mind and the only way to try to understand a bit of this. Einstein, Nash tried it. The model is not a reality... But nice discussion Its so human |
|
|
|
WTF? I initially thought Satoshis Bitcoin was about economic, tech and game theory... -> perfect eCash for ALL. Now I see here its rather about people and soap opera? Looks like that many 'users' are mostly active in posting nonsense and horsing around, rather not in directing all our power and brains in a better solution, community and most important Bitcoin's REPUTATION to the inner and outer side this entire opera is seen in the end ...? Back to work! Make Bitcoin great again - not soapy! My work here is to do pure analysis of WHY we have this opera: Its all about a single line of the protocol Where many would agree about, it is not a consensus pillar Rather a user specific setting to allow free optimization and adjustments to market reactions Such a minor param, that even Satoshi lost not much brain upon, rather sth like, it needs to be lifted when time is near and Moores law helps for the rest. And due to growth and work scaling issues Satoshi resigned, not to be seen as a person, a king like leader, not to be a single point of failure and he diversified himself to a bunch of new dev persons. Carrying the responsibilities to next levels. Now we need to do the next level, which is clearly diversifying TEAMs to spread responsibilites. If core does like Satioshi did and showed it works, they need to step back (from behaving like a king) and lets diversify ideas, work and responsibilities through many, but friendly competing teams. This is the big future for Satoshi Bitcoin! Satoshi showed us all and we know, he will never come back as Satoshi, or this diversification mechanics will be obsolete. Satoshi clearly said he didn't want his software forked and he didn't believe in several implementations of bitcoin:
I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network. The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.
Why are we even still disusing this? It's clear that the game theory behind how bitcoin works does not benefit from "several competing bitcoins". If your ideas don't make the cut in the main branch it's because they aren't good enough. If you want to compete, then make your own altcoin and if people think it's better than the existing Bitcoin, then people will sell their Bitcoins for your supposed "better-than-current-Bitcoin" altcoin, but don't pretend to cause this hardfork drama every now an then thinking you are doing a favor to anyone, because you are just making the price crash, all for nothing because at the end of the day, people aren't going to trust hardforking amateurs with their money. Im still waiting for a clear statement of Roger Ver claiming that he will sell all of his BTC for BCC. If he really thinks BCC is better than BTC, he surely will dump them right? I said nothing about different Bitcoins. Only about different teams. |
|
|
|
Heee heee Leute Von soviel Gequassel hier geht nur der Kurs runter. Jetzt malt jeder erstmal seinen Wimpel und dann geht's richtig wieder rauf ok? |
|
|
|
Die optimale Freie-Markt Blockgrösse wird also durch Randbedingungen wie Transport und Validierungsgeschwindigkeit begrenzt.
Haben wir bei Bitcoin keinen freien Markt? Wer kontrolliert das denn? Und wer gibt denen, die das kontrollieren denn die Macht? Oder - Erklär mir mal, was du unter freiem Markt verstehst - Wer sind da denn Marktteilnehmer? Grösstenteils ja. Der Markt und deren Teilnehmer sind immer in Dynamik, es lässt sich also nur immer ein aktueller snapshot beschreiben. Das was derzeit noch nicht völlig frei ist, ist der Weg, wie wichtige Änderungen eingeführt werden und ein Konsens zustande kommt. Aus historischen Gründen gibt es noch eine dominante Gruppe (core), deren noch zuviele blind folgen. Das KANN ein Problem sein, denn es gibt eine recht hohe Eintrittswahrscheinlichkeit, dass sich core irrt... Hier ist absolut ein freier Markt nötig, viele Ideen, viele Teams am besten auch welche, die sich gegenseitig proffessionell ( ohne FUD) kontrollieren, denn das Ziel ist für alle Team, Lösungen, Ideen immer dasselbe: Bitcoin GROSS machen, sicher und wertvoll für alle Menschen, reich wie arm. Wir sehen den Markt gerade entstehen, leider ist das schmerzhaft und machmal wenig professionell ? Die Verantwortung ist einfach zu gross auf manchen Schultern und ich sehe diese einzelnen in zu viele in-fights verstrickt, wobei ihre Fähigkeiten wo ganz anders lägen... In einiger Zeit wird sich das hoffentlich lösen, denn die miner werden sich sicher nicht dadurch ihre Investments zerstören lassen, das ist keine Option, auch nicht für Bitcoin. Satoshi selber hat dies eigentlich schon vorgemacht. Er hat seinen Lead nach wenigen Jahren auf viele neue (Einzelpersonen) abgetreten. Jetzt wäre es an der Zeit, dass das core team dies genauso tut, also auf viele neue Teams Verantwortung abtreten. Dass ist einfach auch dem exponentiellen Wachstum geschuldet. |
|
|
|
WTF? I initially thought Satoshis Bitcoin was about economic, tech and game theory... -> perfect eCash for ALL. Now I see here its rather about people and soap opera? Looks like that many 'users' are mostly active in posting nonsense and horsing around, rather not in directing all our power and brains in a better solution, community and most important Bitcoin's REPUTATION to the inner and outer side this entire opera is seen in the end ...? Back to work! Make Bitcoin great again - not soapy! My work here is to do pure analysis of WHY we have this opera: Its all about a single line of the protocol Where many would agree about, it is not a consensus pillar Rather a user specific setting to allow free optimization and adjustments to market reactions Such a minor param, that even Satoshi lost not much brain upon, rather sth like, it needs to be lifted when time is near and Moores law helps for the rest. And due to growth and work scaling issues Satoshi resigned, not to be seen as a person, a king like leader, not to be a single point of failure and he diversified himself to a bunch of new dev persons. Carrying the responsibilities to next levels. Now we need to do the next level, which is clearly diversifying TEAMs to spread responsibilites. If core does like Satioshi did and showed it works, they need to step back (from behaving like a king) and lets diversify ideas, work and responsibilities through many, but friendly competing teams. This is the big future for Satoshi Bitcoin! Satoshi showed us all and we know, he will never come back as Satoshi, or this diversification mechanics will be obsolete. |
|
|
|
Maybe YOU guys don't need it, because YOU are rich compared to the poor billions living mostly in Asia.
They just cannot affort the tx fees.
SW will not help, at least not in a sudden and not really much.
2x will help quickly, but only if done quickly...eh?
So what the hack is your advice for the poor?
Pls not: use other scamcoins...
They take it in their own hands
So you see, not allowing on-chain scaling is really selfish and driven by some rich 'users'....eh?
if you think increasing the block size is going to make the transactions cheap and keep them that way then you are the "sheep". no my friend. you may have a short period of fun and cheap transactions before mining cartel decides they are missing out on profit. the first thing they will do is to change their minRelayTxFee to a higher number in their own modified code and start rejecting any transaction that is "cheap" to force the fees to go up. next thing they will do is to spam attack the chain like they (or anybody else who were doing it and just taught everyone how to successfully do it) have been doing in the past 6 months to force the fees to go up. and do you honestly think the mining cartel is going to give up the (12.5+fees) * $2700 and rising and go for (12.5+ cheap to no fees) * $100 wake upI am wake since this scaling shit started. The miners will OPTIMIZE the blocksize by many constraints. So it seems you know a little but not the entire economic + technological intermezzo. Its about non-linear optimization and finding some local extreme values. Agreed we are all sheeps because this is complexity in its perfection. Everybody trying bribble this or that techy part is just wrong per definition of complexity. Free makrets will decide whats right not a single entitiy with too much to say yet. Getting to that free market is the correct way, allow maximum competition and freedom and evolutionary mechanics will acomplish our needs as they did for billions of years. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
