**LOTTA CAPSTYPINGS***
Happy Saturday!
Just to be clear, you seem to be stating that a future where transaction fees being $100, $1000 or even more per on-chain tx is a distinct possibility? That as a possibility is implicit in my thoughts, I'd say, yes. OK, so here's the relevant followup question. When average tx fees are $1000, what is the typical profile of a person willing to run a non-mining validator? Let's start simple on this - how many tx per year might the average such person make? |
|
|
|
Preference for the BSV protocol != 'Faketoshi-apologia' (WhateverTF that might be). My first encounter with you was in a thread focused on Craig Wright’s grand-scale identity theft, not technical issues. “Faketoshi-apologia” == this, inter alia:Wright’s theft of Satoshi’s identity is factually false,
For this to be true, it would require facts not yet entered into evidence. Sure, you have a mountain of circumstantial evidence, but from a logical standpoint, not conclusive.
If, tomorrow, I were to claim that Faketoshi “verified” a signature for me (!) on the same basis as his “verification” for Gavin, then that would leave only two realistic possibilities: Either (1) I am maliciously lying with the intent to support Faketoshi in a scam, or (2) Bitcoin Core developer and technical forum moderator Andrew Chow is himself so incompetent that he said the foregoing about someone who doesn’t even know how properly to verify a digital signature.
Your set of possibilities omits a third possibility. And that would be that "faketoshi" actually did verify a signature for you. You evidently believe this to be "unrealistic". However, the very framing of the question in this manner precludes the scant -- though actually real -- possibility. Yup. And you've also quoted me in all that need be said about that: "For this to be true, it would require facts not yet entered into evidence. Sure, you have a mountain of circumstantial evidence, but from a logical standpoint, not conclusive." Faketoshi-apologia? Hardly. With just a bit of digging, I also found you on record defaming Segwit’s security with the usual nonsense. I have sufficient technical competence to know that it is indeed nonsense. (That is why I am happy to keep my life savings in Segwit-native coins which I cannot afford to lose, which I would not entrust to unreliable technology.) It is not only a matter of disagreement about whether or not Segwit is a practical improvement: You’ve said things that are factually false, which I myself know to be factually false (not just because someone else said so), and which have been debunked so many times in such excruciating detail that I cannot imagine how any intelligent person can believe them sincerely. I must misunderstand you somehow. You seem to be saying that: should a majority of SAH256 mining power choose to revert to pre-segwit protocol, and to defend that decision by attacking any competing chain, they would be literally unable to do so. Is that your claim? And that entire matter of starting a brigaded neg campaign against me. Not like it hurt me in any way, but that's just fucking rude. I’ll give you this: You are not a garden-variety BSVer, the type who either lacks intelligence or has a few loose screws (or both). By process of elimination, that is why I called you a liar. Right. Then proceeded with a litany of 'examples' to 'support' your claim, in which I lie in exactly 0% thereof. You asswipe. If Blockalypse II comes and goes without the same sort of reduction in BTC Dominance that accompanied Blockalypse I, I'll likely acquiesce. In the same sense that I have waved goodbye to the sonics of 2" 30 ips tape. But repudiate the better design? Ain't gonna happen. jbreher, what did you mean by “sonics”? The subjective pleasure or displeasure -- as sensed psychoacoustically -- imparted by a particular music recording technology. The question is actually significant here.
For those who are unfamiliar with high-fidelity audio reproduction, I should briefly explain: There is a certain type of man who is unalterably certain of the superiority of analogue audio recording technology—stereotypically, vinyl records. It does not matter how often you explain the Nyquist Theorem. It does not matter if you use absurdly high-precision scientific instruments to measure audio differences far too small for humans to be capable of hearing, which invariably show that good digital equipment is hands-down superior to the quality of the best analogue device ever made. It does not matter if you perform empirical double-blind listening tests in anechoic chambers. And the problem is not stupidity, per se. It is tantamount to a religion.
That's a lot of blah blah blah dancing right past what really matters. You don't need to lecture me in Nyquist's theorem. I am a degreed electrical engineer and applied mathematician. But your blanket statement of superiority conveniently shoots right past the question of 'superior at _what_, exactly? The field of music production is a corner of the field of commercial art. And art is not measured by scientific instruments. It is measured by the effect it has upon each listener's emotions. If the above quote was intended to imply that 2" 30 ips tape has superior audio fidelity to digital, in the sense of transparent reproduction, then I have just accidentally solved the mystery of jbreher!
So sad for you that the point flew right over your head. On the other other hand, I don’t think that anybody ever said that about 2" (!) 30 ips (!!) tape. That seems pretty clearly aimed at maximal quality, not audible distortions.
You've obviously no experience in the production processes of popular music - where 2" 30 ips tape used to be the norm. True, it has largely been supplanted by digital production processes. But this is widely considered a production workflow efficiency driven decision. Employing 2" 30 ips analog tape for pop productions is still largely considered in professional circles as 'going the extra mile' in pursuit of improved sonics. |
|
|
|
EDIT: an interesting "thought" experiment would be to launch a few thou (or more) btc with the private code protected by a strong encryption (or strong multisig) into Sun-Earth L2 spot. Just in case if btc losses would be catastrophic at some point in the decades ahead. If needed, future humanity can retrieve such btc.
I cannot imagine any sort of catastrophe where a sudden injection of currency units would not exacerbate the problems faced, rather than solve them. |
|
|
|
The end game is bitcoin becomes the settlement layer for the world. Transaction costs are going way up in the future, you're not going to want to do on-chain transactions when it costs $1000+ to do so, but if you're settling a billions dollars, that's a tiny price to pay.
The fact is, whether we like it or not, very few individuals (other than those of us here) will hold private keys in 10 years. The transaction costs alone will ensure it.
**A little Saturday read inspired by your post... I will merit you, but I just dumped all my merit on Hal Finney. You can't be mad about that right?*** [ ...post too long for quoting, body removed, click here to go to it...] Happy Saturday! Very good post, thanks. I hope jbreher and the other big blockers read it (I'm saying this in a positive way, not intending to offend anyone...). Happy Saturday everyone! Read it. No offense taken. Found it insightful. Could form the basis of a serious discussion. But first, a clarifying question posted above. |
|
|
|
The end game is bitcoin becomes the settlement layer for the world. Transaction costs are going way up in the future, you're not going to want to do on-chain transactions when it costs $1000+ to do so, but if you're settling a billions dollars, that's a tiny price to pay.
The fact is, whether we like it or not, very few individuals (other than those of us here) will hold private keys in 10 years. The transaction costs alone will ensure it.
This is a very hard thing for the old school bitcoiner to accept. And some will reject it outright. In fact that is why Roger Ver went the way he did. I think CSW is an actual pathological conman, but I think Ver fell in love with a version of Bitcoin that he began to see as doomed, ironically as it began to become successful. But I want to put forth a couple reasons I think what you said above is important and inevitable. 1. The banking infrastructure and concept is STILL useful. 2. We actually NEED it. Bitcoin, if it does indeed begin to serve the world as even a semi-niche store of value will grow to magnitudes of it's current resource usage. And I am not going to crank the blocksize debate up again, but to put it simply we can either keep bitcoin validation decentralized and thereby enforce the consensus, or we can let it be taken over by a small minority, and end up with a digital panopticon that would make most fundamentalist evangelical's vision of the "mark of the beast" look like Monopoly. The fight is over which resource use grows... and the market has, in some way against all odds, chosen correctly: Fees. I agree with the market here and I realize the future is not what, even Satoshi, seemed to have seen. Although Hal got it. And WAAAAAY back then too... I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash. Most Bitcoin transactions will occur between banks, to settle net transfers. Bitcoin transactions by private individuals will be as rare as... well, as Bitcoin based purchases are today.
Actually there is a very good reason for Bitcoin-backed banks to exist, issuing their own digital cash currency, redeemable for bitcoins. Bitcoin itself cannot scale to have every single financial transaction in the world be broadcast to everyone and included in the block chain. There needs to be a secondary level of payment systems which is lighter weight and more efficient. Likewise, the time needed for Bitcoin transactions to finalize will be impractical for medium to large value purchases.
Bitcoin backed banks will solve these problems. They can work like banks did before nationalization of currency. Different banks can have different policies, some more aggressive, some more conservative. Some would be fractional reserve while others may be 100% Bitcoin backed. Interest rates may vary. Cash from some banks may trade at a discount to that from others.
That was a very wise man seeing the rise of Cash App, Strike, and Kraken back when everyone else was just wanting to figure out how to get around all the regulations that made it hard to play online poker. Insert Ver's scrunched up face here as he foams at the mouth taking about PEER TO PEER CASH!!! AND I AM SORRY I JUST GET SO EMOTIONAL! No one can stop you from using the chain. Ever. That is CERTAINLY one of the things that makes bitcoin a "zero to one" invention. But if you really want to compete for the kind of VALUE that Bitcoin will command and REQUIRE for on chain transactions??? ...better get that business plan ready. And there are some fairly smart folks out there with a good head start on you already. Bitcoin is not replacing credit cards... Bitcoin is replacing FedWire. If we want Bitcoin to be successful then this is where we are going. And we should really be glad. It might not look like what we all thought it would 10 years ago (or 7 or 3 or last week), and part of the reason for that is our vision is limited. We get hung up, like Ver, on shiny things that look more important than they are. That feeling you got when you did your first few Bitcoin transactions? It's not going away. It's just changing form. And you are one of the lucky ones that got to experience that first. Most people will have the much more ho-hum feeling of just watching the mover and shakers roll out the new world for them... Personally, I'm pulling out the champaign that market behaviour is indeed producing activity levels that can pay for security without inflation, and also producing fee paying backlogs needed to stabilize consensus progress as the subsidy declines. -Greg Maxwell around the BTC all time high Dec 2017. https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-December/015455.htmlHappy Saturday! Just to be clear, you seem to be stating that a future where transaction fees being $100, $1000 or even more per on-chain tx is a distinct possibility? |
|
|
|
and yeah I heard you updated from your shitty van to a nicer one
Don't you be callin' Bessie 'shitty' - them's fightin' words. I drove her for twenty years, because it was the vehicle that suited me at the time. (not that you are living in it.. hahahahaha... nothing wrong with that)..
...down by the river Another factoid I let slip a while back: At the top of the market in late 2017, I sold enough to buy My Personal Lambotm.
I know about your mercedes or whatever it is. Perhaps we have a misunderstanding of the meaning of My Personal Lambo tm. It is That One Purchase made whose attributes are rather ostentatious as compared to needs or requirements for an object of that class. It need not be an actual Lamborghini. Indeed, in my case, it is not any sort of vehicle. Some of us are well into the divestment phase.
Probably one of the first times that you mentioned that mostly "divestment phase" perspective of yourself.  Again, not at all. From the same time frame as above: I have already stated that I have retired. Which means I need to fund my Lavish Lambo Lifestyle tm* off my accumulated holdings. Hence, Divestment phase. You are being a bit back and forth here... so you gotta admit that. OK, I will admit my role in this particular misunderstanding. Silly me for expecting that the trademark term on Lavish Lambo Lifestyle tm would denote that the use of the term is tongue-in-cheek. Nay, other than My Personal Lambo tm, I live pretty frugally. Always have. Which, of course, is what has allowed me to make the investments that have landed me in my current position. I had heard that you quit your regular job a couple of years ago.. so anyhow, that still would not necessarily mean that you are "well into the divestment phase" of your BTC unless you choose to start to make such divestments.
Gotta eat. That's gotta be funded somehow. BTC Dominance
Yep. I was a bit struck too (or maybe the better word choice would be "awed"?), by the jbreher strategic placement of that unimportant metric. 'unimportant metric'  It's almost as if you are making my point for me. |
|
|
|
* Another subject that I recently began to write about, and did not yet finish: Fractional reserve banking is mathematically impossible with Bitcoin. Because fractional reserve banking is not what most people think it is—it is worse—it creates money out of thin air, whereas it is impossible to loan new bitcoins into existence out of nowhere.
Sorry, but that's just ignorant. It is also impossible to create gold (the elemental metal) out of nowhere. Explain me paper gold and gold leasing. The physical metal as a financial asset is undercapitalized by an inscrutable multiple. _Impossible_ to suffer such rehypothecation? Not at all, young padawan. |
|
|
|
(FWIW, in some clusterfork of a Reputation thread, I mentioned that I would offer jbreher a (virtual) beer if he ever consistently repudiated his beloved forked shitcoins and Faketoshi-apologia, and admitted that he was wrong about Segwit, Core, etc. The offer stands.)
I might be convinced to share a draft with you some day. Yet you persist in slander. Preference for the BSV protocol != 'Faketoshi-apologia' (WhateverTF that might be). And that entire matter of starting a brigaded neg campaign against me. Not like it hurt me in any way, but that's just fucking rude. Either way, repudiation of what I believe to be a better design just ain't gonna happen. If Blockalypse II comes and goes without the same sort of reduction in BTC Dominance that accompanied Blockalypse I, I'll likely acquiesce. In the same sense that I have waved goodbye to the sonics of 2" 30 ips tape. But repudiate the better design? Ain't gonna happen. |
|
|
|
like, who gives a f--k..it is not 2017 anymore...that is done..and what's done is done.
While true, it may be the mirror image of 2016 again. |
|
|
|
You would think an MIT grad and subsequent computer simulations modeler would've understood Bitcoin back in 2013.
I'm no MIT grad and I got it almost immediately back then.
Hell within a few days of research, I completely understood how groundbreaking a breakthrough it was, and how it would fundamentally change the financial world.
While that all makes sense, one must first actually stick their head in the rabbit hole before one can start to understand. edit: 'tis one of my regrets that I did not give the rabbit hole more than a cursory glance at first sight. Oh well. C'est la guerre. Huh, jbreher? What's your rabbit hole story? You may have said. I cannot remember specifics. You did not start buying BTC right away? At least small amounts? You may have sold too many too soon. I think that i heard you reveal something like that, previously. I've said a little. Perhaps not a lot. I was made aware in 2010. I already had a huge revulsion for the tenets of partial reserve banking, so I was primed. But I was A Busy Guy. No time to look into a neckbeard curiosity that had 'little chance of panning out' (i.e., I walked past the rabbit hole and noticed it's presence, but did not stick my head in). Even at that, I was buying well before I registered hereupon. Ponderate upon that if you must. No, I've not sold a whole lot. 'Divestment phase' != 'Liquidating out for stinky fiat'. At least not in my reading. I did ... lose a whole lot. In a boating accident couple of scammy scams. As said earlier, C'est la guerre. I have probably been interacting with you since mid-to-late 2014.. perhaps early 2015, and seems that you had accumulated some BTC in Bitcoin's pre-2013 era.
Sure, maybe a lot of us do not accumulate as many BTC as we retroactively conclude that we should have, and of course, June 2011 would have given you a whole year to accumulate single digit BTC and then a bit more than another 1/2 year to acquire BTC in the teens (below $20).
Yup. Even after (significant) losses, my all-in cost for what I still hold is about $20 each. So, sure, there could have been some selling too much too soon.
Not at all. I have sold ... a little. For a good price. Anyone else here claiming they sold some at $20250? (yes, I know you are wedded to stamp's numbers. But GDAX went above 20250) Bueller...? ... Bueller...?* *Fun factoid: The guy who played that teacher -- Ben Stein -- used to be President Richard M Nixon's speechwriter. Another factoid I let slip a while back: At the top of the market in late 2017, I sold enough to buy My Personal Lambo tm. Some of us are well into the divestment phase.
Probably one of the first times that you mentioned that mostly "divestment phase" perspective of yourself. Again, not at all. From the same time frame as above: I have already stated that I have retired. Which means I need to fund my Lavish Lambo Lifestyle tm* off my accumulated holdings. Hence, Divestment phase. I mean, if you can't connect 'retired from wage slave status' (even at a job I loved - and one upon which Bitcoin, computer networking, and pretty much any tech-touching field is utterly dependent upon my contributions to such) with 'divestment phase'? Well, then that's on you. *(Rhetorical question - if it is well within your means, is the Lavish Lambo Lifestyle tm actually ... lavish?) Could be one of the reasons that you seem to have a decent amount of relative valuing of dollars rather than bitcoin?
How long have we known each other? If I valued USD more than Bitcoin, I'd have liquidated. On the other hand, such a purported status would not seem to justify your seeming tendency to have been spending many years gambling with long shot bcash nonsenses.
So sue me. (I've got a pretty big war chest - you better be sure of your case). No, I just think that a Bitcoin that has not been intentionally crippled by an insane, economically-ignorant restrictive production quota upon transaction capacity has more inherent value than one which has been so crippled. And that my thesis will be proven prescient come Blockalypse II. But you know this already. You also know that I am not in the BCH camp. I was until they started adopting pages from the Core/Blockstream playbook, and started adding gratuitous protocol changes. At which point, the standard-bearer for satoshi's original design was advanced by BSV. The confirmed science and math that Satoshi didn't understand has to do with how poorly this system functions as a currency. We tried it for a few years. It doesn't work. It's only a bad speculative vehicle, which now people realize and have been dumping for 4 years. The project failed. Neat idea, but fractional reserve banking is clearly better based on all proven and confirmed science and math. I'm glad Satoshi tried this out, but now we know it doesn't work and we can go back to the way things are proven to work best.
Too bad Satoshi wasn't a smart guy like Craig Wright. To be fair, for the entire interval of satoshi's public involvement, transaction volume never came anywhere near the (relatively very high level for the time) blocksize cap that he enacted under prodding from his most significant collaborator. Plus, he explicitly explained exactly how trivial it would be to increase said blocksize cap such that transaction volume was never artificially throttled. Extending to exemplary code. To the eventual exasperation of those of us who would like the system to exceed such exceedingly tiny limits. As reliance on such economicallly braindead external exigencies is extreme folly. In other words, pretty much long settled that BIG blocks are not the way to go, 'Settled'? Au contraire mon frere. I mean, if you think that the wise decision is to outsource your strategy to the 100 IQ masses, knock yourself out. No - at the point that we've not even started up the S-Curve inflection point of adoption, it is waaaaay too early to be calling any sort of eventual winner. |
|
|
|
lose: unfind ... loose: untight Its so good two C you’re hi regard for proper use of the English language! I like it alot. I'm gratified to learn of your pleasure thereof. That's there for those who don't know any better.* Just cause I ain't talk good mostish should not be construed to imply that I am incapable of employing formal grammatical constructs. *Given the pervasivity of that particular misuse, I sometimes worry that the entire innerwebs is trolling me. ...
You skipped over the most salient point. You have no fckin clue. |
|
|
|
Some of us are well into the divestment phase. HoDLer’s reaction:  Laf it up, funny guy/gal. You have absolutely no fckin clue. Incidentally, did yer momma not teach you that casting grotesque humor at others' phenotypes is rong? |
|
|
|
I've been there. Though the label be-ith green. I like my Bulleit in the Rye variant. |
|
|
|
The confirmed science and math that Satoshi didn't understand has to do with how poorly this system functions as a currency. We tried it for a few years. It doesn't work. It's only a bad speculative vehicle, which now people realize and have been dumping for 4 years. The project failed. Neat idea, but fractional reserve banking is clearly better based on all proven and confirmed science and math. I'm glad Satoshi tried this out, but now we know it doesn't work and we can go back to the way things are proven to work best.
Too bad Satoshi wasn't a smart guy like Craig Wright. To be fair, for the entire interval of satoshi's public involvement, transaction volume never came anywhere near the (relatively very high level for the time) blocksize cap that he enacted under prodding from his most significant collaborator. Plus, he explicitly explained exactly how trivial it would be to increase said blocksize cap such that transaction volume was never artificially throttled. Extending to exemplary code. To the eventual exasperation of those of us who would like the system to exceed such exceedingly tiny limits. As reliance on such economicallly braindead external exigencies is extreme folly. |
|
|
|
I'm going to preface this with a statement that I was a PM holder before a Bitcoiner. I still have significant investment in PMs. I have no plans to divest such. That said... Gold is the supreme hedge against the total collapse of all industry and technology. It is an asset that will assuredly retain its value a thousand years from now, or in ten thousand years, or longer—if humans still exist.
While I think the chance of this staying true at least for my lifetime* is better than 50-50, I'm not so sanguine about gold's longer-term prospects. What exactly makes you so sure of such? *(and I hope to buy the best of life extension tech as it comes to market, though I may not be among the first cohort to reach escape velocity) |
|
|
|
Haha! Score! Extra points for having 'Little chained-up pens'! Mostly, triple score to State of WY for legislating that SPDIs maintain 100% reserve requirements.  |
|
|
|
In this moment I am ithyphallic.
I musta read that wrong. Initially, I thought you had a sexual fetish for fish. |
|
|
|
El Royal Dudeness, is this the Dude drinking a scented candle, and if so, which scent?  [edit: original way of beating bad breath though]Gwynneth Paltrow's vijayjay. After her visit to snowy moksva, presumably
edit: for coffee |
|
|
|
I don't get quantum computers. Why build one? What's the point?
They only talk about destructive purpuses: "with a quantum computer we can break this or that".
If it's only useful as a doomsday device, then stop trying to make one, dammit!
...starring Phil_S as President Merkin Muffley...Quantum computers will be built. Regardless of any particular entities' desire for such. (And despite whether or not their nature as true quantum machines is real or imagined, which seems to be still a topic of some discussion) Technology has its own evolutionary imperative, to which we mere humans are only tools. And to be able to deal with such eventuality -- and the implications thereof -- one must study such thingies. And in order to properly study such, one need be able to poke and prod an actual specimen of such. Hence the defensive need for such development, even if one is not interested in quantum computing for its own sake. |
|
|
|
So, are there any knife catchers left trying to gain from 5 min 1-2% drops? They must be completely blinded and not being able to see the big picture.
Some of us are well into the divestment phase. Given that that is an actual thing, if you cannot see the advantage in harvesting the substantial interim volatility, then it is you that is blindeded. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
