Emmmm, I believe I also said as much. The norm is 300 kB. So all we can get is 3x as much transactions. I see that as a bottleneck. If this was my production server I'd be looking into getting a new one  We agree on the problem, we disagree on the solution. Treating it as a 'production server' replacement, would be the wrong approach. How many times do you want to replace this 'production server' for the same reason? If we are going to a dynamic limit, it should be one that isn't going to need to change later, and can be assured that it will be fit for purpose, and without opening up new vulnerabilities. The problem with that... it isn't simple. If the limit were say 10x the average size of the last 1000 blocks, it would still provide the anti-spam protection and keep the node distribution from getting too centralized |
|
|
|
Unfortunately, I don't believe there is time to properly test and incorporate merkle tree pruning before we need to increase the block limit, but that should be a focus as well as using invertible Bloom filters .
http://www.coindesk.com/juniper-research-bitcoin-transactions-double-2017/A couple years according to these researchers. Double our current average and we still aren't at 1MB. It is the upper limit peaks which are problematic and preparing for the future before the next traffic increase along with other decentralized apps like lighthouse being restricted. We are already seeing full blocks from time to time at the moment, thus we should be concerned now. To which full block(s) are you referring? What height? Or by "full" are you referring to the lower than 1MB max block sizes used in some pools? If you are just making this up to escalate urgency and fake a crisis, then why do that? No. He is talking about the 970-980 kB blocks which not rare these days. While the average is around 300kB, that means we are at 1/3 capacity. And I personally think 1/3 is where we should seriously consider our options for scalability. The way people are split on the subject right now it is even more urgent to start getting a consensus. But on the other hand there is no hurry and no crisis. The extra transactions can just go through altcoins if Bitcoin chooses the 1MB block + higher fees 'solution'. They aren't rare, but they are not the norm. Most aren't near full. F2Pool solved a few that were close recently, above 900K. With a good number of freebies. https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000000175b44859017a5148c48ecba7a67f14012232e9bb6b47a73https://blockchain.info/block/00000000000000000f9597aed448ce8429c550a65f896b66760381d0c364901eand then there is this 7K block in between https://blockchain.info/block/000000000000000014efb22561313ebe3c27780808b5d8939ebc1a850badf9daThere are a lot of blocks with <200K, so we'd get some scalability of more Tx/s with a minimum block size too, but that would not be a good thing to do. |
|
|
|
Unfortunately, I don't believe there is time to properly test and incorporate merkle tree pruning before we need to increase the block limit, but that should be a focus as well as using invertible Bloom filters .
http://www.coindesk.com/juniper-research-bitcoin-transactions-double-2017/A couple years according to these researchers. Double our current average and we still aren't at 1MB. It is the upper limit peaks which are problematic and preparing for the future before the next traffic increase along with other decentralized apps like lighthouse being restricted. We are already seeing full blocks from time to time at the moment, thus we should be concerned now. To which full block(s) are you referring? What height? Or by "full" are you referring to the lower than 1MB max block sizes used in some pools? If you are just making this up to escalate urgency and fake a crisis, then why do that? |
|
|
|
Unfortunately, I don't believe there is time to properly test and incorporate merkle tree pruning before we need to increase the block limit, but that should be a focus as well as using invertible Bloom filters .
http://www.coindesk.com/juniper-research-bitcoin-transactions-double-2017/A couple years according to these researchers. Double our current average and we still aren't at 1MB. |
|
|
|
It may be a philosophical issue. If this is one of those NetNeutrality idiots that want to prevent me from investing in faster internet connection for myself because "fairness".
This shows that you also don't understand what net neutrality actually is about. It is not about protecting people from anti-competitive practices which is the primary story being sold by the statists that seek yet another restriction on commercial freedom. Not only are there are already sufficient laws for that, it is not happening, it is only in the imagination of those that seek to claim more authority. Politicians like building bridges where there are no rivers. So what do you think it is actually about? Surveillance of MPLS tagging (ostensibly to prevent QoS), or just another power grab? |
|
|
|
You gavincoin people simply won't do the math. There is no realistic point where a decent fraction of the worlds population can use native Bitcoin and have it remain supportable by anything but the most well situated mega-players.
I would ask if you'd change your mind if the math showed you to be wrong, but we already know the answer to that, don't we? You (nor anyone else) responded to my simple arithmetic showing we need 10,000 tx/sec or so for less than half the world to use Bitcoin once per day. Show me any example of anything remotely resembling a full scale Bitcoin network even existing in the real world, much less one under any sort of attack, and maybe I'll re-think my position. ... As I've said before, it I were planning an attack on Bitcoin, I'd to exactly what the gavincoin folks are doing, and I hypothesized about it years ago. I think it very possibly that this is one of the main incentives for trying to introduce exponential growth. Here's the deal. I do NOT think that it is irrational to consider our 'best bet' to go the direction our leaderships map out for us. It is NOT irrational to trust the democratically elected political and social leaders over a band of often-criminal malcontents who happen to have a disproportionate number of chips at this point in the game. Most people 'love big brother' and I have no reason to think that Gavin and the folks involved with the Bitcoin Foundation are any different. Just the opposite in fact! For that simple reason it does not strike me as especially unlikely that they would like Bitcoin as a solution to be brought to heal and they probably see plenty of legitimate uses for it even when it is. For my part I simply dis-agree with this analysis and see Bitcoin as a pretty boring and useless, and mainly as just stepping stone toward a real solution if they get their way. I'm not ready to give up on Bitcoin just yet. I'm pretty much with you on this, though I'm in favor or changing the 1MB limit. I don't like the proposed solution of 20MB + exponential increase and I would not fork to it (so count me as 'anti' for the poll). The proposal creates problems. It is a sort-of simple proposal, (which is in its favor), but I think we can do better. We aren't in a crisis, and there may not be a crisis for quite a while. Even having the horrible circumstance of queueing transactions (this already happens for low/no fee transaction), is not the end of the world for Bitcoin, but it will limit growth and adoption. So since we have time to improve the proposal, this is what we ought to be doing. If we are changing from a static to a dynamic limit, it ought to be sensitive to the need for increase rather than exponentially increasing. This could be either too high of a limit (and creating the potential for vastly increasing network costs unsupported by Bitcoin economy), or it could be too low (and we end up back where we are now). I would support either a sensitive increase, or a static increase (which just kicks the can down the road but caps the risk), but not a dynamic one that has exponentially increasing risk. |
|
|
|
It would be great if you could read the actual proposal and show where the problem is specifically, rather than just list your a priori assumptions.
One challenge/complexity would be that there is an time-bound asymmetry between the network cost, and the pay for sending (or for relaying) a transaction. The Bitcoin network cost = Data Size * decentralization. The transaction must be stored on every node and forever, whilst the fee is paid once and to only one recipient. Bitcoin solves this using a free market solution of the block solving lottery. The assumption here is that the block reward is sufficient for the miners to "tip out" to the nodes. To make sure that they keep at it. Peter Todd twitter-quipped that the block size is a barrier to entry, he is right, but this is balanced by another barrier, the data size. This grows at the rate of the block size. So the bigger the block sizes, the more transactions can be processed, but also the greater ongoing cost for storing all those transactions for an indefinite future. So a cost-payment asymmetry. The one-time payment must cover costs for an indefinite future. Getting this balanced is not easy within the paradigm of a protocol. This is how we became stuck with a block size limit which we hope to outgrow over the next few years. Justus's brilliance is that he sheds complexity by simply ignoring it. Yes, that is the way to do it. The complexities get simplified at the time the code is written. Unless they can't be simplified, and then the issue doesn't get solved. |
|
|
|
I'm all for "letting the market decide" unfortunately we have no means for pricing the cost of transactions. Sure the transaction author can negotiate with a miner but he has no way of negotiating with every node operator in the world and every single one of them bears a cost for his transaction. Even if a node opperator has sizable bitcoin holdings it is unlikely that the befit of the increased value of his bitcoin as a result of his running a full node will outweigh the cost, so this cost is effectively "socialized" and he is expected to bear it for the sake of altruism.
The point is, we all would love to avoid central planing, but without the ability to make a market we have no alternative. This article presents a false choice, that of central planning vs allowing the market to decide, but there is no market here. The best we can hope for in terms of creating a market to address this problem is competition among crypto currency central planners, then the market can decide which central planners are producing the best monetary policy.
Dont think that im some sort of socialist. I'm as pro market as they come. This is just the unfortunate reality of the situation. I wish it weren't so. It would be great if you could read the actual proposal and show where the problem is specifically, rather than just list your a priori assumptions. If there was an allocation to node running as proposed, it would help. Since nodes are needed for mining, it was envisioned that the mining rewards would do this. In economic solutions to avoid centralization, look for the Nash equilibrium and to avoid solutions with advantages weighted toward incumbency. Justusranvier has a pretty well reasoned description of what that might look like. Creating a market for node running would not be a bad thing, if done with incentives favoring distribution in the design. TBF has a sort of small incentive program going: https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/incentive/It is an off-network incentive, so maybe we'll see what happens with it.. |
|
|
|
|
The surveillance state does have an impact here. It is part of the reason for the effort. In order to regulate and enforce on this particular issue, it will require deep packet inspection, at least to the level of MPLS tags. There is already sufficient anti-competitive law so the stated reasons for it are plainly untrue. It doesn't take much imagination to figure why this needs to be a federal regulatory authority.
So then, which utility is it that provides a wealth of choices to you?
Electricity, water, fire, police?
The speed differences between nations are more to do with high value population densities (which provide very good cost recovery for last mile networks when the last mile is only a few feet) and also with age of construction. The parts of the UK where the building code requires uniform constructions and stone walls are not so well served by fast networks.
The UK does not have the proposed Net Neutrality & utility designation as the sheeple have been bamboozled into thinking is needed.
Once upon a time all the communication networks were national PTTs. Those that privitized first, developed first. This is a step backwards.
|
|
|
|
The trick is not to panic about "how the market could possibly handle it without central planning." No one is smart enough to figure out all the little rules and stipulations for each economic relationship, let alone do so in advance, let alone get consensus on such rules. Just remove the cap and let the market work. Babying the market with paternalism in the form of artificial scarcity just leaves the space open for competitors to stick their oars in.
Well said. You (rocks), justusranvier, the guy you quoted (not going to try to type zangle....), and a few others are, in my opinion, some of the smarter guys on this forum. Thanks for sticking around. Sorry for not thanking you sooner. Please don't leave us. Just because mindless trolls and zombies are grunting and bumping into each other does not mean it is time to leave. I am not a conspiracy person but have wondered if some of the trolls are not hired shills... There IS a lot at stake here. Free markets work. In this situation where we have few to none of the categorized market weaknesses (negative externalities, pop culture, public goods) freeing the market while minding incentives in the structure of the system is best. Nodes, at this point, seem to be victim to the public good weakness but everything else is flawless. I run a full node as well as some miners (at a loss and since 2010) because I am altruistic in spite of my admiration for "Atlas Shrugged." We just can't expect everyone else to get gushy over my love of humanity and the beauty of this bloodless revolution so incentives need to be in place for the brightest future. Invisible hand (Adam Smith) only works when it is invisible. The rationale for a Max Block Size has almost nothing to do with transaction fees, or free market activity. It has a lot more to do with security and reliability. The free market doesn't provide this. |
|
|
|
(...) You won't get side-chains if you stay on the 1MB block chain, because the 1MB block chain will not move fast enough to support them. (...)
Can you elaborate? First person I hear making this claim. Even after a new version of the software containing a hard fork is deployed, the new protocol does not actually go into effect (the hard fork does not actually happen) until more than 95% of the hashing power is ready to go onto the new protocol. That leaves less than 5% of the hashing power on the old protocol, meaning a new block on the old protocol could be found less than once every 3 hours. Because that's clearly a loss and a failure, at least 90% of the remaining people would abandon it immediately, leaving it getting one block about every 33 hours. Making it even more a loss and a failure, but assuming that last half-percent of the hashing power can be an irrational lunatic fringe who never ever leave, then with that amount of constant hashing power.... The transaction rate on the old chain is one transaction per 86 seconds. Most transactions never get into a block on the old chain, because the blocks are only 1MByte and only happen once per 33 hours. If a transaction does happen to get into a block on the old chain, it will be ten days before it gets to confirmation depth. A coinbase from finding a block on the old chain would take four and a half months to become spendable. And 2016 blocks, which is the time between difficulty adjustments, flies by in just seven years and eight months. The maximum adjustment an unforked bitcoin will allow is for the block speed to quadruple. Therefore the time to each new difficulty adjustment is a quarter the time needed for the previous one. Again assuming hashing power stays constant, which it won't: You spend seven and two-thirds years getting blocks once per 33 hours. (1 tx per ~86 seconds) You spend a year and nine-tenths getting blocks once every 8 1/3 hours. (1 tx per ~21 seconds) You spend five months and 20 days getting blocks once every 2 1/12 hours. (1 tx per ~5 seconds) You spend a month and twelve days getting blocks once every half-hour. (1 tx per second) And after that difficulty adjustment works "normally". It takes ten years to get back to handling 1 tx per second. If you assume your conclusion, why bother with the proof? |
|
|
|
It is good that you point this out to show that there is some work going on to advance it, but... You do realize that this test is a different experiment, than say trying it in an altcoin, yes? This is not in an economic environment but in a lab. Larger max block size limits in an altcoin wouldn't really be the same test either, as there aren't altcoins with more transactions than Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Still on uptick.
West Africa:
As of November 9, 2014
(Updated November 12, 2014)
Total Cases: 14098
Laboratory-Confirmed Cases: 8715
Total Deaths: 5160
As of November 16, 2014 (Updated November 20, 2014) Total Cases: 15145 Laboratory-Confirmed Cases: 9427 Total Deaths: 5420 Updated December 3, 2014 Total Cases: 17145 Laboratory-Confirmed Cases: 10740 Total Deaths: 6070 As of February 9, 2015 (Updated February 12, 2015) Total Cases (Suspected, Probable, and Confirmed): 22938 Laboratory-Confirmed Cases: 14002 Total Deaths: 9209 The rate of change is slowing. |
|
|
|
This advice is good but probably won't help much.
Pretty likely, this fed sting guys will talk about "illegal activity without being asked", after the deal is done and money & coins are already exchanged.
So you/the exchanger is already fucked, when these "evidences" are created.
For the court, the officiial timeline will obvious be changed later then.
At least the block chain will have a time stamp. It may be slightly better evidence than what an "official" may provide. Take home message: Don't do bad things with Bitcoin. It leaves a record. |
|
|
|
Weaken it? How does having lots of transactions weaken Bitcoin?
Bitcoin Network Cost = Data Size * Decentralization If the supportable cost stays the same, and the data size increases, you can expect the decentralization to decrease. Historically there have been some decreases in Data Size costs, from innovation advancements. We should expect to lose some decentralization with the increase in data size through adoption-oriented scalability improvements. This is one of the reason why I would like this to be done carefully and thoughtfully. |
|
|
|
Instead of replying to my last post you are mumbling something about "uncontrolled exponentially bigger blocks" while Gavin's post is all about a controlled growth of the blocks. You lack reading comprehension or you are just bad intended with this small change of subject. No need to continue a discussion with your attitude.
What attitude to you imagine that I have? Again with the rhetoric that if we disagree than I must not have "reading comprehension" problem because of course you are right? When discussing these things I love to learn how I am wrong, that means I have learned something. Are you also open to learning or are you beyond the potential for learning because you know everything already? Fine. I will not speak for Satoshi and I will only speak for me as long as you do the same.  I also think that the block size will increase, and I look forward to it. I do think it ought to be done with care and intelligence. I do not think we should guess about it. I do not think new arbitrary limits should be created by adding an exponential dimension, even if they are "better" than the current ones, without also taking the time we have to do it right. I do not think "we need to allow stuff to happen". If you call http://gavintech.blogspot.ro/2015/01/twenty-megabytes-testing-results.html guessing then I guess we are done discussing stuff. If you think that says anything more than "the software works" then you are right, we are done discussing. When you come to realize "the software" =/= "the protocol" we can start again. There yet? OK read on... "Software engineering" is very different from "protocol engineering". You can be great at one and horrible at the other. I love Gavin, I respect him enough to tell him when I disagree with him and have done so, and in slightly more detail privately. His testing is a good thing and I am happy for it, it had to be done. What it does not do is get us any closer to a good solution to HOW to raise the block size so that we don't ever have to worry about changing this again. That would take protocol engineering. The testing does show that the software may work with bigger blocks for a while in a certain constrained environment, which is great news. When you also add "security" and "economics game theory" there are other elements as well. It is a different thing to build a boat that floats in a private bay, and one that can go through enemy waters that may have submarines in them. IF we break bitcoin for some purposes in order to fix it for other purposes, it is important to be very honest about that. To some folks this is the "screw-TOR-lets-mass-adopt" hard fork. We aren't anywhere close to mass adoption today, but a larger block size removes an impediment to getting there. Is it worth making it impossible to mine over TOR? Maybe. Maybe not. Some may exit. There are less that use TOR than those that don't, so if we are majority magnets, we drop TOR. I do not favor a rule by the majority. I will only speak for me as long as you do the same so I will ignore this "we" comment. lol.. have it your way: "I" am not close to mass adopting, lol. Is that better? It also allows for increased network cost or decreases centralization:
Bitcoin Network Cost = Data Size * Decentralization How much mining have you done or are you doing right now to speak about network costs? Not going to talk here about my mining activities, thanks anyway. It is not germane. For purpose of discussion you may assume that I mined a lot for a very long time but never made or lost any money on it. Do you disagree with this formula though? We can discuss it and what it means if you like. So these are two attack threat vectors opened up by your "We just need to allow stuff to happen." mentality.
Bitcoin is what it is, not because of what it allows, but because of what it does NOT allow.
I do not favor a rule by the majority. You value 'consensus' but I do not think you really know what that means, it does not mean the majority rules over the minority. It means agreement. But before this 1MB limit we had no limit. Why should I agree that this is the way it should be instead of the other way?
Well... sort of... Before the 1MB limit (added Summer 2010) it was a 32MB limit... Satoshi wrote about why it was added and a bit about the conditions and method under which it could be changed. It was not initially intended to be a permanent thing. I can find some quotes if you need them.. But to answer your question, why should you agree that it is the way it should be instead of any other way... I am not asking you to agree with anything, I am asking you to understand that the lack of agreement means that there is not a consensus on the matter. We don't have a "best proposal" yet for how to fix it, we don't even have a "this is really good" proposal. We have a "this is the simplest that could possibly work" proposal. I would like to work toward a "best proposal". At a minimum I would like a proposal that will work forever and not take the risk of kicking so many folks off the bitcoin network. You on the other hand are on the side of: "we don't need to think about this anymore, lets DO SOMETHING before its too late, quick everyone PANIC". Here we disagree. You view Bitcoin as something that is supposed to limit. I don't. There can't be a middle way.
Bitcoin is ALL about the limits it has, get rid of those limits and you no longer have Bitcoin. No limit to the number of coins, no limit to double spending, no limit to who can spend a particular coin? Those are the fiat system. Bitcoin is ALL about limits, and preventing bad things from happening to the protocol. So by disagreeing, you agree that there is no consensus. |
|
|
|
So you wanted to start a project, but you cancelled it because the network couldn't handle the high number of transactions? Imagine that there are a lot of people that would want to start various projects or more important various services, but can't because the network doesn't allow them a high transaction number. That's why we need 20MB blocks. Internet got popular and useful for everyone when we were able to access different services on it. It will be the same with Bitcoin. We just need to allow stuff to happen!
Why do you compare Bitcoin with gold? What's the logic behind that? Did Satoshi mentioned anything about Bitcoin and gold? I'm not aware of that reference. That's again your view about Bitcoin which is a personal and distorted view of Bitcoin. Bitcoin should be neutral just as the Internet and it should be available for everyone, not just to the highest bidders because you or anyone else wants it that way!
Yes sidechains will help, but we don't know how much space in a block will the Sidechain need so until we know that it's useless to make assumptions about them.
Why do *I* need *you* to start projects and services on the Bitcoin block chain? The code is open source, fork it, Side Chain it, modify it however you see fit, and have fun with your project or service. Why do *you* insist on imposing upon others? Do you lack reading reading comprehension? I have highlighted one important part from my quote. Let me repeat it because you obviously didn't see it: Bitcoin should be neutral just as the Internet and it should be available for everyone, not just to the highest biddersI never stated that I want to start projects and that you need me. I said that there are a lot of people that would like to start various services and projects. Please highlight the part where I said that I want to start anything. That's an interesting phrase and concept, we will see in the next 4-5 years if it will stay "free, decentralized & neutral" or not (I certainly hope so). It may be a philosophical issue. If this is one of those NetNeutrality idiots that want to prevent me from investing in faster internet connection for myself because "fairness". When you add these view points together you get the pernicious move from Bitcoin -> totalitarian coin. Uncontrolled exponentially bigger blocks + government constrained network speeds and new regulatory authority over all internet uses (where you are NOT allowed to put your bitcoin node in a fast lane because it wouldn't be "fair" to the Farmville players). |
|
|
|
Sure. Here you go. ^^
"We just need to allow stuff to happen."
Why do "we" *need* this?
Why do *you* think you speak for others?
What is this "stuff" you are interested in inflicting on people, and why do we "need" to allow it?
So from "Why do *I* need *you* to start projects and services on the Bitcoin block chain?" and "Why do *you* insist on imposing upon others?" you switched to "Why do "we" *need* this?". Ok..that makes a lot of sense... Now to answer to your issue: Why do "we" *need* this? Because if we have a closed network that only allows the highest bidder to use it, then it will remain a closed network. Satoshi didn't started Bitcoin to be a closed network. If *you* want a closed network based on the highest bids then yes go ahead and "The code is open source, fork it, Side Chain it, modify it however you see fit, and have fun with your project or service". Why do *you* think you speak for others? I speak for myself and from the looks of it there are a lot of people that think the same. Since this is a consensus network then all the users need to agree to the best terms that allow the network to flourish. When I say "we" I'm referring to all the network users if we want a consensus network to still be alive in 10 years. What is this "stuff" you are interested in inflicting on people, and why do we "need" to allow it? I said it in the past, but you obviously don't pay attention to posts. Bitcoin is Internet of money. Internet flourished after there were a lot of services running on top of it. Look at the Internet 20 years ago and look at the Internet today. What has changed? Well at first people didn't know what to do with the Internet, but today they have figured it out and there are TONS of services/projects running on top of it (Facebook, Google, Websites, E-mail etc) and people that do all kinds of stuff (porn, chat, various types of websites, darkmarkets etc). You and I can do whatever the hell we want on Internet and nobody is making you auction your space on the Internet. Why shouldn't be the same with Bitcoin? 20 years ago downloading the equivalent of a HD movie in a couple of minutes was just a fantasy, but look where we are today! I think that the same can be done with Bitcoin. What today seems an impossible technological challenge, maybe tomorrow will be reality. You are using rhetoric debate tricks, so I will point out a few of those. 1) Please do not speak for Satoshi. 2) Please do not speak for others. 3) I've written a lot of things in the past that you do not pay attention to also, don't pretend that I should have to read everything you have ever written to ask a few simple questions. We agree on most things, the internet has changed, Bitcoin has changed, movie compression has changed. All of that is orthogonal to this particular change, and as to how it ought to change. There we disagree. I also think that the block size will increase, and I look forward to it. I do think it ought to be done with care and intelligence. I do not think we should guess about it. I do not think new arbitrary limits should be created by adding an exponential dimension, even if they are "better" than the current ones, without also taking the time we have to do it right. I do not think "we need to allow stuff to happen". IF we break bitcoin for some purposes in order to fix it for other purposes, it is important to be very honest about that. To some folks this is the "screw-TOR-lets-mass-adopt" hard fork. We aren't anywhere close to mass adoption today, but a larger block size removes an impediment to getting there. Is it worth making it impossible to mine over TOR? Maybe. Maybe not. Some may exit. There are less that use TOR than those that don't, so if we are majority magnets, we drop TOR. I do not favor a rule by the majority. It also allows for increased network cost or decreases centralization: Bitcoin Network Cost = Data Size * Decentralization So these are two attack threat vectors opened up by your "We just need to allow stuff to happen." mentality. Bitcoin is what it is, not because of what it allows, but because of what it does NOT allow. I do not favor a rule by the majority. You value 'consensus' but I do not think you really know what that means, it does not mean the majority rules over the minority. It means agreement. |
|
|
|
So you wanted to start a project, but you cancelled it because the network couldn't handle the high number of transactions? Imagine that there are a lot of people that would want to start various projects or more important various services, but can't because the network doesn't allow them a high transaction number. That's why we need 20MB blocks. Internet got popular and useful for everyone when we were able to access different services on it. It will be the same with Bitcoin. We just need to allow stuff to happen!
Why do you compare Bitcoin with gold? What's the logic behind that? Did Satoshi mentioned anything about Bitcoin and gold? I'm not aware of that reference. That's again your view about Bitcoin which is a personal and distorted view of Bitcoin. Bitcoin should be neutral just as the Internet and it should be available for everyone, not just to the highest bidders because you or anyone else wants it that way!
Yes sidechains will help, but we don't know how much space in a block will the Sidechain need so until we know that it's useless to make assumptions about them.
Why do *I* need *you* to start projects and services on the Bitcoin block chain? The code is open source, fork it, Side Chain it, modify it however you see fit, and have fun with your project or service. Why do *you* insist on imposing upon others? Do you lack reading reading comprehension? I have highlighted one important part from my quote. Let me repeat it because you obviously didn't see it: Bitcoin should be neutral just as the Internet and it should be available for everyone, not just to the highest biddersI never stated that I want to start projects and that you need me. I said that there are a lot of people that would like to start various services and projects. Please highlight the part where I said that I want to start anything. Sure. Here you go. ^^ "We just need to allow stuff to happen." Why do "we" *need* this? Why do *you* think you speak for others? What is this "stuff" you are interested in inflicting on people, and why do we "need" to allow it? |
|
|
|
no, bitcoin needs to focus on the gold function,  money is worthless it just passes from one hand to the next. its not a store of value  since you're new here, i'll forgive you. everyone knows that when i talk about Money, i mean Sound Money (fixed supply). you need inflation to keep up with the growth of the economy. economics 101. Let us know when you get to grad school. Econ 501 would be a good place to start. Or start here: http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/political-science/17-100j-political-economy-i-fall-2010/ |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
