Please go buy more LTC before it goes to the mars and hope it doesn't crash land there, shill of LTC much?
Blame the manipulations on me? Do you think I have any fucking control over the Chinese. You are incredulous. I have no choice but to find a ship that isn't lost at sea w.r.t. to payment scaling. I have already wrote that the Chinese are also manipulating us with Litecoin and that I don't want to talk about that piece-of-shit any more. I am not happy with any of it. CoinHoarder and I both agreed what we are tired of what PoW has become. |
|
|
|
He didn't imply we need to solve this by forking away the miners profits. He implied that miner's morals have any thing to do with Bitcoin. Come on, now you are arguing against your own theories. Inconsistency. I think we can jump ahead by suggesting that that Metcalfe didn't realize that there could be a system of nodes that serve the network which is not a topology that is "everyone to everyone".
Is that what you mean to say?
I don't think what you are suggesting proves Szabo wrong, I think you have change or made the context more specific and shown for example "its not ALWAYS true" what he relates.
I've lost interest in this discussion. I've already made my points. I am done. Thank you for the discussion. I appreciated it very much. |
|
|
|
"If you are not tired to shill for altcoins, you are not tired"
― Viscount
Let's all stay on the ship lost at sea and force ourselves to strangle each other, because otherwise we are shilling. We must remain always one for all and all for one, because otherwise we are shilling. Viscount is the most logical man.
When you are shilling for freedom you are shilling for freedom
Keep the slaves locked up on the tragedy-of-the-commons farm. Viscount is the most ethical man. Please go buy more LTC before it goes to the mars and hope it doesn't crash land there, shill of LTC much?
Blame the manipulations on me? Do you think I have any fucking control over the Chinese. You are incredulous. I have no choice but to find a ship that isn't lost at sea w.r.t. to payment scaling. I have already wrote that the Chinese are also manipulating us with Litecoin and that I don't want to talk about that piece-of-shit any more. I am not happy with any of it. CoinHoarder and I both agreed what we are tired of what PoW has become. |
|
|
|
I really blame PoW, because PoW makes all of this shit possible.
+1 and your analysis makes sense to me Thank you. |
|
|
|
“You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can convince one man by logic.”
― Robert A. Heinlein
And so the dance goes on.
So true. Apropos quote. |
|
|
|
All things equal, the economic efficiency of a network certainly is affected by the cost of transportation, or the friction. Any system will show this.
You need to re-read the prior page of this thread. You haven't understood. Transportation costs can become entirely irrelevant as I explained. You implied you linked to a szabo quote and you did not.
I did. Look up in the thread to find the twitter link to it. |
|
|
|
For me, this is almost the "true spirit" of Bitcoin- no one agrees with another, and this agreement is not required..
Agreed. Do you know the actual "true spirit" of Bitcoin and the very simple middle school level mathematical proof? I hope you actually click those links and understand what Bitcoin really is and mathematically provably so. However, if this goes on, bitcoin will really become an electronic asset/store of value, and no longer a efficient payment channel.
Is that a problem? Litecoin and others can take over the role of payment transactions. Bitcoin becomes the reserve currency. |
|
|
|
all in favor of blockstream moving to LTC while we incress blocksize in a permanent way, fix malleability in a simple way (we gata let Poon have his fun with LN), discuss fex transactions, make gmax shit bricks, and move pirce north 4000%, rise your hand.  ok its settled then. All in favor of destroying Bitcoin in a clusterfuck of bugs and poor design please raise your hand. |
|
|
|
heres one
bitmain wants bigger blocks so he can rake in more fee.
he wants the biggest blocks the network will allow him to make!
I already refuted that. You are repeating your same argument which doesn't make any economic sense. wtf doesn't make sense about providing a better service for cheaper? seems like the in thing to do... You don't seem to understand Bitmain's opportunity cost function. Economics is important. Without a solid grasp of economics, you will be entirely lost. |
|
|
|
If you're tired just retire, I certainly tired of the likes of you and wont miss
Which side of the BU versus Blockstream nonsense brigade are you on Mr. Offended By Facts?
So I see you're not so tired as you claim, while posting 6000 post, and wanna fight with fresh strength to lure more passangers on your altcoin titanik
It offends you that someone would care enough to try to fix the problem what you will label that person as a villian before even evaluating the outcome? You are an example of the shit I am tired of. just stop moaning and get retired dude
If you're happiness is dependent on that fantasy, then you're going to be very unhappy. |
|
|
|
Szabo said it is potential and noted redundancies. Here is how I understand it. You create a series of connected tunnels, the more tunnels connected to tunnels the more specifically you can direct more traffic. But that doesn't mean that more tunnels are useful.
Metcalfe never implied this either. When Roger Ver says more users equals more value equals higher price because Metacafe, he's being an idiot, metcalf never said such a thing. Neither did szabo.
But more connections equals more POTENTIAL for value, as in, the value COULD flow in more places and more ways. But that doesn't mean it will. Buy your friend a fax machine, and see if the networks value increases exponentially because japan can now fax your friend.
Your conceptualization isn't incorrect, although not as complete as mine because you haven't accounted for opportunity cost. However, none of what you wrote exonerates the fact that Szabo tied value to limitation by transport costs. Thus Szabo was making a claim that is not compatible with the concept of opportunity cost driven relative value which I have postulated. Sorry Szabo makes many mistakes. I caught him in another mistake of logic this week where he denies your concept of Bitcoin being ideal immutability money. |
|
|
|
heres one
bitmain wants bigger blocks so he can rake in more fee.
he wants the biggest blocks the network will allow him to make!
I already refuted that. You are repeating your same argument which doesn't make any economic sense. |
|
|
|
I am tired of this shit... First item is to understand why Blockstream refused to accept 2MB blocks along with SegWit.
It is not that they feel that 1MB is the optimal number (if the max block size was currently 2MB, they would not be pushing for the max block size to be lowered to 1MB), and it is not that they are against 2MB blocks in itself, it is that they are against any max block size increase ever. From the core roadmap https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011865.htmlFinally--at some point the capacity increases from the above may not
be enough. Delivery on relay improvements, segwit fraud proofs, dynamic
block size controls, and other advances in technology will reduce the risk
and therefore controversy around moderate block size increase proposals
(such as 2/4/8 rescaled to respect segwit's increase). Bitcoin will
be able to move forward with these increases when improvements and
understanding render their risks widely acceptable relative to the
risks of not deploying them. In Bitcoin Core we should keep patches
ready to implement them as the need and the will arises, to keep the
basic software engineering from being the limiting factor.
They want improvement and security BEFORE raising the blocksize, nowhere does it say 1mb forever.
It makes no sense from both a technology standpoint (i.e. afaik SegWit adds no significant reliability and security that would alleviate issues that a 2MB block could cause, instead the improvements of SegWit are bugs fixes for things that have nothing to do with block size) and also because it is quite clear that they know Bitmain can covertly block all block size increases, so they know that the 2MB offer is actually a clever ploy of Bitmain wherein Bitmain's own customers will end up blocking the block size increase (so Bitmain can deny that they did it) and also because Blockstream knows they become irrelevant once the market has SegWit and block size increases. The market won't be in any rush to accept further protocol changes from Blockstream. So Blockstream is fighting for their control against Bitmain. So then if you understand all this I have written, then you understand that Bitmain is really against block size increases, but they have such a clever strategy that they can make it appear that they are for larger block sizes. The covert aspect of asicboost is a very key component to the masterful chess that Bitmain is playing. Bitmain's goal is to keep the protocol immutable and to destroy Blockstream. Very simple. But they have a clever strategy which obscures their actual intentions. Blockstream's goal is to be in control of the changes to Bitcoin's protocol.
Read again Bitmain's statement with this new analysis in mind.
I enjoy figuring out these mental chess challenges. That is why I do it. Not because I am for or against anything. I am trying to help readers understand the facts.First item is to understand why Blockstream refused to accept 2MB blocks along with SegWit.
I haven't actually looked to see their official stated reason, but I can guess that it must be because they know they each time they want to "upgrade" the protocol, they need have some carrot and stick that forces the market to want their upgrade. So keeping blocksize very constrained is necessary so that Blockstream remains in control of the protocol.
In other words, Blockstream can't accept 2MB blocks, because they know their business model depends on them being in control of the protocol of Bitcoin. Also factor in that maybe Bitmain has told them behind the curtain that Bitmain will block all their future protocol changes after the 2MB+SegWit. Blockstream probably couldn't repeat that in public, because Bitmain would deny it and accuse Blockstream of fabricating lies.
Am I correct so far?
First item is to understand why Blockstream refused to accept 2MB blocks along with SegWit.
I haven't actually looked to see their official stated reason, but I can guess that it must be because they know they each time they want to "upgrade" the protocol, they need have some carrot and stick that forces the market to want their upgrade. So keeping blocksize very constrained is necessary so that Blockstream remains in control of the protocol.
In other words, Blockstream can't accept 2MB blocks, because they know their business model depends on them being in control of the protocol of Bitcoin. Also factor in that maybe Bitmain has told them behind the curtain that Bitmain will block all their future protocol changes after the 2MB+SegWit.
Am I correct so far?
It could be a matter of opinion. Or maybe you have perceived one actors tactical methods used in pursuit of their strategic goals. If you had the chance to get your most significant work approved (SegWit) and only had to accept a 2MB block, why wouldn't you do it? It makes absolutely no sense. Can you think of any other rational explanation than the one I offered? Even if Blockstream had an opinion that they don't like 2MB blocks, they wouldn't block their own work over such a small quibble. There has to be a more significant reason they refuse 2MB blocks with SegWit. I offered my reason. Is there any possible other reason that makes any sense? (note I am so very sleepy, so we may have to continue this after I sleep) Presuming I am correct that Bitmain knows that Blockstream will never accept a 2MB+SegWit proposal, then you can then re-analyze their statement knowing full well that he knows there will never be big blocks.
Furthermore Bitmain is challenging the community to make AsicBoost patent licensing accessible to everyone. And to enable AsicBoost in the most optimum way. But Bitmain already stated that larger blocks make AsicBoost less efficient.
And remember some "hacker" (which is actually Bitmain but nobody can prove it) can release the covert upgrade so all Bitmain's [existing customers who own] miners on the planet could increase their efficiency and side-step the patent (and also they would be against large blocks).
So Bitmain is total BS about wanting larger blocks. Bitmain is trying to destroy Blockstream by never allowing them to get any protocol changes at all. That is why they proposed the 2MB+SegWit at HongKong. And that is why @Gmaxwell is wanting to block the covert AsicBoost.
But Bitmain has checkmated Blockstream. Think it out. I am too sleepy to explain all the detailed reasoning.
So I hope you understand that I don't think Bitmain nor its customers are currently employing asicboost in mining. Rather Bitmain has an installed base of customers worldwide (where the patent is a liability for the customers) whose hardware could suddenly be made more efficient if Bitmain were to release the software/firmware upgrade to enable asicboost.
Thus Bitmain has a poison pill on any block size increases which won't pin the blame on them for the failure of any soft (or hard) fork which attempts a block size increase. Because a "hacker" (who is actually Bitmain) could release the covert asicboost upgrade over the Internet, and then all those Bitmain customers would be economically incentivized to employ it and to block both block size increases and @gmaxwell's overt BIP (which is supposed to block the covert form of asic boost but not the overt form). Or even some clever people might reverse engineer and design the upgrade from scratch and release it. The point is the customers of Bitmain wouldn't want to run the overt asic boost because they wouldn't want patent liability. And those customers would also not want block size increases because asic boost looses efficiency with larger block sizes.
So Bitmain can block any block size increases without it even being provable that they did obstruct it. It can be made to appear that Bitmain was the good guy and was supporting 2MB blocks, but in fact behind the scenes Bitmain has already told Blockstream the truth and Blockstream is realizing they are fucked and trying to find a way to fight back, but it is too late, they are already checkmated by Bitmain's very clever strategy.
Bitmain urges the community to make the patent licensing available to all (not their patent but the patents held by others on asicboost) so it appears Bitmain is the good guys. Yet in reality, Bitmain knows that the patent licensing won't be forthcoming because you can't organize such a thing given there are multiple patent holders in different jurisdictions. Thus Bitmain knows the covert upgrade is the poison pill that blocks any thing Blockstream would attempt to do. Blockstream is now frantic and desperate.
Given the Chinese now know they have us by the balls, they are always manipulating the LTC markets as well. Using all this to pump up and crash the LTC price at will and taking more BTC from all of us.
I am hating PoW even more. I want to make those ASICs irrelevant. I want to eliminate PoW. I am so tired of all this fighting and manipulation. Before I supported Bitcoin because I thought it was a stable and politics-free reserve currency of the altcoins which I could hold without losing my time on this shit. Now these fuckers have turned the Bitcoin into a fucking noise that makes it just not worth it.
I will kill this shit. I hope you guys understand what is really going on.
I don't take sides. Bitmain is attempting to maintain immutability. Blockstream is attempting to take control and gain mutability. And all the fuckers involved are gaming this shit and making it a huge fucking mess. So we need to destroy this shit and replace it with something that actually works properly without any possible politics.
Impossible? Maybe. But I love a challenging goal.
I also think that giving every asicboost for free means that no one will have the advantage, and so now one will stand to lose anything by going with bigger blocks.
Not everybody has Bitmain's hardware. Not everybody is willing to risk the liability of running a (potentially) patented thing covertly. It is just simple economics. Miners are forced to support what gives them an economic advantage. Why would Bitmain not want a larger max block size? Larger blocks will ultimately lead to additional total tx fees (and in turn higher overall block rewards), both of which will lead to greater profitability of those who run their equipment, which would theoretically lead to higher market prices for their equipment, and most importantly, more profits for them.
1. Because killing Blockstream and removing their ability to destroy Bitmain (and Bitcoin) by controlling the protocol is more important. 2. Because SegWit can be added on Litecoin where they can still earn all those fees, and Blockstream will be impotent. It all about removing the coup d'etat of Blockstream. In that way I like Bitmain, but as I said the Chinese are fucking with us and making it a fucking mess. I really blame PoW, because PoW makes all of this shit possible. Can there be a better way? Maybe not. Maybe yes. I have ideas I need to go work on. So are there are any objections to my analysis of this fucking mess?
I also think that giving every asicboost for free means that no one will have the advantage, and so now one will stand to lose anything by going with bigger blocks.
Not everybody has Bitmain's hardware. Not everybody is willing to risk the liability of running a (potentially) patented thing covertly. It is just simple economics. Miners are forced to support what gives them an economic advantage. but Bitmain said he would want to work with other patent holders to null and void the patents and make it available to everyone. his reasoning was, its better for bitcoin's security, to have an extra 20% hashpower over all, then drop hashing power by disabling his (potential) advantage. I already refuted that: Bitmain urges the community to make the patent licensing available to all (not their patent but the patents held by others on asicboost) so it appears Bitmain is the good guys. Yet in reality, Bitmain knows that the patent licensing won't be forthcoming because you can't organize such a thing given there are multiple patent holders in different jurisdictions. Thus Bitmain knows the covert upgrade is the poison pill that blocks any thing Blockstream would attempt to do. Blockstream is now frantic and desperate. Can anyone find a flaw in my analysis?
Can anyone find a flaw in my analysis?
not really. it rings a tad false to me, and seems highly speculative, but its a workable theory... If you can't come up with an alternative ECONOMICALLY plausible theory, then you'll know mine isn't speculative. You can't just believe what people say. You have to analyze if what they say makes any sense or not.
I really blame PoW, because PoW makes all of this shit possible.
+1 and your analysis makes sense to me Thank you. |
|
|
|
Can anyone find a flaw in my analysis?
not really. it rings a tad false to me, and seems highly speculative, but its a workable theory... If you can't come up with an alternative ECONOMICALLY plausible theory, then you'll know mine isn't speculative. You can't just believe what people say. You have to analyze if what they say makes any sense or not. |
|
|
|
I also think that giving every asicboost for free means that no one will have the advantage, and so now one will stand to lose anything by going with bigger blocks.
Not everybody has Bitmain's hardware. Not everybody is willing to risk the liability of running a (potentially) patented thing covertly. It is just simple economics. Miners are forced to support what gives them an economic advantage. but Bitmain said he would want to work with other patent holders to null and void the patents and make it available to everyone. his reasoning was, its better for bitcoin's security, to have an extra 20% hashpower over all, then drop hashing power by disabling his (potential) advantage. I already refuted that: Bitmain urges the community to make the patent licensing available to all (not their patent but the patents held by others on asicboost) so it appears Bitmain is the good guys. Yet in reality, Bitmain knows that the patent licensing won't be forthcoming because you can't organize such a thing given there are multiple patent holders in different jurisdictions. Thus Bitmain knows the covert upgrade is the poison pill that blocks any thing Blockstream would attempt to do. Blockstream is now frantic and desperate. Can anyone find a flaw in my analysis? |
|
|
|
Why would Bitmain not want a larger max block size? Larger blocks will ultimately lead to additional total tx fees (and in turn higher overall block rewards), both of which will lead to greater profitability of those who run their equipment, which would theoretically lead to higher market prices for their equipment, and most importantly, more profits for them.
1. Because killing Blockstream and removing their ability to destroy Bitmain (and Bitcoin) by controlling the protocol is more important. 2. Because SegWit can be added on Litecoin where they can still earn all those fees, and Blockstream will be impotent. It all about removing the coup d'etat of Blockstream. In that way I like Bitmain, but as I said the Chinese are fucking with us and making it a fucking mess. I really blame PoW, because PoW makes all of this shit possible. Can there be a better way? Maybe not. Maybe yes. I have ideas I need to go work on. So are there are any objections to my analysis of this fucking mess? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
