Your post is nonsensical. How does coinbase (oops... excuse me ... GDAX) get paid? Every exchange it processes, coinbase gets a small cut. From a profitability standpoint, it careth not the absolute price of the underlying securitiesassets, only the dollar volume being exchanged.

edit: see emphasis (feds get all huffy about the word 'securities')

And food. The west produces food. In abundance. The rest of the world needs to eat something.

That is an interesting thought. It's a stretch, but TPTB will make any stretch to cover their asses. (e.g., Not that long ago, the doctrine of 'crime of money laundering' did not even exist.)


I don't know who the underwriters are specifically, but one might be able to learn by trawling though insurance companies' annual reports - listed as a potential risk. I'm pretty certain however that it is not FDIC. They only ensure fiat, 'cause they can get it printed to cover systemic losses.

Or perhaps a bunch of FOMO-stricken noobs trying to get in for the first time, only to be rebuffed due to lack of capacity. Maybe never to try again.

We'll never know which.

So BitUsher also cedes the point that SegWit does nothing to ease centralization due to burden of larger blocks upon fully-validating nodes. Joining Lauda, exstasie, and forevernoob. Excellent. Who's next?

For some odd definition of 'completely', I guess.

Seeing as we found a topic we can be all lovey-dovey over, here's a tip from sad experience... If you're going to trade ladders, building $ on the upswing and BTC on the down, then stay ever-vigilant. When the rocket ignites, it is sudden and violent. You are likely to be come out with a pile of stinky fiat that cannot come anywhere close to buying back the BTC you just sold.

What part of 'fully-validating node' do you not understand?

Let's back up the bus a sec. Seems we have a terminology overload. When I said "the same set of transactions", I'm speaking of economic transactions, not their encoding upon the wire.


For the same set of _user_transactions_ -- as in user X transfers value Q to address Z' -- more data must must be stored by a fully validating node using SegWit than without. It ain't a matter of the centrally-planned block size increase, its a matter of adding the ability to correlate the correct data in the 'main' block chain with the correct data in the 'witness' block chain. This is not free - there is overhead added.


'About', yes. Today. On average. Kind of. Tomorrow? Who knows the ratio? Nobody - that's who. The direction BU seems to be headed to deal with this is via emergent consensus - let the free market decide, rather than being centrally planned 75%, which will be simply wrong for certain transaction mixes. Which, incidentally, is what BU does today for the maxblocksize -- let the market decide.

Rather than rely on the centralization of the ever-so-well-meaning dev oracles (who are bright guys, but I think are headed down a blind path on economic matters), I would rather put my trust in the decentralized market.


[emphasis added] I note your quoted definition has exactly no correlation to the type of 'centralization' we are discussing. Note that 'a'? Note 'server' in the singular?


It looks foolish on you to attribute an argument that I do not make. There are many ways that a complex system can be decentralized. True, one is in the number of non-mining fully-validating nodes. I would argue that we could lose at least an order of magnitude here, and it would affect the security of bitcoin not one whit. After all, other than the fact that non-mining, fully-validating nodes tend to be run by bitcoin owners, such nodes are essentially powerless. The node's only option is whether or not to forward a particular transaction. Sure, the user operating the node can abandon the chain created by the mining majority. But that is not the node acting, it is the holder of the coins.

But again, for the same number of economic transactions, The Omnibus SegWit Changeset actually increases the bandwidth and storage burden upon fully-validating nodes.

Another dimension the system might be centralized across is in mining power. Or implementations. Or decision making. Or even total number of users of the monetary unit. But we don't care about these, do we? (Well, I do, but it seems you may not).


Want some cheese to go with that whine?

If you're contributing all the bandwidth you can, you're gonna be kicked out of the club of contributing nodes as soon as SegWit activates. Gee, thanks Core!

Incidentally, I operate a fully-validating node as well. Several, in fact. So sorry you live in a backwater. Must be analogous to trying to mine in Sweden, rather than China.


Perhaps some. Not the ones I speak with. We suggest we increase capacity in order to increase capacity. Making room for more transactions. Which would make room for (all else equal) more bitcoin users. More users, more momentum, more value, more hashpower, more security, more headstart before the vampire squid awakens to the significance of this radical new money.

We trust that the miners are capable, as a group, to provide the proper value for maxblocksize. As an emergent property of the market. Your solution is a centrally-planned fixed unit of size for this crucial economic variable. Yet you claim to desire decentralization? *psh!*


Yet nodes do not get paid for this service - only miners do. Ergo, miners are the ones with the incentive to arrive at the proper value for this crucial economic variable.


You make no sense. You are already working for free.


The only possible incentives for operating a non-mining, fully-validating node are the ones you mentioned earlier - security and altruism. Well, maybe the ability to handle your transactions without needing to rely on others. Nevertheless, you don't get a share of the monetary incentives under any scenario. (kinda sad nodes are not renumerated, maybe someday the next satoshi will figure that problem out).

Oh - we're gonna play _that_ game? OK - you first:


Oh hell with it - I'll answer first, though it really be your turn. Better - I'll answer in the form of a question...

And how is kumquats not hairbrushes?

In no sane set of definitions for 'bigger blocks' and 'centralization' are they equivalent. English much?

Now, it is _possible_ that bigger blocks _might_lead_to_ centralization. It is also possible that it does not.

Now here's a question for you -


As:
a) you think SegWit is The One True Way;
b) you cede that SegWit requires more resources of a fully-validating node than the status quo to represent each transaction; and
c) you seem to value centralization very highly;
then:
is your true goal to 'decentralize' by reducing transaction count to zero?


Bull fucking shit. It turns fully-validating nodes into non-validating nodes.

Don't think that's gonna happen. Congratulations. Sincerely.

So you also cede that for the same set of transactions, the Omnibus SegWit Changeset consumes more memory and more bandwidth than without The SegWit Omnibus Changeset. Excellent. Who's next?


Just no. Other than the fact that 'decentralization' is a nebulous concept (decentralization of what notwithstanding), the bitcoin whitepaper does not mention decentralization even once. It does use the term 'central authority'. Twice. Referring to a single minter of the currency. (hmm. funny. that's the 'of what') A role that non-mining nodes have absolutely no effect upon.

In fact, the goal, as explained in the first sentence, is "A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution. "


Cheese? Who's in the Free Shit Army^TM now?

So you cede that The SegWit Omnibus Changeset is antithetical to its stated goal of decentralization through small resource demands. Excellent. First Lauda, now forevernoob. Who else?

Do you have the stomach to re-up?

duly noted.

Yes. It has been. But the ordeal has not so far exceeded our stamina.

Cheers!

So then you cede the point that The SegWit Omnibus Changeset is antithetical to its stated goal of decentralization through small resource demands? Excellent! Who else here agrees with Lauda on this point?

Just no. The statement you made -- which I was obviously replying to -- was thus:


Note your claim that bigblockers "regard Bitcoin as a failed experiment" and "willing to let go of it" and "move on to alt coins like Ethereum". I'm just informing you of the likely reason you believe these falsehoods (if you are not merely dishonestly erecting a straw man argument for rhetorical purposes, that is).


But it is. In the last week or so, Bitcoin's share of the crypto space has dwindled from about 84% to about 79%.

Further, blocks are routinely full. Not only that, but the UTXO is larger now than before we consistently hit the maxblocksize. The only rational reason for these being simultaneously true is that transactions are being driven off the main chain.


Some uninformed or unthinking bigblocker minority, yes. But such are not my pals. My bigblocker pals are crying that transaction volume cannot increase further, due to a stupid limitation in the expression of the code.


Again, it appears to me that you are parroting a mischaracterization. You ought to get out of the echo chamber from time to time.


For the same set of transactions, the Omnibus SegWit Changeset consumes more memory and more bandwidth than without The SegWit Omnibus Changeset. 'Cause maths.


If your definition of 'bloat' is 'bigger', then ... ummm.... duh. Yes. What is the point of your question?

The point of my reasoning above is to show that The SegWit Omnibus Changeset is antithetical to its stated goal of decentralization through small resource demands.

Yeah, right. Your making shit up, then clinging to the lie, refusing to back any of it up, speaks volumes to all but you.

Happily! Just waiting on 75% for a bigblock implementation...