You do realize that I am replying to the claim that the economic majority does not rule Bitcoin, which obviously is not true. I am arguing against the concept of top down governance from Core and advocating bottom up governance from the economic majority instead which ultimately is where the power lies.
And how do you reconcile this unprecedented Bitcoin parameter and characteristic setting model with supporting XT which is much more totalitarian than Core? Part of the goal of XT is to further decentralize development and break up the monopoly of development that Core currently possess. Everything considered I can view XT as being the least totalitarian choice out of the two, especially considering that some of the Core developers oppose alternative implementations on principle, whereas XT embraces this concept instead. Please stop swallowing every lie that comes out of Mike Hearn's mouth. Wladimir has repeatedly stated that in situations where consensus critical parts of the code would be debated he would require at the very least rough consensus amongst dev to move forward with any proposition. Don't confuse a code repo maintainer with a dictator that just shines light on your technical ignorance. |
|
|
|
The ultimate reality is that if the economic majority turns against Core, it will be left in the dust. You can deny this all you like but the truth is on my side. Do you think you're bringing some sort of novel argument here? Here's the current reality: the economic majority has ignored XT, and it has been left in the dust. I am arguing against the concept of top down governance from Core and advocating bottom up governance from the economic majority instead which ultimately is where the power lies. Every single Bitcoin users has the choice to run whatever code he desires. Several miners and peers run different implementations & versions of the protocol. If they wish so they can adjust and re-compile whatever setting they desire, as long as it respects the existing consensus. So really, when you speak of "top-down governance" and Core totalitarianism I have no fucking idea what is it you are talking about. Especially seeing as the Bitcoin Core repo is an open-source project. |
|
|
|
how far away is the halfing?
July 2016 |
|
|
|
The ultimate reality is that if the economic majority turns against Core, it will be left in the dust. You can deny this all you like but the truth is on my side. Do you think you're bringing some sort of novel argument here? Here's the current reality: the economic majority has ignored XT, and it has been left in the dust. |
|
|
|
^this guy is a bot.
that's what I'm thinking. IP address probably links to one of these filipino bot farms Or maybe best sure option is that is an account directly controlled by the XT devs, this explains why doesn't give up at the end P.s. i seriously hope this thread will end soon because is becoming a pain to see and try to say opinions thanks to veritassapere going around as i told and without giving a damm I wish I had set the thread to self-moderation so I could censor him  |
|
|
|
^this guy is a bot.
that's what I'm thinking. IP address probably links to one of these filipino bot farms |
|
|
|
So the trend for bitcoin is that it will be the safest haven for all investors. While all other asset classes can only diminish in the eyes of the ever improving bitcoin. Eventually the wealthy will come to terms with this inevitability and start to buy bitcoin to preserve what wealth they have as Bitcoin will become the obvious choice to everyone.
cheers "Just not tonight, dear."   |
|
|
|
So the trend for bitcoin is that it will be the safest haven for all investors. While all other asset classes can only diminish in the eyes of the ever improving bitcoin. Eventually the wealthy will come to terms with this inevitability and start to buy bitcoin to preserve what wealth they have as Bitcoin will become the obvious choice to everyone.
cheers |
|
|
|
This whole discussion is a confusion over voluntarism and the free-market. By Veritas definition, the USD is a free market. I'm sorry for entertaining this whole thing muyuu is right, we ought to stop trying to stick the free-market label on everything |
|
|
|
I kinda like the idea since it very clearly refutes any of the shills pretense that us "small blockers" do not want to let the "free market" operate. The argument goes like this: since the free market of peers dictates what code determines consensus then it should follow that any parameter within Bitcoin is a subset of a "free market" decision. I would agree it is quite a stretch but what concept that comes out of twisted XT shills' mind isn't?  So 1MB it is, says the free-market! Exactly, but it's either politburo or the free market, depending on the argument suiting their view or not. It's really something else with these people. There is no free market about the protocol, for better or worse. For better IMO, because having essential properties of Bitcoin change to the whim of people would make it absolutely shit money. Thus the importance of libconsensus, and not confusing implementation variety with the actual protocol. And when talking about code variety, XT is absolutely a minor factor at since it's a minimal-work fork, unlike libbitcoin for instance which is a major one. I agree. I'm mostly playing along with their rhetoric |
|
|
|
This veneer that a small cabal can wield a magic wand to protect us from ourselves is illusory, and to some, very undesirable. If Bitcoin relies on a handful of people controlling things from the top down, then it's a failure. The beauty of satoshi's idea is that it harnesses mutual self interest incentive structures to function and evolve. If the vast majority of nodes and miners decide to run software that enforces 1MB max blocks, then 1MB max blocks we shall have.
Agreed, but it goes both way  |
|
|
|
To say the block reward is market-set is beyond idiotic. There is no effective market mechanism doing that, by design. The protocol does. The block reward is set by the protocol which is decided on by the free market, the market is incentivized not to change the block reward, this is why and how Bitcoin works. The argument goes like this: since the free market of peers dictates what code determines consensus then it should follow that any parameter within Bitcoin is a subset of a "free market" decision. Agreed. So 1MB it is, says the free-market! Agreed, until the free market decides that it wants to increase the blocksize, the incentive to do so will align more as the blocks continue to grow. Since rendering transactions unreliable and increasing the cost of transactions is not necessarily in the best interests of the network as a whole. You may want to read this Maybe you need to read it again:
"The community" of people that need things can not fork Bitcoin to provide for their needs at the expense of the actual community of people that create things and own things."
If you agree that "the investors" decide then you should understand that the individuals who make the majority of "the investors" group largely could not care less about an marginal increase in fees by the simple fact that they are largely "Bitcoin rich". This very clear fact also suggest that they do not particularly care whether adoption by those who cannot afford larger fees is hindered.
The needers are those who need small fees and MOAR transactions. The owners are "the investors".
As such you may need to revise your expectations of what "the investors" pain points are and how long they can remain patient.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm guessing at least over a dollar.
|
|
|
|
To say the block reward is market-set is beyond idiotic. There is no effective market mechanism doing that, by design. The protocol does.
I kinda like the idea since it very clearly refutes any of the shills pretense that us "small blockers" do not want to let the "free market" operate. The argument goes like this: since the free market of peers dictates what code determines consensus then it should follow that any parameter within Bitcoin is a subset of a "free market" decision. I would agree it is quite a stretch but what concept that comes out of twisted XT shills' mind isn't? So 1MB it is, says the free-market! |
|
|
|
The fact is that Core has not increased the blocksize and they have no plan in place to do so either. What you are saying does not change this reality. What kind of fact is that? Even if they thought so, they aren't allowed to change their mind? Very weird thinking. The fact is that right now Core will not increase the blocksize and they have not publicly stated their definitive plans to do so. It is strange that you find it so difficult to acknowledge this fact. More disgusting lies Shame on you. Please enlighten me and show where the Core development team has officially stated that they will definitely increase the blocksize. Has the Code been written and implemented? What is the date for increasing the blocksize and by how much will it be increased? I would presume this code is already active in the latest version of Core then? Show me evidence of this, I am waiting? I presume you are unable to provide evidence to the contrary, so please refrain from unjustly calling me a liar then, thank you.  Now will you please fork off Even BIP101 is within the Bitcoin improvement proposal scheme, that does not mean it will be implemented however. The fact is that none of the BIP proposals that intend to increase the blocksize have been implemented by Core and no definitive plans have been made by Core to implement any of these proposals in the future. Since Wladimir does have the final say in terms of what gets implemented into Core regardless of what anyone else thinks. So please refrain from calling me a liar, since even if I am wrong, if I am sincere I am not a liar. Calling me a liar implies that you know my intention and motivation which you do not, so please stop, since you are only making yourself look foolish by resorting to such attacks. I do know your intentions, it is to manipulate and lie your way out of things. A perfect little puppet of your master Mike Hearn, olympic champion of deception. Fork off my thread now would ya? |
|
|
|
The fact is that Core has not increased the blocksize and they have no plan in place to do so either. What you are saying does not change this reality. What kind of fact is that? Even if they thought so, they aren't allowed to change their mind? Very weird thinking. The fact is that right now Core will not increase the blocksize and they have not publicly stated their definitive plans to do so. It is strange that you find it so difficult to acknowledge this fact. More disgusting lies Shame on you. Please enlighten me and show where the Core development team has officially stated that they will definitely increase the blocksize. Has the Code been written and implemented? What is the date for increasing the blocksize and by how much will it be increased? I would presume this code is already active in the latest version of Core then? Show me evidence of this, I am waiting? I presume you are unable to provide evidence to the contrary, so please refrain from unjustly calling me a liar then, thank you. Now will you please fork off |
|
|
|
I rather hold on to my Bitcoin and exchange them for goods and services directly as opposed to waiting to cash out so to speak, since if that was everyone's mentality that would not be much better then a pyramid scheme, that is thankfully not the case and many people here do truly believe like myself that Bitcoin is the future of money and much more.
I think I told you already but : your economics, it's broken. |
|
|
|
Enough of those gifs. I've seen them all.
I'm not posting only for your benefit. A lot of people haven't seen them. For example, this one was banned (twice) from /r/bitcoin: What is the benefit of watching a random made up pie chart pulled out of your arse? I dunno; ask the hundreds of people who up-voted it before it was deleted. I'm afraid that is not possible seeing as vote bots are not "people". |
|
|
|
The fact is that Core has not increased the blocksize and they have no plan in place to do so either. What you are saying does not change this reality. What kind of fact is that? Even if they thought so, they aren't allowed to change their mind? Very weird thinking. The fact is that right now Core will not increase the blocksize and they have not publicly stated their definitive plans to do so. It is strange that you find it so difficult to acknowledge this fact. More disgusting lies Shame on you. Please enlighten me and show where the Core development team has officially stated that they will definitely increase the blocksize. Has the Code been written and implemented? What is the date for increasing the blocksize and by how much will it be increased? I would presume this code is already active in the latest version of Core then? Show me evidence of this, I am waiting? Fork off you pathological lier. |
|
|
|
brg444,
Why would the market care yet? No one is complaining about high fees yet. No adoption is being hindered. Yet. The market is patient as long as it can be, and prefers the conservatism of sticking with Core until Core shows itself to be definitely unwilling to meet market demands. This may or may not happen, depending on what Core decides to do with the blocksize in the coming months. I'm guessing Core will increase the blocksize fairly soon, but if they don't. POW.
With the quote, I have no idea what it's getting at. Who are the "needers" and who are the "creators and owners" - needers, creators, and owners of what?
It's really very simple: investors can support whatever fork they like, and there will go the hashing power and eventually the development. Investors hold the keys to the castle. Always have, always will. It doesn't matter if they don't create or own anything. All that matters is they can move the price of CoreBTC or XTBTC when the time comes.
Maybe you need to read it again: " The community" of people that need things can not fork Bitcoin to provide for their needs at the expense of the actual community of people that create things and own things." If you agree that "the investors" decide then you should understand that the individuals of make the majority of "the investors" group largely could not care less about an marginal increase in fees by the simple fact that they are largely "Bitcoin rich". This very clear fact also suggest that they do not particularly care whether adoption by those who cannot afford larger fees is hindered. The needers are those who need small fees and MOAR transactions. The owners are "the investors". As such you may need to revise your expectations of what "the investors" pain points are and how long they can remain patient. Smart investors would realize that keeping the fees low would allow for increased adoption, since smart investors would know that further mass adoption is what would be best for their investment. What you refer to as the "needers" are the users of Bitcoin, these are the people that give Bitcoin more value. Even investors will need to transact in order to exchange their Bitcoin for fiat. I rather hold on to my Bitcoin and exchange them for goods and services directly as opposed to waiting to cash out so to speak, since if that was everyone's mentality that would not be much better then a pyramid scheme, that is thankfully not the case and many people here do truly believe like myself that Bitcoin is the future of money and much more. I'm afraid you are not qualified to define what "smart investors" think. To fully display how abjectly wrong, no better than one of the greatest investor of our times, Warren Buffett: http://www.contravex.com/2014/03/13/on-making-bitcoin-accessible-or-not/ |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
