I agree. It would take a pretty significant advantage for some other coin to capture Bitcoin's market share. I believe the fact that such an XCoin competitor would be usable by people directly due to tps capability, rather than requiring all users to line up behind centralized aggregated access providers required by a 4 tps Bitcoin, may be such an advantage.

Further, once everyone is using these centralized aggregated access providers anyhow, what is the motivation of these centralized actors to continue to use the relatively expensive Bitcoin, rather than the more capable, cheaper XCoin?

So who's a member of the Free Shit Army now?

Bull. Fucking. Shit.

Do not ascribe to me characteristics which I do not possess. You seem to be so blinded by your ideology that you cannot even allow for your opposition to possess humanity within.


We don't need to rehash this truism. We all know this.


Another bald unsupported assertion. Show the analysis please.

An alternate hypothesis (one I deem more rational) is that per-transaction fees do not need to rise to untenable levels, should more transactions be allowed within each block. Well, that's not a hypothesis, that is a provable fact by appeal to simple arithmetic. The hypothesis is that total fees will be larger in this case than they will be in a smallblock world.

Here is another hypothesis, one many deem plausible: that faced with a Bitcoin with little utility because it does not support enough tps to allow a person to use it directly, and the option of XCoin (I hope there is not real coin named XCoin - this is just a variable) with all the characteristics of Bitcoin save its blocksize limitation, enough will adopt XCoin because it provides them real utility, such that XCoin will overtake Bitcoin in transaction volume, monetary volume, and mining concentration.

Baldly unsubstantiated assertion. Actually two of them. I disagree with both.
1) The bigger the blockchain the more transactions it has processed > the more it has been used > the more usable it is.
2) The smaller bigger the blockchain, the more transactions can be processed in given interval > the less need to deal with off-chain 'solutions' > the less need to deal with centralized off-chain 'solution' providers > the less centralization.


By ensuring that they have no recourse to direct transactions upon the blockchain? Logical inconsistency duly noted.

edit: emphasized

If the use case is an exchange that enables day trading, 1 minute is an eternity to some.

Cry me a river. What is the line between not-bullshit and bullshit? I don't measure it in size of transaction, I measure it in number of transactions. Do you personally run a full node? I do. If you do not personally run a node, WTF do you care about number of transactions? If you do, then why are you so damned cheap to spend another $USD 10 on HDD space, and another $USD 0.50/mo on bandwidth - especially as you're so incensed about small-value transactions?

Not only is the letter stupid, but the article is stupid as well. Coin Telegraph really debased their reputation with this clickbait.

...and in times of congestion, your 0-fee transaction will not get included in any blocks. Fine. But what happens when everyone (e.g. more than 4-7 per second) is including a fee? Is it reasonable that nobody is granted access to the system but those prepared to pay 0.1 BTC? 1 BTC? 10 BTC? The central question is whether or not a protocol limited to 4 tps is reasonable. I reply with an emphatic 'NO'.


Let us amend that to 'no effective spam attack'.

But small blocks only make it cheaper for an attacker to clog the system. Large blocks make it more expensive to clog the system. With large blocks, the attacker must create more transactions, each accompanied by whatever minimum fee the miners on average set for their individual policies for fee threshold for block inclusion.

GMax has abdicated his bitcoin github commit access. This is a significant development. Stated reason 'personal'. Speculation on inferred subtext may include 'ragequit' - dunno. Net result: less support for 1MB4Eva within the core team.

BULLISH!

There's no question Greg's a smart guy, and one of Bitcoin's stronger intellects. His technical ability will be missed. However, he seemed ideologically blindered to smallblockianism. I think this is a net positive.

Must. read. moar.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg13289831#msg13289831

post less.

Yes, it can be done by yourself. However, it is a difficult process. Further, the sponsoring agencies expect their solicitations to result in proposals that include strong _teams_, not just credible PIs (Principal Investigators).

There are many that can help you with this. I'd suggest Jim & Carol Greenwood. Don't be put off by their geocities-style website - they know how to navigate the SBIR/STTR maze: http://www.g-jgreenwood.com/sbir/

If you're in WY, UW has some good resources: http://www.uwyo.edu/sbir/ as, I would imagine does other Unis (the STTR is a sister program to SBIR that aims to move Uni research into commerce).

Zyn Systems maintains a good portal: http://zyn.com/

There is a huge amount of information out there - it'll be like drinking through a firehose. Expect to expend significant time just learning 'SBIR 101'. There are regular events all over the nation where most sponsoring agencies send reps to do a dog'n'pony on their org, and let you ask about details of their specific solicitations and procedures, usually coupled with some training on the processes.

Note that my experience is years out of date. I probably can't help you further.

Cool. I've been a Principal Investigator on an SBIR research program that went through Phase I, II to Commercialization.

Any bitcoiner who has an idea that matches up with DHS's solicitation (read that as "stated desires") might be well advised to look into procuring this funding. SBIR money is specifically targeted at research that will plausibly result in a marketable product. A successful SBIR proposal can lead to enough money to sustain a small team for up to 2 years or so while they validate and build out their idea. SBIR money has launched many successful businesses.

The proposal process, and subsequent administration of award, are rife with arcane bureaucratic minutiae. Management of these aspects, however, can be outsourced to several specialist organizations, and their costs are a legitimate part of any proposal.

Good luck, bitcoiners!

ASICs at the next smaller process node have just become available. For miners, this requires a response to either pony up for the new more efficient equipment, or start your exit from the mining game. As long as the older gear is still revenue positive, it will stay in service. Given the rate of adoption of the new generation, this may not be very long.

IOW, this hash rate boost is driven by chip geometries, and does not require collusion with exchanges to be beneficial for the miners.

Four bills, four bits. Honey Badger keep on honeybadgeratin'

Yet you continue to degrade your reputation by shilling for a gambling scheme in your sig.

That's merely the abstract aggregate collection of people we call 'consumers' telling you that they don't want your damned widgets. That's a producer fail, pure and simple.

Incidentally, this thing we call 'economy' is nothing more than the abstract aggregate rollup of countless individual consumers and countless individual producers involved in countless individual transactions. If individual consumers don't value highly enough the goods that the producers are producing in order to engage in trade, so what? You speak as if it is a problem that requires solving by manipulation of monetary characteristics. It is not. If people don't want the crap that's being made, it is self-evident that their needs are being met. If people's needs are being met, there is no problem.

What I am not seeing in your quoted material is an FBI arrest report. Consequently, all I can do is speculate. And I do so thusly:

SEC files civil charges. FBI investigates criminal charges. Civil trial discovery process may yield additional evidence usable in building criminal charges. Were SEC civil charges filed at the same time as FBI criminal charges in the Shkrell case? Wait for it....

Absolute twaddle. Reducing the proportion of the wealth of the populace that the vampire squid is able to hoover up though legalistically-chartered theft is reason enough. Even if it were not for the fact that the legacy financial system already consumes a huge share of humanity's electricity production.

In the overall scheme of things, it was not that long ago that 823 BTC was pocket lint.

eta: now that I see the figure was 836, I feel the point is better made by not correcting it. Whatev

I don't know how I didn't see this before. Anybody know who 'Bernie' is? Madoff, maybe?

eta: catching up with the thread tip, I see cryptodevil caught it. Though the followup question might be 'hmm... I wonder what other gems we glossed over at first reading?'