When historians look back they might well conclude that the 1MB limit resolution was Bitcoin's "betamax moment", the most important decision point deciding its ultimate fate.
coinmarketcap.com is interesting because it gives a market assessment of Bitcoin's future prospects.
Right now the total cryptocurrency market cap is $8,197,074,397 and Bitcoin's is $7,678,842,953 or 93.68%
(higher if MSC and XCP and other BTC-based alts are included).
So, the cryptocurrency market is effecting pricing a >93% probability of Bitcoin dominating this new asset class - long term. An asset class of such importance that many crypto investors consider could make all fiat obsolete and perhaps even demonetize precious metals as well.
If the 1MB limit is not handled properly, in good time, and is allowed to seriously disrupt organic growth, then that percentage will fall significantly. Perhaps even causing an irrecoverable erosion in the first-mover status, opening the window for alts like NXT and XMR.
This is the stakes in play.
here's a novel thought: it may not matter either way. i can construct reasonable game theory scenarios where Bitcoin can succeed both ways. the economic incentives may be so strong against the existing inflationary fiat monetary system that participants will work hard to make either scenario workable. the main incentive being an open and transparent fixed supply monetary system.
Bitcoin can not disrupt fiat currencies unless it's a network that everyone on the planet is actually capable of transacting on.
i guess you don't think much about my Bitcoin Standard. however, by providing an instant, almost realtime method of settling international balance of payment imbalances, Bitcoin could put the screws to overleveraging in the overlying fiat system. perhaps the sustainability that i suggest of that system is what puts you off but i still think it's the path of least resistance for integration of existing and new technology.
Pulling out all the FUD/propaganda stops to keep the transaction throughput rate capped is the best possible strategy the defenders of he legacy system could employ to save themselves.
i probably should say that i am neutral on the issue of block size, currently. i understand both halves of the argument and honestly think it may not matter which way we go as the network could adapt. but even so, you can't label those who argue against what you propose as spewing FUD. most of those ppl honestly believe that keeping blocks at 1MB is the right thing to do, and perhaps it is. we'll see.
If they can force most transactions off chain, into the waiting arms of Coinbase and Circle, then most of the benefits of Bitcoin will remain inaccessible to most of the world's population.
i must admit, i don't like what i'm seeing on Coinbase's behalf regarding KYC/AML. they're being too intrusive. we'll have to see how this evolves as i'm sure they are under severe pressure to conform which could change for the better with time.
having said that, we do need a way to bring all the unbanked online with Bitcoin. that will require cheap tx fees. my hope is that the market will force down fees thru increased competition. we're beginning to see that with 0% fees via Circle.
Given the stakes involved, I don't trust Gavin to be capable of making good decisions even if he wanted to. A single point of control is a single target for blackmail and extortion.
you do know that Gavin agrees with you when it comes to increasing tx rates? i seriously doubt he could be manipulated given his political leanings and actions heretofore. i'm just glad he's being paid by the BF while being alongside Matonis, who i think has his head on straight.
they are very aware of issues like block size limits and bandwidth limitations.
What you're talking about are symptoms of a sub-optimal network layer.
The fact that the P2P network suffers from a tragedy of the commons effect because there is no price discovery for bandwidth or storage is nothing inherent to Bitcoin - it's inherent to the current design of the reference client.
i'm not seeing it. every day we get more positive news and year on year we are still up around 500%.
If people who don't want Bitcoin to succeed can stop that problem from ever being fixed in the reference client, they can point to the tragedy of the commons problem as an example of why never to raise the transaction rate, forever.
Of course, that strategy only works when a single codebase has a monolopy on the implementation of the protocol.
i would say that if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Show Posts
