I am not pro either, and of course quadratic validation, and mutability and other such issues should be fixed.  Implicit is that rational and a non contentious code or even as compromise such code would be included.

No Consensus are to be well considered, there may come a point though where it become deleterious, which I posit it is, now.

See your sort of missing the point.

New terms arise as a way to encapsulate a lot of attributes and make them selves amenable to discussion. You seem to be arguing that a term should not be made up

Then you add, and this seem to be you main argument, it because the makers of the term benefit from it.

I think there is some *cough* currency to the idea.

The alt market cap, tech, desire, all point that way. The spill over from not being able to get your transaction in the blockchain at a reasonable price. I have experienced this and the frustration of it first hand.

You need actual substantive arguments, not just ad hominem attacks.

And ok, if you don't like the ETH roll back you can use ETC. I am not sure this is then a real concern for you, you have the choice of either.

Nor do i think this would mean BTC would be easily attacked, the argument does not really translate as cleanly as you imply. Thier have been arguably clear errors in BTC such a the one that allowed the generation of many etxtra coins and that was rolled back. Now ETH DAO was a different issue, it did what it was supposed to do, but some lazy devs did not plug a known hole.

I do admit there are a lot of vectors.

I do agree that one positive out of this stagnation is if you want to look at a blockchain that is really really hard to change, well bitcoins lives up to that.

Yes agree, but that said I feel a blocksize increase would do near the same...I am pro doing something not just segwit. I think the miners must have some legitimate arguments or they would not be pushing so hard.

Even if this is the case you can have the best DEV in the world, but if you can't get it's product running its near worthless

Ok, I mean development in general, not 'dev's' per se.

maybe maybe not .... and it could be too late, post the Flippening


See this is what FIAT and everyone else said about BTC, you must be able to extend the same argument of BTC'rs to ALTs...


I am not arguing in specific pools or even segwit etc but towards the implication in general stagnation

In general this type of response misses the forest for the trees, my argument is stagnation is death not the form of either which are probably both ok. The fact that both sides (and a few other "sides) have devolved into fundamentalism and their minds seem to be shut off to the bigger picture.

That implication is the BIG issue on the table that is going take alot of time to heal as far as the market is concerned.

BTC could be way higher, and so more useful and stronger, as it near the 10K mark, and the alts lets as a % cap, but still higher.

Rather we have increase in use that is stuck in the mem pool and the market looking on saying I want my coin to be able to have reasonable dev options.

The biggest issue on the table now is the implication that dev can be stuck for years.

BTC needs to scale and can scale, but it is stuck in internecine warfare, the participants of which are so locked in to thier own world view they are burning down their own houses

this makes the use case for alts much more persuasive, and tangible, so yes, XRP and NEM are possible contenders, especially NEM as it hardly get talked about unlike say dash, so it still seems to have quite a bit of room to grow. Also its in japan and has a commercial dev on minjin which helps.

LTC shows as clearly as we have just where BTC could go. There should be no argument that doing something is better than nothing.

its so tragic to see the %BTC decline of market cap, when there is much usage of btc now, and what did we do at the very inflection point devolved in a scaling war with implications of this on every issue of importance.

It seems many Bit coiners ignore this, or discount it, just call everything else a scam.

what happens to fees as nem goes up, is smallest fee is 1 nem? what is the divisibility of 1 nem atm?

A way to move fiat in / out a blockchain that no bank can stop, or is fault tolerant, so it just uses another bank account in another jurisdiction, so a true decentralized exchange.

So something like this

Holding company X opens 10 companies that then go not to open 10 companies and they do the same.

so now you have 1000 companies at the lowest level.

Then are all tokened out onto say eth or something to bind them together as to shares

Theses companies open up multiple commercial bank accounts in multiple jurisdictions.

They are paid out in their token as long as there accounts are open an operating. Where then fail, more companies are instantiated.

This then allows fiat to be moved in an out of the companies via the tokens, no matter which subset of companies you chose.

Each company has say 10 bank accounts in various jurisdictions.

This you have 1000 bank accounts around the world.


IF you abstract out another 2 levels then 100,000 bank accounts.

Each company is then spun of legally except of obligations and incentives to the token system into its own legal entity.

At this point is becomes too hard to chase down all the bank accounts for any single jurisdiction and new ones just pop up anyway for ones that a re killed off.

Some sort of reserve fund system to minimize where a few losses are made due to frozen assets in 1~20 accounts.

But this way you have opened up a fiat gateway into the legacy system that is near impossible to kill and decentralized.

Also certain banks may want to keep the account open when they see the shear volume of funds coming their way.

A token/coin/scheme/contract system that can do this will be the next big thing.

Fees will be say 0.001% of all transactions which go to the coin/token holders and assurance/incentive fund.

I don't mind the master node idea, as it confers speed advantages, and I don't see why it is different to investing in mining power, except with out the arms race and power costs.

I think the issue is choosing the right boundary condition (sort of like navier stokes if you catch my drift) eg amount to hold to be a MN and the payout rate. This could effect he centralization, and the collapse of success of the coin.

I imagine at some point if the coin becomes two expensive then the price to run a MN would be better set at less coins. Not that this would stop centralization to some extent in the first instance.

If this go wrong eg massive price drop, you may see a massive liquidation of nodes as a sort of positive feed back for more recent entrant that have to cover losses or lock in profits. This will then create the positive feed back conditions to perhaps an faster spiral down.

This only my intuitive analysis though

Then we are back to a good distro.


Perhaps this is where a coin like nem comes in had a pretty good distro inmho.

So as far as I grok it, if you can get on the ?majority of  UNL lists for the various ripple servers, you will be a legit ripple processor. Over in the ripple forum it seemed very opaque about how a person/entity qualifies to be on and be kicked of a UNL list and what incentivizes UNL's to stay honest?

Any info on this or discussion would be appreciated.

no big deal, they have not created more xrp. Its always been there. A more interesting question is how do you get on the UNL list?

This ETH is becoming the blockchain of blockchains, which basically cuts out the rational from many of the decentralised exchange coins and een LN to some extent, plus there is the full turing and heaps of dev. Meanwhile BTC is shooting itself in the foot as hard , fast and often as possible with the BU and Segwit debate.


BTC could be at 10K now or at least 5K

does the LTN render alot of projects otiose?

eg internet of coins? (not picking on that just using as example)

well ETH is 1/3 the way there now.....btc dominance has been dropping all the time....the trend seems to be that way....

IF btc got its dev act together then I would be inclined to say BTC all the way.

Strong Dev

Strong unified leadership

Charismatic Leader

New Tech, Complete language.

BTC meanwhile is repeatedly shooting itslef in the foot, indicating that it is incapable of dev when needed, the opposing sides can not even compromise.

I would not be surprised if PPC takes over from BTC as the reserve currency/store of value, because PPC was designed to be this, BTC was not but is now trying to be that.

Its pretty much dead for buying coffee at this point.

no what I mean is as the block insensitive drops and (if) usage goes up the block reward would compensate miners.

so a 10 mb  x  full use at 1/5 fees would give more 2 x more at 1 unit of fee in 1mb block size so it would word for usage and miners.

Now is it the case that LN would allow all of the extra fees of chain, and so make BTC less attractive miners and keep fees high?

people are bored of this::

A plague on both your houses::

do both segwit and 2MB

LTC now provides a credible test bed and alternative.

BTC is shooting itself in the foot, did you notice how it has lost dominance so much, LTC has just done what 30% in 1 or 2 days.

The only thing  I don't quite get is it that miners want larger blocks so they can collect more fee's but the LN + segwit will mean they face much less fees for miners?

why would the sec change its decision?

I would BTC rather force its way through buying value

The govt has no choice or powers when it's own currency is printed to worthlessness,

forks, finex, alts any of these could

btc can go below 1K easily. now below 100$ ? no, unless an alt takes over which eth may at this rate.

I think we will see 100K before we see 100$ though

The higher the price of BTC the more usefull it gets because you can actually dump institutional size money in.

You need to be able to dump a billion is an not move the price much, then its can be used for international purchases, etc

This leads to a positive feed back.

a 10K bitcoin is more than 10x useful as a 1K btc

when we get to 100K, and above 100B a day in tradeing vol, then we have something actually usefull to a lot of money markets etc.

I am some what gladdened coincap is not including finex in their calculations