OH well what are you guys going to say about her  That people do many things for money, including getting dressed up in ridiculous outfits & spending a day at a neckbeard convention? or the bitcoin chick on twitter ?  You mean the one in the pic, who hasn't tweeted since 2014? Most likely a sexy alterego of some pasty fat d00d, Idunno. |
|
|
|
but would you *really* call it usability?
No electronic cash can compete with fiat on usability. Centralized , decentralized, government approved - any electronic cash can't be more usable than fiat or gold. >No electronic cash can compete with fiat on usability Credit cards/debit cards, those majikkal sets of numbers that get you goodies from the interwebs: them's fiat too. Bitcoin ain't the first "electronic cash." >gold Last time I transacted in gold was ...never. |
|
|
|
Please. All the shitcoins (well, most, anyhow) are also based on overall scarcity. And yet... most of them are worth exactly what the name implies: shit.
Care to explain why overall scarcity didn't work out for them?
scarcity is one thing.. but.. shitcoins were pump and dumps so while USABILITY was near zero, the supply was massive. Bitcoin's "USABILITY" is, objectively, near zero (if we overlook DNMs/ransomware/money laundering/illegal online gambling -- loopholes which are getting smaller as we speak). I mean, let's be honest, who buys BTC, just to spend it at some weirdass merchant that accepts it (typiclly through a payment processor like BitPay, which converts it back into fiat, so the merchant never needs to touch it)? Yeah, a few Bitcoin enthusiasts who, Like Rube Goldberg, like to do simple shit in the most convoluted, time-and-energy consuming way. Like Goldberg, ammusing, but would you *really* call it usability? @watashi-kokoto: How tasty is that lead paint anyhow, that you managed to sustain yourself on it to the exclusion of everything else? |
|
|
|
Fuck me. It's hard to imagine a worse call. Well, the market has spoken and the market always gets the last word.
You can help me eat a shoe. May I suggest pressure-cooking it? If I'm not mistaken, the first advertised use for pressure cookers was cooking down bones. Leather would be trivial  |
|
|
|
Sure, we users are paying for that block reward. Just like fiat holders are paying for fiat money that's "created out of thin air." Sure, you still have the $100 you put in a mattress 10 years ago, but now it's worth less. Same with BTC -- every newly minted coin debases the worth of your coin by 1/21-millionth.
bitcoiners dont care about the short term inflation every 10 minutes. as they see the overall deflation of every 4 years leading to an ultimate rarity of 21million.. thats why bitcoin should for economics purposes not be compared to fiat. that has no inflation control. but to gold, which miners dig out more gold every day, but know eventually it will run out and every X time they dig it. it gets harder and harder to dig. EG. 2011 (gpu mining) was like pickaxe mining, 2012 FPGA mining was like dynamite mining. and now ASIC mining is like excavator mining. getting harder and harder to mine which makes the valuation increase, as long as there is demand. I don't care if "bitcoiners don't care," I care. Fiat users don't care about their fiat being debased either, which doesn't change the fact that fiat is continuously being "created out of thin air." Just like 25 BTC are mined roughly every 9 minutes. The fact that hashpower is becoming cheaper is as irrelevant to Bitcoin security as the dollar price of BTC -- it's simultaneously becoming cheaper for the potential attacker. It's irrelevant how much more or less each coin is worth. Hashpower secures the network. We're paying 25BTC every 10 minutes to secure the network now.
If BTC becomes more expensive, that only means the incentive to haxx0r it is proportionally greater, so it's pointless to denominate security in anything *but* BTC. Follow?
its irrelevant how much more or less each coin is worth? but the first quote was talking about every newly minted coin debasing the worth of the coin... "we" are not paying for it physically.. as there are 15,000,000 coins in circulation at a $400 average value each.. so 25btc extra is just a 0.000167% impact. meaning on $400.. every 10 minutes a new reward can affect the value by 0.06c. Yeah, just like fiat. What's your point? which if there wasnt demand. speculation on good news days or increase of usefulness.. the price would decline by 6cents every 10 minutes, based on the logic of inflation..
but human decision and overal knowledge of the long term scarcity and deflationary 4 year events, makes that 6cent decrease unnoticable
Please. All the shitcoins (well, most, anyhow) are also based on overall scarcity. And yet... most of them are worth exactly what the name implies: shit. Care to explain why overall scarcity didn't work out for them? |
|
|
|
Anyway guys if you don't like Satoshi's 1MB rule and like big blocks <snip>
Dear toilet-hoarder: Satoshi implemented a *temporary kludge*, which made perfect sense @teh time. Coredweebs just couldn't be arrsed to update it, because initially just lazy &, as of late financially motivated to leave it in. Share a stall, Friend?  |
|
|
|
Let's not stoop to the abysmal level of our opposition and actually be honest.
The actual tx cost, by my calculations, is 25BTC / (~3tps x ~600 seconds/block) = .0139 BTC, or ~$5.50 per tx. Plus +$.03 tx fee, so ~$5.53. This is the price we pay for security (hashpower), which is currently subsidized by the 25BTC block reward.
As block rewards diminish over time, this subsidy will disappear. Then miners will be compensated by tx fees exclusively. Bitcoin is an expensive thing, no two ways about it.
no.. thats the price the miners receive from the mint.. but the miners charge customers alot less. "we" (users) do not give miners the block reward.. its minted. Sure, we users are paying for that block reward. Just like fiat holders are paying for fiat money that's "created out of thin air." Sure, you still have the $100 you put in a mattress 10 years ago, but now it's worth less. Same with BTC -- every newly minted coin debases the worth of your coin by 1/21-millionth. the diminishing of the reward is not a thing that needs to be dealt with for a long time.
put it this way.. 25btc @ $400=$10,000
if bitcoin has grown from $6-$400 in 4 years.. then in 10 years it can easily be worth $6400..
.. in 20 years the block reward will be about 1.5xxbtc which.. if bitcoin is $6400 each.. is still $10k block reward.
so relax about the block reward vs fee increase.. as thats a slow 20+year increase and not a 20 month requirement for fee's to subsidize rewards..
It's irrelevant how much more or less each coin is worth. Hashpower secures the network. We're paying 25BTC every 10 minutes to secure the network now. If BTC becomes more expensive, that only means the incentive to haxx0r it is proportionally greater, so it's pointless to denominate security in anything *but* BTC. Follow? |
|
|
|
Have you considered making fake-shitting in your toilet less attractive? Like maybe charging a higher admission to your toilets? (tho I admit, most people would sell their moms for a chance to sit in a toilet stall & fake-shit, so the price might have to be astronomical...)
it already costs $80 to fill 2000 toilets. which is $0.04c per toilet.. the solution is not to charge $0.08c in the hope a prankster cant afford $160 every 10 minutes. because that just irritates the other customers.. Let's not stoop to the abysmal level of our opposition and actually be honest. The actual tx cost, by my calculations, is 25BTC / (~3tps x ~600 seconds/block) = .0139 BTC, or ~$5.50 per tx. Plus +$.03 tx fee, so ~$5.53. This is the price we pay for security (hashpower), which is currently subsidized by the 25BTC block reward. As block rewards diminish over time, this subsidy will disappear. Then miners will be compensated by tx fees exclusively. Bitcoin is an expensive thing, no two ways about it. That said, the miners are currently free to reject any tx they see fit -- for having too low a fee, for having cloven hooves -- any reason. That's a (relatively healthy) mechanic. but allowing for a potential 4000 toilets at $0.04c and hope the prankster cant afford $160 every 10 minutes, doesnt irritate the customers but can cost a prankster more.
infact. with a 2mb+segwit. theres a potential of maybe 8000 toilets. which would cost the prankster $320 every 10 minutes.
Well no, the miners are free to include/reject any tx, that's how bitcoin works. They're not obligated to accept any. If the miners feel that accepting free tx is the thing to do, they'll do it. If they feel that processing $360 in tx substantially increases the odds of having their block orphaned (and missing out on $10,000), they'll include *NONE*. It's all very scientific and complicated, a convoluted & tangled interplay of too many variables  ok let's say there is 10% spam. this means 1800 real transactions and 200 spam. the fees are now for example 0.00014514
so rich spammer paid for example 0.029 per block
after 2MB instantly there will still be 1800 real but 2200 spam. but spammer will pay only 0.029 again. this means the spam fee will drop to 0.000013195
... But that's not how it works at all. Miners aren't mining for the pittance in tx fees. They want the block rewards. Spammers aren't spending $$$ for kicks -- they either have a goal (blocksize increase) or they're not spammers (simply transacting small amounts of BTC, thus would see no reason to do it more often if the fees are reduced). |
|
|
|
Ahah! Ok so all tx do have fees.
The fees currently paid, even for first block inclusion while 'blocks are full' are near zero. Urgent first block inclusion right now costs 0.03 USD and if you want to go +1-3 blocks, you can drop that to ~1cent. Spamming the blockchain is, for all practical intents and purposes, a very low cost activity. Why would the miners not simply ignore these transactions? @roughly 3tps x 60 x 10 = ~1800transactions x 2cents = $36 added to ~$10,000 block reward, making it $10,036? Is rational self-interest = shitting where they sleep?I believe they're just keen to solve those blocks before the other guy does it. Innit? Theoretically, they are interested in sustained profitability (hence *enlightened* self-interest). Being, presumably, rational actors, they wish to make the most *money*, overall. If solving a blog earlier means BTC price falls (as it would, if teh blogchain becomes too bloated to be practical), then solving a blog earlier don't count for shit. |
|
|
|
The problem with the terlit analogy is this: You don't solve the prankster problem by only having one toilet in your mega-restaurant & having your customers try to outbid each other to take a dump. Because that's retarded. People will be shitting themselves while standing in line, the smell would be awful. No self-respecting human being'll ever come to your restaurant, ever  well Bitcoin is like the secure public toilets. of course everyone has fiat cash at home so bitcoin doesn't care about instant, supporting world commerce - fiat cash or gold allows this easily. So Bitcoin = secure public toilet. For everything else, there's cash & gold. Thanks for setting me straight The spammer problem is like people who pretend they shit. We installed shit sensors but they keep flushing dirt and when we knock on the door they cry occupied.
Have you considered making fake-shitting in your toilet less attractive? Like maybe charging a higher admission to your toilets? (tho I admit, most people would sell their moms for a chance to sit in a toilet stall & fake-shit, so the price might have to be astronomical...) |
|
|
|
current bitcoin is like 2000 toilets for whole world
so we have 2000 toilets and everybody needs 10 minutes every day so we can serve 288 000 citizens that's a lot.
but there are spammers who just pay small fee, lock the toilet from inside and climb out to cause inconvenience.
the toilet door automatically opens up every 10 minutes, so the spammer needs to pay the fee and lock the 2000 doors again. ... The problem with the terlit analogy is this: You don't solve the prankster problem by only having one toilet in your mega-restaurant & having your customers try to outbid each other to take a dump. Because that's retarded. People will be shitting themselves while standing in line, the smell would be awful. No self-respecting human being'll ever come to your restaurant, ever |
|
|
|
Think of it as an extra traffic lane on a bridge. Sometimes there's no traffic, and the bridge is empty.
Let's build a bridge 10 times bigger than necessary, because why not? That implies that our oxcart bridge can handle x10 traffic. And yet... ... Last 4 blocks are full. 398392 is only not full because it got mined just 3 minutes after the previous. ... Explain this shit. And what, exactly, would motivate these spammers? Don't miners have the option of ignoring transactions, for any and all reasons?
Blocks tend to be full of spam. What motivated the "stress-tests" that we had in the past? You answered your own question -- stress tests, proof-of-concept, to get the devs off their complacent butts and actually *upgrade this fucking thing so it's not teetering on the edge anymore.* Or are you suggesting that it's done for luls, and our antifragile currency could be brought to its knees by any kid willing to throw ~30 bucks every ten mins at it? Big blocks is not like large bridge but like building 10 toilets now for everybody. so when you will have 8 kids in the future each one can have its own toilet
Ate plenty of wall candy when you were a kid, didn't you? |
|
|
|
Ahah! Ok so all tx do have fees.
The fees currently paid, even for first block inclusion while 'blocks are full' are near zero. Urgent first block inclusion right now costs 0.03 USD and if you want to go +1-3 blocks, you can drop that to ~1cent. Spamming the blockchain is, for all practical intents and purposes, a very low cost activity. Why would the miners not simply ignore these transactions? @roughly 3tps x 60 x 10 = ~1800transactions x 2cents = $36 added to ~$10,000 block reward, making it $10,036? Is rational self-interest = shitting where they sleep? |
|
|
|
Curious aside: Out of the last 4 posts, we have users advertising a gambling website, a (camwhoring?) porn website, and a bitcoin mixer (money-laundering website). Some serious potential here |
|
|
|
Someone told you that 2MB limit will make all blocks 2MB? Let me cut out that lying tongue!  Nobody told me anything. The spammers will fill any block size and this is a fact. And yet... even 1MB blocks are not getting filled up? How is this possible?  Think of it as an extra traffic lane on a bridge. Sometimes there's no traffic, and the bridge is empty.
But if it gets jammed occasionally (it does), and you're hoping that developers will build up the other side, don't hold your breath: no one will build up an area accessible only by a rickety oxcart bridge.
Spammers are making 1mb blocks full. What do you think they will do with 2MB or 20MB blocks? They are? And yet the blocks are not full? Explain this shit 
And what, exactly, would motivate these spammers? Don't miners have the option of ignoring transactions, for any and all reasons? |
|
|
|
Apparently, Classic supporters have mined a block 398364
A big block supporter mining a 101.5 kB block with just 208 transactions, what a shame.
Blaming urgent capacity increase, one would expect them to mine a full 1mb block.
Someone told you that 2MB limit will make all blocks 2MB? Let me cut out that lying tongue! Blaming urgent capacity increase, one would expect them to mine a full 1mb block.
But they told me that 20 MB is "urgent". ... Think of it as an extra traffic lane on a bridge. Sometimes there's no traffic, and the bridge is empty. But if it gets jammed occasionally (it does), and you're hoping that developers will build up the other side, don't hold your breath: no one will build up an area accessible only by a rickety oxcart bridge. |
|
|
|
For me no because bank still safe than bitcoin because bitcoin has a possible to hack and bitcoin value is not stable so its impossible that the banks will be disappear because of bitcoin... do you think guys if you forgot the password or you accidentally deleted your password in your laptop you can recover your account for me no so banks and atm's is always safe than bitcoin..
People lose more money every year stored in their bank accounts and atms as compared to Bitcoins ... Similarly, people lose more money in Bitcoin than they do in Shitcoin. Why? Well, for the same reason: because not too many people *use* Shitcoin. Duh. |
|
|
|
First Classic block mined!!  |
|
|
|
<-snip-> This is what I said: If "non-mining nodes [are] irrelevant to Bitcoin security," that implies either that "Bitcoin is secure with only mining nodes" or "Bitcoin is insecure no matter what."
My statement above specifically addresses the former. It is absolutely not secure with only mining nodes. The burden is on you to prove the second statement. <-snip-> There is no such thing as proof in game theory and economics. In any case, for this to be relevant, you need to make the case that this is sufficient to profitably attack the system. Otherwise it's just a meaningless metric.
Lol, that's where the root of your problem lies -- you think that "there's no such thing as proof in game theory and economics," so it's OK to ask me for proof when logic fails you. No, friend, game theory is "the study of mathematical models of conflict and cooperation between intelligent rational decision-makers." Mathematical models are the very essence of being open to proof, see here. Sorry 'bout previously bringing Godel into this, assumed our differences were more nuanced. Turns out they're rather basic -- you simply have no clue about the shit you talk about. |
|
|
|
...
If it is the technically correct solution, they should have convinced the core developers. If they couldn't convince the core developers, then maybe it isn't as sound as they think it is. ... Sometimes words fail me. How can ... why do you think Classic... how do you even...  >What we have going on here is an attempted Coup d'état. No Alice, what we have here is a bunch of entrenched, entitled bitches. Who not only failed to prevent this [100% predictable] fiasco, but have *driven out* the people who tried to keep shit from hitting the fan. The very bitches who are now raping Bitcoin for Blockstream's benefit. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
