You are conflating the issuance/supply of the scarce asset with scaling the transaction throughput/bandwidth. When we say "scaling" we mean how much transactions can the network handle per second.
I am not conflating anything. If you fuck with the tp/s you will break bitcoin. Not everyone may be ready but I personally am ready to hear if you can prove that pretty strong statement. |
|
|
|
You are conflating the issuance/supply of the scarce asset with scaling the transaction throughput/bandwidth. When we say "scaling" we mean how much transactions can the network handle per second.
I do not think that is what he is saying. He is saying any change which might break the "gold like" property of Bitcoin in order to do anything (more transactions, more convenience, better whatever) should not be done. Any change. Changes should all be vetted with the filter of preserving Bitcoin as it is functioning now. |
|
|
|
Where does it state that Bitcoin's goal is a "stable unit of value"?
What he is saying agrees with you. The goal of Bitcoin is not a stable unit of value. His point goes beyond that. Not only is Bitcoin not a stable unit of value it can never be a stable unit of value. Beyond that: we should not be trying in any way to make it what it is not and can never be. Bitcoin should be bitcoin as it is. This "stable unit of value" must be something else - almost by definition. |
|
|
|
Please explain what you mean by "scale it as gold".
I also do not understand what you mean by "perfect stability in value". The price of gold fluctuates as do all commodities.
That is exactly what he is saying: We want to maintain the "gold like" properties of Bitcoin (to the death) The price of Bitcoin fluctuates, will continue to fluctuate, we will embrace that. The thing that does not fluctuate (the ideal perfect money) is not Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
I like it. Also, not changing anything is the most probably outcome of this entire block size scaling debate.
The miners are happy. It will be hard to get them to change anything that might upset the apple cart. So you will most likely get exactly what you are proposing.
|
|
|
|
1) Make this your central arguement because almost everyone here will agree with the proposed outcome.
This is what I have been saying over and over day after day for 4 years. Nash's proposal ends the conflict. All we have to do, is inspire core to talk to the community about it-in dialogue.  Also what I am hearing from you regarding the scaling debate is "do nothing" don't change it leave it alone. Bitcoin will provide what we need to get the rest of the system to give us what we want as it is. Correct? |
|
|
|
if you have a gold like commodity (but not gold for reasons he explains) then our CURRENT financial system will natural asymptotically slide towards a ceiling of perfect stability in value.
You should 1) Make this your central arguement because almost everyone here will agree with the proposed outcome. 2) As hard as it might be for you IGNORE the obvious "I did not read anything but I have an opinion on this" posts, like the one above In other words most of the people here want something better. The republicans, the libertarians, the progressives, the anarchists, the drug dealers, the business men. Everyone that comes here sees Bitcoin as a means to their end. If you say Bitcoin is not the perfect money we all want but by keeping it as it is we will all get the perfect money we do want, that is very interesting. |
|
|
|
@traincarswreck... if you are saying that bitcoin should not have any further hard forks or soft forks and should instead continue as-is in terms of consensus level code, then I agree.
I believe that both soft and hard forks of a particular cryptocurency (eg bitcoin) are a moral hazard as they change the rules of the game that people already invested time/money/energy into.
The cryptocurrency system as a whole can be continually upgraded by the introduction of new software with brand-new genesis blocks. Anyone that believes in the properties of the new system can then invest into it. Eventually one or more systems with the most desirable/useful properties should emerge.
I believe this to be the only moral path forward.
If I understand the thrust of your argument correctly I think you may be in agreement though from a different angle/perspective.
This exactly. And you will understand better than others the significance of me saying that NASH taught me what bitcoin was, not Satoshi. Core is being as irresponsible as VER. I admit that as an electrical engineer I am not an expert in economics so I am ignorant - but not stupid. I read this thread with great interest and this post seems to summarize things for me at least. To recap my understanding of the thread so far: Bitcoin is good for some purposes and is not good for others purposes (all the "gold" versus "currency" posts). ALL sides in the great block size increase debate may kill Bitcoin by trying to "fix" it. Bitcoin is not really broken, it is what it is. Just leave all the fundamental arbitrary parameters (total number of Bitcoins, current block size, current block generation rate, etc.) as is. It is too late to change anything now. If you must make a change to any parameter, create an alt coin and see how the market responds to it. If we need something with attributes that Bitcoin does not have and can/will never have, create it, don't mess with Bitcoin to do it. Is that basically what you are saying? |
|
|
|
Comparing the price of one Bitcoin to the price of a certain mass of gold is pointless, so total bullshit. The only comparison for "parity" that makes any sense is total market cap of both commodities.
Total estimated gold ever mined: 171,300,000 kg
1 kg of gold = $39,847
Market cap: $6,825,791m
Total bitcoins ever mined: 16,193,587
1 btc = $1,249
Market cap: $20,230m
You should postpone the 'parity party' until 1 BTC = $421,512, or when it's value equals the value of ~10.6 kg of gold.
sources: google + coinmarketcap
Exactly. For "parity" a BTC would need to be about 39,847 * 171,300,000 / 16,193,587 = $421,511So not quite there yet. |
|
|
|
From another thread:
Total estimated gold ever mined: 171,300,000 kg
1 kg of gold = $39,847
Market cap: $6,825,791m
Total bitcoins ever mined: 16,193,587
1 btc = $1,249
Market cap: $20,230m
You should postpone the 'parity party' until 1 BTC = $421,512, or when it's value equals the value of ~10.6 kg of gold.
sources: google + coinmarketcap
Exactly. For "parity" a BTC would need to be about 39,847 * 171,300,000 / 16,193,587 = $421,511 So not quite there yet. |
|
|
|
Total estimated gold ever mined: 171,300,000 kg
1 kg of gold = $39,847
Market cap: $6,825,791m
Total bitcoins ever mined: 16,193,587
1 btc = $1,249
Market cap: $20,230m
You should postpone the 'parity party' until 1 BTC = $421,512, or when it's value equals the value of ~10.6 kg of gold.
sources: google + coinmarketcap
Exactly. For "parity" a BTC would need to be about 39,847 * 171,300,000 / 16,193,587 = $421,511 So not quite there yet. |
|
|
|
For the first time ever, one Bitcoin is more expensive than one ounce of gold today. How high is it going to go I wonder.
Gold is measured by mass and priced in USD/gram. How much does a Bitcoin weigh? You cannot compare the two. |
|
|
|
Thanks a lot philipma1957 and BurtW!! =D
Is this your question? For example if the target was: 0x000000000003FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF And it is changed to: 0x000000000001FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF I believe this will double the difficulty and will double the hash rate needed to maintain an average of 6 blocks solved per hour. |
|
|
|
|
I was forced by homeland "security" and the department of "justice" to fork over $80,000 in cash and Bitcoins to the Federal asset forfeiture fund. Does that count?
|
|
|
|
Hi,
Say difficulty requires 9 leading zeros, then how much more processing(cycles) would be needed if it increase to 10 leading zeros?
How hard does it get?
Thanks a lot!!! =)
...partial answer to the question...
First off, you are confusing difficulty and target. Target defines "how many zeros" you need. Difficulty is defined as the (highest possible target) / (the current target) Also the target is not just shifting in a one or out a one as you seem to imply. A target looks like this: 0x00000000000404CB000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 Any value less than or equal to the target is an acceptable hash. The highest possible target with the lowest possible difficulty (the difficulty 1 target) is defined as: 0x00000000FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF So maybe rephrase your question in terms of target? |
|
|
|
You may not recognize or agree with a or any legal distinction between stealing someone's BTC and claiming a BTC reward as was done here in this thread or is being done in the puzzle transaction. But there is a huge moral distinction between the two: stealing someone's BTC is wrong, claiming a BTC reward is not wrong. Just because you can do something does not make it morally right. |
|
|
|
A 150,000 Sq Ft bitcoin mining operation! This is going to be one kick ass facility, best of luck to you.
So what's your preference, will you be showing support for SegWit, Unlimited?
Careful. Do not take a side or you will be totally slammed by the other side. I should know. I joked about taking a side and was slammed for it. Both sides have very passionate trolls. |
|
|
|
|
In order to make money you will need a line on very cheap electricity. Do you have that? What is your cost per kWh?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
