|
"And tank it up to here, lol"
[polarbear.jpg]
|
|
|
|
A "private" University? Pfffft. BRL derived from taxes tastes so much sweeter. |
|
|
|
What happened to Garziks proposal of 2mb blocks on 11/11?
The blockstream guys loved it because it helped mainchain scaling ..... NOT. That's not exactly true. Adam even suggested building further on it. https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/641707352123645956The hyperbole (I'm not innocent either) on both sides is not going to be helpful towards us reaching a compromise. If we get well through 2016 and are still stuck at 1MB... then I'll entertain the nefarious motives that have been thrown around. in case you missed it, and since you seem to be the appeal to authority type.. ... I guess Hal Finney was also living this fairytale Actually there is a very good reason for Bitcoin-backed banks to exist, issuing their own digital cash currency, redeemable for bitcoins. Bitcoin itself cannot scale to have every single financial transaction in the world be broadcast to everyone and included in the block chain. There needs to be a secondary level of payment systems which is lighter weight and more efficient. Likewise, the time needed for Bitcoin transactions to finalize will be impractical for medium to large value purchases.
Bitcoin backed banks will solve these problems. They can work like banks did before nationalization of currency. Different banks can have different policies, some more aggressive, some more conservative. Some would be fractional reserve while others may be 100% Bitcoin backed. Interest rates may vary. Cash from some banks may trade at a discount to that from others.
George Selgin has worked out the theory of competitive free banking in detail, and he argues that such a system would be stable, inflation resistant and self-regulating.
I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash. Most Bitcoin transactions will occur between banks, to settle net transfers. Bitcoin transactions by private individuals will be as rare as... well, as Bitcoin based purchases are today.
That's all well and good. No amount of blocksize scaling will ever fit the world's daily transactions on the main chain. I would like to see reasonable increases to the max blocksize in order to compensate and incentivize miners (security) in the face of decreasing block reward. When Lightning, sidechains, and all the other options offered actually exist and function, then they will influence future decisions. (btw "appeal to authority" accusation is hilarious coming from you) |
|
|
|
What happened to Garziks proposal of 2mb blocks on 11/11?
The blockstream guys loved it because it helped mainchain scaling ..... NOT. That's not exactly true. Adam even suggested building further on it. https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/641707352123645956The hyperbole (I'm not innocent either) on both sides is not going to be helpful towards us reaching a compromise. If we get well through 2016 and are still stuck at 1MB... then I'll entertain the nefarious motives that have been thrown around. |
|
|
|
As far as I see it Gavin is desperatly trying to save Bitcoin.
but there is no need to save anything at the moment. so far, bitcoin dealt with problems in a good manner. Right? Its like these "big blockers nao" are under some Reddit spell, talking about problems that are not problems and promoting some solution that is not a solution anyway..  I'm always impressed how non big blockers can say with a straight face that there is no problem leaving everything at 1 Megabyt blocks. Let's say blocks are half full now. What happens when legit transactions are constantly, on average, 150% of 1MB? It would mean that 33% of all valid transactions will never confirm. Can you imagine a currency where 33% of all transactions never confirm and that currency had somehow a chance to survive? And fee market... you realize that if constantly many legit transactions are waived, then the fees will rise constantly too. There would simply be no end because even if everyone raises their fee, still 33% can't get confirmed. What would happen? 33% of all users who use bitcoin would drop bitcoin. Surely that would be a great day for adoption.  non big blockers? im just a regular bitcoiner man  anwyay, to answer you, imho i'd tend to say lets revisit blocksize once block reward < fees. i do want to see a fee market emerge before cutting into it. its been fun unitl now, low cost transactions and all, but serisouly im in bitcoin for a bit more than a visa competitor. monetary sovreignty y know... Are you going to unleash in your typical mature and reasoned protesting when the 1MB limit is lifted before block reward < fees? Or... is your impotent rage only for Gavin? https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/641707352123645956It's a question of trajectory and method now. Thankfully, the idea of "1MB forever" popescu pogs is doomed. |
|
|
|
|
It's only a question of trajectory now imo. Adam's 2-4-8 is a possibility, and I've no doubt others will emerge.
XT might not be the solution, but it is a manifestation of the opinion of part of the network.
|
|
|
|
Fake bull lambies are the best lambies.  whoops |
|
|
|
 SFYL |
|
|
|
so all the usual trolls and bears have taken to swimming in the swamp of endlessly discussing big block politics (not technicals) now that the price is rising?
Nope, just being realistic about the happy case of us receiving what we wish for. reviving the corpse of Hearn's abortion XT for some necrophiliac loving is just sick and embarassing ... but if that is what you wish? Go for it, just do not expect to be taken seriously by the technical knowledgeable people in bitcoin. I didn't say a word about XT, if you want my opinion, his added "features" and change of leadership killed it upon birth. I'm fine with adam's 2-4-8. Fact is, 1MB4EVA needs to be rektd on the shores of romania. We need to seize our moment, or perish via paralysis or capture. 1MB4EVA is not being proposed as a serious technical solution. On h/ware improvements alone capacity will grow but how to implement that in a secure algorithm is the challenge, given the myriad of parameters and delicate balance of the existing competing incentive structure. It would not surprise me that after all the work that is going on now for secure transactions anchored in main chain, but off-chain, that it turns out blocks wont be demanded by the market to be much bigger at all. Highly distributed networks scale securely best self-similarly, not monolithically (simply bigger blocks is a monolithic approach, so likely wrong) and "big" is a temporally-relative term that is near to impossible to encode in network rules that need to persist for decades. Believe it when I see it. For now, give me 2MB for some coasting and measuring. Noone is going to "give you" anything. Run a node, spin up a new client with the rules you want implemented or contribute civilly to a technical group that is producing a client. Kind of off-putting to see all this "demanding" by the users ... if you want something build it. This is not the customer-supplier relationship that has been sold to you by Gavin, Hearn and the data-mining crowd. They want something from you for providing "convenient solutions, easy answers and goodies", your financial privacy. It is the same thing Google and Facebook and etc did to the web. Provide the goodies for free and meanwhile they pipe your humanity out the back-door. I'm not "demanding" shit. You can keep it at 1MB censorship safe popescu pogs if you want, I'll spin down my node and sell my coins if you keep towing what's best for Blockstream ™ well through 2016. That's not a threat, just a statement. (Lay down an olive branch and get smacked in the face with it.) |
|
|
|
so all the usual trolls and bears have taken to swimming in the swamp of endlessly discussing big block politics (not technicals) now that the price is rising?
Nope, just being realistic about the happy case of us receiving what we wish for. reviving the corpse of Hearn's abortion XT for some necrophiliac loving is just sick and embarassing ... but if that is what you wish? Go for it, just do not expect to be taken seriously by the technical knowledgeable people in bitcoin. I didn't say a word about XT, if you want my opinion, his added "features" and change of leadership killed it upon birth. I'm fine with adam's 2-4-8. Fact is, 1MB4EVA needs to be rektd on the shores of romania. We need to seize our moment, or perish via paralysis or capture. 1MB4EVA is not being proposed as a serious technical solution. On h/ware improvements alone capacity will grow but how to implement that in a secure algorithm is the challenge, given the myriad of parameters and delicate balance of the existing competing incentive structure. It would not surprise me that after all the work that is going on now for secure transactions anchored in main chain, but off-chain, that it turns out blocks wont be demanded by the market to be much bigger at all. Highly distributed networks scale securely best self-similarly, not monolithically (simply bigger blocks is a monolithic approach, so likely wrong) and "big" is a temporally-relative term that is near to impossible to encode in network rules that need to persist for decades. Believe it when I see it. For now, give me 2MB for some coasting and measuring. |
|
|
|
so all the usual trolls and bears have taken to swimming in the swamp of endlessly discussing big block politics (not technicals) now that the price is rising?
Nope, just being realistic about the happy case of us receiving what we wish for. reviving the corpse of Hearn's abortion XT for some necrophiliac loving is just sick and embarassing ... but if that is what you wish? Go for it, just do not expect to be taken seriously by the technical knowledgeable people in bitcoin. I didn't say a word about XT, if you want my opinion, his added "features" and change of leadership killed it upon birth. I'm fine with adam's 2-4-8. Fact is, 1MB4EVA needs to be rektd on the shores of romania. We need to seize our moment, or perish via paralysis or capture. |
|
|
|
so all the usual trolls and bears have taken to swimming in the swamp of endlessly discussing big block politics (not technicals) now that the price is rising?
Nope, just being realistic about the happy case of us receiving what we wish for. |
|
|
|
That is the stated Blocksrteam/small-blockian view: bitcoin should be used only for large-value settlements between institutions, like the Lightning network hubs
As a small-blockian myself, I can say the above is not my view. Bitcoin should be used primarily for transactions where capital controls or other forms of monetary censorship exist. The amount of data required to keep the Bitcoin network functioning should remain small enough that it is difficult to censor, especially considering it is needed most in places where censorship exists. -- not for ordinary e-purchases by ordinary citizens.
This, however, is my view. There is simply no reason to use censorship-proof money for ordinary purchases. It's a terrible waste of resources for starters. A decentralized system has no reason to compete with centralized systems. They each do different things well. Using Bitcoin to buy goods from Amazon is like using a chainsaw to mow your lawn. Yeah, a chainsaw will certainly cut grass, but there are much better tools for the job. All transactions do not need to be censorship-proof in a world where censorship-proof transactions exist. The possibility of censorship-proof transactions by itself will cut down on censorship because it will be seen as futile. So, it's important that any decision to change Bitcoin be considered in this light, and it's imperative not to make changes which move in the opposite direction (such as drastically increasing the amount of data needed to be shared in order to keep the network functioning). Bitcoin is not blessed with being the only censorship resistant network by virtue of atomic organizaion. The block reward is our manna to consume while eating everyone else's lunch. |
|
|
|
 Spot the silly volume here. |
|
|
|
Isn't calling Lightning like solutions not Bitcoin kind of a stretch?  Isn't calling Lightning like solutions Bitcoin kind of a stretch? |
|
|
|
...
That would be an ideal time for someone to launch a competing coin. I figure it would take <$1 Billion to overcome Bitcoin's first mover advantage and then the banksters will just keep running the world as if we never existed.
lmao you really should lay off whatever you are tripping on. You think it would take less or more? Surely you know that it's possible at some number with the right technical design and promotion. You seem to be not understanding what's at stake here. it would take broad consensus amongst the community that this altcoin is the new future of money. i mean they can pump there coin all they want, all they really do is create a very large honey pot no one dare touch. ?? our entire market cap is a fraction of what Facebook paid for Whatsapp. They don't need our community at all. All we're doing is their test marketing and technical research for them. A few tweaks, a few power players (in finance, not crypto) backing, and they capture everyone who wants low cost electronic cash without all the anarcho-capitalist drug market baggage. Oh yeah, and it'll scale.  What type of moron..... I can't... Image no workey. Can we stop the Grover Dill impression? 2MB, can I get a 2MB? |
|
|
|
|
Jorge doesn't "invest" in fiat. Only silly MMM victims poor people would do such a thing. Maybe he will, or already has, "protested" for them.
|
|
|
|
Leave Jorge alone! His home currency is doing a disruptive black swan without the help of bit-coin.  The Brazilian Real in Actual Money™. To be fair, it's flat since august ended. |
|
|
|
let us also put aside once and for all the fallacy of confusing 'effectively' scaling bitcoin with block size.
Let's not, because they're clearly linked. I hope only the pace of growth is disputed at this point. Sidechains will only add to that. 1MB4EVA needs to get rekt on the shores of romania. |
|
|
|
|
No benefit of the periodic table, and a mid curve of the distribution scheme compensation. The block reward is what is supposed to fuel the growth that will sustain miners as it approaches 0. 12.5 btc is not 0.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
