"The community" of people that need things can not fork Bitcoin to provide for their needs at the expense of the actual community of people that create things and own things. Related to this, let us reiterate those ancient points about Bitcoin :
TALKING ABOUT BITCOIN, EVEN IF IN A GROUP, DOES NOT MAKE YOU PART OF BITCOIN. This pretty much sums up the "debate". Yes, you are talking about bitcoin here since 2014. If you come as one of the latest to a community you shouldn't come to the conclusion that you should talk the loudest and most now, spamming the 'community' full time with 100 posts a day. Bad strategy. |
|
|
|
This is the problem I have with some of you people: this presumption that somehow you need to save Bitcoin.
Bitcoin is doing just fine.
I suppose this is the crux of the debate. I agree that Bitcoin is doing just fine and perceive those who wish to use the block size limit as a policy tool as those who are trying to "save" bitcoin. Who holds the benevolent educator position? You, Peter?  No one really understands Bitcoin--we are all in this learning together. We move forward by presenting our ideas, research and experimental results, and then discussing them freely and openly. We dont give a heck about your ideas peter, you need to accept this. LOL. You prove the opposite every day by talking excessively about Gavin, Mike, Peter R. et alikes. |
|
|
|
*educating*
wow, no kidding.
I know right  Who holds the benevolent educator position? You, Peter? besides, hardly 5000 subscribers and 100 active users over there at r/btc is NOT "bitcoin community" also:  such delusions Quality before quantity. Compare the discussions over there with the childish memegenerator chats here. The most members here are discussing altcoins. This forum became more ore less an altcoin forum that censors bitcoin discussions. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is capped by DESIGN.
Yes: |
|
|
|
I suspect XT has achieved exactly the effect "they" intended it to. I don't believe the real force behind the XT push ever intended or believed it would gain adoption.
Beat the price of BTC down, FUD and "divide & conquer", mission accomplished.
Except that, in respect of the divide and conquer aspect, I don't think they've accomplished anything. The vast majority of XT supporters are sock-puppet shill accounts, and there aren't that many of them. So for now, there is only the appearance of split community. It is not a community. These are communist fantasies and fairytales. A community is a selfsufficient, nuclear, consensus ruled Dunbar community. A society (interacting with aliens) is not based on consensus, but on power/force/forks and supermajority decision making. A capitalist society is ruled by economic and political competition and the power behind it: banning, openness, censoring, liberalism, totalitarianism and all those duopolist forces and tactics that compete against each other. Well, it depends on which capitalist ideology you subscribe to. Margaret Thatcher famously said "There is no such thing as society". However, you're right to say that consensus doesn't govern, supermajority does. Who represents the supermajority opinion in the transaction scaling debate? It's not the BIP101/XT contingent, is it? Are you really going to try to pretend that even 51% of Bitcoiners support your views? You're in the fringe, and will remain there. The views of the Bitcoiners are changing from time to time. My view is that the supermajority will decide to leave the 1MB cap behind next year and that Gavin and BIP101 triggered the turning tide: It wasn't a mistake. Gavin did the right thing by exerting exit pressure (XT) rather than voice pressure (staying in Core), because having one monolithic implementation has already become Bitcoin's weak point. People think XT needs to reach 75% of mining power for it to succeed, but it doesn't. It just needs to hang over Core's head. Exit pressure is stronger than voice pressure, and it helps crack the centralization weak point of Core. Short term, we suffer some pain due to delayed blocksize increase, but long term we are spared greater pain by entering billion or trillion dollar market caps without the millstone of centralized development. (Noosterdam) The core of the core devs will be forced to finally present one proposal instead of trying to prolong the stalemate by presenting several 'proposals'. |
|
|
|
I suspect XT has achieved exactly the effect "they" intended it to. I don't believe the real force behind the XT push ever intended or believed it would gain adoption.
Beat the price of BTC down, FUD and "divide & conquer", mission accomplished.
Except that, in respect of the divide and conquer aspect, I don't think they've accomplished anything. The vast majority of XT supporters are sock-puppet shill accounts, and there aren't that many of them. So for now, there is only the appearance of split community. It is not a community. These are communist fantasies and fairytales. A community is a selfsufficient, nuclear, consensus ruled Dunbar community. A society (interacting with aliens) is not based on consensus, but on power/force/forks and supermajority decision making. A capitalist society is ruled by economic and political competition and the power behind it: banning, openness, censoring, liberalism, totalitarianism and all those duopolist forces and tactics that compete against each other. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin XT is basically a new bitcoin that is profitable for Coinbase. No one supported it from the beginning. No one will in the future. The original is the one and only, and no fake can best it. Bitcoin XT was never going to be a success, anyway.
I suspect XT has achieved exactly the effect "they" intended it to. Yes. Noosterdam
It wasn't a mistake. Gavin did the right thing by exerting exit pressure (XT) rather than voice pressure (staying in Core), because having one monolithic implementation has already become Bitcoin's weak point. People think XT needs to reach 75% of mining power for it to succeed, but it doesn't. It just needs to hang over Core's head. Exit pressure is stronger than voice pressure, and it helps crack the centralization weak point of Core. Short term, we suffer some pain due to delayed blocksize increase, but long term we are spared greater pain by entering billion or trillion dollar market caps without the millstone of centralized development. |
|
|
|
Yep, safe to say we're way outside the mean.
Negative correlation for the last two years. What gives?
The chart is showing you what you will get: Higher prices in the future. |
|
|
|
In one paragraph why you have to be seriously out of your mind to try and stop bigger blocks: The key to linking things together is recognizing that the only two things that give currency value are network effect and rarity. The network effect of Bitcoin is hugely affected by the number of transactions you can fit per block. For example, if Bitcoin could only do 10 transactions per day, only someone that's mentally insane would argue that doesn't create a huge glass ceiling for network effect, the main place the currency derives value from. TPS obviously does matter and keeping 1MB blocks is detrimental to price.
Exactly. The past 2 years have clearly shown that Bitcoin transaction levels are not correlated to its market value. The past 5 years have clearly shown that Bitcoin transaction levels are correleated to its market value. Thousandfold increase of both levels. @r0ach is 100 pct right. How pleasant the world must be living with such a simple mind. Your selective correlation joke is ridiculous and transparent. Correlation goes like that:   |
|
|
|
In one paragraph why you have to be seriously out of your mind to try and stop bigger blocks: The key to linking things together is recognizing that the only two things that give currency value are network effect and rarity. The network effect of Bitcoin is hugely affected by the number of transactions you can fit per block. For example, if Bitcoin could only do 10 transactions per day, only someone that's mentally insane would argue that doesn't create a huge glass ceiling for network effect, the main place the currency derives value from. TPS obviously does matter and keeping 1MB blocks is detrimental to price.
Exactly. The past 2 years have clearly shown that Bitcoin transaction levels are not correlated to its market value. The past 5 years have clearly shown that Bitcoin transaction levels are correleated to its market value. Thousandfold increase of both levels. @r0ach is 100 percent right. |
|
|
|
In one paragraph why you have to be seriously out of your mind to try and stop bigger blocks: The key to linking things together is recognizing that the only two things that give currency value are network effect and rarity. The network effect of Bitcoin is hugely affected by the number of transactions you can fit per block. For example, if Bitcoin could only do 10 transactions per day, only someone that's mentally insane would argue that doesn't create a huge glass ceiling for network effect, the main place the currency derives value from. TPS obviously does matter and keeping 1MB blocks is detrimental to price.
Exactly. |
|
|
|
The blockstream shills here should risk a bet. Next year this time we'll have at least a doubled blocksize cap, triggered by XT, and Mister Maxwell can't do anything against it, because of lacking economic power.
So that's what the narrative has turned into heh Whatever happens to XT, it died for our freedom. May it lives in martyrdom! It has not turned. I said it always. Those who fight XT every day and all day long are fighting a proxy war. But they don't want to listen. |
|
|
|
[–]justusranvier [Bewertung versteckt] vor 11 Minuten
Bitcoin is - for good or for ill - going to follow those who produce the majority of the economic value.
Whether we like it or not, Coinbase, Bitpay and Blockchain.info have a lot of power because when they exit they can convince more people to follow them because of positive economics:
"Follow me and I'll give you the things that you want: access to liquidity, merchants, and users."
The 1MB side can't do that because they don't have a positive economic value to offer, or at least what they're selling doesn't have many customers.
All they can offer is negative economics:
"Follow me and I'll refrain from verbally abusing you."
I see justusranvier doing his best to stoop to new lows everyday. At this point I can only believe he's getting paid for his opinion. Coinbase, Bitpay & Bc.info the "economic majority"? This is all sorts of hilarious. Blockstream has some shills, but no customers. Coinbase, Bitpay and Blockchain.info have millions of customers. That's the difference. Millions of customers with a grand total of 1M (maybe) BTC in between them. Such economic majority Did we forget Bitpay was on the verge of bankruptcy 1 month ago? To have Millions of customers (coinbase, bitpay, blockchain.info) is better than having no customers (blockstream). That's the reason why the companies with the customers will win the race. "It's the economy, stupid!" Bitcoin have millions of users. not customers. Fiat has billions of users. But "it's the economy, stupid!" and XT has 426 nodes as well as 0 blocks out of the last 1000 mined. what "economic majority" are you speaking of ? XT is triggering big blocks coming next year, via several emplementations. [–]Noosterdam 4 Punkte vor 34 Minuten
It wasn't a mistake. Gavin did the right thing by exerting exit pressure (XT) rather than voice pressure (staying in Core), because having one monolithic implementation has already become Bitcoin's weak point. People think XT needs to reach 75% of mining power for it to succeed, but it doesn't. It just needs to hang over Core's head. Exit pressure is stronger than voice pressure, and it helps crack the centralization weak point of Core. Short term, we suffer some pain due to delayed blocksize increase, but long term we are spared greater pain by entering billion or trillion dollar market caps without the millstone of centralized development.Is there a fancy countdown or something? The blockstream shills here should risk a bet. Next year this time we'll have at least a doubled blocksize cap, triggered by XT, and Mister Maxwell can't do anything against it, because of lacking economic power. |
|
|
|
[–]justusranvier [Bewertung versteckt] vor 11 Minuten
Bitcoin is - for good or for ill - going to follow those who produce the majority of the economic value.
Whether we like it or not, Coinbase, Bitpay and Blockchain.info have a lot of power because when they exit they can convince more people to follow them because of positive economics:
"Follow me and I'll give you the things that you want: access to liquidity, merchants, and users."
The 1MB side can't do that because they don't have a positive economic value to offer, or at least what they're selling doesn't have many customers.
All they can offer is negative economics:
"Follow me and I'll refrain from verbally abusing you."
I see justusranvier doing his best to stoop to new lows everyday. At this point I can only believe he's getting paid for his opinion. Coinbase, Bitpay & Bc.info the "economic majority"? This is all sorts of hilarious. Blockstream has some shills, but no customers. Coinbase, Bitpay and Blockchain.info have millions of customers. That's the difference. Millions of customers with a grand total of 1M (maybe) BTC in between them. Such economic majority Did we forget Bitpay was on the verge of bankruptcy 1 month ago? To have Millions of customers (coinbase, bitpay, blockchain.info) is better than having no customers (blockstream). That's the reason why the companies with the customers will win the race. "It's the economy, stupid!" Bitcoin have millions of users. not customers. Fiat has billions of users. But "it's the economy, stupid!" and XT has 426 nodes as well as 0 blocks out of the last 1000 mined. what "economic majority" are you speaking of ? XT is triggering big blocks coming next year, via several implementations. [–]Noosterdam 4 Punkte vor 34 Minuten
It wasn't a mistake. Gavin did the right thing by exerting exit pressure (XT) rather than voice pressure (staying in Core), because having one monolithic implementation has already become Bitcoin's weak point. People think XT needs to reach 75% of mining power for it to succeed, but it doesn't. It just needs to hang over Core's head. Exit pressure is stronger than voice pressure, and it helps crack the centralization weak point of Core. Short term, we suffer some pain due to delayed blocksize increase, but long term we are spared greater pain by entering billion or trillion dollar market caps without the millstone of centralized development. |
|
|
|
[–]justusranvier [Bewertung versteckt] vor 11 Minuten
Bitcoin is - for good or for ill - going to follow those who produce the majority of the economic value.
Whether we like it or not, Coinbase, Bitpay and Blockchain.info have a lot of power because when they exit they can convince more people to follow them because of positive economics:
"Follow me and I'll give you the things that you want: access to liquidity, merchants, and users."
The 1MB side can't do that because they don't have a positive economic value to offer, or at least what they're selling doesn't have many customers.
All they can offer is negative economics:
"Follow me and I'll refrain from verbally abusing you."
I see justusranvier doing his best to stoop to new lows everyday. At this point I can only believe he's getting paid for his opinion. Coinbase, Bitpay & Bc.info the "economic majority"? This is all sorts of hilarious. Blockstream has some shills, but no customers. Coinbase, Bitpay and Blockchain.info have millions of customers. That's the difference. Millions of customers with a grand total of 1M (maybe) BTC in between them. Such economic majority Did we forget Bitpay was on the verge of bankruptcy 1 month ago? To have Millions of customers (coinbase, bitpay, blockchain.info) is better than having no customers (blockstream). That's the reason why the companies with the customers will win the race. "It's the economy, stupid!" Bitcoin have millions of users. not customers. Fiat has billions of users. But "it's the economy, stupid!" |
|
|
|
[–]justusranvier [Bewertung versteckt] vor 11 Minuten
Bitcoin is - for good or for ill - going to follow those who produce the majority of the economic value.
Whether we like it or not, Coinbase, Bitpay and Blockchain.info have a lot of power because when they exit they can convince more people to follow them because of positive economics:
"Follow me and I'll give you the things that you want: access to liquidity, merchants, and users."
The 1MB side can't do that because they don't have a positive economic value to offer, or at least what they're selling doesn't have many customers.
All they can offer is negative economics:
"Follow me and I'll refrain from verbally abusing you."
I see justusranvier doing his best to stoop to new lows everyday. At this point I can only believe he's getting paid for his opinion. Coinbase, Bitpay & Bc.info the "economic majority"? This is all sorts of hilarious. Blockstream has some shills, but no customers. Coinbase, Bitpay and Blockchain.info have millions of customers. That's the difference. Millions of customers with a grand total of 1M (maybe) BTC in between them. Such economic majority Did we forget Bitpay was on the verge of bankruptcy 1 month ago? To have Millions of customers (coinbase, bitpay, blockchain.info) is better than having no customers (blockstream). That's the reason why the companies with the customers will win the race. "It's the economy, stupid!" |
|
|
|
[–]justusranvier [Bewertung versteckt] vor 11 Minuten
Bitcoin is - for good or for ill - going to follow those who produce the majority of the economic value.
Whether we like it or not, Coinbase, Bitpay and Blockchain.info have a lot of power because when they exit they can convince more people to follow them because of positive economics:
"Follow me and I'll give you the things that you want: access to liquidity, merchants, and users."
The 1MB side can't do that because they don't have a positive economic value to offer, or at least what they're selling doesn't have many customers.
All they can offer is negative economics:
"Follow me and I'll refrain from verbally abusing you."
I see justusranvier doing his best to stoop to new lows everyday. At this point I can only believe he's getting paid for his opinion. Coinbase, Bitpay & Bc.info the "economic majority"? This is all sorts of hilarious. Blockstream has some shills, but no customers. Coinbase, Bitpay and Blockchain.info have millions of customers. That's the difference. |
|
|
|
|
[–]Noosterdam 4 Punkte vor 34 Minuten
It wasn't a mistake. Gavin did the right thing by exerting exit pressure (XT) rather than voice pressure (staying in Core), because having one monolithic implementation has already become Bitcoin's weak point. People think XT needs to reach 75% of mining power for it to succeed, but it doesn't. It just needs to hang over Core's head. Exit pressure is stronger than voice pressure, and it helps crack the centralization weak point of Core. Short term, we suffer some pain due to delayed blocksize increase, but long term we are spared greater pain by entering billion or trillion dollar market caps without the millstone of centralized development.
[–]Noosterdam 4 Punkte vor 30 Minuten
No matter the case, the economic majority can always avoid any such depredations by forking. That's why those in control of Core must frame forking as dangerous and messy. Forking is the only final way for the economic majority to convey its will. By keeping the conversation focused on Voice, they hope to hide from you the easy sidestep of Exit. If you discover Exit, you will be falsely told you are exiting the ledger rather than just the protocol ("XT is an altcoin!"), and if you still don't comply you will be silenced and neutered through "moderation."
[–]justusranvier [Bewertung versteckt] vor 11 Minuten
Bitcoin is - for good or for ill - going to follow those who produce the majority of the economic value.
Whether we like it or not, Coinbase, Bitpay and Blockchain.info have a lot of power because when they exit they can convince more people to follow them because of positive economics:
"Follow me and I'll give you the things that you want: access to liquidity, merchants, and users."
The 1MB side can't do that because they don't have a positive economic value to offer, or at least what they're selling doesn't have many customers.
All they can offer is negative economics:
"Follow me and I'll refrain from verbally abusing you."
|
|
|
|
Look at the XT shills defending him there. Maybe he was just going to lunch with his uncle or friend. I'm expecting similar idiotic excuses here as well. However, they can't downvote your post here. This is fishy behavior at best. Peter troll presenting papers and Hearn trying to become the CEO of Bitcoin; what a time to live in. It's open source, you blockstream shill. Yeah, the malevolent idiocy is very much open source. ya.ya.yo! ya.ya.yo! You blockstreamCoin shills will have to enjoy big blocks next year. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
