(*) it is obvious because bitcoin is not a good unit of account, there's no mechanism in it that adapts the emission of bitcoin with its value with the aim to stabilize it, and bitcoiners are even proud of that. Something that is not a good unit of account (volatile value) cannot be generally used as a currency in a payment system.
Bitcoin has perfect stability - it has always maintained a value of 1BTC = 1BTC. Oh, you meant its price in USD? Why would that be relevant to its stability? You are using a very unstable currency (USD) as a measuring stick. Any currency that replaces fiat must be volatile, because it has a lot of growing to get to that point, and its not going to chart a straight line on the way. No, I mean in Big Mac of course. How many Big Macs could you buy with 1 BTC in November last year ? And how many big macs can you buy now with 1 BTC ? How many Big Macs could you buy with $1000, in November ? And right now ?
Big Macs are priced in dollars. See the difference? One is the established currency, and one is replacing an established currency. The replacer inherently CAN'T have the same pricing stability as the currency it is replacing. The former has to rise against the latter which includes against items priced in the latter. Trying to peg a new currency to an established one is a fool's dream because it goes against non-fiat monetary fundamentals. A currency needs to grow in value organically ie. go up in price as it is adopted so that price is an indicator. Trying to rig that is no better than a fiat scheme. |
|
|
|
(*) it is obvious because bitcoin is not a good unit of account, there's no mechanism in it that adapts the emission of bitcoin with its value with the aim to stabilize it, and bitcoiners are even proud of that. Something that is not a good unit of account (volatile value) cannot be generally used as a currency in a payment system.
Bitcoin has perfect stability - it has always maintained a value of 1BTC = 1BTC. Oh, you meant its price in USD? Why would that be relevant to its stability? You are using a very unstable currency (USD) as a measuring stick. Any currency that replaces fiat must be volatile, because it has a lot of growing to get to that point, and its not going to chart a straight line on the way. 8MB right now is not safe, it's too much, nodes will drop likes flies. Im dumping my node for sure at 8MB.
Are you talking to us from 2005? 1MB, 8MB, 32MB...these are all insignificant amounts in today's world. To argue otherwise just ruins any credibility you may have had. |
|
|
|
In fact, as long as these 20 entities are not attackers, and they have never been As of today. But that "20" will continue to shrink until someone can control 51%. It's inevitable assuming "all things" stay the same. History seems to indicate the opposite. I remember when the pie chart was mainly 3-4 pools, and there were a few times a pool DID achieve 50%+. There are more pools today than ever, and it will keep growing. |
|
|
|
How do you maintain the promise of so called "peer to peer cash" to scale globally without centralizing the network due huge blocks that people cannot afford to run at home, therefore not anymore peer to peer cash but peer to corporation to peer transaction? (aka what we have already in the current baking system)
I'm amazed that this point is repeated over and over, and I've been arguing, demonstrating, proving.... that there's no *power* to be had in running a full node that is not a mining node. There is *information* to be had when running a full node: indeed, if you want to *verify yourself* what the system is doing *but without any means to act on it*, you can run a full node. But that's informational, and is not a matter of power. I'm amazed that people always put forward the "decentralization aspect" of full nodes, while Satoshi himself explained from the very beginning: 1) that the consensus system is Proof of Work, especially to avoid "proof of node" simply because that would be open to Sybil attacks, and as such, nullifying the decision power of non-mining full nodes ON PURPOSE. PoW was introduced exactly for that ! 2) that if the block chain becomes very succesfull, only people mining new coins need to run a full node, and that other users can use their light wallets to connect to them. So, concerning the decentralization of bitcoins consensus mechanism, there's absolutely no use for non-mining full nodes. As an individual power user, you may want to check for yourself whether bitcoin is still working how they told you it was working, and invest in a full node - but the only thing you will get out of that is *information* ; you cannot INFLUENCE bitcoin that way. I've argued this very logical point, nobody has ever countered it, and it is fairly obvious from the writings of its creator that non-mining full nodes have no consensus power at all. In other words, your permissionlessness, and your ability to transact peer-to-peer are totally INDEPENDENT of whether there are a lot of non-mining full nodes or not, because ALL THAT is decided by the consensus of miners. The protocol they agreed upon to build the block chain, is the de facto protocol of bitcoin, and they decide if they include your transaction or not. You don't need full nodes to transmit them your transaction: if you connect DIRECTLY to their nodes, they will get it. And that was how bitcoin was designed ! Consensus is decided by those who deliver proof of work and explicitly NOT by the number of full nodes. It is rather strange that one argues that the peer-to-peer ability to pay is compromised because Joe cannot run his full node in his basement any more (while this node never intervened in any consensus decision). but that the peer-to-peer ability would NOT be compromised by needing a lot of hubs in the LN network to agree to your transaction: hubs to which you are TIED with a payment channel which you cannot settle easily (as per definition that the on chain system is "compromised" and doesn't have, per design, the capacity for you to easily settle). Being forced off-chain looks to me like a much higher danger to the peer-to-peer permissionlessness of transactions, than having to rely on the consensus of Proof-of-work providers only. The current, actual reality is that all of bitcoins' consensus, including the protocol, the permission to transact, the fees, and everything, are the consensus that happens between about 20 entities, the pools, that together, have more than 99% of the decision power (PoW) under their control. The consensus that emerges between these 20 entities is what we call "bitcoin", and bitcoin was designed to be like that. This is the perfect explanation that I've been too lazy to write out for people. I'm saving this to copy and paste for people. |
|
|
|
All Core vs except Luke JR I think which actually wants to make the blocksize smaller, want to eventually make the blocksize higher.
That is correct. However, BU & their fanatics are not concerned with whether their "teachings" are related to reality/the truth or not. 
 I think the biggest problems anti-Core guys have is that they don't trust them. Core hasn't said a specific date where this blocksize increase would happen, I think they will not stop complaining u ntil Core gives a clear date to raise the blocksize after the segwit activation, but I think if Core did that, they would still complain and don't trust them. They just hate them now no matter what they do. It is not about the hate but its all about the monopoly. Both parties wanted to monopolize the bitcoin mining industry and if they will succeed they will have total control over the production of bitcoin. Thus it will mean huge profit from them and it could mean higher fees for us. What we need is the current bitcoin without bitcoin unlimited and without segwit. Bitcoin is good as it is. Original Bitcoin did NOT have a blocksize cap. We clearly need to remove it. It never should have been added. Bitcoin had unused block capacity for years for its entire history until just recently when all blocks started being full. This isn't difficult to understand. |
|
|
|
You can all argue all you want for Bitcoin Unlimited. Everyone including the supporters of BU themselves know that the code and engineering the BU developers are creating is subpar. As a community we have a responsibility to tell everyone this fact. It would be a big mistake to trust those developers at BU.
I'm not here to argue with an obvious troll post, but just to demonstrate for others here: What is your proof or reasoning that BU developers are subpar to Core dev Matt Corallo, who's basically just out of high school? |
|
|
|
All Core vs except Luke JR I think which actually wants to make the blocksize smaller, want to eventually make the blocksize higher.
That is correct. However, BU & their fanatics are not concerned with whether their "teachings" are related to reality/the truth or not.
I think the biggest problems anti-Core guys have is that they don't trust them. Core hasn't said a specific date where this blocksize increase would happen, I think they will not stop complaining until Core gives a clear date to raise the blocksize after the segwit activation, but I think if Core did that, they would still complain and don't trust them. They just hate them now no matter what they do. Okay, BillyBob. Can you give one good technical reason why separating out witness data is a good idea and why? People like me don't necessarily not like Core, we just realize they are working for the banks at this point. No, they don't literally work at BoA, silly buns, they are getting paid by big corporations like AXA that represent the same interests though. As far as I can tell, the only rational reason for separating out witness data would be if you wanted to restrict access to it later in a takeover scheme. |
|
|
|
Indeed, and bitcoin also needs users. 99% of people run Core software, nobody trusts Buggy Unlimited.
Well, that's just a plain lie: http://nodecounter.com/#nodes_pie_graphThat took about 30 seconds to look up. Core has dropped to around 86%. They basically had a kind of 'first-mover' advantage with the perception of being the"official" client. Now they're losing share because of their own actions, ironically. Those facts aside, anyone who understands how and why Bitcoin works understands that this 'node' count (they're not actually nodes) is entirely irrelevant, anyway. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is PoW (Proof of Work), not PoSP (Proof of Sybil Poll) |
|
|
|
Hunh? I was always a BU shill.
FTFY. Go fuck yourself. A 'shill' is an advocate for hire. Nobody but me pays me for my advocacy of BU. I have fat stacks of Bitcoin, and want what is best for the system. Addocrdingly, I advocate -- on my own dime, mind you -- for BU. I have also consistently (for about a year) pointing out that non-mining entities (which I had formerly been mistakenly been calling 'non-mining nodes') have essentially zero power to influence the network, and provide essentially zero value to the network at large. I have, though, stated that such non-mining entities are what allow their owners/users to transact in a trustless manner. Benefit to the owner, no benefit to the network.
Which is complete nonsense. Wallow in your ignorance. If it were not for the fact that your misunderstanding causes you to take a wrong-headed stance on architectural directions for Bitcoin, I wouldn't care. But what I have recently learned is that Satoshi's definition of 'node' is necessarily limited to entities that mine.
No. Care to refute what he clearly wrote? Or do you just know better then he/she? So you know better than Satoshi?
The whole "satoshi" thing builds upon the assumption that miners are honest. We know today that this is not true Orly? Bitcoin is irredeemably broken? Then why do you expend so much effort upon it? (ASICBOOST,
Explain to me how this efficiency gain is 'dishonest'. Bear in mind that nothing stops a true attacker from using ASICBOOST against us. AntBleed,
Explain to me how this misguided feature is dishonest. Bear in mind that there have been exactly zero reports of it being used. empty blocks
Explain to me how mining empty blocks is 'dishonest'. Bear in mind that it has always been the miners' discretion to include in a block what the miner cares to. Due to this, everything that you've quoted is nullified.
Bullshit. It would remain true regardless. External circumstances do not affect the veracity of an independent claim. The primary thing protecting the network from mining cartel abuse are the non-mining nodes.
Bullshit. The primary thing protecting the network from mining cartel abuse is the ability of the users to abandon the chain, leaving it worthless. Do not get me started on Satoshi's failure to predict ASICs
Your ignorance is showing again: " At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with that one node." - Satoshi Nakamoto Otherwise you're basically saying that 1 Bitmain = Bitcoin.
...aaand you fail to understand capitalism. If everyone else abdicates their power by refusing to compete with Bitmain, that is not anything you can blame on Bitmain. Don't destroy one of the greatest innovations of our lifetime in order to tilt the playing field. Get in there and build something. Perfect spot on point-by-point refutation by jbreher of the long line of bullshit drama coming from Blockstream. If those guys spent half as much time actually doing some research and contributing as they do spreading FUD, they might feel better about themselves. |
|
|
|
not have to trust a third party as to what the chain is.
ill repeat your own words not have to trust a third party as to what the chain is.
and again not have to trust a third party as to what the chain is.
pools can collate the data in any way they like.. but its the NODE NETWORK and consensus, (unity of everyone) that decides what is acceptable. Not sure if we're disagreeing or just using different words. My point is that if you're not mining, you have no say in generating consensus rules. If you don't match the chain, your only option without mining is to sell off and use a different coin (What many did with LTC yesterday). As far as affecting protocol with economic decisions like that, anyone who holds has that power. If BU miners broke off today, and the minority chain was forced to mine BU or die, the non-mining 'nodes' would be forced to upgrade to use the network, and have no option to force code on the miners. Sure, the 'node' wouldn't accept the larger blocks, but that wouldn't force the network's hand, it would force them to upgrade their node to follow the BU chain. If ASIC centralization is a deal-breaker for you, then you need to forget about bitcoin and switch to a coin that uses an asic-resistant algo. |
|
|
|
non mining nodes are not just database backups. nodes provide a crucial security mechanism too. which ensures that a simple 51% attack wont cause control issues. and pools have a security mechanism that prevents node sybil attacks wont cause control issues. This has never been true. Non-mining 'nodes' were never expected to secure the network. There is nothing in the original white paper or code to indicate that. The reason for downloading the full blockchain is so you can check it yourself and not have to trust a third party as to what the chain is. They were NEVER intended to decide the protocol. Only MINERS that create blocks have any authority over protocol in a PoW system - period. If people don't like that - use PPC...or Visa |
|
|
|
|
I think it says a lot about the Bitcoin protocol when even after all the manipulations to get SegWit added, its STILL FAILING:
LAST 1000 BLOCKS (past 7 days)
Bitcoin Unlimited blocks: 441 ( 44.1% )
Classic blocks: 10 ( 1% )
SegWit blocks: 321 ( 32.1% )
BIP100 blocks: 93 ( 9.3% )
LAST 24 Hours
Unlimited + Classic hashrate is ~2088 PH/s (51.4%)
Even with the sockpuppet brigades, the bought off miners and manipulations, the non-stop stream of BS articles in mainstream-controlled media like 'CoinTelegraph', the outright lies from Core devs, the censorship on this sub and reddit, and all the other facets of this attempted takeover - YOU STILL FAILED!!
You had a good head start, but slowly but surely people are figuring out what SegWit is and they're saying 'No'.
Hey, at least you guys got Litecoin, right?
|
|
|
|
Segwit is the compromise. How can you not understand this?
Saying a thing doesn't make it so. We can pretty much tell if it is a compromise when both sides agree to it. Hey, don't you know? Doublespeak is kinda their thing. Like calling themselves and their Blockstream buddies 'the community'. |
|
|
|
Exchange for THOM?
Ok, this is some weird bullshit. I'm noticing all these posts I clearly never made. I've never even heard of this stupid coin, much less asked what exchange it is on. Someone has hacked my account. |
|
|
|
This is probably why bigger blocks are now supported by majority hashrate: https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/poolsMy question to miners especially, and other users is why do we need to wait until 75%? If the majority hashrate forks the chain the capped minority chain will be forced to switch or become a useless network. They will be mining worthless coins. |
|
|
|
Waiting for YoBit and boom with price.
Coins are waiting for trade  Oh Shit. I never made this comment. |
|
|
|
Add in 8MB votes with Unlimited and we have a healthy 50% for bigger blocks, assuming at least 1% will be ok with bigger blocks and just aren't signaling. https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/poolsIs Core going to respond to the market with a block size increase? Or dig in their heels? I got my popcorn ready. |
|
|
|
BTCC switched back to segwit...  When were they not for SegWit? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
