Becoin: the 21 mil. cap is a different issue because Bitcoin was set up from the very start to divorce the issuance rate from resources expended by anyone. However much miners may toil, they can not significantly affect the amount of BTC issued during any given timeframe, and that's how it was from day one. (you know the caveats that apply, I'm sure.)
I put it to you that what the miners produce isn't BTC, it's the processing of transactions. I think you'll find my assertion is backed up by pretty much everything going back to the original whitepaper.
To reiterate: While changing the issuance cap is possible, everything down to the difficulty balancing shows the cap is a fundamentally hardcoded feature of BTC that isn't meant to be subject to market forces, and this is known by all participants in the economy. A cap on TX rates, instead, is a new development and a direct attempt to control the miners business practices.
nope, it was not, there is no mention of such cap in the original wp. ironically the fixed limit of 21m coins was implemented in 2014 - with Hearnia's contribution!   Although it is widely believed that Satoshi was an inflation-hating goldbug he never said this, and in fact programmed Bitcoin's money supply to grow indefinitely, forever. He modeled the monetary supply as 4 gold mines being discovered per mibillenium (1024 years), with equal intervals between them, each one being depleted over the course of 140 years.
This poses obvious problems, however. Prominent among them is the discussion on what to call 1 billion Bitcoin, which symbol color to use for it, and when wallet clients should switch to it by default.
To combat this, this document proposes a controversial change: making Bitcoin's monetary supply finite.
...
Given the moderate time frame over which this change is to be implemented, we expect all miners to choose to screw themselves and deploy this change before 2214.
If they don't, and a minority remains on the old code base, a fork may occur. Essentially, they'll be mining fool's gold after that time. https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0042.mediawikinow that's an example of a non contentious fork. nobody hardly opposed it, and most people did not even noticed it. ergo. consensus. anyway, as History shows, honeybadger is all what matters here and inflationists are free to either rage quit or fork off.  ps: or buy ethereum?! whatever, you are free, but bitcoin clearly is not..   |
|
|
|
I'm sure about 60% of the people know about this, and the other half don't care about this at all. Old information FFS
Old news it is, yet redditards, forkers and coffee tippers keep on eluding this simple fact. This should be pined imo. |
|
|
|
|
"Bitcoin Original", reserved.
|
|
|
|
Apparently you know more than bitcoin's inventor...
The discussion of what "Satoshi himself" did or didn't do, meant or didn't mean, so on and so forth is about as interesting and discussing the Mormon "bible". This is called "arguing to authority", and it tries to give pecuniary value to that only truly worthless article of all times and places : the esteem of the mob. This may work well in electing United States presidents, ensuring that "while the voting public knows best what it wants, it deserves to get it long and hard". Bitcoin specifically and deliberately does not work in this way. |
|
|
|
|
Seems the forkers just can't get enough of their governance illiteracy, rolling out the heavy artillery after the XT debacle, soft or hard forking for every little feature that make their business plan irrelevant.
Such time and energy spent in lame attempts at highjacking bitcoin from within the inside. Banksters and corporatists trying to preserve their privilege. Almost makes you sorry for them. But not.
|
|
|
|
I think the price is not heading to the 500 level this year
Let's wait and see what will happen in 2016
Voice of reason. |
|
|
|
blocklimit stops more than 4000 people making 1 transaction every 10 minutes, even if that tx only costs a few cents each person
Sort of. Block limit stops more than 4000 people making 1 transaction every 10 minutes, regardless of how much they might choose to bid in the transaction fee.my point i have emboldened. simply that the blocklimit stops 4000 people sending one spam tx to themselves each the cost per person was just a side note, purely to say that it wouldnt cost much for each person to send. meaning without the blocklimit 4000-8million people could send transactions without little cost to themselves Alea iacta est |
|
|
|
...
considering bitcoin's network effect and decentralization, it is simply too late to highjack it.
Indeed, the protocol being subject to design change would go against the very concept of a decentralized technology and would irrevocably introduce a point of failure precedent. This is not FED nor ECB meme, to hell with "adjustments" and "quantitative easing". |
|
|
|
Why stop there? Lets put TXIDs, scriptsigs, and addresses into separate data structures and calculate merkle trees for each. Now the block chain doesn't need to have ANY of that data in it. We can SHA256 a cat of all the merkle roots and now every block has 256 bits only! We can now fit infinite spam in the chain.
many a true word spoken in jest (well ridicule in this case) merklecoin! |
|
|
|
typically an honest dev will barely understand or test how malicious users exploiting the weakness of the system.
I'm sorry but that's not knowing the thought process of current core devs. Adversarial environments are all Peter Todd talks about. That's what she said. |
|
|
|
Je ne dis pas de ne pas acheter non plus, simplement de se faire son propre avis soit même avant d'investir ou pas...
Autre conseil : investir uniquement ce que l'on est prêt à perdre !
all in! |
|
|
|
What you argue here (as I understand it) is that miners won't be able to 'understand' the SW patch, so they won't run it. I highly doubt both an assertion and a conclusion. I am sure it will be rolled over quite fast. But I have no real proof so we have to wait.
To migrate to a large change in infrastructure, you need to not only understand the solution, but also fully aware of the impact to the existing system and all the other systems that are dependent on them, potential security risk, evaluate its risk/reward ratio, and finally and most important, you should always be able to roll back to the old version if something went wrong A soft fork qualify the last criteria, but still, from risk/reward point of view, I don't feel it worth the effort given the risk it involves. You change to a new untested architecture, what if after 1 years when majority of the nodes were upgraded to SW and found out that there is a deadly security hole that can not be covered, thus hackers can spend anyone's coin? Bitcoin's value relies purely on its security model. Existing architecture worth a lot because it is robust and time tested for almost 7 years. It worth a little in the beginning, since there are too many possible security risk to break it apart, thus it must survive the test of time to gain its value. Now if you change to another untested architecture, it will basically reset its value to zero, and take equal long time to establish people's trust This is growing tiresome. Do you fully understand the complexities of the ACH/EFT system? I bet, just like me, you have a general understanding of how it works but have never seen the code behind it. I would also bet you have or have had at least one debit card and credit card in your life because almost everyone in western society has. There were 22 billion ACH transactions in 2013 with a total value of $38.7 trillion and almost no one really understands how it works. The way the ACH/EFT system continues to operate is by government and private oversight. People make a career out of working in finance and programming who oversee the system and there are laws that govern the form of that oversight. The users of Bitcoin believe that system is flawed. They see potential in Bitcoin and are willing to use it. That requires faith in the original architect and the developers that continue to improve it because there is no governing body to regulate its continued operation or bailout its failures as there is with ACH/EFT. That leaves two possibilities for our acceptance and use of Bitcoin. Either build up a world class understanding of at least C++, Python, Java and elliptic curve cryptography or trust the people that are doing the job for you. I've learned to trust some of the scientists that work on this project based on their actions. Others I don't trust at all. Unless a mistake becomes blatantly obvious or someone I trust decides to speak out against this change I'm going to trust it because my understanding is limited. I suggest you do the same. So, bitcoin is about believing and trusting people? |
|
|
|
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. That 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. Ahah. Whatever rocks your boat kiddo. |
|
|
|
|
As per genuinely illustrated with TBF fiasco, who gives a shite about their saying anyway?
Bitcoin does not work that way.
|
|
|
|
 Dat gif. |
|
|
|
it is remarkable to see how easily they can get "esteemed" publications like WSJ, Bloomberg and The Economist to dance around like town-cryers, in unison, for the pump 'n dump turning bitcoin into little more than yet another chop stock. Securities fraud is still securities fraud however, no matter how high the corruption runs.
Bitcoin is not some securities. You'd still be in full control of the ones you own. 21m cap and high network security is the deal, the rest is noise so just let the maniacs do what they always do. didn't the SEC recently (and CFTC previously) both claim they had some jurisdiction over bitcoin trading in USA? Pretty sure a pump 'n dump is securities fraud. But, yeah I agree it is a lot of noise in the big scheme ... but still interesting to note how thoroughly corrupt and rotten Wall Street is and now they are here inside bitcoin with their usual scumbag criminality, just shows what total fraudulent joke BitLicense was. Heh, to commodities regulators, bitcoin is a commodity, to bank regulators, it's a bank, to stock regulators, it's a stock. Everyone wants "in". Obviously.  |
|
|
|
it is remarkable to see how easily they can get "esteemed" publications like WSJ, Bloomberg and The Economist to dance around like town-cryers, in unison, for the pump 'n dump turning bitcoin into little more than yet another chop stock. Securities fraud is still securities fraud however, no matter how high the corruption runs.
Bitcoin is not some securities. You'd still be in full control of the ones you own. 21m cap and high network security is the deal, the rest is noise so just let the maniacs do what they always do. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
