I think what it comes down to is two separate visions for Bitcoin:
Vision 1: The block size limit should be used as a policy tool by a group of experts to balance fees with security/decentralization.
Vision 2: The evolution of the network should be determined by the code we freely choose to run, and Bitcoin should scale with demand through a market-based process.
This is complete bogus as usual Peter. The evolution of the network is already determined by the code nodes choose to run. In this case they unanimously chose to retain the 1 MB cap until a better proposition comes along. Maybe they're waiting for "Bitcoin unlimited"?  |
|
|
|
Which one is it then? Cap or no cap?
Do you oppose central control or do you not?
Personally, I think that sufficient incentives exist that the network of miners could be self governing wrt max_block_size. Realistically, I'll take a half measure to help assuage the doubts of the fearful. Alright. Let me jump in with my favorite analogy then. Seeing as we love all things free market then let me ask: are you of the opinion that the network of logging companies & cattle farmers should be left to self-governance in regards to how much of the Amazon rain forest they can cut? Sounds like we need a strong military with lots of guns to point at them. And maybe Beefstream could get involved with setting production quotas. (While marketing their tasty soy, pea protein, alternative.) I know it will upset stolfi to hear, he may even tell me to burn in hell, but land owners should be free to destroy/nurture/defile/build and grow/harvest their own property as they choose. Now returning to your regularly scheduled chartbuddy streak. Land owners?  Surely you are not proposing these companies are legitimate owners of all this rain forest they are cutting down. Anyway, I see you didn't quite get the idea I was attempting to get through to you. How about big game hunters? No reason we should enforce laws about this right? I'm guessing you are fine with them self-governing the hunting of endangered species? |
|
|
|
I know you're quite enamored with bitcoin, I am too, but the real world (power companies, sellers/renters of real estate) tend to still be using that whole silly fiat thing. Haven't quite listed themselves on MPEx with the other titans of industry, as it were. The world isn't our own personal castle game... yet.
Miners incentives are the variable that counts. And it isn't gmaxwell in a cape that is keeping them in line and holding their arm back from slaughtering the golden goose. Why? Because satoshi designed the entire system so that their interests were sufficiently aligned with those that they service.
Yes, I agree he was very wise in retrospect to set the block size cap. In fact I will suggest he did not even fully understand the importance and critical importance of this decision for the long term success of Bitcoin. Absent of a cap the incentives you refer to become completely skewed in favor of the miners at great cost for the security & decentralization of the network. Don't get me wrong, we shall increase the block size eventually, "just not tonight, dear". Ah, the old, "if satoshi had more foresight he would agree with me" argument. As for what he actually said: It can be phased in, like:
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.
) I am increasingly astonished that people who gravitated to bitcoin for its free market incentives and function, are simultaneously terrified that without central control over "consensus" it would fall on it's face. Which one is it then? Cap or no cap? Do you oppose central control or do you not? Personally, I think that sufficient incentives exist that the network of miners could be self governing wrt max_block_size. Realistically, I'll take a half measure to help assuage the doubts of the fearful. Alright. Let me jump in with my favorite analogy then. Seeing as we love all things free market then let me ask: are you of the opinion that the network of logging companies & cattle farmers should be left to self-governance in regards to how much of the Amazon rain forest they can cut? |
|
|
|
If everyone and their rich friends are using Bitcoin to preserve their monetary sovereignty why would they ever convert their money back to fiat?
Because Scrooge McDuck diving into a vault-full of gold is a cartoon and not real. People with wealth generally want to do things with it. Buy yachts, build Casinos, hookers and blow, all that. And that requires a currency that others transact in.  You cannot be serious.... So savings are not a thing anymore? I guess that's how serious the fiat economy has mindfucked everyone's brain... I guess you are right if you think of bitcoins as dollars, which they are not but to entertain the idea: The problem inflationary currency bestows upon capital allocators is insolvable. They are given money of no certain value (pretty much the only sure thing about the paper currency is that it is, literally, burning in your hands, it ticks away like a bomb, it blows in the wind like dust - all this while you're holding it) and have to do something with it. They always, always, always, absolutely always have more than is in fact needed. http://trilema.com/2012/the-problem-of-too-much-money/#selection-163.0-163.438
Fortunately we all know this is actually not the case and seeing as Bitcoin is deflationary by nature one should be well advised to consider hoarding that shit as long as reasonably possible. Bitcoin isn't deflationary. And ZIRP / NIRP is what has killed savings and by extension has changed the rules of capitalism. Not yet, indeed (but fixed supply and all that...). And no. I'd suggest you go read the article linked to better understand. It's explained very well. "Capital misallocation" are the key words here. |
|
|
|
I know you're quite enamored with bitcoin, I am too, but the real world (power companies, sellers/renters of real estate) tend to still be using that whole silly fiat thing. Haven't quite listed themselves on MPEx with the other titans of industry, as it were. The world isn't our own personal castle game... yet.
Miners incentives are the variable that counts. And it isn't gmaxwell in a cape that is keeping them in line and holding their arm back from slaughtering the golden goose. Why? Because satoshi designed the entire system so that their interests were sufficiently aligned with those that they service.
Yes, I agree he was very wise in retrospect to set the block size cap. In fact I will suggest he did not even fully understand the importance and critical importance of this decision for the long term success of Bitcoin. Absent of a cap the incentives you refer to become completely skewed in favor of the miners at great cost for the security & decentralization of the network. Don't get me wrong, we shall increase the block size eventually, "just not tonight, dear". Ah, the old, "if satoshi had more foresight he would agree with me" argument. As for what he actually said: It can be phased in, like:
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.
) I am increasingly astonished that people who gravitated to bitcoin for its free market incentives and function, are simultaneously terrified that without central control over "consensus" it would fall on it's face. Which one is it then? Cap or no cap? Do you oppose central control or do you not? |
|
|
|
I'm not going to go digging, but you recently were arguing in this thread that bitfury doesn't sell their coins, they're banking on the future, being positive on today's income sheet is secondary. They are using big venture capital money to basically buy huge amounts of coin without pushing the secondary market. This is absolutely forward looking, not investing in today's system that costs $7 or whatever per tx in inflation costs.
Your final statement should stand alone as it succinctly shows your complete misunderstanding of how, and why(!), this whole thing even works.
Hmm wait a minute. Who ever mentioned fiat profit? Profit, in this case, is denominated in Bitcoin. Bitfury mines the Bitcoin blockchain simply because it is the most valuable coin. The value is not in the future but now. The fact that it fluctuates is irrelevant. As for your last comment, what is it you don't agree with? Do you propose miners are origins of Bitcoin value? Or that we should set the rules of the protocol so as to maximize their profits regardless of the costs externalized to other participants? I know you're quite enamored with bitcoin, I am too, but the real world (power companies, sellers/renters of real estate) tend to still be using that whole silly fiat thing. Haven't quite listed themselves on MPEx with the other titans of industry, as it were. The world isn't our own personal castle game... yet. Miners incentives are the variable that counts. And it isn't gmaxwell in a cape that is keeping them in line and holding their arm back from slaughtering the golden goose. Why? Because satoshi designed the entire system so that their interests were sufficiently aligned with those that they service. Yes, I agree he was very wise in retrospect to set the block size cap. In fact I will suggest he did not even fully understand the importance and critical importance of this decision for the long term success of Bitcoin. Absent of a cap the incentives you refer to become completely skewed in favor of the miners at great cost for the security & decentralization of the network. Don't get me wrong, we shall increase the block size eventually, "just not tonight, dear". You send to be struggling with the reality that a temporary max_blocksize was introduced by Satoshi. Such limitation has never been part of the protocol or original design. Would you please go back to the asylum over at bitco.in? I thought you guys were busy designing "Bitcoin Unlimited"? |
|
|
|
I'm not going to go digging, but you recently were arguing in this thread that bitfury doesn't sell their coins, they're banking on the future, being positive on today's income sheet is secondary. They are using big venture capital money to basically buy huge amounts of coin without pushing the secondary market. This is absolutely forward looking, not investing in today's system that costs $7 or whatever per tx in inflation costs.
Your final statement should stand alone as it succinctly shows your complete misunderstanding of how, and why(!), this whole thing even works.
Hmm wait a minute. Who ever mentioned fiat profit? Profit, in this case, is denominated in Bitcoin. Bitfury mines the Bitcoin blockchain simply because it is the most valuable coin. The value is not in the future but now. The fact that it fluctuates is irrelevant. As for your last comment, what is it you don't agree with? Do you propose miners are origins of Bitcoin value? Or that we should set the rules of the protocol so as to maximize their profits regardless of the costs externalized to other participants? I know you're quite enamored with bitcoin, I am too, but the real world (power companies, sellers/renters of real estate) tend to still be using that whole silly fiat thing. Haven't quite listed themselves on MPEx with the other titans of industry, as it were. The world isn't our own personal castle game... yet. Miners incentives are the variable that counts. And it isn't gmaxwell in a cape that is keeping them in line and holding their arm back from slaughtering the golden goose. Why? Because satoshi designed the entire system so that their interests were sufficiently aligned with those that they service. Yes, I agree he was very wise in retrospect to set the block size cap. In fact I will suggest he did not even fully understand the importance and critical importance of this decision for the long term success of Bitcoin. Absent of a cap the incentives you refer to become completely skewed in favor of the miners at great cost for the security & decentralization of the network. Don't get me wrong, we shall increase the block size eventually, "just not tonight, dear". |
|
|
|
If everyone and their rich friends are using Bitcoin to preserve their monetary sovereignty why would they ever convert their money back to fiat?
Because Scrooge McDuck diving into a vault-full of gold is a cartoon and not real. People with wealth generally want to do things with it. Buy yachts, build Casinos, hookers and blow, all that. And that requires a currency that others transact in. You cannot be serious.... So savings are not a thing anymore? I guess that's how serious the fiat economy has mindfucked everyone's brain... I guess you are right if you think of bitcoins as dollars, which they are not but to entertain the idea: The problem inflationary currency bestows upon capital allocators is insolvable. They are given money of no certain value (pretty much the only sure thing about the paper currency is that it is, literally, burning in your hands, it ticks away like a bomb, it blows in the wind like dust - all this while you're holding it) and have to do something with it. They always, always, always, absolutely always have more than is in fact needed. http://trilema.com/2012/the-problem-of-too-much-money/#selection-163.0-163.438Fortunately we all know this is actually not the case and seeing as Bitcoin is deflationary by nature one should be well advised to consider hoarding that shit as long as reasonably possible. |
|
|
|
If independence means freedom, in the emerging Era of Bitcoin, independence means freedom from physicality, both geographic and material. If Germany had its wealth stored in BTC instead of gold, it wouldn’t have to beg the USG to please, pretty please, let it audit its own stores under Manhattan. If Germany stockpiled bitcoin instead of gold, it might actually be an independent nation. Consider yourself lucky. Seeing as you have realized the "Bitcoin opportunity" sooner than 99% of the world's population you shouldn't have any problem transacting directly on its blockchain in the future. We're playing in the shallow end of the pool and if Bitcoin is going to do anything serious, it's going to have to learn to swim. I have little doubt it will though. And that will mean bigger blocks, one way or another. What's that even supposed to mean? So because Bitcoin is small we should cater to small pockets and de minimis use cases? How dare should we have ambition and focus our efforts on the more wealthy adopting it, right? No! Bitcoin is for the people, not the rich! Let's aim for "mainstream adoption", that's where the REAL value is! Right...... right? |
|
|
|
If independence means freedom, in the emerging Era of Bitcoin, independence means freedom from physicality, both geographic and material. If Germany had its wealth stored in BTC instead of gold, it wouldn’t have to beg the USG to please, pretty please, let it audit its own stores under Manhattan. If Germany stockpiled bitcoin instead of gold, it might actually be an independent nation. Consider yourself lucky. Seeing as you have realized the "Bitcoin opportunity" sooner than 99% of the world's population you shouldn't have any problem transacting directly on its blockchain in the future. There's not enough value of Bitcoin for Germany to do that currently. We're playing in the shallow end of the pool and if Bitcoin is going to do anything serious, it's going to have to learn to swim. I have little doubt it will though. And that will mean bigger blocks, one way or another. Gawd you are such a buzzkill  Do you have no imagination? |
|
|
|
Do you propose these shenanigans don't cost them a pretty penny? You do realise corruption involves bribes?
What would you guess is more expensive, Bitcoin transactions or bribes to various bankers, accountant & state officials?
What do they do when they transfer these bitcoins to their other rich friends, have them transfer them back to them? If you want to use them, you'll have to convert to a real-world currency which can be spent and then you're back in the world of bankers anyway. So your way is Clandestine $-> BTC , $4 transaction fee then clandesting BTC->$ Or just go with the clandestine $ shenanigans anyway.  Bitcoin is not a real-world currency? I can understand that your mind is programmed to think in terms of fiat but I would ask that you come up with a hint of foresight so that we can proceed with this conversation... If everyone and their rich friends are using Bitcoin to preserve their monetary sovereignty why would they ever convert their money back to fiat? |
|
|
|
Why not move to BitSharesforum then and give us a break? By the sounds of it it's better right? I mean... it can scale to trillions of transactions, what else could you possibly want.
By "us" you mean you and iCE? oh, I almost forgot the cuddly but distinctly more inept hdbuck. You couldn't possibly be taking sides with a guy who believe you can buy block space on the blockchain, are you? Using an admittedly shitty analogy doesn't automatically mean everything he subsequently says is invalid. I similarly don't write off all of your opinions, despite your recent statement that people might pay $5, 10, 50 to make an entry on your easily replicated, 5 mining pool run, settlement layer. Good luck easily replicating 500,000,000 GH/s People invest in mining coin because of what it can be. Not for what it is today. More fees spread over more transactions is definitely in their interest. If core devs insist on keeping this veneer of control, they would be wise to compromise for 4MB in 2016, and doubling at the halvings. That's actually not how it works. People invest in mining coins to make a profit. That's it. They do so by mining the chain that holds the most value, value that is entrusted to it by investors. Don't believe for a second that miners decide what chain to follow or that rules should be set according to what is "in their interest". I'm not going to go digging, but you recently were arguing in this thread that bitfury doesn't sell their coins, they're banking on the future, being positive on today's income sheet is secondary. They are using big venture capital money to basically buy huge amounts of coin without pushing the secondary market. This is absolutely forward looking, not investing in today's system that costs $7 or whatever per tx in inflation costs. Your final statement should stand alone as it succinctly shows your complete misunderstanding of how, and why(!), this whole thing even works. Hmm wait a minute. Who ever mentioned fiat profit? Profit, in this case, is denominated in Bitcoin. Bitfury mines the Bitcoin blockchain simply because it is the most valuable coin. The value is not in the future but now. The fact that it fluctuates is irrelevant. As for your last comment, what is it you don't agree with? Do you propose miners are origins of Bitcoin value? Or that we should set the rules of the protocol so as to maximize their profits regardless of the costs externalized to other participants? |
|
|
|
Are you really that dense? Would you have preferred I use gold?
Ah yes, that well known universal settlement mechanism, gold. You watch too many James Bond movies (Which also happens to be used by billions of people, from rich to poor, in electronics and jewelery BTW)
The good ol' industrial use argument... While not the same universal settlement mechanism it very much once was, seems to me gold still retains a pretty market cap absent of any actual adoption as money from "billions of people". But rejoice! Bitcoin is even better than gold at this job. If independence means freedom, in the emerging Era of Bitcoin, independence means freedom from physicality, both geographic and material. If Germany had its wealth stored in BTC instead of gold, it wouldn’t have to beg the USG to please, pretty please, let it audit its own stores under Manhattan. If Germany stockpiled bitcoin instead of gold, it might actually be an independent nation. Consider yourself lucky. Seeing as you have realized the "Bitcoin opportunity" sooner than 99% of the world's population you shouldn't have any problem transacting directly on its blockchain in the future. |
|
|
|
People invest in mining coin because of what it can be. Not for what it is today. More fees spread over more transactions is definitely in their interest. If core devs insist on keeping this veneer of control, they would be wise to compromise for 4MB in 2016, and doubling at the halvings.
Nah, I'd suggest that most miners are in it for the block subsidy right now. Now, when that goes away and the richest of the rich, well, those who want to keep their currency movements secret, well, those who don't have the "right contacts" to do it for them in the demonstrably corrupt banking system have Bitcoin usage down to a couple of transactions an hour, I guess someone will fire up a GPU miner for beer money. Do you propose these shenanigans don't cost them a pretty penny? You do realise corruption involves bribes? What would you guess is more expensive, Bitcoin transactions or bribes to various bankers, accountant & state officials? |
|
|
|
Yes, similarly SDRs are known to be worthless Explain SDRs to me in a way which doesn't involve currencies that millions, if not billions of people from poorest to richest use in transactions everyday (including "tipping for coffee"). Are you really that dense? Would you have preferred I use gold? You are insinuating that Bitcoin becoming a settlement layer for large value transaction excludes the possibility that it becomes a monetary reserve for open source payment layers and fiat currencies which the "billions of people from poorest to richest" will use in transactions everyday. I personally think that's the likely outcome. |
|
|
|
Why not move to BitSharesforum then and give us a break? By the sounds of it it's better right? I mean... it can scale to trillions of transactions, what else could you possibly want.
By "us" you mean you and iCE? oh, I almost forgot the cuddly but distinctly more inept hdbuck. You couldn't possibly be taking sides with a guy who believe you can buy block space on the blockchain, are you? Using an admittedly shitty analogy doesn't automatically mean everything he subsequently says is invalid. I similarly don't write off all of your opinions, despite your recent statement that people might pay $5, 10, 50 to make an entry on your easily replicated, 5 mining pool run, settlement layer. Good luck easily replicating 500,000,000 GH/s People invest in mining coin because of what it can be. Not for what it is today. More fees spread over more transactions is definitely in their interest. If core devs insist on keeping this veneer of control, they would be wise to compromise for 4MB in 2016, and doubling at the halvings. That's actually not how it works. People invest in mining coins to make a profit. That's it. They do so by mining the chain that holds the most value, value that is entrusted to it by investors. Don't believe for a second that miners decide what chain to follow or that rules should be set according to what is "in their interest". |
|
|
|
I'd rather we have 100x more Popescus buy into Bitcoin than a million more "community" retards like you. I learned that from Warren Buffet  Ah, Warren "Asset stripping" Buffet, the guy who enriches himself at the expense of turning good strong companies into worthless husks. Appropriate. Oh don't get me wrong nowadays he is senile but in his heydays you'd have been hard pressed to find many as sharp a financial mind as he was. |
|
|
|
There will be a gang of persons willing to pay 5$, 10$, hell 50$ for complete monetary sovereignty. These people are presently paying orders of magnitude more to move their money around the world unnoticed. Any given type of money is only useful to the very rich in that it gets the little people to do stuff for you like build your yacht or pass legislation in your favor. If Bitcoin is supposed to be some token that the wealthy only pass around amongst themselves (it isn't), it will fail.Yes, similarly SDRs are known to be worthless |
|
|
|
Why not move to BitSharesforum then and give us a break? By the sounds of it it's better right? I mean... it can scale to trillions of transactions, what else could you possibly want.
By "us" you mean you and iCE? oh, I almost forgot the cuddly but distinctly more inept hdbuck. You couldn't possibly be taking sides with a guy who believe you can buy block space on the blockchain, are you? Using an admittedly shitty analogy doesn't automatically mean everything he subsequently says is invalid. I similarly don't write off all of your opinions, despite your recent statement that people might pay $5, 10, 50 to make an entry on your easily replicated, 5 mining pool run, settlement layer. Good luck easily replicating 500,000,000 GH/s |
|
|
|
Dash? Monero? (less traceable) Bitshares? (much much larger transaction capacity, built in smart contracts, etc) Should I go on? Network effect didn't save MySpace.
So a pre-mined POS & a ripple rip-off are going to steal Bitcoin's lunch money? Please... Comparing Bitcoin network effect to Myspace confirms my suspicions: you are beyond retarded. Ok, so humor a retard, Einstein. what's wrong with the comparison? What make a four billion dollar first mover advantage so insurmountable in a world where WhatsApp gets sold to FB for 19 billion? Cost, retard. Moving from Myspace to Facebook entails no cost for the user. Divesting from Bitcoin to some other cryptocurrency "because it is better" undermines the very trust that holds the concept together and would result in a complete destruction of any value created over the years. If we are to assume that something better will always come along why would I invest myself into the current "implementation"? Your economics, it's broken  That's a really good question, but I'm glad people are pumping now as it allows me to divest with lower cost. Don't worry though. I'll buy back in probably when a scaling solution is implemented, assuming I haven't found a better altcoin by then. If you don't want that "complete destruction" you mentioned, you'd be wise to help ensure that there isn't something better by supporting improvements to the protocol. Why not move to BitSharesforum then and give us a break? By the sounds of it it's better right? I mean... it can scale to trillions of transactions, what else could you possibly want. Because I don't want a race car. I want an armored truck, just one with more than a ten pound cargo capacity. Still, if they can beef up that car without slowing it down too much, I might What are you going to secure your armored truck with? "Decentralized datacenters" ? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
