Care to give me a single example of high cost luxury open code?  The 'if you charge a cunting fortune, they will come' theory is a prime example of the laughable unworldliness of some of the folks involved in Bitcoin. I'm sure they'll enjoy charging the equivalent of $50 to send a few cents to each other. The rest of the world will carry on happily as before or go with a system that's designed to actually accommodate them. "The rest of the world" is irrelevant as they don't control the resources ie. they're poor. Those that do are not interested in using it for sending cents and are not deterred by transactions costs. |
|
|
|
Thank god. Why do you think they're building all their blockchains for anyway?
Commercial success != Bitcoin success
Mostly everything corporations touch nowadays they break or turn to plastic shit.
Bitcoin is a prime quality luxury product and we expect it remains so.
lol omg I almost spit my coffee on my screen. Bitcoin: the useless luxury blockchain!  You must be kidding right? I know the value of luxury items is hard for your small brain to comprehend but trust me, it works  Care to give me a single example of high cost luxury open code? Bitcoin! |
|
|
|
Thank god. Why do you think they're building all their blockchains for anyway?
Commercial success != Bitcoin success
Mostly everything corporations touch nowadays they break or turn to plastic shit.
Bitcoin is a prime quality luxury product and we expect it remains so.
lol omg I almost spit my coffee on my screen. Bitcoin: the useless luxury blockchain! You must be kidding right? I know the value of luxury items is hard for your small brain to comprehend but trust me, it works |
|
|
|
I liked when the interviewer said that Romanians don't like XT, he completely doged that question with an unrelated answer. I guess that must be the reason he wasn't as radical when supporting his opinions about bitcoin there.
Also, when he started using bitcoin there weren't any fees? Even if that's remotely true, the fees exist for a reason. Why would anyone be in support of a developer looking to take fees away from bitcoin? The fee market exists to satisfy demand and supply, and it has been doing that well. This is the last reason the block size should be changed. Getting content in the blockchain shouldn't be worthless, it should rather be expensive when done in large quantities.
he never said he wanted to "take fees away from bitcoin"... shouldn't the people who actually do the storing and processing determine how expensive it should be? if they have any business sense they will try to get fees at a level where 80%+ of TX are willing to pay the fee to perform the TX, any less the 80% and they're losing out on TX volume, and more then that and they aren't getting enough fee pre TX. Might just be me, but the only assumption I can come to by hearing Mike being nostalgic of a bitcoin without fees is this. I believe the existing fee market is good to provide balance between both parties involved (miners, users). IMO a rapid change to the block size limit could destabilize that. I agree with that, but at the same time, doing nothing keeping the 1MB limit and hitting it will also destabilize that balance, probably to much gr8er degree. BIP100's "let the miners deal with it." makes alot of sense Yes, it makes a lot of sense to let miners set the supply of a resource for which they don't bear the costs. No wonder you're a child of Quebec's failed education system. they do bear the costs! and also they benefit from full nodes, so they would weigh all that and come up with a goooooooooood number. game theory 101. No, they don't bear the costs. They can trivially minimize them by cooperating and in general technology will increasingly reduce them by making propagation more efficient. Also, full nodes have no direct benefits from them. They could very well do their job with a dozen of super nodes only. |
|
|
|
I liked when the interviewer said that Romanians don't like XT, he completely doged that question with an unrelated answer. I guess that must be the reason he wasn't as radical when supporting his opinions about bitcoin there.
Also, when he started using bitcoin there weren't any fees? Even if that's remotely true, the fees exist for a reason. Why would anyone be in support of a developer looking to take fees away from bitcoin? The fee market exists to satisfy demand and supply, and it has been doing that well. This is the last reason the block size should be changed. Getting content in the blockchain shouldn't be worthless, it should rather be expensive when done in large quantities.
he never said he wanted to "take fees away from bitcoin"... shouldn't the people who actually do the storing and processing determine how expensive it should be? if they have any business sense they will try to get fees at a level where 80%+ of TX are willing to pay the fee to perform the TX, any less the 80% and they're losing out on TX volume, and more then that and they aren't getting enough fee pre TX. Might just be me, but the only assumption I can come to by hearing Mike being nostalgic of a bitcoin without fees is this. I believe the existing fee market is good to provide balance between both parties involved (miners, users). IMO a rapid change to the block size limit could destabilize that. I agree with that, but at the same time, doing nothing keeping the 1MB limit and hitting it will also destabilize that balance, probably to much gr8er degree. BIP100's "let the miners deal with it." makes alot of sense Yes, it makes a lot of sense to let miners set the supply of a resource for which they don't bear the costs. No wonder you're a child of Quebec's failed education system. |
|
|
|
A fee market exists with no block cap. Peter R explained why at the scalability conference.
Peter R's theory does not apply in practice so it is irrelevant to discuss it. Moreover he readily admits it does not hold absent of block subsidy. just because it doesn't jive with your cock eyed theory that low TPS with high fees is good for bitcoin. doesn't mean it Peter R's theory does not apply in practice. hes sure what it would so with no block subsidy, my guess is the theory hodls true, because miners still stand to potentially lose out on a lot of fees should there block with (even with 0 subsidy) be orphaned, but the model to calculate SupplyVsDemand needs to be changed a bit i guess. Couldn't be bothered to read you boring comment but let me state again: dynamics currently observed in the network clearly demonstrate that Peter R's assumptions are wrong and therefore his theory does not apply. right true he forgot to take into account no one would want to use bitcoin if it sucked, due to self imposed limitations I guess you were trying to be funny but just as a FYI what he obviously ignores is this : miners cooperation ie. centralization. |
|
|
|
A fee market exists with no block cap. Peter R explained why at the scalability conference.
Peter R's theory does not apply in practice so it is irrelevant to discuss it. Moreover he readily admits it does not hold absent of block subsidy. just because it doesn't jive with your cock eyed theory that low TPS with high fees is good for bitcoin. doesn't mean it Peter R's theory does not apply in practice. hes sure what it would so with no block subsidy, my guess is the theory hodls true, because miners still stand to potentially lose out on a lot of fees should there block with (even with 0 subsidy) be orphaned, but the model to calculate SupplyVsDemand needs to be changed a bit i guess. [/quote] Couldn't be bothered to read you boring comment but let me state again: dynamics currently observed in the network clearly demonstrate that Peter R's assumptions are wrong and therefore his theory does not apply. |
|
|
|
He's still pushing BIP101 which is probably the worst idea since the invention of software. Gavin and Mike are insane to keep sticking with that concept of doubling the max block size every two years.
Increase max blocksize to 8MB and make the change static, that's the best solution. Then fork again in a few years as/if needed.
The limit should be lift off completely. The network has its own limitations and doesn't need an artificial one at all. Wait are you saying that the blocksize should have no limit? It seems to me that you don't understand how this thing works at all. Are you aware of all the massive exploits the system could be exposed to if that was the case? To put a more clear analogy, it was as if you went to a regular everyday car's motor and lifted the max revolutions to limitless. You know what's going to happen once you get past what the actual motor can deal with. This is the case with Bitcoin, thats why a blocksize limit exists at all. Don't concern yourself with him. He lives in bizarro world and desires a corporate takeover of Bitcoin Allowing corporates to use bitcoin != corporate takeover. Corporates using bitcoin = commercial success Corporates can't use bitcoin = http://saleshq.monster.com/news/articles/2655-the-20-worst-product-failuresDon't ask yourself why no businesses will use the bitcoin blockchain in the future. Thank god. Why do you think they're building all their blockchains for anyway? Commercial success != Bitcoin success Mostly everything corporations touch nowadays they break or turn to plastic shit. Bitcoin is a prime quality luxury product and we expect it remains so. |
|
|
|
He's still pushing BIP101 which is probably the worst idea since the invention of software. Gavin and Mike are insane to keep sticking with that concept of doubling the max block size every two years.
Increase max blocksize to 8MB and make the change static, that's the best solution. Then fork again in a few years as/if needed.
The limit should be lift off completely. The network has its own limitations and doesn't need an artificial one at all. Wait are you saying that the blocksize should have no limit? It seems to me that you don't understand how this thing works at all. Are you aware of all the massive exploits the system could be exposed to if that was the case? To put a more clear analogy, it was as if you went to a regular everyday car's motor and lifted the max revolutions to limitless. You know what's going to happen once you get past what the actual motor can deal with. This is the case with Bitcoin, thats why a blocksize limit exists at all. A fee market exists with no block cap. Peter R explained why at the scalability conference.
Peter R's theory does not apply in practice so it is irrelevant to discuss it. Moreover he readily admits it does not hold absent of block subsidy. |
|
|
|
Conversely, having a wide userbase for native Bitcoin itself is not very interesting, and in fact I consider it a negative. Most users add nothing toward infrastructure support even at our low data rate. Most people are not prepared technically to safegaurd their BTC and Bitcoin get's egg on it's face every time one of them gets ripped off, and it is an appallingly inferior solution for run-of-the-mill coffee purchases anyway compared to systems which were designed from the get-go to be real-time.
Sorry, but a currency that is not used will die. Why should bitcoin remain being a geek currency? Yes, scams happen but every new thing born had it's birth aches. Even when you don't want that... this will not stop. Since always some will leave and some will come. Only education and learning will help there. No reason to be in fear and restrict everything. Being in fear is the first step for dying. In fact it is the fate of conservatism. There will always be change. Don't fear it or you will be hurt. And since when did conservative thoughts stop the evolution really? North Korea? Will go down at one point. Maybe when they don't have enough money anymore like all socialist countries. You know there exists other actors in an economy than the "mainstream consumer"? |
|
|
|
A fee market exists with no block cap. Peter R explained why at the scalability conference.
Peter R's theory does not apply in practice so it is irrelevant to discuss it. Moreover he readily admits it does not hold absent of block subsidy. |
|
|
|
He's still pushing BIP101 which is probably the worst idea since the invention of software. Gavin and Mike are insane to keep sticking with that concept of doubling the max block size every two years.
Increase max blocksize to 8MB and make the change static, that's the best solution. Then fork again in a few years as/if needed.
The limit should be lift off completely. The network has its own limitations and doesn't need an artificial one at all. Wait are you saying that the blocksize should have no limit? It seems to me that you don't understand how this thing works at all. Are you aware of all the massive exploits the system could be exposed to if that was the case? To put a more clear analogy, it was as if you went to a regular everyday car's motor and lifted the max revolutions to limitless. You know what's going to happen once you get past what the actual motor can deal with. This is the case with Bitcoin, thats why a blocksize limit exists at all. Don't concern yourself with him. He lives in bizarro world and desires a corporate takeover of Bitcoin |
|
|
|
Playing down BIP100 and playing the fool with Chinese miners, is not a good idea... and that is what he is trying to do. He is using the "fear factor" again to force people to look at
XT as the solution. He also wants to make a soft and cozy place for all the developers who are not part of the Core team.
If and when BIP 100 goes through, XT will be quickly forgotten. I had to smile when I saw the first comment on that video... " do not install bitcoin xt trojan "
BIP100 has no chance of going through. Don't get fooled by "miners votes" |
|
|
|
There is a stupid simple way to not destroy bitcoin's value and cause forks and still allow for wiggle room when it comes to blocksize:
For smaller faster transactions; just use a frikken altcoin thats based around speed....
That is all. Simple right?
I don't see why people can't wrap their heads around this simple concept..... and instead they would rather risk everything falling apart over a whole redesign of the currently stable system.
Input?
What do you tell to the 150 000+ merchants that already adopted Bitcoin? There is also millions of dollars invested into development of Bitcoin based businesses. Your solution sounds simple, but it's a lot more complicated than that. The alternative would be to just lift the block size a bit, and see how it goes. Find another marketing gimmick |
|
|
|
Anyway... i tried to find a way to use the blockchain for real votes for political parties. But there seems to be no vote system that can achieve that that is not prone to manipulation and still are free, secret, equal, directly and general.
Is that not a good thing though? Should the votes of 100 people which hold next to no BTC be worth more than 99 people that hold a lot of BTC? The people should matter since they are the user. Why should the ones owning the most bitcoins rule over bitcoin? It would be like a government. And they would simply not sell their coins and they could rule over bitcoin for eternity. There is no reason that rich early adopters should rule while most of the users don't have a voice. You might have a threshold but even then you might make users in poor countries have no voice. Having no voice is always a bad thing. It's quite simple really you have two options if you want to participate in Bitcoin's governance: own coins or become a peer (run a full node). Yes, the amount of coin is absolutely proportionate to the influence your voice can have. No, there is nothing discriminatory about that, it's called capitalism. |
|
|
|
He looks like the type of bloke who'd invite you to stay at his house, throw you down a well while you're having a piss in the garden and spend the entire night trying to guilt trip your girlfriend into moving his cock around. Thus I don't find him a comforting presence.
nailed it |
|
|
|
I suppose this thread refuses to die just like BIP101 is refusing to die. Since it represents both hope and fear for different people.
This thread won't die whilst ever the comedy duo of Ice'n'Brg are around to keep pimping it. They desperately need it at the top of bitcoin discussion so they can feed there ego. The thing is these two clowns aren't even really arguing for anything that can be defined, they are just arguing about how they are right, AND SMRTER TAHN U. It's like tuning in and watching re-runs of your least favourite shitty party political broadcast. Its all propoganda, nothing else to see. As for BIP101, that will die once core reaches consensus about the way forward with the now inevitable block size increase. Along with the other block size related BIPs. XT didn't get rekt, it did exactly what was necessary to get serious discussion. Yes, it caused a multiplication of the agitation of that comedy duo. The two are the living example of XT's success in the way you described it above. What success   |
|
|
|
Bitcoin exists precisely to enable monetary sovereignty & bypass any of these stupid fiat rules. It remains to be seen whether that ever actually happens. The way Bitcoin is used today it is predominantly nonsense, given that most usage is exchanges which are all regulated by fiat rules (except, somewhat, BTC-E which also seems to have issues with fungibility anyway), Coinbase/Circle, and Bitpay. The rest is negligible. I agree with you about the original stated goals, but it hasn't worked out that way at all after 6 years. I don't rule out that it may still evolve in that direction but it seems a bit of a long shot given the high degree of influence that the pro-regulation crowd has in the ecosystem. It also seems plausible that the next adoption surge, if it happens, will be Wall Street money which will also be very pro-regulation. It seems to me the predominant use of Bitcoin today is holding. Then I guess it's a toss up between general black market activities and speculative trading. If we're to believe Trace Mayer the notion that Bitcoin is already used worldwide to escape capital controls is understated. He himself suggests that a OTC trading desk in Switzerland trades more BTC on average than most major Bitcoin exchanges to help clients circumvent FATCA regulations. All of this to illustrate that the amount of Bitcoin that moves through Coinbase/Circle/Bitpay/Bitstamp is, in fact, negligible if we are to account for the whole of Bitcoin's economy. At the very least we can be confident saying that was is publicized and readily available to the naked eye is not the "predominant" way Bitcoin is being used. Therefore I'm very tentative in putting any value into the rest of your statement. Yes, I recognize that your average bitcointalk & reddit users might not be privy to actual legitimate use cases of Bitcoin at this stage of the game. That is where the figurative attempt to put round bitcoin pegs into fiat square holes creates such confusion and this illusion that Bitcoin's success is impeded by "blacklists" and "tainted coin". Of course this illusion did not spawn on its own and it is the careful fabrication of fiat institutions and banking parasites interested in either capturing Bitcoin and its users or straight out perpetuating FUD in an attempt to undermine the users faith. Link where trace made that claim? |
|
|
|
---
What happens if your friend Alice gives you counterfeit cash, you go to spend it in a store, and they confiscate it?
Counterfeit cash is more easily detectable, and if it's a good counterfeit it will probably fool other people too. Maybe. I've seen stores uses counterfeit detector pens quite a bit, and in a few cases run the bills through a machine (usually only larger bills). Banks routinely run cash you deposit through fancier machines and probably catch more. I don't do any of these when I get cash from a friend, and I wouldn't necessarily detect whatever it is those tests are doing. The point is, you can lose money this way, so losing money due to receiving bad Bitcoin is nothing qualitatively new. I'm not saying it is a good thing though. ..... how did we even get into counterfeiting? Because the question was what happens when you receive Bitcoins from someone and when you try to spend them you find they are blacklisted and lose money. That's very much analogous to counterfeiting. Right, this just might be the most stupid thing I've read all week. If you enter a transaction that involves any type of blacklisting it is your own undoing and you deserve it. Bitcoin exists precisely to enable monetary sovereignty & bypass any of these stupid fiat rules. Government doesn't have any right to know or be aware of the existence of any wallet in my possession therefore any coin I receive I'm free to spend at its current market value, no matter what its history is. I mean who the hell are we kiding here!? We have the USG currently trying to get their hand on every chip of all DNM and either keep it for themselves or "sell it" to their friends possibly over market price. You think they really give a damn where the coins are coming from? If you wanna use Bitpay, Coinbase, Circle and all them USG exchanges then by all means no one is stopping you or your rapist's interests but Bitcoin don't play these batty-boys games. But then don't you dare fancy you using Bitcoin. Cause Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer market and what you're doing doesn't sound like bitcoinating to me. Try telling THAT to every new bitcoin newbie and see how many of them run away. There will always be people who don't know any better and it happens to them. Bad things happen to good people all the time. You can't stop all of it. But to say "you deserve it" is a bit hard especially if they are just trying to buy something with bitcoin or convert out to buy something with fiat. If someone is not able to make proper use of Bitcoin then he shouldn't bother. I really don't care if this scares away a few newbies. Bitcoin is really not something you should sell to newbies anyway. It's really not a consumer-ready tool, at least not as it currently exists. If you are trying to buy something with bitcoin from a fiat accepting merchant: your problem, not Bitcoin's. If you depend entirely on exchanges to cash out to fiat: your problem, not Bitcoin's. |
|
|
|
Here's another take on this from Mr. Popescu: mircea_popescu:this actually works as an argument. bitcoin needs no assaying, which makes it more fungible than something that does. Wishfully, it is true. In actual fact people are building businesses (with I'm guessing millions of dollars of funding) to provide the assaying service i.e. blockchain analysis. That is entirely another problem: http://trilema.com/2012/the-problem-of-too-much-money/ |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
