I like the idea of the Bitcoin Computer (looks awesome) but the only thing is that it is too expensive. With less than $400, I can set up a RPI and a decent miner. It's still good though, as it's a way to encourage other people to get interested on Bitcoin  This is what supporters on the thread don't understand. The price point and poor value are discouraging participation, exactly the opposite of what is needed for this to become important, and exactly the opposite of the Altair 8800 which was earlier cited as helping to spark a revolution in personal computing. The latter was not only priced very aggressively (at cost) but also was much easier than designing your own computer. It is just not the case that designing and building your own "Bitcoin Computer" is difficult or expensive (or even comparable cost) They're targeting engineers and developers, the price point is irrelevant as they obviously don't expect typical Bitcoiners to buy this. The price point is not irrelevant when you are trying to get people to experiment with something with no particular use case in mind. Honestly the best price point to encourage that kind of exploratory development is zero (i.e. SDK download). All you are doing by charging for unnecessary hardware (especially overpriced hardware) is introducing friction that discourages involvement. No one has a strong need for this device because there are literally no existing use cases that it compellingly addresses. Without such a strong need the best approach is to remove friction to maximize the breadth of involvement and see what happens. Maybe it's not readily apparent to you, a crypto-wiz, but apparently some people disagree: Developers and tinkerers currently have a massive barrier to entry with Bitcoin. Here is a simple scenario: Bob Tinker is building a prototype for a service and decides that the Bitcoin Blockchain would be a valuable tool for it, and for the right reasons he doesn't want to trust a third party API. First step is to get a full node running. For anyone that has done this you know it takes FOREVER to sync (think days). STRIKE ONE! Next he wants to try out his magic service but wait he needs some Bitcoin, he won't need much, just a few cents to pay transaction fees. In the US he would probably find his way to Coinbase. After giving them access to his bank account, probably a copy of his ID, social security number, and waiting for days (and praying it doesn't get "cancelled"). STRIKE TWO!. At some point Bob Tinker is going to throw his hands up and move on. Not only did the ecosystem miss out on Bob's mind hours, he is probably going to have a negative association next time Bitcoin comes up or a colleague asks about it. I hear variations of this scenario all the time. A device such as 21's development kit solves all of this out of the box, day one. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3m0kr9/21_inc_is_about_to_fuel_the_next_evolution_of/ |
|
|
|
Nope but from the speculation that they will.  Yes sure people were buying Bitcoin because they were expecting banks and corporations to compromise it and so knight22 and his hobos could buy their Doritos with it  Maybe you should read more speculation boards and troll box Why, you think the big pockets hang there ? Here: http://log.bitcoin-assets.com/ Maybe you're curious what some group who controls...oh what..? at least 300,000 BTC? think about the future of Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
I like the idea of the Bitcoin Computer (looks awesome) but the only thing is that it is too expensive. With less than $400, I can set up a RPI and a decent miner. It's still good though, as it's a way to encourage other people to get interested on Bitcoin This is what supporters on the thread don't understand. The price point and poor value are discouraging participation, exactly the opposite of what is needed for this to become important, and exactly the opposite of the Altair 8800 which was earlier cited as helping to spark a revolution in personal computing. The latter was not only priced very aggressively (at cost) but also was much easier than designing your own computer. It is just not the case that designing and building your own "Bitcoin Computer" is difficult or expensive (or even comparable cost) They're targeting engineers and developers, the price point is irrelevant as they obviously don't expect typical Bitcoiners to buy this. |
|
|
|
It's way to expensive to catch up. I don't know what their idea is and what market are they trying to target but I don't think this thing will ever appeal the average Joe. Seems like yet another thing that will only be used by the hardcore enthusiast Bitcoin fans.
You don't think they're aware of that. You really believe they're trying to sell this to the average joe? |
|
|
|
Nope but from the speculation that they will. Yes sure people were buying Bitcoin because they were expecting banks and corporations to compromise it and so knight22 and his hobos could buy their Doritos with it |
|
|
|
"Why do people hire Bitcoin, what job do they need done?" "We need to go after people willing to pay the most money, with the highest margins, those are the type of customers that we want when hiring Bitcoin. We don't just want people using Bitcoin to make a bunch of de minimis economic transactions and not willing to pay anything for it. We need people who are really willing to pay a lot of money to hire Bitcoin" "We need to remove the smell from bitcoin" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHXfEJD6DUkTrace Mayer, as usual, hits the nail right on the head. btw "the smell" = knight22 and his clique. "We need to target people looking for monetary sovereignty, not cutting costs" This guy needs an award or something |
|
|
|
"Why do people hire Bitcoin, what job do they need done?" "We need to go after people willing to pay the most money, with the highest margins, those are the type of customers that we want when hiring Bitcoin. We don't just want people using Bitcoin to make a bunch of de minimis economic transactions and not willing to pay anything for it. We need people who are really willing to pay a lot of money to hire Bitcoin" "We need to remove the smell from bitcoin" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHXfEJD6DUkTrace Mayer, as usual, hits the nail right on the head. btw "the smell" = knight22 and his clique. |
|
|
|
By the way, I am still taking 1 BTC bets (subject to deposit in a 2-of-3 escrowed wallet) that the longest proof-of-work chain will contain a block larger than 1 MB by this time next year.
And still with a high degree of vaugeness about what is meant by 'the longest proof-of-work chain' I see. I will say that in my mind, a change in protocol which is not agreed to by ALL of the currently active core contributors is not valid and it does not matter if it is long enough to reach from Earth to the edge of the solar system. Btw if peter would be more serious about this, i'd take the bet. I am quite serious. If the longest chain contains a block greater than 1 MB by this time next year I win, otherwise you win. The longest chain is defined as the chain built on top of the Satoshi genesis block with the greatest cumulative difficulty. If Bitcoin forks, then I only win if the "large block" fork has a greater cumulative difficulty than the "small block" fork. As for escrow, I am open to suggestions. Danny Hamilton and Jonald Fyookball come to mind. We would each deposit 1 BTC into a 2-of-3 multisig address and the escrow would hold the third key. Well would you look at that, even people within your own little circle jerk are calling you out on your myopic conceptualization of the economy. [img]http://-snip-[img] Don't you think maybe it's time you exit the vacuum and see if your economic theories apply in the real world? That's a possibility but a split fork is more probable IMO simply because it would be easier to achieve. The final results are pretty much the same nonetheless. A fork easier to achieve then readily available alternatives  In what world do you live in !? A consensus fork is hard but a split fork would be fairly easy as consensus is already reached on both side and both side would be willing to lose the other side. You really don't realize what this implies, do you? This would effectively destroy any trust that exist into your fork and the value of your altcoin would plummet and likely never recover. If you don't have the support of the economic majority your coin is worthless. In fact I'm all for it and will support you in this endeavor. As hdbuck has repeatedly mentioned I can only hope your little clique of corporate shills fork yourselves away from us so we can't never hear from you again. What a spectacle this will be! |
|
|
|
By the way, I am still taking 1 BTC bets (subject to deposit in a 2-of-3 escrowed wallet) that the longest proof-of-work chain will contain a block larger than 1 MB by this time next year.
And still with a high degree of vaugeness about what is meant by 'the longest proof-of-work chain' I see. I will say that in my mind, a change in protocol which is not agreed to by ALL of the currently active core contributors is not valid and it does not matter if it is long enough to reach from Earth to the edge of the solar system. Btw if peter would be more serious about this, i'd take the bet. I am quite serious. If the longest chain contains a block greater than 1 MB by this time next year I win, otherwise you win. The longest chain is defined as the chain built on top of the Satoshi genesis block with the greatest cumulative difficulty. If Bitcoin forks, then I only win if the "large block" fork has a greater cumulative difficulty than the "small block" fork. As for escrow, I am open to suggestions. Danny Hamilton and Jonald Fyookball come to mind. We would each deposit 1 BTC into a 2-of-3 multisig address and the escrow would hold the third key. Well would you look at that, even people within your own little circle jerk are calling you out on your myopic conceptualization of the economy.  Don't you think maybe it's time you exit the vacuum and see if your economic theories apply in the real world? That's a possibility but a split fork is more probable IMO simply because it would be easier to achieve. The final results are pretty much the same nonetheless. A fork easier to achieve then readily available alternatives In what world do you live in !? |
|
|
|
Past indicators does not take consideration of the actual state. Bitcoin was not as large as it is now so achieving consensus was much easier.
Do you see any indicator that we might reach somehow a consensus? Small blockists aren't willing to move an inch (including Core devs) but a large economic group wants and needs bigger blocks. Now what? How do you see this resolves?
to the bolded: this was 2 months ago. you're just making up arbitrary time lines about when consensus [automatically] becomes impossible. and you are suggesting that by definition, it becomes impossible. you offer no evidence of this. core devs =/= "small blockists".....fact that you're still throwing around these misnomers tells me i should probably not waste my time discussing anything with you. it resolves as every past issue has been resolved. Are you suggesting a consensus with BIP66 will be as easy to achieve than the block size issue?? Way to compare apples and oranges isn't it? Which Core dev support larger blocks exactly? It there something I missed? it resolves as every past issue has been resolved.
Very insightful Magical thinking much? cool story. so any time an issue sees more controversy, we betray one of the founding principles and security measures of bitcoin in order to force the question? despite technical controversies? controversy is natural. agreement will never be total. that doesn't mean betraying what bitcoin is and always has been to meet your meaningless definition of what it should be, is acceptable. Maybe there will be a consensus but I just don't see it happening (maybe you have some insight that I don't?). Since there is a economic incentive to get larger block and there is no consensus for the status quo the market will simply get what it wants regardless of your definition of what bitcoin should be. I don't think the market can betrayed bitcoin as it is a tool for the free market. Nothing less, nothing more. Only people standing on its way would feel betrayed at this point. You aren't seeing things very clearly are you? The consensus currently IS status quo. What you describe as "the market" is your own myopic fabrication of a very complex economy. You like to pretend that consumers and merchants form some kind of economic majority when it's quite apparent they have little leverage over governance decisions. As long as the Bitcoin holders & the peers (nodes) are not satisfied with the need for an increase or the way to go about it status quo will prevail. No matter of "industry" support is going to change that. Bitcoin exists explicitly to avoid pressure and coercion from these banking parasites. It is an attempt to build an economy OUTSIDE of the existing system and you shill would like us to bend over to their demand? You will eventually get what you deserve for this pathetic display. Stop lying to yourself. |
|
|
|
By the way, I am still taking 1 BTC bets (subject to deposit in a 2-of-3 escrowed wallet) that the longest proof-of-work chain will contain a block larger than 1 MB by this time next year.
And still with a high degree of vaugeness about what is meant by 'the longest proof-of-work chain' I see. I will say that in my mind, a change in protocol which is not agreed to by ALL of the currently active core contributors is not valid and it does not matter if it is long enough to reach from Earth to the edge of the solar system. Btw if peter would be more serious about this, i'd take the bet. I am quite serious. If the longest chain contains a block greater than 1 MB by this time next year I win, otherwise you win. The longest chain is defined as the chain built on top of the Satoshi genesis block with the greatest cumulative difficulty. If Bitcoin forks, then I only win if the "large block" fork has a greater cumulative difficulty than the "small block" fork. As for escrow, I am open to suggestions. Danny Hamilton and Jonald Fyookball come to mind. We would each deposit 1 BTC into a 2-of-3 multisig address and the escrow would hold the third key. Well would you look at that, even people within your own little circle jerk are calling you out on your myopic conceptualization of the economy. Don't you think maybe it's time you exit the vacuum and see if your economic theories apply in the real world? |
|
|
|
The funniest part with XT is that people are willingly choosing to run the client and support the rules that will prevent them from doing that in the future. What a concept! Congratulation on your turnaround. It's good to see a couple people are capable of changing opinions once proper facts are presented to them  |
|
|
|
I think it that while it won't get adapted, it did help to bring awareness to the issues at hand, so in that way it was a success. This was a conversation that needed to be had and it is nice that the community is now planning for the future.
It will engageenrage noobs who don't understand the problems at hand through populist politics and fabricated crises. It will engageenrage noobs autistic geeks who don't understand the market problems at hand through populist dictatorship politics and fabricated crises problems. FTFY Correct, XTards are clueless about both the technical limitations and the market. Thankfully things are progressing in the right direction lately. I am wondering if taking what miners think into consideration about what the market needs is not something ever more retarded and autistic... Thanks to you and all the autistic geeks, bitcoin will soon be added to that list: http://saleshq.monster.com/news/articles/2655-the-20-worst-product-failuresBitcoin is not a product you doofus. It doesn't need your "marketing" or any of your stupid and parasitic "corporate sponsorship". Right, bitcoin isn't a product, it's magical fairy dust No, it's money. You ever seen TV commercials for the dollar, the euro? At this point I can only think you are trolling us all |
|
|
|
I think it that while it won't get adapted, it did help to bring awareness to the issues at hand, so in that way it was a success. This was a conversation that needed to be had and it is nice that the community is now planning for the future.
It will engageenrage noobs who don't understand the problems at hand through populist politics and fabricated crises. It will engageenrage noobs autistic geeks who don't understand the market problems at hand through populist dictatorship politics and fabricated crises problems. FTFY Correct, XTards are clueless about both the technical limitations and the market. Thankfully things are progressing in the right direction lately. I am wondering if taking what miners think into consideration about what the market needs is not something ever more retarded and autistic... Thanks to you and all the autistic geeks, bitcoin will soon be added to that list: http://saleshq.monster.com/news/articles/2655-the-20-worst-product-failuresBitcoin is not a product you doofus. It doesn't need your "marketing" or any of your stupid and parasitic "corporate sponsorship". |
|
|
|
I'm not asking what scaling solution is best. I'm asking the question: if the market wants to be at Q* but the production quota forces it to be at Qmax, who exactly will enforce the quota (especially over the long term as forking pressure builds)?
Normally, the answer is "the government" (or some powerful organization). But something like Bitcoin is governed by the market itself, is it not? How can the market enforce a quota that the market itself does not want? Well, I don't think it can.
There's a subtlety here: is the "thing" that will enforce the quota necessarily the same "thing" that wants to break the quota? The answer is not completely clear to me...
The code Peter, the code! Bitcoin is not governed by the market!... Good; I sort of agree. Bitcoin is indeed governed by the code that people run. But is it not these same people who choose which code to run? And are not these the same people who, in aggregate, become "the market"? I would argue then, that in the final analysis, it is the will of the market that controls the code and thus it is the will of the market that governs Bitcoin. The Bitcoin market is a curious one full of very different actors whose incentives are not all particularly aligned. Assuming I play along with your characterization, then I shall specify that the demand you speak of does not currently comes from "the market" but mainly from consumers & merchants. Consider that the Bitcoin market is also comprised of investors, nodes, miners & developers. You might suggest that miners also desire more transactions but this is again a tricky situation because miners are a group of individuals with very different expectations and resources. Returning to our existing situation: consumers & merchants are clamouring for more space in blocks. Unfortunately for them they tend to have little power or leverage over Bitcoin's governance. The reason for that is a majority of them are not peers in the network (nodes) and they also tend to own only little amounts of Bitcoin (it makes sense right? they enjoy spending them!). So what we've observed in the recent months is that being fully aware of the little control they have over the system they've resorted to politics and all kinds of fallacious arguments to justify their demands. Unfortunately for them, the rest of the market actors are not buying it. Hence, status quo prevails. Of course, if this market of actors would be to consensually decide that more space in blocks is acceptable or desirable then it is indeed reasonable to expect them to modify the consensus rules, but only by making changes which everyone agrees on. I think we can agree we are not quite there yet. Except the market doesn't require consensus to fork the code and make a majority split. There is nothing to stop this to happen. Be careful not to mischaracterize what I believe I defined well enough. What you are proposing is that consumers, merchants and maybe a few odd miners fork into their own altcoin. Not "the market". I would suggest this would be one hell of a gamble to take considering they will not have the support from the economic majority. More explicitely: without the investors, they don't have the value, without the nodes they don't have decentralization and finally without value they have little to no miner support, hence no security. |
|
|
|
I'm not asking what scaling solution is best. I'm asking the question: if the market wants to be at Q* but the production quota forces it to be at Qmax, who exactly will enforce the quota (especially over the long term as forking pressure builds)?
Normally, the answer is "the government" (or some powerful organization). But something like Bitcoin is governed by the market itself, is it not? How can the market enforce a quota that the market itself does not want? Well, I don't think it can.
There's a subtlety here: is the "thing" that will enforce the quota necessarily the same "thing" that wants to break the quota? The answer is not completely clear to me...
The code Peter, the code! Bitcoin is not governed by the market!... Good; I sort of agree. Bitcoin is indeed governed by the code that people run. But is it not these same people who choose which code to run? And are not these the same people who, in aggregate, become "the market"? I would argue then, that in the final analysis, it is the will of the market that controls the code and thus it is the will of the market that governs Bitcoin. The Bitcoin market is a curious one full of very different actors whose incentives are not all particularly aligned. Assuming I play along with your characterization, then I shall specify that the demand you speak of does not currently comes from "the market" but mainly from consumers & merchants. Consider that the Bitcoin market is also comprised of investors, nodes, miners & developers. You might suggest that miners also desire more transactions but this is again a tricky situation because miners are a group of individuals with very different expectations and resources. Returning to our existing situation: consumers & merchants are clamouring for more space in blocks. Unfortunately for them they tend to have little power or leverage over Bitcoin's governance. The reason for that is a majority of them are not peers in the network (nodes) and they also tend to own only little amounts of Bitcoin (it makes sense right? they enjoy spending them!). So what we've observed in the recent months is that being fully aware of the little control they have over the system they've resorted to politics and all kinds of fallacious arguments to justify their demands. Unfortunately for them, the rest of the market actors are not buying it. Hence, status quo prevails. Of course, if this market of actors would be to consensually decide that more space in blocks is acceptable or desirable then it is indeed reasonable to expect them to modify the consensus rules, but only by making changes which everyone agrees on. I think we can agree we are not quite there yet. |
|
|
|
How can we loose that free choice if anyone is free to release an alternate client the same way XT would have. If it get enough support it will simply be adopted.
Yes, at this point, the block size limit debate is sound and fury, signifying nothing. If the market wants to increase the block size limit, then it will increase the block size limit. I've shown these diagrams a lot because I think they reveal the essence of the situation. If the limit remains to the right of Q*, then it doesn't really matter what the limit is because it does not affect the free market dynamics. However, if the limit falls to the left of Q*, then the pressure due to the deadweight loss will eventually cause a fork to move the limit back to the right of Q*! TL/DR: There is no way to stop Bitcoin from growing.   Peter, your economic analysis is flawed, as it simply wishes away the external costs that the market may choose to impose on the users running their own node. The scaling solution needs to take account of this, and your proposed solutions as well as your analysis does not. Stop promoting faulty ideas (economic and technical alike). I'm not asking what scaling solution is best. I'm asking the question: if the market wants to be at Q* but the production quota forces it to be at Qmax, who exactly will enforce the quota (especially over the long term as forking pressure builds)? Normally, the answer is "the government" (or some powerful organization). But something like Bitcoin is governed by the market itself, is it not? How can the market enforce a quota that the market itself does not want? Well, I don't think it can. There's a subtlety here: is the "thing" that will enforce the quota necessarily the same "thing" that wants to break the quota? The answer is not completely clear to me...The code Peter, the code! Bitcoin is not governed by the market! It's governed by its peers. How soon we forget this is a peer-to peer network... I have repeatedly stated so but your question pretends that the market has no other alternative to transact on than the Bitcoin blockchain, this is obviously wrong! If there is market demand for transactions that cannot be satisfied by or pay for block space on the Bitcoin network because of a quota enforced by its peers then this demand will simply pivot toward another alternative that can satisfy it. These alternatives could be fiat, payment channels, off-chain platforms or even alt-coins. Again, it doesn't matter what "the market" wants, Bitcoin is not governed by free-market but by rules enforced by a consensus of its peers so as to keep every network actors' incentives aligned. How soon we forget the peer-to-peer network is useless and worthless if it doesn't serve a market... Oh but a market it serves young padawan. We didn't get here without one! Luckily Bitcoin holders in general are a stubborn bunch who recognize the benefits of delayed gratification and do not consider Bitcoin as another tool to facilitate mainstream consumerism. They are not much concerned by transaction throughput as they understand the value of scarcity and exclusivity. Real Bitcoiners are intelligent enough to anticipate the healthy ecosystem that shall be built on top of Bitcoin and enable their frivolous spending. Of course none of them would be foolish enough to part ways with their Bitcoin at this stage of the game. This is a marathon, not a run! All of this to say that you will be hard pressed to convince the economic majority that there is a pressing need to accomodate more transactions of the blockchain because as they look around their peers and other economically-able relatives all they see is dormant bitcoins resting in cold storage and apparently not close to get out of hibernation. Just read this http://www.contravex.com/2014/02/25/matters-of-bitcoin-merchant-adoption/ and this http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/measuring-decentralization/ until your head hurt and maybe, one day, the force shall also awaken inside you! |
|
|
|
How can we loose that free choice if anyone is free to release an alternate client the same way XT would have. If it get enough support it will simply be adopted.
Yes, at this point, the block size limit debate is sound and fury, signifying nothing. If the market wants to increase the block size limit, then it will increase the block size limit. I've shown these diagrams a lot because I think they reveal the essence of the situation. If the limit remains to the right of Q*, then it doesn't really matter what the limit is because it does not affect the free market dynamics. However, if the limit falls to the left of Q*, then the pressure due to the deadweight loss will eventually cause a fork to move the limit back to the right of Q*! TL/DR: There is no way to stop Bitcoin from growing. Peter, your economic analysis is flawed, as it simply wishes away the external costs that the market may choose to impose on the users running their own node. The scaling solution needs to take account of this, and your proposed solutions as well as your analysis does not. Stop promoting faulty ideas (economic and technical alike). What Peter propose makes a lot of sense economically as the market will want that dead loss regardless of the nodes but I get your point that it does not take security in consideration. Are you suggesting the anti spam measure should take into consideration the number of nodes in the network? It might make sense to make a rule that enforce the market to have a minimum number of nodes in order to let the blocksize grow. The market will have an economic incentive to have a minimum amount of nodes in order to get that dead loss. However, what's the minimum of node should realistically be enough to consider bitcoin secure enough? How much blocksize growth should it let if the conditions are met? How do you get the balance between the acceptable amount of dead loss VS the acceptable amount of nodes? The number of nodes is irrelevant. The block size limit should be a measure of the cost of the option to create a full node It might be cheap for you but not for me. I also don't think it would be possible to enforce it into the protocol. "Nigga what?" Cost is cost. Let's call it a price if you fancy it doesn't matter. Of course it is possible. Satoshi did it for the monetary supply, the block interval and the space in blocks. All of these are enforced today by what of the Nakamoto consensus protocol. None of these rules will change unless the economic majority agrees to it. You are mistaken, cost is relative to A LOT of factors. Just a cost (number) is irrelevant. What matters is the purchasing power of those numbers which I see no way for the protocol to evaluate. The same reason why Satoshi choose a fixed supply because it can't be adjusted to the demand. Both are external factors the protocol can't evaluate. Secondly, are you also suggesting the protocol should be dependent of governments fiat? It is painfully clear you haven't read the blog post and I linked you to and I cannot continue this conversation with you until you do but just to entertain your ignorance: you are correct, the costs are not a mere number. Node Option = Hardware Costs + Privacy Costs + Maintenance Costs
...
I’d ignore mundane expenses like hardware and power. Instead, recall that, if a full node cannot be run anonymously, “the network” (full node entry) is effectively controlled by law enforcement, a central entity. Therefore, my view is that the current largest “cost” (and current bottleneck to Bitcoin scalability) is therefore the threat of persecution. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
