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 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. |
|
|
|
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 http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/measuring-decentralization |
|
|
|
Oh yes sure, the magic of the free market!  Let's not stop anyone from cutting down the whole Amazon trees for pastures or w/e, the free-market will take care of it! No need for big game hunting regulations to protect endangered wildlife either! FREE MARKET! Environmental regulation? Pollution!? Who told you you could mess with my free market!? It's got this under control  Thanks to the banking and petroleum lobbies and their petrodollar. Do you really think cartels = free market? K. This only highlights your poor understanding of how things actually work in this low world. Are you 12? Way to pick and choose the examples at your convenience. Wtf are you trying to say? That without the banking and petroleum lobbies there wouldn't be pollution? What about the poor wildlife? Who's to blame for their continuing risk of extinction? I thought you said the free market would make sure to preserve them? Do you not care about the rainforest? Myself I'm afraid if "free market" had its ways there wouldn't be much left of it. Look I know you like to pretend yourself some kind of fancy libertardians or capitalist or whatever, I do share similar views  But if that is going to make you ignore human greed and the inherent drive for profit of these systems that you are one naive little shill. Seriously  Do you even believe the stuff that you write? BTW if you weren't stupid enough to have sold your bitcoins you likely would've had enough to use it forever. Don't miss the chance to buy back cause then you might indeed be priced out  Either way when LN, voting pools and other transactional layers will be up and running I won't think twice about using them. Do you realize how fucking inefficient and clumsy this Bitcoin blockchain is? Such a pity we're stuck with this  (yes I do mean stuck as in: no, you don't get to change it "to make it more like VISA") TIL brg444 thinks that a decentralized and censorship-resistant system can work while pretending the free market doesn't and censoring information surrounding such system is a good thing. TIL knight22 watched a couple of Mike Baloney's youtube video and likes to pretend himself a free-market shill while ignoring the costs and risks that come with an ubiquitous free market rule. Tell me little libertard why then did Satoshi not leave the total coin supply to "the free market". How dare he imposes centrally designed rules!? What about the block time interval? He must be outright stupid right? Why waste so much time figuring this thing out when he could've let it be decided by our god, the free-market? You are completely confusing everything and you looks mad lol. Not very surprising after all your inconsistencies but yes, the free market works when it comes to find solutions to problems and monetize on it. Just like the technical problems associated with bigger blocks simply because the incentives are well aligned. No, I'm making points you cannot answer because you know you are wrong. The analogies I'm making are quite relevant in fact, maybe you just can't grasp them? The thing that's broken with your logic is that the incentives are NOT aligned except under very specific circumstances. Miners are incentivized for profits, no matter the weight they put on the network. Their incentives are certainly not aligned with the network peers (nodes). You only made the assumption that I assume the free market works without well aligned incentives and/or strictly enforced rules which I didn't. It's not because nodes aren't being paid that there is no incentives to run them, otherwise there would be none ATM. There are incentives for people financially involved to run nodes to keep bitcoin secure and decentralized therefore there are incentives for the market to come up with cheap solutions to run them (as they give no monetary reward). There are NO incentives for miners to centralized up a certain point (as pointed in the whitepaper and as demonstrated with the Ghash episode) because it would mean bitcoin would lose all of the trust it gained and trust is fundamental for a currency to have value. Right...  I forgot that one, the magic free market at it again turning data center resources into "cheap solutions"... |
|
|
|
Isn't Ripple supposed to be what Monero was based off of? If I'm not mistaken I remember reading that Ripple was supposed to be the first of the "cryptonote" coins to come out. I haven't even done much research on the alts because I'm lazy and want to stick to talking about something that I know a little more about like bitcoin in general. Nop. |
|
|
|
Oh yes sure, the magic of the free market! Let's not stop anyone from cutting down the whole Amazon trees for pastures or w/e, the free-market will take care of it! No need for big game hunting regulations to protect endangered wildlife either! FREE MARKET! Environmental regulation? Pollution!? Who told you you could mess with my free market!? It's got this under control Thanks to the banking and petroleum lobbies and their petrodollar. Do you really think cartels = free market? K. This only highlights your poor understanding of how things actually work in this low world. Are you 12? Way to pick and choose the examples at your convenience. Wtf are you trying to say? That without the banking and petroleum lobbies there wouldn't be pollution? What about the poor wildlife? Who's to blame for their continuing risk of extinction? I thought you said the free market would make sure to preserve them? Do you not care about the rainforest? Myself I'm afraid if "free market" had its ways there wouldn't be much left of it. Look I know you like to pretend yourself some kind of fancy libertardians or capitalist or whatever, I do share similar views But if that is going to make you ignore human greed and the inherent drive for profit of these systems that you are one naive little shill. Seriously Do you even believe the stuff that you write? BTW if you weren't stupid enough to have sold your bitcoins you likely would've had enough to use it forever. Don't miss the chance to buy back cause then you might indeed be priced out Either way when LN, voting pools and other transactional layers will be up and running I won't think twice about using them. Do you realize how fucking inefficient and clumsy this Bitcoin blockchain is? Such a pity we're stuck with this (yes I do mean stuck as in: no, you don't get to change it "to make it more like VISA") TIL brg444 thinks that a decentralized and censorship-resistant system can work while pretending the free market doesn't and censoring information surrounding such system is a good thing. TIL knight22 watched a couple of Mike Baloney's youtube video and likes to pretend himself a free-market shill while ignoring the costs and risks that come with an ubiquitous free market rule. Tell me little libertard why then did Satoshi not leave the total coin supply to "the free market". How dare he imposes centrally designed rules!? What about the block time interval? He must be outright stupid right? Why waste so much time figuring this thing out when he could've let it be decided by our god, the free-market? You are completely confusing everything and you looks mad lol. Not very surprising after all your inconsistencies but yes, the free market works when it comes to find solutions to problems and monetize on it. Just like the technical problems associated with bigger blocks simply because the incentives are well aligned. No, I'm making points you cannot answer because you know you are wrong. The analogies I'm making are quite relevant in fact, maybe you just can't grasp them? The thing that's broken with your logic is that the incentives are NOT aligned except under very specific circumstances. Miners are incentivized for profits, no matter the weight they put on the network. Their incentives are certainly not aligned with the network peers (nodes). |
|
|
|
Drop the chip, embed the design in SoC’s and we’re talking fractions of a penny. Good, when they get there I might be interested. For now, how about drop the chip (and $400 clunker) and let people download an SDK instead. The alternative to an Altair 8080 was to design and build you own computer at great difficulty without a kit, or not have a computer at all. The alternative to this $400 clunker is to build essentially the same thing (or better) using readily available parts in an hour or two of setup time, for less money. The goal of the whole thing is to bootstrap the payment flow with easy access to satoshis so developers who don't want to bother with buying bitcoins can tinker with the thing. |
|
|
|
The Altair 8800 was pretty much the shittiest computer.
The Altair analogy doesn't work at all. That was created by a scrappy little company (<20 employees) on basically no budget and even then "The Altair 8800 computer was a break-even sale for MITS" It sold like hotcakes (maybe because at break-even it was a damn good value to hobbyists compared to DYI at the time, unlike 21 trying to sell $100 worth of DYI hardware for $400) forcing the company to massively expand just to deliver the orders. We'll see if that happens here. You know my guess (it won't). I doubt you are going to guess otherwise, but go ahead and make a prediction if you like. If you read the actual history there is literally no similarity at all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altair_8800Cool, but I don't care. And actually it's more like 275$ of DYI hardware. So a 125$ markup for custom design, full software stack and micropayment server. Did you also happen to miss this part? The real target cost for the 21 chip is pennies, not dollars, not hundreds of dollars, certainly not $400.
Drop the chip, embed the design in SoC’s and we’re talking fractions of a penny. Nice of you not to address any of the points or use cases you so casually pretended didn't exist earlier. |
|
|
|
The possibilities are endless, 21inc is concerned with creating the tools to enable these use cases.
If the possibilities are endless, give me a list of the top 100 uses please. They don't even know. Their own CEO said something to the effect that they want people to figure out on their own what to do with it. I also find the pricing incredibly stupid. If they want to encourage people to invent and create an entire industry of they-don't-even-know-what using their chips, they should be selling it at cost or less. Why erect barriers to creative inventors with a high price point? The only thing that really makes sense to me is what someone suggested earlier: There was a hard deadline to ship something (as a financing term or other contractual obligation) and this product is intended to satisfy that obligation, and not do much else. Here, someone with a bit more imagination than you both cared enough to put it all in one nice article: Here’s my take…
The idea is to embed the mining chip in smartphones, tablets, routers, everything. (Which is why Qualcomm & Cisco are involved.)
The real target cost for the 21 chip is pennies, not dollars, not hundreds of dollars, certainly not $400.
And then drop the chip, embed the design in SoC’s and we’re talking fractions of a penny.
The “computer” is not a Bitcoin miner, it’s a devkit.
It’s a devkit for future devices which would have native Bitcoin support (wallets & coin-generation) for identification (private keys), and micro-transactions.
Today, content on the internet is powered by advertising. Because we lack microtransactions. Google & Facebook & Twitter are advertising companies. 21 aims to change that. The internet runs on advertising. 21 aims to change that.
Now, link unforgeable bitcoin private keys with biometric identification.
You just killed:
Passwords…
sign-ups…
e-mail confirmation…
login screens
I bet this would remove a ton of hassle and frustration from your whole online experience. Multiply this utility gain by a billion internet users.
So, give every internet user a source of fresh, unbought, newly generated Bitcoins → enable e-commerce without logins and sign-ups.
Well, no more need to keep customer data on file. Hey! You just killed identity theft in e-commerce. (Corporate and individual victims of identity-theft are grateful.)
You can shop online without revealing your name, address, phone number, birth date, mothers maiden name etc. etc. etc …to any and every new retailer.
It would be like buying a newspaper, in cash, no questions asked.
Just give them the money, get the good, and you’re done.
No questions. No secret questions. No maiden names.
This is generally impossible on the internet today,
(What is wrong with the world? We need to fix this!)
Why does every online retailer need all your personal data to sell you a digital good?
Because of credit cards & identity theft. And also because of advertising.
In this new simpler internet, they don’t need your personal data,
…so they shouldn’t have your personal data.
This points the way to a simpler and just plain better internet experience.
It points the way to an internet without friction between: “I want this digital good” and “I’m enjoying this digital good.” Games, books, streams, video, journalism. Any sort of digital content.
“Oh, but this is possible today.” Maybe it is, but only at a couple of select giant retailers like Amazon, using patented “technology”, and they’ve already made you go through that painful sign-up process and they have all your data on file.
With Bitcoin, we can make all online commerce like one-click shopping at Amazon.
Better for content-producers.
Better for internet users.
Visit a merchant. “Click to read this article.” Done.
This will reduces the friction between merchants and consumers to unnoticable levels. Boom! Superconductivity for e-commerce.
The 21 Inc. computer is not a mining device, it’s the Altair 8800 of a new Bitcoin powered internet.
The Altair 8800 was pretty much the shittiest computer.
But it launched that whole personal computer revolution.
That whole Bitcoin powered internet we talked about. It doesn’t exist yet.
It’s a possible future. And we have to build it.
If it works, it will remove a lot of dysfunctions and ineffieciencies and friction.
Why can’t you preload the 21 device? Because you don’t kill identity-theft if you bought the micro-bitcoins from someone else, instead of generating them yourself.
In the post-password future, you stop being your password and email address.
Instead, you become your private keys. https://elux.svbtle.com/the-21-inc-computer-is-the-new-altair-8800 |
|
|
|
I swear it's like Balaji killed all you guys dog or something  I hope for the sake of your relatives you don't have such a despicable attitude in real life So much negativity, so much butthurt  Are you affiliated with 21 Inc. somehow? YES! And Blockstream also and every other companies you pitchfork branding hivemind like to attack for absolutely no valid reason other than apparent jealousy. Nop, I'm with the anti-troll brigade. My mission: call people out on their bullshit and general disingenuity. This whole fucking thread in a nutshell:  |
|
|
|
I swear it's like Balaji killed all you guys dog or something I hope for the sake of your relatives you don't have such a despicable attitude in real life So much negativity, so much butthurt |
|
|
|
Oh yes sure, the magic of the free market! Let's not stop anyone from cutting down the whole Amazon trees for pastures or w/e, the free-market will take care of it! No need for big game hunting regulations to protect endangered wildlife either! FREE MARKET! Environmental regulation? Pollution!? Who told you you could mess with my free market!? It's got this under control Thanks to the banking and petroleum lobbies and their petrodollar. Do you really think cartels = free market? K. This only highlights your poor understanding of how things actually work in this low world. Are you 12? Way to pick and choose the examples at your convenience. Wtf are you trying to say? That without the banking and petroleum lobbies there wouldn't be pollution? What about the poor wildlife? Who's to blame for their continuing risk of extinction? I thought you said the free market would make sure to preserve them? Do you not care about the rainforest? Myself I'm afraid if "free market" had its ways there wouldn't be much left of it. Look I know you like to pretend yourself some kind of fancy libertardians or capitalist or whatever, I do share similar views But if that is going to make you ignore human greed and the inherent drive for profit of these systems that you are one naive little shill. Seriously Do you even believe the stuff that you write? BTW if you weren't stupid enough to have sold your bitcoins you likely would've had enough to use it forever. Don't miss the chance to buy back cause then you might indeed be priced out Either way when LN, voting pools and other transactional layers will be up and running I won't think twice about using them. Do you realize how fucking inefficient and clumsy this Bitcoin blockchain is? Such a pity we're stuck with this (yes I do mean stuck as in: no, you don't get to change it "to make it more like VISA") TIL brg444 thinks that a decentralized and censorship-resistant system can work while pretending the free market doesn't and censoring information surrounding such system is a good thing. TIL knight22 watched a couple of Mike Baloney's youtube video and likes to pretend himself a free-market shill while ignoring the costs and risks that come with an ubiquitous free market rule. Tell me little libertard why then did Satoshi not leave the total coin supply to "the free market". How dare he imposes centrally designed rules!? What about the block time interval? He must be outright stupid right? Why waste so much time figuring this thing out when he could've let it be decided by our god, the free-market? |
|
|
|
Not at all. I don't think you fully understand money. Subjective perception of value is all there is. Money only exists in the mind of those who value it. If people don't believe that two satoshis are equal, then they are not equal. Bitcoin does make a distinction between them by way of a public and browsable blockchain that shows you the history of any bitcoin since inception. One bitcoin does not equal one bitcoin. http://sabr.io/ Blockchain analysis is already pretty good and only going to get better. A plea to the ignorance of the users is not a good argument. The final nail in the coffin of bitcoin's fungibility *is* Satoshi's coins. If all bitcoins were equal and fungible, then it shouldn't matter that Satoshi began spending his coins. Upon receiving one you shouldn't panic that bitcoin users might start losing faith. But when dealing with *collectibles* (which bitcoin is) then that becomes an issue. If you like fine art, and suddenly lots of famous paintings start winding up on your doorstep, you would reasonably assume that the popularity and faith in fine art is plummeting. In Monero we don't have a Satoshi. Every user is free to transact, hold, and spend however they choose. The currency exists independent from the history of each unit. Gold and the dollar can be traced (with great effort as well) but they still pass the test for fungibility because without expending a massive amount of resources you can't effectively trace their history (especially with gold). With bitcoin tracing the history of a unit is trivial, and with Monero it's impossible. You've basically strengthened my point: Monero isn't just true digital gold. It's the equivalent of if gold automatically (and magically) went to a smelting facility every time it was spent and was melted down and mixed with other gold before coming back to the new owner. It's the best form of money that civilization has ever seen. I'm sorry but it is increasingly apparent to me that you are making a tragic mistake of conflating very different economic concepts. For one, individual perception of value is quite different from the market's perception of value. Bitcoin's traceability might make it interesting for someone with a collector's mindset but it has no impact on its fungibility. It would be one thing for the market to disagree on the value of individual satoshis but this is absolutely impossible as they are totally undistinguishable from one another. Let me use two different examples to show why your analysis fail: - Certain gold artifacts are valued at way more important prices then the actual market worth of their weight in gold. Does that make gold a "collectible"? - A lot of people enjoy collecting notes and coins from certain years. A bundle of cash stolen from a bank might be identified and refused in certain circumstances because of its serial number. Does that make cash a "collectible"? These two examples, I believe, demonstrate that what you refer to as an absence of fungibility is simply a consequence of individual or authorities attaching subjective value to an item because of its history but this is not an indictment on the monetary system itself! Imagine one individual in possession of one of these gold artifacts or a special 20$ note attempts, for some unknown reason, to either trade his gold item to a pawnshop or deposit the 20$ at the bank. What do you guess happens? If we assume the guy running the pawnshop doesn't know or care about the "symbolic" value of the item and is only concerned with its weight in gold no amount of history is going to bring him to buy said item for more than its market worth. Same for his "special bill", the cashier at the bank could not careless if it was used by Al Capone to do lines of cocaine, to her it's worth 20$ and no more. The same logic applies for Bitcoin. If I am in possession of one of Mt. Gox's stolen coin and send it to Bitstamp, the market is not going to offer me a premium or refuse to buy it. Sure some nerds might cry foul and alert the exchange. In that case I could still head to fucking China and sell the same coin for market price on whatever their equivalent of localbitcoin is and no one will ask me any question. I am curious why you did not address my thought experiment about the tainted coins but allow me to reiterate using your Satoshi scenario as I am confident it supports my position that no distinction can be made between two satoshis. Let's pretend I have one of Satoshi's wallet address and decide to send him a bitcoin. How can you tell which one is mine from his stash? In fact I do believe there is quite a lot of people that have sent him dust or coins over the years. If somehow he decides to move this lot of coins to an exchange are people somehow going to make a distinction between his original coins and whatever amount that was sent to him by these clowns? Of course no because they can't! This effectively demonstrates that your logic does not hold. The market could careless whatever coin Satoshi decides to move, it is not the coins that matter because THEY ARE INDEED FUNGIBLE. It is their owner's decision that has a psychological impact on the market because they can identify ownership through the public ledger. Let's say we pretend that somehow someone is able to tie Satoshi's identity to a wallet/coins from...2013. Surely you would agree that the psychological impact on the market would be the same whether he decides to move these coins to BitStamp or the "original" ones. Your "famous painting" example is downright stupid. If these would end up on my doorstep tomorrow one could only wonder who the fuck was stupid enough to pull off such a move and collectors all over the world will be willing to purchase them back at auction. That is because art pieces are truly a collector's item. Every paintings are unique, not "mutually interchangeable" and cannot be replaced by even an identical copy. All of this is to say you are confusing privacy and traceability and somehow making this aspect of Bitcoin an indictment on its fungibility. Again, this is a mistake. What Monero offers is a baked-in solution for obfuscating the origins of every coin. Nothing more. Now you're betting the house that technology isn't going to allow practical and seamless ways to do the same using Bitcoin. I would personally wager to say the odds are against you. |
|
|
|
Does this seem rather expensive for what it does? It looks like a rasberry Pi, do you have demos or something, Why would I want this?
If you're asking the question then you probably don't want or need this. |
|
|
|
To the people in this thread suggesting that XT is an attack (or bad in some other way): is this because you think that we should only have one implementation of the protocol (Core), or do you support multiple implementations (just not XT)?  If Bitcoin XT would wreck their BIP101 project everyone would be fine with it. Sure, if someone wants to run blacklists and what not on their nodes who are we to stop them But right now they're trying to fork the protocol, that's a big no-no Me think it is just a question of time for it to happen. I hope your ass is ready. It will be a good show for sure. You mean create an altcoin? You do realize you little XT coup didn't succeed in garnering anything more than 10% nodes support? (if that) Yeah good luck with that The big players (no I'm not talking about the vulture capitalists and banking parasites) are perfectly fine with Bitcoin as it stands Call it an altcoin as much as you like. But what are you going to do when the major economic players will call their altcoin "bitcoin" to their mainstream customers? Can't wait for your answer.  Mainstream customers don't give a fuck about Bitcoin already You think that's gonna change because a couple of banks get together and start promoting it? "Here's FIATcoin, it's just like cash but we can trace it anywhere and seize it at our convenience. In exchange for whatever economic freedom you had left we'll give you.....ermm free transactions?" You know this thing exists already right? It's called Ripple. It hasn't fared so well Goddamn you're a genius aren't ya TIL brg444 thinks bitcoin will be a world reserve currency that the mainstream won’t care and the vulture capitalists and banking parasites will stay away. Somehow he manage to think bitcoin will go to the moon. lol k. Mainstream don't care about gold yet it's a trillion dollar asset. Explain that you smartass. Don't get me wrong, you and your consumers buddies will use bitcoins, just not its blockchain. Since you don't care about decentralization and censorship-resistance the banks are already setting things up for you and will welcome you with open arms. See here : www.circle.com ; www.coinbase.com. Gold is a trillion dollar asset because banking parasites hedge their worthless fiat with it. You know very well that I do care about decentralization and censorship-resistance of bitcoin but I also do believe the free market will keep it that way even with big blocks.
Small blocks and off chain solution is the best way to allow your banking parasites to use bitcoin off-chain with all the censorship you dislike while making the usage of the decentralized blockchain so expensive that you and me will not be able to use it. At that point, will you run a cheap node for them so they can settle their off-chain interbank transactions? Oh yes sure, the magic of the free market! Let's not stop anyone from cutting down the whole Amazon trees for pastures or w/e, the free-market will take care of it! No need for big game hunting regulations to protect endangered wildlife either! FREE MARKET! Environmental regulation? Pollution!? Who told you you could mess with my free market!? It's got this under control Seriously Do you even believe the stuff that you write? BTW if you weren't stupid enough to have sold your bitcoins you likely would've had enough to use it forever. Don't miss the chance to buy back cause then you might indeed be priced out Either way when LN, voting pools and other transactional layers will be up and running I won't think twice about using them. Do you realize how fucking inefficient and clumsy this Bitcoin blockchain is? Such a pity we're stuck with this (yes I do mean stuck as in: no, you don't get to change it "to make it more like VISA") |
|
|
|
To the people in this thread suggesting that XT is an attack (or bad in some other way): is this because you think that we should only have one implementation of the protocol (Core), or do you support multiple implementations (just not XT)? If Bitcoin XT would wreck their BIP101 project everyone would be fine with it. Sure, if someone wants to run blacklists and what not on their nodes who are we to stop them But right now they're trying to fork the protocol, that's a big no-no Me think it is just a question of time for it to happen. I hope your ass is ready. It will be a good show for sure. You mean create an altcoin? You do realize you little XT coup didn't succeed in garnering anything more than 10% nodes support? (if that) Yeah good luck with that The big players (no I'm not talking about the vulture capitalists and banking parasites) are perfectly fine with Bitcoin as it stands Call it an altcoin as much as you like. But what are you going to do when the major economic players will call their altcoin "bitcoin" to their mainstream customers? Can't wait for your answer. Mainstream customers don't give a fuck about Bitcoin already You think that's gonna change because a couple of banks get together and start promoting it? "Here's FIATcoin, it's just like cash but we can trace it anywhere and seize it at our convenience. In exchange for whatever economic freedom you had left we'll give you.....ermm free transactions?" You know this thing exists already right? It's called Ripple. It hasn't fared so well Goddamn you're a genius aren't ya TIL brg444 thinks bitcoin will be a world reserve currency that the mainstream won’t care and the vulture capitalists and banking parasites will stay away. Somehow he manage to think bitcoin will go to the moon. lol k. Mainstream don't care about gold yet it's a trillion dollar asset. Explain that you smartass. Don't get me wrong, you and your consumers buddies will use bitcoins, just not the Bitcoin blockchain. Since you don't care about decentralization and censorship-resistance it won't matter anyway. Lookahere, the banks are already setting up fancy little Bitcoin banks for you : www.circle.com ; www.coinbase.com. |
|
|
|
To the people in this thread suggesting that XT is an attack (or bad in some other way): is this because you think that we should only have one implementation of the protocol (Core), or do you support multiple implementations (just not XT)? If Bitcoin XT would wreck their BIP101 project everyone would be fine with it. Sure, if someone wants to run blacklists and what not on their nodes who are we to stop them But right now they're trying to fork the protocol, that's a big no-no Me think it is just a question of time for it to happen. I hope your ass is ready. It will be a good show for sure. You mean create an altcoin? You do realize you little XT coup didn't succeed in garnering anything more than 10% nodes support? (if that) Yeah good luck with that The big players (no I'm not talking about the vulture capitalists and banking parasites) are perfectly fine with Bitcoin as it stands Call it an altcoin as much as you like. But what are you going to do when the major economic players will call their altcoin "bitcoin" to their mainstream customers? Can't wait for your answer. "Here's FIATcoin, it's just like cash but we can trace it anywhere and seize it at our convenience. In exchange for whatever economic freedom you had left we'll give you.....ermm free transactions?" Mainstream consumer: "bu...bbbbut..but we had that already " |
|
|
|
To the people in this thread suggesting that XT is an attack (or bad in some other way): is this because you think that we should only have one implementation of the protocol (Core), or do you support multiple implementations (just not XT)? If Bitcoin XT would wreck their BIP101 project everyone would be fine with it. Sure, if someone wants to run blacklists and what not on their nodes who are we to stop them But right now they're trying to fork the protocol, that's a big no-no Me think it is just a question of time for it to happen. I hope your ass is ready. It will be a good show for sure. You mean create an altcoin? You do realize you little XT coup didn't succeed in garnering anything more than 10% nodes support? (if that) Yeah good luck with that The big players (no I'm not talking about the vulture capitalists and banking parasites) are perfectly fine with Bitcoin as it stands Call it an altcoin as much as you like. But what are you going to do when the major economic players will call their altcoin "bitcoin" to their mainstream customers? Can't wait for your answer. Mainstream customers don't give a fuck about Bitcoin already You think that's gonna change because a couple of banks get together and start promoting it? "Here's FIATcoin, it's just like cash but we can trace it anywhere and seize it at our convenience. In exchange for whatever economic freedom you had left we'll give you.....ermm free transactions?" You know this thing exists already right? It's called Ripple. It hasn't fared so well Goddamn you're a genius aren't ya |
|
|
|
Slow news week. This gadget is getting more attention than it deserves.
"I can't use this thing! It's worthless!"
"I don't understand the value, it's worthless!" |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
