|
... and yeah, the shorts smell desperate and think it is going to drop precipitously. Anything else you want to add chumps?
|
|
|
|
|
some power in that move showing in a harbinger for the new year ... chinese yuan market and stocks are getting increasingly chaotic, bitcoin reaping the whirlwind?
|
|
|
|
...
One of the reasons I started this thread was to invite lots of ideas. Armstrong HAS ideas that you do not see in very many places.
I like guys like Rickards* & Dent as well. They too have ideas.
And for me, that's what I want. After lots of reading, I will make up my own mind on whose ideas I like the best.
We all have to choose our own way.
* * *
* Rickards did make a serious error on Page 274 in his book The Death of Money.
A 747 cannot hold 150 tonnes (two 747s carrying 150 tonnes each to Japan) of gold, especially on its UPPER DECK. 3 - 5 tonnes maybe. Whoops.
A 747-400ERF freighter has max. payload of approx. 112 metric tons. The max. take-off weight is approx 412 metric tons. Some fuel can be substituted for additional payload depending on range required, etc. |
|
|
|
|
... above 600 by end of march.
|
|
|
|
As/when the blocks fill up with real demand then the empty blocks will start getting used because the fees will incentivise the miners to develop more efficient software that will queue profitable enough waiting transactions to be mined immediately into the next block. You need to leave them in for your analysis ...
Nope. Because the reason for mining empty blocks is that the miner does not, at the time, have enough information to mine a valid block with transactions from the mempool. It's fiendishly clever. So the miner is mining purely for the block reward because that is all that is available for that short period of time. Which incentive only goes away when the block reward does. I think you are wrong but don't have time or inclination to go into the gory details of mining strategies and the reasons for empty blocks arising ... basically if the fee levels are "profitable enough", i.e. near to the level of reward/1MByte, then the miner who found the most recent block will most likely not mine an empty block, if there are such TX still queued in the mempool (this miner has all the information needed to build a valid block from mempool and is the one most likely to be mining empty blocks right now). |
|
|
|
|
As/when the blocks fill up with real demand then the empty blocks will start getting used because the fees will incentivise the miners to develop more efficient software that will queue profitable enough waiting transactions to be mined immediately into the next block. You need to leave them in for your analysis ...
|
|
|
|
In a way you right, but also wrong.
Yes bitcoin, don't need a country to use it. But remember bitcoin is about transactoins too. And imagine how much governements can safe on fees while using bitcoin Do you really think that any government can change their currency to some internet money which they can't have control over? Their central bank wouldn't print more money, they give their whole economy to the hands of Bitcoin speculators. That doesn't make sense at all. Your premise for this grand claim is that the government control the people instead of the people controlling government, i.e. you're a priori assuming a facististic, communistic or other authoritarian system of governance to enforce fiat central bank currencies. |
|
|
|
Currently the network node operators are overwhelmingly supporting 1MByte block limits
Upon what do you base this bald assertion? Currently any block greater than 1MByte will be rejected as invalid by the vast majority of nodes. |
|
|
|
I just want to point out that that the beginning of this move was set off by a 2K coin bid wall on OKcoin. So this still is some hope left for wall observation if you look closely.
I also noted a big uptick in bear trolling preceded the up move also, short squeeze might be a big part of it. The usual bigblock whinging and complaining seems to be cat-to-kick go to for sold out bulls and poor-loser shorts. |
|
|
|
You can't grab power you already have. Gavin was lead developer and shepherded Bitcoin into where it is today. Satoshi himself gave him the reins. it's the other core developers who are grabbing power, but I guess that's how you spin propaganda. Claim the opposition is guilty of the very sin you are committing. That 1 MB limit was a temporary kludge included when bitcoin had NO monetary value and was useful only then. Gavin knew that and has been trying to get rid of it for years. This fee market is just rent-seeking and it will keep Bitcoin a financial backwater if it is left in place.
Gavin had already long stood down as lead maintainer when he pushed his hard fork to the XT repo. Wladimir vander Laan has been chief maintainer since Sept. 2014. Trying to rewrite history is plain deception or just lying. Gavin made some major mistakes (notably BIP 16/17 and BIP 70) in his time but was an adequate caretaker for the tumultuous time Bitcoin went through while he was contributing. The fee market will develop because the node operators want it to. They will raise the limit when the fees they pay for THEIR OWN transactions naturally incentivises them to want to ... that is the in-built incentive mechanism to stop fees going to infinity as the doom-mongers and catastrophic-cliff screamers will try to scare you with. This system has been designed very well, the built-in incentive structures will only become apparent as it fully ramps up and comes on-line. We are still in the commissioning phase, just relax and watch if you don't feel like you can understand everything that is happening. |
|
|
|
-snip-
The block limit is the technological limit that constrains the on-chain capacity, the arise of fees is the free market reaction.
People representing 90% of global hashrate disagreed during their panel in HK. The idea that 1MB, "scaling" up to 1.75MB equiv with the gradual rollout of segwit, well into 2017... is the technological limit? That's BS and you know it. The important part of their plan is that hard forks remain "controversial". Currently the network node operators are overwhelmingly supporting 1MByte block limits, so that is the reality of the technological limit on the network today. How that changes in the future is the subject of much debate, as you well know. I was attempting to get causality straight in BJA's mind. You have to admit that Core has a certain sort of inertia. There's a big chunk of operators still plugging along on previous versions of Core. I also haven't seen an alternative that has the level of ongoing support that I'm comfortable with... so far. I really had high hopes for some kind of good will compromise between the opposing forces (ala garzik), bringing us back together with a common purpose... but it appears that is not going to be the case. Yes, there is a huge amount of inertia and for a very good reason, that is very organic and was to be expected if you have the right experience. Most people will not be aware that actual operational software in critical infrastructure changes very slowly, much slower than bitcoin Core (which is very high risk by comparison but it is still 'beta'). 90% of fortune 500 companies run RedHat operating systems on their back-office servers and they have very long term support for old versions for those reasons. Apparently the Banks still have some COBOL code running on old mainframes that still do the actual monetary-base and settlement calculations, so-called "green screen" functions because they are too scared to touch it. Nuclear power plants and oil-rig safety shutdown systems that include software hardly ever make changes to their code after it has been commissioned and the plant "goes live" with active material. It takes committees of programmers and managers poring over every line to get even the simplest changes into an active system. The disconnect between what is happening here and what the public have been told to "want to happen" is astounding for anybody with any experience in high-risk industrial software systems. The bitcoin protocol is almost complete now and will hardly ever change from now or else it will risk catastrophic failure. It is just very, very unfortunate that Gavin and Hearn "went there" with the whole hard fork MAD power grab, against the vast majority of the development community's technically better judgement and in an entirely reckless manner for critical infrastructure software management. |
|
|
|
-snip-
The block limit is the technological limit that constrains the on-chain capacity, the arise of fees is the free market reaction.
People representing 90% of global hashrate disagreed during their panel in HK. The idea that 1MB, "scaling" up to 1.75MB equiv with the gradual rollout of segwit, well into 2017... is the technological limit? That's BS and you know it. The important part of their plan is that hard forks remain "controversial". Currently the network node operators are overwhelmingly supporting 1MByte block limits, so that is the reality of the technological limit on the network today. How that changes in the future is the subject of much debate, as you well know. I was attempting to get causality straight in BJA's mind. |
|
|
|
Nobody has responded to the most relevant part: Previous periods of full blocks didn't have as many people who NEEDED not just wanted the network to work. The more people who NEED it to work, the more vulnerable it is to a spam attack. The blocksize limit is an effective way to not just keep bitcoin small, but to keep it unimportant. only about 40% of current TX "need" the network to work. There's plenty of fat to chop away and the spam goes down and gets more costly as fees go up, gosh darn, think about that! You are not differentiating small legitimate transactions from hostile transactions. What I am saying is that when you get rid of the small legit xactions, the chain still fiils up with large legit transactions as bitcoin grows until it becomes vulnerable to a hostile attack. Those small legit transactions are acting as a buffer and you want to get rid of them. ... there is no way to differentiate between "small legit transactions" and fee-paying spam if they pay the same fee, so no, there is no 'buffer' as you are imagining. And you are thinking all upside-down. Nobody wants "to get rid of" TX ... for the last 6 years free transactions (and yes, abundant spam) have been tolerated and given gold-plated security that only the bitcoin blockchain can provide. At some point, the network becomes saturated because the demand for gold-plated bitcoin TX will for the foreseeable future overcome the network's technological constraints and ability to supply it ... so now the question is "what price?", hence fees. The block limit is the technological limit that constrains the on-chain capacity, the arise of fees is the free market reaction. |
|
|
|
Nobody has responded to the most relevant part: Previous periods of full blocks didn't have as many people who NEEDED not just wanted the network to work. The more people who NEED it to work, the more vulnerable it is to a spam attack. The blocksize limit is an effective way to not just keep bitcoin small, but to keep it unimportant. only about 40% of current TX "need" the network to work. There's plenty of fat to chop away and the spam goes down and gets more costly as fees go up, gosh darn, think about that! |
|
|
|
Governments and central banks could kill Bitcoin for weeks with pocket change, just to ensure it never provides a better value than SWIFT, ACH, Western Union or whatever. A tiny fraction of the War on Drugs Budget and the War on Terroism budget could make Bitcoin as unreliable as a third world power grid.
... probably not a smart move for nation-state backed actors to get into protracted blockchain wars with a loose international coalition of anarchistic hackers .... just saying. They want to paint a big, fat, ripe target on the current centralised bloated financial systems, well tit-for-tat may not look so pretty for centralised bloatware coming out the other side. Run your "nash equilibrium" BS up that flag pole? |
|
|
|
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=12156.msg169810#msg169810While I share the belief that bitcoin or something very like it will play a major role in the future, I think the road there is going to be a lot rougher.
I imagine we will see a huge boom then a bust, after that those who stick around will build the meaning full economy that will allow bitcoin or its successor to dominate.
I don't care about the busts. I am riding this pig wherever it takes me. If it tanks, I'll have a helluva story to tell. I'm sick of half measures. I'm swinging for the fences and If I strike out, so be it. I won't be some mediocre drone living a life of quiet desperation. I believe in bitcoin and I'm going for broke, knowing the risks. I wonder how much they paid him for his account? Or his soul? Yeah, that was me. I had no idea there was a scaling problem back then. The problem with economics isn't that some people are good and others are bad like physics. The problem is that those who are ignorant of economics are ignorant of their ignorance. Smart people are the worst because they think being smart at something like programming means they know economics better, but they don't. I'm not leaving bitcoin. Bitcoin is leaving me. No regrets. Thanks for buying my coins at 50X what I paid for them, suckers. Not sure how you missed the scaling challenge bitcoin faces ... it was queried on the very first mailing list when it was announced. Probably you missed it, like you have missed all the amazing work done so far to address it incrementally by people mostly working voluntarily over the years. Now they are actually getting paid for their hard efforts the knives come out and all the bludgers and wannabe governors pile on like the bunch of low-life, coward neer-do-wells they are. It is not really an economic problem in as much as it is a technical security problem, economists are totally lost with bitcoin, you wont even find one who thinks it is a meritorious idea, mostly they are just political philosophers who can sometimes do some maths. Sell me all you got sucker, where we're going we don't need opportunistic pig-riders or innumerate idiots who can't count but feel the need to spout ignorance 24/7 on forums. |
|
|
|
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=12156.msg169810#msg169810While I share the belief that bitcoin or something very like it will play a major role in the future, I think the road there is going to be a lot rougher.
I imagine we will see a huge boom then a bust, after that those who stick around will build the meaning full economy that will allow bitcoin or its successor to dominate.
I don't care about the busts. I am riding this pig wherever it takes me. If it tanks, I'll have a helluva story to tell. I'm sick of half measures. I'm swinging for the fences and If I strike out, so be it. I won't be some mediocre drone living a life of quiet desperation. I believe in bitcoin and I'm going for broke, knowing the risks. I wonder how much they paid him for his account? Or his soul?
|
|
|
|
I'm very upset with you people. Are we sticking all the unbanked in payment channels??
.... do you even know what a payment channel is? Do I know what a payment channel is? DO I KNOW WHAT A PAYMENT CHANNEL IS?!? ... you know I had you with benefit of the doubt for the longest time, on the odd occasion you say something vaguely interesting but generally keep a low level of snark, just below the level of ignore radar ... too bad for you that you stuck your head up today ... ignored. |
|
|
|
I'm very upset with you people. Are we sticking all the unbanked in payment channel??
.... do you even know what a payment channel is? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
