|
maybe an infographic will help.. 1 min
|
|
|
|
Perhaps at $10000 you will consider it a store of value rather than a processor.
You're just being irrationally biased now. Everyone knows metals are more fungible, more anti-fragile, and less counter party risk. This means Bitcoin can never dethrone metals as a store of value or hope to compete with them on Exter's pyramid. If you're acting as a settlement layer, you're attempting to compete with metals as a store of value and Bitcoin CANNOT do it. This means Bitcoin has to derive value more from raw transaction flow and being a payment processor instead. This is why I think Bitcoin probably doesn't have a value proposition without large scaling. The lightning network claims to be able to do that, but I'm not convinced it can do so in a decentralized manner when economy of scale already forces centralization in the base bitcoin network in the first place. Bitcoin did not "solve" the decentralization problem. Bitcoin is a centralization problem waiting for someone to solve it. As for solving that centralization problem, to do so you would likely need to engineer it so it's impossible to practice usury in bitcoin. The only way I can think of to do that is either unprofitable PoW (which probably can't work in practice), or by some really exotic system of decentralized captchas where anyone attempting to solve blocks requires manual human intervention and can't be automated on cruise control via CPUs as I talked about in the thread below. You cannot have decentralization without engineering bitcoin so automated usury is impossiblehttps://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1700073.0Whether you believe "god" is a person, quantum fluctuation, whatever, metals are a blockchain created by "god"; bitcoin is a blockchain created by people. The blockchain created by people can never compete because it will always have more flaws or side channel attacks that render it useless. I have a feeling anything blockchain related will forever be a Rube Goldberg machine that claims to accomplish some type of task, but in reality fails to accomplish that task (decentralization) while doing it an extremely complicated manner. point me to the central authority which governs bitcoin TX, or stfu. |
|
|
|
  if you've been around long enough this gif is extra funny |
|
|
|
What the price would be if there is no Bitcoin scaling in next 5 years? 1BTC = 1LTC this is what happens with 5 years of bitcoin stagnation |
|
|
|
Most Core developers but also many experts outside the Core community believe that it's important we keep nodes relatively cheap to run in order to keep the most important aspect of Bitcoin which is decentralization.
the problem comes when we try to define "relatively cheep". BU says " just let the network of nodes define what is acceptable " what's the problem with that? if 1MB is the magic number the network will reflect that. That sounds exploitable to me, these things can be gamed if you let nodes or miners set the limit themselves. Let's just first safely increase the limit through Segwit and see from there. What's wrong with doing that? i guess LTC might be generous enough to provide some hard data. i dont mind segwit + LN, actually i'd prefer it as a hard fork so all aspects can be simpler/robust. basically i want my cake and eat it too. BU sized blocks with segwit TX fix. most importantly i'd like to see healthy competition of ideas for all future BIPS, i feel there is somthing dangerous about 1 team getting all the "political power". |
|
|
|
core nodes are bugged. 1MB = 1024KB. not 1000KB this caused them to orphen a block that was less than 1MB  |
|
|
|
Most Core developers but also many experts outside the Core community believe that it's important we keep nodes relatively cheap to run in order to keep the most important aspect of Bitcoin which is decentralization.
the problem comes when we try to define "relatively cheep". BU says " just let the network of nodes define what is acceptable " what's the problem with that? if 1MB is the magic number the network will reflect that. |
|
|
|
its time we face the music, we must split the blockchain, its the only way, there can be no consensus, we must agree to disagree, and part ways amicably.
So, what are you waiting for?  the fork. Then make it happen by following your candidate, and let everyone happily do so. You can even support both candidates if you feel like it, unlike in an election. How cool is that? yes i know, very cool. |
|
|
|
its time we face the music, we must split the blockchain, its the only way, there can be no consensus, we must agree to disagree, and part ways amicably.
So, what are you waiting for? the fork. |
|
|
|
|
its time we face the music, we must split the blockchain, its the only way, there can be no consensus, we must agree to disagree, and part ways amicably.
|
|
|
|
Oh gawd ... when did this place become infested with the BU idiots again?!! FFS.
It's a walking disaster, a true shit show in terms of network systems thinking and an even worse fuck-up in terms of software implementation.
When will you guys grow a brain and at some point and leave that fucking huge shillfest mess behind already?!
Word! Too bad they are using Bitcoin-Mainnet as a Testbed for thair so called "alternative implementation" piece of shit. effective blocksize + relying on LN working out is using Mainnet as a Testbed too? Sorry but Segwit has been tested excessively on Bitcoin Testnet and an seperate network... and it does not even introduce such serious changes to bitcoin like BU does. BU changes the consensus mechanism, maybe the most important part of bitcoin ... if you believe consensus mechanism = hardcoded limits you're too far gone to be saved. |
|
|
|
Oh gawd ... when did this place become infested with the BU idiots again?!! FFS.
It's a walking disaster, a true shit show in terms of network systems thinking and an even worse fuck-up in terms of software implementation.
When will you guys grow a brain and at some point and leave that fucking huge shillfest mess behind already?!
Word! Too bad they are using Bitcoin-Mainnet as a Testbed for thair so called "alternative implementation" piece of shit. effective blocksize + relying on LN working out is using Mainnet as a Testbed too? |
|
|
|
when the gr8 chain-segregation comes, and it will come! make sure you're hodling. its gana get nutty in here soon, if your plan isn't to bunker down with ALL the bitcoins, you're gonna have a bad time.  |
|
|
|
Block #450691 Relayed By Bitcoin.com  |
|
|
|
It is just another orphaned block.
You are wrong here, either intentionally or ignorant of the situation. Namely, the miner loses out on the subsidy + fees and any transactions not already included in a block are put back in the mempool. Nobody gets hurt except the miner who found the block. No wrong and wrong again ... any miner who runs BU >1MByte is wasting electricity and resources on every hash they do ... they are buying tickets for a lottery that doesn't exist. BU is a radioactive mess, anyone who touches it is getting burned and sick. In a way they deserve it, but assholes like you who shill for BU deserve a special place in BU's hell of its own making. You should set up a BU mining farm, to show us all how dedicated to the cause you are ... pit all your money, time and resources into the biggest losing proposition in bitcoin, do it! how many BU blocks will be mined tomorrow tho? how many BU blocks were mined today?! |
|
|
|
Oh gawd ... when did this place become infested with the BU idiots again?!! FFS.
It's a walking disaster, a true shit show in terms of network systems thinking and an even worse fuck-up in terms of software implementation.
When will you guys grow a brain and at some point and leave that fucking huge shillfest mess behind already?!
maybe you're right. maybe its best that consensus rules are enforced by limiting the options nodes have, when it comes to the software they choose to run. all hail core, they are the bitcoin gods, they determine what is bitcoin and what's good for it. what could go wrong? |
|
|
|
try to disprove my theory
I can tell you why Roger Ver... sooo you're telling me you can't discredit my stupid post. but Ver... |
|
|
|
I am also of the understanding that seg wit is a much better solution for a lot of matters and should be the next step, rather than rushing into BU when there does not really appear to be a need for it, not at the moment.. and seg wit is a better next step (at this time).
you have it backward. they are rushing segwit and all its glory, when it is the thing that is not needed. Clearly a system to govern all futher block size increases is nessary, in fact we could use such a system to stabilize the fee market right now. you can go with a silly static block size with some kind of predetermined growth rate. but that being adopted doesn't really mean anything, the responsibility to agree to and enforce (or not) is up to nodes. Nodes ultimately have the power, BU only recognizes that power, thats all. |
|
|
|
::)an extra 21 bytes unfortunately found by a BU minning pool. hmmm, no comment. Even though I think that you are an adorable penquin turned martian, it is too bad that you are spreading around nonsense.... and also attempting to distract from seg wit as a robust solution that brings lots of great and innovative tweaks to bitcoin. Many of us should recognize that bitcoin unlimited is largely nonsense, lacking in testing, and does not resolve any current issues, at least in terms of providing additional robustness to bitcoin - in the sense that bitcoin is likely to be a target for many years to come of governments and/or financial institutions that would aim to undermine bitcoin.. and seg wit would be a good solution to seal up various potential vulnerabilities while BU would create additional vulnerabilities, while not really resolving anything that is currently necessary of resolution. can you stick to valid arguments, and try to disprove my theory that its in the miners best interests to maintain fee pressure, in order to maximize fee revenue, and this will keep blocksize growth proportional to real TX demand. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
and he has written up a nice little post about what a kind of fee market we could expect from a BU network.
