|
independent team
decentralised core
singular diverse client
|
|
|
|
|
the thing you got to realise is those using the 'drivechain' would do so because of some reason they wont want to stick with bitcoin.
also the purpose of drive chain is to have a SEPARATE ledger so that it does not clog up peoples computers.(crybabies 2mb=gigabytes by midnight facepalming fud)
EG the drivechain and BS guys prefer to have many chains of EG 4 chains of 2mb rather than 1 chain of 8mb.
so all those cry babies that dont want dynamic blocks ('bigger blocks') and want to stick with 1-2mb blocks by using drivechains, are not going to be the guys that will be running 2 nodes. other wise their hard drives will still be filling up by MORE than 2mb every ~10mins.. if they were to run all the chains.. thus dfeating the point in having the drive chain facility..
if those cry babies did run both.. then what is the friggen point in crying about bitcoins mainnet growing bigger than 2mb!! because the result would be more than 2mb of data per average block period, and all the bandwidth that goes along with it by running both.
you got to think about the psychology of it all and not just the hope/moral of protecting bitcoin many hope others have (but most usually dont)
|
|
|
|
but as i mentioned above if some services only transact with (in YOUR!! scenario of continents) continent X. then they wont care/need to protect something they are not using and will only protect what they do use..
No. Because all drivechains are two-way-pegged to the Bitcoin main chain, without Bitcoin their tokens would be worth nothing (or at least, much less than with a working peg). Businesses and people that are aware of that relation will run a full Bitcoin main chain node to protect their whole investment. once the pegged swap is done.. the transactions on another chain will only be held on that other chains ledger/database. so users wont care much for protecting a bitcoins chain, which they dont transact on any longer. remember people mainly run a full node to see when their transactions arrive and fully validate the transactions they hold as the main selfish/personal concern.. the moral/ethics of 'protecting the network' is more of an afterthought.. not the priority. this is why you see many full nodes not running for months on end. and only running for a few hours to resync and see their own new totals when they want to transact.. so thats why my mindset is that the psychology of full node users is predominantly about personal use and network protect is the after thought. not the other way round also the amount of merchants/businesses is not 7000 nodes. but more like a couple hundred nodes. so like i said there will still be some that run 2 nodes.. but there would be a noticable drop of full node bitcoin count.. again not large 100% drop or 80% drop but a noticable drop. im personally less concerned of the node count drop due to 'drivechain'. and more concerned with a nodecount drop due to the cesspit of all the stripped, prunned nodes leaching(torrent analogy) the network vs the amount of true seed(torrent analogy) full archival nodes I estimate that drivechains will lead to a growth of use cases (because of the lower fees) and thus a usage growth in Bitcoin, because de facto they are a capacity increase. So it's very unlikely the full node number will go down - it is possible that it will grow slower than before, but in my opinion it will not grow slower as in the scenario of a big-block Bitcoin because full nodes would be much less costly, as I outlined in my previous posts.
it all depends on what features/differences these altcoins offer.. yea ya i know you prefer to call them drive chains. but im more of a realist.. its a pegged altcoin concept |
|
|
|
i see it more like .. using your 'continent'/country analogy and expanding it.
its like 7 altcoins once you convert from bitcoin to lets say the EU altcoin.. people in the EU will stick to only give a crap about the EU altcoin. and thus wont be going back and forth to bitcoin. they would just trade using the EU altcoin and thus wont be running a bitcoin node and only running a EU node
First: Why would they use the geographical drivechain? Because the transaction fees would be much lower. i have no clue why you decided to go with an example of 7 continents... ask yourself why you used that example!!! if you were asking more generally what are the advantages of drive chains at all... then yes Africacoin may have super low fee's compared to americacoin. who knows what different features each altcoin (drivechain) will offer Now: Why would they also use a Bitcoin node? I think if the main chain is small enough they won't have a problem running it as a (probably pruned) full node. Probably there would be people which only would run the Drivechain node. But these are also the people that tend to run light nodes anyway.
1. if they are not transacting on the main CHAIN they they wont run the main chain.. EG those that move from litecoin to bitcoin, dont bother running a litecoin node, because they are not using litecoin. so if they start ONLY TRANSACTING on continent chain X, they will have less need to have 2 nodes running. 2. im not saying everyone will have this mindset. but SOME will.. which will dilute the full node count.. then with all the -nowitness -prunned options also dilute the full node count. making bitcoin weaker. again im not saying 100% drop nor 80% drop.. but enough of a drop to mak people realise the network has become less secure than before. People and businesses concerned about the security of the system and concious about the advantages of full nodes - these that run Full Nodes presently - would very probably run also a Bitcoin node to be able to verify and strengthen the integrity of the system. but as i mentioned above if some services only transact with (in YOUR!! scenario of continents) continent X. then they wont care/need to protect something they are not using and will only protect what they do use.. so again SOME may stop running bitcoin nodes if all their customer base was purely continent X transacting.. but as i said it wont be a 100% drop of bitcoin.. but a noticable impact |
|
|
|
those that want to hop between chains are not going to want to sync to the different chain.. so these people wont be full node runners anyway.
making the side chain weak Not necessarily. Imagine the following scenario: - There is a main chain as settlement layer (Oh, I named the Antichrist  ). - 6 Drivechains, each for one of the major continents, to be used in brick and mortar stores and online stores that sell material goods and operate in a geographical area. We have now 7 chains. Let's say we have a transaction count that would fill for 7 MB blocks and that every chain has 1 MB blocks. Average Joe normally would only have to use two of these chains (main chain + continental chain), so he would have to sync 2 MB every 10 minutes. So he would have to do only less than a third of the syncronization work, than if he was using a competitor with 7 MB blocks and the same capacity. So he probably could afford a full node even with today's consumer hardware. This scenario ("geographical sidechains") is only an example. There could be other kinds of "specializations" for Drivechains (e.g. a B2B chain, a smart contract chain like RSK, a remittances chain ...). secondly those that used to run bitcoin nodes see the bitcoin chain utility diminish meaning all they are holding is a big bag of LTXO which will make them want to turn off their full node too..
I don't see how Drivechains could affect them. They would run the main chain and a set of preferred drive chains and would also have lesser to store & validate, like in the first example. i see it more like .. using your 'continent'/country analogy and expanding it. its like 7 altcoins once you convert from bitcoin to lets say the EU altcoin.. people in the EU will stick to only give a crap about the EU altcoin. and thus wont be going back and forth to bitcoin. they would just trade using the EU altcoin and thus wont be running a bitcoin node and only running a EU node |
|
|
|
|
adam back although writing code for the 2014 segwit altcoin. he has not been a direct coder for bitcoin
he should have no say at all in anything bitcoin.
but atleast the puppeteer is revealing his puppet strings
anyone suggesting bitcoin should be high TX fee has obvious BScartel involvement. and yes bruce fenton the organiser of the BS cartel funded round tables had already been spotted years ago as part of that crew of bitcoin dismantlers
|
|
|
|
|
they now know people are willing to pay $2..
so if they push onchain upto $100 they can then let their LN hubs offer $1 a 'payment' to help repay their $75mill debt faster..
while still proclaiming LN is 100x cheaper than onchain..
its tooo obvious
barry and alan silbert are getting very itchy feet and wanting to start getting returns on their investments in the BS cartel
|
|
|
|
here is the reasons not to call bitcoin "digital gold"
1. golds value is not stable/ holding value, simply because it hold value..... it hold value because it has utility.
2. golds utility is not the same as bitcoins utility.
3. by calling bitcoin digital gold... next make stupid people think bitcoin is a commodity because gold is a commodity.
4. gold sits in many categories. asset and commodity. a commodity is a raw material of measurable stable quality used to create other products
bitcoin is not a raw material. bitcoin is not used to make other products. bitcoin will not sit on the same market as wheat, oil and gold
5. gold as an asset still has utility, a purpose, a function... its the utility, purpose function that give value.
take away its utility, purpose, function.. it will not hold value..
put it this way.
if there was a metal eating bacteria. that could turn gold into rust.. (making it useless in industry).. would golds price increase due to supply depleting (scarcity) or price drop due to no one wanting to buy something that will turn to rust in 6 months.
and this guy below suffers from number 3. I don't see it as gold but it's very close to a commodity in the way we use it (the majority of us, who are holding) at least, Even though it is money in a way and can be used as a currency but the majority hold it as an investment.
.... asset currency young grass-hopper.. not commodity take away bitcoins utility and bitcoin becomes digital rust |
|
|
|
|
lol
comparing paypals exit terms to bitcoins internal use is silly.
i can send funds to someone else IN paypal in seconds.
i can send funds to someone else IN bitcoin in 10mins-3days.
i can request a fiat withdrawal from paypal to bank. 3-5 business days
i can request a fiat withdrawal from bitcoin to bank. 3-5 business days
if you are going to do a fair comparison... then make sure the comparison is accurate
Eg dont use internal use vs external use
|
|
|
|
Oh damn, I think you watch too much punish porn, maybe while in the sky as it seems you are traveling very much often, be rich and have no concern right?
Could you clarify, how could devs force miners and nodes to do anything, I mean how exactly?
Why BU changed their proposal name to EC?
Who is manipulating the minds of the community now? did you think changing BU to EC will legitimize the proposal and effects people's mindset since BU was infamous among people?
devs removed the fee priority formulae devs changed to a tx relay min cost and estimated fee mechanisms that if you had a damn spread sheet you could run scenarios that show fee's rise even while there is low demand. so even if pool's had a block that accepted under X.. the fee estimates and other mechanisms still push the fee's up.. not down this was all stuff added that didnt need full consensus to achieve. which is why people are so angry. the fee rules have changed and people had no choice/chance to veto. nor did they even realise it was happening until it was too late. we need to stop allowing dev's to just do crap that can be slid in without consensus
as for the BU stuff even before BU many people wanted bigger blocks, dynamic blocks etc. but it was BU that really hit the headlines and got all the conversations flowing. EC and dynamic proposals existed before during and continually... but its only now people are realising that the EC(dynamics) is much bigger debate than just brand shaming BU. however from what i can see. BU is still BU.. from what i can see BU is using a buzzword ABC (adjustable blocksize cap) which is along the same lines as EC.. but EC(dynamics) is not a BU product. dynamics is a concept that MANY brands/implementations can offer but atleast people are starting to see the concept of onchain scale growth using EC(dynamics), is much bigger than a single 'brand' |
|
|
|
And that is not true. Come to Africa and we will convince you to use bitcoin. I am an African, precisely Nigeria and I know the rate at which bitcoin is going viral down here. Everyday, people ask questions about bitcoin and I have never seen a week that I haven't discussed bitcoin anywhere I find myself. Wanna check out the payment systems exchanging bitcoin to my currency everyday? You have no idea. I don't know why you must have mentioned that but that notion is totally wrong.
are you inner city talking to the rich.. or actually talking to normal people. people 'discussing/asking about bitcoin' is different than people USING bitcoin how many have actually used bitcoin (without hoarding in exchanges) to notice the tx fee to move funds is more than some people weeks wage. i have spoken to many people in many countries.. they love the premiss of bitcoin, its original ethos and ideology, but when it comes to actually using it. they start to notice the flaws. the only people that then continue to want bitcoin are those too afraid to cash out or too greedy to cash out due to hopes of 'becoming rich' in the future. bitcoin has lost all its ideology as a currency and 3rd world/developing countries are usually first to point out this fact once they get passed the sales pitch and start using it. finding its not a 'daily life' currency like Mpesa. but instead a retirement plan it seems even you yourself recognise the issues Bitcoin is gradually becoming non-affordable for lower class for transaction purposes unless they just want to buy very little and keep as an investment. Moreover, the very little one can buy from most exchange sites, is still a bit on the high side. Also, transaction fees are increasing by the day, which is quite appalling. Best way to just get bitcoin now for lower masses is just to partake in stuffs that makes them earn bitcoin if they are well informed enough. So back to his question! In a way it is available to all levels of society and in a way it isn't.
|
|
|
|
I agree with your basic premise, but there is also the idea that we are not going to tell each other what to do with our money. That is the hard part about freedom. Freedom is not when you get to do what you want. It is when you are willing to allow others to do what you don't want them to do.
rodeox its not about telling people what they can do or not do with their money... its about waking people up to the fact that while some people are only looking at the price.. devs are screwing with the code and reducing what people can do with their money. im sure you will see this when you visit africa and realise that trying to convince africans to use bitcoin is alot harder than trying to convince the icelandics |
|
|
|
|
i feel that the whole bitcoin gold metaphor got lost in a game of 'whispers'..
EG
one guy says to another
bitcoins asset value is kind of like golds asset value because it has utility and scarcity which gives it a public desire value. different utility ofcourse
one guy says to another
bitcoins asset value is kind of like golds asset value because it has utility and scarcity which gives it a public desire value
one guy says to another
bitcoins asset value is like golds asset value because it has utility and scarcity which gives it a public desire value
one guy says to another
bitcoins value is like golds value because it has utility and scarcity which gives it a public desire value
one guy says to another
bitcoins is like gold because it has utility and scarcity which gives it a public desire value
one guy says to another
bitcoins is gold because it has utility and scarcity which gives it a public desire value
one guy says to another
bitcoins is gold because it has scarcity which gives it a public desire value
one guy says to another
bitcoins is gold because it has scarcity which gives it value
one guy says to another
bitcoins is gold because it has value
|
|
|
|
|
here is the reasons not to call bitcoin "digital gold"
1. golds value is not stable/ holding value, simply because it hold value..... it hold value because it has utility.
2. golds utility is not the same as bitcoins utility.
3. by calling bitcoin digital gold... next make stupid people think bitcoin is a commodity because gold is a commodity.
4. gold sits in many categories. asset and commodity. a commodity is a raw material of measurable stable quality used to create other products
bitcoin is not a raw material. bitcoin is not used to make other products. bitcoin will not sit on the same market as wheat, oil and gold
5. gold as an asset still has utility, a purpose, a function... its the utility, purpose function that give value.
take away its utility, purpose, function.. it will not hold value..
put it this way.
if there was a metal eating bacteria. that could turn gold into rust.. (making it useless in industry).. would golds price increase due to supply depleting (scarcity) or price drop due to no one wanting to buy something that will turn to rust in 6 months.
without utility scarcity is meaningless.
pretending bitcoin will hold value even if utility is lost is just foolish people trying to fool other people.
we should be fighting to keep bitcoins utility growing.. not fighting to let bitcoins utility die and then try fooling people into pretending it will hold value.. thats just greedy people not wanting to protect what gives bitcoin real value(utility) and only want to fool people long enough so they themselves can get greedy profits before running off.
whats next selling ice to Eskimo's at a premium by calling ice gold3.0 due to climate change making ice more scarce?
TL:DR;
instead of wasting months trying to slap fools into thinking that bitcoin only needs scarcity.. how about get off your asses and try slapping a few devs around until they make bitcoin better with PROPER dynamic onchain scaling.. and stop removing bitcoin utility and trying to sell people commercialising services of the future.. like what LN managed hubs and managed sidechains will turn out to be.
|
|
|
|
|
lol
store of value 'coz' store of value
(facepalm) such an empty argument
gold is not a store of value because its a store of value.
gold is a store of value because it has utility to uphold the value.
take away gold utility for being a good material for industry and fashion.. and all you have left is a chunk of metal
chunk of metal vs chunk of metal. ask yourself why is gold better than platinum
take away bitcoins utility for being a good network for transactions.. and all you have left is a chunk of data
fiat is a store of value because it has laws that make it have utility of value of being a $10 bank note is worth 1 hour 20 minutes minimum wage
take away the fiat laws of utility and all you have left is a chunk of paper
just screaming "store of value" is meaningless without showing knowing WHY where and how that value came to be and what upholds that value
|
|
|
|
but has many of the same attributes and thus gets referred to as digital gold. Sheesh.
name them!! but name them with the real understanding of where those attributes come from and have value remember. scarcity of something useless has no meaning... scarcity of something useful has meaning |
|
|
|
This is what I noticed though lately. It has become a a place where a particular group of people choose to enjoy themselves (rich) and the average joe to suffer because of the transaction fee's. It is still borderless but it came to be very difficult now to used. We can't blame ordinary people looking for other choices for a fast and cheap transaction fee.
put it this way i have a good hoard of coins.. but even i can see that bitcoin has changed by the BScartel since 2014. i sympathise with 3rd world countries where their real world wage for a WEEK is less than a single bitcoin tx fee. yet as rodeoX points out. its down to greed. the greedy are narrow minded and dont care for others, nor are they sympathetic, empathetic. the greedy cant even imagine a life outside of their littl bubble. there actually are ways to solve issues. with a better fee priority mechanism. yet it seems the BScartel want to remove the fee controls and replace it with wall street human emotions of just pay more |
|
|
|
|
YOUR node is your representative / ballot vote on which manifesto should move things forward.
we do not need humans representing the network. the nodes themselves represent the network.
the blockstream/DCG group want a 'parliament'
where core is the house of commons with barry silbert as the speaker of the commons 'house' and DCG is the house of lords and alan silbert is the monarchy reigning over it all..
..
but using the parliament analogy.
if the network was parliament. then the 7000 full nodes are the representatives..
not humans around a table signing documents and making announcements.. just nodes..
yes there are different 'houses'. pool nodes and user nodes. but they symbiotically need to come to a consensus agreement of new rules (laws)..
the benefit of using node consensus is that we dont need to rely on a group of people who meet up only a few times a year to make decisions for us where we only get one decision every 4-8 years of who is speaking for us at these round tables.
we get to ballot vote every block, for the things we want. and new rules(laws) happen when the votes of nodes display a clear majority agreement.
we need to get rid of the blockstream/DCG trojan that wants to bypass consensus and throw bombs around
we need to go back to using the real consensus mechanism
|
|
|
|
|
if bitcoin is not broken, then why are people screaming for LN
if bitcoin is not broken why are people naively and stupidly thinking the empty gesture of segwit will 'fix' things.
bitcoin was not broken when the buffer limit of a block was way above the data requirement of 2009-2015
but allowing the buffer to grow further was halted.
segwit doesnt 'fix' bitcoin. it still only offers the hope of the same 7tx/s. and thats only if everyone uses new keypairs
then the expectation is of moving people off network into new networks via LN, drivechain, expanded blocks, etc which have different nodes and communicate on different ports of a different network.
which are not a bitcoin fix, but more like making bitcoin derelict and relocating people to new area's.
.
bitcoin meant to be a borderless area for anyone. its turning into a real estate game of bitcoin real estate block for only the super rich and average joe forced into the poorly designed 'projects' area (separate block of apartments for the poor)
|
|
|
|
|
lol all i see is PoS defenders arguing about VALUE accrued over the year depending on stake..
facepalm
my premiss was SECURITY of the immutable data, NOT value income from who forges blocks.
i think people are missing the point.
having 1 address of 10,000 coins.. does not make the edcsa of that address any stronger than
an address of only 10 coins or only 0.001 coins.. the SECURITY is the exact friggen same.
PoS is not more secure than PoW
PoS is more about wealth distribution. not security
but this has meandered off topic anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
