marcus, the above poll results and the general tenor of support on reddit for Gavin's proposal clearly indicates that it is you who doesn't get it.
no, you. don't get it. you are so self-important you rely on a few dozen yes-men to back you up. and reddit. Talk about not getting it. Do you realize you just insulted the intelligence of those very men you dare speak of? I can see you've taken Dale Carnegies course on how to make friends and influence people. |
|
|
|
marcus, the above poll results and the general tenor of support on reddit for Gavin's proposal clearly indicates that it is you who doesn't get it.
no, you. don't get it. you are so self-important you rely on a few dozen yes-men to back you up. and reddit. There you go again. They're not backing me up: they've indicated support for Gavin's proposal. Better to point to something objective in the poll and on reddit than simply sling mud like you're doing. But that's what you're good at; I understand. |
|
|
|
marcus, the above poll results and the general tenor of support on reddit for Gavin's proposal clearly indicates that it is you who doesn't get it.
Your opinion is mostly worthless at this point, so I'm not sure why you create so much noise instead of solutions? Why do you post comments on github commits, are you making code commits? Seems pretentious. Well if marcus says it, it must be true! What, I can't comments on github just like the other 12 or so guys who did so? |
|
|
|
|
marcus, never mind me. what's with you and Gavin anyways? I noticed you were racking up the down votes big time on reddit today after a series of characteristic disrespectful comments from you against him. What did he do, flip you off one time?
|
|
|
|
|
marcus, the above poll results and the general tenor of support on reddit for Gavin's proposal clearly indicates that it is you who doesn't get it.
|
|
|
|
Excellent. Any serious Bitcoin business will have this view because retaining the 1MB will not only cripple the network but also cripple dependent business models. Except if the business model includes profiting from off-chain transactions. It's good to see coinbase support bigger blocks. I wouldn't have bet on it. What about circle? But, but marcus says Coinbase is the big bad boogie man of Bitcoin. Aren't they supposed to want what's best for themselves which should be small 1mb blocks so that offchain TX's become the thing? They couldn't possibly want what's best for Bitcoin which is involves supporting Gavin could they? |
|
|
|
luke-jr gmaxwell ptodd have done nothing to deserve the opprobium being dished up here, most of them have worked for free for years already, such ungrateful ignorance on display here is dismaying. There are many other quieter devs who disagree with gavin/hearn on this one but afraid of speaking out because of the risk of the kind of pillorying from the loud-mouths that might result. Wumpus is actually the lead dev now, gavin has been a figurehead for the last 2 versions ... and I haven't seen anyone question his role in the Bitcoin Foundation fiasco?
There is zero opprobrium on my part, just dismay and puzzlement at seeing people who have done so much for Bitcoin become willing to let it slide into a high-risk state, when that is what they have strived to avoid all along. Trying to reduce spam by block-space rationing, forcing up fees, pricing users away to 3rd party off-chain services (like Coinbase?!) is a radical economic experiment on top of what is a nascent revolution in money, taking the robustness of its ecosystem for granted. i suspect this is too much logic for the skeptics. I make a point of reading gmaxwell's posts as they are always insightful, but one thing he has done remarkably well is fence-sit for over 2 years on the 1MB issue. If he dislikes Gavin's approach then where is his solution? How are crippling confirmation delays going to be avoided if core dev sits back and does nothing about the limit?
i think both gmax and luke are on record that they would like to experience the mild chaos that might result from bumping up against the limit; as if it wouldn't have any negative long term consequences. that is the naivete and ignorance of a technologist who doesn't understand money. investors and ordinary users will just walk away in such a situation and Bitcoin would be irreparably harmed. Wumpus has not ventured his solution, but neither has he been on reddit actively wanting to delay action on what is the No.1 issue for Bitcoin. See if you can spot the parallel between this example and the number of nodes in the Bitcoin network: https://mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarianIn the face of the combination of price controls and shortages, the effect of a decrease in the supply of an item is not, as it would be in a free market, to raise its price and increase its profitability, thereby operating to stop the decrease in supply, or reverse it if it has gone too far. Price control prohibits the rise in price and thus the increase in profitability. At the same time, the shortages caused by price controls prevent increases in supply from reducing price and profitability. When there is a shortage, the effect of an increase in supply is merely a reduction in the severity of the shortage. Only when the shortage is totally eliminated does an increase in supply necessitate a decrease in price and bring about a decrease in profitability.
As a result, the combination of price controls and shortages makes possible random movements of supply without any effect on price and profitability. In this situation, the production of the most trivial and unimportant goods, even pet rocks, can be expanded at the expense of the production of the most urgently needed and important goods, such as life-saving medicines, with no effect on the price or profitability of either good. Price controls would prevent the production of the medicines from becoming more profitable as their supply decreased, while a shortage even of pet rocks prevented their production from becoming less profitable as their supply increased. Hmm. It seems to be a variation of Mises' "Calculation problem" and individuals trying to know better than markets. i too have read most of gmax's posts over the years. i honestly believe he doesn't fully believe in Bitcoin. reread this post he made today. it's almost as if, when backed into a corner by this Gavin proposal, he gives tortured platitudes to Bitcoin's fundamentals. i've never heard him talk like this before: "I do have something to gain by being careful and thoughtful about the block size though, the same thing I had to gain in 2011 when I wrote the above link: I gain Bitcoin continuing as an interesting secure and decentralized system, an ongoing interest that is worthy of the worlds attention; hopefully the same as you. I start from the premise that Bitcoin is worth having-- that it's something better than paypal or some centeralized service (which could scale much better!) because it's decentralized. That is Bitcoin's fundamental advantage; and we must take great care to not undermine it or allow it to continue to fade out-- as we've seen with mining where compromising a half dozen computers/companies could quite possibly rewrite the chain today."but following this, he launches into his usual stance of identifying all the problems he sees with Bitcoin once again. those which i don't see as particularly problematic or insolvable going forward. for even more than the last 2 yrs he has always focused on the negatives of Bitcoin esp when it comes to centralization. i suspect he never invested significantly in BTC, altho since the Blockstream controversy, he claims to have done so. i highly doubt it. his venture into Blockstream would allow him to profit from a second chance via SC's but would endanger Bitcoin, imo. that may be harsh but it says right there in the WP that Bitcoiners may be forced to migrate to a superior SC which would in essence destroy all the early adoption in Bitcoin itself. and $21M of high powered investment money is expecting a 10x return at least and will effect one's decision making. |
|
|
|
given what has happened to Ripple today, i am forced to haul out one of my old time memes which i have now taken up to 70% probability in my own mind: "The blockchain may only ever be applicable to Bitcoin as Money".i've written several posts over the years detailing how CEO's and founders of Bitcoin financial startups are identifiably known targets for law enforcement. they are almost irresistible targets as they are treading on the foundations of our financial system and incumbent interests. this applies to every Bitcoin 2.0 company and every altcoin that has a known founder. Bitcoin, as the only purely decentralized POW protocol designed specifically to be Sound Money, has none of these problems. this is exactly why Satoshi disappeared. sure, you can bring up the age 'ol argument that the USG can try to shutdown Bitcoin here in the US but then there will be many countries who will simply allow Bitcoin to route around the damage. there is too much to be gained. fiat investment is going to start being forced into the BTC currency unit as the only safe option. edit: here's one guy starting to get it: https://twitter.com/kristovatlas/status/595740095036182532 |
|
|
|
You've repeatedly made this accusation regarding me specifically- LOL, bribing up that history is his response to this comment, for pointing out sidechains stand to benefit from a small transaction size. I was not picking on him or even challenging his position merely pointing out why there was a debate at all. I originally stopped reading after the word specifically. but if it's any consolation ripple has always been a centralized system, and I have taken a lot of flack for pointing out that's its Achilles' heel and not supporting it, why not take some heat on the other side for not recognizing that fact at the start. I think nullc relates to sidechains on a very personal level and is feeling very threatened at the moment, my comment was an observation not an accusation for the record. since even before the San Jose Conference 2013, smoothie and i have been pounding this thread and the forum in general about the problems with centralized Ripple gateways and their ridiculous premine model of XRP that awarded the founders billions. we now see the fallout btwn them that has resulted. anyone truly understanding of Bitcoin's core principles and how they did not relate to Ripple in any way recognized what has happened from the very beginning. |
|
|
|
So much joy from this news. I cant help but have a little chuckle, it is now obvious to me one Core Developer is an amazing programer but with limited foresight. limited understanding of economics and financial game theory. his name is gmaxwell. edit: oh, and he's willing to try and cover up his posting history in this regard. |
|
|
|
You've repeatedly made this accusation regarding me specifically- LOL, that is his response to this comment, for pointing out sidechains stand to benefit from a small transaction size. I think nullc feels very defensive at the moment, I was not picking on him or even challenging his position merely pointing out why there was a debate at all. ppl get defensive when they know there's some truth to the allegation. in fact, they start seeing things that aren't there, like in your comment. problem is, though, Blockstream for profit does indeed represent a conflict of interest to expanding tx throughput on the MC. it's clear they stand to profit the more this tx volume gets pushed off to SC's. plus, given all his Bitcoin skepticism and behavior over the years, it all fits. |
|
|
|
Blocksize debate blowing up all over /r/Bitcoin right now, though it's mostly pro-increase. what strikes me most about /nullc and LukeJr objections are that they revolve around incorrect perceptions of what the Bitcoin market looks like today. for instance, /nullc believes that mining is centralizing. i don't; look at the pie charts from mempool:  the distribution of miners has improved (decentralized) markedly since the ghash event. i've regularly documented that improvement over the years and believe we may have in fact witnessed the very last time any pool gets anywhere near 50%. i've argued using game theory and it appears to have been prescient. also, he believes that the decrease in full nodes "creates huge systemic risk and undermines Bitcoin's value proposition". give me a break; the decrease in nodes yes might be due partly to node dropout but i think it is mainly due to the proliferation of SPV clients. furthermore, i was initially a part of the Bitnodes Incentive Program and was one of it's first payment recipients, however, due to the fact they require re-registration every month, i've dropped out. it's too much of a hassle and involves relatively complex code to re-register while the payout is trivial. but i still run my nodes and as i've said before, i'm actually looking forward to learning how to prune so i can run a dozen more nodes or so. and what does he mean by this? "This is especially concerning as we've seen the deployment of full nodes fade out and even large commercial operations become dependant on third party hosted node services." what's he talking about and where's the evidence? and then he points to Kaminsky as some kind of prophet?: "it should be noted that this outcome was already predicted years ago (e.g. by Dan Kaminsky's comments that I was writing about above), but we've still slid into it." what sticks in my mind is the lost bet btwn Garzik and Kaminsky when DK predicted Bitcoin's underlying Proof-of-Work hash function (Sha-2) would be replaced within 12 months: https://storify.com/socrates1024/bitcoin-pow-bet-10btc-jgarzik-vs-dakami-may-2014. There haven't been any more famous tech experts who have been more wrong about Bitcoin. even DK admits it now. and then he points to Todd and MPOE as worthy colleagues against increased block sizes: "Rather, the only push you see against larger blocks come from strong advocates of personal autonomy and decenteralization, like Peter Todd; or the MPOE crowd". aligning one's self with these 2 is even more dangerous than Kaminsky. he's always been almost bearish on Bitcoin; for years. he's always said mining is centralizing despite the facts. he's been a fan of Ripple in the past here: https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=Scalability&action=historysubmit&diff=14273&oldid=14112you'll notice in the link below he admits to going back and deleting his posts of support for Ripple in the past. who does that? own up to it, don't try to cover it up. here's all his concerns highlighted in gory detail  : https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/34uu02/why_increasing_the_max_block_size_is_urgent_gavin/cqycy4h |
|
|
|
weaker, weaker, and weaker:  |
|
|
|
|
Don't forget to vote the poll.
|
|
|
|
interesting logarithmic Monte Carlo simulation of tx confirmation delays related to progressive filling of current 1MB block size. bottom line is we need an increase in the block size otherwise confirmation delays will exponentially increase as the fill reaches the max. note in the conclusion who would benefit from NOT increasing the block size; "SC's". no wonder gmax and LukeJr are spamming Reddit in defiance of Gavin's proposal: http://hashingit.com/analysis/34-bitcoin-traffic-bulletin |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
