This lad just scored a home run. Poor frap.doc, if you read this and don't realize you were led astray, away from your "sound money" theories by false gods of "more adoption", "cheap stuff for everyone"... It is important to understand that units of a settlement network represent money, they are money. If settlement is achieved, then those uni to it because it is inherently more trustworthy as a settlement layer.
...snip...
Every effort should be being made into increasing this decentralization . . . instead we are doing just the opposite. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3fhik9/mike_hearn_outlines_the_most_compelling_arguments/It's important to know why money becomes money in the first place, you can't put the settlement network idea befor the idea of a university accepted money and expect it to be adopted without mapping out the economic incentives that would facilitate it. You need to read the post again because clearly there is something you didn't understand. No, it's you who don't understand. It's fair to claim that every single person in the world over the age of say 4 has heard of gold and knows is valuable. What do you think the comparable figures are for Bitcoin? Probably 20% have heard of it if we're lucky and only maybe <0.01% who think it's valuable. Good luck with forming a settlement layer on top of that. |
|
|
|
|
[–]cypherdoc2 1 point 3 minutes ago
Bitcoin is mainly about economic theory. the code is there simply to support that theory. we see this all the time; coders decide what's best in terms of economics, then code to enforce that. look at this "fee mkt" argument. perfect example. Cripplecoiners have decided that "we need fees now". thus, they refuse to lift the limit. code cannot precede the economic idea. it does not spontaneousl generate itself. it has to be based on a belief.
furthermore, we constantly see code updates chasing after economic "holes" that get exploited by economic actors. like the 1MB single tx from f2pool.
permalink
save
parent
edit
disable inbox replies
delete
reply
|
|
|
|
interesting tactics employed by /u/mmeijeri et al in this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3fhik9/mike_hearn_outlines_the_most_compelling_arguments/initially, all his comments got downvoted (seen down lower the thread) as the pro increase concensus set in. then, he takes the tactic of sub-commenting (spamming) the top comment to push all his downvoted comments downwards so as to discourage casual readers from making it all the way down to the bottom where the real content is. couple that with some support that came in with upvoting him and he suddenly looks like he's carrying the day in terms of sentiment. |
|
|
|
|
too much sense:
[–]edmundedgar 2 points 14 minutes ago
What makes you say so?
What we've been doing to date is gradually scaling up. We have a very good idea what this looks like.
Look at mining. Bitcoin to date has always worked with a big block reward and low fees. We don't know what miners' incentives look like with high fees; For example, a lot of people are worrying about the idea that longer validation times cause mining to centralize, because pools that didn't mine the last block and have to download ithave a disadvantage over pools that did. But if you work through this, it turns out that as far as the block reward goes you can neutralize any effect by doing SPV mining. But what you lose by mining in this way is fee revenue, so higher fees cause mining to centralize.
Now look at users and vendors. Nobody has the faintest idea whether the off-chain systems that are supposed to be decentralized will really be adopted, and if they are whether it will be in a decentralized way, or with just a couple of easily-regulated hubs. We also don't know whether pricing people off-chain will just drive them off to some other coin. There are a bunch of theories about all this stuff, but nobody really knows. In the case of the adoption ecosystem and regulatory exposure of Lightning Network, there's hardly even any theory; Everybody's just talking about the tech.
It may turn out that transitioning to the small-block model is the right thing to do. But what it definitely isn't is the risk-averse thing to do.
|
|
|
|
in other words, Satoshi's post doesn't in any way invalidate his original vision of a Visa like payment system.
Fine, well then find a solution and make it work instead of "whining" Kid Troll. has a ring to it. |
|
|
|
|
Oh, and one other thing to substantiate what satoshi was actually saying. This is how Namecoin came about as a merge mined solution as opposed to an onchain one.
Oh, and I always knew I was registered here on BCT before gmax.
|
|
|
|
|
talk about getting rekt. i prefer the word "spanked" really. and he confirms exactly what i said the moment gmax made that stupid reference a few days ago:
Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev
2 days ago
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Report
I have just been around for 2 years or so, and its interesting to see you two
argue and give links to the past conversations.
But do realize that if you argue in public about content that is easy to read
by anyone that you have to double check your memory fits the facts.
And I feel you skipped that this time...
>Post by Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev
(The same message also mentions that smart contracts can be used to
create trustless trade with off-chain systems;
As well, later in that
thread: "it will be much easier if you can freely use all the space
you need without worrying about paying fees for expensive space in
Bitcoin's chain.")
Hmm... A DNS record is much much bigger than a single bitcoin transaction has
space for.
I don't think you can take his quote out of context. The thread shows that
having a full domain-registry DB on chain is what he was explaining doesn't fit
with Bitcoin.
So Satoshi just explains that a rich database shouldn't live on the
blockchain. Similarly with the quote you made before;
"Piling every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into one
dataset doesn't scale."
It just fights the stupid idea of sharing the blockchain space with tons of
global databases.
Please re-read the whole thread as it really doesn't support your view that
Satoshi argued that somehow decentralization would be protected by limiting
the size of the chain.
--
Thomas Zander
in other words, Satoshi's post doesn't in any way invalidate his original vision of a Visa like payment system.
|
|
|
|
I support modest increases in line with hardware improvements (until and unless software/protocol improvements are made to allow even larger blocks to be supported safely). That's probably something like 2-3 MB at this point. I don't support automatic increases to the moon or removing the limit or anything radical like that.
For the record this is mostly my POV as well. Then shut the hell up with your MP pronouncements and references to crap articles like yesterday's.  You woke up in a bad mood today? Your maid refused to make you breakfast? 1% life must be stressful heh  I certainly won't "shut the hell up" when retards like you are championing lifting the block size limit entirely as some sort of rational opinion. Nah, I just get tired of little kids being inconsistent and constantly whining to be argumentative and trying to appear knowledgeable. |
|
|
|
I support modest increases in line with hardware improvements (until and unless software/protocol improvements are made to allow even larger blocks to be supported safely). That's probably something like 2-3 MB at this point. I don't support automatic increases to the moon or removing the limit or anything radical like that.
For the record this is mostly my POV as well. Then shut the hell up with your MP pronouncements and references to crap articles like yesterday's. |
|
|
|
No one cares about an altcoin boasting 5x Bitcoin's capacity...because it's not Bitcoin. But if it boasts 100x Bitcoin's capacity, that's a game-changer. We have to at least get in the ballpark. Watching from the sidelines is not going to cut it, and I refuse to call that in any way conservative, patient, or careful.
There is no such things like Bitcoin with 100x capacity. The security trade-off is disproportionate with the incremental amount of txs you can process. To get in the ballpark where some people here would wanna go you'd need 100000X anyway. I also happen to think it would be a mistake, from where you sit, to pretend that people involved are "watching from the sidelines". This post was strangely out of character for you I should say. To read references to alt-coins competition from you was a surprise! It seems more than most here you have championed the importance of the economic majority and its interest in respecting the ledger. Well unless you refer to the "spin-offs" idea, it seems out of question for me that the ledger would ever move to another chain that is not secured by the longest proof-of-work. Spinoffs work as an altcoin defence provided we're talking about Bitcoin vs. altcoins in the context of the Bitcoin community. But as long as you have a gigantic mass market still largely unfamiliar with Bitcoin, an "altcoin" (not an altcoin from their perspective, which is the key point) can take over if it can pull off the miracle of dramatically outpacing Bitcoin's adoption rate. For elaboration of this aspect of the argument, see: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg11423570#msg11423570https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg11423612#msg11423612https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg11423877#msg11423877https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg11423961#msg11423961 (best summary here) That miracle becomes a lot easier if Bitcoin gets artificially hobbled way below its potential. Now the question of whether we could have 100MB blocks now without wrecking decentralization, and are leaving all that extra capacity on the table for "Supercoin" to come and grab, remains up in the air. Surely intelligent people can disagree on where exactly the real capacity limit lies, and probably by orders of magnitude at that, considering all the optimizations we have yet to think of and all the new brainpower that the next wave of exponential growth will bring in. The correction I'd like to make is to the idea that we can afford to keep Bitcoin potentially one or more orders of magnitude below its capacity under the assumption that we have all the time in the world to succeed. and as many have pointed out, esp awemany, we can always soft fork back down to the real limit if we overshoot. |
|
|
|
lol, what a piece of junk article. just another MP regurgitated screed.
what's really laughable is watching little kids like you, Michael Goldstein, & Pierre Rochard dream of becoming Kings. look, i'm already a 1 percenter and was long before Bitcoin came around. yet i seem to see more fairness in Bitcoin's potential than you guys. whodathunk? i find it sad that youngsters like you can't see what's better for humanity.
furthermore, i guess you're admitting that the 1MB choke is exactly what you want; it is meant to be forever. for you, it's about boxing out the masses and making them pay you homage.
 ...
the more individuals and ppl that use Bitcoin, the more decentralized and more powerful the outcome.
completely misleading, sounds like a new religion. lol, your arguments have dwindled to nothing except for a smiley face and you resort to bringing in assistance. haha. there: If you want to transact on the Bitcoin blockchain and can't there is a window to acquire that ability cheaply. Enough Bitcoin to transact on the blockchain for all the future can be had for far less than its actual worth. If however you want to try to feed seven billion hungry mouths with hope, social media, and spam there is probably going to be an altcoin released to help you keep pretending in the not too distant future. your response is no better. pointing to another MP site? what's with all you guys and your Daddy complex? its not only mp, not even him that wrote the article, but yea, whatever, sorry i wouldnt fall for your bs but quote someone that finds better words than i would. you sound pretty nervous tho. so much for credibility actually, i think it's you who's projecting your insecurities. it should be clear to everyone involved that BIP 101 will have the economic majority onboard. |
|
|
|
lol, what a piece of junk article. just another MP regurgitated screed.
what's really laughable is watching little kids like you, Michael Goldstein, & Pierre Rochard dream of becoming Kings. look, i'm already a 1 percenter and was long before Bitcoin came around. yet i seem to see more fairness in Bitcoin's potential than you guys. whodathunk? i find it sad that youngsters like you can't see what's better for humanity.
furthermore, i guess you're admitting that the 1MB choke is exactly what you want; it is meant to be forever. for you, it's about boxing out the masses and making them pay you homage.
...
the more individuals and ppl that use Bitcoin, the more decentralized and more powerful the outcome.
completely misleading, sounds like a new religion. lol, your arguments have dwindled to nothing except for a smiley face and you resort to bringing in assistance. haha. there: If you want to transact on the Bitcoin blockchain and can't there is a window to acquire that ability cheaply. Enough Bitcoin to transact on the blockchain for all the future can be had for far less than its actual worth. If however you want to try to feed seven billion hungry mouths with hope, social media, and spam there is probably going to be an altcoin released to help you keep pretending in the not too distant future. your response is no better. pointing to another MP site? what's with all you guys and your Daddy complex? |
|
|
|
lol, what a piece of junk article. just another MP regurgitated screed.
what's really laughable is watching little kids like you, Michael Goldstein, & Pierre Rochard dream of becoming Kings. look, i'm already a 1 percenter and was long before Bitcoin came around. yet i seem to see more fairness in Bitcoin's potential than you guys. whodathunk? i find it sad that youngsters like you can't see what's better for humanity.
furthermore, i guess you're admitting that the 1MB choke is exactly what you want; it is meant to be forever. for you, it's about boxing out the masses and making them pay you homage.
...
the more individuals and ppl that use Bitcoin, the more decentralized and more powerful the outcome.
completely misleading, sounds like a new religion. lol, your arguments have dwindled to nothing except for a smiley face and you resort to bringing in assistance. haha. |
|
|
|
users have the one thing that has made Bitcoin great for them being taken away; fast, easy, cheap payments.
You know what they say about kids, the truth comes out of their mouth. Seems old folks can't help but to spread lies and rewrite history. It says everything about your character that you have travestied your traditional view of Bitcoin as sound money to support your block size position. Retail acceptance of Bitcoin is irrelevant to its strength as a SOV. Either way, you have done nothing to disprove my argument. how so? by wanting Bitcoin to replace gold as sound money? by understanding that key to achievement of that goal is for Bitcoin to be easily used/accessed cheaply by everyone worldwide? by understanding that something virtual and intangible has a higher bar to clear to replace the physicality of gold as a SOV? you'd better go back to school while you're young enough. Bitcoin can replace gold as sound money without having to subsidize every transactions so they are affordable, cheap and accessible to every soul on earth. More accessible rarely, if ever, means more valuable. Bitcoin will succeed by attracting the most capital it can, not necessarily the most users. . There is more economic incentive to secure and decentralize a network with 1 M users holding 10T$ worth of wealth than 1 B users under a 100 B$ market cap.
no. Bitcoin has always been about being your own bank and taking individual responsibility for your money. it's the ppl's money and about moving control of that money away from gvt. it's about removing unfair subsidies to large entities and returning incentives and fairness to the individual. therefore, the more individuals and ppl that use Bitcoin, the more decentralized and more powerful the outcome. Again, individuals, on their own, do nothing to improve the strenght of the network. It is the capital that they bring to the table that is valuable. I'm sorry but 100 million poor users will do little to further decentralize the Bitcoin network. I may not support every statement behind this blog post but you really need to read this if you haven't: http://cascadianhacker.com/blog/2015/04/24_bitcoin-needs-no-changes-to-destroy-your-world.html and this Bitcoin not suitable currency for pervasive dominance, pushing it into every heart&mind around globe no different from religious zealotry
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009831.htmllol, what a piece of junk article. just another MP regurgitated screed. what's really laughable is watching little kids like you, Michael Goldstein, & Pierre Rochard dream of becoming Kings. look, i'm already a 1 percenter and was long before Bitcoin came around. yet i seem to see more fairness in Bitcoin's potential than you guys. whodathunk? i find it sad that youngsters like you can't see what's better for humanity. furthermore, i guess you're admitting that the 1MB choke is exactly what you want; it is meant to be forever. for you, it's about boxing out the masses and making them pay you homage. |
|
|
|
users have the one thing that has made Bitcoin great for them being taken away; fast, easy, cheap payments.
You know what they say about kids, the truth comes out of their mouth. Seems old folks can't help but to spread lies and rewrite history. It says everything about your character that you have travestied your traditional view of Bitcoin as sound money to support your block size position. Retail acceptance of Bitcoin is irrelevant to its strength as a SOV. Either way, you have done nothing to disprove my argument. how so? by wanting Bitcoin to replace gold as sound money? by understanding that key to achievement of that goal is for Bitcoin to be easily used/accessed cheaply by everyone worldwide? by understanding that something virtual and intangible has a higher bar to clear to replace the physicality of gold as a SOV? you'd better go back to school while you're young enough. Bitcoin can replace gold as sound money without having to subsidize every transactions so they are affordable, cheap and accessible to every soul on earth. More accessible rarely, if ever, means more valuable. Bitcoin will succeed by attracting the most capital it can, not necessarily the most users. . There is more economic incentive to secure and decentralize a network with 1 M users holding 10T$ worth of wealth than 1 B users under a 100 B$ market cap.
no. Bitcoin has always been about being your own bank and taking individual responsibility for your money. it's the ppl's money and about moving control of that money away from gvt. it's about removing unfair subsidies to large entities and returning incentives and fairness to the individual. therefore, the more individuals and ppl that use Bitcoin, the more decentralized and more powerful the outcome. |
|
|
|
users have the one thing that has made Bitcoin great for them being taken away; fast, easy, cheap payments.
You know what they say about kids, the truth comes out of their mouth. Seems old folks can't help but to spread lies and rewrite history. It says everything about your character that you have travestied your traditional view of Bitcoin as sound money to support your block size position. Retail acceptance of Bitcoin is irrelevant to its strength as a SOV. Either way, you have done nothing to disprove my argument. how so? by wanting Bitcoin to replace gold as sound money? by understanding that key to achievement of that goal is for Bitcoin to be easily used/accessed cheaply by everyone worldwide? by understanding that something virtual and intangible has a higher bar to clear to replace the physicality of gold as a SOV? you'd better go back to school while you're young enough. |
|
|
|
dead cat bounce gets sold off immediately:  |
|
|
|
i keep asking the Cripplecoiners a simple theoretical question which i never get an answer for: if everyone in the world used Bitcoin, wouldn't that be a more effective and more secure form of decentralization for Bitcoin's future? No. Everyone (more or less) in the world already uses fiat currencies. If Bitcoin isn't decentralized it is pointless. surely Bitcoin could displace fiat. it might not have to to become highly successful. nor might it even be desired. but surely it could. if every person in the world used Bitcoin, that would be the ultimate in decentralization. surely not ubiquitous full node implementation.
This here is the mistake you repeatedly make and I've seen others repeat during the block size debate. The more correct version is if every capital in the world is held in Bitcoin, that would be the ultimate decentralization. While it may seem counter-intuitive, more users does not necessarily translate in more value. On the other hand, more money in the system is a sure sign of an healthy network effect. There is more economic incentive to secure and decentralize a network with 1 M users holding 10T$ worth of wealth than 1 B users under a 100 B$ market cap. This is not Facebook guys, this is a money protocol. When speaking of network effect we should consider the amount of capital that is attracted and not only the number of users. says the kid who has no experience in anything that i can identify. why has the current credit card system grown to rapidly? it's b/c it's user friendly. the merchant is the one who has to bear all the risk and cost in terms of basic usage and chargebacks. it's easy to get a cc in this country and to run up credit only to have to pay it back dearly if you aren't on time. what Bitcoin has done is reverse that entire process by creating a digital cash. all the risk shifts to the buyer for online pmts for goods not delivered as the tx's aren't reversible. dealing with unknown parties is risky. to compensate, multi-sig, pmt processors, and 0conf strategies have had to kick in. up to now, user growth has depended on cheap, reliable fees along with the other compensations. the user growth hasn't been great tho as can be seen in the statistics from places like Overstock and Bitpay. now, as a result of the continued spam attacks and resulting unconf tx's, users have the one thing that has made Bitcoin great for them being taken away; fast, easy, cheap payments. that is a travesty perpetuated by crippled minds like yours. good luck with ever getting Bitcoin to replace gold's role as the major SOV under these attack conditions. and i am still of the mind that what we're seeing in the data (uninterrupted full block flow, no signif increase in orphans, no signif full node/miner disruption) is prima facie evidence that the network can handle much bigger blocks than it is now:
  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
