Bitcoin Forum
October 20, 2017, 07:25:26 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 [38] 39 40 »
  Print  
Author Topic: ...  (Read 59318 times)
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638


GUNBOT Licenses -10% with ref. code 'GrumpyKitty'


View Profile WWW
September 06, 2015, 10:23:36 AM
 #741

11% is not bad. good to have a choice now = XT

when people have to pay 1 USD for a transaction, people can switch to XT easily.
I hope that you understand this argument properly. Paying $1 as a fee for transferring $10M is really a lot. Bitcoin was never designed for very small purchases, and a substantial proposal/implementation is needed for this to happen. I really doubt that even with a big backlog of transactions that the fees would rise up to $1 in a short matter of time. Currently the optimal fee/kb is $0.03.

So who's winning, red or blue? I can't tell you guys apart anymore for all the name-calling and tantrums.
It is obvious.

          ▄█████▄
        ▄█████████▄
      ▄████▀   ▀████▄
    ▄████▀   ▄ ▄█▀████▄
  ▄████▀   ▄███▀   ▀████▄
▄████▀   ▄███▀   ▄   ▀████▄
█████   ███▀   ▄███   █████
▀████▄   ▀██▄▄███▀   ▄████▀
  ▀████▄   ▀███▀   ▄████▀
    ▀████▄       ▄████▀
      ▀████▄   ▄████▀
        ▀███  ████▀
          ▀█▄███▀
.
|
.
|
          ▄█████▄
        ▄█████████▄
      ▄████▀   ▀████▄
    ▄████▀   ▄ ▄█▀████▄
  ▄████▀   ▄███▀   ▀████▄
▄████▀   ▄███▀   ▄   ▀████▄
█████   ███▀   ▄███   █████
▀████▄   ▀██▄▄███▀   ▄████▀
  ▀████▄   ▀███▀   ▄████▀
    ▀████▄       ▄████▀
      ▀████▄   ▄████▀
        ▀███  ████▀
          ▀█▄███▀
unthy
1508484326
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508484326

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508484326
Reply with quote  #2

1508484326
Report to moderator
1508484326
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508484326

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508484326
Reply with quote  #2

1508484326
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1508484326
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508484326

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508484326
Reply with quote  #2

1508484326
Report to moderator
1508484326
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508484326

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508484326
Reply with quote  #2

1508484326
Report to moderator
1508484326
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508484326

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508484326
Reply with quote  #2

1508484326
Report to moderator
Realpra
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 819


View Profile
September 06, 2015, 10:29:03 AM
 #742

XT has lost my support. Not so much because of this - TOR is useless anyway if it can't protect itself.

No XT has lost my support because:
1. The consensus threshold is too low. 80-90% is better than 75%.
2. XT introduces many new things, the block size consensus debate is too important
for distractions.

BIP 100 holds more promise I believe - although I think it should operate with the requested blocksize of the 50 percentile median rather than the 20 percentile.

BIP 100 is simple and solves the problem elegantly - XT is complex, muddled and makes assumptions 20 years out.

Cheap and sexy Bitcoin card/hardware wallet, buy here:
http://BlochsTech.com
rebuilder
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1618



View Profile
September 06, 2015, 03:37:38 PM
 #743

There you go again, with your process objection meta.  I'll fetch your fainting couch because in an unprecedented outbreak of ill manners, several Bitcoiners (having uncharacteristically strong opinions) have expressed themselves vehemently!

Clearly my attempt to cajole some kind of topical response out of you failed.  It's clear that you're against XT, and have grievances with how the whole project was brought about. You might use more pointed terms, I suppose.

May I ask where you stand on the underlying issue of what Bitcoin's design goal should be? Do you have an opinion on whether it (on-chain transactions) should be an expensive-to-use settlement network or a cheap-to-use payment network? Personally I feel the latter case - direct mass adoption - would be better if it can be technically supported, which I'm not sure about. If mass adoption is not possible I'm left doubting a settlement network alone is viable. That's my current feel on the matter, I'd be interested to hear what you think.

Selling out to advertisers shows you respect neither yourself nor the rest of us.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Too many low-quality posts? Mods not keeping things clean enough? Self-moderated threads let you keep signature spammers and trolls out!
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
September 06, 2015, 04:07:46 PM
 #744

There you go again, with your process objection meta.  I'll fetch your fainting couch because in an unprecedented outbreak of ill manners, several Bitcoiners (having uncharacteristically strong opinions) have expressed themselves vehemently!

Clearly my attempt to cajole some kind of topical response out of you failed.  It's clear that you're against XT, and have grievances with how the whole project was brought about. You might use more pointed terms, I suppose.

May I ask where you stand on the underlying issue of what Bitcoin's design goal should be? Do you have an opinion on whether it (on-chain transactions) should be an expensive-to-use settlement network or a cheap-to-use payment network? Personally I feel the latter case - direct mass adoption - would be better if it can be technically supported, which I'm not sure about. If mass adoption is not possible I'm left doubting a settlement network alone is viable. That's my current feel on the matter, I'd be interested to hear what you think.

Myself I'd be interested to know why you apparently feel mass adoption of retail consumer is the only way leading to success for Bitcoin?

You do understand we're trying to build an economy and not the next big start-up?

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
manselr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 826


Enjin Coin - Smart Cryptocurrency for Gaming.


View Profile
September 06, 2015, 04:50:34 PM
 #745

11% is not bad. good to have a choice now = XT

when people have to pay 1 USD for a transaction, people can switch to XT easily.
I hope that you understand this argument properly. Paying $1 as a fee for transferring $10M is really a lot. Bitcoin was never designed for very small purchases, and a substantial proposal/implementation is needed for this to happen. I really doubt that even with a big backlog of transactions that the fees would rise up to $1 in a short matter of time. Currently the optimal fee/kb is $0.03.

So who's winning, red or blue? I can't tell you guys apart anymore for all the name-calling and tantrums.
It is obvious.


What is a small purchase? a cup of coffee? Where did satoshi specifically say that bitcoin wasn't made to buy coffee but to buy I don't know... Xboxes? where is the cutoff from "this belongs in the blockchain but this doesn't because its too small"??

brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
September 06, 2015, 04:56:14 PM
 #746

11% is not bad. good to have a choice now = XT

when people have to pay 1 USD for a transaction, people can switch to XT easily.
I hope that you understand this argument properly. Paying $1 as a fee for transferring $10M is really a lot. Bitcoin was never designed for very small purchases, and a substantial proposal/implementation is needed for this to happen. I really doubt that even with a big backlog of transactions that the fees would rise up to $1 in a short matter of time. Currently the optimal fee/kb is $0.03.

So who's winning, red or blue? I can't tell you guys apart anymore for all the name-calling and tantrums.
It is obvious.


What is a small purchase? a cup of coffee? Where did satoshi specifically say that bitcoin wasn't made to buy coffee but to buy I don't know... Xboxes? where is the cutoff from "this belongs in the blockchain but this doesn't because its too small"??

Supply vs. demand.

If you can't pay the fee required to secure the Bitcoin blockchain then it is likely your transaction don't belong there.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
Holliday
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
September 06, 2015, 04:57:07 PM
 #747

May I ask where you stand on the underlying issue of what Bitcoin's design goal should be? Do you have an opinion on whether it (on-chain transactions) should be an expensive-to-use settlement network or a cheap-to-use payment network? Personally I feel the latter case - direct mass adoption - would be better if it can be technically supported, which I'm not sure about. If mass adoption is not possible I'm left doubting a settlement network alone is viable. That's my current feel on the matter, I'd be interested to hear what you think.

Whatever path Bitcoin takes, it would be best for everyone if it remains a "censorship-proof" value transfer mechanism. Anything it can do on top of that is icing on the cake.

All transactions do not need to be censorship-proof in a world where censorship-proof transactions exist. The possibility of censorship-proof transactions by itself will cut down on censorship because it will be seen as futile.

Bitcoin transactions, by their nature, are more valuable than VISA or PayPal transactions, so they should cost more. Most "bitcoiners" (including myself) have been spoiled by the early days of high block subsidy, low cost transactions. Ultimately, you get what you pay for, and at some point we need to start paying for the utility that Bitcoin provides. I would prefer we pay directly so we know what we are getting.

If Bitcoin can scale while preserving it's ability to provide censorship-proof transactions, fantastic. Part of that promise is in the ability to easily share information between peers. It seems obvious to me that the more information shared, the more difficult it becomes. There are plenty of complaints about the size of the block chain already. I'm not sure if taking off the training wheels is appropriate until we better know what the repercussions will be.

We should be prepared for a future where information becomes more difficult to share. This is the future where Bitcoin's utility value will increase and we should make sure that it can reliably function in such a future.

If you aren't the sole controller of your private keys, you don't have any bitcoins.
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638


GUNBOT Licenses -10% with ref. code 'GrumpyKitty'


View Profile WWW
September 06, 2015, 05:28:33 PM
 #748

What is a small purchase? a cup of coffee? Where did satoshi specifically say that bitcoin wasn't made to buy coffee but to buy I don't know... Xboxes? where is the cutoff from "this belongs in the blockchain but this doesn't because its too small"??
What does satoshi have to do with this? Do you believe that he was some majestic coder? Because he was not. Bitcoin was never designed for small transactions auch as buying coffe or micro transactions. It is going to be a difficult task to get it to scale like that.

          ▄█████▄
        ▄█████████▄
      ▄████▀   ▀████▄
    ▄████▀   ▄ ▄█▀████▄
  ▄████▀   ▄███▀   ▀████▄
▄████▀   ▄███▀   ▄   ▀████▄
█████   ███▀   ▄███   █████
▀████▄   ▀██▄▄███▀   ▄████▀
  ▀████▄   ▀███▀   ▄████▀
    ▀████▄       ▄████▀
      ▀████▄   ▄████▀
        ▀███  ████▀
          ▀█▄███▀
.
|
.
|
          ▄█████▄
        ▄█████████▄
      ▄████▀   ▀████▄
    ▄████▀   ▄ ▄█▀████▄
  ▄████▀   ▄███▀   ▀████▄
▄████▀   ▄███▀   ▄   ▀████▄
█████   ███▀   ▄███   █████
▀████▄   ▀██▄▄███▀   ▄████▀
  ▀████▄   ▀███▀   ▄████▀
    ▀████▄       ▄████▀
      ▀████▄   ▄████▀
        ▀███  ████▀
          ▀█▄███▀
unthy
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050



View Profile
September 06, 2015, 07:24:33 PM
 #749

What is a small purchase? a cup of coffee? Where did satoshi specifically say that bitcoin wasn't made to buy coffee but to buy I don't know... Xboxes? where is the cutoff from "this belongs in the blockchain but this doesn't because its too small"??
What does satoshi have to do with this? Do you believe that he was some majestic coder? Because he was not. Bitcoin was never designed for small transactions auch as buying coffe or micro transactions. It is going to be a difficult task to get it to scale like that.

According to the Bitcoin white paper, it was designed for "small casual transactions" that are too costly with conventional trust-based online payment methods (e.g., Visa, Paypal, etc.)



source: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
September 06, 2015, 07:33:05 PM
 #750

What is a small purchase? a cup of coffee? Where did satoshi specifically say that bitcoin wasn't made to buy coffee but to buy I don't know... Xboxes? where is the cutoff from "this belongs in the blockchain but this doesn't because its too small"??
What does satoshi have to do with this? Do you believe that he was some majestic coder? Because he was not. Bitcoin was never designed for small transactions auch as buying coffe or micro transactions. It is going to be a difficult task to get it to scale like that.

According to the Bitcoin white paper, it was designed for "small casual transactions" that are too costly with conventional trust-based online payment methods (e.g., Visa, Paypal, etc.)



source: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

Man... that's like your own interpretation. Have you considered that Satoshi's proposition was to create a trustless layer from which services enabling these transactions could be created?

I really don't see how you're still trying to fight for including all of the world's transaction on the blockchain when there is consensus among pretty much all the qualified engineers (that would include Gavin although I'm increasingly doubtful about his qualifications) that a POW system is simply not able to efficiently service this type of load/transactions.

You and cypherdoc's crew are really alone in your own little world and it's quite worrying to see you entertain this cargo cult

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050



View Profile
September 06, 2015, 07:40:46 PM
 #751

What is a small purchase? a cup of coffee? Where did satoshi specifically say that bitcoin wasn't made to buy coffee but to buy I don't know... Xboxes? where is the cutoff from "this belongs in the blockchain but this doesn't because its too small"??
What does satoshi have to do with this? Do you believe that he was some majestic coder? Because he was not. Bitcoin was never designed for small transactions auch as buying coffe or micro transactions. It is going to be a difficult task to get it to scale like that.

According to the Bitcoin white paper, it was designed for "small casual transactions" that are too costly with conventional trust-based online payment methods (e.g., Visa, Paypal, etc.)



source: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

...I really don't see how you're still trying to fight for including all of the world's transaction on the blockchain when there is consensus among pretty much all the qualified engineers (that would include Gavin although I'm increasingly doubtful about his qualifications) that a POW system is simply not able to efficiently service this type of load/transactions….

I don't believe the Blockchain will be useful for sub-penny micropayments (for example); I like the idea of payment channels for that.  

The point of my post was to show that @manselr was correct: Bitcoin was designed for small casual online transaction that are too costly with our present trust-based model.  Whether it continues to meet that design objective, the truth is that no one knows.  Will the threshold for direct Blockchain access be sour-candies from 7-11, Xboxes from BestBuy, or something else?  

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
September 06, 2015, 07:58:10 PM
 #752

What is a small purchase? a cup of coffee? Where did satoshi specifically say that bitcoin wasn't made to buy coffee but to buy I don't know... Xboxes? where is the cutoff from "this belongs in the blockchain but this doesn't because its too small"??
What does satoshi have to do with this? Do you believe that he was some majestic coder? Because he was not. Bitcoin was never designed for small transactions auch as buying coffe or micro transactions. It is going to be a difficult task to get it to scale like that.

According to the Bitcoin white paper, it was designed for "small casual transactions" that are too costly with conventional trust-based online payment methods (e.g., Visa, Paypal, etc.)



source: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

...I really don't see how you're still trying to fight for including all of the world's transaction on the blockchain when there is consensus among pretty much all the qualified engineers (that would include Gavin although I'm increasingly doubtful about his qualifications) that a POW system is simply not able to efficiently service this type of load/transactions….

I don't believe the Blockchain will be useful for sub-penny micropayments (for example); I like the idea of payment channels for that.  

The point of my post was to show that @manselr was correct: Bitcoin was designed for small casual online transaction that are too costly with our present trust-based model.  Whether it continues to meet that design objective, the truth is that no one knows.  Will the threshold for direct Blockchain access be sour-candies from 7-11, Xboxes from BestBuy, or something else?  

Why is the payment channel idea not good enough for most transactions that do not require censorship resistance?

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050



View Profile
September 06, 2015, 08:08:41 PM
 #753

Why is the payment channel idea not good enough for most transactions that do not require censorship resistance?

There's nothing wrong with it if that is what the free market decides.  

If forcing transactions into payment channels requires a production quota on block space, then I think there is something wrong with it.  



Moreover, I don't think it would even be possible to enforce the quota, since the pressure indicated by the brown shaded region in the lower chart would provide impetus to fork the protocol (larger block sizes) to satisfy the demand unmet due to the quota.      

Source: http://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-12#post-392

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
September 06, 2015, 08:22:35 PM
 #754

Why is the payment channel idea not good enough for most transactions that do not require censorship resistance?

There's nothing wrong with it if that is what the free market decides.  

If forcing transactions into payment channels requires a production quota on block space, then I think there is something wrong with it.  



Moreover, I don't think it would even be possible to enforce the quota, since the pressure indicated by the brown shaded region in the lower chart would provide impetus to fork the protocol (larger block sizes) to satisfy the demand unmet due to the quota.      

Source: http://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-12#post-392

They can't fork away into a more centralized coin if they wish to. At some point we should expect Bitcoin holder to recognize what makes it different than other solutions (hint: not transactions).

You keep posting these charts as if the negative externality was not obvious....

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050



View Profile
September 06, 2015, 08:31:42 PM
 #755

They can't fork away into a more centralized free coin if they wish to...

Indeed.

Quote
You keep posting these charts as if the negative externality was not obvious....

I am trying to get both sides to speak the same language.  I've partly succeeded because it sounds like we are in agreement regarding the above chart, and just in disagreement over the nature of the externality that may exist.  You think it's hugely negative; I think it's actually positive.  

My question to you is this: Production quotas (to reduce perceived externalities) are AFAIK always enforced by some form of centralized government or powerful institution.  Do you believe it will be possible to enforce this block space production quota without creating the very centralized governance model you are afraid of?  

This relates to my debates with Gmax:

The physicist James Clerk Maxwell hypothesized a daemon who could quickly open and close valves to collect the air molecules with higher kinetic energy from the slower moving molecules, thereby creating a perpetual motion machine.  

The cryptographer Gregory Maxwell hypothesized a daemon who could control the block size limit to prevent mining centralization without turning into the very centralized force the daemon was summoned to fight.  

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
September 06, 2015, 10:46:33 PM
 #756

They can't fork away into a more centralized free coin if they wish to...

Indeed.

Quote
You keep posting these charts as if the negative externality was not obvious....

I am trying to get both sides to speak the same language.  I've partly succeeded because it sounds like we are in agreement regarding the above chart, and just in disagreement over the nature of the externality that may exist.  You think it's hugely negative; I think it's actually positive.  

My question to you is this: Production quotas (to reduce perceived externalities) are AFAIK always enforced by some form of centralized government or powerful institution.  Do you believe it will be possible to enforce this block space production quota without creating the very centralized governance model you are afraid of?  

This relates to my debates with Gmax:

The physicist James Clerk Maxwell hypothesized a daemon who could quickly open and close valves to collect the air molecules with higher kinetic energy from the slower moving molecules, thereby creating a perpetual motion machine.  

The cryptographer Gregory Maxwell hypothesized a daemon who could control the block size limit to prevent mining centralization without turning into the very centralized force the daemon was summoned to fight.  


I think it will need centralize intervention until the block size can be set in stone and forgotten.

You tendency to confuse Bitcoin with free market is largely misguided.

To quote davout:

Quote
Do you think there should be an "artificial, centrally planned limit" on the amount of wood people are allowed to chop from the rainforest?

Do you think there should be an "artificial, centrally planned limit" on the amount of endangered species' specimens one is allowed to kill?

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050



View Profile
September 06, 2015, 11:02:59 PM
 #757

I think it will need centralize intervention until the block size can be set in stone and forgotten.

You tendency to confuse Bitcoin with free market is largely misguided.

To quote davout:

Quote
Do you think there should be an "artificial, centrally planned limit" on the amount of wood people are allowed to chop from the rainforest?

Do you think there should be an "artificial, centrally planned limit" on the amount of endangered species' specimens one is allowed to kill?


Are you saying we need an "artificial, centrally planned limit" to keep Bitcoin decentralized?

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
September 06, 2015, 11:05:48 PM
 #758

You tendency to confuse Bitcoin with free market is largely misguided.

To quote davout:

Quote
Do you think there should be an "artificial, centrally planned limit" on the amount of wood people are allowed to chop from the rainforest?

Do you think there should be an "artificial, centrally planned limit" on the amount of endangered species' specimens one is allowed to kill?


Are you saying we need centrally planned limit to keep Bitcoin decentralized?

YES!

"Are you saying we need centrally planned limit (21,000,000) to keep Bitcoin from turning into fiat"

YES!

"Are you saying we need centrally planned block interval to keep Bitcoin secure"

YES!

I notice you didn't answer my(davout) questions. You wouldn't be against centrally planned limit on big game hunting would you  Angry ?

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274



View Profile
September 06, 2015, 11:06:49 PM
 #759

This Peter R guy and his alikes are more like some Bitcoin's degenerative disease, if you ask me..  

FYIAversion his latest contagion attempt at the bitcoin's devs mailing list: Let's kill Bitcoin Core and allow the green shoots of a garden of new implementations to grow from its fertile ashes

Whoever gives credit to this man piece of parasite (staying polite here..) should seriously consider getting outta Bitcoin.

Not that bitcoin's anti-corps arent resilient to such plague..  Wink
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050



View Profile
September 06, 2015, 11:29:49 PM
 #760

You tendency to confuse Bitcoin with free market is largely misguided.

To quote davout:

Quote
Do you think there should be an "artificial, centrally planned limit" on the amount of wood people are allowed to chop from the rainforest?

Do you think there should be an "artificial, centrally planned limit" on the amount of endangered species' specimens one is allowed to kill?


Are you saying we need centrally planned limit to keep Bitcoin decentralized?

YES!


Thank you for answering honestly and not beating around the bush.  It is my opinion that most of the small-block supporters feel the same way (i.e., that we need a centrally-planned limit to keep Bitcoin decentralized).  

Quote
I notice you didn't answer my(davout) questions. You wouldn't be against centrally planned limit on big game hunting would you  Angry ?

I don't believe in killing endangered animals; I think it's terrible, personally.  So I guess I am glad there is a centrally-planned limit for killing bears in the mountains around Vancouver, for instance.  But this isn't about what I believe…we're discussing what will actually happen.  A centrally-planned limit on big game hunting requires that the organization implementing the limit also act to enforce that limit--with violence if necessary.  I'm not going to wade into whether this is right or wrong, what I'm pointing out is that to enforce a quota that goes against the free market outcome requires the backing of strong organization or government willing to use physical force if necessary.  

Do you think Bitcoin Core is strong enough an organization to enforce a quota that goes against the natural free-market outcome?  With 85% of the network nodes, it is already fairly strong.  However, how will this organization physically force users not to defect to other implementations of Bitcoin that support larger block sizes to satisfy the demands of the market?

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 [38] 39 40 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!