brg444 (OP)
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 25, 2015, 08:49:52 PM |
|
Consumers and merchants are never going to be the economic majority in Bitcoin
Not by themselves, perhaps, but throw a few others into the mix and the picture starts to look a little different. Larger (than 1MB) blocks will naturally provide benefit to: Anyone who wants to use Bitcoin as a payments network VC investors Miners Merchants Payment processors Average users in general
Smaller blocks will naturally provide benefit to: Those who want to use Bitcoin as an asset class (i.e. not the average user) Those wanting to run full nodes cheaply (i.e. not the average user) Those who don't care if the average user is priced off the main chain (i.e. definitely not the average user)
Pretty sure that first group will agree on a proposal before too long. We'll see if you're right about them not being an economic majority. The "picture" might look different because your fabricate it to fit your twisted view of how you believe it should work. Here's how the decision process unfolds in reality. Tier 1
Network peers (nodes) Bitcoin holders Tier 2Miners Tier 3Exchanges Tier 4Everyone else (merchants, payment processors, consumers, redditards, Fidelity & other banking parasites) TLDR; if you don't have the support of the network peers and the "bitcoin rich list" your fork goes the way of XT which goes the way of Stannis at Winterfell -> #REKT Okay Mr. " everyone else is beneath me". Whatever you say. ![Roll Eyes](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif) Why is it that anyone who absorbs MP rhetoric also inherits his colossal egotism? Also, if your plan is still to make it as cheap as possible for people to run nodes to support a chain they can't afford to transact on, it's still a stupid plan. No one is going to support a network that doesn't support them. Either it benefits everyone, or everyone goes elsewhere and you can hodl your defunct novelty toy when the miners go elsewhere with them. It's not. You just severely lack imagination and understanding of economics. Bitcoin is the fuel for a whole ecosystem, it will not be limited to its blockchain. If your plan is for everyone to transact on the Bitcoin blockchain then we might as well just scrap the whole thing and keep our fiat.
|
"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
|
|
|
coalitionfor8mb
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 42
Merit: 1
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 25, 2015, 08:51:17 PM |
|
Also, if your plan is still to make it as cheap as possible for people to run nodes.
The plan is to keep it permissionless. At the current level it we have already maxed out average home connections. What's your plan? Bitcoin is useless if nobody can use it.
If it's not useful, then don't use it. The free market will resolve this issue quickly.
|
|
|
|
brg444 (OP)
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 25, 2015, 08:51:58 PM |
|
There is no reason why businesses shouldn't benefit from larger block sizes, unless of course people are conscious enough not to use those businesses that are trying to put them out of the game. In the case above, they likely over-projected in their business plans somewhere. ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) Huh? If no-one is using Bitcoin to pay for things then how on earth are these business benefiting from larger block sizes? "MASS ADOPTION" fantasies. A lot of people here want mass adoption because they are selfish and they want to make some quick money, they don't really care about Bitcoin. Bitcoin is useless if nobody can use it. That'd be true if nobody could use it. Yet everyone can ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) On the other hand it is not useless because it cannot settle your frappucino transaction on its blockchain, that's just pure ignorance but of course we are well used to that coming from you.
|
"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
|
|
|
knight22
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000
--------------->¿?
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 25, 2015, 08:54:08 PM |
|
There is no reason why businesses shouldn't benefit from larger block sizes, unless of course people are conscious enough not to use those businesses that are trying to put them out of the game. In the case above, they likely over-projected in their business plans somewhere. ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) Huh? If no-one is using Bitcoin to pay for things then how on earth are these business benefiting from larger block sizes? "MASS ADOPTION" fantasies. A lot of people here want mass adoption because they are selfish and they want to make some quick money, they don't really care about Bitcoin. Bitcoin is useless if nobody can use it. That'd be true if nobody could use it. Yet everyone can ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) On the other hand it is not useless because it cannot settle your frappucino transaction on its blockchain, that's just pure ignorance but of course we are well used to that coming from you. Again, if its not bitcoin it will be something else. That something else will a success while bitcoin will go down the path of irrelevence.
|
|
|
|
brg444 (OP)
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 25, 2015, 08:57:29 PM |
|
There is no reason why businesses shouldn't benefit from larger block sizes, unless of course people are conscious enough not to use those businesses that are trying to put them out of the game. In the case above, they likely over-projected in their business plans somewhere. ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) Huh? If no-one is using Bitcoin to pay for things then how on earth are these business benefiting from larger block sizes? "MASS ADOPTION" fantasies. A lot of people here want mass adoption because they are selfish and they want to make some quick money, they don't really care about Bitcoin. Bitcoin is useless if nobody can use it. That'd be true if nobody could use it. Yet everyone can ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) On the other hand it is not useless because it cannot settle your frappucino transaction on its blockchain, that's just pure ignorance but of course we are well used to that coming from you. Again, if its not bitcoin it will be something else. That something else will a success while bitcoin will go down the path of irrelevence. It is Bitcoin and will be Bitcoin. For everything else use fiat ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif)
|
"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
|
|
|
coalitionfor8mb
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 42
Merit: 1
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 25, 2015, 08:58:15 PM |
|
There is no reason why businesses shouldn't benefit from larger block sizes, unless of course people are conscious enough not to use those businesses that are trying to put them out of the game. In the case above, they likely over-projected in their business plans somewhere. ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) Huh? If no-one is using Bitcoin to pay for things then how on earth are these business benefiting from larger block sizes? "MASS ADOPTION" fantasies. A lot of people here want mass adoption because they are selfish and they want to make some quick money, they don't really care about Bitcoin. Bitcoin is useless if nobody can use it. That'd be true if nobody could use it. Yet everyone can ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) On the other hand it is not useless because it cannot settle your frappucino transaction on its blockchain, that's just pure ignorance but of course we are well used to that coming from you. Again, if its not bitcoin it will be something else. That something else will a success while bitcoin will go down the path of irrelevence. Bitcoin is the biggest network of its kind that allows you to have full access to the blockchain from an average household PC and internet connection. That's the whole purpose it was created in the first place.
|
|
|
|
coalitionfor8mb
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 42
Merit: 1
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 25, 2015, 09:02:49 PM |
|
Any other questions?
...
Good!
|
|
|
|
DooMAD
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3878
Merit: 3178
Leave no FUD unchallenged
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 25, 2015, 09:10:06 PM |
|
Also, if your plan is still to make it as cheap as possible for people to run nodes.
The plan is to keep it permissionless. At the current level it we have already maxed out average home connections. What's your plan? To not make it twice as bad by maxing out the blocksize too. " We've hit one wall already, so we should definitely aim for this second one and speed up. That's bound to make everything better". ![Roll Eyes](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
|
|
|
|
knight22
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000
--------------->¿?
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 25, 2015, 09:15:01 PM |
|
There is no reason why businesses shouldn't benefit from larger block sizes, unless of course people are conscious enough not to use those businesses that are trying to put them out of the game. In the case above, they likely over-projected in their business plans somewhere. ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) Huh? If no-one is using Bitcoin to pay for things then how on earth are these business benefiting from larger block sizes? "MASS ADOPTION" fantasies. A lot of people here want mass adoption because they are selfish and they want to make some quick money, they don't really care about Bitcoin. Bitcoin is useless if nobody can use it. That'd be true if nobody could use it. Yet everyone can ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) On the other hand it is not useless because it cannot settle your frappucino transaction on its blockchain, that's just pure ignorance but of course we are well used to that coming from you. Again, if its not bitcoin it will be something else. That something else will a success while bitcoin will go down the path of irrelevence. It is Bitcoin and will be Bitcoin. For everything else use fiat ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) This reply is totally meaningless.
|
|
|
|
knight22
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000
--------------->¿?
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 25, 2015, 09:16:51 PM |
|
There is no reason why businesses shouldn't benefit from larger block sizes, unless of course people are conscious enough not to use those businesses that are trying to put them out of the game. In the case above, they likely over-projected in their business plans somewhere. ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) Huh? If no-one is using Bitcoin to pay for things then how on earth are these business benefiting from larger block sizes? "MASS ADOPTION" fantasies. A lot of people here want mass adoption because they are selfish and they want to make some quick money, they don't really care about Bitcoin. Bitcoin is useless if nobody can use it. That'd be true if nobody could use it. Yet everyone can ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) On the other hand it is not useless because it cannot settle your frappucino transaction on its blockchain, that's just pure ignorance but of course we are well used to that coming from you. Again, if its not bitcoin it will be something else. That something else will a success while bitcoin will go down the path of irrelevence. Bitcoin is the biggest network of its kind for now that allows you to have full access to the blockchain from an average household PC and internet connection. That's the whole purpose it was created in the first place. FTFY Having access to the blockchain =! Running a node.
|
|
|
|
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 25, 2015, 09:17:18 PM |
|
I think it is time for this thread to die.
Not one poster here (on either side of the debate) was convinced of an opposing opinion, which is hardly surprising.
See you on the next topic.
|
|
|
|
coalitionfor8mb
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 42
Merit: 1
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 25, 2015, 09:35:10 PM |
|
Also, if your plan is still to make it as cheap as possible for people to run nodes.
The plan is to keep it permissionless. At the current level it we have already maxed out average home connections. What's your plan? To not make it twice as bad by maxing out the blocksize too. " We've hit one wall already, so we should definitely aim for this second one and speed up. That's bound to make everything better". ![Roll Eyes](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif) We maxed out both the current 1MB block size limit and the average home internet connections at the same time. There is nowhere to go at the moment if you are willing to preserve the fundamental properties of the network. Bitcoin is the biggest network of its kind for now that allows you to have full access to the blockchain from an average household PC and internet connection. That's the whole purpose it was created in the first place.
FTFY Having access to the blockchain =! Running a node. The key word is "permissionless" access. The home networks are ubiquitous and are even raised to the status of the "basic human rights" in some countries. I think it is time for this thread to die.
Not one poster here (on either side of the debate) was convinced of an opposing opinion, which is hardly surprising.
See you on the next topic.
Pretty much. I'm glad that rushing for the (e)X(i)T has finally stopped. Let's see what other surprises Bitcoin has prepared for us. ![Cheesy](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/cheesy.gif)
|
|
|
|
muyuu
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 980
Merit: 1000
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 25, 2015, 09:41:01 PM |
|
I think it is time for this thread to die.
Like XT? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHXfEJD6DUk&feature=youtu.be&t=8m48sWhen Trace Mayer decides to abandon neutrality and tears Gavin a new one like that, I think it's time to wake up and smell the coffee.
|
GPG ID: 7294199D - OTC ID: muyuu (470F97EB7294199D) forum tea fund BTC 1Epv7KHbNjYzqYVhTCgXWYhGSkv7BuKGEU DOGE DF1eTJ2vsxjHpmmbKu9jpqsrg5uyQLWksM CAP F1MzvmmHwP2UhFq82NQT7qDU9NQ8oQbtkQ
|
|
|
brg444 (OP)
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 25, 2015, 09:51:30 PM |
|
I think it is time for this thread to die.
Not one poster here (on either side of the debate) was convinced of an opposing opinion, which is hardly surprising.
See you on the next topic.
It was never about convincing anyone but proclaiming Core victory over XT ![Grin](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/grin.gif)
|
"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
|
|
|
VeritasSapere
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 25, 2015, 10:35:23 PM |
|
I think it is time for this thread to die.
Not one poster here (on either side of the debate) was convinced of an opposing opinion, which is hardly surprising.
See you on the next topic.
It was never about convincing anyone but proclaiming Core victory over XT ![Grin](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/grin.gif) People can read this for themselves and decide who has the most convincing arguments, there are obviously people here disagreeing with you. Whether XT will increase the blocksize or another implementation will does not matter. It has been a catalyst for change, which has lead to people questioning and coming to understand how consensus should and does work. It has been successful at this regardless of what we think.
|
|
|
|
brg444 (OP)
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 25, 2015, 10:42:28 PM |
|
^ can anyone tell this guy I have him on ignore just in case he's speaking to me ? ![Cheesy](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/cheesy.gif)
|
"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
|
|
|
brg444 (OP)
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 25, 2015, 10:43:25 PM |
|
Also, if your plan is still to make it as cheap as possible for people to run nodes.
The plan is to keep it permissionless. At the current level it we have already maxed out average home connections. What's your plan? To not make it twice as bad by maxing out the blocksize too. " We've hit one wall already, so we should definitely aim for this second one and speed up. That's bound to make everything better". ![Roll Eyes](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif) We maxed out both the current 1MB block size limit and the average home internet connections at the same time. I have to disagree with this. We are nowhere near maxing out the limit.
|
"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
|
|
|
mallard
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 25, 2015, 10:49:01 PM |
|
Also, if your plan is still to make it as cheap as possible for people to run nodes.
The plan is to keep it permissionless. At the current level it we have already maxed out average home connections. What's your plan? To not make it twice as bad by maxing out the blocksize too. " We've hit one wall already, so we should definitely aim for this second one and speed up. That's bound to make everything better". ![Roll Eyes](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif) We maxed out both the current 1MB block size limit and the average home internet connections at the same time. I have to disagree with this. We are nowhere near maxing out the limit. While the blocks aren't being filled to 1MB ( https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size) there are still usually a lot of unconfirmed transactions.
|
|
|
|
brg444 (OP)
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 25, 2015, 11:05:10 PM |
|
Also, if your plan is still to make it as cheap as possible for people to run nodes.
The plan is to keep it permissionless. At the current level it we have already maxed out average home connections. What's your plan? To not make it twice as bad by maxing out the blocksize too. " We've hit one wall already, so we should definitely aim for this second one and speed up. That's bound to make everything better". ![Roll Eyes](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif) We maxed out both the current 1MB block size limit and the average home internet connections at the same time. I have to disagree with this. We are nowhere near maxing out the limit. While the blocks aren't being filled to 1MB ( https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size) there are still usually a lot of unconfirmed transactions. Not a concern. They'd get confirmed right away with a proper fee.
|
"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
|
|
|
coalitionfor8mb
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 42
Merit: 1
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 25, 2015, 11:15:10 PM |
|
Also, if your plan is still to make it as cheap as possible for people to run nodes.
The plan is to keep it permissionless. At the current level it we have already maxed out average home connections. What's your plan? To not make it twice as bad by maxing out the blocksize too. " We've hit one wall already, so we should definitely aim for this second one and speed up. That's bound to make everything better". ![Roll Eyes](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif) We maxed out both the current 1MB block size limit and the average home internet connections at the same time. I have to disagree with this. We are nowhere near maxing out the limit. You caught me there! There is still room to grow, it seems... I'm glad that the level of "precision thinking" is rising on this forum. ![Grin](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/grin.gif)
|
|
|
|
|