Poll: Mike H. Interview - Convincing or not?

[Carlton Banks]

Care to give me a single example of high cost luxury open code?  

The 'if you charge a cunting fortune, they will come' theory is a prime example of the laughable unworldliness of some of the folks involved in Bitcoin.

I'm sure they'll enjoy charging the equivalent of $50 to send a few cents to each other. The rest of the world will carry on happily as before or go with a system that's designed to actually accommodate them.

Have to concur with this, bitcoin should not be "luxury", and brg44 is misrepresenting the outlook of the technologies he supports if that's what he really believes.

There's a balance to be struck. We've recognised that those fighting for BIP101 want that because it is unbalanced to one extremity, but any arguments in favour of actual exclusivity is clearly the inverse of the BIP101 misbalance. "Luxury" implies "not enough supply to meet demand", which is not desirable.

[brg444]

Care to give me a single example of high cost luxury open code?  

The 'if you charge a cunting fortune, they will come' theory is a prime example of the laughable unworldliness of some of the folks involved in Bitcoin.

I'm sure they'll enjoy charging the equivalent of $50 to send a few cents to each other. The rest of the world will carry on happily as before or go with a system that's designed to actually accommodate them.

Have to concur with this, bitcoin should not be "luxury", and brg44 is misrepresenting the outlook of the technologies he supports if that's what he really believes.

There's a balance to be struck. We've recognised that those fighting for BIP101 want that because it is unbalanced to one extremity, but any arguments in favour of actual exclusivity is clearly the inverse of the BIP101 misbalance. "Luxury" implies "not enough supply to meet demand", which is not desirable.

The block size cap is precisely to manage the supply in full expectation that all demand can not be met.

[Carlton Banks]

Care to give me a single example of high cost luxury open code?  

The 'if you charge a cunting fortune, they will come' theory is a prime example of the laughable unworldliness of some of the folks involved in Bitcoin.

I'm sure they'll enjoy charging the equivalent of $50 to send a few cents to each other. The rest of the world will carry on happily as before or go with a system that's designed to actually accommodate them.

Have to concur with this, bitcoin should not be "luxury", and brg44 is misrepresenting the outlook of the technologies he supports if that's what he really believes.

There's a balance to be struck. We've recognised that those fighting for BIP101 want that because it is unbalanced to one extremity, but any arguments in favour of actual exclusivity is clearly the inverse of the BIP101 misbalance. "Luxury" implies "not enough supply to meet demand", which is not desirable.

The block size cap is precisely to manage the supply in full expectation that all demand can not be met.

You're implying supply = demand - 1 notional unit of demand, and that's doesn't correspond with my idea of a "luxury" service.

[brg444]

Care to give me a single example of high cost luxury open code?  

The 'if you charge a cunting fortune, they will come' theory is a prime example of the laughable unworldliness of some of the folks involved in Bitcoin.

I'm sure they'll enjoy charging the equivalent of $50 to send a few cents to each other. The rest of the world will carry on happily as before or go with a system that's designed to actually accommodate them.

Have to concur with this, bitcoin should not be "luxury", and brg44 is misrepresenting the outlook of the technologies he supports if that's what he really believes.

There's a balance to be struck. We've recognised that those fighting for BIP101 want that because it is unbalanced to one extremity, but any arguments in favour of actual exclusivity is clearly the inverse of the BIP101 misbalance. "Luxury" implies "not enough supply to meet demand", which is not desirable.

The block size cap is precisely to manage the supply in full expectation that all demand can not be met.

You're implying supply = demand - 1 notional unit of demand, and that's doesn't correspond with my idea of a "luxury" service.

What is your idea of a "luxury" service? Mine is one that makes no compromise (in this case security) just to appeal to larger mass of users.

This is pretty much in line with the idea of Bitcoin as a settlement network.

[BitAddict]

Not convicing at all. He's pushing with half truth/lies for his own interest... So sad Bitcoin is now more about politics than ever.

[Carlton Banks]

Care to give me a single example of high cost luxury open code?  

The 'if you charge a cunting fortune, they will come' theory is a prime example of the laughable unworldliness of some of the folks involved in Bitcoin.

I'm sure they'll enjoy charging the equivalent of $50 to send a few cents to each other. The rest of the world will carry on happily as before or go with a system that's designed to actually accommodate them.

Have to concur with this, bitcoin should not be "luxury", and brg44 is misrepresenting the outlook of the technologies he supports if that's what he really believes.

There's a balance to be struck. We've recognised that those fighting for BIP101 want that because it is unbalanced to one extremity, but any arguments in favour of actual exclusivity is clearly the inverse of the BIP101 misbalance. "Luxury" implies "not enough supply to meet demand", which is not desirable.

The block size cap is precisely to manage the supply in full expectation that all demand can not be met.

You're implying supply = demand - 1 notional unit of demand, and that's doesn't correspond with my idea of a "luxury" service.

What is your idea of a "luxury" service? Mine is one that makes no compromise (in this case security) just to appeal to larger mass of users.

I don't accept that definition, or it's preposition that there exists a tradeoff between bitcoin's network security and it's transaction rate.

Are you genuinely trying to say that the strategy should be to target some factor by which the supplied blockspace should be reduced by in respect of demand? That would be a form of luxury service to me, and if any future overlay payment solutions couldn't take up that slack, then I don't know how competitive that kind of Bitcoin would actually be. I don't support that kind of exclusive/conservative approach any more than the throw-resource-responsiblity-to-the-wind approach of BIP101.

[brg444]

Care to give me a single example of high cost luxury open code?  

The 'if you charge a cunting fortune, they will come' theory is a prime example of the laughable unworldliness of some of the folks involved in Bitcoin.

I'm sure they'll enjoy charging the equivalent of $50 to send a few cents to each other. The rest of the world will carry on happily as before or go with a system that's designed to actually accommodate them.

Have to concur with this, bitcoin should not be "luxury", and brg44 is misrepresenting the outlook of the technologies he supports if that's what he really believes.

There's a balance to be struck. We've recognised that those fighting for BIP101 want that because it is unbalanced to one extremity, but any arguments in favour of actual exclusivity is clearly the inverse of the BIP101 misbalance. "Luxury" implies "not enough supply to meet demand", which is not desirable.

The block size cap is precisely to manage the supply in full expectation that all demand can not be met.

You're implying supply = demand - 1 notional unit of demand, and that's doesn't correspond with my idea of a "luxury" service.

What is your idea of a "luxury" service? Mine is one that makes no compromise (in this case security) just to appeal to larger mass of users.

I don't accept that definition, or it's preposition that there exists a tradeoff between bitcoin's network security and it's transaction rate.

Are you genuinely trying to say that the strategy should be to target some factor by which the supplied blockspace should be reduced by in respect of demand? That would be a form of luxury service to me, and if any future overlay payment solutions couldn't take up that slack, then I don't know how competitive that kind of Bitcoin would actually be. I don't support that kind of exclusive/conservative approach any more than the throw-resource-responsiblity-to-the-wind approach of BIP101.

I think we agree that the block size should be a function of the resources requirement for one person to become a peer in the network (fully validate by running a full node).

Therefore it stands to reason that the Bitcoin blockchain will forever be able to accommodate only a marginal amount of transactions worldwide given the resources load implied. Hence the exclusive, "luxury" qualitative.

[Carlton Banks]

I think we agree that the block size should be a function of the resources requirement for one person to become a peer in the network (fully validate by running a full node).

Therefore it stands to reason that the Bitcoin blockchain will forever be able to accommodate only a marginal amount of transactions worldwide given the resources load implied. Hence the exclusive, "luxury" qualitative.

In which case, we need a definition for the size/location of the margin. I suspect that outright exclusivity is only one way out of many.

[brg444]

I think we agree that the block size should be a function of the resources requirement for one person to become a peer in the network (fully validate by running a full node).

Therefore it stands to reason that the Bitcoin blockchain will forever be able to accommodate only a marginal amount of transactions worldwide given the resources load implied. Hence the exclusive, "luxury" qualitative.

In which case, we need a definition for the size/location of the margin. I suspect that outright exclusivity is only one way out of many.

Exclusivity is a consequence of the strict security requirements of Bitcoin.

Fortunately this exclusivity does not discriminate people based on status, gender, religion, sexuality, etc but mere financial means.

Moreover, unlike what some narrow minded people would have you believe this does not limit the benefits of Bitcoin to transactions occuring directly on its blockchain. I'm sure you understand that anyway...

[Patel]

Reading Mike Hearn cry on the development emails is the most cringe worthy thing.

Go read the BIP65 deployment thread on the dev emails. He is the only one opposing it, and everyone else is showing consensus.

Constantly stirring up drama, belittling other devs, and arguing like a little kid. So annoying.

Deployment of BIP65 should not be held up just because one dev is giving NACK. Many scalability projects are depending on BIP65 to progress.

[Carlton Banks]

I think we agree that the block size should be a function of the resources requirement for one person to become a peer in the network (fully validate by running a full node).

Therefore it stands to reason that the Bitcoin blockchain will forever be able to accommodate only a marginal amount of transactions worldwide given the resources load implied. Hence the exclusive, "luxury" qualitative.

In which case, we need a definition for the size/location of the margin. I suspect that outright exclusivity is only one way out of many.

Exclusivity is a consequence of the strict security requirements of Bitcoin.

Fortunately this exclusivity does not discriminate people based on status, gender, religion, sexuality, etc but mere financial means.

Moreover, unlike what some narrow minded people would have you believe this does not limit the benefits of Bitcoin to transactions occuring directly on its blockchain. I'm sure you understand that anyway...

Okay, but I stand by my original point really: using words like "luxury" gives the wrong impression of your actual own position, as you've conceded that you only intend a premium on main chain transaction space, not with off-chain transactions or other secondary solutions. You're not making this distinction clear IMO.

[brg444]

Reading Mike Hearn cry on the development emails is the most cringe worthy thing.

Go read the BIP65 deployment thread on the dev emails. He is the only one opposing it, and everyone else is showing consensus.

He is constantly stirring up drama, belittling other devs, and arguing like a little kid. So annoying.

Deployment of BIP65 should not be held up just because one dev is giving NACK.

You shall not worry, it won't.

[knight22]

Reading Mike Hearn cry on the development emails is the most cringe worthy thing.

Go read the BIP65 deployment thread on the dev emails. He is the only one opposing it, and everyone else is showing consensus.

He is constantly stirring up drama, belittling other devs, and arguing like a little kid. So annoying.

Deployment of BIP65 should not be held up just because one dev is giving NACK.

You shall not worry, it won't.

Why not? That's the Core blockade strategy at its finest.

[brg444]

I think we agree that the block size should be a function of the resources requirement for one person to become a peer in the network (fully validate by running a full node).

Therefore it stands to reason that the Bitcoin blockchain will forever be able to accommodate only a marginal amount of transactions worldwide given the resources load implied. Hence the exclusive, "luxury" qualitative.

In which case, we need a definition for the size/location of the margin. I suspect that outright exclusivity is only one way out of many.

Exclusivity is a consequence of the strict security requirements of Bitcoin.

Fortunately this exclusivity does not discriminate people based on status, gender, religion, sexuality, etc but mere financial means.

Moreover, unlike what some narrow minded people would have you believe this does not limit the benefits of Bitcoin to transactions occuring directly on its blockchain. I'm sure you understand that anyway...

Okay, but I stand by my original point really: using words like "luxury" gives the wrong impression of your actual own position, as you've conceded that you only intend a premium on main chain transaction space, not with off-chain transactions or other secondary solutions. You're not making this distinction clear IMO.

I did think your issue was with my choice of word but I'd like to remind you that it was picked in response to knight22's qualification of Bitcoin as some sort of "commercial" good.

In that context, I do think it is legitimate to qualify Bitcoin as a "luxury" item, an "exclusive" payment network.

[brg444]

Reading Mike Hearn cry on the development emails is the most cringe worthy thing.

Go read the BIP65 deployment thread on the dev emails. He is the only one opposing it, and everyone else is showing consensus.

He is constantly stirring up drama, belittling other devs, and arguing like a little kid. So annoying.

Deployment of BIP65 should not be held up just because one dev is giving NACK.

You shall not worry, it won't.

Why not? That's the Core blockade strategy at its finest.

Because one dissident, unless he offers potent reasoning behind his objection (and not mere semantics as Mike is currently doing), is not enough to work against an otherwise vast general consensus.

[Patel]

Reading Mike Hearn cry on the development emails is the most cringe worthy thing.

Go read the BIP65 deployment thread on the dev emails. He is the only one opposing it, and everyone else is showing consensus.

He is constantly stirring up drama, belittling other devs, and arguing like a little kid. So annoying.

Deployment of BIP65 should not be held up just because one dev is giving NACK.

You shall not worry, it won't.

Why not? That's the Core blockade strategy at its finest.

There are way more people opposed to what Mike Hearn is suggesting, then the opposite.

The block size debate, which is completely seperate from BIP65, probably had 50-50 consensus amongst devs for BIP101.

The only NACK for BIP65, if I am reading everyones emails properly, is from Mike. And it's due to hard fork vs soft fork deployment. Consensus being soft fork.

[knight22]

I think we agree that the block size should be a function of the resources requirement for one person to become a peer in the network (fully validate by running a full node).

Therefore it stands to reason that the Bitcoin blockchain will forever be able to accommodate only a marginal amount of transactions worldwide given the resources load implied. Hence the exclusive, "luxury" qualitative.

In which case, we need a definition for the size/location of the margin. I suspect that outright exclusivity is only one way out of many.

Exclusivity is a consequence of the strict security requirements of Bitcoin.

Fortunately this exclusivity does not discriminate people based on status, gender, religion, sexuality, etc but mere financial means.

Moreover, unlike what some narrow minded people would have you believe this does not limit the benefits of Bitcoin to transactions occuring directly on its blockchain. I'm sure you understand that anyway...

Okay, but I stand by my original point really: using words like "luxury" gives the wrong impression of your actual own position, as you've conceded that you only intend a premium on main chain transaction space, not with off-chain transactions or other secondary solutions. You're not making this distinction clear IMO.

I did think your issue was with my choice of word but I'd like to remind you that it was picked in response to knight22's qualification of Bitcoin as some sort of "commercial" good.

In that context, I do think it is legitimate to qualify Bitcoin as a "luxury" item, an "exclusive" payment network.

If bitcoin goes down that path, another more "inclusive" and affordable/competitive system will take over. The bitcoin blockchain has nothing magical tied to it. If you create an artificial cost associated to its usage, you only create an economic incentives for ALL market participants to use another blockchain that scales better and is cheaper.

Bitcoin blockchain might be the stronger and bigger one ATM but it could easily change if there is an economic incentive to do so. And no, bitcoin won't be the "luxury" blockchain. It will only become irrelevant.

[brg444]

Reading Mike Hearn cry on the development emails is the most cringe worthy thing.

Go read the BIP65 deployment thread on the dev emails. He is the only one opposing it, and everyone else is showing consensus.

He is constantly stirring up drama, belittling other devs, and arguing like a little kid. So annoying.

Deployment of BIP65 should not be held up just because one dev is giving NACK.

You shall not worry, it won't.

Why not? That's the Core blockade strategy at its finest.

There are way more people opposed to what Mike Hearn is suggesting, then the opposite.

The block size debate, which is completely seperate from BIP65, probably had 50-50 consensus amongst devs for BIP101.

The only NACK for BIP65, if I am reading everyones emails properly, is from Mike. And it's due to hard fork vs soft fork deployment.

What  

More like 90-10

[Patel]

^^ Probably, my facts are probably wrong on that.

[knight22]

^^ Probably, my facts are probably wrong on that.

50/50 is more on the market participants side rather than devs.