Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs

[Carlton Banks]

Here I may disagree, not sure exactly what you meant.  Why would a change that make something that is inevitable easier/safer/more efficient be a problem for you.

We cannot stop second layer solutions.

I am asking if you need to propose a protocol change through consensus in order for 2nd layer's to happen?  What change are you refering to?

And the answer is that there is no need, the protocol additions to enable 2nd layers have already been activated on the network. Burt alludes to further additions to the protocol that would improve the efficiency of 2nd layers.

[traincarswreck]

And the answer is that there is no need, the protocol additions to enable 2nd layers have already been activated on the network. Burt alludes to further additions to the protocol that would improve the efficiency of 2nd layers.

That can all be sorted out quite easily in dialogue then.

[traincarswreck]

Carlton, and company.  How did you come to the conclusion segwit isn't a change OR doesn't increase the tps?

[jonald_fyookball]

Yes, I realize that that is what he is saying, but I think it is a poor model of value.

Imagine a publicly traded railroad company that, early in its inception, issued press releases with its business plan to service passengers
all around the country.  Now imagine that it currently it only services 57 stations railway stations, but investors know there are major plans
for expansion.  The stock price for the past 12 months has been trading between $15 and $20.   Suddenly the CEO announces that instead
of servicing the thousands of stations around the country,  they will simply stick to the 57.  Does the stock price tank?  Of course it does.
 

But this isn't how market theory works.  The markets are god, they are clarivoyent, they KNOW the outcome and this is what they invested in.  They didn't invest in the promise, they KNOW the truth because they are god.  The markets knew from the start the project would stick at 57 and invested as such. 

Your argument is not accepted market theory and mine is based effectively on the efficient market hypothesis.  It doesn't matter how butt hurt, irrational, or mistaken you and other investors are. The market knows the truth, it knows the future.

I don't really care how many books you've read on market theory -- you're just not making
sense.

Markets aren't God, sorry.  

The CEO could have whacked his head on the bathtub and lost a few too many braincells,
causing him to make a bad decision.

Stocks gap up or down every day on news for a reason, which is that fundamental data
is constantly emerging.  The market then tries (through price discovery) to find a stable point
value...until the next piece of data comes in and the cycle repeats.  

[traincarswreck]

jonald, your reasoning doesn't follow accepted market theory.  My god metaphor can help you understand what is accepted theory. Your subjective beliefs, or any other individuals do not equate to the market's ultimate valuation. The markets know the future, a ceo cannot fool them.

[jonald_fyookball]

jonald, your reasoning doesn't follow accepted market theory.  My god metaphor can help you understand what is accepted theory. Your subjective beliefs, or any other individuals do not equate to the market's ultimate valuation. The markets know the future, a ceo cannot fool them.

Fine.  Please link me to this 'accepted market theory' that says that the markets know the future. 
Should be a wikipedia article on that?  I'd like to check that out.

[Carlton Banks]

Carlton, and company.  How did you come to the conclusion segwit isn't a change OR doesn't increase the tps?

Here's how.
 
Segregated witness does not need to increase the tps, you've already heard my attitude to that. In it's own right, segwit simply segregates the signatures into a separate, parallel block structure.

Further, segwit isn't a change. It's an addition.

[traincarswreck]

Fine.  Please link me to this 'accepted market theory' that says that the markets know the future. 
Should be a wikipedia article on that?  I'd like to check that out

No you have to show me where your theory is founded in economics sciences for it to hold.  I'm shown my points to be grounded, I've cited them, and shown their sources which includes smith empirical observations.

There is no founded argument to say that the markets would be dismayed if we kept, for example, 1mb.  That's your subjective opinion that the markets rallied behind satoshi's lie.  The markets rally behind ultimate truth. This is the thesis of smith hayek nash and szabo.  There is not one wiki link for this, its the entire foundation of economic science.

[franky1]

you want a stable price. but do not realise that halting utility wont cause a stable price

HE DOES NOT WANT OR INTEND A STABLE PRICE.  He never said that.  Why do you keep saying that?

because he wants to halt utility and dampen desire by limiting how many people can use it effectively... which leaves price as the main "value" umbrella left.

EG
if gold was halted at the point of only being used to make egyptian dog face masks. and only accessible through egyptian kings personal goldsmiths..
(no modern jewellery, no circuits, no gold vending machines at dubai hotels airports).. do you think people would care about gold today

[jonald_fyookball]

Fine.  Please link me to this 'accepted market theory' that says that the markets know the future. 
Should be a wikipedia article on that?  I'd like to check that out

No you have to show me where your theory is founded in economics sciences for it to hold.  I'm shown my points to be grounded, I've cited them, and shown their sources which includes smith empirical observations.

There is no founded argument to say that the markets would be dismayed if we kept, for example, 1mb.  That's your subjective opinion that the markets rallied behind satoshi's lie.  The markets rally behind ultimate truth. This is the thesis of smith hayek nash and szabo.  There is not one wiki link for this, its the entire foundation of economic science.

Pretty sure none of those guys would ever claim that markets are omniscient or perfectly precognitive. 
Clearly they are not as I just explained with the bathtub example.

[traincarswreck]

Segregated witness does not need to increase the tps, you've already heard my attitude to that. In it's own right, segwit simply segregates the signatures into a separate, parallel block structure.

Further, segwit isn't a change. It's an addition.

No I do not understand.  If we don't use segregated witness today, and we need consensus for this change, then its change.  And change by definition is change.  Calling it an addition doesn't change that.

https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/27/segwit-upgrade-guide/

Initial segwit adoption requires the participation of two groups:

    Miners representing 95% or more of the total Bitcoin network hash rate must signal support for segwit in order to lock-in segwit’s activation.

    Full nodes run by a reasonable number of users and business to validate the payments they receive need to be upgraded to Bitcoin Core 0.13.1 or another segwit-compatible implementation in order to incentivize miners to follow segwit’s rules after segwit activates. (This is Bitcoin’s normal incentivization mechanism where miners only receive income for generating a block if they follow all of the consensus rules, which will include the new segwit consensus rules once segwit activates.)

Segwit speaks to an effective capacity change (change), does this not affect the tps?:

Block capacity/size increase

Since old nodes will only download the witness-stripped block, they only enforce the 1 MB block size limit rule on that data. New nodes, which understand the full block with witness data, are therefore free to replace this limit with a new one, allowing for larger block sizes. Segregated witness therefore takes advantage of this opportunity to raise the block size limit to nearly 4 MB, and adds a new cost limit to ensure blocks remain balanced in their resource use (this effectively results in an effective limit closer to 1.6 to 2 MB).

[traincarswreck]

Pretty sure none of those guys would ever claim that markets are omniscient or perfectly precognitive. 
Clearly they are not as I just explained with the bathtub example.

I've read and studied each of their works, and you are guessing and have read none of them.

[traincarswreck]

because he wants to halt utility and dampen desire by limiting how many people can use it effectively... which leaves price as the main "value" umbrella left.

EG
if gold was halted at the point of only being used to make egyptian dog face masks. and only accessible through egyptian kings personal goldsmiths..
(no modern jewellery, no circuits, no gold vending machines at dubai hotels airports).. do you think people would care about gold today

Yup you have conflated everything again. We are taking about changing bitcoin's tps.  This has never been done to gold, and if someone had a magic button to arbitrarily change the tps in gold then it would be valued as something that doesn't change.

[jonald_fyookball]

Pretty sure none of those guys would ever claim that markets are omniscient or perfectly precognitive. 
Clearly they are not as I just explained with the bathtub example.

I've read and studied each of their works, and you are guessing and have read none of them.

If all you can say is that I haven't read as many books as you, then you lose the debate.

You can't refute my logic, nor can you link me to any page on the entire Internet that supports your kooky theories.

[Carlton Banks]

Segwit speaks to an effective capacity change (change), does this not affect the tps?:

Segregated witness is a concept, like Lightning. Like Lightning, it can be implemented in different ways. You're quoting the implementation that exists now, but as I've explained, the blocksize increase doesn't have to be a part of that.

[traincarswreck]

If all you can say is that I haven't read as many books as you, then you lose the debate.

You can't refute my logic, nor can you link me to any page on the entire Internet that supports your kooky theories.

I'm telling you my argument is founded in accepted economic theory, that you do not understand or know the theory does not make it kooky.  I have cited everything I have said along this whole way, your understand of what markets are and their purpose runs counter to accepted economic science, I cannot be expected to teach you.

[traincarswreck]

Segregated witness is a concept, like Lightning. Like Lightning, it can be implemented in different ways. You're quoting the implementation that exists now, but as I've explained, the blocksize increase doesn't have to be a part of that.

I cited core's roadmap, and as it stands it seems to me it is an attempt to CHANGE the implied tps.

[Carlton Banks]

Segregated witness is a concept, like Lightning. Like Lightning, it can be implemented in different ways. You're quoting the implementation that exists now, but as I've explained, the blocksize increase doesn't have to be a part of that.

I cited core's roadmap, and as it stands it seems to me it is an attempt to CHANGE the implied tps.

I didn't cite Core's roadmap, I cited the overall concept. You're conflating the implementation with the root concept.


No tps changes are a part of the concept of segregating witness information.

[traincarswreck]

I didn't cite Core's roadmap, I cited the overall concept. You're conflating the implementation with the root concept.

I'm talking about reality, the real proposal on the table, you are speaking about air/nothing.

[traincarswreck]

Carlton, do you or do you not agree, that core's segwit roadmap is an attempt to change the implied tps?