Bitcoin was a great experiment. We learnt a lot from it.

[jpoker272727]

The experiment taught us many valuable things. Now it is time to back the fuck up and start over with some more workable parameters.

Let's start with a new genesis block. A more sane approach to mining. Much faster block time. Much higher capacity blcoks. And no god-damned Blockstream dickheads trying to take-over and own the whole thing. We need some real organization at the top. Otherwise, Trump is going to create the Department of Homeland Cryptocurrency and electronic money will be forever controlled by the same politicians just like the last currency.

No more fucking around with theory, it is time to put this thing right.

Get rid of that poison team Adam Back and 1 Meg Greg. Team Core is Team Bullshit.

We should think on the other way and another perspective, everyone is free to create an altcoin like many others that have created them (it is supposed that there are hundreds of altcoins)

Bitcoin is good, and it's going good, don't take the current bitcoin price so unstable because the price should change but maybe $100 for few days is a lot.

I think that to take bitcoin down is not easy and being controlled fully by the government is really hard to happen.

[Sundark]

The experiment taught us many valuable things.  Now it is time to back the fuck up and start over with some more workable parameters.  

Let's start with a new genesis block.  A more sane approach to mining.  Much faster block time.  Much higher capacity blcoks.  

There are already coins with these properties, with better "workable parameters" with mining alghorits which prevent you from mining with ASICS.
Based on PoS instead of PoW, faster confirmation with higher transaction capacity. Go support them if you wish. You don't need to look far.
If you find and support your ultimate coin then what will you do if even better coin will be designed in the future.
You'll leave your future ultimate coin for even newer and improved version every time?

[jbreher]

people say that they had fun with bitcoin and now it's time for a rebirth of it. (usually the people from BU say this)

If you could provide more than one quote supporting your assertion that 'usually people from BU say that they had fun with bitcoin and now it's time for a rebirth of it', I will be impressed. If you cannot, I'll just think you're making shit up to vilify those with whom you do not agree.

[franky1]

Bitcoin is good, and it's going good, don't take the current bitcoin price so unstable because the price should change but maybe $100 for few days is a lot.

so is the change of gold.. if you were measuring it in tonnes.
EG a $100 change of a gold ounce = $32,151,00 change in the measure of tonnes
but we moved away from measuring in tonnes centuries ago. and soon enough we will be measuring gold in grams

however if exchanges measured bitcoin in mbtc
EG 0.001=$1.16today $1.28 last week

meaning its only moved $0.12 per mbtc

soon enough many people will measure bitcoins in mbtc or even bits (0.00000100)
just like we are no longer in ancient egyptian times measuring gold by the tonne.

its all a matter of prospective

[dinofelis]

You'll leave your future ultimate coin for even newer and improved version every time?

Yes, like you leave your old car for a newer one.

[Amph]

this thread is pure fud and make little sense, OP is expecting that millions invested in bitcoin, in the market and in the mining activity will be fucked only because he think that bitcoin was a "testnet"

other coins out there have their problem also, they are not perfect, their problems won't come off because they have no volume like bitcoin, we just need to reach the consensus to fix the known issue

besides that if you start another chain you will have the same problem as now with the same consensus that will not be reached on the block limit etc..., what's the point?

[dinofelis]

other coins out there have their problem also, they are not perfect, their problems won't come off because they have no volume like bitcoin, we just need to reach the consensus to fix the known issue

And "consensus to fix the known issue" is essentially impossible, for exactly the same reason that protects the 21 million coin limit.

besides that if you start another chain you will have the same problem as now with the same consensus that will not be reached on the block limit etc..., what's the point?

Not all altcoins have hard block limits.  But they will also run into problems.  However "other coins running into problems" doesn't mean that bitcoin's problems can be solved.   If you're falling out of an air plane, saying that others are falling too, will not avoid you crashing on the floor, right

The fact that bitcoin has a hard block size limit, makes that block chain space is a limited resource in the same way that the number of coins is a limited resource.  From the moment that there's a market with finite price for that limited resource (like from the moment that bitcoin wasn't $0,- any more), the consensus mechanism protects this resource scarcity.  As there is now a strongly rising fee for "room on the chain", this resource scarcity will be protected by the same mechanism that stops people form increasing the number of bitcoins beyond the original protocol.

Bitcoin having a fixed block size was programming, from the start, a scarce resource of "room on the block chain", that is coming to maturity.  The artificial scarcity of coins, that made the market cap of bitcoin's coins, is now also applied to block chain room.  Whenever this market cap becomes bigger than the coin market cap, and when "room on the chain" becomes a much more valuable commodity than (unmovable) coins, the 21 million coin limit will not matter any more, and the true value proposition of bitcoin will be "room on the chain".

This was baked in from the start in the protocol, by setting up a hard limit on block size.

[AngryDwarf]

This was baked in from the start in the protocol, by setting up a hard limit on block size.

This was originally 32MB wasn't it? If hard fork consensus can decrease it, then hard fork consensus can increase it.
No consensus and things stay how they currently are. Only the rich can afford to use bitcoin.

[dinofelis]

This was baked in from the start in the protocol, by setting up a hard limit on block size.

This was originally 32MB wasn't it? If hard fork consensus can decrease it, then hard fork consensus can increase it.
No consensus and things stay how they currently are. Only the rich can afford to use bitcoin.

The fact that there IS a hard limit in the protocol is the essence.  There are alt coins that have technology-limited block sizes, like mining is technology-limited: from a certain point onwards, with a given technology, it becomes too expensive.  But when technology advances, this limit is pushed higher.  In that case, the commodity price is elastic, and determined by real world cost of resource usage.  As it should be.  And is not an artificially created scarcity, but just the price of used resource.  In order to make a monetary asset, you have to make an artificial scarcity, like the number of bitcoins.  If you make an artificial scarcity of block chain room, that automatically ALSO becomes a monetary asset from the moment that it becomes more scarce than the real resource usage.  The 32 MB limit will reach that only much later, but will reach it.


One could lower it back then, because it was considered a *technical* parameter with no scarcity involved.  One could have increased it before it became a scarcity parameter.  But that window is closed now.

Note, BTW, that LOWERING the limit is a SOFT FORK. 

[Dimelord]

The experiment taught us many valuable things.  Now it is time to back the fuck up and start over with some more workable parameters.  

Let's start with a new genesis block.  A more sane approach to mining.  Much faster block time.  Much higher capacity blcoks.  And no god-damned Blockstream dickheads trying to take-over and own the whole thing.  We need some real organization at the top.  Otherwise, Trump is going to create the Department of Homeland Cryptocurrency and electronic money will be forever controlled by the same politicians just like the last currency.  

No more fucking around with theory, it is time to put this thing right.  

Get rid of that poison team Adam Back and 1 Meg Greg.  Team Core is Team Bullshit.  

We no longer need this kind of opinion what we need now is a solution to the problem. An urgent solution to stop users to panic and make mining efficient again. What we need is a consensus and any kind of system does not matter as long as it will give an answer and stop the current problems. Let us stop debating and be united for the sake of bitcoin and for the sake of our investments.

Yes, we need an urgent solution.That would be the real tribute and homage we pay to Mr.satoshi nakamoto.

[paul gatt]

Now, for me, bitcoin is no longer an experiment, it is something very familiar, and it plays a key role in my life. Before, I had never known it, and I was a poor citizen, and when I knew it, things improved, my life had changed since I knew bitcoin. Bitcoin is something new but has a lot of value, i feel like it

[AngryDwarf]

This was baked in from the start in the protocol, by setting up a hard limit on block size.

This was originally 32MB wasn't it? If hard fork consensus can decrease it, then hard fork consensus can increase it.
No consensus and things stay how they currently are. Only the rich can afford to use bitcoin.

The fact that there IS a hard limit in the protocol is the essence.  There are alt coins that have technology-limited block sizes, like mining is technology-limited: from a certain point onwards, with a given technology, it becomes too expensive.  But when technology advances, this limit is pushed higher.  In that case, the commodity price is elastic, and determined by real world cost of resource usage.  As it should be.  And is not an artificially created scarcity, but just the price of used resource.  In order to make a monetary asset, you have to make an artificial scarcity, like the number of bitcoins.  If you make an artificial scarcity of block chain room, that automatically ALSO becomes a monetary asset from the moment that it becomes more scarce than the real resource usage.  The 32 MB limit will reach that only much later, but will reach it.


One could lower it back then, because it was considered a *technical* parameter with no scarcity involved.  One could have increased it before it became a scarcity parameter.  But that window is closed now.

Note, BTW, that LOWERING the limit is a SOFT FORK. 

If gold was still shipped around the world for the majority of international settlements, and demand exceeded capacity, people would build more ships. I don't see why we need artificial scarcity based on transaction rate. We have that scarcity on coin cap and eventual lost coins.

Please explain how lowering the limit is a soft fork.

[dinofelis]

If gold was still shipped around the world for the majority of international settlements, and demand exceeded capacity, people would build more ships. I don't see why we need artificial scarcity based on transaction rate. We have that scarcity on coin cap and eventual lost coins.

We don't NEED it, but the dynamics of trustless consensus leading to immutability IMPOSES it.  That's my point.  This is nobody's fault.  It is the inherent dynamics that brings immutability, that will also keep this (unfortunate) parameter fixed.

Please explain how lowering the limit is a soft fork.

The definition of a soft fork is: the new protocol makes blocks that are all accepted as valid by the old protocol, but not all blocks accepted by the old protocol, are accepted as valid by the new protocol.  In other words, a soft fork is an EXTRA CONDITION on the previously existing protocol.  Every 1 MB block is compatible with the previous protocol that allowed blocks up to 32 MB.  But, say, a 7 MB block, that was compatible with the old protocol, is not valid any more under the new protocol.

[AngryDwarf]

Please explain how lowering the limit is a soft fork.

The definition of a soft fork is: the new protocol makes blocks that are all accepted as valid by the old protocol, but not all blocks accepted by the old protocol, are accepted as valid by the new protocol.  In other words, a soft fork is an EXTRA CONDITION on the previously existing protocol.  Every 1 MB block is compatible with the previous protocol that allowed blocks up to 32 MB.  But, say, a 7 MB block, that was compatible with the old protocol, is not valid any more under the new protocol.

I think I understand this point.

[dinofelis]

In short, you want to make an altcoin? Then you should use altcoin instead which have better potential than bitcoin do
But, i think most altcoin will die if they faced same problem that bitcoin currently face.

Of course not.  In order to face the same problems, they would have to have similar investment, adoption and so on.   Most alt coins are technically superior to bitcoin and would only run into the same problems at even higher levels.  Take litecoin for instance.  Litecoin has more room on the chain than bitcoin.  DASH too.  They are also "hard block chain limit" coins, but both of them can at least accommodate 4 times bitcoin's max volume.  Before they run into the same problems, they have to have 4 times more capital/adoption.... Then, they are as strong as bitcoin at that point.

Then there are other coins like monero, that have flexible block sizes, and will never hit a hard wall.

But in the end, all block chain based chains will run into problems of scale, because it is a technology that doesn't scale well.

That said, if we have many *different* chains, they can all carry part of the volume of course. 

[iamTom123]

OP can make an altcoin.

also OP if you have any other " We need some real organization at the top." then its still going to be just as bad as blockstream dominance..any dominance is bad.

also the majority of the community hate blockstream. and if the independent non ass kissing core devs got rid of blockstream out of core. then core (as a separate entity to blockstream) wont get the backlash its getting and earn back some respect

I fully agree. I think the idea of putting an organization at the top much like the way the normal government is run these days can be so detrimental to the idea of decentralization and is something that Bitcoin and its technology behind is fighting and avoiding for. Anyway, OP must just be joking and can even be laughing now that his/her post has elicited some good responses.

[Zadicar]

In short, you want to make an altcoin? Then you should use altcoin instead which have better potential than bitcoin do
But, i think most altcoin will die if they faced same problem that bitcoin currently face.

Of course not.  In order to face the same problems, they would have to have similar investment, adoption and so on.   Most alt coins are technically superior to bitcoin and would only run into the same problems at even higher levels.  Take litecoin for instance.  Litecoin has more room on the chain than bitcoin.  DASH too.  They are also "hard block chain limit" coins, but both of them can at least accommodate 4 times bitcoin's max volume.  Before they run into the same problems, they have to have 4 times more capital/adoption.... Then, they are as strong as bitcoin at that point.

Then there are other coins like monero, that have flexible block sizes, and will never hit a hard wall.

But in the end, all block chain based chains will run into problems of scale, because it is a technology that doesn't scale well.

That said, if we have many *different* chains, they can all carry part of the volume of course. 

Actually you do have points on what you are trying to say comparing alts and bitcoin and i partly agree on some related to the capabilities of some coins that could be better than bitcoin but seeing on the situation bitcoin has gone away to far and its hard for people switch directly.

[jbreher]

If you make an artificial scarcity of block chain room, that automatically ALSO becomes a monetary asset from the moment that it becomes more scarce than the real resource usage.  

Not to detract from you main point...

Is not an essential part of the definition of 'monetary asset' that it is readily transferrable? (I would assert that it is) If this be true, then 'space on the chain' is not a monetary asset.

That said, if we have many *different* chains, they can all carry part of the volume of course. 

Multiple chains scale exactly the same as a single chain. (actually slightly worse) Anyone wanting to freely conduct business will need to employ all significant chains.

[dinofelis]

If you make an artificial scarcity of block chain room, that automatically ALSO becomes a monetary asset from the moment that it becomes more scarce than the real resource usage.  

Not to detract from you main point...

Is not an essential part of the definition of 'monetary asset' that it is readily transferrable? (I would assert that it is) If this be true, then 'space on the chain' is not a monetary asset.

You are right.  The term "monetary" doesn't apply.  It is a "valuable asset".

That said, if we have many *different* chains, they can all carry part of the volume of course.  

Multiple chains scale exactly the same as a single chain. (actually slightly worse) Anyone wanting to freely conduct business will need to employ all significant chains.

[/quote]

No, you can have distributed exchanges.  Like now, there are many different national fiat currencies, but you don't need bank accounts of all of them.  If there are N chains out there, and everyone uses on average, n < N chains which you pick "in common" with your most important partners, you only need to exchange now and then between one of your chains, and "foreign" chains.

I don't need the chain that is essentially used by customers of groceries, and groceries in a town on the other side of the world.  The single one time I need to buy tomatoes in a far-away grocery, I'll go through some exchanges to "hop" from my chains to the grocery chain over there.  I don't need to have them all.  My transactions with my grocery don't have to fill up their chain.  And theirs are not interesting for me. 

However, a single global chain that has as well my grocery expenditures, as Bill Gates' new porsche buying, as a Chinese guy's buying of a bag of rice, that's simply crazy.  I only need a local chain, a few chains used by local agents of amazon or the like, and the possibility, in those rare cases I need something from far away, to exchange for their chains.

[jbreher]

That said, if we have many *different* chains, they can all carry part of the volume of course.  

Multiple chains scale exactly the same as a single chain. (actually slightly worse) Anyone wanting to freely conduct business will need to employ all significant chains.

No, you can have distributed exchanges.  

Sure, you can. But geographically-limited chains are hardly The Internet of Value^[tm]