Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell

[traincarswreck]

High fees are a tax and increases opportunity cost, IT DISCOURAGES USE, simple economics.

That isn't simple economics its a circular argument.  IF bitcoin's most optimal and valuable use case is to transact then we might be able to see a fee increase would negatively affect its utility as such and that this would discourage use.

But bitcoin can serve a different purpose which is a fairly stable value settlement system for meta-players (ie big banks), and this would serve a valuable purpose as well.

Your argument is premised on the former and ignores the possibility of the latter.  In regard to the latter bitcoin's other advantage you are ignoring is that it is far more secure in regard to its value proposition than any other coin.  Ethereum is far from mature in the security sense and they still have to get to PoS which is uncharted water, it hasn't been scientifically tested/proved.

It's not scientific to not consider a different possibly valid perspective.

[1715314766]

1715314766

[1715314766]

1715314766

[1715314766]

1715314766

[1715314766]

1715314766

[1715314766]

1715314766

[1715314766]

1715314766

[kiklo]

High fees are a tax and increases opportunity cost, IT DISCOURAGES USE, simple economics.

That isn't simple economics its a circular argument.  IF bitcoin's most optimal and valuable use case is to transact then we might be able to see a fee increase would negatively affect its utility as such and that this would discourage use.

But bitcoin can serve a different purpose which is a fairly stable value settlement system for meta-players (ie big banks), and this would serve a valuable purpose as well.

Your argument is premised on the former and ignores the possibility of the latter.  In regard to the latter bitcoin's other advantage you are ignoring is that it is far more secure in regard to its value proposition than any other coin.  Ethereum is far from mature in the security sense and they still have to get to PoS which is uncharted water, it hasn't been scientifically tested/proved.

It's not scientific to not consider a different possibly valid perspective.

Proof of Stake is hardly uncharted waters, their is a large # of Proof of stake coins with different specs, that have been running for years.
(And all of them have a higher transaction capacity than BTC.)

Proof of Work is a failure due to Centralization caused by economic factors, no Proof of Work coin can avoid it.
The fact that China has had over 51% control of BTC for over a year, only proves one thing the speculators will Ignore the Truth as long as it lines their pockets.

 

[kiklo]

High fees are a tax and increases opportunity cost, IT DISCOURAGES USE, simple economics.

That isn't simple economics its a circular argument.  IF bitcoin's most optimal and valuable use case is to transact then we might be able to see a fee increase would negatively affect its utility as such and that this would discourage use.

But bitcoin can serve a different purpose which is a fairly stable value settlement system for meta-players (ie big banks), and this would serve a valuable purpose as well.

Your argument is premised on the former and ignores the possibility of the latter.  In regard to the latter bitcoin's other advantage you are ignoring is that it is far more secure in regard to its value proposition than any other coin.  Ethereum is far from mature in the security sense and they still have to get to PoS which is uncharted water, it hasn't been scientifically tested/proved.

It's not scientific to not consider a different possibly valid perspective.

Proof of Stake is hardly uncharted waters, their is a large # of Proof of stake coins with different specs, that have been running for years.
(And all of them have a higher transaction capacity than BTC.)

Proof of Work is a failure due to Centralization caused by economic factors, no Proof of Work coin can avoid it.
The fact that China has had over 51% control of BTC for over a year, only proves one thing the speculators will Ignore the Truth as long as it lines their pockets.

 

Man you people still don't get it, even with a singular country containing majority of the hashrate, they did not attack the network did day? Mining is expensive and its R & D costs are huge. Attacking the network is against what miners want, it would hurt their bottom line.

So far no miners have been dishonest and purposely used its hashrate to hurt the network (mining empty blocks is NOT an attack, is only a vendor BECAUSE blocks are full and there are economic incentives not to do it anyway!), signalling for BU is not dishonest, they are still building on the longest chain which as far as we still know (hard to measure) is the chain most users accept as bitcoin.

PoW is working fine until there is a sustained 51% attack. Ever increasing R & D costs WILL allow other miner manufacturers to catch up. Limits of physics WILL allow other miner manufactures to catch up. They are not building CPU's. ASICS are much less complicated than that.

Whether China ever uses it or not the fact is they can 51% attack whenever or however they like.

You are not trusting the Proof of Work to protect the network, You are Trusting CHINA to not exert their power over it.

Problem with that is ,
Power Corrupts
Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.

BTC=Better Trust China  

 

[traincarswreck]

Proof of Stake is hardly uncharted waters, their is a large # of Proof of stake coins with different specs, that have been running for years.
(And all of them have a higher transaction capacity than BTC.)

And none of them have anywhere near the market cap, even though they have a higher transaction capacity, and they are not secure enough to have such a high cap.  And there is emerging literature showing intrinsic problems with having proof of stake be long term successful and different proposals for solving it.  It's not widely accepted that such a system can be valuable and secure long term.

[kiklo]

Proof of Stake is hardly uncharted waters, their is a large # of Proof of stake coins with different specs, that have been running for years.
(And all of them have a higher transaction capacity than BTC.)

And none of them have anywhere near the market cap, even though they have a higher transaction capacity, and they are not secure enough to have such a high cap.  And there is emerging literature showing intrinsic problems with having proof of stake be long term successful and different proposals for solving it.  It's not widely accepted that such a system can be valuable and secure long term.

You are showing that you are lacking in the ability to Compartmentalize .

Technical Capabilities of a coin and its price per coin are not a direct correlation.
Otherwise BTC would be near the bottom of the Coinmarketcap, not at the top.

The Majority of people follow the hype, BTC is the oldest and received the most hype being the 1st, it literally has nothing else going for it.
Which is why it dominance in the coin marketcap , is now below 70%, when it used to be above 90%,
BTC is literally not living up to the hype, because of it technical flaws, that are going unfixed at the present time.

 

FYI:
One Country Controls BTC Security , it is hardly secure, it is only protected by China.

FYI2: Quick Technical Comparison
LTC can support a 2½ minute block speed allowing it 4X the current Transaction Capacity of BTC
BTC only supports a 10 minute block speed , and according to G.Maxwell (has been know to lie) , BTC is unable to go to a 2½ minute block speed.
From that 1 comparison, we can conclude that Technically LTC is a Superior Coin to the Inferior coin BTC.
However, what happens is someone sees BTC over ~$500 and a LTC ~$4 , and automatically assumes BTC is better because it costs more.
All that proves is BTC costs more than LTC, not that it has any technical superiority, which it does not.

[traincarswreck]

Also how dare you say bitcoin should only be settlement layer for big banks and that serves a valuable purpose. Its defined as P2P MONEY, this is what people joined bitcoin for. A settlement layer does not fix any of the worlds existing problems. Rules and technologies for settling disputes & transfer of money between banks already EXISTS.

Suggesting that bitcoin is a settlement system intended for major players does not go against the idea of a p2p electronic cash system.  Peer to peer is not a term that is a political statement about the intended nature and use of bitcoin.  It is a computer science term.  The whitepaper is not a political statement.  Rules and technology DO exists but they do not serve the problem of settlement for meta players anywhere near as a efficiently as bitcoin.  Bitcoin doesn't solve the problem of a money for the people, but it addresses the inefficient settlement solutions and this is regardless of a 1mb limit and a transaction capacity of 3 per second.  It doesn't matter that there will be a fee market because the cost to transact large sums of wealth with bitcoin will always be cheaper than the existing traditional methods (and faster).

People will still be dependent on banks, banks will take their cut through LN fees and many will only be able to afford to read the bitcoin ledger, not modify it. This is if it doesn't die a painful death to due alts.

If bitcoin is successful as a high powered/cap settlement layer to major players then it can't possibly die due to alts because it will be serving a function that alts can't provide because they are nowhere near as secure, can't be proved as such with empirical evidence, and will never have as stable of a value proposition.

The only people who will be left hanging are the few idiots who think a settlement layer is useful, when in reality its ONLY benefit would be for big banks slightly reduce trust in one another while there was only a limited amount of parties who needed to trust each other in the first place

Bitcoin as a settlement layer is the most valuable technological solution in the world and the macro economic implications are incredible.  The problem is that it would be impossible for Satoshi to explain it to people like you who think banks are simply intrinsically "evil" (which is a religious view not based on science).

[traincarswreck]

You are showing that you are lacking in the ability to Compartmentalize .

Technical Capabilities of a coin and its price per coin are not a direct correlation.
Otherwise BTC would be near the bottom of the Coinmarketcap, not at the top.

The Majority of people follow the hype, BTC is the oldest and received the most hype being the 1st, it literally has nothing else going for it.
Which is why it dominance in the coin marketcap , is now below 70%, when it used to be above 90%,
BTC is literally not living up to the hype, because of it technical flaws, that are going unfixed at the present time.

 

FYI:
One Country Controls BTC Security , it is hardly secure, it is only protected by China.

You simultaneously refute your own argument in the same post you make it.

[kiklo]

You are showing that you are lacking in the ability to Compartmentalize .

Technical Capabilities of a coin and its price per coin are not a direct correlation.
Otherwise BTC would be near the bottom of the Coinmarketcap, not at the top.

The Majority of people follow the hype, BTC is the oldest and received the most hype being the 1st, it literally has nothing else going for it.
Which is why it dominance in the coin marketcap , is now below 70%, when it used to be above 90%,
BTC is literally not living up to the hype, because of it technical flaws, that are going unfixed at the present time.

 

FYI:
One Country Controls BTC Security , it is hardly secure, it is only protected by China.

You simultaneously refute your own argument in the same post you make it.

Really Break it down for me, makes perfect sense to me,

What does it look like in your noggin?  

 

FYI:
Was the word hype invisible to you?


FYI2:  Hmm, does this clear it up for you.
Technical Capabilities of Alt coins are being ignored due to their marketcaps being lowered than BTC.
Technical Flaw of BTC , unconfirmed transactions are impossible to hide. If they could have kept that from happening ,
the public would still believe the Hype that BTC is the Best,
oldest and slowest does not the best make.

[traincarswreck]

You are showing that you are lacking in the ability to Compartmentalize .

Technical Capabilities of a coin and its price per coin are not a direct correlation.
Otherwise BTC would be near the bottom of the Coinmarketcap, not at the top.

The Majority of people follow the hype, BTC is the oldest and received the most hype being the 1st, it literally has nothing else going for it.
Which is why it dominance in the coin marketcap , is now below 70%, when it used to be above 90%,
BTC is literally not living up to the hype, because of it technical flaws, that are going unfixed at the present time.

 

FYI:
One Country Controls BTC Security , it is hardly secure, it is only protected by China.

You simultaneously refute your own argument in the same post you make it.

Really Break it down for me, makes perfect sense to me,

What does it look like in your noggin?  

 

FYI:
Was the word hype invisible to you?

The word hype does not make it valid and non-circular nevertheless.  This is what the other poster was talking about when they said I think the markets are god.  Hype does not fuel bitcoin's price, and neither does irrational exuberance. The markets as a pricing mechanism function as the totality and aggregation of all of the available information.  It doesn't matter how many people visit r/btc to complain about a system they have taken no time to understand.  It doesn't matter how many twitter accounts complain.  The markets do not rally a $16billion dollar project for irrational reasons.  The driving force is not hype and there is no founded scientific argument in regard to market theory that would suggest so.

When Jakoon or whatever their name is says I believe the markets are god, its because I explained that the markets are the pricing signals that tell us what is rational, we don't look back at them and make arguments that the markets are not being rational because they don't agree with our subjective opinion on the prices that are created.  

Hayek explains in his essay the Use of Knowledge in Society:

…the “data” from which the economic calculus starts are never for the whole society “given” to a single mind which could work out the implications and can never be so given.

The peculiar character of the problem of a rational economic order is determined precisely by the fact that the knowledge of the circumstances of which we must make use never exists in concentrated or integrated form but solely as the dispersed bits of incomplete and frequently contradictory knowledge which all the separate individuals possess.

[kiklo]

The word hype does not make it valid and non-circular nevertheless.  This is what the other poster was talking about when they said I think the markets are god.  Hype does not fuel bitcoin's price, and neither does irrational exuberance. The markets as a pricing mechanism function as the totality and aggregation of all of the available information.  It doesn't matter how many people visit r/btc to complain about a system they have taken no time to understand.  It doesn't matter how many twitter accounts complain.  The markets do not rally a $16billion dollar project for irrational reasons.  The driving force is not hype and there is no founded scientific argument in regard to market theory that would suggest so.

When Jakoon or whatever their name is says I believe the markets are god, its because I explained that the markets are the pricing signals that tell us what is rational, we don't look back at them and make arguments that the markets are not being rational because they don't agree with our subjective opinion on the prices that are created.  

 

I see the problem, you don't know that the Bitcoins Markets are Pure Manipulation by a few power players.
Every Single Market that has a Global Reach is being manipulated , until you comprehend that you are only a pawn in their games.


 

[traincarswreck]

Do I really need to say why banks are terrible? What your begging for is fractional reserve banking through bitcoin to appear. Banks are EVIL. They do not create wealth in society they steal it by creating debt without paying for it. Their only needed service is to be a middle man to secure "funds" and provide better liquidity (real gold is not liquid), which right up until bitcoin is the only reason why they needed to exist.

The cheap credit that banks create through fractional reserves are DIRECTLY responsible for the misallocation of capital that causes unnecessary hard ship.

You're refuting your own argument again.  The fractional reserve system is not evil, but the monopoly that governments/central banks on our money systems (traditionally) has caused the system to create it's own busts and recessions.  But fractional banking per se is not the problem, rather the lack of competition is the problem.  Bitcoin as a settlement system would attend to this problem and it also attends to the inefficiencies of the existing solutions.

Real gold is not liquid in a certain sense that it is costly to transport in relation to other solutions which exist to allow settlement without always moving assets such as gold (this is another reason why bitcoin doesn't actually need increased tps in order to stay relevant and valuable.

We can turn to Smith to understand how the system could be used to keep bank loans and money printers in check:

The whole paper money of every kind which can easily circulate in any country, never can exceed the value of the gold and silver, of which it supplies the place, or which (the commerce being supposed the same) would circulate there, if there was no paper money. If twenty shilling notes, for example, are the lowest paper money current in Scotland, the whole of that currency which can easily circulate there, cannot exceed the sum of gold and silver which would be necessary for transacting the annual exchanges of twenty shillings value and upwards usually transacted within that country. Should the circulating paper at any time exceed that sum, as the excess could neither be sent abroad nor be employed in the circulation of the country, it must immediately return upon the banks, to be exchanged for gold and silver. Many people would immediately perceive that they had more of this paper than was necessary for transacting their business at home; and as they could not send it abroad, they would immediately demand payment for it from the banks. When this superfluous paper was converted into gold and silver, they could easily find a use for it, by sending it abroad; but they could find none while it remained in the shape of paper. There would immediately, therefore, be a run upon the banks to the whole extent of this superfluous paper, and if they showed any difficulty or backwardness in payment, to a much greater extent; the alarm which this would occasion necessarily increasing the run

Hayek also explains this in the denationalization of money which is simply an argument about what would unfold if the monopoly on money printing was ever broken.  This exactly what bitcoin did, and there is no part of the argument that requires the new money to have a higher tps than bitcoin.  

John Nash also gives an extensive argument to how such a system would benefit the people by being used not so much by the citizenry but by the meta players.

I've cited and summarized these arguments, and they ARE founded: https://thewealthofchips.wordpress.com/2015/07/12/a-general-summary-for-john-nashs-proposal-ideal-money/

[traincarswreck]

 

I see the problem, you don't know that the Bitcoins Markets are Pure Manipulation by a few power players.
Every Single Market that has a Global Reach is being manipulated , until you comprehend that you are only a pawn in their games.


 

Ok so just to be clear you are saying its a conspiracy?

What I am suggesting to you is that you don't understand market theory and that your argument about how the markets work is not based on accepted scientific theory.

[kiklo]

 

I see the problem, you don't know that the Bitcoins Markets are Pure Manipulation by a few power players.
Every Single Market that has a Global Reach is being manipulated , until you comprehend that you are only a pawn in their games.


 

Ok so just to be clear you are saying its a conspiracy?

What I am suggesting to you is that you don't understand market theory and that your argument about how the markets work is not based on accepted scientific theory.

For your education:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-14/markets-are-manipulated

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1185&context=yjreg

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-10-16/athena-to-pay-1-million-in-sec-hft-manipulation-case

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-08/deutsche-bank-records-alleged-to-show-banks-rigged-silver-prices

Best for last
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-11/bitcoin-plummets-after-china-launches-market-manipulation-investigations-bitcoin-exc

 

[Hyena]

Clear evidence of Blockstream controlling the Core code base to prevent block size increase can be seen here,  someone offered to help increasing the blocksize, but the issue was closed immediately by sipa (Pieter Wuille, Blockstream co-founder):
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10028

You can see Pieter Wuille closed the issue immediately but then try to justify it with the usual corporate double speak by claiming the issue is up to the community and out of his hand.

This is what we call 'lying'.

If we're talking about increasing block size from 4MB to 8MB, there maybe some room for debate.

But nothing can justify not going form 1MB to 2MB, there is a real backlog and the safety limit is above 4MB.

Blockstream is clearly holding the bitcoin code base hostage.

Here is another pull request for block size increase, closed immediately without any comment:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10014

This should do it:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10092

[traincarswreck]

For your education:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-14/markets-are-manipulated

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1185&context=yjreg

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-10-16/athena-to-pay-1-million-in-sec-hft-manipulation-case

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-08/deutsche-bank-records-alleged-to-show-banks-rigged-silver-prices

Best for last
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-11/bitcoin-plummets-after-china-launches-market-manipulation-investigations-bitcoin-exc

 

I'm still asking for clarity on whether or not you think bitcoin is controlled by a conspiracy. The examples you are pointing out do not speak to the point that markets are to serve as our only objective basis for valuation.

What you are pointing out is what bitcoin is meant to address which is the negative effects that monopoly and regulation create (even though the claim is the regulation is meant to make the markets more fair).  Bitcoin has whales and early adopters and they will serve their own rational self interest.  This is what the system was built on and how it was intended to function.  To call that manipulation is not scientific its the will of the markets.  Giving it a negative connotation is your subjective viewpoint just like the news articles that gives sentiments and narration (zero hedge is known as a fringe cite for example).

[lurker10]

That isn't simple economics its a circular argument.  IF bitcoin's most optimal and valuable use case is to transact then we might be able to see a fee increase would negatively affect its utility as such and that this would discourage use.

But bitcoin can serve a different purpose which is a fairly stable value settlement system for meta-players (ie big banks), and this would serve a valuable purpose as well.

Your argument is premised on the former and ignores the possibility of the latter.  In regard to the latter bitcoin's other advantage you are ignoring is that it is far more secure in regard to its value proposition than any other coin.  Ethereum is far from mature in the security sense and they still have to get to PoS which is uncharted water, it hasn't been scientifically tested/proved.

It's not scientific to not consider a different possibly valid perspective.

NXT is 100% Proof-of-Stake, no inflation currency/platform. It has been in production since late 2013.
Research papers and tools can be found here:
https://github.com/ConsensusResearch
If you haven't read about it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Bitcoin should draw from the Proof-of-Stake coins experience and implement a hybrid PoW/PoS to be more secure and not depend on miners so much. The sufferings will continue if users don't have any power over consensus. Proof-of-Stake coins give power back to users.

[Hyena]

They seem to have a task force specifically assigned to close block size increase pull requests.  So fast reaction.

[traincarswreck]

Szabo has also laid an extensive argument for bitcoin to function as a settlement system and the purpose and value of it and Finney also discussed this based George Selgins observations and writings/teachings:

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. Most Bitcoin transactions will occur between banks, to settle net transfers.~https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2500.msg34211#msg34211

[traincarswreck]

NXT is 100% Proof-of-Stake, no inflation currency/platform. It has been in production since late 2013.
Research papers and tools can be found here:
https://github.com/ConsensusResearch
If you haven't read about it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Bitcoin should draw from the Proof-of-Stake coins experience and implement a hybrid PoW/PoS to be more secure and not depend on miners so much. The sufferings will continue if users don't have any power over consensus. Proof-of-Stake coins give power back to users.

nxt's market cap is $11million dollars.  It is not proof of anything. If users had control of the fate of bitcoin they would run it into the ground just like the citizens of the US would destroy their own freedom if they had a pure democracy.

[lurker10]

NXT is 100% Proof-of-Stake, no inflation currency/platform. It has been in production since late 2013.
Research papers and tools can be found here:
https://github.com/ConsensusResearch
If you haven't read about it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Bitcoin should draw from the Proof-of-Stake coins experience and implement a hybrid PoW/PoS to be more secure and not depend on miners so much. The sufferings will continue if users don't have any power over consensus. Proof-of-Stake coins give power back to users.

nxt's market cap is $11million dollars.  It is not proof of anything.

Referencing market cap only gives you away as having no opinion of your own re the technology. Two years from now most successful coins will be Proof-of-Stake or some hybrid of PoW/PoS.