[SHOCK] Core dev and Blockstream employee tells bitcoin users to use fiat!

[unamis76]

Now try to address the dilemma I stated

If increasing block size is so urgent as you say, why miners don't just hard fork Bitcoin (given their mining monopoly)? As I said and repeat it again specifically, you can't have it both ways. If there is really an urgency and emergency in increasing the blocksize, miners should be safe in forking Bitcoin since (given the urgency) everyone and his damned dog should readily and happily switch to this fork. If they won't and ain't gonna, then all outcries and screams and yells on the miners' part are in fact no more than deliberate and cynical attempts to postpone or prevent from implementation genuine solutions that would actually scale Bitcoin up. This is the point which is unbearable to some Big Blocks advocates and preachers here so that they openly declare me on their ignore lists (and then decide to unignore for some obscure reason)

Consensus is the answer again... Miners have everything to lose, they can't just fork Bitcoin however they want, whenever they want: nobody would follow them and they'd be risking huge losses. And miners definitely don't want losses. It's in their best interest to play good with the whole community. The future of Bitcoin is tied to their income: if Bitcoin does good, their income is good too, and Bitcoin is definitely not doing all that well at the moment. By taking care of the interests of the community as a whole, they're also taking care of themselves... I hope I'm making myself clear.

I don't see how miners are postponing the evolution of Bitcoin, especially when there are miners trying to plat on both "camps" and reach an agreement/propose solutions that are interesting to all. As said, it's not of their interest to do this, plus they want a solution that's as most future proof as possible to deploy as of now.

I just think you're jumping the gun. Increased blocksize is urgent, but the network isn't entirely crippled yet....I'd say we are at a tipping point where something needs to be done. So I'd say let's wait until Segwit2x code is released, see what happens through July, and then if STILL Core won't compromise and miners won't fork off I would say you have a good argument. I just think the miners are being extremely patient. With the current price still rising, it's definitely not in their interest to split the chain.....yet. Something's going to give in the next 60 days however, I'm confident. If core doesn't compromise then we will have a big block chain to go with the 1mb settlement Core chain.

Yes, it's not crippled yet, but it's close to that point... You make fair points, however I don't really agree with the last part. I think it will be difficult to see both chains operating: none of them would benefit if another exists.

That's what I'm telling next

And now you are about to arrive at the same conclusion and inference that I had come to myself some time ago (I made a few posts about that as well). My point is that miners are interested in keeping the current status quo, at least, as long as prices are rising. How come? Because any decision that is going to be accepted will hurt them financially.

Price movements on LTC after SegWit activation might not happen on Bitcoin. Either way I bet miners will have electricity expenses paid well in advance by now.

And here's the crux of the matter. If you look at the actions of the parties involved from this point of view, it becomes abundantly clear that miners, rogue miners are intentionally putting grit in the machine. They come up with a sort of compromise but make it unacceptable so that the stalemate is set to continue, which is exactly what they aim at. Regarding Segwit2x code, do you really think it will be less buggy than BU, and Core is ever going to accept it? Its aim is the same as that of now dead BU, it is not meant to be actually implemented, as was the case with pure BU

I disagree, grit in the machine is really, really bad for miners, why would they compromise themselves and jeopardize their operations? And why is their compromise (purposefully) unacceptable? After this one may ask: why is Core SegWit acceptable (when not everyone agrees with it, just like "SegWit2x")? Things go both ways.

because consensus (real consensus) not the reddit propaganda crap the fudsters script... REAL consensus doesnt work by pools simply making bigger blocks.
those bigger blocks would get rejected in 3 seconds

Yep...

So who is lying here?

People making us believe their "camp" is better than the other... Not people suggestion solutions.

[Decentradical]

so that means we can not trust  bitcoin anymore, right? we should move on to the new cryptocurrency or something that can replace bitcoin as a new type of online payment and online currency. Am I correct?

Really hard to tell. To me it looks like Bitcoin is heading off a cliff technology wise. However, Bitcoin is growing amongst other commodities. There clearly is demand. What's not clear though, is whether that demand is uninformed and aware of the alternatives, or genuinely choosing Bitcoin over other currencies. Especially considering Bitcoin still has the most liquidity paired with fiat.  

It's apparent in all these premine and ICO schemes appearing out of nowhere. Veteran experience wouldn't be so eager to jump into a venture that is already owned for 17% by the founders who're now selling the rest of the shares without any commitments to the new shareholders. But amateurs who want to make their first investment get swept in the hype.  

This makes it clear how immature the markets still are. Early adopter nerds rule this world. Inexperience and financial ignorance is holding the confidence in many coins.

It's in their best interest to play good with the whole community

What if they're financially unable to play good with the whole community? What if they dipped so hard into their gear investing that the only other option is bankrupcy or worse? If they could easily play along then why are we looking at this circus sideshow that Bitcoin has be come?

[European Central Bank]

To me it looks like Bitcoin is heading off a cliff technology wise.

it's working flawlessly as ever. the problem is the demand and usage. if that demand and usage switches in frustration they might find pretty soon the same problems have been ported directly over too.

[Decentradical]

"The problem is the demand and usage." said no company looking to be successful ever.

[European Central Bank]

"The problem is the demand and usage." said no company looking to be successful ever.

same as anything else. airlines only have so many seats to sell. uber has only so many cars to pick people up. if they can't cope then prices rise and customers migrate unless something is done to accommodate them. that doesn't mean they've stopped working perfectly in a technical sense.

[deisik]

Now try to address the dilemma I stated

If increasing block size is so urgent as you say, why miners don't just hard fork Bitcoin (given their mining monopoly)? As I said and repeat it again specifically, you can't have it both ways. If there is really an urgency and emergency in increasing the blocksize, miners should be safe in forking Bitcoin since (given the urgency) everyone and his damned dog should readily and happily switch to this fork. If they won't and ain't gonna, then all outcries and screams and yells on the miners' part are in fact no more than deliberate and cynical attempts to postpone or prevent from implementation genuine solutions that would actually scale Bitcoin up. This is the point which is unbearable to some Big Blocks advocates and preachers here so that they openly declare me on their ignore lists (and then decide to unignore for some obscure reason)

Consensus is the answer again... Miners have everything to lose, they can't just fork Bitcoin however they want, whenever they want: nobody would follow them and they'd be risking huge losses. And miners definitely don't want losses. It's in their best interest to play good with the whole community. The future of Bitcoin is tied to their income: if Bitcoin does good, their income is good too, and Bitcoin is definitely not doing all that well at the moment. By taking care of the interests of the community as a whole, they're also taking care of themselves... I hope I'm making myself clear

Indeed, they can't fork Bitcoin

Since, as I say, they are in fact trying everything to keep things as they are (i.e. high and higher fees), even if that implies "screaming about larger blocks". Simply because any solution (whether it be Bigger Blocks or SegWit or whatever) will mark the end of their business model. In other words, their income from transaction fees will be running dry. It is a bit counterintuitive but bigger blocks would mean less fees for miners due to less competition between transactors for the inclusion of their transactions in the blocks. If miners want to keep the competition up (with bigger blocks), they will have to leave the blocks half empty, and that would likely be a doornail in the Bitcoin coffin (and the PoW model as such)

[Decentradical]

PoW was crucial for dispersing a coin. Even PoS coins need some dispersion mechanic at their launch in order to create that first random seed of users. Just letting miners take care of that is superior to an ICO, which wouldn't be an option for the start of Bitcoin anyway.  

But at some point, and that point is really very early in the life of a coin, that dispersion happens naturally. There's no extra influx of mined coins need to keep that dispersion going and making a coin more usable and valuable. Right now PoW is making the coin less usable and therefore less valuable. It's outstayed it's welcome.

[deisik]

But at some point, and that point is really very early in the life of a coin, that dispersion happens naturally. There's no extra influx of mined coins need to keep that dispersion going and making a coin more usable and valuable. Right now PoW is making the coin less usable and therefore less valuable. It's outstayed it's welcome

Basically, we arrived at the ultimate end of PoW

When all mining power got accumulated in a few hands ("only one should prevail"). Why should these hands voluntarily want to let the power slip between their fingers? There is absolutely no reason for assuming that. Miners are not anyone's fool, they are not fools at all. That's why we shouldn't in fact expect from them straight actions and decisions, it is certainly more complicated and convoluted than that. That's why they may be pushing their proposals which don't aim at actual implementation but only to postpone any changes. It is their effect which matters, not what they are declared to do. I thought the example of BU and its ultimate fiasco would teach people something, but it obviously didn't

[unamis76]

Indeed, they can't fork Bitcoin

Since, as I say, they are in fact trying everything to keep things as they are (i.e. high and higher fees), even if that implies "screaming about larger blocks". Simply because any solution (whether it be Bigger Blocks or SegWit or whatever) will mark the end of their business model. In other words, their income from transaction fees will be running dry. It is a bit counterintuitive but bigger blocks would mean less fees for miners due to less competition between transactors for the inclusion of their transactions in the blocks. If miners want to keep the competition up (with bigger blocks), they will have to leave the blocks half empty, and that would likely be a doornail in the Bitcoin coffin (and the PoW model as such)

I don't know why you still assume that miners can simply fork after some posts on this thread. Would you like a divided Bitcoin? That's asking for its demise sooner that when it should occur...

Miners keeping everything as is is counter-productive, but some posts on this thread already explained why, so I won't spend more time on this just for the sake of spending it. Miners don't want outrageous fees at the expense of network usage and stability. That's like robbing someone and have another rob you right after. That's basically losing twice. Miners lose in two ways because less user will transact due to high fees (or the same users will transact less, or they'll be more careful with the fees they use) and because of network instability people will likely lose faith in Bitcoin in the long term...
Summing up this last paragraph, a smart miner should want a blockchain that runs just like Bitcoin a few years back: has enough room for everyone to transact and room for growth, in order to have more fees being paid. A smart miner should prefer "many fees" instead of "higher fees". This way they win in 2 sides: the network runs fine and they collect more fee money.

It's like selling good ice cream. If you don't have enough ice cream for everyone who wants it, what's it worth charging a premium for the few that can have it (and risk losing clients) if you can simply sell more for a normal price and keep a steady stream of clients? Miners know that if they gamble with users, their future is at stake (not even mentioning Bitcoin's future...).

[deisik]

Indeed, they can't fork Bitcoin

Since, as I say, they are in fact trying everything to keep things as they are (i.e. high and higher fees), even if that implies "screaming about larger blocks". Simply because any solution (whether it be Bigger Blocks or SegWit or whatever) will mark the end of their business model. In other words, their income from transaction fees will be running dry. It is a bit counterintuitive but bigger blocks would mean less fees for miners due to less competition between transactors for the inclusion of their transactions in the blocks. If miners want to keep the competition up (with bigger blocks), they will have to leave the blocks half empty, and that would likely be a doornail in the Bitcoin coffin (and the PoW model as such)

I don't know why you still assume that miners can simply fork after some posts on this thread. Would you like a divided Bitcoin? That's asking for its demise sooner that when it should occur

I'm not assuming that

In fact, I'm asserting quite the contrary. That they won't fork Bitcoin but this doesn't mean that they won't scream about that (or just about anything). Many people seem not to understand the convoluted logic that many if not all businesses stick to (and Bitcoin mining is no exception here). As I said in my previous post, it is the net effect which counts, not what is said or declared. Regarding miners' future, I will repeat that their days are numbered, so it doesn't make economic sense to sell ice cream cheap since there won't be ice cream in the future altogether (think altcoins here). The real question is whether they are going to kick the bucket alone or want to take Bitcoin with them

[Decentradical]

But at some point, and that point is really very early in the life of a coin, that dispersion happens naturally. There's no extra influx of mined coins need to keep that dispersion going and making a coin more usable and valuable. Right now PoW is making the coin less usable and therefore less valuable. It's outstayed it's welcome

Basically, we arrived at the ultimate end of PoW

When all mining power got accumulated in a few hands ("only one should prevail"). Why should these hands voluntarily want to let the power slip between their fingers? There is absolutely no reason for assuming that. Miners are not anyone's fool, they are not fools at all. That's why we shouldn't in fact expect from them straight actions and decisions, it is certainly more complicated and convoluted than that. That's why they may be pushing their proposals which don't aim at actual implementation but only to postpone any changes. It is their effect which matters, not what they are declared to do. I thought the example of BU and its fiasco would teach people something, but it obviously didn't

Yeah spot on. Peopl are complaining about fees now but that's nothing to what happens when actual 'PoW panic' breaks out. There's no coming back from that. People want to use cryptocurrency, they're not going to wait before the kings of bitcoin get their act together.

[Ucy]

I was mocked several times by them too. Those  don't seem like people who have even a little passion for Cryptocurrency or their jobs. I was completely disgraced by them for asking simple question.
Call me a conspiracy theorist but I think the enemies are currently in charge. Power need to be wrestled back from the or we say bye bye to Bitcoin

[pixie85]

I was mocked several times by them too. Those  don't seem like people who have even a little passion for Cryptocurrency or their jobs. I was completely disgraced by them for asking simple question.
Call me a conspiracy theorist but I think the enemies are currently in charge. Power need to be wrestled back from the or we say bye bye to Bitcoin

It's because they aren't paid to provide PR, they've taken their profits long ago and are now comfortably sitting in their armchairs, sipping drinks and chatting on their new phones. They are self employed, they don't need users like you and they don't care about the future. I'm sure they think sheep will follow anything and buy every crap that is thrown at them.

[The One]

"The problem is the demand and usage." said no company looking to be successful ever.

same as anything else. airlines only have so many seats to sell. uber has only so many cars to pick people up. if they can't cope then prices rise and customers migrate unless something is done to accommodate them. that doesn't mean they've stopped working perfectly in a technical sense.

Both are physical limitations by design. Bitcoin is coding and has no theoretical limit.

[franky1]

Why would a secretary be paid more than a boss, especially for doing work that a boss could simply automate? Where's the logic in that?

Miners aren't doing any important work. That's an illusion created by the difficulty arms race they're caught up in. A few individuals with industrial scale gear having a complete monopoly on a whole currency. Those aren't secretaries, they're  more like the Federal Reserve.

firstly.. in the real world
a boss sits in a leather chair and gets others to do work. a secretary does the hard work of organising the bosses workload, communicating out memo's etc. and securing the papers in the companies safe(block)..
 in a fair world the boss would not earn as much as the secretary. but its the boss in the end that decides what is good or bad work and can trash any work done even if it took alot of money to produce said work. the boss can throw the safe(block) full of tx data out the window and make the secretary start again


take any industry..
for instance sports.
would you say the football manager deserves to get paid more than the trainer or the footballer. morally no...

yeh a trainer is the guy that makes players get in line, do certain formations, but the boss can still sack them even if the trainer has put years into its work on the team.

..
why nodes feel they deserve to get paid more then miners because without nodes the miners could falsify records and thats why they want PoS.. purely to get paid... thats why they want LN so that nodes get paid.

but that then weakens the security of the system
PoS is NOT as secure as PoW. LN is not as secure as PoW
so in bitcoins symbiotic relationship removing PoW just to pay nodes has its down sides too

...
if we go down that route of nodes getting paid. next the devs who will want to be paid... which then makes other issues too..
BUT.

howver if you take away "who deserves to get paid" from the argument and just concentrate on the security symbiotic relationship of pools, nodes, devs.. bitcoin works better than PoS

..
if you want to talk about the "who deserves to get paid".. then think about this.
owning a share(coin) of a company for 5 years goes from $6 - $2400 purely because of how the bosses have so far ensured a good reliable system without any fraud being allowed through via any nasty secretaries. you start to see that those running nodes are usually the ones with larger stakes 'shares' holdings. that want to secure their holdings and maximise their holdings.

so in my eyes bosses are getting paid by their 'share value' increase. and dont need to take a weekly salary.

..
what could or should change to avoid devs going on strike or devs refusing to listen to the community is 'feature bounties'
imagine it like if the community want feature X. a bip is created with a bitcoin address and the community donate what value they feel thy want to give devs to see that feature occur.
thus crowd funding development.



anyway this has veared off topic...
so reigning it back in.

bitcoin has become more expensive than fiat.

[Decentradical]

To say PoW is more secure than PoS is quite a stretch. The security of PoS completely relies on how many  Bitcoins would be staking and there's no way of telling who would stake. What we can say though, is that staking can be done on any pc, even on raspberry pi's, each of them securing a full node. You don't even need that large a percentage to make a stake attack completely untenable. 

For your argument to work you'd need way too many people saying no to that juicy 1% to 5% (the fewer stake, the more rewarding staking gets) dividend. 

[franky1]

To say PoW is more secure than PoS is quite a stretch. The security of PoS completely relies on how many  Bitcoins would be staking and there's no way of telling who would stake. What we can say though, is that staking can be done on any pc, even on raspberry pi's, each of them securing a full node. You don't even need that large a percentage to make a stake attack completely untenable. 

For your argument to work you'd need way too many people saying no to that juicy 1% to 5% (the fewer stake, the more rewarding staking gets) dividend. 

the value of an address does not suddenly change the security of an address!!!!

if you think the ECDSA security becomes magically stronger if someone has 0.1btc compared to someone else who only has 0.001btc. is foolish
ECDSA doesnt become more secure the more value you add

..

PoS is less about security and more about "i wanna get paid to keep my computer on"

the way people should be thinking of is. "if i secure the blockchain by validating blocks, i get rewarded by my holdings value increase"

in short you can hope to turn 0.1 into 0.1001 by ding PoS .. but if that system is not as secure.. that 0.1001 Value can decrease even if the count of satoshis increase

[franky1]

so that means we can not trust  bitcoin anymore, right? we should move on to the new cryptocurrency or something that can replace bitcoin as a new type of online payment and online currency. Am I correct?

"move on" - no...
we should kick out the dev's that are trying to ruin bitcoin..
but soo many people are ass kissing devs.. because devs are offering false promises of discounts, and false promises that one day nodes can get paid. that nodes are being sheep herded into the wolfs pen and not realising they have been led astray.

false promotion one (retail analogy)
walmart: " in 6 months we are going to do a 75% discount on icecream... "
reality: month 1-5 increase icecream by 2000%. and then the offer at the 6th month becomes 500% instead of 2000% of old prices

false promotion two
use our loyalty debit card service and get cashback just for using it instead of paying cash
reality: lots of people put funds into the loyalty debit card and are charged a 500% transaction fee eachmonth to keep the card active.. and find out that the 'cashback' is only available on bulk items that only a select few people get to grab.

[Decentradical]

To say PoW is more secure than PoS is quite a stretch. The security of PoS completely relies on how many  Bitcoins would be staking and there's no way of telling who would stake. What we can say though, is that staking can be done on any pc, even on raspberry pi's, each of them securing a full node. You don't even need that large a percentage to make a stake attack completely untenable. 

For your argument to work you'd need way too many people saying no to that juicy 1% to 5% (the fewer stake, the more rewarding staking gets) dividend. 

the value of an address does not suddenly change the security of an address!!!!

It changes the weight in the consensus. That's what we are (at least I am) talking about here, the cost of performing a 51% attack against the network. I don't know what else you mean when you refer to 'security'. Are there other possible ways to mess with the network?

[franky1]

Agree.
Agree depending on the ATM.
Disagree as transaction cost are added on the cost of good/services. One pays indirectly... sorry, playing semantics here.

the 'transaction costs are added on the cost of goods and services'

lol actually you will finds this to be an OLD misconception.
by the way if you think Visa charge 2.5% tx fee to merchants. you have been reading the fud. of try to find the most expensive examples of jst smal user cases and exaggerate it into sounding like every usercase.

things like paypal and applepay are not Visa. so yea using paypal will cost people money. but im talking about using FIAT not these middle men crap

same goes for ATM's... the ATM's that charge are not bank ATM's they are middlemen serviced ATM's.  but im talking about using FIAT not these middle men crap

but basically.. paying $2 just t buy anything.. is expensive.
and dont turn it into "not if your buying a lamborghini" argument..

$2 is 40 hours labour in some countries. yep a bitcoin tx is more expensive then someones weekly wage in many countries