Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 04:15:16 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 [515] 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1805878 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 07, 2014, 03:04:10 AM
 #10281

btw,

nom, nom, nom, nom
1481170516
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481170516

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481170516
Reply with quote  #2

1481170516
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
August 07, 2014, 03:06:39 AM
 #10282

i don't see that ever happening as long as Gavin remains lead dev.  there's no one even close to him that has the political capital, trust, or good will he has generated.
We'll see.

The reference client has already lost the technical lead to btcd, and their dev team is orders of magnitude more functional than Bitcoin Core's.

In addition, he doesn't have as much goodwill as you think. I'm not the only person who's noticed that there has been no substantial development in the reference client for about two years.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 07, 2014, 03:19:23 AM
 #10283

i don't see that ever happening as long as Gavin remains lead dev.  there's no one even close to him that has the political capital, trust, or good will he has generated.
We'll see.

The reference client has already lost the technical lead to btcd, and their dev team is orders of magnitude more functional than Bitcoin Core's.

In addition, he doesn't have as much goodwill as you think. I'm not the only person who's noticed that there has been no substantial development in the reference client for about two years.

i can see that being true amongst other devs all of whom are desperately trying to make their mark or advocate for vested alternative interests.  but amongst the general users i think what i said holds.  i know it does from my perspective.
balanghai
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 308



View Profile
August 07, 2014, 03:24:47 AM
 #10284

Seems like this Gold vs. BTC saga isn't gonna end soon.  Grin

⟳CAPTcoin
  Crypto-currency for everyone
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
  Get your free share (5% extra if you use this ref. link)
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
August 07, 2014, 03:25:16 AM
 #10285

but amongst the general users
General users don't matter from the perspective of the future composition of the full node network.

Businesses and mining pool operators matter.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 07, 2014, 03:28:49 AM
 #10286

but amongst the general users
General users don't matter from the perspective of the future composition of the full node network.

Businesses and mining pool operators matter.

they do matter when some of the largest holders of bitcoin come from that segment of the community.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 07, 2014, 03:38:10 AM
 #10287

but amongst the general users
General users don't matter from the perspective of the future composition of the full node network.

Businesses and mining pool operators matter.

they do matter when some of the largest holders of bitcoin come from that segment of the community.

the other thing is that there are plenty of general users who understand Bitcoin both technically and economically as well, if not better, than business and mining pool operators.  they are very aware of issues like block size limits and bandwidth limitations.  

solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
August 07, 2014, 03:43:16 AM
 #10288

When historians look back they might well conclude that the 1MB limit resolution was Bitcoin's "betamax moment", the most important decision point determining its ultimate fate.

coinmarketcap.com is interesting because it gives a market assessment of Bitcoin's future prospects.

Right now the total cryptocurrency market cap is $8,197,074,397 and Bitcoin's is $7,678,842,953 or 93.68%
(higher if MSC and XCP and other BTC-based alts are included).

So, the cryptocurrency market is effectively pricing a >93% probability of Bitcoin dominating this new asset class - long term. An asset class of such importance that many crypto investors consider could make all fiat obsolete and perhaps even demonetize precious metals as well.

If the 1MB limit is not handled properly, in good time, and is allowed to seriously disrupt organic growth, then that percentage will fall significantly. Perhaps even causing an irrecoverable erosion in the first-mover status, opening the window for alts like NXT and XMR.

This is the stakes in play.

IamCANADIAN013
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
August 07, 2014, 03:44:17 AM
 #10289

Seems like this Gold vs. BTC saga isn't gonna end soon.  Grin

Of course it won't. If shit ever hits the fan, most people are going to want something physical (gold) to trade for goods that they have that others need.  i don't see gold ever collapsing like some people want/or think it will.

Gold is here to stay whether bitcoiners like it or not.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
August 07, 2014, 03:51:34 AM
 #10290

When historians look back they might well conclude that the 1MB limit resolution was Bitcoin's "betamax moment", the most important decision point deciding its ultimate fate.

coinmarketcap.com is interesting because it gives a market assessment of Bitcoin's future prospects.

Right now the total cryptocurrency market cap is $8,197,074,397 and Bitcoin's is $7,678,842,953 or 93.68%
(higher if MSC and XCP and other BTC-based alts are included).

So, the cryptocurrency market is effecting pricing a >93% probability of Bitcoin dominating this new asset class - long term. An asset class of such importance that many crypto investors consider could make all fiat obsolete and perhaps even demonetize precious metals as well.

If the 1MB limit is not handled properly, in good time, and is allowed to seriously disrupt organic growth, then that percentage will fall significantly. Perhaps even causing an irrecoverable erosion in the first-mover status, opening the window for alts like NXT and XMR.

This is the stakes in play.

Bitcoin can not disrupt fiat currencies unless it's a network that everyone on the planet is actually capable of transacting on.

Pulling out all the FUD/propaganda stops to keep the transaction throughput rate capped is the best possible strategy the defenders of he legacy system could employ to save themselves.

If they can force most transactions off chain, into the waiting arms of Coinbase and Circle, then most of the benefits of Bitcoin will remain inaccessible to most of the world's population.

Given the stakes involved, I don't trust Gavin to be capable of making good decisions even if he wanted to. A single point of control is a single target for blackmail and extortion.

they are very aware of issues like block size limits and bandwidth limitations.
What you're talking about are  symptoms of a sub-optimal network layer.

The fact that the P2P network suffers from a tragedy of the commons effect because there is no price discovery for bandwidth or storage is nothing inherent to Bitcoin - it's inherent to the current design of the reference client.

If people who don't want Bitcoin to succeed can stop that problem from ever being fixed in the reference client, they can point to the tragedy of the commons problem as an example of why never to raise the transaction rate, forever.

Of course, that strategy only works when a single codebase has a monolopy on the implementation of the protocol.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 07, 2014, 04:25:23 AM
 #10291

When historians look back they might well conclude that the 1MB limit resolution was Bitcoin's "betamax moment", the most important decision point deciding its ultimate fate.

coinmarketcap.com is interesting because it gives a market assessment of Bitcoin's future prospects.

Right now the total cryptocurrency market cap is $8,197,074,397 and Bitcoin's is $7,678,842,953 or 93.68%
(higher if MSC and XCP and other BTC-based alts are included).

So, the cryptocurrency market is effecting pricing a >93% probability of Bitcoin dominating this new asset class - long term. An asset class of such importance that many crypto investors consider could make all fiat obsolete and perhaps even demonetize precious metals as well.

If the 1MB limit is not handled properly, in good time, and is allowed to seriously disrupt organic growth, then that percentage will fall significantly. Perhaps even causing an irrecoverable erosion in the first-mover status, opening the window for alts like NXT and XMR.

This is the stakes in play.


here's a novel thought: it may not matter either way.  i can construct reasonable game theory scenarios where Bitcoin can succeed both ways.  the economic incentives may be so strong against the existing inflationary fiat monetary system that participants will work hard to make either scenario workable.  the main incentive being an open and transparent fixed supply monetary system.
Quote

Bitcoin can not disrupt fiat currencies unless it's a network that everyone on the planet is actually capable of transacting on.

i guess you don't think much about my Bitcoin Standard.  however, by providing an instant, almost realtime method of settling international balance of payment imbalances, Bitcoin could put the screws to overleveraging in the overlying fiat system.  perhaps the sustainability that i suggest of that system is what puts you off but i still think it's the path of least resistance for integration of existing and new technology.
Quote
Pulling out all the FUD/propaganda stops to keep the transaction throughput rate capped is the best possible strategy the defenders of he legacy system could employ to save themselves.

i probably should say that i am neutral on the issue of block size, currently.  i understand both halves of the argument and honestly think it may not matter which way we go as the network could adapt. but even so, you can't label those who argue against what you propose as spewing FUD.  most of those ppl honestly believe that keeping blocks at 1MB is the right thing to do, and perhaps it is.  we'll see.
Quote

If they can force most transactions off chain, into the waiting arms of Coinbase and Circle, then most of the benefits of Bitcoin will remain inaccessible to most of the world's population.

i must admit, i don't like what i'm seeing on Coinbase's behalf regarding KYC/AML.  they're being too intrusive.  we'll have to see how this evolves as i'm sure they are under severe pressure to conform which could change for the better with time.

having said that, we do need a way to bring all the unbanked online with Bitcoin.  that will require cheap tx fees.  my hope is that the market will force down fees thru increased competition.  we're beginning to see that with 0% fees via Circle.
Quote
Given the stakes involved, I don't trust Gavin to be capable of making good decisions even if he wanted to. A single point of control is a single target for blackmail and extortion.

you do know that Gavin agrees with you when it comes to increasing tx rates?  i seriously doubt he could be manipulated given his political leanings and actions heretofore.  i'm just glad he's being paid by the BF while being alongside Matonis, who i think has his head on straight.
Quote
they are very aware of issues like block size limits and bandwidth limitations.
What you're talking about are  symptoms of a sub-optimal network layer.

The fact that the P2P network suffers from a tragedy of the commons effect because there is no price discovery for bandwidth or storage is nothing inherent to Bitcoin - it's inherent to the current design of the reference client.

i'm not seeing it.  every day we get more positive news and year on year we are still up around 500%.  
Quote
If people who don't want Bitcoin to succeed can stop that problem from ever being fixed in the reference client, they can point to the tragedy of the commons problem as an example of why never to raise the transaction rate, forever.

Of course, that strategy only works when a single codebase has a monolopy on the implementation of the protocol.

i would say that if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
August 07, 2014, 04:42:30 AM
 #10292

most of those ppl honestly believe that keeping blocks at 1MB is the right thing to do

Of course. That does not preclude their believe being incited from people will less pure motives. That's a pretty standard political movement infiltration/disruption tactic.

i must admit, i don't like what i'm seeing on Coinbase's behalf regarding KYC/AML.  they're being too intrusive.  we'll have to see how this evolves as i'm sure they are under severe pressure to conform which could change for the better with time.

What I'm most worried about is fractional reserves once the majority of the coins are herded into off-chain processors.

Consider this scenario:

The IRS devotes a lot of resources to auditing anyone who withdraws their coins. If you withdraw coins and move them, they assume it's a taxable event with the burden of proof on you to show otherwise. Coinbase/Circle are more than happy to tip them off.

Most people don't want to deal with the hassle, so they leave their coins in their online "wallets" that handle their tax reporting automatically (how convienient!)

Bitlicences make it unprofitable to operate a Bitcoin company, except for banks which are except. Coinbase and Circle get bought out by JPM and Goldman Sachs.

You'll never see your coins again, just like Germany will never see their gold again.

you do know that Gavin agrees with you when it comes to increasing tx rates?  i seriously doubt he could be manipulated given his political leanings and actions heretofore.  i'm just glad he's being paid by the BF while being alongside Matonis, who i think has his head on straight.

I know Gavin agrees and I generally agree with what Matonis does.

Nevertheless, they are in positions of influence and vulnerable to coercion and so I'll never be able to trust them. I'd love for the situation to be such that they don't have any power that anyone would coerce them to misuse, so that I could trust them.

Note that Bitlicenses may have legal implications for both of them.

i would say that if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
"640k ought to be enough for anyone"
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 07, 2014, 04:58:15 AM
 #10293

most of those ppl honestly believe that keeping blocks at 1MB is the right thing to do

Of course. That does not preclude their believe being incited from people will less pure motives. That's a pretty standard political movement infiltration/disruption tactic.

i must admit, i don't like what i'm seeing on Coinbase's behalf regarding KYC/AML.  they're being too intrusive.  we'll have to see how this evolves as i'm sure they are under severe pressure to conform which could change for the better with time.

What I'm most worried about is fractional reserves once the majority of the coins are herded into off-chain processors.

why would ppl leave significant amounts of coins at the processors anymore than they do now just b/c they're forced off chain by high fees from a 1MB block?  spending amounts maybe, but not savings.  the only indisputable principle here is to never leave your privkeys to someone else.
Quote
Consider this scenario:

The IRS devotes a lot of resources to auditing anyone who withdraws their coins. If you withdraw coins and move them, they assume it's a taxable event with the burden of proof on you to show otherwise. Coinbase/Circle are more than happy to tip them off.

Most people don't want to deal with the hassle, so they leave their coins in their online "wallets" that handle their tax reporting automatically (how convienient!)

Bitlicences make it unprofitable to operate a Bitcoin company, except for banks which are except. Coinbase and Circle get bought out by JPM and Goldman Sachs.

You'll never see your coins again, just like Germany will never see their gold again.

the IRS doesn't have those kind of resources.  audit rates are minimal and have been going down.  even so, just leave small spending amounts on offchain processors.
Quote
you do know that Gavin agrees with you when it comes to increasing tx rates?  i seriously doubt he could be manipulated given his political leanings and actions heretofore.  i'm just glad he's being paid by the BF while being alongside Matonis, who i think has his head on straight.

I know Gavin agrees and I generally agree with what Matonis does.

Nevertheless, they are in positions of influence and vulnerable to coercion and so I'll never be able to trust them. I'd love for the situation to be such that they don't have any power that anyone would coerce them to misuse, so that I could trust them.

Note that Bitlicenses may have legal implications for both of them.

i would say that if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
"640k ought to be enough for anyone"

maybe i'm just more optimistic than you.  every open source project has a leader.  maybe not one with so much at stake as Bitcoin.  as i said in a post earlier today on the Nash Equilibrium; i think corruption won't want to take the risk of being exposed to the sunlight of the Bitcoin system as there would be too much at stake for them to risk it.  if billionaires like Branson and Ka-shing ever got wind of something like that, we might actually see some gubmint apparatchiks go to jail.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
August 07, 2014, 05:01:46 AM
 #10294

maybe i'm just more optimistic than you.
Probably true.

I'd rather err on the side of too many precautions than too few precautions in this area.
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
August 07, 2014, 05:03:19 AM
 #10295

i would say that if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
"640k ought to be enough for anyone"

For the non-technical: what is "not broken" is as good as this idea for slowing down a train...  FFS! We can do better, surely?



cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 07, 2014, 05:03:38 AM
 #10296

maybe i'm just more optimistic than you.
Probably true.

I'd rather err on the side of too many precautions than too few precautions in this area.

that's fine, but just don't f*ck it up.  Grin
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 07, 2014, 05:13:24 AM
 #10297

i would say that if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
"640k ought to be enough for anyone"

For the non-technical: what is "not broken" is as good as this idea for slowing down a train...  FFS! We can do better, surely?




to which i could respond:

"The Geeks Fail to Understand That Which They Hath Created"?
Poker Tilt
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14


View Profile
August 07, 2014, 05:21:13 AM
 #10298

Gold collapsing? I don't follow the metal prices. Link?
maybe some save money in gold thats better than bitcoin. but bitcoin reallt high returns
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
August 07, 2014, 05:33:12 AM
 #10299

that's fine, but just don't f*ck it up.  Grin
Note that Gavin has said in the past that he wants to see multiple implementations of the protocol, yet somehow the other core developers managed to fend off every attempt by other teams to do exactly this.

Finally somebody showed up that was good enough that they couldn't stop by stonewalling them, so now they just ignore them and hope everybody else does too.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 07, 2014, 05:42:16 AM
 #10300

that's fine, but just don't f*ck it up.  Grin
Note that Gavin has said in the past that he wants to see multiple implementations of the protocol, yet somehow the other core developers managed to fend off every attempt by other teams to do exactly this.

Finally somebody showed up that was good enough that they couldn't stop by stonewalling them, so now they just ignore them and hope everybody else does too.

i'm very much for btcd and Bitcoinj.  the resiliency gained from those implementations strengthens Bitcoin.

i also think that projects like Open Transactions will be good for the system.  at least they don't blow wind. can't wait for them to get something up and running.

maybe you like Gavin more than you think...
Pages: « 1 ... 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 [515] 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 ... 1560 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!