Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 02:02:35 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   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 ... 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] 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1806729 times)
FNG
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588


View Profile
August 07, 2014, 05:54:58 AM
 #10301

The crunch increased interest in tenders divorced from a single nation’s strength, spurring the International Monetary Fund to boost almost 10-fold the allocation of special drawing rights, a reserve asset whose value is based on a basket of currencies, and fueling demand for so-called virtual currencies, such as bitcoin.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-06/russia-sanctions-accelerate-risk-to-dollar-dominance.html
Nice find

"Such a transformation may take as long as 25 years, with the dollar remaining “top of the heap” even as other currencies play a greater role"

Sure.. then we're in at least year 23
1481248955
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481248955

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481248955
Reply with quote  #2

1481248955
Report to moderator
1481248955
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481248955

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481248955
Reply with quote  #2

1481248955
Report to moderator
1481248955
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481248955

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481248955
Reply with quote  #2

1481248955
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1554



View Profile
August 07, 2014, 07:38:53 AM
 #10302

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.

I'm in justusranvier's camp on this one. Not raising blocksize, *at least* roughly allowing for Moore's Law, seems insane, and would just drive some alt to gain significant marketshare. I think most of us in this thread realize that an alt achieving a significant portion of bitcoin's market-cap for an extended period would be a major detriment to long-run health of the entire crypto-ecosystem. It'd empirically refute the notion that bitcoin is a good store of value, giving a lot of fuel to the argument that bitcoin isn't scarce due to alts. That'd reduce investment-in/monetization-of crypto in general since none could be considered a decent parking place for capital, and that hurts everyone (which is the core point alt-boosters miss).

We need to allow bitcoin itself to fulfill its basic promises, and one of those is cheap global transactions. Part of the path to mainstream use (and the trojan-horse that widespread bitcoin ownership represents) is through demonstrating feature superiority versus fiat (sidenote: Chamath on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AoPHNsX2x8 ). Transaction-cost is one of the most direct, most easily understandable, and most easily usable of bitcoin's "features" for new users.


Back to blocksize, I'll just drop the obligatory Satoshi quote to directly refute the notion that blocksize was always intended to remain fixed (though JR's and Peter R's orphan-cost-dynamics arguments upthread are obviously the proper args):

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.





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.


I think significantly demonetizing PMs comes before making a significant dent in fiat.


Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.
But Bitcointalk & /r/bitcoin are heavily censored. bitco.in/forum, forum.bitcoin.com, and /r/btc are open.
Best info on Casascius coins: http://spotcoins.com/casascius
molecular
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142



View Profile
August 07, 2014, 08:02:09 AM
 #10303

It's almost as bad as outright increasing the maximum number of Bitcoins from the current 21M maximum.

Wachtwoord, do you think the limit should be permanently set to 1 MB? Or just that it should remain "limited" in order to drive a healthy fee market?

I think there should be a limit otherwise no-one will pay any meaningful fees ever and people will stop mining. The system will only work when there is a limited amount of space because if it is unlimited it is advantageous for miners to include transactions with any fee, even 1 Satoshi. If that happens Bitcoin will stop to function correctly as the block rewards decrease.

Why the limit should be at 1 MB? Well the same reason the maximum amount should be at 21M Bitcoin. If it is ever increased it creates a precedent to do so again, and again and again, ad infinitum. I signed up for Bitcoin with a 21M unit cap and a 1MB block cap. Any changes to that will force me to seriously reconsider my investment as the chances of Bitcoin going to zero will increase tremendously.

If people want the limitation to be removed I hope it's published as an altcoin (Bitcoin2) and the initial distribution as proposed by you Peter will be used.

No amount of fees being paid will result in more than 7 transactions to fit into a block.

Also: empirical evidence suggests people pay fees even if there's enough space in blocks (like right now).

I wonder which chain people would use in case of a fork over this issue. I'm guessing the one with lower tx fees.

PGP key molecular F9B70769 fingerprint 9CDD C0D3 20F8 279F 6BE0  3F39 FC49 2362 F9B7 0769
oda.krell
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232



View Profile
August 07, 2014, 10:33:08 AM
 #10304

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.

I'm in justusranvier's camp on this one. Not raising blocksize, *at least* roughly allowing for Moore's Law, seems insane, and would just drive some alt to gain significant marketshare. I think most of us in this thread realize that an alt achieving a significant portion of bitcoin's market-cap for an extended period would be a major detriment to long-run health of the entire crypto-ecosystem. It'd empirically refute the notion that bitcoin is a good store of value, giving a lot of fuel to the argument that bitcoin isn't scarce due to alts. That'd reduce investment-in/monetization-of crypto in general since none could be considered a decent parking place for capital, and that hurts everyone (which is the core point alt-boosters miss).

We need to allow bitcoin itself to fulfill its basic promises, and one of those is cheap global transactions. Part of the path to mainstream use (and the trojan-horse that widespread bitcoin ownership represents) is through demonstrating feature superiority versus fiat (sidenote: Chamath on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AoPHNsX2x8 ). Transaction-cost is one of the most direct, most easily understandable, and most easily usable of bitcoin's "features" for new users.


Back to blocksize, I'll just drop the obligatory Satoshi quote to directly refute the notion that blocksize was always intended to remain fixed (though JR's and Peter R's orphan-cost-dynamics arguments upthread are obviously the proper args):

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.


Been following this thread for a while, my first post in here to say: excellent post, Melbustus, especially the bolded part. The exception being an alt of course that adds utility that btc cannot offer in principle (like high level of anonymity) but you know that yourself, as you've posted about it before.

Not sure which Bitcoin wallet to use? I can highly recommend Electrum.
Electrum is an open-source lightweight client: user friendly, extremely fast, and one of the safest ways to store and use your bitcoins.
Executables are available on the Electrum homepage, so you can get a Bitcoin wallet up and running on your own computer in a few minutes.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 07, 2014, 01:45:03 PM
 #10305

I've known about this since 2008,  but everytime I read this it never fails to make me angry as hell:

If the Federal Reserve and the bankers who control it believe that they can continue to devalue the savings of Americans and continue to destroy the US economy, they will have to face the realization that their trillion dollar printing presses will eventually plunder the world economy.

http://www.sott.net/article/250592-Audit-of-the-Federal-Reserve-Reveals-16-Trillion-in-Secret-Bailouts
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
August 07, 2014, 01:50:37 PM
 #10306

maybe you like Gavin more than you think...
Who said anything about liking anyone? I was talking about trust.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 07, 2014, 02:08:20 PM
 #10307

maybe you like Gavin more than you think...
Who said anything about liking anyone? I was talking about trust.

Why wouldn't you trust Gavin anymore than any other dev? If anything he's been pretty darn close to the best representative for Bitcoin that we could have hoped for, imo.

Of course, everyone is free to disagree with some of his decision making but that doesn't equate to a betrayal of trust.   
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 07, 2014, 02:39:26 PM
 #10308

btw, i don't agree with Gavin's view on anonymity.  he seems to think that identification is no big deal in Bitcoin.  i totally disagree and believe that anonymity should be upheld and is fundamental to fungibility.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 07, 2014, 02:46:48 PM
 #10309

this is actually good news:

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2014/08/snowden-residency-in-moscow-extended/
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 07, 2014, 02:47:41 PM
 #10310

oil continuing the plunge:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 07, 2014, 02:53:12 PM
 #10311

stocks making a run for it again.  down.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 07, 2014, 02:59:40 PM
 #10312

nom, nom, nom, nom:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 07, 2014, 03:00:55 PM
 #10313

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.

I'm in justusranvier's camp on this one. Not raising blocksize, *at least* roughly allowing for Moore's Law, seems insane, and would just drive some alt to gain significant marketshare. I think most of us in this thread realize that an alt achieving a significant portion of bitcoin's market-cap for an extended period would be a major detriment to long-run health of the entire crypto-ecosystem. It'd empirically refute the notion that bitcoin is a good store of value, giving a lot of fuel to the argument that bitcoin isn't scarce due to alts. That'd reduce investment-in/monetization-of crypto in general since none could be considered a decent parking place for capital, and that hurts everyone (which is the core point alt-boosters miss).

We need to allow bitcoin itself to fulfill its basic promises, and one of those is cheap global transactions. Part of the path to mainstream use (and the trojan-horse that widespread bitcoin ownership represents) is through demonstrating feature superiority versus fiat (sidenote: Chamath on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AoPHNsX2x8 ). Transaction-cost is one of the most direct, most easily understandable, and most easily usable of bitcoin's "features" for new users.


Back to blocksize, I'll just drop the obligatory Satoshi quote to directly refute the notion that blocksize was always intended to remain fixed (though JR's and Peter R's orphan-cost-dynamics arguments upthread are obviously the proper args):

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.


Been following this thread for a while, my first post in here to say: excellent post, Melbustus, especially the bolded part. The exception being an alt of course that adds utility that btc cannot offer in principle (like high level of anonymity) but you know that yourself, as you've posted about it before.

i agree.  with enough lead time, we shouldn't get a fork.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 07, 2014, 03:17:57 PM
 #10314

USD definitely making a break for it, up.  pm bugs gotta look out:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 07, 2014, 03:32:08 PM
 #10315

https://twitter.com/cypherdoc2/status/497404702460739584
HeliKopterBen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622



View Profile
August 07, 2014, 03:44:18 PM
 #10316

what i don't get is why isn't Gavin moving to increase block size now as opposed to when we're in the middle of the next bubble or two when tx size will have surely increased along with price and his back is against the wall?  i'm not advocating this, just asking the question.

he's already shown a reticence to make changes to the protocol.  not that i'm complaining, mind you, as i think he's done a stellar job as lead dev.  but at that point, it may be such a political hot potato that nothing may get done at all.  


The block size may not need to be increased if m of n oracle side chains can be used for most transactions.  The main chain would be more of a backbone chain being used to settle side chains and other major transactions periodically.  Bitcoin would be primarily used as a store of value and transfer of major value.  This is in line with you thoughts of bitcoin being a reserve currency.  We shall see how it plays out.

Counterfeit:  made in imitation of something else with intent to deceive:  merriam-webster
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
August 07, 2014, 03:47:50 PM
 #10317

The main chain would be more of a backbone chain being used to settle side chains and other major transactions periodically.  Bitcoin would be primarily used as a store of value and transfer of major value.  This is in line with you thoughts of bitcoin being a reserve currency.  We shall see how it plays out.
That can't work.

Mining has to be paid for via usage fees, not the block subsidy. The only way that works is if the cost is amortized over an very high transaction volume.

Again, forcing most transactions off-chain also denies the benefits of Bitcoin to most of the world's population.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 07, 2014, 04:15:54 PM
 #10318

The main chain would be more of a backbone chain being used to settle side chains and other major transactions periodically.  Bitcoin would be primarily used as a store of value and transfer of major value.  This is in line with you thoughts of bitcoin being a reserve currency.  We shall see how it plays out.
That can't work.

Mining has to be paid for via usage fees, not the block subsidy. The only way that works is if the cost is amortized over an very high transaction volume.

Again, forcing most transactions off-chain also denies the benefits of Bitcoin to most of the world's population.

that's not necessarily true either.  with small blocks and fewer tx's, fees would increase substantially (hundreds of dollars) to hopefully compensate for diminishing block rewards.  if Bitcoin is used as a world reserve currency, then tx volumes wouldn't have to be high and could be used to settle international balance of payments btwn nations.

i understand the potential role for worldwide cheap transactional volume.  i'm just saying that from a teleological standpoint, Bitcoin may not evolve that way.  you need to be aware of this.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
August 07, 2014, 04:22:51 PM
 #10319

that's not necessarily true either.  with small blocks and fewer tx's, fees would increase substantially (hundreds of dollars) to hopefully compensate for diminishing block rewards.  if Bitcoin is used as a world reserve currency, then tx volumes wouldn't have to be high and could be used to settle international balance of payments btwn nations.
Those two conditions are mutually exclusive.

Few advantages an altcoin might have could overcome Bitcoin's network effect, and a three or four order of magnitude reduction in transaction fees is one of them.
HeliKopterBen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622



View Profile
August 07, 2014, 04:42:12 PM
 #10320

The main chain would be more of a backbone chain being used to settle side chains and other major transactions periodically.  Bitcoin would be primarily used as a store of value and transfer of major value.  This is in line with you thoughts of bitcoin being a reserve currency.  We shall see how it plays out.
That can't work.

Mining has to be paid for via usage fees, not the block subsidy. The only way that works is if the cost is amortized over an very high transaction volume.

Usage would be higher at much higher rates of adoption, especially as a reserve currency status, even as a backbone currency.  As a reserve currency many major transactions would compete to get into a block at 1mb limit, increasing usage fees and almost completely cutting out any spam.  At that state the block size limit may have to be increased still. 


Quote
Again, forcing most transactions off-chain also denies the benefits of Bitcoin to most of the world's population.

Why would most of the world's population not have just as much access to off-chain solutions as they do to bitcoin directly?  I realize m of n oracle systems are not completely decentralized but they should be decentralized enough and they would be completely digital and global.




Counterfeit:  made in imitation of something else with intent to deceive:  merriam-webster
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 ... 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!