Bitcoin Forum
November 22, 2017, 08:23:29 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [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 ... 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 [1043] 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2011223 times)
hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274



View Profile
January 31, 2015, 11:43:42 AM
 #20841

Bitcoin is in it's infancy. It needs pools to keep large corporate farms from keeping all mining profits from individual miners. Pools are much more decentralized than corporate miners. Miners on pools can switch to pools that prevent corporate miners from monopolizing all the blocks.

I wonder why people don't complain that Apple, Oracle, Microsoft, and Google haven't stolen all your money since they have control of all your personal and financial information? You can bet they will, it's only a matter of time.  Roll Eyes

Pools have already grown to the size where they could launch an attack. They realized they were shooting themselves in the foot by getting too big and reduced their sizes.

this is just oversimplistic rhetoric.
1511339009
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511339009

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511339009
Reply with quote  #2

1511339009
Report to moderator
1511339009
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511339009

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511339009
Reply with quote  #2

1511339009
Report to moderator
Join ICO Now Coinlancer is Disrupting the Freelance marketplace!
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511339009
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511339009

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511339009
Reply with quote  #2

1511339009
Report to moderator
1511339009
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511339009

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511339009
Reply with quote  #2

1511339009
Report to moderator
1511339009
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511339009

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511339009
Reply with quote  #2

1511339009
Report to moderator
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


View Profile
January 31, 2015, 01:30:12 PM
 #20842

From the bitcoin dev mailing list quoting Wladimir van der Laan:

Quote
The block chain is a single channel broadcasted over the entire
world, and I don't believe it will ever be possible nor desirable to broadcast all the
world's transactions over one channel.

The everyone-validates-everything approach doesn't scale. It is however
useful to settle larger transactions in an irreversible, zero-trust way.
That's what makes the bitcoin system, as it is now, valuable.

But it is absurd for the whole world to have to validate every purchase of
a cup of coffee or a bus ticket by six billion others.

Naively scaling up the block size will get some leeway in the short term,
but I believe a future scalable payment system based on bitcoin will be
mostly based on off-blockchain transactions (in some form) or that there
will be a hierarchical or subdivided system (e.g. temporary or per-locale
sidechains).

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 31, 2015, 02:50:27 PM
 #20843

https://twitter.com/cypherdoc2/status/561534566603980802
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 31, 2015, 03:02:18 PM
 #20844

Rhetoric is heating up. Cover your ears, pinch your nose, and buy bitcoin:

Varoufakis: Troika are a "rottenly constructured commitee"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11381071/Europes-creditors-play-with-political-fire-in-pushing-Greece-to-the-brink.html
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 31, 2015, 03:12:17 PM
 #20845

Rhetoric is heating up. Cover your ears, pinch your nose, and buy bitcoin:

Varoufakis: Troika are a "rottenly constructured commitee"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11381071/Europes-creditors-play-with-political-fire-in-pushing-Greece-to-the-brink.html

The deficits of the EMU crisis states may have fallen but the mix of perma-slump and “lowflation” - now deflation of minus 0.6pc – have by caused the debt stock to spiral upwards. This is a mathematical effect. The interest costs have been rising faster than nominal GDP. Italy’s public debt has jumped from 116pc to 133pc of GDP in three years despite a primary budget surplus.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
January 31, 2015, 03:21:30 PM
 #20846

From the bitcoin dev mailing list quoting Wladimir van der Laan:

Quote
The block chain is a single channel broadcasted over the entire
world, and I don't believe it will ever be possible nor desirable to broadcast all the
world's transactions over one channel.

The everyone-validates-everything approach doesn't scale. It is however
useful to settle larger transactions in an irreversible, zero-trust way.
That's what makes the bitcoin system, as it is now, valuable.

But it is absurd for the whole world to have to validate every purchase of
a cup of coffee or a bus ticket by six billion others.

Naively scaling up the block size will get some leeway in the short term,
but I believe a future scalable payment system based on bitcoin will be
mostly based on off-blockchain transactions (in some form) or that there
will be a hierarchical or subdivided system (e.g. temporary or per-locale
sidechains).

Thanks for quoting that!  Wladimir's quietness in the public muck is as pronounced as his activity in the codebase.  I never knew where he stood on this stuff.  My natural guess would be that anyone who is bright enough to be such a prolific code contributor would immediately understand certain things like this, but...Gavin...

As someone who has worked on and designed data management systems, Wladimir's statement is so common sense to me that it shouldn't even need to be stated.  I am aghast that there is so much dispute about it.  A very strong hypothesis is that many people who have some technical skills are busying themselves with solutions which will be viable only by at least a scaling induced semi-failure of Bitcoin...and those who's technical and analytical skills are weak or non-existent are just expressing their inborn goober-ishness.

Sidechains not only soundly addresses the issue, but the two-way peg completely demolishes any economic concerns as well.


Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 826


View Profile
January 31, 2015, 03:59:30 PM
 #20847

Here is a glittering article by Keith Weiner. He is obviously not an anarhist economic, and the fiat money fall he is describing is not related to bitcoin, but to gold:

http://keithweinereconomics.com/2012/03/15/when-gold-backwardation-becomes-permanent/

The idea, as I understood it, is that deflation (debt repayment/cancellation) will reduce trust in bonds, and the fall of the fiat (or hyperinflation) will ensue quickly. The deflation phase will not last too long.

Now, bitcoin might not be universal enough when that happens, and gold will be the most used money, including debt nominated in gold with gold interest.

In such a case, we will have an unstable situation with a small total bitcoin value compared to golds total value. That means bitcoin will continue to fluctuate as people change their opinion of what is the best money.

Supposing states will not disappear, but become increasingly intrusive, I think bitcoin still will win in the end.

NotHatinJustTrollin
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


View Profile
January 31, 2015, 04:00:34 PM
 #20848

"Gold collapsing.  Bitcoin UP"

I LOL everytime.
thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
January 31, 2015, 04:15:39 PM
 #20849

From the bitcoin dev mailing list quoting Wladimir van der Laan:

Quote
The block chain is a single channel broadcasted over the entire
world, and I don't believe it will ever be possible nor desirable to broadcast all the
world's transactions over one channel.

The everyone-validates-everything approach doesn't scale. It is however
useful to settle larger transactions in an irreversible, zero-trust way.
That's what makes the bitcoin system, as it is now, valuable.

But it is absurd for the whole world to have to validate every purchase of
a cup of coffee or a bus ticket by six billion others.

Naively scaling up the block size will get some leeway in the short term,
but I believe a future scalable payment system based on bitcoin will be
mostly based on off-blockchain transactions (in some form) or that there
will be a hierarchical or subdivided system (e.g. temporary or per-locale
sidechains).

Thanks for quoting that!  Wladimir's quietness in the public muck is as pronounced as his activity in the codebase.  I never knew where he stood on this stuff.  My natural guess would be that anyone who is bright enough to be such a prolific code contributor would immediately understand certain things like this, but...Gavin...

As someone who has worked on and designed data management systems, Wladimir's statement is so common sense to me that it shouldn't even need to be stated.  I am aghast that there is so much dispute about it.  A very strong hypothesis is that many people who have some technical skills are busying themselves with solutions which will be viable only by at least a scaling induced semi-failure of Bitcoin...and those who's technical and analytical skills are weak or non-existent are just expressing their inborn goober-ishness.

Sidechains not only soundly addresses the issue, but the two-way peg completely demolishes any economic concerns as well.



There is no doubt that a single forever remembered blockchain cannot handle every tip or coffee bought so offchain or better sidechains are needed.  But that does not mean that BTC should not also be scaled in block size.  With the price trending down discouraging new holders we need to welcome any and all real use.  And approaching a txn limit does not help that.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 31, 2015, 04:21:24 PM
 #20850

"Gold collapsing.  Bitcoin UP"

I LOL everytime.

Markets cycle.  simple as that.  Bitcoin touched Gold once, it should touch it again.  at least.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
January 31, 2015, 04:54:32 PM
 #20851


There is no doubt that a single forever remembered blockchain cannot handle every tip or coffee bought so offchain or better sidechains are needed.  But that does not mean that BTC should not also be scaled in block size.  With the price trending down discouraging new holders we need to welcome any and all real use.  And approaching a txn limit does not help that.

I would not be at all surprised if Bitcoin were to become more in-demand if it DID start to cost something to use it.  Psychologically, if someone is given something 'for free' than it is not valued very highly.  As soon as it starts to cost something then it starts to be more highly prized.

Since most thinking persons are starting to catch on to the fact that it does not make sense to broadcast every cup of java purchase to every decentralized infrastructure provider (to hold forever) and Bitcoin's only realistic role is to be for higher importance transactions, having to pay at least to cost of network operation for transactions is, in my opinion, a positive and something we should be migrating towards.  Probably by shortly after then next coinbase notch-down (roughly 8 years from the genesis block) we should get to that point.  It's very much up-in-the-air about whether that will happen even if the block size stays at 1MB.


NotLambchop
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


View Profile
January 31, 2015, 05:03:40 PM
 #20852

From the bitcoin dev mailing list quoting Wladimir van der Laan:

Quote
The block chain is a single channel broadcasted over the entire
world, and I don't believe it will ever be possible nor desirable to broadcast all the
world's transactions over one channel.

The everyone-validates-everything approach doesn't scale. It is however
useful to settle larger transactions in an irreversible, zero-trust way.
That's what makes the bitcoin system, as it is now, valuable.

But it is absurd for the whole world to have to validate every purchase of
a cup of coffee or a bus ticket by six billion others.

Naively scaling up the block size will get some leeway in the short term,
but I believe a future scalable payment system based on bitcoin will be
mostly based on off-blockchain transactions (in some form) or that there
will be a hierarchical or subdivided system (e.g. temporary or per-locale
sidechains).

...
Since most thinking persons are starting to catch on to the fact that it does not make sense to broadcast every cup of java purchase to every decentralized infrastructure provider (to hold forever) ...

It took six years for Bitcoin intelegencia to realize that 7TPS might be problematic for a currency ...or a minor payment provider.
I realize that rocket surgery & MENSA meetings keep you guys real busy, but six years...
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
January 31, 2015, 05:03:56 PM
 #20853

"Gold collapsing.  Bitcoin UP"

I LOL everytime.

Markets cycle.  simple as that.  Bitcoin touched Gold once, it should touch it again.  at least.

I've got a lot of money riding on the hope that 1 BTC will vastly exceed the price of 1 oz of gold.  I feel that the chances of this are much greater now than they were when I was buying bitcoin in the single digits.  But, that is still not to say that I judge the chances as being terribly high.  High enough to put some money on, however, if one has some money to spare and has the patience and disposition to ride the long duration waves.  This is more-or-less what I was saying in 2011.


tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
January 31, 2015, 05:20:29 PM
 #20854

...
Since most thinking persons are starting to catch on to the fact that it does not make sense to broadcast every cup of java purchase to every decentralized infrastructure provider (to hold forever) ...

It took six years for Bitcoin intelegencia to realize that 7TPS might be problematic for a currency ...or a minor payment provider.
I realize that rocket surgery & MENSA meetings keep you guys real busy, but six years...

You've not really correctly parsed the content of this sub-thread, but...

For my part I realized the scaling issues as I was reading the whitepaper for the first time.  I suspect that the same thing can be said for most of the core devs.  This does NOT mean that the system has no value and/or no ability to make a guy a ton of money if that's what one is into.  Making a ton of money (which I've done) is something I admit to be among my interests if not on the top of my priorities...it may or may not be...I lack the ability to judge this for certain.  Anyway...

I will say that there has been a fair amount of fairly unseemly propaganda about various aspects of the system, and it has come from people who are among the most ethical in the ecosystem.  Allowing the notion of limitless scalability to go un-corrected is one of these.  It could be legitimately argued that:

  1)  it is to much work to constantly make this correction, and
  2)  it was a necessary evil in order to bootstrap into a role where Bitcoin has some real value.

For my part since I only have some excess USD sunk in and have put no real time and effort into the system, I've felt fairly free to be guided by my ethics and call out people for being idiots on some of the marketing nonsense over the years.  Bitcoin is as much as anything an interesting experiment (in my mind.)


NotLambchop
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


View Profile
January 31, 2015, 05:43:04 PM
 #20855

^Didn't make myself clear.  I didn't mean to imply that Bitcoin's lack of scalability has prevented anyone from making money on it.  Just assumed that such fundamental, conceptual flaws would have been addressed by now.
Guess not Undecided
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 826


View Profile
January 31, 2015, 05:50:53 PM
 #20856


There is no doubt that a single forever remembered blockchain cannot handle every tip or coffee bought so offchain or better sidechains are needed.  But that does not mean that BTC should not also be scaled in block size.  With the price trending down discouraging new holders we need to welcome any and all real use.  And approaching a txn limit does not help that.

I would not be at all surprised if Bitcoin were to become more in-demand if it DID start to cost something to use it.  Psychologically, if someone is given something 'for free' than it is not valued very highly.  As soon as it starts to cost something then it starts to be more highly prized.

Since most thinking persons are starting to catch on to the fact that it does not make sense to broadcast every cup of java purchase to every decentralized infrastructure provider (to hold forever) and Bitcoin's only realistic role is to be for higher importance transactions, having to pay at least to cost of network operation for transactions is, in my opinion, a positive and something we should be migrating towards.  Probably by shortly after then next coinbase notch-down (roughly 8 years from the genesis block) we should get to that point.  It's very much up-in-the-air about whether that will happen even if the block size stays at 1MB.



You have got the pricing of transaction backwards. If it is usful to transact, and the transactions are limited, it will have a price. If there is a nontrivial price, that means it is usful. What will happen when we reach the limit, is that the price of transactions will rise, and then, if the block size is increased, the price will fall again.

We obviously need to be able to serve lot of transactions, if we want bitcoin to be widely used. But costly transactions is not a definitive stop, it will only deter the least important transactions. USD10 is still cheap, and you can do a lot of mining for USD10 per transaction.




inca
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


View Profile
January 31, 2015, 05:52:45 PM
 #20857

^Didn't make myself clear.  I didn't mean to imply that Bitcoin's lack of scalability has prevented anyone from making money on it.  Just assumed that such fundamental, conceptual flaws would have been addressed by now.
Guess not Undecided

Ignoring proposed scalability solutions is fun isn't it?
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
January 31, 2015, 05:57:18 PM
 #20858

^Didn't make myself clear.  I didn't mean to imply that Bitcoin's lack of scalability has prevented anyone from making money on it.  I just assumed that such fundamental, conceptual flaws would have been addressed by now.
Guess not Undecided

One cannot change the laws of nature.  There is no 'fixing' this 'fundamental flaw', and I suspect that many many people never really considered it including most of the devs.  'Addressing it' is a different matter.  A few of the devs looked toward the mainstream (mega-corporations to provide infrastructure and the state sponsored legal protections) but happily this doesn't seem to be the first option for most of them.

For my part I don't consider this 'fundamental flaw' to be a flaw at all.  I consider it more a happy accident of fate and a a feature of reality which produces the potential to make native Bitcoin a system actually work in the real world.  By 'work', I mean to remain a genuinely autonomous and independent solution which is robust against attack by vested power interests.

As I've said before, the idea of sidechains hit me right away as a means of scaling, and I argued to call native Bitcoin 'blockchain zero' back in 2011.  As long as this chain can remain uncorrupted and supportable it really doesn't matter what happens on the infinite number of chains which derive their value from it.


brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
January 31, 2015, 06:13:13 PM
 #20859

^Didn't make myself clear.  I didn't mean to imply that Bitcoin's lack of scalability has prevented anyone from making money on it.  Just assumed that such fundamental, conceptual flaws would have been addressed by now.
Guess not Undecided

Only if you pretend it is a flaw and not an opportunity for others to build onto the protocol to create solutions that meet the markets demands

"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." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
NotLambchop
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


View Profile
January 31, 2015, 06:24:30 PM
 #20860

^Didn't make myself clear.  I didn't mean to imply that Bitcoin's lack of scalability has prevented anyone from making money on it.  I just assumed that such fundamental, conceptual flaws would have been addressed by now.
Guess not Undecided

One cannot change the laws of nature.  There is no 'fixing' this 'fundamental flaw', and I suspect that many many people never really considered it including most of the devs.  'Addressing it' is a different matter.  A few of the devs looked toward the mainstream (mega-corporations to provide infrastructure and the state sponsored legal protections) but happily this doesn't seem to be the first option for most of them.

For my part I don't consider this 'fundamental flaw' to be a flaw at all.  I consider it more a happy accident of fate and a a feature of reality which produces the potential to make native Bitcoin a system actually work in the real world.  By 'work', I mean to remain a genuinely autonomous and independent solution which is robust against attack by vested power interests.

As I've said before, the idea of sidechains hit me right away as a means of scaling, and I argued to call native Bitcoin 'blockchain zero' back in 2011.  As long as this chain can remain uncorrupted and supportable it really doesn't matter what happens on the infinite number of chains which derive their value from it.

Not sure I fully understand.  You are happy that Bitcoin is not a practical substitute for money after six years of development, in its current state? Useful only as a peg, a standard on top of which further payment systems must be developed?

My question still stands:  This [happy accident/feature/totally not a problem] was clear at the outset, why was it not addressed until now?
Pages: « 1 ... 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 [1043] 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 ... 1558 »
  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!