Bitcoin Forum
December 05, 2016, 12:33:31 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 ... 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 [1361] 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1804355 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 02:04:33 PM
 #27201

speaking of fallacies, what makes you think I'm a 1 MB block man?

To answer your question about who cares when 3rd world people can't get access to 1st world technology: they do. Who is this "who" that you're referring to, when you say "who cares?". What you really mean is: I'm in my little 1st world country group of people, and I don't consider these 3rd world peasants as fully fledged humans. Who cares about them? Everyone got everything solely by merit, ergo I am superior. Let me tell you, you're looking like less of a human to me.

And speaking of consensus polling, the unilateral (i.e. the perfect opposite of a consensus poll) forked client has been rejected in favor of going through the channels to consensus that already exist.

The reality is that the former XT supporters are the people who are in desperate need of a monetary despot; you can't paint unilateral forks any other way than exactly that.

Yes, its not about the 1MB forever which is insuficient for Bitcoin on the long run, its all about consensus, and how it got destroyed prior to the hardfork that removed the 21m cap, and it will happen mark my words.

totally disagree. i've followed Bitcoin and the core dev interactions for a very, very long time in Bitcoin years.  Gavin's built in increases are him trying to automate out himself as much as possible from the process going forward.  he wants to avoid, if possible, the contention that has arisen from this process.  and don't forget he's been lobbying for this increase for 3y but never got anywhere in discussions with the Blockstream folk.  so now he has introduced his first code on this matter in a BIP in Core, not XT. 

he will never propose an increase to the 21M coin cap.  these are two different things you're desperately trying to conflate to push ppl to Monero.
1480898011
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480898011

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480898011
Reply with quote  #2

1480898011
Report to moderator
1480898011
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480898011

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480898011
Reply with quote  #2

1480898011
Report to moderator
1480898011
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480898011

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480898011
Reply with quote  #2

1480898011
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 02:07:32 PM
 #27202

speaking of IBLT, rusty russel has just posted a prototype on btc dev mailing list:

     http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-June/009021.html

you could find the github repo here:

     https://github.com/rustyrussell/bitcoin-iblt

the work is based on the famous gavin's gist:

     https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/e20c3b5a1d4b97f79ac2


that's quite encouraging.  the more i hear from this Rusty guy, the more i like him:

"Cheers,
Rusty.
PS. I work for Blockstream.  And I'm supposed to be working on
    Lightning, not this."
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 02:09:15 PM
 #27203

all over.  and it would be the same at 8MB:

So you've abandoned 20 MB? And Bitcoin XT? What made you change your mind?

even given that i feel i have a deeper understanding of what's going on than most ppl here, i have to defer to a core dev who can tell us what the code does, has greater communications with users/merchants/players i don't know, has a longer track in Bitcoin than i (before Jan 2011), who was looked upon by Satoshi as qualified & trusted enough to receive Bitcoin's Alert Key, who has lead Bitcoin to where it is with little to no controversy along the way, who i feel is mature enough, who i feel is a leader, who has no financial conflicts thru stock options and investors, and whom i TRUST.

so if he drops from 20 to 8MB and decides to put up a BIP on Core, who am i to argue?  imo, he has the true original Satoshi Vision for Bitcoin's long term success.

So, because blind faith? Just a few days ago, you were telling everyone in this thread that 20 MB blocks, delivered via a unilateral coup was the best solution. Less than 72 hours later, you've decided that blocks of less than half that, agreed amongst the core devs, is obviously better. What if Gavin changes his mind again? This must be a little confusing to those that blindly follow what you say.

Vires in numeris
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 02:12:52 PM
 #27204

Can someone explain to me, why the chinese miners are against a 20mb block size increase? As far as i understand it, no one can force them to mine maxed out blocks. They can limit their own blocks just to 8 mb - or 1 mb in case of a really slow connection.

they were afraid of choking on blocks that size and suggested 8MB instead which is the major reason Gavin conceded to this size. also, probably a bit of embarrassment from a purported math error he made.

but yes, your overall pt is obvious; miners can limit their block sizes to whatever size they wish.  game theory suggests they will continue as now; construct the smallest, most efficient block so as not to get orphaned from transmission latency.  furthermore, the "ZOMG, large miner, large blk attack on small miner dependent on superior connectivity" attack that you rarely hear about anymore b/c it makes no sense anymore is b/c of just this fact.  the top largest 5 Chinese miners in the world are trapped behind poor connections which eliminate this attack.
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 02:13:43 PM
 #27205

speaking of IBLT, rusty russel has just posted a prototype on btc dev mailing list:

     http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-June/009021.html

you could find the github repo here:

     https://github.com/rustyrussell/bitcoin-iblt

the work is based on the famous gavin's gist:

     https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/e20c3b5a1d4b97f79ac2


that's quite encouraging.  the more i hear from this Rusty guy, the more i like him:

"Cheers,
Rusty.
PS. I work for Blockstream.  And I'm supposed to be working on
    Lightning, not this."


You view this in terms of tribes. It's not about tribes. It's all conceptual. The individuals and their egos do not matter. All conceptual. You are an actual adult, yes?

Vires in numeris
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 02:14:41 PM
 #27206

all over.  and it would be the same at 8MB:

So you've abandoned 20 MB? And Bitcoin XT? What made you change your mind?

even given that i feel i have a deeper understanding of what's going on than most ppl here, i have to defer to a core dev who can tell us what the code does, has greater communications with users/merchants/players i don't know, has a longer track in Bitcoin than i (before Jan 2011), who was looked upon by Satoshi as qualified & trusted enough to receive Bitcoin's Alert Key, who has lead Bitcoin to where it is with little to no controversy along the way, who i feel is mature enough, who i feel is a leader, who has no financial conflicts thru stock options and investors, and whom i TRUST.

so if he drops from 20 to 8MB and decides to put up a BIP on Core, who am i to argue?  imo, he has the true original Satoshi Vision for Bitcoin's long term success.

So, because blind faith? Just a few days ago, you were telling everyone in this thread that 20 MB blocks, delivered via a unilateral coup was the best solution. Less than 72 hours later, you've decided that blocks of less than half that, agreed amongst the core devs, is obviously better. What if Gavin changes his mind again? This must be a little confusing to those that blindly follow what you say.


i, like Gavin, understand the concept of "concessions" and concensus building.  yes, getting the top 5 Chinese largest miners in the world is a worthy goal.  unlike some ppl around here who only say "NO".
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 02:15:49 PM
 #27207

speaking of IBLT, rusty russel has just posted a prototype on btc dev mailing list:

     http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-June/009021.html

you could find the github repo here:

     https://github.com/rustyrussell/bitcoin-iblt

the work is based on the famous gavin's gist:

     https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/e20c3b5a1d4b97f79ac2


that's quite encouraging.  the more i hear from this Rusty guy, the more i like him:

"Cheers,
Rusty.
PS. I work for Blockstream.  And I'm supposed to be working on
    Lightning, not this."


You view this in terms of tribes. It's not about tribes. It's all conceptual. The individuals and their egos do not matter. All conceptual. You are an actual adult, yes?

nope, i view the entire picture.  and i won't call you names.
kazuki49
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 02:22:28 PM
 #27208

speaking of fallacies, what makes you think I'm a 1 MB block man?

To answer your question about who cares when 3rd world people can't get access to 1st world technology: they do. Who is this "who" that you're referring to, when you say "who cares?". What you really mean is: I'm in my little 1st world country group of people, and I don't consider these 3rd world peasants as fully fledged humans. Who cares about them? Everyone got everything solely by merit, ergo I am superior. Let me tell you, you're looking like less of a human to me.

And speaking of consensus polling, the unilateral (i.e. the perfect opposite of a consensus poll) forked client has been rejected in favor of going through the channels to consensus that already exist.

The reality is that the former XT supporters are the people who are in desperate need of a monetary despot; you can't paint unilateral forks any other way than exactly that.

Yes, its not about the 1MB forever which is insuficient for Bitcoin on the long run, its all about consensus, and how it got destroyed prior to the hardfork that removed the 21m cap, and it will happen mark my words.

totally disagree. i've followed Bitcoin and the core dev interactions for a very, very long time in Bitcoin years.  Gavin's built in increases are him trying to automate out himself as much as possible from the process going forward.  he wants to avoid, if possible, the contention that has arisen from this process.  and don't forget he's been lobbying for this increase for 3y but never got anywhere in discussions with the Blockstream folk.  so now he has introduced his first code on this matter in a BIP in Core, not XT.  

he will never propose an increase to the 21M coin cap.  these are two different things you're desperately trying to conflate to push ppl to Monero.

c'mon doc, as much as I would like to "push ppl to Monero" thats not what I mean, its not about Gavin, he is not even the lead core developer, that person is Wladimir J. van der Laan. And if someone can hijack Bitcoin to fork without consensus to increase blocks it will happen with the coin cap, its just a matter of time now I'm afraid.
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 02:27:22 PM
 #27209

You view this in terms of tribes. It's not about tribes. It's all conceptual. The individuals and their egos do not matter. All conceptual. You are an actual adult, yes?

nope, i view the entire picture.  and i won't call you names.

I think you've misinterpreted what I meant. I actually would like you to confirm to me that you are an emotionally mature grown-up, it's not intended as an insult

Vires in numeris
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 02:30:17 PM
 #27210

So, because blind faith? Just a few days ago, you were telling everyone in this thread that 20 MB blocks, delivered via a unilateral coup was the best solution. Less than 72 hours later, you've decided that blocks of less than half that, agreed amongst the core devs, is obviously better. What if Gavin changes his mind again? This must be a little confusing to those that blindly follow what you say.


i, like Gavin, understand the concept of "concessions" and concensus building.  yes, getting the top 5 Chinese largest miners in the world is a worthy goal.  unlike some ppl around here who only say "NO".

But the only thing you were saying just a few days ago was "XT". You're as intransigent as the 1 MB crowd.

Vires in numeris
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 02:49:19 PM
 #27211

So, because blind faith? Just a few days ago, you were telling everyone in this thread that 20 MB blocks, delivered via a unilateral coup was the best solution. Less than 72 hours later, you've decided that blocks of less than half that, agreed amongst the core devs, is obviously better. What if Gavin changes his mind again? This must be a little confusing to those that blindly follow what you say.


i, like Gavin, understand the concept of "concessions" and concensus building.  yes, getting the top 5 Chinese largest miners in the world is a worthy goal.  unlike some ppl around here who only say "NO".

But the only thing you were saying
just a few days ago was "XT". You're as intransigent as the 1 MB crowd.

you seriously think that is a mature, let alone accurate, claim?
hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 02:54:10 PM
 #27212

all over.  and it would be the same at 8MB:

So you've abandoned 20 MB? And Bitcoin XT? What made you change your mind?

even given that i feel i have a deeper understanding of what's going on than most ppl here, i have to defer to a core dev who can tell us what the code does, has greater communications with users/merchants/players i don't know, has a longer track in Bitcoin than i (before Jan 2011), who was looked upon by Satoshi as qualified & trusted enough to receive Bitcoin's Alert Key, who has lead Bitcoin to where it is with little to no controversy along the way, who i feel is mature enough, who i feel is a leader, who has no financial conflicts thru stock options and investors, and whom i TRUST.

so if he drops from 20 to 8MB and decides to put up a BIP on Core, who am i to argue?  imo, he has the true original Satoshi Vision for Bitcoin's long term success.

So, because blind faith? Just a few days ago, you were telling everyone in this thread that 20 MB blocks, delivered via a unilateral coup was the best solution. Less than 72 hours later, you've decided that blocks of less than half that, agreed amongst the core devs, is obviously better. What if Gavin changes his mind again? This must be a little confusing to those that blindly follow what you say.


i, like Gavin, understand the concept of "concessions" and concensus building.  yes, getting the top 5 Chinese largest miners in the world is a worthy goal.  unlike some ppl around here who only say "NO".


lol did i miss something?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 02:55:58 PM
 #27213

all over.  and it would be the same at 8MB:

So you've abandoned 20 MB? And Bitcoin XT? What made you change your mind?

even given that i feel i have a deeper understanding of what's going on than most ppl here, i have to defer to a core dev who can tell us what the code does, has greater communications with users/merchants/players i don't know, has a longer track in Bitcoin than i (before Jan 2011), who was looked upon by Satoshi as qualified & trusted enough to receive Bitcoin's Alert Key, who has lead Bitcoin to where it is with little to no controversy along the way, who i feel is mature enough, who i feel is a leader, who has no financial conflicts thru stock options and investors, and whom i TRUST.

so if he drops from 20 to 8MB and decides to put up a BIP on Core, who am i to argue?  imo, he has the true original Satoshi Vision for Bitcoin's long term success.

So, because blind faith? Just a few days ago, you were telling everyone in this thread that 20 MB blocks, delivered via a unilateral coup was the best solution. Less than 72 hours later, you've decided that blocks of less than half that, agreed amongst the core devs, is obviously better. What if Gavin changes his mind again? This must be a little confusing to those that blindly follow what you say.


i, like Gavin, understand the concept of "concessions" and concensus building.  yes, getting the top 5 Chinese largest miners in the world is a worthy goal.  unlike some ppl around here who only say "NO".


lol did i miss something?

apparently.  how do u interpret a signed and verbal statement that they support 8MB blocks?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 03:00:39 PM
 #27214


One of the nice things about having a 'benevolent dictator' is that it will be much easier to make decisions about these things going forward.
...

My god, cheezes christ, what a socialist pile of crap.

These socialists should be forced to spread their wealth. 'Maybe like a dividend to be distributed to all existing addresses'.

Zikes!  You guys make some pretty strong arguments and have convinced me of the error of my ways.  Let it be known that I hereby drop my support (however brief) for switching Bitcoin to be under a 'benevolent dictator' and under XT.

Thanks for setting me right guys.



You're saying Mike Hearn was performing an altruistic power grab? That's not so terrible is it? Who wouldn't want one person to control the way their monetary system develops, the sort of person you can rely on to ignore everything that anyone else has to say and override it with a unilateral hard fork, all because that person knows better? What's wrong with Mike, with his superior understanding of what I want for myself, making more of my decisions for me? Why not all of them? He's a smart guy, and there's no way he'd make decisions on my behalf that benefit him.

These arguments have devolved into stupidity.  We'll (the majority) just fork mike out of power if he does something stupid.  And implying a 21m increase because of an unrelated txn supply increase is a 5yo's logical fallacy.

You guys all need someone/some group in charge so badly that you run home to mamma even when the polled majority clearly wants an increase. But dispute mediation is even more fundamental to how bitcoin works than these other items.  Its called open source.  Run the rule set you want. My home system WILL easily keep up with 8MB and I support BTC user scalability (I want users in the Philippines to pay in coins) so that's what I'm going to run.  Who cares if they (ppl in 2nd or 3rd world or economicly stressed) can't run their own personal copy... especially because 10ppl could pool their resources and do so  If you want BTC to be a tool for bankers go ahead and stay on 1MB.  In that case the only ppl running a full node will be bankers because they are the only ones who can use the network.

speaking of fallacies, what makes you think I'm a 1 MB block man?

To answer your question about who cares when 3rd world people can't get access to 1st world technology: they do. Who is this "who" that you're referring to, when you say "who cares?". What you really mean is: I'm in my little 1st world country group of people, and I don't consider these 3rd world peasants as fully fledged humans. Who cares about them? Everyone got everything solely by merit, ergo I am superior. Let me tell you, you're looking like less of a human to me.

And speaking of consensus polling, the unilateral (i.e. the perfect opposite of a consensus poll) forked client has been rejected in favor of going through the channels to consensus that already exist.

The reality is that the former XT supporters are the people who are in desperate need of a monetary despot; you can't paint unilateral forks any other way than exactly that.

i continue to think you're focusing on the wrong metric:  nodes.

if tx fees go to $100 with 1MB, how many 3rd world ppl can afford that?  answer:  none.  and when fees go that high consistently, they won't even bother with Bitcoin.

what good is it then to run nodes when Metcalfe's Law squares with user growth?
hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 03:02:22 PM
 #27215

all over.  and it would be the same at 8MB:

So you've abandoned 20 MB? And Bitcoin XT? What made you change your mind?

even given that i feel i have a deeper understanding of what's going on than most ppl here, i have to defer to a core dev who can tell us what the code does, has greater communications with users/merchants/players i don't know, has a longer track in Bitcoin than i (before Jan 2011), who was looked upon by Satoshi as qualified & trusted enough to receive Bitcoin's Alert Key, who has lead Bitcoin to where it is with little to no controversy along the way, who i feel is mature enough, who i feel is a leader, who has no financial conflicts thru stock options and investors, and whom i TRUST.

so if he drops from 20 to 8MB and decides to put up a BIP on Core, who am i to argue?  imo, he has the true original Satoshi Vision for Bitcoin's long term success.

So, because blind faith? Just a few days ago, you were telling everyone in this thread that 20 MB blocks, delivered via a unilateral coup was the best solution. Less than 72 hours later, you've decided that blocks of less than half that, agreed amongst the core devs, is obviously better. What if Gavin changes his mind again? This must be a little confusing to those that blindly follow what you say.


i, like Gavin, understand the concept of "concessions" and concensus building.  yes, getting the top 5 Chinese largest miners in the world is a worthy goal.  unlike some ppl around here who only say "NO".


lol did i miss something?

apparently.  how do u interpret a signed and verbal statement that they support 8MB blocks?


would you have the kindness to redirect me toward a reputable link of somehow?
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 03:03:19 PM
 #27216

So, because blind faith? Just a few days ago, you were telling everyone in this thread that 20 MB blocks, delivered via a unilateral coup was the best solution. Less than 72 hours later, you've decided that blocks of less than half that, agreed amongst the core devs, is obviously better. What if Gavin changes his mind again? This must be a little confusing to those that blindly follow what you say.


i, like Gavin, understand the concept of "concessions" and concensus building.  yes, getting the top 5 Chinese largest miners in the world is a worthy goal.  unlike some ppl around here who only say "NO".

But the only thing you were saying
just a few days ago was "XT". You're as intransigent as the 1 MB crowd.

you seriously think that is a mature, let alone accurate, claim?

Again, you're projecting your own insecurities here. Your original claim shares those characteristics of hyperbole equally with mine. I did that deliberately. You didn't notice the allusion to your hypocrisy, apparently.

Vires in numeris
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 03:08:35 PM
 #27217

all over.  and it would be the same at 8MB:

So you've abandoned 20 MB? And Bitcoin XT? What made you change your mind?

even given that i feel i have a deeper understanding of what's going on than most ppl here, i have to defer to a core dev who can tell us what the code does, has greater communications with users/merchants/players i don't know, has a longer track in Bitcoin than i (before Jan 2011), who was looked upon by Satoshi as qualified & trusted enough to receive Bitcoin's Alert Key, who has lead Bitcoin to where it is with little to no controversy along the way, who i feel is mature enough, who i feel is a leader, who has no financial conflicts thru stock options and investors, and whom i TRUST.

so if he drops from 20 to 8MB and decides to put up a BIP on Core, who am i to argue?  imo, he has the true original Satoshi Vision for Bitcoin's long term success.

So, because blind faith? Just a few days ago, you were telling everyone in this thread that 20 MB blocks, delivered via a unilateral coup was the best solution. Less than 72 hours later, you've decided that blocks of less than half that, agreed amongst the core devs, is obviously better. What if Gavin changes his mind again? This must be a little confusing to those that blindly follow what you say.


i, like Gavin, understand the concept of "concessions" and concensus building.  yes, getting the top 5 Chinese largest miners in the world is a worthy goal.  unlike some ppl around here who only say "NO".


lol did i miss something?

apparently.  how do u interpret a signed and verbal statement that they support 8MB blocks?


would you have the kindness to redirect me toward a reputable link of somehow?

http://www.newsbtc.com/2015/06/17/chinese-bitcoin-miners-support-increasing-blockchain-limit/
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 03:14:47 PM
 #27218

i continue to think you're focusing on the wrong metric:  nodes.

That's right, a peer to peer system that derives its strength from that network model doesn't need more peers!

You actually have been focusing on a single, simplistic dynamic (as well as several over-simplified arguments, such as your nodes don't matter argument), the blocksize <> tx/s argument. It's one of the simplest of bitcoin dynamics to understand, and you seem to believe that it exists independently of all other factors. Consistent with the over-simplistic moreblocksize == moretxs that Hearn and Andresen were pushing. Fortunately, people that have real investments in the system decided that they wouldn't allow that to happen.

Vires in numeris
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 03:19:10 PM
 #27219

i continue to think you're focusing on the wrong metric:  nodes.

if tx fees go to $100 with 1MB, how many 3rd world ppl can afford that?  answer:  none.  and when fees go that high consistently, they won't even bother with Bitcoin.

what good is it then to run nodes when Metcalfe's Law squares with user growth?

Users is the wrong metric too. Paypal has an enormous number of users. Conventional banking has even more.

Bitcoin has to remain (or arguably return to a state of being) decentralized in a meaningful way and also get users, or it is just a waste of time. The metric has to be both.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 03:22:00 PM
 #27220

i continue to think you're focusing on the wrong metric:  nodes.

That's right, a peer to peer system that derives its strength from that network model doesn't need more peers!

You actually have been focusing on a single, simplistic dynamic (as well as several over-simplified arguments, such as your nodes don't matter argument), the blocksize <> tx/s argument. It's one of the simplest of bitcoin dynamics to understand, and you seem to believe that it exists independently of all other factors. Consistent with the over-simplistic moreblocksize == moretxs that Hearn and Andresen were pushing. Fortunately, people that have real investments in the system decided that they wouldn't allow that to happen.

nodes are important.  i've talked about this up the wazoo along with everyone else.

i just don't think they centralize to the degree you claim.  user growth will grow node growth.  also more users will grow more merchants who will host their own nodes.  there is so much growth potential outside Bitcoin's small, niche community that is the current status quo.
Pages: « 1 ... 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 [1361] 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 ... 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!