Bitcoin Forum
December 10, 2016, 03:30:25 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 ... 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 [1447] 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1807455 times)
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
July 16, 2015, 04:44:07 AM
 #28921

that's the stupidest characterization of what i said.  you clearly don't get it.

I find it quite honest..

Bottom line is you have a problem with who is paying blockstream devs for their work. My question is why should one "contractor" be trusted more than the other?



i've already gone over this a dozen times for you.  the financial arrangements are totally different.

Care to provide me with a copy of the contractual arrangement of any developer being paid to work on Bitcoin core? Have you seen specifics of Gavin or Brian Forde's contract with MIT? Yep, didn't think so.

As far as I know only the Blockstream team has been transparent enough to provide detailed information about specific clauses of their contract. See, this to me is a respectable example of someone willing to step forward and at least provide some fact that can support their general statements about behaving in good faith.

"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
1481340625
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481340625

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481340625
Reply with quote  #2

1481340625
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481340625
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481340625

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481340625
Reply with quote  #2

1481340625
Report to moderator
1481340625
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481340625

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481340625
Reply with quote  #2

1481340625
Report to moderator
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
July 16, 2015, 04:45:39 AM
 #28922

Fair enough, but the whitepaper was launched along with this blog post : https://www.blockstream.com/2014/10/23/why-we-are-co-founders-of-blockstream/. Other than missing the "conflict of interest" disclaimer I find it transparent and public enough. Other than that you're kind of moving the goal posts  Wink

It sounds like you agree they do have a conflict of interest.  

I too believe they are being genuine in their concerns; and I believe they really think that increasing the block size limit would be bad.  I disagree with them, but I don't think they have malicious intentions.  

They do have a conflict of interest though.  And it's not even a big deal provided they openly acknowledge that fact!

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
July 16, 2015, 04:50:45 AM
 #28923

Fair enough, but the whitepaper was launched along with this blog post : https://www.blockstream.com/2014/10/23/why-we-are-co-founders-of-blockstream/. Other than missing the "conflict of interest" disclaimer I find it transparent and public enough. Other than that you're kind of moving the goal posts  Wink

It sounds like you agree they do have a conflict of interest.  

I too believe they are being genuine in their concerns; and I believe they really think that increasing the block size limit would be bad.  I disagree with them, but I don't think they have malicious intentions.  

They do have a conflict of interest though.  And it's not even a big deal provided they openly acknowledge that fact!

And they do!

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2k3u97/we_are_bitcoin_sidechain_paper_authors_adam_back/clhql71

"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
Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938


View Profile
July 16, 2015, 06:55:38 AM
 #28924

mythology
It's ironic the degree to which your superstitions mirror the ones described by Lloyd de Mause in the link I provided.

This is not mythology, this is reality:

Private property rules are always guaranteed by organized violence of the state mafia.

The idea of private property is a meme, it all starts when one can justify denying land to some but not others with the use of a moral code, it is effectively enforced through force, the effectiveness of the meme, is those who are deprived very often understand the meme better than they the natural order of property.

Yes, new 'moral' code enforced through brute force. A post-paleolitic new moral that lead to collectivism via destruction of the nuclear community, the anarchist, self-sufficient life style. From anarchy to patriarchy.

A former 'austrian' who knows better since he studied history as nobody did before:

"Private property as de iure institution needs a foregoing state to come into existence. The state
needs foregoing power and foregoing power needs armed force.
The ultimate “foundation of the economy” thus is the weapon, where possession and property are identical because the
possession of it guarantees property of it.
Armed force starts additional production (surplus, tribute). The first taxes are contributions of material for the production of attack weapons
(copper, tin). Thus non-circulating money begins. Taxes as “census” and money are the same."

As soon as defence and protection of the (property-)title power executed by armed force in
war and peace needs mercenaries (soldiers from outside the power system) the one-way-money
turns into circulating “genuine money” in modern sense and its material changes from weapon-fitting to precious metal
and actually into any material which can be monopolized by the state.
Interest also at first is the tax (census) itself. The state, that must exist before property and
property-based contracts which only can be executed with use of armed force, can’t be
financed out of property or income which can only appear after its existence. Therefore the state faces the problem of
pre-financing itself (power, sovereignty) and it must draw on later tributes or taxes.
This “interest”, which always starts with power-based and never with “private” titles is nothing but a discount,
thereby rather a discount of the state-owned property (monopoly of armed force)
or property rights (monopoly of taxation) than any private “property premium” or even an mysterious item that “enlarges” something."


http://www.miprox.de/Wirtschaft_allgemein/Martin-Symp.pdf

"Staat nenne ich's, wo alle Gifttrinker sind, Gute und Schlimme: Staat, wo alle sich selber verlieren, Gute und Schlimme:
Staat, wo der langsame Selbstmord aller – »das Leben« heisst."
Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938


View Profile
July 16, 2015, 07:37:56 AM
 #28925

The output of rain forest people doesn't grow because their culture haven't evolved private property rules, it is no related to debt.
There are a few prerequisites needed before people can start producing economic surplus.

Tribal people in rain forests haven't yet figured out how to not routinely murder each other, so learning how to not respect property is still a ways off.


This link does not describe pre-patriarchal, anarchist human being. It describes the life style of gated communities within a civilized environment around it. Paleolitic, pre-patriarchal, anarchist life style was completely different.

Maternal incest is what is behind the cross-cultural finding by anthropologists that “where the mother sleeps closer to the baby than to the father and uses the baby as a substitute spouse, there is more homicide and a higher frequency of war.”5

Crazy science. A 'spouse' and a 'father' did not exist in the paleolitic anarchist environment, because nobody knew the begetter. It seems that those psychologists know nothing about the former anarchist life. They are believers of the post-paleolitic monogamous joke, called 'life'.
And you, Justus, are promoting such 'science'? I thought at least you are an anarchist. And now you argue against those people who have not been nationalized yet, with this pseudo science of the establishment.

"Staat nenne ich's, wo alle Gifttrinker sind, Gute und Schlimme: Staat, wo alle sich selber verlieren, Gute und Schlimme:
Staat, wo der langsame Selbstmord aller – »das Leben« heisst."
awemany
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28


View Profile
July 16, 2015, 08:44:57 AM
 #28926

FWIW, here is Adam Back talking a lot about conflict of interest:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3bpids/i_have_a_lot_of_respect_for_adam_back_and_almost/csp4t20

And I have to agree with Peter R. - it would be very easy and forthright for them to state something like

 'Yes, we have a conflict of interest and might profit from a certain outcome of the blocksize debate.'

Instead, Adam's explanation sounds great - only that it misses the very central point of this issue.
shane
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588


Don't put off until tomorrow what you can do today


View Profile
July 16, 2015, 08:48:51 AM
 #28927

Gold will be up now Smiley
http://www.kitco.com/charts/popup/au24hr3day.html

and bitcoin will be down soon

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
July 16, 2015, 11:03:30 AM
 #28928


Lying won't help you.

I was reading Armstrong's blog daily as of August 2012 when (it was roughly 12,000) he clearly stated that either it would double before October 2015, or it would phase shift and align with private assets and then delay that double or triple until 2017. Indeed the USA stock market did rise to roughly 18,000 and then it phase shifted and so now we await the double or triple in 2017.

Funny.
He really predicted a lot of funny things:

Prediction April 2013:

Slovenia will collapse from a spending spree, not because it invested in Euro bonds.
(...)
It is true that Slovenia is not Cyprus. It is worse.


http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/10720


Reality 2014:



He did not state of date for the collapse. Slovenia's economy shrunk considerably in 2013 and since then is having a real estate rebound as foreigners park capital there which is temporarily driving up their GDP and watch what happens after October.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/15/realestate/real-estate-in-slovenia.html?_r=0

When the foreign buyers are gone, then watch for his prediction to come true.

Also you need to differentiate between speculation and actual predictions. He was clearly speculating by the "?" in the title of the blog post. And no where did he show a computer model. This was his personal speculation and expressing his angst about EU dictatorship.

When I relate to Armstrong's predictions, it is those that are made by the computer model and reiterated over numerous blog posts, not some quip in one blog post you dredged up to try to prove you are a jealous nutcase.

Also Armstrong may just have a myopia on Slovenia, which wouldn't the first time that his personal speculations suck. I trust more his computer model and his interpretations of it.

Slovenians are smart people. The could the exact opposite of the British. You don't see much binge drinking in Ljubljana, and when the Brits are big spenders, the Slovenians are big savers. They're the people who make you believe in Europe. If there ware only Germans, Slovenians, Estonians and people like that in the EU, it would rule the world. Unfortunately, people like the Greeks or the French are wrecking it.

justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
July 16, 2015, 01:55:23 PM
 #28929

A bad thing is when people like cypherdoc derive from the conflict of interest malicious intents without proof other than "I don't trust them"
What actually happened is that when Blockstream was announced multiple noted that it created the appearance of a potential conflict of interest.

Instead of acknowledging this potential (fairly standard practice in many business situations!), the Blockstream founders took the bizarre route of denying even the possibility of a conflict of interest.

That choice of actions is what lead to ongoing concern about their motives, not the founding of Blockstream itself.
I had not seen this comment until it was pointed out to me today:

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2k3u97/we_are_bitcoin_sidechain_paper_authors_adam_back/clhy7kk?context=1

There clearly were some accurate acknowledgements of potential conflicts of interests in that Reddit post.
thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
July 16, 2015, 02:15:19 PM
 #28930

A bad thing is when people like cypherdoc derive from the conflict of interest malicious intents without proof other than "I don't trust them"
What actually happened is that when Blockstream was announced multiple noted that it created the appearance of a potential conflict of interest.

Instead of acknowledging this potential (fairly standard practice in many business situations!), the Blockstream founders took the bizarre route of denying even the possibility of a conflict of interest.

That choice of actions is what lead to ongoing concern about their motives, not the founding of Blockstream itself.
I had not seen this comment until it was pointed out to me today:

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2k3u97/we_are_bitcoin_sidechain_paper_authors_adam_back/clhy7kk?context=1

There clearly were some accurate acknowledgements of potential conflicts of interests in that Reddit post.

Quote
Specifically for the risk of sidechains replacing the main chain: do you think that the bitcoin economy would move their coins to a chain controlled by a single company? They'd be idiots if they did.

But now we fear that the economy will be forced to because of a refusal to scale the main chain.  Given a choice between no business at all and a dangerous "idiots" move, companies will pick the "idiot" move and hope for the best.

Quote
And if there is a specific issue where you think I (or anyone else) is being partial because of a conflict of interest: please yell.

OK now we are yelling.  The Bitcoin blockchain was never intended to permanently remain at a max size of 1MB.  Tons of historical posts show this and show that Satoshi and others of that time were fully cognizant of the partial centralization that might ensue (e.g. full nodes are not practical at home and must move to the cloud).  I do not need to repeat these. 

So if you want a small-sized chain, why don't you create a sidechain with a low block limit?


Is there ANYONE out there who is:
1. not a miner
2. does not have mining investments
3. is not affiliated with Blockstrem
And
4. wants to keep the block size at 1MB?

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 16, 2015, 03:38:54 PM
 #28931

i'd like to revisit that thought experiment i introduced last week.

an anonymous person hard forks the current Bitcoin code with the only change being a lifting of the limit.  he provably destroys the commit key (a Bitcoin private key) over at github thru a op_return spend.  the result being a Bitcoin source code with no core devs and thus no ability to change it going forward.  would that be enough to carry Bitcoin forward for the next century?

if anything needed to be changed in an emergency going forward, anonymous person #2 could do the same thing.

would it work?  i suspect the answer is yes.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
July 16, 2015, 03:50:10 PM
 #28932

A bad thing is when people like cypherdoc derive from the conflict of interest malicious intents without proof other than "I don't trust them"
What actually happened is that when Blockstream was announced multiple noted that it created the appearance of a potential conflict of interest.

Instead of acknowledging this potential (fairly standard practice in many business situations!), the Blockstream founders took the bizarre route of denying even the possibility of a conflict of interest.

That choice of actions is what lead to ongoing concern about their motives, not the founding of Blockstream itself.
I had not seen this comment until it was pointed out to me today:

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2k3u97/we_are_bitcoin_sidechain_paper_authors_adam_back/clhy7kk?context=1

There clearly were some accurate acknowledgements of potential conflicts of interests in that Reddit post.

Quote
Specifically for the risk of sidechains replacing the main chain: do you think that the bitcoin economy would move their coins to a chain controlled by a single company? They'd be idiots if they did.

But now we fear that the economy will be forced to because of a refusal to scale the main chain.  Given a choice between no business at all and a dangerous "idiots" move, companies will pick the "idiot" move and hope for the best.

Quote
And if there is a specific issue where you think I (or anyone else) is being partial because of a conflict of interest: please yell.

OK now we are yelling.  The Bitcoin blockchain was never intended to permanently remain at a max size of 1MB.  Tons of historical posts show this and show that Satoshi and others of that time were fully cognizant of the partial centralization that might ensue (e.g. full nodes are not practical at home and must move to the cloud).  I do not need to repeat these. 

So if you want a small-sized chain, why don't you create a sidechain with a low block limit?


Is there ANYONE out there who is:
1. not a miner
2. does not have mining investments
3. is not affiliated with Blockstrem
And
4. wants to keep the block size at 1MB?



Yet another argumentum ad populum. Reminder that this is not a vote and that we should avoid any form of "democratic" outcome.

Here is an excellent quote from a recent article explaining why your logic fails you:

Quote
OUR CURRENT ALTERNATIVES SUCK
I refer to our conversation / information alternatives: /r/bitcoin, mailing lists, and chatrooms. They don’t work and their problems will deepen as BTC becomes more popular and more valuable (threatening).

The Basics

Let’s breeze through the currently known problems with the alternatives, mainly r/bitcoin: that those who seek expertise can’t validate (or even identify) what they read, those with expertise report frustration at having their views de-emphasized or misrepresented, bias goes undetected (or over-detected), conversations are duplicated (or misplaced), falling signal-to-noise ratios invite a septic futility into each stultified conversation. Almost no one is polite, and, in fact, everyone generally behaves in a way that would drive off any Thinking Person (but if they weren’t so critical, things might even be worse).

The Do-er Alone Learneth

OK, let’s take it to the next level. After all, this is the governance of Bitcoin we’re talking about.

On the subreddit/mailing-list a few people write, and many people read.

Socrates
The (spoken) thoughts of Socrates on the written word are worth mentioning:

“For this invention [writing] … You have invented an elixir not of memory, but of reminding; and you offer your pupils the appearance of wisdom, not true wisdom, for they will read many things without instruction and will therefore seem to know many things, when they are for the most part ignorant and hard to get along with, since they are not wise, but only appear wise. … He who thinks, then, that he has left behind him any art in writing, and he who receives it in the belief that anything in writing will be clear and certain, would be an utterly simple person, and in truth ignorant of the prophecy of Ammon, if he thinks written words are of any use except to remind him-who-knows the matter about which they are written.” –(Socrates, Phaedrus 274c-275b, emphasis added)

Occasionally, reddit is used to enable a dialogue (the “AMA”). In such cases, everyone who asked a question would probably merit Socrates’ approval. On mailing lists, the Q&A are seemingly the only relevant sections of the entire discussion (other than to state mind-numbing tautologies like “we must be careful” or “Bitcoin won’t scale the way it is configured right now”).

My personal opinion is that, from the entire blocksize “discussion” thus far, I have (reliably) learned almost nothing. If anything, I have only learned about who, individually, I dislike (which does not really help with the underlying blocksize question). The state of the debate seems to reflect no technical info whatsoever, instead merely the ratio of BigBlock-Users (users who pay transaction fees, but do not run nodes) to SmallBlock-Users (those who run full nodes, but do not pay transaction fees), and who was friends with who before the conversation started.

The Internet is Not Representative

Haven’t you noticed a big difference between arguments experienced in real life, and arguments experienced on the internet? While the real-life arguments ultimately produce the phenomenon of “agreement”, netizens seem more contentious.

InternetWrong

I think that this is because of “free exit”: those who learn the answer leave the conversation (and do so without altering the conversation’s state: no having to admit that they were wrong, no feeling obligated to go back and convince others, etc). Say a website has 10,000,000 viewers, of which 5,000 agree with a given statement, and 5 disagree. What will the public see in the comments section? 1 principal dissenter arguing with 1 principal endorser (9,999,998 free-exits)…until? If one arguer drops out, another is likely to take his place. Observers will have no easy way to tell when (if) the debate has concluded, or what the conclusion was. On the internet, no one can tell how many people agree with something.

....

For example, almost every technical person has given up on Proof of Stake, to the point where it is openly laughed at and ridiculed at conferences. But you wouldn’t know it from The Internet, where it seems like “pro-PoS” and “anti-PoS” are each one of two equally-endorsed points of view. The technical elite are simply tired of repeating themselves.

Yet the voice of The Market speaks tirelessly. The PoS holdouts struggle to obtain 1/250th of Bitcoin’s marketcap, and –even more telling for an upstart– command almost none of the space’s VC funding / capital investment. They consistently lose to completely-valueless Copycoins like Litecoin and Dogecoin.


"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
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
July 16, 2015, 04:01:05 PM
 #28933

And the hits keep coming for the dangerous experiment of maintaining artificially constrained blocks. From 2009-14 Bitcoin functioned with no effective block size limit and mining decentralization post-ASIC was improving. Now, in 2015, that this latent piece of software is allowed to take effect the unintended consequences rear up:
(my bold emphasis below)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1125214.20

And here is why you shouldn't jump to conclusions so hastily

"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
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 16, 2015, 04:13:05 PM
 #28934

all the mining centralization FUD is still BS:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 16, 2015, 04:58:38 PM
 #28935

good news from Europe:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3dijsh/positive_rulingadvice_from_eu_no_vat_on_bitcoin/
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
July 16, 2015, 05:02:05 PM
 #28936


I suspect we agree that should 1MB blocks become an undeniably urgent concern (EG, if we see actual congestion resulting in appropriate fees no longer prioritizing their tx) the controversy will rapidly dissipate and be replaced by emergent rough consensus.

no, the eye doctor says you're a blind fool.

Why do you say that?

Do you believe the controversy will *not* rapidly dissipate and be replaced by emergent rough consensus, should 1MB blocks become an undeniably urgent concern?

you and the other Cripplecoiner's are blind fools to what is happening right now as a result of the 1MB choke you are inflicting on Bitcoin.  you don't have the vision to determine when there is urgency.

My definition of actual congestion is "appropriately competitive fees no longer prioritizing their tx."

I like that one because it is objective.

What is your definition?

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it seems like you are defining actual congestion as "zero/low fee tx not being sufficiently subsidized by block size."

Please correct my blindness, good doctor.

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Wallets - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }


Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


"I believed @Dashpay instamine was a bug & not a feature but then read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg13017231#msg13017231
I'm not against people making money, but can't support questionable origins."
https://twitter.com/Tone_LLT/status/717822927908024320


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004

"Hard forks cannot be co
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 16, 2015, 05:33:50 PM
 #28937


I suspect we agree that should 1MB blocks become an undeniably urgent concern (EG, if we see actual congestion resulting in appropriate fees no longer prioritizing their tx) the controversy will rapidly dissipate and be replaced by emergent rough consensus.

no, the eye doctor says you're a blind fool.

Why do you say that?

Do you believe the controversy will *not* rapidly dissipate and be replaced by emergent rough consensus, should 1MB blocks become an undeniably urgent concern?

you and the other Cripplecoiner's are blind fools to what is happening right now as a result of the 1MB choke you are inflicting on Bitcoin.  you don't have the vision to determine when there is urgency.

My definition of actual congestion is "appropriately competitive fees no longer prioritizing their tx."

I like that one because it is objective.

What is your definition?

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it seems like you are defining actual congestion as "zero/low fee tx not being sufficiently subsidized by block size."

Please correct my blindness, good doctor.

1.  mempool:  57000 0conf-Statoshi,  11000 Tradeblock
2.  avg wait time for 0confs=45-60 min Chain.so
3.  Mycelium no longer able to prioritize fees
4.  continued complaints on Reddit of stuck tx's even with higher fees.
5.  continuous stream of full blocks and functioning full nodes indicative that the capacity for bigger blocks exists today.
6.  TPS able to spike to >100 when needed indicative of greater bandwidth than initially thought.
7.  continued lack of wallet development for fee feedback.
8.  full blocks creating new deviant behavior.
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
July 16, 2015, 05:42:10 PM
 #28938

So this boils down to you trusting MIT more than Silicon Valley.

If only Aaron Swartz was here to answer this one.

that's the stupidest characterization of what i said.  you clearly don't get it.

That is an excellent distillation of LeBron's position, with some nice #REKT added for color to really drive brg's point home.

LeBron is adorable when he casts aspersions on Blockstream while simultaneously painting MIT as an innocent charity.

MIT is a $10 billion multinational corporation with deep, old connections to the military-industrial complex, not your do-gooding local animal shelter.

If LeBron insists on regular public colonoscopies for Blockstream, it's only fair gavin@tla.mit.gov and hearn@sigint.google.mil be treated to the same procedure.

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Wallets - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }


Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


"I believed @Dashpay instamine was a bug & not a feature but then read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg13017231#msg13017231
I'm not against people making money, but can't support questionable origins."
https://twitter.com/Tone_LLT/status/717822927908024320


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004

"Hard forks cannot be co
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
July 16, 2015, 05:53:05 PM
 #28939

My definition of actual congestion is "appropriately competitive fees no longer prioritizing their tx."

What is your definition?

1.  mempool:  57000 0conf-Statoshi,  11000 Tradeblock
2.  avg wait time for 0confs=45-60 min Chain.so
3.  Mycelium no longer able to prioritize fees
4.  continued complaints on Reddit of stuck tx's even with higher fees.
5.  continuous stream of full blocks and functioning full nodes indicative that the capacity for bigger blocks exists today.
6.  TPS able to spike to >100 when needed indicative of greater bandwidth than initially thought.
7.  continued lack of wallet development for fee feedback.
8.  full blocks creating new deviant behavior.

That's an ad hoc (IE non-generalizable) mish-mash of random observations, not an objective definition.

"Complaints on Reddit"

Oh dear sweet Jahbulon, please have mercy on those you have cursed with intelligence...   Cry

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Wallets - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }


Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


"I believed @Dashpay instamine was a bug & not a feature but then read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg13017231#msg13017231
I'm not against people making money, but can't support questionable origins."
https://twitter.com/Tone_LLT/status/717822927908024320


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004

"Hard forks cannot be co
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 16, 2015, 05:57:35 PM
 #28940

My definition of actual congestion is "appropriately competitive fees no longer prioritizing their tx."

What is your definition?

1.  mempool:  57000 0conf-Statoshi,  11000 Tradeblock
2.  avg wait time for 0confs=45-60 min Chain.so
3.  Mycelium no longer able to prioritize fees
4.  continued complaints on Reddit of stuck tx's even with higher fees.
5.  continuous stream of full blocks and functioning full nodes indicative that the capacity for bigger blocks exists today.
6.  TPS able to spike to >100 when needed indicative of greater bandwidth than initially thought.
7.  continued lack of wallet development for fee feedback.
8.  full blocks creating new deviant behavior.

That's an ad hoc (IE non-generalizable) mish-mash of random observations, not an objective definition.

"Complaints on Reddit?"

Oh dear sweet Jahbulon, please have mercy on those you have cursed with intelligence...   Cry

a single self applied metric for a simpleton's mind.  is you.

yes, i'm using a overall survey of the marketplace to make my determination that we indeed have congestion.  you can't do so otherwise.
Pages: « 1 ... 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 [1447] 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 ... 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!