Bitcoin Forum
September 21, 2017, 12:38:03 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   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 ... 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 1498 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1977782 times)
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
July 17, 2015, 04:56:50 AM
 #28941

yeah, Mycelium was your prime example of a wallet trying to establish a fee mkt in response to user frustration from unconf tx's.  now that they blow up, you throw them under the bus forgetting they were a justification for your argument in the first place.

why do you keep insisting on lies and misconstructions?

today it was my "prime example" and three day's ago it was ICEBreaker's... this is the bullshit I am talking about when I say I cannot trust anything that you write or even take you seriously.

don't get me wrong you are often making valid points and bring interesting observations but your manic habit to twist and turn around everything your way, right or not, true or false makes you lose face every time. i don't even believe you have any kind of malicious agenda but you need to stop trying to deceive people to try and make a point.

"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
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1505997483
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1505997483

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1505997483
Reply with quote  #2

1505997483
Report to moderator
1505997483
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1505997483

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1505997483
Reply with quote  #2

1505997483
Report to moderator
1505997483
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1505997483

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1505997483
Reply with quote  #2

1505997483
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 17, 2015, 05:13:53 AM
 #28942

yeah, Mycelium was your prime example of a wallet trying to establish a fee mkt in response to user frustration from unconf tx's.  now that they blow up, you throw them under the bus forgetting they were a justification for your argument in the first place.

why do you keep insisting on lies and misconstructions?

today it was my "prime example" and three day's ago it was ICEBreaker's... this is the bullshit I am talking about when I say I cannot trust anything that you write or even take you seriously.

don't get me wrong you are often making valid points and bring interesting observations but your manic habit to twist and turn around everything your way, right or not, true or false makes you lose face every time. i don't even believe you have any kind of malicious agenda but you need to stop trying to deceive people to try and make a point.

when i say "you", i'm referring in general to the Cripplecoiners like you who have been pointing at Mycelium and saying "see, i told you so".

and yes, my pt still stands.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 17, 2015, 05:28:39 AM
 #28943

oh my.  i hadn't looked at this one for a long time.  the ETF plumbing new yearly lows.  so sorry iCEBlow, tvbcof, & traderCJ:

solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
July 17, 2015, 06:02:40 AM
 #28944

solex, where do you go to get your mempool size info?  there seems to be discrepancies btwn sources.

Lately I am using tradeblock as their site is fast and informative. https://tradeblock.com/blockchain
For some reason the leadership at blockchain.info has become rudderless and their site is often not keeping up and development there seems static. My impression anyway.

you're referring to the 1MB single tx block that f2pool constructed as a non std tx to help reduce the UTXO set?

why was that a bad thing?  it was a one off to help consolidate all that dust and required that a miner self construct this type of block and transmit it.  that wouldn't be a repeatable, viable attack to inflict on the network by a rogue miner looking to gain an advantage over other miners for the following reasons:

1.  constructing an 8MB bloat block while the rest of the network is making 1MB blocks runs the severe risk of orphaning
2.  if the pool consists mainly of hashers, they would react by redirecting their hash away from the attacking pool to preserve the network
3.  if it was coming out of China from a large miner, that miner runs even more risk of orphaning due to the GFC.
4.  other miners receiving such a bloat block could react defensively by switching to mining a 0 tx block during the validation process.
5.  game theory suggests a miner wouldn't even begin to do this attack for preservation of BTC value and his hardware investment.

Yes. The block which reduced the utxo set. That was the good part (though Greg posted on irc that it could have been constructed much more efficiently). Anyway, the bad part is that validation took 25 secs (because of all the inputs). Bitcoin full nodes have no way at present to look at a block and decide to orphan it in advance because it is a "bloat block" that will take too long to validate, they will all chug through the block first.You are probably right bloat blocks would not propagate fast enough and get orphaned.

solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
July 17, 2015, 06:29:32 AM
 #28945

Increased demand has in fact been well answered by the network over the last few days. Strangely this is a rather encouraging fact that not too many people seem to mention or acknowledge.

To be clear I am not referring to shitty software and other amateurs node implementations. These got properly crushed because THEIR models and code were not able to handle the increased demand.

I feel much less urgency going forward... unless we hit a 5K$ bubble in the next coming months  Smiley

AHA! Now I see your perspective, you don't actually understand that the 1MB is effectively a limit on the number of people who can use Bitcoin.

Consider these global information technology services:

Google internet search
Facebook social media
Twitter public messaging

At some stage all of these were small.
Google would not have supported more than 2000 users doing searches in a 10 minute period.
Facebook would not have supported more than 2000 users updating their profiles in a 10 minute period.
Twitter would not have supported more than 2000 users sending out tweets in a 10 minute period.

Before these user counts were reached in each case these services were OK for the small number of people who used them. However, and I think the question is very obvious "What would have happened in each case if they had not scaled their services to cope with 10x, 100x or even 1000x as many users?"

I am not going to bother answering that, but I will add that every situation is different, so the timescales involved in necessary scaling are different. The absolute in each case is that necessary scaling cannot be ignored - and wasn't.

Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980



View Profile
July 17, 2015, 06:46:45 AM
 #28946

(...)

I feel much less urgency going forward... unless we hit a 5K$ bubble in the next coming months  Smiley

Translation:

I feel much less urgency going forward... unless something happens that happened regularly in the bitcoin environment.


Great perspectives.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 17, 2015, 11:49:36 AM
 #28947

Increased demand has in fact been well answered by the network over the last few days. Strangely this is a rather encouraging fact that not too many people seem to mention or acknowledge.

To be clear I am not referring to shitty software and other amateurs node implementations. These got properly crushed because THEIR models and code were not able to handle the increased demand.

I feel much less urgency going forward... unless we hit a 5K$ bubble in the next coming months  Smiley

AHA! Now I see your perspective, you don't actually understand that the 1MB is effectively a limit on the number of people who can use Bitcoin.

Consider these global information technology services:

Google internet search
Facebook social media
Twitter public messaging

At some stage all of these were small.
Google would not have supported more than 2000 users doing searches in a 10 minute period.
Facebook would not have supported more than 2000 users updating their profiles in a 10 minute period.
Twitter would not have supported more than 2000 users sending out tweets in a 10 minute period.

Before these user counts were reached in each case these services were OK for the small number of people who used them. However, and I think the question is very obvious "What would have happened in each case if they had not scaled their services to cope with 10x, 100x or even 1000x as many users?"

I am not going to bother answering that, but I will add that every situation is different, so the timescales involved in necessary scaling are different. The absolute in each case is that necessary scaling cannot be ignored - and wasn't.


He also made a comment up thread that blocks aren't getting filled regularly. Don't know where he has been getting  that.
hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274



View Profile
July 17, 2015, 12:51:48 PM
 #28948

China Increases Gold Holdings By 57% "In One Month" In First Official Update Since 2009

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-07-17/china-increases-gold-holdings-57-one-month-first-official-update-2009
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
July 17, 2015, 01:26:23 PM
 #28949

China Increases Gold Holdings By 57% "In One Month" In First Official Update Since 2009

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-07-17/china-increases-gold-holdings-57-one-month-first-official-update-2009

So it took 6 years, not one month, but...
That passes up Russia for the 5th largest hoard.
Actual billboard in Bangkok near airport:



Grats, China.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 17, 2015, 02:06:42 PM
 #28950

China Increases Gold Holdings By 57% "In One Month" In First Official Update Since 2009

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-07-17/china-increases-gold-holdings-57-one-month-first-official-update-2009

What did i say back in 2011?  Central banks are terrible at investing.

Gold collapsing. Bitcoin up.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 17, 2015, 02:19:03 PM
 #28951

i am so sorry.  gold off the cliff:



but at least one thing is going up and breaking out.  note the red arrow entry:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 17, 2015, 02:22:45 PM
 #28952

i mean the alarms are ringing, the bells are clanging, the red flags are flapping, the hands are waving; for 4 yrs now.

these mining charts are just fugly:



Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
July 17, 2015, 02:54:58 PM
 #28953

i'm glad the VC's are starting to focus in on what the real problem is:

https://a16z.com/2015/07/13/a16z-podcast-bitcoins-growing-pains-and-possibilities/

Oh how nice to hear the view from 2865 Sand Hill Road, courtesy of In-Q-Tel (AKA CIA) partner A16 and Hearn@sigint.google.mil.

27 seconds in, and we've already being treated to hard-selling, counterfactual exaggeration in the form of "there not much time left to make changes before Bitcoin blockchain capacity runs out."

"1MB kludge"  No, wrong, a sanity check/DOS regulator is not a "kludge." 

 Angry  FFS, I'm struggling to not attribute to malice what can be explained by ignorance, but Hearn should know better.  Especially as Gavin as told us the sky will not fall because of full 1MB blocks.

Please tell us how you see Bitcoin growing, and how you propose to prevent DOS by limiting block size, this seems like an oxymoron to me.


I'd also like to highlight a point that reflects ignorance on how the economics of Bitcoin incentives work, it is repeated by the "lets limit block size for now proponents", and that is that transaction costs are unrealistically low, or the cost of a transaction is not reflected in the TX fee or the market for TX fees is insufficient to sustain Bitcoin and this is a problem.

Bitcoin has been undergoing massive inflation, that inflation is subsidizing mining. Miners are being subsidized to grow the network infrastructure with a 25 BTC block subsidy every 10 minutes. This subsidy is an empirical part of Bitcoin and it is gradually removed in a disruptive but constructive manner essential to Bitcoin's growth, it has another benefit in that it reduces the cost of TX fees, and grows to protect the value stored in the network while it is small and vulnerable.

It is dishonest to claim transaction costs are low without pointing out that they are being subsidized and the subsidy is designed to reduce over time slowly enough to allow market driven prices to evolve.

It is also premature to centrally enforce protocol changes to manage or manipulate market driven transaction costs while those invested in Bitcoin are subsidizing the inflation and the actual cost transaction cost.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 17, 2015, 03:04:06 PM
 #28954

solex, where do you go to get your mempool size info?  there seems to be discrepancies btwn sources.

Lately I am using tradeblock as their site is fast and informative. https://tradeblock.com/blockchain
For some reason the leadership at blockchain.info has become rudderless and their site is often not keeping up and development there seems static. My impression anyway.

you're referring to the 1MB single tx block that f2pool constructed as a non std tx to help reduce the UTXO set?

why was that a bad thing?  it was a one off to help consolidate all that dust and required that a miner self construct this type of block and transmit it.  that wouldn't be a repeatable, viable attack to inflict on the network by a rogue miner looking to gain an advantage over other miners for the following reasons:

1.  constructing an 8MB bloat block while the rest of the network is making 1MB blocks runs the severe risk of orphaning
2.  if the pool consists mainly of hashers, they would react by redirecting their hash away from the attacking pool to preserve the network
3.  if it was coming out of China from a large miner, that miner runs even more risk of orphaning due to the GFC.
4.  other miners receiving such a bloat block could react defensively by switching to mining a 0 tx block during the validation process.
5.  game theory suggests a miner wouldn't even begin to do this attack for preservation of BTC value and his hardware investment.

Yes. The block which reduced the utxo set. That was the good part (though Greg posted on irc that it could have been constructed much more efficiently). Anyway, the bad part is that validation took 25 secs (because of all the inputs). Bitcoin full nodes have no way at present to look at a block and decide to orphan it in advance because it is a "bloat block" that will take too long to validate, they will all chug through the block first.You are probably right bloat blocks would not propagate fast enough and get orphaned.

here's a subtle theory i have as a result of that 1MB tx block.

i think the only reason an attacker would even try that type of bloat block to try and choke the network is if and when all other miners are creating similar sized blocks; like the situation we have right now with full blocks.  that way, it runs less chances of being orphaned (which it wasn't) b/c it doesn't stand out in the crowd of other 1MB blocks.  but if we went to no cap tomorrow, trying to attack with a huge bloat block while everyone else is still at 1MB blocks would stand out. all other miners could then react defensively, if they so chose, by mining 0 tx blocks during the 25 sec validation period.  or, more likely, it would just get orphaned. thus, any attack would fail with no limit.  afaic, there weren't any defensive 0 tx blocks mined after that 1MB single tx block b/c none of the other miners were particularly threatened by it as they were also mining 1MB blocks.   then, it would be quite likely their hashers would abandon them for egregious activity perpetrated against the network good and destroy them like they did with ghash.

IOW, what i'm saying is that there will be a tremendous incentive for miners to stay together near the average block size across the network even w/o any cap at all.  if they all decide to create larger blocks, fine, they advance to bigger blocks together as most miners are honest.  that would be a good thing.  the majority of them don't want disruption.  spammers would even get wiped out in this situation if the miners in aggregate decide they can handle the spam.  which they would by assessing full node functioning across the network and examining their own internal capacities along with user fees and access.  spam would even help strengthen the mining industry unbeknownst to the spammer by feeding revenue to them while desperately trying to jack mempools and disrupt users.  and IF by chance spammers do start to jack the mempool, then miners can simply dial up their minfees to choke them off.

no limit is the easiest most straight forward way to short circuit the spammers ability to disrupt the user and jack mempools.
hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274



View Profile
July 17, 2015, 03:40:07 PM
 #28955

i'm glad the VC's are starting to focus in on what the real problem is:

https://a16z.com/2015/07/13/a16z-podcast-bitcoins-growing-pains-and-possibilities/

Oh how nice to hear the view from 2865 Sand Hill Road, courtesy of In-Q-Tel (AKA CIA) partner A16 and Hearn@sigint.google.mil.

27 seconds in, and we've already being treated to hard-selling, counterfactual exaggeration in the form of "there not much time left to make changes before Bitcoin blockchain capacity runs out."

"1MB kludge"  No, wrong, a sanity check/DOS regulator is not a "kludge." 

 Angry  FFS, I'm struggling to not attribute to malice what can be explained by ignorance, but Hearn should know better.  Especially as Gavin as told us the sky will not fall because of full 1MB blocks.

Please tell us how you see Bitcoin growing, and how you propose to prevent DOS by limiting block size, this seems like an oxymoron to me.


I'd also like to highlight a point that reflects ignorance on how the economics of Bitcoin incentives work, it is repeated by the "lets limit block size for now proponents", and that is that transaction costs are unrealistically low, or the cost of a transaction is not reflected in the TX fee or the market for TX fees is insufficient to sustain Bitcoin and this is a problem.

Bitcoin has been undergoing massive inflation, that inflation is subsidizing mining. Miners are being subsidized to grow the network infrastructure with a 25 BTC block subsidy every 10 minutes. This subsidy is an empirical part of Bitcoin and it is gradually removed in a disruptive but constructive manner essential to Bitcoin's growth, it has another benefit in that it reduces the cost of TX fees, and grows to protect the value stored in the network while it is small and vulnerable.

It is dishonest to claim transaction costs are low without pointing out that they are being subsidized and the subsidy is designed to reduce over time slowly enough to allow market driven prices to evolve.

It is also premature to centrally enforce protocol changes to manage or manipulate market driven transaction costs while those invested in Bitcoin are subsidizing the inflation and the actual cost transaction cost.


blocksize has nothing to do with DDOS.
transaction fees, on the other hand..
they are just bound to skyrocket at some point - but that would ensure safety and integrity of the network, regardless of blocksize.

bitcoin is a privilege, bitcoin is a worldwide decentralized network.

it wont save neither greece, nor the "africans" (such fucking racist argument BTW..).
you wont be able to buy frappucinos with bitcoins, nor any other immediate useless consumption carp..
remember: p-r-i-v-i-l-e-g-e

we lucky - & screw the mass Smiley
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 17, 2015, 03:58:50 PM
 #28956

you can't say stocks don't give you a chance to get out.  get ready for the next roll:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 17, 2015, 04:04:40 PM
 #28957

i'm glad the VC's are starting to focus in on what the real problem is:

https://a16z.com/2015/07/13/a16z-podcast-bitcoins-growing-pains-and-possibilities/

Oh how nice to hear the view from 2865 Sand Hill Road, courtesy of In-Q-Tel (AKA CIA) partner A16 and Hearn@sigint.google.mil.

27 seconds in, and we've already being treated to hard-selling, counterfactual exaggeration in the form of "there not much time left to make changes before Bitcoin blockchain capacity runs out."

"1MB kludge"  No, wrong, a sanity check/DOS regulator is not a "kludge."  

 Angry  FFS, I'm struggling to not attribute to malice what can be explained by ignorance, but Hearn should know better.  Especially as Gavin as told us the sky will not fall because of full 1MB blocks.

Please tell us how you see Bitcoin growing, and how you propose to prevent DOS by limiting block size, this seems like an oxymoron to me.


I'd also like to highlight a point that reflects ignorance on how the economics of Bitcoin incentives work, it is repeated by the "lets limit block size for now proponents", and that is that transaction costs are unrealistically low, or the cost of a transaction is not reflected in the TX fee or the market for TX fees is insufficient to sustain Bitcoin and this is a problem.

Bitcoin has been undergoing massive inflation, that inflation is subsidizing mining. Miners are being subsidized to grow the network infrastructure with a 25 BTC block subsidy every 10 minutes. This subsidy is an empirical part of Bitcoin and it is gradually removed in a disruptive but constructive manner essential to Bitcoin's growth, it has another benefit in that it reduces the cost of TX fees, and grows to protect the value stored in the network while it is small and vulnerable.

It is dishonest to claim transaction costs are low without pointing out that they are being subsidized and the subsidy is designed to reduce over time slowly enough to allow market driven prices to evolve.

It is also premature to centrally enforce protocol changes to manage or manipulate market driven transaction costs while those invested in Bitcoin are subsidizing the inflation and the actual cost transaction cost.


blocksize has nothing to do with DDOS.
transaction fees, on the other hand..
they are just bound to skyrocket at some point - but that would ensure safety and integrity of the network, regardless of blocksize.

bitcoin is a privilege, bitcoin is a worldwide decentralized network.

it wont save neither greece, nor the "africans" (such fucking racist argument BTW..).
you wont be able to buy frappucinos with bitcoins, nor any other immediate useless consumption carp..
remember: p-r-i-v-i-l-e-g-e

we lucky - & screw the mass Smiley

geezuz chr*st.  the whole thrust of this thread is about Bitcoin replacing gold as a worldwide currency and as a new form of Money for the Ages.

for it to do that, it must replicate what gold has done for thousands of years.  and that would be to function as a liquid money for everyone.  yes, even those little African kids who are digging it up out of the ground as we speak.  if it doesn't do that, then Bitcoin will forever be competing with physical gold and never get the chance to ascend to the throne, so to speak.

even if you disagree with that concept, wouldn't you agree that that would represent the ultimate in decentralization and security for Bitcoin if used at that level of the masses assuming it could be achieved technologically?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 17, 2015, 04:14:33 PM
 #28958

if financial elites like Krugman believe users/participants are the key to Metcalfe's Law and growing the internet, then Bitcoin should be employing strategies that attempt achieve the opposite of what he believes; grow it's users/participants:

The growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in “Metcalfe’s law” — which states that the number of potential connections in a network is proportional to the square of the number of participants — becomes apparent: most people have nothing to say to each other!

By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet’s impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine’s.


https://fee.org/anythingpeaceful/detail/krugman-is-clueless-about-bitcoin

how we gonna do that with Cripplecoin and Wuille's admission that SC's & LN don't scale Bitcoin?
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
July 17, 2015, 04:37:39 PM
 #28959

i'm glad the VC's are starting to focus in on what the real problem is:

https://a16z.com/2015/07/13/a16z-podcast-bitcoins-growing-pains-and-possibilities/

Oh how nice to hear the view from 2865 Sand Hill Road, courtesy of In-Q-Tel (AKA CIA) partner A16 and Hearn@sigint.google.mil.

27 seconds in, and we've already being treated to hard-selling, counterfactual exaggeration in the form of "there not much time left to make changes before Bitcoin blockchain capacity runs out."

"1MB kludge"  No, wrong, a sanity check/DOS regulator is not a "kludge."  

 Angry  FFS, I'm struggling to not attribute to malice what can be explained by ignorance, but Hearn should know better.  Especially as Gavin as told us the sky will not fall because of full 1MB blocks.

Please tell us how you see Bitcoin growing, and how you propose to prevent DOS by limiting block size, this seems like an oxymoron to me.


I'd also like to highlight a point that reflects ignorance on how the economics of Bitcoin incentives work, it is repeated by the "lets limit block size for now proponents", and that is that transaction costs are unrealistically low, or the cost of a transaction is not reflected in the TX fee or the market for TX fees is insufficient to sustain Bitcoin and this is a problem.

Bitcoin has been undergoing massive inflation, that inflation is subsidizing mining. Miners are being subsidized to grow the network infrastructure with a 25 BTC block subsidy every 10 minutes. This subsidy is an empirical part of Bitcoin and it is gradually removed in a disruptive but constructive manner essential to Bitcoin's growth, it has another benefit in that it reduces the cost of TX fees, and grows to protect the value stored in the network while it is small and vulnerable.

It is dishonest to claim transaction costs are low without pointing out that they are being subsidized and the subsidy is designed to reduce over time slowly enough to allow market driven prices to evolve.

It is also premature to centrally enforce protocol changes to manage or manipulate market driven transaction costs while those invested in Bitcoin are subsidizing the inflation and the actual cost transaction cost.


blocksize has nothing to do with DDOS.
transaction fees, on the other hand..
they are just bound to skyrocket at some point - but that would ensure safety and integrity of the network, regardless of blocksize.

bitcoin is a privilege, bitcoin is a worldwide decentralized network.

it wont save neither greece, nor the "africans" (such fucking racist argument BTW..).
you wont be able to buy frappucinos with bitcoins, nor any other immediate useless consumption carp..
remember: p-r-i-v-i-l-e-g-e

we lucky - & screw the mass Smiley

iCE called limiting block size "a sanity check/DOS regulator" you say it has nothing to do with increasing transactions ie DOS but more to do with transaction fees, (which are heavily subsidized) at this point in time.

So why do we need to "limit block size for now" in that case?

I don't see the mechanism that will make transaction fees sky rocket, the only one that will function in a free market is limiting block size.

The next question is why do you think that's a good idea?

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268


View Profile
July 17, 2015, 05:08:36 PM
 #28960

i'm glad the VC's are starting to focus in on what the real problem is:

https://a16z.com/2015/07/13/a16z-podcast-bitcoins-growing-pains-and-possibilities/

Oh how nice to hear the view from 2865 Sand Hill Road, courtesy of In-Q-Tel (AKA CIA) partner A16 and Hearn@sigint.google.mil.

27 seconds in, and we've already being treated to hard-selling, counterfactual exaggeration in the form of "there not much time left to make changes before Bitcoin blockchain capacity runs out."

"1MB kludge"  No, wrong, a sanity check/DOS regulator is not a "kludge."  

 Angry  FFS, I'm struggling to not attribute to malice what can be explained by ignorance, but Hearn should know better.  Especially as Gavin as told us the sky will not fall because of full 1MB blocks.

Finally got around to listening to it while having my morning coffee (which tends to last until afternoon and was not bought with BTC.)

I'd say your suspicion is likely correct.  The part I was listening to when I pecked out this note was the guy explaining away the 'privatized gains/socialized losses' in the mainstream system as being associated with spreading the cost of theft and fraud around.  The guy completely neglected what I suspect to be the major cost in mainstream-land which would be the cost of spying on and regulating individual users at the behest of the govt.  There are good reasons to ignore this cost from these guys perspective because they expect to channel Bitcoin into an evolutionary path where it does this only better.  Whenever I hear someone make a big deal about standard Libertarian principles but subtly leave out large and important blocks I get suspicious.


Pages: « 1 ... 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 1498 ... 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!