Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 04:17:07 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 ... 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 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1805905 times)
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106


View Profile
July 25, 2015, 08:05:04 AM
 #29301

the thing that I can't grok at all about arguments contrary to max blk size increase is the "fee-pressure" one.

isn't the fixed and over time decreasing tokens emission already supposed to take care of it?

why do we need to anticipate the time when miners should sustain theirs activity through fees?

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
1481170627
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481170627

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481170627
Reply with quote  #2

1481170627
Report to moderator
1481170627
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481170627

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481170627
Reply with quote  #2

1481170627
Report to moderator
1481170627
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481170627

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481170627
Reply with quote  #2

1481170627
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
July 25, 2015, 08:17:11 AM
 #29302

the thing that I can't grok at all about arguments contrary to max blk size increase is the "fee-pressure" one.

isn't the fixed and over time decreasing tokens emission already supposed to take care of it?

why do we need to anticipate the time when miners should sustain theirs activity through fees?

When Satoshi designed Bitcoin he expected most users of it to be able to mine using their own full nodes, receiving block rewards, for a lot longer than actually happened, ASIC farms and mining pools hijacked the reward emission to a certain extent. So people who run full nodes are often not mining and not compensated for handling ever larger blocks. So the idea of higher and higher fees is to force tx volumes lower than what the market and ecosystem would like, purely in the theory that it helps the non-mining nodes with less overhead.

The real solution to this is a combination of several things: node services payment channels (like JR has written about), blockchain pruning, Lightning Network type off-chain services, and IBLT which reduces the block propagation bandwidth requirements.

If all these changes were happening then there would be no pressure to try forcing a (misguided) centrally planned fees-market.

Natalia_AnatolioPAMM
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile WWW
July 25, 2015, 09:01:08 AM
 #29303


even more than that! it can change it all. thanks for sharing

Earn money when BTC crashes - join BTC-E PAMM
Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1554



View Profile
July 25, 2015, 09:41:32 AM
 #29304

I cannot wait until we fork this problem away.
Yep.

interesting reddit post that sums up the fork in the road debate nicely. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ef6h1/bitcoin_ideology_do_you_vote_for_a_or_b/

Quote
Multiple Choice Question:
Do you see bitcoin in the future as:
A) a scaling peer to peer network with ultra cheap transactions, for anyone globally to use, with bitcoin functioning as internet cash, avoiding financial intermediaries or banks.
B) a settlement layer for banks, fin tech companies and early adopters, with a low volume expensive to transact upon blockchain

The root of the issue is that option "B" Bitcoin as a high-fee high-value settlement layer, without "A" scaling and widespread growing ecosystem usage happening first, is economic illiteracy of the first order.


Yes, well said, thank you.

The 1MB crowd constantly talks about how a fee market is necessary for bitcoin. Yes, of course, ultimately there must be a robust fee market. But there won't be one unless Bitcoin both continues to grow and continues to hold the vast majority of crypto-economic value. If we deliberately tell demand to go somewhere else at this stage, it will (and it won't necessarily be a btc-sidechain).

Many of us in this thread, who've been supporting the ecosystem for years, worked through the longrun adoption/mining/security/fee-market dynamic years ago. Fees remain low for many years while mining is subsidized by inflation. The combination of cheap/fast/global transactions is a big contributor (but not the only one, of course) to demand for bitcoin transactions. 3, 4, or 5 havings down the road, enough of this transaction demand probably exists that fees can still be low, and yet add up to about the same or more than the block reward. At this point, the fee market starts to really develop, and miners get selective, publish their fee preferences, vertically integrate services and compete all based on fees. Bitcoin matures and strengthens, all while remaining low-fee *and* high security; this is a very achievable years-from-now equilibrium.

With consistent demand, high security, a mature fee market, and known-well-in-advance dynamics, more and more people who operate the plumbing of the world's traditional financial system feel comfortable moving volume to Bitcoin. This is how a global settlement layer develops.

Intentionally stifling demand years before this happens is a terrible idea.

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

Activity: 672


View Profile
July 25, 2015, 09:53:43 AM
 #29305

I honestly have no idea what China is doing with gold sales or purchases. It's not something I'm particularly concerned about.
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106


View Profile
July 25, 2015, 12:52:07 PM
 #29306

the thing that I can't grok at all about arguments contrary to max blk size increase is the "fee-pressure" one.

isn't the fixed and over time decreasing tokens emission already supposed to take care of it?

why do we need to anticipate the time when miners should sustain theirs activity through fees?

When Satoshi designed Bitcoin he expected most users of it to be able to mine using their own full nodes, receiving block rewards, for a lot longer than actually happened, ASIC farms and mining pools hijacked the reward emission to a certain extent. So people who run full nodes are often not mining and not compensated for handling ever larger blocks. So the idea of higher and higher fees is to force tx volumes lower than what the market and ecosystem would like, purely in the theory that it helps the non-mining nodes with less overhead.

The real solution to this is a combination of several things: node services payment channels (like JR has written about), blockchain pruning, Lightning Network type off-chain services, and IBLT which reduces the block propagation bandwidth requirements.

If all these changes were happening then there would be no pressure to try forcing a (misguided) centrally planned fees-market.

So they are trying to solve the ever increasing burden of running a full node for a non miner indirectly, through the mean of a side effect of an anti-DoS mechanism.

Am I right?

if I'm correct, It seems to me a rather convoluted way of thinking, why not just say that instead of use the fee pressure rethoric?

why not embrace JR's free market idea for full node services?

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
prodigy8
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


ESCROW


View Profile
July 25, 2015, 12:54:51 PM
 #29307

I think the gold value will never collapsing, there are many ups and downs of every coin but gold is old
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 25, 2015, 01:17:31 PM
 #29308

I think the gold value will never collapsing, there are many ups and downs of every coin but gold is old

Yep, you hit it on the head. It's old and soon to be replaced by the new. I think we're going to see gold  parity once again, at the minimum.
bracek
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 530


View Profile
July 25, 2015, 02:07:27 PM
 #29309

what happens after gold price hits 700 or whatever ?
logic says it goes up from the low bound,
but how much, for how long (in case of continuing drop) ?

I can't "justify" it's continuation towards zero.
Won't there be another grand run up over the next 15 years or so ?
is it really "over" because of digital era ?
inca
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
July 25, 2015, 04:22:21 PM
 #29310

I wouldn't expect to see gold go far below 1000 or touch the 1980's high.

If it does I will probably start buying some gold again. When bitcoin passes gold then it becomes interesting regarding the gold:bitcoin allocation in a portfolio. I dumped all my metals in 2011 but will probably reacquire some when the markets go pop.
inca
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
July 25, 2015, 04:23:50 PM
 #29311

I cannot wait until we fork this problem away.
Yep.

interesting reddit post that sums up the fork in the road debate nicely. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ef6h1/bitcoin_ideology_do_you_vote_for_a_or_b/

Quote
Multiple Choice Question:
Do you see bitcoin in the future as:
A) a scaling peer to peer network with ultra cheap transactions, for anyone globally to use, with bitcoin functioning as internet cash, avoiding financial intermediaries or banks.
B) a settlement layer for banks, fin tech companies and early adopters, with a low volume expensive to transact upon blockchain

The root of the issue is that option "B" Bitcoin as a high-fee high-value settlement layer, without "A" scaling and widespread growing ecosystem usage happening first, is economic illiteracy of the first order. "B" by itself is simply a wet-dream of Blockchain Economics central planner fanbois.
If the 1MB is allowed to crowd out regular user tx, not just spam, then fees will plateau and inexorably decline amid an ongoing PR disaster.

Fortunately rescue from the 1MB4EVR idiocy seems likely.
Gavin is fixing the cpu-intensive bloat-tx attack threat, and then it looks like the change to an 8MB block limit will be offered to the community. I hope that Gavin and Jeff team up for this. When I first learned about Bitcoin it was Satoshi, Gavin, Jeff and Sipa who were commit access Core Dev (though Satoshi was already the Silent One). If it takes just two of them to get Bitcoin back on the track to success - then all power to them!

Hey hey, as early adopter, I resemble that!

Yes that was a good reddit post  Wink
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106


View Profile
July 25, 2015, 06:03:10 PM
 #29312

Garzik Predicts ‘Chaos’ If Changes Made to Both Fee Structure and Block Size

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114966/garzik-predicts-chaos-if-changes-made-to-both-fee-structure-and-block-size

Quote from: Jeff Garzik
“First, users & market are forced through this period of chaos by ‘let a fee market develop’ as the whole market changes to a radically different economic policy, [one] the network has never seen before. Next, when blocks are consistently full, the past consensus was that block size limit will be increased eventually. What happens at that point? Answer — Users & market are forced through a second period of chaos and disruption as the fee market is rebooted again by changing the block size limit.”

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

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 25, 2015, 06:28:06 PM
 #29313

Garzik Predicts ‘Chaos’ If Changes Made to Both Fee Structure and Block Size

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114966/garzik-predicts-chaos-if-changes-made-to-both-fee-structure-and-block-size

Quote from: Jeff Garzik
“First, users & market are forced through this period of chaos by ‘let a fee market develop’ as the whole market changes to a radically different economic policy, [one] the network has never seen before. Next, when blocks are consistently full, the past consensus was that block size limit will be increased eventually. What happens at that point? Answer — Users & market are forced through a second period of chaos and disruption as the fee market is rebooted again by changing the block size limit.”

I've you conceptualize that core  dev determination of block size is central planning, then  it becomes clear why it doesn't  work.
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
July 25, 2015, 06:37:31 PM
 #29314

Converted to 0.10.2 XT. Eagerly awaiting the largeblocks version.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 25, 2015, 07:00:19 PM
 #29315

Converted to 0.10.2 XT. Eagerly awaiting the largeblocks version.


I have 6 nodes ready and waiting.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 25, 2015, 07:01:52 PM
 #29316

Small blocks equal small minds.
bucktotal
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 211


View Profile
July 25, 2015, 07:06:47 PM
 #29317

Converted to 0.10.2 XT. Eagerly awaiting the largeblocks version.


I have 6 nodes ready and waiting.

how much does it cost you per node per month?

also, i asked before but you missed it... where are you getting those hash rate distribution graphs from? they dont match up with blockchain.info and others.

tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1988


View Profile
July 25, 2015, 07:11:29 PM
 #29318


Small blocks equal small minds.

Go to your XT fork and get it over with already.  Please! This will be the best thing which ever happened for Bitcoin and more importantly, for distributed crypto-currencies in a general sense.  I do wish you would get with it, but I predict that if it gets enough traction to happen at all it will coincide with an event which would make people otherwise look to Bitcoin as a wealth preservation tool.


Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
July 25, 2015, 08:17:38 PM
 #29319

Small blocks equal small minds.

lol, small blocks equal smart minds.   (contrary big and stupid)
inca
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
July 25, 2015, 08:51:24 PM
 #29320

Small blocks equal small minds.

lol, small blocks equal smart minds.   (contrary big and stupid)

PLease explain how bitcoin will proceed over the next few years with the blocksize fixed at 1mb and continue to be successful Odalv.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 ... 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!