Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[solex]

Unfortunately, eliminating the limit would open up the existing code bases to several of DOS attacks. If we really want to go that way, we need to make sure that all the software can handle blocks that won't fit in memory + swap.  There are also likely other technical issues that would need to be addressed, and the only way to tease them all out is a ton of code reading and testing.  When software is written, constants are treated as assumptions, and when that assumption changes there is a risk of the previous logic breaking down.

The tcp buffer limit is 33554432 bytes (33.5MB) which means that Bitcoin messages cannot exceed this or p2p transmission breaks at the receiver with a read error.
If the 1MB limit did not exist then this is the maximum block size that can be sent, and it is no good mining a block too large to send anywhere. Blocks not fitting in memory or swap is not the immediate restriction.

Jeff Garzik commented that increasing this limit means a major reworking of Bitcoin's p2p protocol. If anyone thinks that the 1MB hardfork is scary (which is a tiny software change) resolving the 33.5MB is a much bigger issue. It may never be done, because one or more of alternative options:

LN having enough block space to allow a *lot* of payment channels to function and the VISA-scale volumes do-able long-term.
Tier Nolan / Adam Back extension blocks are one solution when the 33.5MB limit is being approached,
A combination of IBLT (if it is efficient at this level) and block segmentation logic could allow disk blocks > 33.5MB

In the meantime (and I'm guilty in the past too) bitcointalk is full of comments about 100MB, ZOMG 1GB blocks, etc etc and "dangerous" unlimited block sizes, when the reality is that no block can exist > 33.5 MB even if the 1MB limit disappeared.

When Satoshi put in the 1MB it was 1000x larger than the average block size. The 33.5 is about 80x the average block size seen in 2015. This is large, but not stupidly large, and continuing improvements in computing tech and bandwidth should make this size manageable by the mid-2020s because 5MB blocks should be manageable today.

A road-map which permits 33.5MB blocks by about 2025 still allows Bitcoin to be a major global currency. BIPs 100 and 101 at least leave the opportunity open to make this possible.

[Erdogan]

Unfortunately, eliminating the limit would open up the existing code bases to several of DOS attacks. If we really want to go that way, we need to make sure that all the software can handle blocks that won't fit in memory + swap.  There are also likely other technical issues that would need to be addressed, and the only way to tease them all out is a ton of code reading and testing.  When software is written, constants are treated as assumptions, and when that assumption changes there is a risk of the previous logic breaking down.

The tcp buffer limit is 33554432 bytes (33.5MB) which means that Bitcoin messages cannot exceed this or p2p transmission breaks at the receiver with a read error.
If the 1MB limit did not exist then this is the maximum block size that can be sent, and it is no good mining a block too large to send anywhere. Blocks not fitting in memory or swap is not the immediate restriction.

Jeff Garzik commented that increasing this limit means a major reworking of Bitcoin's p2p protocol. If anyone thinks that the 1MB hardfork is scary (which is a tiny software change) resolving the 33.5MB is a much bigger issue. It may never be done, because one or more of alternative options:

LN having enough block space to allow a *lot* of payment channels to function and the VISA-scale volumes do-able long-term.
Tier Nolan / Adam Back extension blocks are one solution when the 33.5MB limit is being approached,
A combination of IBLT (if it is efficient at this level) and block segmentation logic could allow disk blocks > 33.5MB

In the meantime (and I'm guilty in the past too) bitcointalk is full of comments about 100MB, ZOMG 1GB blocks, etc etc and "dangerous" unlimited block sizes, when the reality is that no block can exist > 33.5 MB even if the 1MB limit disappeared.

When Satoshi put in the 1MB it was 1000x larger than the average block size. The 33.5 is about 80x the average block size seen in 2015. This is large, but not stupidly large, and continuing improvements in computing tech and bandwidth should make this size manageable by the mid-2020s because 5MB blocks should be manageable today.

A road-map which permits 33.5MB blocks by about 2025 still allows Bitcoin to be a major global currency. BIPs 100 and 101 at least leave the opportunity open to make this possible.

There is no 33.5MB limit, that is at most a minor programming problem. Just read the rfc for the tcp protocol, there is no limit. Daily, people exchange larger blocks of data between computers. I sense a block minimalist creating a new non-limit to choke bitcoin for the benefit of an altcoin.

[notme]

Unfortunately, eliminating the limit would open up the existing code bases to several of DOS attacks. If we really want to go that way, we need to make sure that all the software can handle blocks that won't fit in memory + swap.  There are also likely other technical issues that would need to be addressed, and the only way to tease them all out is a ton of code reading and testing.  When software is written, constants are treated as assumptions, and when that assumption changes there is a risk of the previous logic breaking down.

The tcp buffer limit is 33554432 bytes (33.5MB) which means that Bitcoin messages cannot exceed this or p2p transmission breaks at the receiver with a read error.
If the 1MB limit did not exist then this is the maximum block size that can be sent, and it is no good mining a block too large to send anywhere. Blocks not fitting in memory or swap is not the immediate restriction.

Jeff Garzik commented that increasing this limit means a major reworking of Bitcoin's p2p protocol. If anyone thinks that the 1MB hardfork is scary (which is a tiny software change) resolving the 33.5MB is a much bigger issue. It may never be done, because one or more of alternative options:

LN having enough block space to allow a *lot* of payment channels to function and the VISA-scale volumes do-able long-term.
Tier Nolan / Adam Back extension blocks are one solution when the 33.5MB limit is being approached,
A combination of IBLT (if it is efficient at this level) and block segmentation logic could allow disk blocks > 33.5MB

In the meantime (and I'm guilty in the past too) bitcointalk is full of comments about 100MB, ZOMG 1GB blocks, etc etc and "dangerous" unlimited block sizes, when the reality is that no block can exist > 33.5 MB even if the 1MB limit disappeared.

When Satoshi put in the 1MB it was 1000x larger than the average block size. The 33.5 is about 80x the average block size seen in 2015. This is large, but not stupidly large, and continuing improvements in computing tech and bandwidth should make this size manageable by the mid-2020s because 5MB blocks should be manageable today.

A road-map which permits 33.5MB blocks by about 2025 still allows Bitcoin to be a major global currency. BIPs 100 and 101 at least leave the opportunity open to make this possible.

There is no 33.5MB limit, that is at most a minor programming problem. Just read the rfc for the tcp protocol, there is no limit. Daily, people exchange larger blocks of data between computers. I sense a block minimalist creating a new non-limit to choke bitcoin for the benefit of an altcoin.

I don't see any conspiracy, just confusion.  The message limit is only a problem for transactions or block headers larger than that size, as these two things can be requested separately.  You generally only need to get the header since you should have seen most of the transactions already.

[cypherdoc]

Mike must be reading this thread because these are the arguments I and others have made right here all along. And, we're right;

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009815.html

[inca]

Mike must be reading this thread because these are the arguments I and others have made right here all along. And, we're right;

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009815.html

The bitcoin web space has a small digital footprint and this thread has a lot of readers.

The position of those railing against the blocksize is shifting perceptibly. When it becomes clear your own software project may be forked into irrelevence over a single issue it tends to concentrates the mind! Next up some compromise from the Core devs to appease the community and allow them to stay relevent.

What is madness is not understanding the wider implications of preventing bitcoin naturally scaling in terms of its market capitalisation and future store of speculative value.

[cypherdoc]

too much sense:

[–]edmundedgar 2 points 14 minutes ago

    What makes you say so?

What we've been doing to date is gradually scaling up. We have a very good idea what this looks like.

Look at mining. Bitcoin to date has always worked with a big block reward and low fees. We don't know what miners' incentives look like with high fees; For example, a lot of people are worrying about the idea that longer validation times cause mining to centralize, because pools that didn't mine the last block and have to download ithave a disadvantage over pools that did. But if you work through this, it turns out that as far as the block reward goes you can neutralize any effect by doing SPV mining. But what you lose by mining in this way is fee revenue, so higher fees cause mining to centralize.

Now look at users and vendors. Nobody has the faintest idea whether the off-chain systems that are supposed to be decentralized will really be adopted, and if they are whether it will be in a decentralized way, or with just a couple of easily-regulated hubs. We also don't know whether pricing people off-chain will just drive them off to some other coin. There are a bunch of theories about all this stuff, but nobody really knows. In the case of the adoption ecosystem and regulatory exposure of Lightning Network, there's hardly even any theory; Everybody's just talking about the tech.

It may turn out that transitioning to the small-block model is the right thing to do. But what it definitely isn't is the risk-averse thing to do.

[cypherdoc]

interesting tactics employed by /u/mmeijeri et al in this thread:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3fhik9/mike_hearn_outlines_the_most_compelling_arguments/

initially, all his comments got downvoted (seen down lower the thread) as the pro increase concensus set in.  then, he takes the tactic of sub-commenting (spamming) the top comment to push all his downvoted comments downwards so as to discourage casual readers from making it all the way down to the bottom where the real content is.  couple that with some support that came in with upvoting him and he suddenly looks like he's carrying the day in terms of sentiment.

[cypherdoc]

[–]cypherdoc2 1 point 3 minutes ago

Bitcoin is mainly about economic theory. the code is there simply to support that theory. we see this all the time; coders decide what's best in terms of economics, then code to enforce that. look at this "fee mkt" argument. perfect example. Cripplecoiners have decided that "we need fees now". thus, they refuse to lift the limit. code cannot precede the economic idea. it does not spontaneousl generate itself. it has to be based on a belief.

furthermore, we constantly see code updates chasing after economic "holes" that get exploited by economic actors. like the 1MB single tx from f2pool.

    permalink
    save
    parent
    edit
    disable inbox replies
    delete
    reply

[inca]

interesting tactics employed by /u/mmeijeri et al in this thread:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3fhik9/mike_hearn_outlines_the_most_compelling_arguments/

initially, all his comments got downvoted (seen down lower the thread) as the pro increase concensus set in.  then, he takes the tactic of sub-commenting (spamming) the top comment to push all his downvoted comments downwards so as to discourage casual readers from making it all the way down to the bottom where the real content is.  couple that with some support that came in with upvoting him and he suddenly looks like he's carrying the day in terms of sentiment.

Desperate to keep up the appearance of this being a balanced debate, when in fact the opposite is true.

[brg444]

interesting tactics employed by /u/mmeijeri et al in this thread:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3fhik9/mike_hearn_outlines_the_most_compelling_arguments/

initially, all his comments got downvoted (seen down lower the thread) as the pro increase concensus set in.  then, he takes the tactic of sub-commenting (spamming) the top comment to push all his downvoted comments downwards so as to discourage casual readers from making it all the way down to the bottom where the real content is.  couple that with some support that came in with upvoting him and he suddenly looks like he's carrying the day in terms of sentiment.

Desperate to keep up the appearance of this being a balanced debate, when in fact the opposite is true.

I'm sorry but you "community" retards and your hubris are really a sight to behold.

Of course Reddit is not home to a balanced debate, it is filled to the brim with ignorant partisanism, fear mongering and general disingenuous pitchfork branding.

If you are looking for "balanced debate" look no further than the next message on the mailing list linked in OP.

People willing to have reasonable discussions have long realized that reddit is just another shill populist playground. Stop confusing this echo chamber with anything resembling "consensus".

[brg444]

This lad just scored a home run. Poor frap.doc, if you read this and don't realize you were led astray, away from your "sound money" theories by false gods of "more adoption", "cheap stuff for everyone"...

It is important to understand that units of a settlement network represent money, they are money. If settlement is achieved, then those units represent a monetary base. In our existing system, cash and central bank credit represent this base layer of money and, as such, the settlement layer.

On the other hand, saying something is a payment network simply means it's units represent credit -- i.e, temporary placeholders for money. So when you send someone money using a credit card, the reason it happens so quickly is because the network is promising to settle later. That isn't to say that credit units don't have value, just that their value derives from the fact that, ultimately, they can be exchanged for more trustworthy forms of value.

So the goal of a payment network is really to provide utility. If the utility fails, people move to another payment network. The goal of a settlement networks, on the other hand, is provide confidence/trust. If confidence fails, the currency collapses.

In the current financial system, central banks represent the settlement layer, whereas companies like Visa represent payment network layers. No one really cares that Visa is a company, its power centralized, because its role is to provide utility. But that central banks -- also centralized institutions -- control the settlement layer, i.e., control base money, is deeply troubling to many people because the role of the settlement layer is to provide confidence and trust (and it is becoming increasingly hard to trust a tiny handful of unelected people).

Some people think the success of Bitcoin is going to come from its utility and they tend to favor increasing the block size. The problem is that in increasing that utility, you are also weakening the settlement layer of Bitcoin by increasing mining centralization and eroding trust. They don't see a problem because they are thinking of Bitcoin solely in terms of utility, like Visa.

But if Bitcoin is going to become a global money, then its settlement layer is far more important than its utility, assuming utility functions -- like the number of transactions the network can handle -- can be handled/processed by third parties. In the same way Visa doesn't erode confidence in the dollar simply because it is a third party company independent of central banks and governments, companies that provide more utility to the Bitcoin network won't erode confidence in it either. All that is important for confidence is the base money, the settlement layer, in the same way that confidence in fiat currencies depends on confidence in government and central banks. We don't expect governments and central banks to provide the utility of payment networks, just to provide confidence and trust that gives the underlying currency value.

Bitcoin's power is really going to come from confidence in the network, specifically in its decentralized nature. I know many people have begun to question how important decentralization is, but they don't tend to impress me as really understanding how essential trust is to money, they take it for granted. (Or they don't think the goal of Bitcoin should be to be a money.)

Without decentralization, for a money to retain value the central authority controlling that money must be trusted, which is precisely why all money today is (at least theoretically) controlled by the state (governments are the institutional power we trust most). A currency whose trust foundation is not dependent on a human institution, however, is intrinsically more trustworthy than even the state. Nevertheless, if decentralization fails and centralization occurs, then Bitcoin becomes vulnerable as those centralized powers can be easily targeted. If it becomes vulnerable, confidence erodes and people return to wanting state-run money, perhaps now in the form of Fed-coin.
As faith in central banks and institutional/human controlled money wanes and fades in the 21st century, I believe block chains are going to replace central banks. But cryptocurrencies that are controlled by an institution -- whose code can be changed by dictate because mining is over centralized -- will suffer the same loss of confidence that central banks face. The 21st century is the century of decentralized power, not of top-down institutional power of the 20th century model.

Bitcoin cannot succeed on the basis of utility alone for the simple reason that that utility can be replicated by other institutions. Its success depends on its ability to do what even imitation coins cannot. Fedcoin, IMFcoin, whatever institution you like can ultimately make a Bitcoin replacement with all the same utility. What they can't make is a coin that gets its trust layer from no institution.
Put simply, if Bitcoin isn't decentralized, then it will be replaced by a centralized cryptocurrency whose central authority we trust (more than whoever is running Bitcoin). If it is decentralized then the financial system is slowly going to migrate to it because it is inherently more trustworthy as a settlement layer.

The reason Bitcoin succeeds is not because of utility alone. The reason Bitcoin succeeds is because the settlement layer, the foundation of money, cannot be replicated by institutional power, and that is for the simple reason that Bitcoin is post-institutional. It is not controlled by any power, it is decentralized, and this makes it inherently more trustworthy. So its deep value comes from this decentralization, and it is this decentralization that ultimately makes it competitive and potentially the foundation for a new global financial system!

Every effort should be being made into increasing this decentralization . . . instead we are doing just the opposite.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3fhik9/mike_hearn_outlines_the_most_compelling_arguments/

[Adrian-x]

interesting tactics employed by /u/mmeijeri et al in this thread:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3fhik9/mike_hearn_outlines_the_most_compelling_arguments/

initially, all his comments got downvoted (seen down lower the thread) as the pro increase concensus set in.  then, he takes the tactic of sub-commenting (spamming) the top comment to push all his downvoted comments downwards so as to discourage casual readers from making it all the way down to the bottom where the real content is.  couple that with some support that came in with upvoting him and he suddenly looks like he's carrying the day in terms of sentiment.

Desperate to keep up the appearance of this being a balanced debate, when in fact the opposite is true.

I'm sorry but you "community" retards and your hubris are really a sight to behold.

Of course Reddit is not home to a balanced debate, it is filled to the brim with ignorant partisanism, fear mongering and general disingenuous pitchfork branding.

If you are looking for "balanced debate" look no further than the next message on the mailing list linked in OP.

People willing to have reasonable discussions have long realized that reddit is just another shill populist playground. Stop confusing this echo chamber with anything resembling "consensus".

Welcome to my community, your opinions are valued your tone and attitude something unrelated, on your recommendation I read the next comment, it sounds like reddit noise without the spelling mistakes and HTML formatting, still void of content.

[inca]

This lad just scored a home run. Poor frap.doc, if you read this and don't realize you were led astray, away from your "sound money" theories by false gods of "more adoption", "cheap stuff for everyone"...

It is important to understand that units of a settlement network represent money, they are money. If settlement is achieved, then those units represent a monetary base. In our existing system, cash and central bank credit represent this base layer of money and, as such, the settlement layer.

On the other hand, saying something is a payment network simply means it's units represent credit -- i.e, temporary placeholders for money. So when you send someone money using a credit card, the reason it happens so quickly is because the network is promising to settle later. That isn't to say that credit units don't have value, just that their value derives from the fact that, ultimately, they can be exchanged for more trustworthy forms of value.

So the goal of a payment network is really to provide utility. If the utility fails, people move to another payment network. The goal of a settlement networks, on the other hand, is provide confidence/trust. If confidence fails, the currency collapses.

In the current financial system, central banks represent the settlement layer, whereas companies like Visa represent payment network layers. No one really cares that Visa is a company, its power centralized, because its role is to provide utility. But that central banks -- also centralized institutions -- control the settlement layer, i.e., control base money, is deeply troubling to many people because the role of the settlement layer is to provide confidence and trust (and it is becoming increasingly hard to trust a tiny handful of unelected people).

Some people think the success of Bitcoin is going to come from its utility and they tend to favor increasing the block size. The problem is that in increasing that utility, you are also weakening the settlement layer of Bitcoin by increasing mining centralization and eroding trust. They don't see a problem because they are thinking of Bitcoin solely in terms of utility, like Visa.

But if Bitcoin is going to become a global money, then its settlement layer is far more important than its utility, assuming utility functions -- like the number of transactions the network can handle -- can be handled/processed by third parties. In the same way Visa doesn't erode confidence in the dollar simply because it is a third party company independent of central banks and governments, companies that provide more utility to the Bitcoin network won't erode confidence in it either. All that is important for confidence is the base money, the settlement layer, in the same way that confidence in fiat currencies depends on confidence in government and central banks. We don't expect governments and central banks to provide the utility of payment networks, just to provide confidence and trust that gives the underlying currency value.

Bitcoin's power is really going to come from confidence in the network, specifically in its decentralized nature. I know many people have begun to question how important decentralization is, but they don't tend to impress me as really understanding how essential trust is to money, they take it for granted. (Or they don't think the goal of Bitcoin should be to be a money.)

Without decentralization, for a money to retain value the central authority controlling that money must be trusted, which is precisely why all money today is (at least theoretically) controlled by the state (governments are the institutional power we trust most). A currency whose trust foundation is not dependent on a human institution, however, is intrinsically more trustworthy than even the state. Nevertheless, if decentralization fails and centralization occurs, then Bitcoin becomes vulnerable as those centralized powers can be easily targeted. If it becomes vulnerable, confidence erodes and people return to wanting state-run money, perhaps now in the form of Fed-coin.
As faith in central banks and institutional/human controlled money wanes and fades in the 21st century, I believe block chains are going to replace central banks. But cryptocurrencies that are controlled by an institution -- whose code can be changed by dictate because mining is over centralized -- will suffer the same loss of confidence that central banks face. The 21st century is the century of decentralized power, not of top-down institutional power of the 20th century model.

Bitcoin cannot succeed on the basis of utility alone for the simple reason that that utility can be replicated by other institutions. Its success depends on its ability to do what even imitation coins cannot. Fedcoin, IMFcoin, whatever institution you like can ultimately make a Bitcoin replacement with all the same utility. What they can't make is a coin that gets its trust layer from no institution.
Put simply, if Bitcoin isn't decentralized, then it will be replaced by a centralized cryptocurrency whose central authority we trust (more than whoever is running Bitcoin). If it is decentralized then the financial system is slowly going to migrate to it because it is inherently more trustworthy as a settlement layer.

The reason Bitcoin succeeds is not because of utility alone. The reason Bitcoin succeeds is because the settlement layer, the foundation of money, cannot be replicated by institutional power, and that is for the simple reason that Bitcoin is post-institutional. It is not controlled by any power, it is decentralized, and this makes it inherently more trustworthy. So its deep value comes from this decentralization, and it is this decentralization that ultimately makes it competitive and potentially the foundation for a new global financial system!

Every effort should be being made into increasing this decentralization . . . instead we are doing just the opposite.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3fhik9/mike_hearn_outlines_the_most_compelling_arguments/

How does scaling bitcoin separate the store of value bitcoin holds from it's function as a payment network? The two are inseparable and go hand in hand.

How can bitcoin retain it's function as a base store of value when it loses its active userbase to other block chains?

Ps. Don't be rude

[cypherdoc]

Arthur Levitt on the optimistic view and Bitcoin starting at 51 min:

http://www.bloomberg.com/podcasts/masters-in-business/

[Adrian-x]

This lad just scored a home run. Poor frap.doc, if you read this and don't realize you were led astray, away from your "sound money" theories by false gods of "more adoption", "cheap stuff for everyone"...

It is important to understand that units of a settlement network represent money, they are money. If settlement is achieved, then those uni to it because it is inherently more trustworthy as a settlement layer.

...snip...

Every effort should be being made into increasing this decentralization . . . instead we are doing just the opposite.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3fhik9/mike_hearn_outlines_the_most_compelling_arguments/

It's important to know why money becomes money in the first place, you can't put the settlement network idea befor the idea of a university accepted money and expect it to be adopted without mapping out the economic incentives that would facilitate it.

[brg444]

This lad just scored a home run. Poor frap.doc, if you read this and don't realize you were led astray, away from your "sound money" theories by false gods of "more adoption", "cheap stuff for everyone"...

It is important to understand that units of a settlement network represent money, they are money. If settlement is achieved, then those uni to it because it is inherently more trustworthy as a settlement layer.

...snip...

Every effort should be being made into increasing this decentralization . . . instead we are doing just the opposite.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3fhik9/mike_hearn_outlines_the_most_compelling_arguments/

It's important to know why money becomes money in the first place, you can't put the settlement network idea befor the idea of a university accepted money and expect it to be adopted without mapping out the economic incentives that would facilitate it.

You need to read the post again because clearly there is something you didn't understand.

[brg444]

How does scaling bitcoin separate the store of value bitcoin holds from it's function as a payment network? The two are inseparable and go hand in hand.

How can bitcoin retain it's function as a base store of value when it loses its active userbase to other block chains?

Ps. Don't be rude

Disclaimer : raising the block size is not about scaling Bitcoin.

The idea is not to separate the two. The logic is you need a strong monetary base on top of which you can build any kind of desired payment network.

How can bitcoin retain it's function as a base store of value when it loses its decentralization?

Btw, can we stop lieing to people with this "active" userbase non-sense. We all know you and everyone here sit on our Bitcoin stash like dragons on their hoard. The use of Bitcoin as a "payment network" at this point is laughably marginal. And that's certainly not because of the block size limit.

[cypherdoc]

This lad just scored a home run. Poor frap.doc, if you read this and don't realize you were led astray, away from your "sound money" theories by false gods of "more adoption", "cheap stuff for everyone"...

It is important to understand that units of a settlement network represent money, they are money. If settlement is achieved, then those uni to it because it is inherently more trustworthy as a settlement layer.

...snip...

Every effort should be being made into increasing this decentralization . . . instead we are doing just the opposite.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3fhik9/mike_hearn_outlines_the_most_compelling_arguments/

It's important to know why money becomes money in the first place, you can't put the settlement network idea befor the idea of a university accepted money and expect it to be adopted without mapping out the economic incentives that would facilitate it.

You need to read the post again because clearly there is something you didn't understand.

No, it's you who don't understand.

It's fair to claim that every single person in the world over the age of say 4 has heard of gold and knows is valuable. What do you think the comparable figures are  for Bitcoin? Probably 20% have heard of it if we're lucky and only maybe <0.01% who think it's valuable.

Good luck with forming a settlement layer on top of that.

[brg444]

This lad just scored a home run. Poor frap.doc, if you read this and don't realize you were led astray, away from your "sound money" theories by false gods of "more adoption", "cheap stuff for everyone"...

It is important to understand that units of a settlement network represent money, they are money. If settlement is achieved, then those uni to it because it is inherently more trustworthy as a settlement layer.

...snip...

Every effort should be being made into increasing this decentralization . . . instead we are doing just the opposite.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3fhik9/mike_hearn_outlines_the_most_compelling_arguments/

It's important to know why money becomes money in the first place, you can't put the settlement network idea befor the idea of a university accepted money and expect it to be adopted without mapping out the economic incentives that would facilitate it.

You need to read the post again because clearly there is something you didn't understand.

No, it's you who don't understand.

It's fair to claim that every single person in the world over the age of say 4 has heard of gold and knows is valuable. What do you think the comparable figures are  for Bitcoin? Probably 20% have heard of it if we're lucky and only maybe <0.01% who think it's valuable.

Good luck with forming a settlement layer on top of that.

A settlement layer will form because the largest layers of wealth and capital in our world are not deterred by financial restrictions but by regulatory friction. Our society will benefit much more by reducing the latter than by forcing a cheap payment network inside a rotten centralized system.

A huge amounts of capital will move into the currency because it is the only one in the world with a mathematically enforced limited supply, uninterdictable transactions, and unfreezable assets. The unique immutable ledger in existence.

Bitcoin is best used to store value out of the hands of state governments policies, taxes and inflation. Are you suggesting there is no demand for this utility?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3fhik9/mike_hearn_outlines_the_most_compelling_arguments/ctozsuy

Do you remember our little sidechain debate where you accused me of wanting to turn Bitcoin into a WoW marketplace? That's pretty much what you're trying to do here. Meanwhile I am supporting your previous stance of focusing Bitcoin to meet demand of the biggest value markets in the world: forex and commodities.

[notme]

How does scaling bitcoin separate the store of value bitcoin holds from it's function as a payment network? The two are inseparable and go hand in hand.

How can bitcoin retain it's function as a base store of value when it loses its active userbase to other block chains?

Ps. Don't be rude

Disclaimer : raising the block size is not about scaling Bitcoin.

The idea is not to separate the two. The logic is you need a strong monetary base on top of which you can build any kind of desired payment network.

How can bitcoin retain it's function as a base store of value when it loses its decentralization?

Btw, can we stop lieing to people with this "active" userbase non-sense. We all know you and everyone here sit on our Bitcoin stash like dragons on their hoard. The use of Bitcoin as a "payment network" at this point is laughably marginal. And that's certainly not because of the block size limit.

The nature of bitcoin is that if mining becomes too centralized and the miners decide on an unpopular fork, the users can just ignore them (well, we will need some miners, and in the worst case we might have to manually drop the difficulty to keep things running with less hashpower).

As long as the user base disagrees with the change, they don't have to follow along.  More users is more decentralized.  The miners only have as much power as we grant them, and we can take it away if necessary.