Bitcoin Forum
October 18, 2017, 06:57:05 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 ... 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 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1995570 times)
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
August 01, 2015, 10:59:35 PM
 #29641

A hard limit, to some of you, seems to be only consensus written into the running code of the nodes. But, anyone can modify his node as he pleases. The repository is not really protected, because anyone can clone it, modify it, and even offer the modification as a branch. That is how git works, by the way, but the crucial thing is that the software is avaiable, not secret, the essence of being free software.

So there is no fundamental difference between a relative consensus using code, and no coded limit and relative consensus using discourse over the social media which includes this medium, or other out of band channels.


If there is no difference, why are we debating? Why don't the miners just raise the limit?

Oh yeah, because that would break all clients that haven't been updated.  This would fracture the ecosystem.  There would suddenly be 2 blockchains called Bitcoin.

The difference is that as long as a coded limit exists, despite all our efforts to eliminate centralization, we still need a centralized place to communicate when consensus has been reached so that everyone can adjust.

Eliminating the limit would arguably reduce the need for centralized communication, but the same argument could be made for any loosening of the consensus rules.

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.

I will answer your first question.

We don't know for sure the max blocksize the miner will build on. Probably 1MB currently, because they suspect other will ignore a large block thus they risk building on an orphan. But this can change, and some day the risk will be to not build on a large block. What other nodes do is the key, and the other nodes are free to accept larger blocks.

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1508353025
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508353025

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508353025
Reply with quote  #2

1508353025
Report to moderator
1508353025
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508353025

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508353025
Reply with quote  #2

1508353025
Report to moderator
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
August 01, 2015, 11:17:07 PM
 #29642

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
August 02, 2015, 12:19:03 AM
 #29643

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1820


View Profile
August 02, 2015, 04:37:57 AM
 #29644

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.

https://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
While no idea is perfect, some ideas are useful.
12jh3odyAAaR2XedPKZNCR4X4sebuotQzN
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 02, 2015, 12:58:53 PM
 #29645

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


View Profile
August 02, 2015, 01:33:15 PM
 #29646

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 02, 2015, 01:46:32 PM
 #29647

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 02, 2015, 02:05:29 PM
 #29648

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 02, 2015, 02:16:59 PM
 #29649

[–]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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


View Profile
August 02, 2015, 02:20:34 PM
 #29650

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 02, 2015, 04:16:10 PM
 #29651

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".

"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: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 02, 2015, 05:13:19 PM
 #29652

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"...

Quote
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/

"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
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
August 02, 2015, 05:23:26 PM
 #29653

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.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
inca
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


View Profile
August 02, 2015, 05:24:22 PM
 #29654

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"...

Quote
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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 02, 2015, 05:26:09 PM
 #29655

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

http://www.bloomberg.com/podcasts/masters-in-business/
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
August 02, 2015, 05:33:00 PM
 #29656

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"...

Quote
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.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 02, 2015, 05:40:08 PM
 #29657

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"...

Quote
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.


"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: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 02, 2015, 05:44:22 PM
 #29658

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.

"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
August 02, 2015, 06:03:02 PM
 #29659

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"...

Quote
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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 02, 2015, 06:39:09 PM
 #29660

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"...

Quote
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.


Quote from: brg444
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.

"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
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 ... 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!