Bitcoin Forum
December 04, 2016, 12:24:37 PM *
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 ... 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 1534 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1804150 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 01, 2015, 02:29:10 PM
 #29661

I support modest increases in line with hardware improvements (until and unless software/protocol improvements are made to allow even larger blocks to be supported safely). That's probably something like 2-3 MB at this point. I don't support automatic increases to the moon or removing the limit or anything radical like that.


For the record this is mostly my POV as well.

Then  shut the hell up with your MP pronouncements and references to crap articles like yesterday's.

 Shocked

You woke up in a bad mood today? Your maid refused to make you breakfast? 1% life must be stressful heh  Angry

I certainly won't "shut the hell up" when retards like you are championing lifting the block size limit entirely as some sort of rational opinion.



Nah, I just get tired of little kids being inconsistent and constantly whining to be argumentative and trying to appear knowledgeable.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480854277
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480854277

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480854277
Reply with quote  #2

1480854277
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 01, 2015, 03:54:59 PM
 #29662

talk about getting rekt.  i prefer the word "spanked" really.  and he confirms exactly what i said the moment gmax made that stupid reference a few days ago:


Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev
2 days ago
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Report
I have just been around for 2 years or so, and its interesting to see you two
argue and give links to the past conversations.

But do realize that if you argue in public about content that is easy to read
by anyone that you have to double check your memory fits the facts.
And I feel you skipped that this time...

>Post by Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev
(The same message also mentions that smart contracts can be used to
create trustless trade with off-chain systems;
As well, later in that
thread: "it will be much easier if you can freely use all the space
you need without worrying about paying fees for expensive space in
Bitcoin's chain.")

Hmm... A DNS record is much much bigger than a single bitcoin transaction has
space for.
I don't think you can take his quote out of context. The thread shows that
having a full domain-registry DB on chain is what he was explaining doesn't fit
with Bitcoin.

So Satoshi just explains that a rich database shouldn't live on the
blockchain. Similarly with the quote you made before;
"Piling every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into one
dataset doesn't scale."
It just fights the stupid idea of sharing the blockchain space with tons of
global databases.

Please re-read the whole thread as it really doesn't support your view that
Satoshi argued that somehow decentralization would be protected by limiting
the size of the chain.
--
Thomas Zander


in other words, Satoshi's post doesn't in any way invalidate his original vision of a Visa like payment system.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 01, 2015, 04:26:12 PM
 #29663

in other words, Satoshi's post doesn't in any way invalidate his original vision of a Visa like payment system.

Fine, well then find a solution and make it work instead of "whining"

"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 01, 2015, 04:27:26 PM
 #29664

Oh, and one other thing to substantiate what satoshi was actually saying. This is how Namecoin came about as a merge mined solution as opposed to an onchain one.

Oh, and I always knew I was registered here on BCT before gmax.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 01, 2015, 07:04:26 PM
 #29665

in other words, Satoshi's post doesn't in any way invalidate his original vision of a Visa like payment system.

Fine, well then find a solution and make it work instead of "whining"

Kid Troll.

has a ring to it.
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
August 01, 2015, 08:15:19 PM
 #29666

There is no such things like Bitcoin with 100x capacity. The security trade-off is disproportionate with the incremental amount of txs you can process.

But, but, but...

Masternodes are 10,000X more secure than Bitcoin *AND* have 1000X the capacity.

I know this is true, and definitely not bad crypto or snake oil, because I read it in the Dash thread (which is definitely not a cargo cult):


Why does the network have so much new capacity with this release ?


IX capacity has always been better than PoW capacity, as you're not having to wait for the whole lumbering Proof-of-Waste farce, you're getting consensus from a much smaller group of nodes.

Without PoW consensus I feel like this is becoming dangerous territory: If the subset of elected IX-nodes is small enough, wouldn't someone like Otoh with over 600 MNs have a good chance that a TX is entirely in his domain? What would stop an attacker from reversing an IX-tx before it hits the miners, when all consensus nodes are controlled by one person?

You have it exactly backwards, MN subsetting is tens of thousands of times more secure than PoW.

If there are 600 compromised nodes out of 3000, and you need 10 of those 3000 to beat the system, the chances that all of the 10 needed nodes for any one IX will be among the 600 compromised nodes are miniscule.

There's a reason hierarchical structures arise in nature and society - efficiency. Societal hierarchies are easy targets for compromise because they are essentially static, they provide fixed targets. Pooled mining is a good example of an this, it's a vulnerability, not an asset.

Overlay networks like Masternodes are a fluid hierarchy and vastly more resilient to attack.

Who is John Frum?   Cool

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

"Hard forks cannot be co
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
August 01, 2015, 08:57:40 PM
 #29667

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.
notme
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1526


View Profile
August 01, 2015, 09:34:15 PM
 #29668

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.

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

Activity: 714



View Profile
August 01, 2015, 10:59:35 PM
 #29669

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.
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
August 01, 2015, 11:17:07 PM
 #29670

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: 714



View Profile
August 02, 2015, 12:19:03 AM
 #29671

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: 1526


View Profile
August 02, 2015, 04:37:57 AM
 #29672

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
 #29673

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: 980


View Profile
August 02, 2015, 01:33:15 PM
 #29674

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
 #29675

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
 #29676

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
 #29677

[–]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: 980


View Profile
August 02, 2015, 02:20:34 PM
 #29678

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: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 02, 2015, 04:16:10 PM
 #29679

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: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 02, 2015, 05:13:19 PM
 #29680

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
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1534 ... 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!