Bitcoin Forum
December 10, 2016, 07:17:49 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 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 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1807618 times)
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
August 04, 2015, 06:32:22 AM
 #29781

I’d like to share a research paper I’ve recently completed titled “A Transaction Fee Market Exists Without a Block Size Limit.”  I formalizes the ideas from Cypherdoc, Adrian-X, thezerg, Rocks, ZB, Justus Ranvier, Solex, Melbustus, Majamalu and many others here.   In addition to presenting some useful charts such as the cost to produce large spam blocks, I think the paper convincingly demonstrates that due to the orphaning cost, a block size limit is not necessary to ensure a functioning fee market.  

The paper does not argue that a block size limit is unnecessary in general, and in fact brings up questions related to mining cartels and the size of the UTXO set.  

It can be downloaded in PDF format here:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/43331625/feemarket.pdf

Or viewed with a web-browser here:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/273443462/A-Transaction-Fee-Market-Exists-Without-a-Block-Size-Limit

And here is its Reddit thread:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3fpuld/a_transaction_fee_market_exists_without_a_block/



Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
1481354269
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481354269

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481354269
Reply with quote  #2

1481354269
Report to moderator
1481354269
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481354269

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481354269
Reply with quote  #2

1481354269
Report to moderator
1481354269
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481354269

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481354269
Reply with quote  #2

1481354269
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481354269
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481354269

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481354269
Reply with quote  #2

1481354269
Report to moderator
1481354269
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481354269

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481354269
Reply with quote  #2

1481354269
Report to moderator
1481354269
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481354269

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481354269
Reply with quote  #2

1481354269
Report to moderator
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
August 04, 2015, 07:04:10 AM
 #29782

I’d like to share a research paper I’ve recently completed titled “A Transaction Fee Market Exists Without a Block Size Limit.”

Wonderful work, Peter R. Congratulations! I do find the last paragraph a bit unsatisfying though.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 04, 2015, 07:04:46 AM
 #29783

I’d like to share a research paper I’ve recently completed titled “A Transaction Fee Market Exists Without a Block Size Limit.”  I formalizes the ideas from Cypherdoc, Adrian-X, thezerg, Rocks, ZB, Justus Ranvier, Solex, Melbustus, Majamalu and many others here.   In addition to presenting some useful charts such as the cost to produce large spam blocks, I think the paper convincingly demonstrates that due to the orphaning cost, a block size limit is not necessary to ensure a functioning fee market.  

The paper does not argue that a block size limit is unnecessary in general, and in fact brings up questions related to mining cartels and the size of the UTXO set.  

It can be downloaded in PDF format here:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/43331625/feemarket.pdf

Or viewed with a web-browser here:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/273443462/A-Transaction-Fee-Market-Exists-Without-a-Block-Size-Limit

And here is its Reddit thread:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3fpuld/a_transaction_fee_market_exists_without_a_block/




Very much looking forward  to reading in the morning.
Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938


View Profile
August 04, 2015, 07:52:30 AM
 #29784

growth?  what f*cking growth?:

Weren't you listening when Gavin told us "the financial crisis is over" thanks to binge-watching of Broadchurch...


On what planet do you live?
It is over. For the time being. As always. Recessions, crises, depressions appear cyclically. As everybody knows. The economy has been growing since 2010.

"Staat nenne ich's, wo alle Gifttrinker sind, Gute und Schlimme: Staat, wo alle sich selber verlieren, Gute und Schlimme:
Staat, wo der langsame Selbstmord aller – »das Leben« heisst."
Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938


View Profile
August 04, 2015, 08:08:45 AM
 #29785


By promoting equality of outcome and denigrating equality of opportunity, you appoint yourself Generalissimo Frappuccino of the Free Shit Army. ...

I have to beg forgiveness for employing the (rather hilarious) term 'generalissimo' in association with the 'Free Shit Army' without looking up the definition.  A 'generalissimo' is actually the supreme commander of all forces; not just the 'army' so the word doesn't make sense in this context.

So our dear friend cypherdoc would be more accurately described as 'Generalissimo Frappuccino of the Free Shit Nation' since clearly that is how he imagines himself.  In reality he's just another pinko as you correctly describe, and a slimy shill for at least one entity and possibly more.


You're still a stalker without charisma. That's why you're here and not elsewhere.
A primitive anonymous pseudonym abusing his anonymity to harass individuals and their privacy. A low life at its best.

"Staat nenne ich's, wo alle Gifttrinker sind, Gute und Schlimme: Staat, wo alle sich selber verlieren, Gute und Schlimme:
Staat, wo der langsame Selbstmord aller – »das Leben« heisst."
conspirosphere.tk
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862


Revolution will be decentralized


View Profile WWW
August 04, 2015, 08:37:03 AM
 #29786

and gold will be at $400

maybe paper gold. You'll never get any gold that you can hold nowhere near that price.
In fact if BTC goes todamoon again and PM stay depressed I will stack some more phyzz.

still a gold bug?

since when can you get a better price at your local bullion dealer than what's priced on comex?

more than a gold bug, a paper bear :-D.  An interesting thing is that premiums on physical are increasing the more they push comex price down. At this rate soon they will break their toy and they will decouple, possibly (hopefully) forever. And it's interesting especially because they could play the same crooked game with bitcoins.

Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938


View Profile
August 04, 2015, 08:48:21 AM
 #29787

and gold will be at $400

maybe paper gold. You'll never get any gold that you can hold nowhere near that price.
In fact if BTC goes todamoon again and PM stay depressed I will stack some more phyzz.

still a gold bug?

since when can you get a better price at your local bullion dealer than what's priced on comex?

more than a gold bug, a paper bear :-D.  An interesting thing is that premiums on physical are increasing the more they push comex price down. At this rate soon they will break their toy and they will decouple, possibly (hopefully) forever. And it's interesting especially because they could play the same crooked game with bitcoins.

Debt is not paper. Debt is debt (= money), and that has always been the basis of every economy. Whether debt is written on paper or on clay tablets (mesopot) makes no difference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_First_5000_Years

"Staat nenne ich's, wo alle Gifttrinker sind, Gute und Schlimme: Staat, wo alle sich selber verlieren, Gute und Schlimme:
Staat, wo der langsame Selbstmord aller – »das Leben« heisst."
Natalia_AnatolioPAMM
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile WWW
August 04, 2015, 08:51:46 AM
 #29788


The ignorance of Bitcoin's current crop of "board of director" types regarding the nature of free markets is both highly ironic and sad.

Indeed. They remind me of those goldbugs who think we don't need a market in money because gold already won.

Bitcoin has a long way before becoming the world settlement layer. That shit is not free  Smiley

and I'm not even sure bitcoin is capable of going through that

Earn money when BTC crashes - join BTC-E PAMM
conspirosphere.tk
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862


Revolution will be decentralized


View Profile WWW
August 04, 2015, 10:42:39 AM
 #29789

Debt is not paper. Debt is debt (= money), and that has always been the basis of every economy. Whether debt is written on paper or on clay tablets (mesopot) makes no difference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_First_5000_Years


Debt can be money until it's not (default / no CONfidence). Serious/sound money is only commodity-money. And then there is pure fiat which is another big "irredeemable" con, but not debt.

No man's credit is as good as his money.

Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938


View Profile
August 04, 2015, 11:04:44 AM
 #29790

Debt is not paper. Debt is debt (= money), and that has always been the basis of every economy. Whether debt is written on paper or on clay tablets (mesopot) makes no difference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_First_5000_Years


Debt can be money until it's not (default / no CONfidence). Serious/sound money is only commodity-money. And then there is pure fiat which is another big "irredeemable" con, but not debt.

No man's credit is as good as his money.

Commodities are not money. Commodities are commodities.
Commodities are always valued in debt, which is money.
Beyond a debt economy (stateless rain forest communities), gold is not money and has no value.

"Staat nenne ich's, wo alle Gifttrinker sind, Gute und Schlimme: Staat, wo alle sich selber verlieren, Gute und Schlimme:
Staat, wo der langsame Selbstmord aller – »das Leben« heisst."
sgbett
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
August 04, 2015, 11:37:11 AM
 #29791

I've tried really hard to try and see the opposing POV but I come up short every time, and I think that's because I can't understand the philosophy behind making BTC some elitist tool when it seemed right from the outset that it was anything but.

If that makes me part of the "free-shit" army, then so be it. I'm not (yet) so morally bankrupt that I think that my well being can only come at the expense of others. That's what cripplecoin sounds like, thats why I don't want any part of it.

You aren't trying that hard if you can't read and understand this fairly simple, single sentence summation of the opposing POV:

Quote
The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain".

Where in Davout's statement is the "moral bankruptcy?"  All I see is economic literacy and an understanding of the technical limitations of scaling Bitcoin I/O.

Where in Davout's statement is the desire for well being coming "at the expense of others?"  All I see is a workable plan for radical inclusion ("everyone gets to benefit"), albeit not in the manner preferred by those with atrociously paltry understandings of Bitcoin and economics.

Who are these financial institutions, and why do assume they are necessary. You seem to ignore the fact that bitcoin is money. Its a medium of exchange, a unit of account, a store of value. The blockchain facilitates these things. Your financial institutions are an unnecessary complexity, the blockchain doesn't need financial institutions it *is* the institution.

Your summation quite clearly reveals some other agenda. You know that increasing the block size undermines it, so you are fighting tooth and nail to try and prevent it.

http://haschinabannedbitcoin.com
Full Node: http://46.51.193.129 (BU)
"A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution" - Satoshi Nakamoto
sgbett
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
August 04, 2015, 11:57:57 AM
 #29792

I’d like to share a research paper I’ve recently completed titled “A Transaction Fee Market Exists Without a Block Size Limit.”  I formalizes the ideas from Cypherdoc, Adrian-X, thezerg, Rocks, ZB, Justus Ranvier, Solex, Melbustus, Majamalu and many others here.   In addition to presenting some useful charts such as the cost to produce large spam blocks, I think the paper convincingly demonstrates that due to the orphaning cost, a block size limit is not necessary to ensure a functioning fee market.  

The paper does not argue that a block size limit is unnecessary in general, and in fact brings up questions related to mining cartels and the size of the UTXO set.  

It can be downloaded in PDF format here:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/43331625/feemarket.pdf

Or viewed with a web-browser here:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/273443462/A-Transaction-Fee-Market-Exists-Without-a-Block-Size-Limit

And here is its Reddit thread:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3fpuld/a_transaction_fee_market_exists_without_a_block/




Hero member indeed! A functioning bitcoin economy without a(n artificial) block size limit and not a sedition in sight. Marvellous.

http://haschinabannedbitcoin.com
Full Node: http://46.51.193.129 (BU)
"A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution" - Satoshi Nakamoto
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


View Profile
August 04, 2015, 12:25:17 PM
 #29793

Just finished Peter R's paper. Really excellent, clear, and much-needed formalization of an important aspect of the debate often mentioned here.

Is that the sound of the tide turning I hear?
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


View Profile
August 04, 2015, 12:31:14 PM
 #29794

The incentive structure does not need to be put into the protocol, market dynamics on their own will create the proper incentive structure. In other words if it becomes too difficult for your average person to run a node or if there are not enough nodes to provide data upload for free, then a market will create on its own to fulfill this need.

The ignorance of Bitcoin's current crop of "board of director" types regarding the nature of free markets is both highly ironic and sad.

I suspect this is true as well. And if it is, imagine how funny it will be to look back on these times when there is a nice node market because of no blocksize cap.
sgbett
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
August 04, 2015, 12:53:30 PM
 #29795

Just finished Peter R's paper. Really excellent, clear, and much-needed formalization of an important aspect of the debate often mentioned here.

Is that the sound of the tide turning I hear?

I don't think the actual tide was ever in doubt, just a few noisy ego's yelling King Canute style. Wink

http://haschinabannedbitcoin.com
Full Node: http://46.51.193.129 (BU)
"A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution" - Satoshi Nakamoto
nby
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 27


View Profile
August 04, 2015, 01:29:04 PM
 #29796

I’d like to share a research paper I’ve recently completed titled “A Transaction Fee Market Exists Without a Block Size Limit.”  I formalizes the ideas from Cypherdoc, Adrian-X, thezerg, Rocks, ZB, Justus Ranvier, Solex, Melbustus, Majamalu and many others here.   In addition to presenting some useful charts such as the cost to produce large spam blocks, I think the paper convincingly demonstrates that due to the orphaning cost, a block size limit is not necessary to ensure a functioning fee market. 

Just finished reading it. Well done.
inca
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
August 04, 2015, 01:55:23 PM
 #29797

Just finished Peter R's paper. Really excellent, clear, and much-needed formalization of an important aspect of the debate often mentioned here.

Is that the sound of the tide turning I hear?

I don't think the actual tide was ever in doubt, just a few noisy ego's yelling King Canute style. Wink

Excellent work Peter R. Congratulations on the paper.
uvwvj
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 159


View Profile
August 04, 2015, 02:07:37 PM
 #29798

Most important thing dropping?

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-a-deeper-dive-by-apple-could-crush-this-market-2015-08-04

Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938


View Profile
August 04, 2015, 02:22:54 PM
 #29799

Just finished Peter R's paper. Really excellent, clear, and much-needed formalization of an important aspect of the debate often mentioned here.

Is that the sound of the tide turning I hear?

Yes. Peter R. definitely turns the tide. And this is the tide-is-turning-sound, my tribute to Peter, as brilliant as himself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFWCAYPWFbs

"Staat nenne ich's, wo alle Gifttrinker sind, Gute und Schlimme: Staat, wo alle sich selber verlieren, Gute und Schlimme:
Staat, wo der langsame Selbstmord aller – »das Leben« heisst."
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
August 04, 2015, 03:24:36 PM
 #29800

I’d like to share a research paper I’ve recently completed titled “A Transaction Fee Market Exists Without a Block Size Limit.”  I formalizes the ideas from Cypherdoc, Adrian-X, thezerg, Rocks, ZB, Justus Ranvier, Solex, Melbustus, Majamalu and many others here.   In addition to presenting some useful charts such as the cost to produce large spam blocks, I think the paper convincingly demonstrates that due to the orphaning cost, a block size limit is not necessary to ensure a functioning fee market. 

Looking forward to reading it, just finished reviewing the r/bitcoin comments just want to say well done too.

I love the way you introduced it, it's fascinating to see the r/bitcoin community contribute like this. Even the "trolls" have some valuable feedback.

And it's attracted the attention and participation of developers too.

Nice work and flattered to see ideas discussed here credited to the foundation of what appears to be such superior analysis. (Should read befor commenting :-)

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 ... 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!