Bitcoin Forum
September 21, 2017, 12:03:23 AM *
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 ... 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 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1977574 times)
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050



View Profile
August 10, 2015, 02:52:16 AM
 #30021

The debate is really just about ideology at this point, and that's why we're no longer making progress.  The technical debate is over.  Some people want Bitcoin to be free to grow, while others want to control the growth process to attempt to balance "decentralization" with "block space access."

That's frankly bullshit Peter R and I'm surprised to see that kind of rhetoric from you.

Bitcoin the technology is by its nature a decentralized and peer-to-peer system, but also one that "should" scale. The trade offs between decentralization and scaling are very much part of that technology and therefore part of the "technical debate". The only thing ideological here are people who want to move it from that realm to something else, and give people who are neither technologists nor directly involved with building the technology any input at all. That includes opinions on whether the debate is technical or not.


I should have said "between BIP100, 101, 102, etc., the debate is not technical but ideological at this point."  

Do you believe that moving forward with BIP101 (Gavin's proposal) could destroy Bitcoin for technical reasons?  

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
1505952203
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1505952203

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1505952203
Reply with quote  #2

1505952203
Report to moderator
1505952203
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1505952203

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1505952203
Reply with quote  #2

1505952203
Report to moderator
1505952203
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1505952203

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1505952203
Reply with quote  #2

1505952203
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1505952203
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1505952203

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1505952203
Reply with quote  #2

1505952203
Report to moderator
1505952203
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1505952203

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1505952203
Reply with quote  #2

1505952203
Report to moderator
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1540



View Profile
August 10, 2015, 02:54:53 AM
 #30022

The debate is really just about ideology at this point, and that's why we're no longer making progress.  The technical debate is over.  Some people want Bitcoin to be free to grow, while others want to control the growth process to attempt to balance "decentralization" with "block space access."

That's frankly bullshit Peter R and I'm surprised to see that kind of rhetoric from you.

Bitcoin the technology is by its nature a decentralized and peer-to-peer system, but also one that "should" scale. The trade offs between decentralization and scaling are very much part of that technology and therefore part of the "technical debate". The only thing ideological here are people who want to move it from that realm to something else, and give people who are neither technologists nor directly involved with building the technology any input at all. That includes opinions on whether the debate is technical or not.


I should have said "between BIP100, 101, 102, etc., the debate is not technical but ideological at this point."  

Do you believe that moving forward with BIP101 (Gavin's proposal) could destroy Bitcoin for technical reasons?  

Yes I do believe that it could. I believe that a major or even near-total (much less total) collapse of decentralization is a technical failure, and is a possible (and not outrageously implausible) outcome of BIP 101.

Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050



View Profile
August 10, 2015, 02:56:40 AM
 #30023

Yes I do believe that it could. I believe that a major or even near-total (much less total) collapse of decentralization is a technical failure, and is a possible (and not outrageously implausible) outcome of BIP 101.

I agree that a major or near-total collapse of decentralization would be a technical failure.  

I guess we just assign very different probabilities to that happening under BIP101.  

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1778


http://DashNdrink.com


View Profile WWW
August 10, 2015, 03:12:18 AM
 #30024

Yes I do believe that it could. I believe that a major or even near-total (much less total) collapse of decentralization is a technical failure, and is a possible (and not outrageously implausible) outcome of BIP 101.

I agree that a major or near-total collapse of decentralization would be a technical failure.  

I guess we just assign very different probabilities to that happening under BIP101.  

So much for the technical debate being "over."   Tongue

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Core GUI - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }
MoneroForCash.com  |  Buy and sell XMR near you  |  Easymonero.com  |  Bitsquare.io - Decentralized XMR Exchange  |  Buy XMR with fiat
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014

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


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
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 10, 2015, 03:25:47 AM
 #30025

From: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gdj7j/a_better_way_to_govern_bitcoin_block_size_open/ctxb53s

Quote from: Peter R
Quote from: marcus_of_augustus
You are really going all out on the attack FUD on this one aren't you?

I think the analogy to the Fed's FOMC is fairly accurate. Part of the ideology behind central banking is that a group of educated men can make better decisions for what is best for the economy (by choosing the interest rate that balances "inflation expectations" with "employment") than allowing the free market to solve the same problem.

This is similar to the block size debate. Part of the ideology behind limiting the block size is that a group of talented coders can make better decisions for what is best for Bitcoin, by choosing a limit that produces what they see as a better balance between "decentralization" and "blockchain access," than what would happen if the limit were slowly removed according to Gavin's BIP101 proposal.

Isn't this what the debate really comes down to now? The technical debate is over; It's ideology at this point. Do we want a Bitcoin that has a dual mandate of balancing decentralization with blockchain access? Or do we want a permissionless Bitcoin where blockspace is governed by the fee market?

The debate is really just about ideology at this point, and that's why we're no longer making progress.  The technical debate is over.  Some people want Bitcoin to be free to grow, while others want to control the growth process to attempt to balance "decentralization" with "block space access."

it's time to vote with your feet.
HeliKopterBen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622



View Profile
August 10, 2015, 03:32:10 AM
 #30026

Yes I do believe that it could. I believe that a major or even near-total (much less total) collapse of decentralization is a technical failure, and is a possible (and not outrageously implausible) outcome of BIP 101.

I agree that a major or near-total collapse of decentralization would be a technical failure.  

I guess we just assign very different probabilities to that happening under BIP101.  

So much for the technical debate being "over."   Tongue

In other words - The technical debate is over.  There will be NO catastrophic failure of decentralization with BIP101.

Counterfeit:  made in imitation of something else with intent to deceive:  merriam-webster
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268


View Profile
August 10, 2015, 03:36:23 AM
 #30027

testing versions of XT available on the nodes monitor:

http://xtnodes.com/

Justusranviar and cypherdoc describe the XT system and infrastructure footprint:

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE17sNjmW7c


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 10, 2015, 03:44:31 AM
 #30028

tvbcof: "woof, woof":

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1540



View Profile
August 10, 2015, 03:44:56 AM
 #30029

Yes I do believe that it could. I believe that a major or even near-total (much less total) collapse of decentralization is a technical failure, and is a possible (and not outrageously implausible) outcome of BIP 101.

I agree that a major or near-total collapse of decentralization would be a technical failure. 

I guess we just assign very different probabilities to that happening under BIP101. 

I never stated probabilities. Unless you believe you can support that the probabilities are "outrageously implausible" (and if so based on what???) we don't necessarily disagree at all.

Furthermore, getting back to your original post, I don't agree that we "are no longer making progress". Just a few days ago you released a paper that was insightful, comprehensive on the matter of fee markets over the next 10-20 years (though to be clear that is only a portion of the overall block size debate), generally well-received, and raised new questions for follow up research. How can you say that with a major step forward having occurred only a few days ago, there is no longer any progress? Could the same be said a week or two ago, before you paper was released?

I can only imagine this perspective comes from the hubris of thinking that now that your paper is out, everyone should just shut up and get in line behind your conclusions.

EDIT: edited to clarify that the paper is, by its own stated conclusions, relevant to the next 10-20 years. No one seems interested in my observation that the final paragraph of the paper is in fact highly relevant beyond 10-20 years. I guess we will have all cashed out by then?
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1778


http://DashNdrink.com


View Profile WWW
August 10, 2015, 03:45:34 AM
 #30030

Yes, how dare anyone take care to insulate debates from ad hom fallacies and protect their families/careers from internet whackjobs?

Fuck Satoshi Nakamoto for being an anonymous coward!  Nobody ever said disrupting gold, central banks, and fintech settlement would be safe or easy!  Man up and make sacrifices!  The revolution needs martyrs!

And fuck Publius for writing all those mean things about how the King of England treats his American Colonies.  Such a gutless terror-symp, am I right?

The purpose of anonymous speech is, as you mentioned, to avoid adverse consequences of speaking.

In general you can divide this further into two categories:

1. Avoiding the adverse consequences of telling the truth
2. Avoiding the adverse consequences of telling a lie

1. Is admirable, 2. is contemptible.

PS  Still waiting for your concern over lack of an objective, precise definition for Bitcoin network "overcapacity" to result in some amazing new concepts and dimensionless numbers.

After all the hand wringing you performed over our unforgivably sloppy use of "decentralized" I'm sure such research is your top priority.   Grin

I have no idea what you're talking about now.

You are half right.  Here, let me help:

Quote
The purpose of anonymous speech is to to avoid adverse consequences of speaking and ensure an abstract debate of the issue's merits in a vaccuum, free from nonsense about personalities and biographies.

Fixed ^it^ for you.   Cool

I didn't *only* mention avoiding adverse consequences of speaking, although that is the part of my main comment to which you responded.

The neglected other half was about insulating debates from ad hom fallacies ("GMAX BACKAMOTO = THE BLOCKSTREAM CONSPIRACY!!1  PLUS PETERTOAD VIACOIN WTF?!?").

I understand that consequence, which is to the benefit of the audience as much as (or more than) the speaker, does not further the anonymity-implies-something-to-hide meme you seek to promote, so small wonder you ignored it.


The PS is fairly simple.  Given your Great Concern about a rigorous definition of decentralization, your silence about the same issue with 'overcapacity' is deafening.

You say we can't (usefully and without concern trolling) discuss decentralization without assigning it a number from 1 to 10 (with 20 decimals places for precision).

Fair enough, let's attempt to define our crypto-terms.  Now, where is the same demand when Frap.doc starts hyperventilating because the network is "choking" and "overcapacity?"

You don't get call out sloppy "I know it when I see it" use of one crypto-term while ignoring another.   Wink

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Core GUI - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }
MoneroForCash.com  |  Buy and sell XMR near you  |  Easymonero.com  |  Bitsquare.io - Decentralized XMR Exchange  |  Buy XMR with fiat
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014

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


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
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 10, 2015, 03:50:49 AM
 #30031

Yes, how dare anyone take care to insulate debates from ad hom fallacies and protect their families/careers from internet whackjobs?

Fuck Satoshi Nakamoto for being an anonymous coward!  Nobody ever said disrupting gold, central banks, and fintech settlement would be safe or easy!  Man up and make sacrifices!  The revolution needs martyrs!

And fuck Publius for writing all those mean things about how the King of England treats his American Colonies.  Such a gutless terror-symp, am I right?

The purpose of anonymous speech is, as you mentioned, to avoid adverse consequences of speaking.

In general you can divide this further into two categories:

1. Avoiding the adverse consequences of telling the truth
2. Avoiding the adverse consequences of telling a lie

1. Is admirable, 2. is contemptible.

PS  Still waiting for your concern over lack of an objective, precise definition for Bitcoin network "overcapacity" to result in some amazing new concepts and dimensionless numbers.

After all the hand wringing you performed over our unforgivably sloppy use of "decentralized" I'm sure such research is your top priority.   Grin

I have no idea what you're talking about now.

You are half right.  Here, let me help:

Quote
The purpose of anonymous speech is to to avoid adverse consequences of speaking and ensure an abstract debate of the issue's merits in a vaccuum, free from nonsense about personalities and biographies.

Fixed ^it^ for you.   Cool

I didn't *only* mention avoiding adverse consequences of speaking, although that is the part of my main comment to which you responded.

The neglected other half was about insulating debates from ad hom fallacies ("GMAX BACKAMOTO = THE BLOCKSTREAM CONSPIRACY!!1  PLUS PETERTOAD VIACOIN WTF?!?").

I understand that consequence, which is to the benefit of the audience as much as (or more than) the speaker, does not further the anonymity-implies-something-to-hide meme you seek to promote, so small wonder you ignored it.


The PS is fairly simple.  Given your Great Concern about a rigorous definition of decentralization, your silence about the same issue with 'overcapacity' is deafening.

You say we can't (usefully and without concern trolling) discuss decentralization without assigning it a number from 1 to 10 (with 20 decimals places for precision).

Fair enough, let's attempt to define our crypto-terms.  Now, where is the same demand when Frap.doc starts hyperventilating because the network is "choking" and "overcapacity?"

You don't get call out sloppy "I know it when I see it" use of one crypto-term while ignoring another.   Wink

just stop with all the iCEBLOW.  admit it.  you're greedy.
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1778


http://DashNdrink.com


View Profile WWW
August 10, 2015, 03:58:40 AM
 #30032

[ Gavinista blatherings ] 

I don't agree that we "are no longer making progress". Just a few days ago you released a paper that was insightful, comprehensive, generally well-received, and raised new questions for follow up research. How can you say that with a major step forward having occurred only a few days ago, there is no longer any progress? Could the same be said a week or two ago, before you paper was released?

I can only imagine this perspective comes from the hubris of thinking that now that your paper is out, everyone should just shut up and get in line behind your conclusions.


Even prior to Peter's paper's public publishing, it was obvious it was intended to 'settle' the debate, via the browbeating process of producing more ostensibly conclusory content than the other side could reasonably be arsed to GAF about.

But he's still right, in roundabout way.  The debate is settled; the consensus is 'we don't have a consensus.'

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Core GUI - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }
MoneroForCash.com  |  Buy and sell XMR near you  |  Easymonero.com  |  Bitsquare.io - Decentralized XMR Exchange  |  Buy XMR with fiat
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014

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


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
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
August 10, 2015, 04:07:01 AM
 #30033

The debate is settled; the consensus is 'we don't have a consensus.'

I would love to see the current definition of "consensus" for Bitcoin changes because if that means 100% support for doing something then the whole project is royally screwed. There has been no endeavor of importance in human history where unanimity was required on all decisions.

Satoshi is a pragmatist because he has >50% majority baked into deciding how the blockchain grows. That is the consensus he came up with and anything better is a "nice-to-have".

brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 10, 2015, 04:10:40 AM
 #30034

The debate is settled; the consensus is 'we don't have a consensus.'

I would love to see the current definition of "consensus" for Bitcoin changes because if that means 100% support for doing something then the whole project is royally screwed. There has been no endeavor of importance in human history where unanimity was required on all decisions.

Satoshi is a pragmatist because he has >50% majority baked into deciding how the blockchain grows. That is the consensus he came up with and anything better is a "nice-to-have".

Yes, we know, you'd like it to be a democracy. Fortunately Bitcoin works exactly against that principle.

"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
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1778


http://DashNdrink.com


View Profile WWW
August 10, 2015, 04:21:12 AM
 #30035

The puffery "about censorship" is the most lulzy of all, because it highlights the self-righteous whiny immaturity and fundamental ignorance of the ReddiTard mob.

As usual, not a single argument

Do I really have to explain (like you are 5) why puffery "about censorship" is the most lulzy of all, because it highlights the self-righteous whiny immaturity and fundamental ignorance of the ReddiTard mob?

OK, fine.

The lulz are a result of the drama queen reactions which declare theymos and bashco to be Literally Hitler®.  EG:

Quote



TIL moderating a subreddit is actually "censorship" and "the epitome of authoritarianism."   Roll Eyes

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Core GUI - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }
MoneroForCash.com  |  Buy and sell XMR near you  |  Easymonero.com  |  Bitsquare.io - Decentralized XMR Exchange  |  Buy XMR with fiat
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014

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


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
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1540



View Profile
August 10, 2015, 04:31:48 AM
 #30036

The debate is settled; the consensus is 'we don't have a consensus.'

I would love to see the current definition of "consensus" for Bitcoin changes because if that means 100% support for doing something then the whole project is royally screwed. There has been no endeavor of importance in human history where unanimity was required on all decisions.

This obviously doesn't apply because Bitcoin development has not needed 100% support for "doing something". Compare Bitcoin today to Bitcoin 0.1 and you will see that quite a lot has been done, and probably not one single thing has ever had 100% support (there is always someone...)

What Bitcoin development has done up to this point is push through contentious hard forks. There is a perfectly reasonable view that hard forks should never be done at all, or at least not unless there is a huge emergency. "I think this is a good idea" doesn't count.

Accepting for the moment that point of view, development on a great many things that don't require hard forks (contentious or otherwise) can continue, and scalability can be built outside the core. That may not be everyone's preferred solution but it hardly means the whole project is royally screwed.

EDIT: added missing word "not"
majamalu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652



View Profile WWW
August 10, 2015, 04:34:56 AM
 #30037

The debate is settled; the consensus is 'we don't have a consensus.'

I would love to see the current definition of "consensus" for Bitcoin changes because if that means 100% support for doing something then the whole project is royally screwed. There has been no endeavor of importance in human history where unanimity was required on all decisions.

Satoshi is a pragmatist because he has >50% majority baked into deciding how the blockchain grows. That is the consensus he came up with and anything better is a "nice-to-have".

Yes, we know, you'd like it to be a democracy. Fortunately Bitcoin works exactly against that principle.

Unlike in a democracy, where decisions are coercively imposed by a numerical majority, in a system ruled by economic majority there's no coercion; the economic majority goes its own way and breaks free from anyone who seeks to impose a measure that is judged detrimental to its interests.

http://elbitcoin.org - Bitcoin en español
http://mercadobitcoin.com - MercadoBitcoin
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
August 10, 2015, 04:43:58 AM
 #30038

Interesting piece on the 2013 fork.  https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/randomwalker/analyzing-the-2013-bitcoin-fork-centralized-decision-making-saved-the-day/?utm_content=buffer4f46c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Some ungrateful people here need to show a little more respect for the work of the devs, especially LukeJr.

You of all people would idolize Luke jr

You of all ungrateful people here need to show a little more respect for the work of the devs, especially LukeJr.

The devs represent probably less than 0.01% of the effort spent getting bitcoin to where it is today.heck they didnt even come up with the original concept, and more and more don't even seem to understand it.
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
August 10, 2015, 04:47:27 AM
 #30039

From: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gdj7j/a_better_way_to_govern_bitcoin_block_size_open/ctxb53s

Quote from: Peter R
Quote from: marcus_of_augustus
You are really going all out on the attack FUD on this one aren't you?

I think the analogy to the Fed's FOMC is fairly accurate. Part of the ideology behind central banking is that a group of educated men can make better decisions for what is best for the economy (by choosing the interest rate that balances "inflation expectations" with "employment") than allowing the free market to solve the same problem.

This is similar to the block size debate. Part of the ideology behind limiting the block size is that a group of talented coders can make better decisions for what is best for Bitcoin, by choosing a limit that produces what they see as a better balance between "decentralization" and "blockchain access," than what would happen if the limit were slowly removed according to Gavin's BIP101 proposal.

Isn't this what the debate really comes down to now? The technical debate is over; It's ideology at this point. Do we want a Bitcoin that has a dual mandate of balancing decentralization with blockchain access? Or do we want a permissionless Bitcoin where blockspace is governed by the fee market?

The debate is really just about ideology at this point, and that's why we're no longer making progress.  The technical debate is over.  Some people want Bitcoin to be free to grow, while others want to control the growth process to attempt to balance "decentralization" with "block space access."

Well said, BTW great paper last week.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
August 10, 2015, 04:48:25 AM
 #30040

The purpose of anonymous speech is to to avoid adverse consequences of speaking and ensure an abstract debate of the issue's merits in a vaccuum, free from nonsense about personalities and biographies.

That is a claim that certainly can be made.

On the other hand, it is a known fact that the same technique can be weaponized:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/

In the current environment. I'd say that the onus to prove honest dealing lies with the one using the technique.

You say we can't (usefully and without concern trolling) discuss decentralization without assigning it a number from 1 to 10 (with 20 decimals places for precision).

No. You're so far off that you aren't even wrong.

Before we can talk intelligently about decentralization:

Step 1: Define what the word means
Step 2: Establish that decentralization is, in fact, desirable, and why

I haven't seen much in the way to establish either one of those points, just a lot of begging the question by assuming that "decentralization" has a coherent and stable meaning, and that it (whatever it is) is obviously good.

I'm still not sure what you're going on about with "overcapacity", as I've never used that term.

Are you talking about well-known and understood principles of economics?
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 ... 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!