Bitcoin Forum
May 23, 2017, 04:57:39 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.14.1  [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 ... 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 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1901811 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 12, 2015, 01:10:10 PM
 #30281

You are also aware that lightning is an open source project right? Nobody is forcing you to use it.

Being an open source project says next to nothing about lock-ins that are achieved by network effects on related services.

You mean like how Red Hat has a lock-in on Linux related services, or Oracle with Java?

Oh wait...maybe you meant like MyMonero.com?   Cheesy

All three of those are valid examples. All three likely have weaker network effects than lightning nodes. MyMonero has
weakest network effects though. It doesn't have a thicket of related and dependent products to resist substitution.

That's all arguable certainly.

Seems the centralization/network effect of lightning nodes might not hold if Rusty gets his way...



https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gmkak/the_blockstream_business_plan/ctzz2jz

That's funny. I have a Cripplecoiner arguing with me right  now about how my funding  of multiple nodes does not increase decentralization as I am a single point of failure. Yet here we have the architects of LN wanting a single client to open 5 separate payment channels to do just that.

Oh the hypocrisy!
1495558659
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1495558659

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1495558659
Reply with quote  #2

1495558659
Report to moderator
1495558659
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1495558659

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1495558659
Reply with quote  #2

1495558659
Report to moderator
Creating a Bitcoin client that fully implements the network protocol is extremely difficult. Bitcoin-Qt is the only known safe implementation of a full node. Some other projects attempt to compete, but it is not recommended to use such software for anything serious. (Lightweight clients like Electrum and MultiBit are OK.)
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1495558659
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1495558659

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1495558659
Reply with quote  #2

1495558659
Report to moderator
1495558659
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1495558659

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1495558659
Reply with quote  #2

1495558659
Report to moderator
Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 952



View Profile
August 12, 2015, 01:14:24 PM
 #30282

Gold collapses in 5 (Elliott-) waves. At the moment probably wave II up in progress:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg11923412#msg11923412

"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."
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756



View Profile
August 12, 2015, 01:17:14 PM
 #30283

Right, that would make sense until you realise in both cases (lightning and sidechains) these technologies need bigger blocks to scale.
But before they need to scale, they just might need some help convincing potential users they are even necessary at all.

Are you suggesting they are not?


I'm suggesting that it is putting the cart before the horse.

Let bitcoin scale. Let LN/Sidechains succeed on merit.

Have we not yet come to an agreement that raising the block size is not exactly a scaling solution?

Not at all. From the current situation, we can scale up probably 1000 x or more with larger blocks. I call that scaling.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 12, 2015, 01:27:26 PM
 #30284


That's funny. I have a Cripplecoiner arguing with me right  now about how my funding  of multiple nodes does not increase decentralization as I am a single point of failure. Yet here we have the architects of LN wanting a single client to open 5 separate payment channels to do just that.

Oh the hypocrisy!

As usual you are clearly lost on the concept and the technology. But carry on thinking whatever brain turd you come up with makes any sense!

PS. It doesn't and you are so confused once again.

"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: 686

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 12, 2015, 01:30:21 PM
 #30285

This needs to be read by every doomsayers here:

https://medium.com/@allenpiscitello/there-is-no-crisis-20b58e14b09c

More theoretical and idealogical bs

Such arguments! Much convincing! 

"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
sgbett
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428



View Profile
August 12, 2015, 01:37:40 PM
 #30286

Right, that would make sense until you realise in both cases (lightning and sidechains) these technologies need bigger blocks to scale.
But before they need to scale, they just might need some help convincing potential users they are even necessary at all.

Are you suggesting they are not?


I'm suggesting that it is putting the cart before the horse.

Let bitcoin scale. Let LN/Sidechains succeed on merit.

Have we not yet come to an agreement that raising the block size is not exactly a scaling solution?

Have we not yet come to an agreement that LN/Sidechains are not a scaling solution *without bigger blocks*


Full Node: http://46.51.193.129 (BU) || http://haschinabannedbitcoin.com
"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
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 12, 2015, 01:42:44 PM
 #30287

Right, that would make sense until you realise in both cases (lightning and sidechains) these technologies need bigger blocks to scale.
But before they need to scale, they just might need some help convincing potential users they are even necessary at all.

Are you suggesting they are not?


I'm suggesting that it is putting the cart before the horse.

Let bitcoin scale. Let LN/Sidechains succeed on merit.

Have we not yet come to an agreement that raising the block size is not exactly a scaling solution?

Have we not yet come to an agreement that LN/Sidechains are not a scaling solution *without bigger blocks*

I'm not against bigger blocks. I simply disagree with the urgency suggested by some of their proponents as well as the current proposed implementations (especially the very dangerous XT fork)

"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
nby
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 27


View Profile
August 12, 2015, 01:51:46 PM
 #30288


I'm not against bigger blocks. I simply disagree with the urgency suggested by some of their proponents as well as the current proposed implementations (especially the very dangerous XT fork)

The truth is that there's nothing dangerous in the XT fork, and the "smallblockers" are fully aware of this.

Either there will be a clear voting majority behind the push to bigger blocks, or there won't even be a fork. No fork will begin until 75% of the hashing power will start supporting it. In that case it will be crystal clear which fork can claim itself being Bitcoin, and which instead will end up as an altcoin.

sgbett
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428



View Profile
August 12, 2015, 02:20:11 PM
 #30289

This needs to be read by every doomsayers here:

https://medium.com/@allenpiscitello/there-is-no-crisis-20b58e14b09c

More theoretical and idealogical bs

Such arguments! Much convincing! 

Here's a quick synopsis of some of the alternative solutions


Limit Mempool Size
All transactions are equal, but some are more equal than others

ReplaceDouble Spend by Fee
...

Child Pays For Parent
The solution to having too many transactions in the mempool is MOAR TRANSACTIONS

Wallet Improvements
With enough UI glitter, this shit can look amazing.

Now it might be that I am wrong, and that chap Piscitello is right. Thing is nobody knows.

What we do know is that any increase be it 1.1MB, 8MB, 20MB needs a hard fork, and that a hard fork of this nature will take several months to happen.

What we also know is that the transaction rate is increasing. Whether it is linear or exponential is hard to say, but it is increasing. One effect of this is that average block size is also increasing.

Maybe it will be 18 months before we actually start to regularly see full blocks, if we knew that then we could spend another six months arguing about the values and the schedule. There is a risk however that we could see full blocks sooner BIP101 specified 11 Jan 2016 as the *earliest* date that bigger blocks can be mined. I hope this is timely enough.

I am not arguing we should have bigger blocks *now*, I am arguing that we need to put in place the machinery to have bigger blocks when we need them. Surely you know about the grasshopper and the ant.

The most important thing that has been said countless times, but seemingly never heard is:

If we don't *need* 8mb blocks then *nothing happens*.


Full Node: http://46.51.193.129 (BU) || http://haschinabannedbitcoin.com
"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
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 12, 2015, 02:36:58 PM
 #30290


All transactions are equal, but some are more equal than others


I guess that's where we disagree.

"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
sgbett
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428



View Profile
August 12, 2015, 02:40:04 PM
 #30291

I'll really not waste my time to prove obvious. :-) .. this mean I'll not print you book in leather with golden letters.

"Current technology cannot handle 24 GB blocks (and will not any time soon)" :-)
You must not understand what proof means.

The problem with your statement is that you've expressed it in terms of an unsolvable problem, which is begging the question.

Processing 24 GB of data in a 10 minute period is possible with technology that exists today. It does not require faster-than-light communication, or violating mass/energy conservation, or solving the halting problem, or anything else that's actually impossible.

Perhaps what you actually mean is that handing a 24 GB every 10 minutes would be expensive using existing technology. Perhaps even so expensive as to cost more than Bitcoin users would be willing to pay.

Expressed in those terms, you have a statement that can actually be rationally evaluated.

You'd need to establish how much it would cost to pay for the hardware and operating expenses to operate a 24 GB/10 minute network, and then estimate how much the users would be willing to pay per-transaction. If the estimated costs exceed the estimated budged, then you'd be correct to say that the network would probably be too expensive to operate.

Of course, once you've phrased the problem in a manner that allows for potential solutions, then it becomes possible to talk about productive things like, "what steps could we take to reduce the cost of operating the network?"

On the other hand, if you phrased your "obvious truth" in a form of an unsolvable problem deliberately because you have a preference for the problem remaining unsolved, then keep doing what you're doing.

Sublime response Justus. The mind cleansing power of rationality!

Full Node: http://46.51.193.129 (BU) || http://haschinabannedbitcoin.com
"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: 1428



View Profile
August 12, 2015, 02:41:26 PM
 #30292


All transactions are equal, but some are more equal than others


I guess that's where we disagree.

I know, Napoleon.

Full Node: http://46.51.193.129 (BU) || http://haschinabannedbitcoin.com
"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
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 12, 2015, 02:49:23 PM
 #30293


All transactions are equal, but some are more equal than others


I guess that's where we disagree.

I know, Napoleon.

So are you suggesting I shouldn't be allowed to pay more fees to get priority?

"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
sgbett
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428



View Profile
August 12, 2015, 03:29:24 PM
 #30294


All transactions are equal, but some are more equal than others


I guess that's where we disagree.

I know, Napoleon.

So are you suggesting I shouldn't be allowed to pay more fees to get priority?

No.

Now answer my question: are you suggesting raising the block size limit prevents that phenomenon?

Full Node: http://46.51.193.129 (BU) || http://haschinabannedbitcoin.com
"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
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 12, 2015, 03:32:45 PM
 #30295


All transactions are equal, but some are more equal than others


I guess that's where we disagree.

I know, Napoleon.

So are you suggesting I shouldn't be allowed to pay more fees to get priority?

No.

Now answer my question: are you suggesting raising the block size limit prevents that phenomenon?

No... but I honestly fail to see the point you're trying to make.

Why then the argument that "all transactions are equal"?

"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
Chalkbot
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 892



View Profile
August 12, 2015, 03:39:26 PM
 #30296

Man, I'm so tired of the block size debate. I don't even care anymore. Is anyone trying to find a workable compromise, or is it still everyone pushing their own agenda under the guise of bitcoin being doomed if you don't assimilate?

What if we removed the cap altogether, and then just made it so that transactions with no fees had a 50% chance to bumped to the next block? Or something to that effect, such that microtransactions are still a thing, but a fee market is also a thing? I'm sure there's a good reason why this doesn't work. I have a cold and I just took some Dayquil. Brain no workie.
sgbett
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428



View Profile
August 12, 2015, 03:58:50 PM
 #30297


All transactions are equal, but some are more equal than others


I guess that's where we disagree.

I know, Napoleon.

So are you suggesting I shouldn't be allowed to pay more fees to get priority?

No.

Now answer my question: are you suggesting raising the block size limit prevents that phenomenon?

No... but I honestly fail to see the point you're trying to make.

Why then the argument that "all transactions are equal"?

It's not *my* point it's Piscitello's

Quote
Mempools can be bounded, such that only the top priority transactions are stored. Low priority transactions are passed on or rejected once the limit is reached or are replaced by higher priority transactions. This prevents nodes from crashing due to being overwhelmed by transactions.

He is suggesting explicitly rejecting valid transactions because they don't pay enough fees as a way to solve the issue of the mempool ballooning if the block size is not large enough. Assuming that what will happen is that people will just pay higher fees to get in the block.

The protocol defines a valid transaction, and if a transaction is valid it accept it into the mem-pool => All transactions are equal
Piscitello defines 'priority' (a more palatable name for 'fee size') and says we let things back up and reject low fee transactions => Some transactions are more equal than others

Nodes will not be overwhelmed by transactions because they aren't economically viable to include in a block, they will be overwhelmed by transactions because the block size limit prevents them from including those transactions.

Let me draw you a picture of a theoretical scenario of not allowing a f(r)ee market to develop:



Full Node: http://46.51.193.129 (BU) || http://haschinabannedbitcoin.com
"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
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 12, 2015, 04:25:38 PM
 #30298


All transactions are equal, but some are more equal than others


I guess that's where we disagree.

I know, Napoleon.

So are you suggesting I shouldn't be allowed to pay more fees to get priority?

No.

Now answer my question: are you suggesting raising the block size limit prevents that phenomenon?

No... but I honestly fail to see the point you're trying to make.

Why then the argument that "all transactions are equal"?

It's not *my* point it's Piscitello's

Quote
Mempools can be bounded, such that only the top priority transactions are stored. Low priority transactions are passed on or rejected once the limit is reached or are replaced by higher priority transactions. This prevents nodes from crashing due to being overwhelmed by transactions.

He is suggesting explicitly rejecting valid transactions because they don't pay enough fees as a way to solve the issue of the mempool ballooning if the block size is not large enough. Assuming that what will happen is that people will just pay higher fees to get in the block.

The protocol defines a valid transaction, and if a transaction is valid it accept it into the mem-pool => All transactions are equal
Piscitello defines 'priority' (a more palatable name for 'fee size') and says we let things back up and reject low fee transactions => Some transactions are more equal than others

Nodes will not be overwhelmed by transactions because they aren't economically viable to include in a block, they will be overwhelmed by transactions because the block size limit prevents them from including those transactions.

Let me draw you a picture of a theoretical scenario of not allowing a f(r)ee market to develop:




I understand your point. But it seems to me that anyone who supports this position effectively suggests that the block size limit should be lifted altogether (at least that's the stance of PeterR & a couple others). Otherwise all you're really doing is moving your quota line to the right.

Assuming we increase the limit to 8mb. Do you propose that the additional supply will NOT get filled relatively quickly and if it does what step is next, increasing the limit again?

 
 

"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
thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
August 12, 2015, 04:37:12 PM
 #30299

this sounds exactly like something i'd say:
The Blockstream Business Plan (self.Bitcoin)
submitted an hour ago * by Celean

And if this is true Blockstream is making a HUGE mistake.  I don't think many people are doing multiple txns per day, every day right now.  I don't even think many people do 1 txn per week.  I doubt that people will be willing to sequester coins into the LN for significant periods (no I have no facts to back up this intuition).  

So I don't think that the lightning network solves the problem we have today which is getting people to do their FIRST txn (expand the network) and then getting them to use it periodically (use encourages merchants to accept it).

Once people are using BTC a couple times per day, LN is becomes very valuable.  Its actually WORSE if you do just one txn in a payment channel (it takes 2 blockchain txns instead of 1).

So LN won't actually solve the typical use pattern today.  And if that pattern is forced to pay high fees people will choose other payment options stagnating Bitcoin growth (or best case transforms into low velocity digital gold) to the point where we'll never need the volumes LN can offer.

Bad argument.

The current network @ 5 tps can handle 432k transactions per day. If all the high volume stuff (most of which is tied to speculation in one form or another) were moved off that would be maybe 431k people on-ramping per day which is vastly more than is needed.


I'm not sure that you have any basis to your claim that the high volume stuff is tied to speculation.   Regardless, the purpose of the use does not matter.  What matters is the structure of their transactions.  I can invent lots of network structure and use patterns which LN does not work for but is speculative.  For example, lots of people doing weekly dollar cost averaging purchases could take a large bite out of that 400k daily txn rate.

Also presupposing the high volume stuff is moved offchain means txn fees are likely high and blocks filled which will negatively affect new users making their one time purchases.  People tend not to do stuff proactively, especially when it entails adopting a new technology operating within a questionable legal framework (are LN nodes money transmitters?)

Also, I think we've onboarded most of the speculative investors we are going to get in this phase -- we need a wave of utility next.  I have a hard time believing this utility use moves from once per month to multiple daily txns.  Rather it will be monthly txns becoming weekly txns driven by B2B, remittance, and intermittent online purchases by bitcoin users.  And it will be colored coin and ledger use (which LN cannot optimize).



brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 12, 2015, 04:53:01 PM
 #30300

Also, I think we've onboarded most of the speculative investors we are going to get in this phase -- we need a wave of utility next.  I have a hard time believing this utility use moves from once per month to multiple daily txns.  Rather it will be monthly txns becoming weekly txns driven by B2B, remittance, and intermittent online purchases by bitcoin users.  And it will be colored coin and ledger use (which LN cannot optimize).

I have to disagree and I think is far removed from reality. Utility use cases are and will remain marginal until we onboard many many more waves of speculative investors.

Institutional investors wave is next.

Take it from the mouth of one of the reasonable guy in the industry (Vinny Lingham):

Quote
I think the whole idea of bitcoin is so consumer unfriendly, I can't see it taking off and we're the largest consumer site on the blockchain. It's not going to go mainstream.
http://www.coindesk.com/keynote-2015-fintech-voices-join-blockchain-conversation/

"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 ... 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 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 »
  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!