Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 08:17:40 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   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 ... 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 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1806431 times)
Chalkbot
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 892



View Profile
August 12, 2015, 03:39:26 PM
 #30301

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.
1481228260
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481228260

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481228260
Reply with quote  #2

1481228260
Report to moderator
1481228260
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481228260

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481228260
Reply with quote  #2

1481228260
Report to moderator
1481228260
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481228260

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481228260
Reply with quote  #2

1481228260
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481228260
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481228260

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481228260
Reply with quote  #2

1481228260
Report to moderator
1481228260
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481228260

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481228260
Reply with quote  #2

1481228260
Report to moderator
1481228260
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481228260

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481228260
Reply with quote  #2

1481228260
Report to moderator
sgbett
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
August 12, 2015, 03:58:50 PM
 #30302


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:



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
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 12, 2015, 04:25:38 PM
 #30303


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
 #30304

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: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 12, 2015, 04:53:01 PM
 #30305

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
sgbett
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
August 12, 2015, 05:01:48 PM
 #30306


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 don't know, but you are saying we shouldn't do anything, because doing something might not be quite enough?

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
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
August 12, 2015, 05:05:18 PM
 #30307

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.

I support BIP101 (Gavin's proposal); I don't support removing the limit entirely right now.  The results of my paper apply either in the absence of a limit or if the limit is far above the transactional demand.  

So, indeed we are moving the quota line to the right, but so long as the line is far to the right of Q* (the block size that maximizes the miner's profit), then the fee market behaves as described in feemarket.pdf.  

Assuming we increase the limit to 8mb. Do you propose that the additional supply will NOT get filled relatively quickly...

Not at all.  I suggest that the block space will get filled at close to the historical rate of growth, as illustrated by either the "high" or "moderate" curves in this chart:



...and if it does what step is next, increasing the limit again?

We slowly remove the limit (doubling it every two years) until there is effectively no limit at all.  

Before bitcoin can be digital gold, the world needs to understand its value.  The first step is to build a payment network for planet earth.



Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 12, 2015, 05:11:53 PM
 #30308

I don't know, but you are saying we shouldn't do anything, because doing something might not be quite enough?

I'm saying that the pretense that 1 MBers are playing central bankers seems funny in the light considering most block increase proponents are the ones arguing for arbitrary control of supply.

So yes, we shouldn't do anything but optimize the current infrastructure under existing parameters and observe how the network reacts.

Quote
The notion that there be dragons at the capacity limit is unfounded and reactionary. We have to make the journey and find out what is, in fact, there at the edge - as many others have argued in the list. This is our opportunity to make scientific observation and discovery for the benefit of Bitcoin - while it is still in its early years and the capacity limit untested.
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010179.html

"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 12, 2015, 05:13:54 PM
 #30309

Not at all.  I suggest that the block space will get filled at close to the historical rate of growth, as illustrated by either the "high" or "moderate" curves in this chart:

Well I sure hope you can understand some people are wary of making such assumptions.

Before bitcoin can be digital gold, the world needs to understand its value.  The first step is to build a payment network for planet earth

This is a fundamental disagreement on the value of Bitcoin then which IMO is first SOV then payment network.

Bitcoin will become a global refuge for wealth way before it gains any relevant traction as "a payment network for planet earth".

https://medium.com/@allenpiscitello/what-is-bitcoin-s-value-proposition-b7309be442e3

"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 12, 2015, 05:14:06 PM
 #30310

$DJI approaching Mission Critical Stage:

Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
August 12, 2015, 05:17:55 PM
 #30311

Some serious vote manipulation going on in the Blockstream Business Plan thread.

I notice the OP there isn't adressing the issue that when Blockstream received their funding, LN wasn't yet around, so it's a bit hard to see how their business plan that got them 21 million USD could have relied on pushing people towards LN...

This was indeed pointed out to him by me and several others.

What blockstream are trying to do is the contentious issue, when they get the tools is not relevant, eg when the nuclear bomb was discovered is not important nor is when you get the nuke, what is relevant is if you intend to use it' and that's relevant.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
August 12, 2015, 05:30:16 PM
 #30312

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)

Your use of the word "urgent" is misguided Gavin started the discussion with a proposal that would take over 9 month to deploy 9 month is plenty time to change 1 line of code from 1MB to 8MB, the debate is about why it should not happen befor blockstream deploy LN or SPVp sidechains.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
August 12, 2015, 05:31:08 PM
 #30313

This is a fundamental disagreement on the value of Bitcoin then which IMO is first SOV then payment network.
There is no such thing as a store of value.

You've described the religious approach to understanding money.
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
August 12, 2015, 05:34:21 PM
 #30314

...
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?
...

I have hopes for the "Scaling Bitcoin" Workshops.  The first will be held in Montreal in September and the second in Hong Kong possibly in December. 

https://scalingbitcoin.org/montreal2015/

The format is similar to an academic conference, in that anyone can submit a relevant paper to be considered for presentation. 

One thing I don't know though, is whether the Montreal Workshop Planning Committee has a big-block or small-block bias (that could sway which papers they accept and which papers they reject):






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

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 12, 2015, 05:41:13 PM
 #30315

softs futures crushed.  inflation?  what inflation?:





brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 12, 2015, 06:08:37 PM
 #30316

This is a fundamental disagreement on the value of Bitcoin then which IMO is first SOV then payment network.
There is no such thing as a store of value.

You've described the religious approach to understanding money.


I kinda knew you'd pop up with this argument.

The point is Bitcoin is nowhere near ready for adoption as retail transactional currency.

Not unlike gold, most bitcoins are currently sitting untouched in vaults paper wallets. It is by all evidence not a consumer product as it stands and we should not expect it to gain adoption because of the features of its payment network, at least not anytime soon.

"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
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988


View Profile
August 12, 2015, 06:11:57 PM
 #30317


This is a fundamental disagreement on the value of Bitcoin then which IMO is first SOV then payment network.

There is no such thing as a store of value.

Just because you collectivists don't like something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  This is a wonderful example of how degenerate your philosophical flights of fancy have become and how much they have degraded your understandings of reality.


You've described the religious approach to understanding money.

Pot - Kettle - Black


brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 12, 2015, 06:24:42 PM
 #30318

Some serious vote manipulation going on in the Blockstream Business Plan thread.

I notice the OP there isn't adressing the issue that when Blockstream received their funding, LN wasn't yet around, so it's a bit hard to see how their business plan that got them 21 million USD could have relied on pushing people towards LN...

This was indeed pointed out to him by me and several others.

What blockstream are trying to do is the contentious issue, when they get the tools is not relevant, eg when the nuclear bomb was discovered is not important nor is when you get the nuke, what is relevant is if you intend to use it' and that's relevant.

What you fantasize about what blockstream "are trying to do" and are actually doing is two different things you know?

Unless you have facts to verify your conjectures the courteous thing to do would be to give the runner a chance.

"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
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
August 12, 2015, 06:27:34 PM
 #30319

Just because you collectivists don't like something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  This is a wonderful example of how degenerate your philosophical flights of fancy have become and how much they have degraded your understandings of reality.
This is exactly what religious people say when you debunk their claims by pointing out contradictions or lack of evidence for their claims.

The "store of value" concept was basically invented by Aristotle two and a half millennia ago, before basically anything was understood about trade, markets, labor specialization, or any of the other factors that we now know make economies work.

I could point out some of the additional work that's been done since the bronze age, like the understanding that money is a ledger that measures delayed reciprocal altruism, but I don't even need to.

All I have to do is point out that if your claim that a store of value exists is true, then you should be able to produce a non-tautological definition for it.

Can you?

PS: I LOL'd when the socialist who's advocating centrally-planned block sizes referred to me as a collectivist. Do you not realize just how transparent that is?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 12, 2015, 06:32:01 PM
 #30320

Some serious vote manipulation going on in the Blockstream Business Plan thread.

I notice the OP there isn't adressing the issue that when Blockstream received their funding, LN wasn't yet around, so it's a bit hard to see how their business plan that got them 21 million USD could have relied on pushing people towards LN...

This was indeed pointed out to him by me and several others.

What blockstream are trying to do is the contentious issue, when they get the tools is not relevant, eg when the nuclear bomb was discovered is not important nor is when you get the nuke, what is relevant is if you intend to use it' and that's relevant.

What you fantasize about what blockstream "are trying to do" and are actually doing is two different things you know?

Unless you have facts to verify your conjectures the courteous thing to do would be to give the runner a chance.

i did.  but look what happened:

[–]cypherdoc2[🍰] 9 points 1 year ago

I'll take the cautious side here being a stake holder in Bitcoin. Not being a dev my concerns are purely theoretical and mostly economic.

    In general, a for profit company with a low to no stake in Bitcoin should not be trusted to make changes to the protocol that facilitate its profit making. Especially if it's gone out and hired core devs and comes at the expense of the competition.
    I would like to know who these core devs are supposedly supporting the whole concept besides gmax who has gone on record saying Bitcoin needs to be "fixed". I don't understand the secrecy as I've asked for those names several times. I for one don't think Bitcoin needs fixing.
    I've always conceptualized Bitcoin as being a self contained financial system so I am concerned that it's fundamental value units will be allowed to leave its system destined for what will inevitably be a weaker sidechain from a security standpoint. In that sense I don't see them as "the first app" overlaying the protocol like Andreas likes to say. I see them as fundamentally integrated into the network. Invariably, whatever token your bitcoin is transformed into will be worth less as a result. We've spent 5 long years distributing those bitcoins throughout the blockchain in a fair and truthful manner based on free market trading. $600 million has been irreversibly spent to secure that process and the blockchain is delicately balanced as a result. Bitcoins are a fundamental value unit that was made for its network and only for that network in my opinion and now we want to let them move off that network potentially never to return. Satoshi never provisioned for this. That doesn't feel right to me.
    What knock on effects would occur to the Bitcoin network if 20-30% of these tokens get lost from a sidechain failure thus wiping out all the associated bitcoins as a result? The answer could be way more complex than just "oh, my bitcoins will be worth more".
    With merged mining it would be easier to attack and steal the tokens and thus bitcoins associated with them. What can be done to prevent this?
    What if there was an economic way to solve the problem of scamcoins without touching the protocol? I reference Peter R's proposal of Spin Offs. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563925.0
    Is there really a "problem"with Bitcoin that we need to risk the entire system like this? Why can't Bitcoin act like a reserve currency around which altcoins can orbit without touching/risking the protocol? I reference the fork we got from a simple non protocol change last year from just 0.7-0.8. The devs including gmax failed to anticipate this despite the best of intentions.
    It's important to realize that we have intentionally lived with bugs in the system all these years because we're dealing with a form of money that you can't make mistakes with. Billions are at risk and damned straight I'm protective of this. Bitcoin has worked well so far imo. It seems we always get these proposals at the bottom of a price lull so be wary of people proposing changes who have no stake in the system.

I'm willing to wait until the whitepaper comes out for final judgment as maybe I'm getting too conservative in my old age but those are my concerns.

    permalink
    embed
    save
    edit
    disable inbox replies
    delete
Pages: « 1 ... 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 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!