Bitcoin Forum
December 10, 2016, 06:42:38 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 ... 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 1808039 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 13, 2015, 01:34:54 AM
 #30341

as all of you know, i've been bearish on the USD recently as a contrary move to the mainstream assessment of USD strengthening.  my theory is that if we are entering another recession, the US won't be as lucky as 2008 in having both the USD and UST's rally as safe havens.  i think alot of our political and financial capital has been wasted as a nation in the continued bailouts and moral hazard of the last 7 yrs.  in that environment, i believe the market will have no choice but to pick UST's over the USD.

i think this comparison graph of the $DJI and the $DXY is interesting as it appears they both may be rolling over.  if so, we may be on the dawn of serious gains in hard money.  which one?  of course i think it will be Bitcoin with gold collapsing.  we'll see:

1481395358
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481395358

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481395358
Reply with quote  #2

1481395358
Report to moderator
1481395358
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481395358

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481395358
Reply with quote  #2

1481395358
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481395358
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481395358

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481395358
Reply with quote  #2

1481395358
Report to moderator
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
August 13, 2015, 01:36:58 AM
 #30342

That is all true only if Q* stays within the range of your assumptions.
That seems like a strange way of wording what I already said: "As long as the limit is far above the transaction demand (much greater than Q* in the figure), then the supply is constrained economically rather than algorithmically."
See this is exactly what I'm talking about. Pretending you can predict future transaction demand and set an arbitrary limit "much greater". Sounds like something out of the FED.

You've really lost me here.  If the growth in demand for transactions is greater than what is permitted by BIP101, then we'll bump into the higher limit, and fees will increase more than what would be implied by my paper.  In other words "as long as the limit is far above the transaction demand (much greater than Q* in the figure), then the supply is constrained economically rather than algorithmically."

I don't understand your concern here.  What would be so bad about hitting the higher (and constantly increasing) limit earlier than historical extrapolation would predict? [not that I think that's likely, but still]

To then go back to our previous argument, let's pretend that your 8 MBs blocks get filled a year before your scheduled doubling then what happens?

Then fees would be more than what's suggested in my paper.  What would be wrong with that [in the unlikely event it happens]?  In fact, it would just be something like the realization of the "high" growth curve shown here:



I guess my point is that modeling transactional demand based on historical growth is a surefire way to shoot yourself in the foot.

There are several "transactional demands" modelled in the above graph. They would all work fine with BIP101.  It's just that in the case of the "high growth" curve, the fee market might begin to be affected by the block size limit, rather than strictly due to economic supply and demand.  

How do you propose this is "shooting yourself in the foot?"  

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

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 13, 2015, 01:44:51 AM
 #30343

That is all true only if Q* stays within the range of your assumptions.
That seems like a strange way of wording what I already said: "As long as the limit is far above the transaction demand (much greater than Q* in the figure), then the supply is constrained economically rather than algorithmically."
See this is exactly what I'm talking about. Pretending you can predict future transaction demand and set an arbitrary limit "much greater". Sounds like something out of the FED.

You've really lost me here.  If the growth in demand for transactions is greater than what is permitted by BIP101, then we'll bump into the higher limit, and fees will increase more than what would be implied by my paper.  In other words "as long as the limit is far above the transaction demand (much greater than Q* in the figure), then the supply is constrained economically rather than algorithmically."

I don't understand your concern here.  What would be so bad about hitting the higher (and constantly increasing) limit earlier than historical extrapolation would predict? [not that I think that's likely, but still]

To then go back to our previous argument, let's pretend that your 8 MBs blocks get filled a year before your scheduled doubling then what happens?

Then fees would be more than what's suggested in my paper.  What would be wrong with that [in the unlikely event it happens]?  In fact, it would just be something like the realization of the "high" growth curve shown here:



I guess my point is that modeling transactional demand based on historical growth is a surefire way to shoot yourself in the foot.

There are several "transactional demands" modelled in the above graph. They would all work fine with BIP101.  It's just that in the case of the "high growth" curve, the fee market might begin to be affected by the block size limit, rather than strictly due to economic supply and demand.  

How do you propose this is "shooting yourself in the foot?"  


don't try to be logical with him.  you'll lose every time.

you've already said that your endgame would be to see no limit like i have stated many times.  if only to keep the Cripplecoiners from freaking out, your paper tries to model an upper bound to prevent us from bumping up against the limit so as to avoid spammers entering the mkt near that point (at low cost to them) to try and clog up the network.  ideally, there would be no limit to eliminate this risk entirely.  but even with a limit set so high, if tx's filled blocks that large, that would be a great problem to have compared to the current handicap of 1MB.

IOW, he wants to penalize you for trying just b/c you might not be perfect.  therefore, you are just like a central banker.  Roll Eyes
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 13, 2015, 01:51:48 AM
 #30344


/u/aminok confirms:

re: theymos

from aminok sent 2 minutes ago

You're right. I'm legitimately shocked. Not sure how to respond.

    permalinkreportblock usermark unreadreply
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 13, 2015, 02:00:25 AM
 #30345

ZH Tyler and offshore Yuan hinting it might be a case of three strikes and you're out tonight  Huh

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-12/theres-more-come-offshore-yuan-signals-further-devaluation-tonight

you're on:

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/12/china-gets-cold-feet-about-floating-yuan.html
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 13, 2015, 02:11:16 AM
 #30346

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3gsnlf/need_to_engage_in_a_marketing_campaign/cu151f3?context=3
notme
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1540


View Profile
August 13, 2015, 02:13:58 AM
 #30347


So China decides to float the yuan when the dollar is high, and controls the descent by selling USD.

That seems to align well with your thesis on the market favoring UST over USD as safe haven.

https://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
While no idea is perfect, some ideas are useful.
12jh3odyAAaR2XedPKZNCR4X4sebuotQzN
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
August 13, 2015, 02:56:10 AM
 #30348


/u/aminok confirms:

re: theymos

from aminok sent 2 minutes ago

You're right. I'm legitimately shocked. Not sure how to respond.

    permalinkreportblock usermark unreadreply


There was just a post by /u/raisethelimit where something he wrote got censored, and then he was trying to test the new auto-modding to find out what comments and submissions are getting automatically hidden, but now the entire test post was just censored too.  I saved the link though:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gsxqf/all_my_posts_are_currently_being_censored_this_is/

His conclusion was that any submission or comment with a link to the "sub-reddits that shall not be named" are getting automatically hidden.

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

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 13, 2015, 03:02:01 AM
 #30349


/u/aminok confirms:

re: theymos

from aminok sent 2 minutes ago

You're right. I'm legitimately shocked. Not sure how to respond.

    permalinkreportblock usermark unreadreply


There was just a post by /u/raisethelimit where something he wrote got censored, and then he was trying to test the new auto-modding to find out what comments and submissions are getting automatically hidden, but now the entire test post was just censored too.  I saved the link though:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gsxqf/all_my_posts_are_currently_being_censored_this_is/

His conclusion was that any submission or comment with a link to the "sub-reddits that shall not be named" are getting automatically hidden.

which ones?
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 13, 2015, 03:43:11 AM
 #30350

What would be so bad about hitting the higher (and constantly increasing) limit earlier than historical extrapolation would predict? [not that I think that's likely, but still]

To then go back to our previous argument, let's pretend that your 8 MBs blocks get filled a year before your scheduled doubling then what happens?

Then fees would be more than what's suggested in my paper.  What would be wrong with that [in the unlikely event it happens]?  In fact, it would just be something like the realization of the "high" growth curve shown here:



I guess my point is that modeling transactional demand based on historical growth is a surefire way to shoot yourself in the foot.

There are several "transactional demands" modelled in the above graph. They would all work fine with BIP101.  It's just that in the case of the "high growth" curve, the fee market might begin to be affected by the block size limit, rather than strictly due to economic supply and demand.  

How do you propose this is "shooting yourself in the foot?"  

Here is what I'm thinking: considering you are hell bent on selling the world on the value of the Bitcoin payment network, do you reasonably believe that Bitcoin is gonna make it to Paypal's level of TPS only in 2024? What if we get there less than 5 years from now? Is this really "unlikely"? I honestly don't think so especially if you and others have your way and attempt to fit every single transactions on the Bitcoin blockchain. Remember that "supply creates its own demand".

My concern is that I'm not sure it is safe for the decentralization of the network to try to handle 32mb per blocks within 2020, much less 64. In my mind this would necessarily imply an important if not dangerous decrease in the range of entities who are able to run full nodes. I don't want to hear anything about the amount of nodes as it is not a reliable indicator. As much as cypherdoc would like to believe that an individual running multiple nodes improves the decentralization of the network this is obviously not the case. Finally I'm also worried we would find ourselves in a much worse spot than we already are in regards to mining centralization.

My point is this reliance on block size increase as a scaling solution is a slippery road. One that if we do not travel through cautiously could seriously hinder the security of the network and ultimately result in turning Bitcoin into pale copy of Ripple.

"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
*
Online Online

Activity: 1512


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
August 13, 2015, 04:11:31 AM
 #30351


There is no such thing as a store of value.


There is no such thing as a thing.

Separateness is an illusion.  All that exists is the Unified Field and the Void (sort of).

Oh sorry, I thought I was in a late night dorm room session discussing our Epistomology 101 homework, not a thread for adults focused on the practical implications of Gold vs Bitcoin.

Yo dawg, pass that sick glass you got at Pipes Plus over here...   Cheesy

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

"Hard forks cannot be co
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
August 13, 2015, 04:19:10 AM
 #30352


Here is what I'm thinking: considering you are hell bent on selling the world on the value of the Bitcoin payment network, do you reasonably believe that Bitcoin is gonna make it to Paypal's level of TPS only in 2024? What if we get there less than 5 years from now? Is this really "unlikely"? I honestly don't think so especially if you and others have your way and attempt to fit every single transactions on the Bitcoin blockchain. Remember that "supply creates its own demand".

My concern is that I'm not sure it is safe for the decentralization of the network to try to handle 32mb per blocks within 2020, much less 64. In my mind this would necessarily imply an important if not dangerous decrease in the range of entities who are able to run full nodes. I don't want to hear anything about the amount of nodes as it is not a reliable indicator. As much as cypherdoc would like to believe that an individual running multiple nodes improves the decentralization of the network this is obviously not the case. Finally I'm also worried we would find ourselves in a much worse spot than we already are in regards to mining centralization.

My point is this reliance on block size increase as a scaling solution is a slippery road. One that if we do not travel through cautiously could seriously hinder the security of the network and ultimately result in turning Bitcoin into pale copy of Ripple.


Thank you for this response.  I think it is was valid and I can appreciate your concern.  I also think it serves to illustrate the ideological divide between you and me.  

Me, I think the most probable way that Bitcoin fails is by lack of adoption and growth.  I see the 1 MB limit as the greatest technical blockage in this regard.  

You, on the other hand, seem to be most worried about failure via centralization, and see a larger block size limit as contributing to the very failure mode you see as most likely.  

And therein lies the problem.  Although we both want success for Bitcoin, what I see as a panacea you see as a poison.  

For the record, here's my take: we probably all remember the first time we received a real bitcoin transaction.  I do.  I was using the blockchain.info wallet on my iPhone and had purchased about 0.4 BTC from canadianbitcoins by depositing $20 cash into their RBC bank account.  I remember a couple hours later my phone made a funny noise, and sure enough, boom, there was $20 of BTC in my wallet!  I thought that was pretty amazing!!  I then sent coins back and forth between different wallets, watching the transactions nearly instantly propagate, and the enormity of what was happening really sunk in: these transactions were being relayed to every node across the world, double, triple, quadruple checked, and then being logged to an unforgeable ledger that was stored redundantly all over the globe.  And all this was happening--not because of some bank or government initiative--but because normal people came together to make it happen.  And because it was a peer-to-peer initiative, access was so affordable that even the poorest of people on the planet could participate.  

I think more people need to share that experience.  And for that, we need bigger blocks.  


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

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 13, 2015, 05:11:17 AM
 #30353


Here is what I'm thinking: considering you are hell bent on selling the world on the value of the Bitcoin payment network, do you reasonably believe that Bitcoin is gonna make it to Paypal's level of TPS only in 2024? What if we get there less than 5 years from now? Is this really "unlikely"? I honestly don't think so especially if you and others have your way and attempt to fit every single transactions on the Bitcoin blockchain. Remember that "supply creates its own demand".

My concern is that I'm not sure it is safe for the decentralization of the network to try to handle 32mb per blocks within 2020, much less 64. In my mind this would necessarily imply an important if not dangerous decrease in the range of entities who are able to run full nodes. I don't want to hear anything about the amount of nodes as it is not a reliable indicator. As much as cypherdoc would like to believe that an individual running multiple nodes improves the decentralization of the network this is obviously not the case. Finally I'm also worried we would find ourselves in a much worse spot than we already are in regards to mining centralization.

My point is this reliance on block size increase as a scaling solution is a slippery road. One that if we do not travel through cautiously could seriously hinder the security of the network and ultimately result in turning Bitcoin into pale copy of Ripple.


Thank you for this response.  I think it is was valid and I can appreciate your concern.  I also think it serves to illustrate the ideological divide between you and me.  

Me, I think the most probable way that Bitcoin fails is by lack of adoption and growth.  I see the 1 MB limit as the greatest technical blockage in this regard.  

You, on the other hand, seem to be most worried about failure via centralization, and see a larger block size limit as contributing to the very failure mode you see as most likely.  

And therein lies the problem.  Although we both want success for Bitcoin, what I see as a panacea you see as a poison.  

For the record, here's my take: we probably all remember the first time we received a real bitcoin transaction.  I do.  I was using the blockchain.info wallet on my iPhone and had purchased about 0.4 BTC from canadianbitcoins by depositing $20 cash into their RBC bank account.  I remember a couple hours later my phone made a funny noise, and sure enough, boom, there was $20 of BTC in my wallet!  I thought that was pretty amazing!!  I then sent coins back and forth between different wallets, watching the transactions nearly instantly propagate, and the enormity of what was happening really sunk in: these transactions were being relayed to every node across the world, double, triple, quadruple checked, and then being logged to an unforgeable ledger that was stored redundantly at nodes all across the world.  And all this was happening--not because of some bank or government initiative--but because normal people came together to make it happen.  And because it was a peer-to-peer initiative, access was so affordable that even the poorest of people on the planet could participate.  

I think more people need to share that experience.  And for that, we need bigger blocks.  

While I share your nostalgia, I happen to think that the experience of the users of tomorrow, the mainstream public you would like to see adopt Bitcoin, will be so unlike anything we are experiencing it makes little sense expecting this on-boarding process to remain "the same".

You might disagree with me but my opinion is that the masses, as they exist right now, will never approach the level of direct engagement we currently experience with Bitcoin, the blockchain and the related ecosystem. By that I mean that you can forget about them ever being introduced or interested in the concept of nodes, transaction propagation, redundancy, block explorers. A regular person is not approaching or trusting a blockchain.info wallet, much less trusting it with their money.

Now, as for the last statement, that may change. In fact I expect it to and that is why I am very confident (to the dislike of some perhaps..) that customer focused approaches such as Coinbase, Circle, BitReserve and others will have tremendous success. These customer experiences will not only surpass the one you described but make it look ancient & obsolete by its abstraction of almost anything Bitcoin and the presence of familiar user experience. As much as you'd like to convince yourself of the contrary, the existing popularity of such services confirm that most people simply do not care whether or not their transaction is settled directly on the Bitcoin blockchain. We should all hope this will eventually change and I too share the dream of "everyone being their own bank" but this is frankly a dangerous utopy at this point

There is a whole world of abstraction needed before ever pretending to a potent mainstream consumer adoption of Bitcoin.

My advise to you is to start looking at growth in another light. While it seems reasonable to track "adoption & growth" by an increase in the userbase, I have recently come to the conclusion that what might be even more preferable is a growth in capital.

I guess this comes back to our different idea of Bitcoin's value proposition but to put it shortly, my opinion is that more expensive transaction fees on the blockchain will hardly hinder the adoption of capital looking to buy a spot and park their money in the unforgeable ledger. That is because bitcoins are a unique collectible unlike anything the world has seen since gold. Unfortunately much like gold some characteristics limit its direct use as a mean of exchange. Gold's shortcoming is in its physicality, Bitcoin's own is the decentralization tradeoff.

Fortunately Bitcoin being digital, the technical solutions to this problem are unlimited and will only improve in quality, reliance and decreasing need for trust. I understand this is not a popular position but let me make it clear: I absolutely propose that in the future any Bitcoin user will have to consider the cost of transacting on the blockchain and perhaps opt for other options if they feel there is no need to have their transaction validated under the "ultimate" trustlessness of the blockchain.



"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
*
Online Online

Activity: 1512


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
August 13, 2015, 06:24:00 AM
 #30354


Nobody cares.  We are far more interested in reading the presumably lulzy forthcoming Gavinista Manifesto.    Smiley

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

"Hard forks cannot be co
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106


View Profile
August 13, 2015, 06:26:05 AM
 #30355

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.

really? I must have missed something along the way, couldyou  please share pointers to evidence on which the bolded claim is based? (serious question)

Blocksize limit = supply.

Unless you advocate lifting it completely most block increase suggestions amounts to a control of supply based on projected demand.

(of course 1MB is an equally arbitrary quota but that is beside the point I was making)

you know what I can't stop thinking that the max block size is a transport layer constraint that have crept in consensus layer.

So I'd say that yes "space" in the blockchain is a scarce resource (*), hence you need to pay a price for it (i.e. txs fee), but to me the max block size mustn't be used to determine (or influence) the price of such resource .

Bitcoin tokens emission process (miner subsidy) and free market should be the main forces in the blockchain space price discover mechanism.

(*) scarcity is directly connected to bitcoin trustlessness

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
August 13, 2015, 06:28:17 AM
 #30356

My advise to you is to start looking at growth in another light. While it seems reasonable to track "adoption & growth" by an increase in the userbase, I have recently come to the conclusion that what might be even more preferable is a growth in capital.

I guess this comes back to our different idea of Bitcoin's value proposition but to put it shortly, my opinion is that more expensive transaction fees on the blockchain will hardly hinder the adoption of capital looking to buy a spot and park their money in the unforgeable ledger. That is because bitcoins are a unique collectible unlike anything the world has seen since gold. Unfortunately much like gold some characteristics limit its direct use as a mean of exchange. Gold's shortcoming is in its physicality, Bitcoin's own is the decentralization tradeoff.

This is just for the record as Peter is doing an admirable job of explaining things, I have highlighted the fundamental failings in your logic which makes you come to the wrong conclusion. I fully expect you to ignore this and hand-wave it away, but here goes...

1. Growth in capital is a reactive process, it is a market response to the growth of  the whole ecosystem. There have been altcoins with enormous early capital such as Auroracoin where $100 million in market cap rapidly went to zero, like morning mist in the sun. This was because the capital temporarily existed but there was no ecosystem to maintain it.

2. Bitcoins are not a "unique collectible" because while bitcoins are truly finite, cryptocurrency is infinite. Litecoin is just Bitcoin with a different name and a few minor software changes. Many new coins exist such as Monero and NXT and Etherium. ALL of these could do the job of Bitcoin if Bitcoin vanished. The only thing keeping Bitcoin at No.1 is a positive feedback loop: ecosystem usage (transactions) > utility value -> market price -> mining power -> PoW security of blockchain -> more public interest -> more ecosystem usage

The problem with the 1MB is that it will eventually cripple this all-important feedback loop.

you know what I can't stop thinking that the max block size is a transport layer constraint that have crept in consensus layer.

Now, that is a profound observation.

boumalo
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 924


View Profile
August 13, 2015, 09:36:50 AM
 #30357

Gold is weak but we will eventually get a currency crisis in the US, the FED will have to raise rates. Gold's price in usd will go up.

smoothie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848


LEALANA Monero Physical Silver Coins


View Profile
August 13, 2015, 09:47:09 AM
 #30358

If there ever as a fork to XT (consensus majority) it would be interesting to see how the exchange rates (assuming they are not all on XT or core) would be.

I can see an XT or core whale dumping their coins on an exchange that supports the opposite chain to the whale's liking.

Price volatility is in our future. Unlike how it has been in the past.

Interesting times.  Roll Eyes

███████████████████████████████████████

            ,╓p@@███████@╗╖,           
        ,p████████████████████N,       
      d█████████████████████████b     
    d██████████████████████████████æ   
  ,████²█████████████████████████████, 
 ,█████  ╙████████████████████╨  █████y
 ██████    `████████████████`    ██████
║██████       Ñ███████████`      ███████
███████         ╩██████Ñ         ███████
███████    ▐▄     ²██╩     a▌    ███████
╢██████    ▐▓█▄          ▄█▓▌    ███████
 ██████    ▐▓▓▓▓▌,     ▄█▓▓▓▌    ██████─
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓█,,▄▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
    ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓─  
     ²▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓╩    
        ▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀       
           ²▀▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀▀`          
                   ²²²                 
███████████████████████████████████████

. ★☆ WWW.LEALANA.COM        My PGP fingerprint is A764D833.        SMOOTHIE'S HEALTH AND FITNESS JOURNAL          History of Monero development Visualization ★☆ .
LEALANA  PHYSICAL MONERO COINS 999 FINE SILVER.
 
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 13, 2015, 12:52:36 PM
 #30359

holy begeez.  just did a speedtest on my internet connection.  had made some routing changes that seem to have worked:

Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938


View Profile
August 13, 2015, 01:08:13 PM
 #30360

There's not too many things you can do in this country to piss people  off  more than violating their First Amendment rights.

Go theymos!

You don't have a 1A right to post on privately owned sites, period.


Yes, libertarian people (cypherdoc) even don't moderate insulting posts of the trolls (tvbcof, iCE et al.) in their threads, while totalitarian people even don't allow some non-insulting posts and opposition. The latter are supported by cheerleaders with totalitarian mentality. Pardon my bad English. I hope you know what I mean.

"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."
Pages: « 1 ... 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!