Bitcoin Forum
July 28, 2017, 01:14:32 PM *
News: BIP91 seems stable: there's probably only slightly increased risk of confirmations disappearing. You should still prepare for Aug 1.
 
   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 ... 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 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1940942 times)
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2212


View Profile
August 15, 2015, 09:02:28 AM
 #30541

the only bloatcoiner smart enough to see this clearly is Mike Hearn, and that is exactly why he has put in the effort to make XT.  Classic controlled demolition.

Excellent (and blessedly succinct) argument by analogy.  "Hostile/malicious fork" descriptive power just doesn't have the same je ne sais quoi as "controlled demolition."

Does not convince many. Not here and not there.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1144606.60

Bitcoin is explicitly non-democratic.  Populism has no power here.

I would argue! Bitcoin is extremely democratic by its nature

True.  Very few people choose to participate as a percentage of the world's population.  In otherwords, they freely vote with their feet.  For some reason all of the Bloatcoin nitwits think that is going to change after half a decade and jubilation is just around the corner.

Bitcoin has the potential to be very useful for certain things and under certain circumstances.  Indeed, as a backing store for various tuned crypto-currency solutions (aka, sidechains) it would not take anything catastrophic in mainstream-land to create such conditions.  The Bloatcoin guy's tasks are to nuke Bitcoin before or during such a time of need.


1501247672
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1501247672

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1501247672
Reply with quote  #2

1501247672
Report to moderator
1501247672
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1501247672

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1501247672
Reply with quote  #2

1501247672
Report to moderator
1501247672
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1501247672

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1501247672
Reply with quote  #2

1501247672
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1501247672
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1501247672

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1501247672
Reply with quote  #2

1501247672
Report to moderator
1501247672
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1501247672

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1501247672
Reply with quote  #2

1501247672
Report to moderator
1501247672
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1501247672

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1501247672
Reply with quote  #2

1501247672
Report to moderator
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036



View Profile
August 15, 2015, 09:30:44 AM
 #30542

...Peter R had his own transactions version. That seemed like it could work back in 2014. In both cases I believe we've seen at least 100% increases while the market cap has not quite followed.

I'm curious what both charts would look right about now but I'm afraid it would invalidate both theories. The reason might be that no one knows exactly how to quantify the amount of users in the network.

Sure.



 Wink


You are a master at decorating a plot with arbitrary fluff as though it means something. 
...
In this plot, the trends are mildly non-linear _against_ the point you are trying (probably successfully) to make.  And there was no particular block size pressure at the arbitrary point where you choose to point the arrow.

Oh come on Tvbcof.  The winky face means that I'm admittedly pushing it with what I wrote in red on that plot.  It was designed to tease Brg444 and I don't necessarily believe it myself.

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

Activity: 1484



View Profile
August 15, 2015, 09:37:32 AM
 #30543

...Peter R had his own transactions version. That seemed like it could work back in 2014. In both cases I believe we've seen at least 100% increases while the market cap has not quite followed.

I'm curious what both charts would look right about now but I'm afraid it would invalidate both theories. The reason might be that no one knows exactly how to quantify the amount of users in the network.

Sure.



 Wink


You are a master at decorating a plot with arbitrary fluff as though it means something. 
...
In this plot, the trends are mildly non-linear _against_ the point you are trying (probably successfully) to make.  And there was no particular block size pressure at the arbitrary point where you choose to point the arrow.

Oh come on Tvbcof.  The winky face means that I'm admittedly pushing it with what I wrote in red on that plot.  It was designed to tease Brg444 and I don't necessarily believe it myself.

What do you believe. Sorry to derail a bit but the apparent unlinking itself is reasonably interesting.
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756



View Profile
August 15, 2015, 10:32:07 AM
 #30544

Here is how a fiat system can be started and developed. Imagine going back to the time of gold or silver backed money, and you need to establish a brand new state. The state is established as a spinoff of a bigger state. This has happened and can happen again. The people of the land thinks "Our own free country! Great, I support that." The state wants or needs to establish a money system starting from nothing. What can they do?

They can ask the inhabitants to voluntarily hand over some gold, or they can loan it. Say they are able to collect a million ounces of gold. They establish a money unit with a new name, say a bean, named after something they are proud of producing in that country. They scale it to be close to the value of the unit in the neighboring country they just disconnected from, to lure people into loaning gold for the new unit. Based on the amount of gold, and the desired unit value, they decide on a number of beans to create. The gold loans from the inhabitants will then have the form "The state owes to mr Smith the amount of two thousand beans to be paid at date (10 years in the future)".

Now they have a gold backed bean money system. The state starts with prudent money printing, just a tad over the gold posession, the beans are backed and redeemable. Now the crucial point: The state can now print a few beans, and buy gold from the inhabitants, thus expanding the state's posession, and reducing the inhabitants' gold posession. They can also pay back the gold loans with beans. Everybody are happy, because paper is more practical than gold anyway. Then we soon come to the point where all the gold belongs to the state. It can then print even more, and when a run happens on the state, they devalue the beans compared to gold. They can keep the redeemability, the state is suddenly solvent again. Or they can just remove the redeemability, to the people it does not matter much.

This can happen, not because gold is not good money, but because gold is not good enough money.

When the current fiat system collapse, one or several new system backed by gold, or some other valuable commodity will be attempted, with the same result eventually.

It can happen with bitcoin too, but we can hope that it will not, because some qualities of bitcoin are better. The qualities that support wide direct holding of bitcoin in stead of surrogates, and those are the ease with which the individual can safely store, use and hide the money, without depending on third parties. Lots on lots of individuals, which means we need the absolute maximum capacity within the limits of the proverbial gravity.

sAt0sHiFanClub
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


Warning: Confrmed Gavinista


View Profile WWW
August 15, 2015, 10:34:32 AM
 #30545


In the remote possiblity XT becomes a matter of more importance than the hype, mirth, and scorn it generates at present, MPex and other 1MBer Elder Whales are prepared to use substantial (possibly exhaustive) portions of their extraordinarily massive war chests to repel 8MBer attacks.  To them, this is Holy War, with barbarian Gavinista hordes clamouring for a Free Shit Junta at the gates of their bespoke civilization.  They are more of a mood to impale heads atop spikes than reward with compromise Hearn's attacks on decentralization, Tor, and the consensus process.

Are you still sure you want to risk your tiny stash playing Hard Fork Poker with such ultra-high-rollers?


If you are relying on simple bullying tactics to defend your position then I fear that you are already tacitly accepting a high possibility of defeat.

I like your analagy of Gavin as Freedom Fighter (Sandinista). It is, in an oldskool fashion, quite apt.

The Sandanistas took on the american hegemony in South America, and despite the best (illegal) efforts of the CIA with the Contras, they prevailed.

Daniel Ortega is president of Nicaragua today.

We must make money worse as a commodity if we wish to make it better as a medium of exchange
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756



View Profile
August 15, 2015, 10:44:23 AM
 #30546

By the way, the point in time where a gold backed money becomes a fiat money, is when there is just a tad more paper than gold in the system than the people are comfortable with, and a run starts. The state proclaims that the been (ref example) is just as good as gold, and apply a law to support that illusion. The law is the fiat point.

awemany
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28


View Profile
August 15, 2015, 10:53:07 AM
 #30547

[...]

I think we mostly agree--it should be difficult to actually change the consensus layer because we should all be in tight agreement about what's in that layer.  And we are in agreement!: we all agree that double spending is bad, we all agree that valid signatures should be required to spend coins, and we all agree that Bob shouldn't be able to create coins out of thin air.  In other words, we already agree on what constitutes valid transactions.

But we don't agree on the block size limit.  That's OK, though, because we don't actually need to view the block size limit as part of the consensus layer.  The block size limit doesn't affect what transactions are valid.

So I suggest we agree to disagree on the block size limit. Let's move the limit from the consensus layer into the transport layer instead, and give all node operators the ability to very easily adjust it.  If we do this, then we don't even need to worry about figuring out the "perfect way to adjust the block size"; it will evolve naturally in a decentralized fashion.  

What do you think?
[...]

Hey Peter, I am in the process of writing a draft of what might become a BIP, hopefully can push something (very early & incomplete) to github soon to serve as a start on this. While further thinking about the whole blocksize mess, I had the following idea and I do not know whether it has been discussed yet:

The intend is to make the block size limit (BSL) configurable, command line or edit box, with eventually no default. The next step along this line would be - when thinking about BSL as an agreement that must be reached through communication of all interested parties - to have a BSL that can be dynamically and on-line set from outside the Bitcoin core software with something like a 'BSL governor', for example through a secured JSON-RPC call 'setmaxblocksizelimit'. Such as an external program that weights the input of several miners through their twitter feeds for example (not that twitter would be particularly good way to do it), or someone else might implement a scaling limit depending on a moving average or even anything noone even thinks of right now.

Now, what I noticed is that, to some extend, the hard fork/no hard fork split is a false dichotomy: Esentially, we have chain splits all the time in the way of orphans. An enduring chain split will only happen if people value two chains, or at least the survival of 'their' chain more than having a common agreement and single money system. (This is, by the way, a core incentive in Bitcoin, as laid out by Satoshi back then.)

Now, with 'BSL governors', there would be no need to make this a hard decision 'orphan/no orphan this block because I dislike the size of a block in this chain'. Instead, a full node could make its decision softer: Its BSL governor could for example look at the hash power longest chain, and say: I'll limit blocksize to 1MB when there is no hash power longest chain with more than 5 blocks (or any other figure) ahead of the 1MB one I am on.

This way, the full node would create a disincentive for miners to make bigger blocks, while still allowing it should the need for a larger blocksize be strong enough. Miners will have an incentive to tread carefully, dipping their toes, for example with 1.1MB blocks first, and full nodes can weight their needs by choosing a trade-off between influence on miners and their local chain reorg risk. This would make what you call a 'gray limit' and I think is very *visible* to the user and also *flexible*.

Thoughts?
Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980



View Profile
August 15, 2015, 11:34:34 AM
 #30548

By the way, the point in time where a gold backed money becomes a fiat money, is when there is just a tad more paper than gold in the system than the people are comfortable with, and a run starts. The state proclaims that the been (ref example) is just as good as gold, and apply a law to support that illusion. The law is the fiat point.


We don't have fiat money. Money is backed by deposits and securities. You will not get a credit (which is money) without that.

Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980



View Profile
August 15, 2015, 11:51:02 AM
 #30549

the only bloatcoiner smart enough to see this clearly is Mike Hearn, and that is exactly why he has put in the effort to make XT.  Classic controlled demolition.

Excellent (and blessedly succinct) argument by analogy.  "Hostile/malicious fork" descriptive power just doesn't have the same je ne sais quoi as "controlled demolition."

Does not convince many. Not here and not there.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1144606.60

Bitcoin is explicitly non-democratic.  Populism has no power here.

Yes, the populism of the 1MBers has no power, neither in the threads of the elite nor anywhere else. That's why the limit will be raised within the next 12 month.


The "populism of the 1MBers" is not your concern.

Your concern is the multi-year duration and multi-billion-dollar magnitude of Bitcoin's current economic majority.

Are you going to be the first brave fellow to defect from that imposing majority by accepting Gavin-tainted XTcoins?  No?  Then you are just a poser.

In the remote possiblity XT becomes a matter of more importance than the hype, mirth, and scorn it generates at present, MPex and other 1MBer Elder Whales are prepared to use substantial (possibly exhaustive) portions of their extraordinarily massive war chests to repel 8MBer attacks.  To them, this is Holy War, with barbarian Gavinista hordes clamouring for a Free Shit Junta at the gates of their bespoke civilization.  They are more of a mood to impale heads atop spikes than reward with compromise Hearn's attacks on decentralization, Tor, and the consensus process.

Are you still sure you want to risk your tiny stash playing Hard Fork Poker with such ultra-high-rollers?

Before you answer, please take into account that nodes by default prioritize tx moving older coins, and the Royalty of La Serenissima possesses, in great quantities, very old coins.

What will you do when the limit isn't raised within the next 12 months?  Continue to cry wolf?  Self harm? Or admit being wrong?   Wink

I don't cry. I predict.

Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756



View Profile
August 15, 2015, 12:15:31 PM
 #30550

By the way, the point in time where a gold backed money becomes a fiat money, is when there is just a tad more paper than gold in the system than the people are comfortable with, and a run starts. The state proclaims that the been (ref example) is just as good as gold, and apply a law to support that illusion. The law is the fiat point.


We don't have fiat money. Money is backed by deposits and securities. You will not get a credit (which is money) without that.

We do have fiat money, but the extent of debt is so large that it seems that debt is the basis. It is not, it is the fiat paper, plus the electronic only fiat created in QE. Unredeemable and unbacked. The debt extends the quantum of money while it exist, and contracts the money when it is extingushed by being paid back or written off. So debt is also money, I agree with that, but it is not the base, it is an extension of the base quantum.
lunarboy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 544



View Profile
August 15, 2015, 01:04:15 PM
 #30551

...Peter R had his own transactions version. That seemed like it could work back in 2014. In both cases I believe we've seen at least 100% increases while the market cap has not quite followed.

I'm curious what both charts would look right about now but I'm afraid it would invalidate both theories. The reason might be that no one knows exactly how to quantify the amount of users in the network.

Sure.



 Wink

Brg444, what do you think of my last response to your comment about moving the block size limit out of the consensus layer?

How do you envisage this working? Can you give some more details? Presumably remove any block size limit altogether. Thus letting it be a scramble to cram as many transactions into the next block, as as time and internet speed would allow?

This would probably lead to a new dimension for mining profitability calculations (currently it's just electricity price arbitrage) We would also have connectivity arbitrage too?

I speculate the future of mining and validation will play out to the point it actually becomes non profitable. Meaning I see a possible scenario, whereby some combination of partial chain validation (think treechains) and massively distributed pooled mining ( think 21inc ).

In this scenario everybody has a mining chip in their device, (a bitcoin RAM equivalent) that partially validates the full chain. The sum of all theses mini nodes fully and provably validates the entire chain with a suitable redundancy. Further to this there would be archival nodes (the various pools, governments banks and big business).

This would mean the block size limit would be redundant, as only those organisations that were financially dependant on full independent blockchain analysis/validation would be required to keep the entire blockchain.

Thoughts ? Or am I barking up the wrong treechain?

Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980



View Profile
August 15, 2015, 01:55:59 PM
 #30552

By the way, the point in time where a gold backed money becomes a fiat money, is when there is just a tad more paper than gold in the system than the people are comfortable with, and a run starts. The state proclaims that the been (ref example) is just as good as gold, and apply a law to support that illusion. The law is the fiat point.


We don't have fiat money. Money is backed by deposits and securities. You will not get a credit (which is money) without that.

We do have fiat money, but the extent of debt is so large that it seems that debt is the basis. It is not, it is the fiat paper, plus the electronic only fiat created in QE. Unredeemable and unbacked. The debt extends the quantum of money while it exist, and contracts the money when it is extingushed by being paid back or written off. So debt is also money, I agree with that, but it is not the base, it is an extension of the base quantum.


Fiat means 'out of nothing'. Money IS debt, and nothing different. It is not paper, and the debt is backed by deposits and securities. A bank creates money, as soon as you take a credit (backed by your deposit).

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 15, 2015, 02:27:09 PM
 #30553

I for one believe the depressed growth in price is largely influenced by the risk of bitcoin failure, and i suspect we'll see a lot of action when we get new information and certainty on Block size.

this is true.
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756



View Profile
August 15, 2015, 02:28:13 PM
 #30554

By the way, the point in time where a gold backed money becomes a fiat money, is when there is just a tad more paper than gold in the system than the people are comfortable with, and a run starts. The state proclaims that the been (ref example) is just as good as gold, and apply a law to support that illusion. The law is the fiat point.


We don't have fiat money. Money is backed by deposits and securities. You will not get a credit (which is money) without that.

We do have fiat money, but the extent of debt is so large that it seems that debt is the basis. It is not, it is the fiat paper, plus the electronic only fiat created in QE. Unredeemable and unbacked. The debt extends the quantum of money while it exist, and contracts the money when it is extingushed by being paid back or written off. So debt is also money, I agree with that, but it is not the base, it is an extension of the base quantum.


Fiat means 'out of nothing'. Money IS debt, and nothing different. It is not paper, and the debt is backed by deposits and securities. A bank creates money, as soon as you take a credit (backed by your deposit).

No, fiat means that the money manager states, through a law, that the paper money backed by gold, is just as good as gold, and it comes when the backing and therefore the redeemability is questioned by the market.

Anyway, my post here was to illustrate that bitcoins must be held directly with the public to the largest extent technically possible, to avoid that surrogates appear, and also galloping debt.

EDIT: (The real meaning of fiat after a while becomes nonsensical, when a gold mark is worth a million paper marks, no one believes in it, and they just forget that at some point, a paper mark was in fact worth a gold mark. So when the redeemability is removed, fiat is "out of nothing" as you say. But gold and bitcoin is also out of nothing. They are sound because there is no money manager).


Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036



View Profile
August 15, 2015, 04:45:20 PM
 #30555

...Peter R had his own transactions version. That seemed like it could work back in 2014. In both cases I believe we've seen at least 100% increases while the market cap has not quite followed.

I'm curious what both charts would look right about now but I'm afraid it would invalidate both theories. The reason might be that no one knows exactly how to quantify the amount of users in the network.

Sure.



 Wink


You are a master at decorating a plot with arbitrary fluff as though it means something.  
...
In this plot, the trends are mildly non-linear _against_ the point you are trying (probably successfully) to make.  And there was no particular block size pressure at the arbitrary point where you choose to point the arrow.

Oh come on Tvbcof.  The winky face means that I'm admittedly pushing it with what I wrote in red on that plot.  It was designed to tease Brg444 and I don't necessarily believe it myself.

What do you believe. Sorry to derail a bit but the apparent unlinking itself is reasonably interesting.

The relationship between TXs^2 and market cap held remarkably well until 2014.  Since then, the two time series have become anti-correlated.  I have several hypotheses, the two that I think are most likely being:

1. The remarkable Metcalfe value relationship was just random luck (and will now permanently deviate).
 
2. The Metcalfe value relationship is actually expressing something fundamental about human behaviour and money.  The relationship will re-assert itself when the block size limit is lifted and if growth resumes.  

Both hypotheses will be tested over the coming months and years.

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

Activity: 1036



View Profile
August 15, 2015, 05:04:59 PM
 #30556

Brg444, what do you think of my last response to your comment about moving the block size limit out of the consensus layer?

It is an interesting idea but I'm still thinking it through. Should get you a reply by this weekend.

As a quick thought: I'm worried about centralization issue. (yes :/)

First thought is what you are proposing could effectively creates an arm race in mining and node connectivity which will most likely prove to be out of reach of regular users.

Possibly centralizing these nodes farms & miners geographically because of internet politics.

Thanks for the feedback.  Again, I think this illustrates an ideological difference between us.  I read what you wrote as:

"By making it easier for node operators to exercise the power they already have (i.e., they can already increase their block size limit), I'm worried that the network as a whole would make a worse decision balancing centralization with Blockchain access than the decision a group of talented developers would make."

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

Activity: 1036



View Profile
August 15, 2015, 05:15:07 PM
 #30557

It looks like Bitcoin*** has been released with the bigger-blocks patch.  Unfortunately, this news will likely be censored from /r/bitcoin.  

Below is Mike's email to the dev-list:

Quote from: Mike Hearn
Hello,

As promised, we have released Bitcoin XT 0.11A which includes the bigger blocks patch set. You can get it from

     https://bitcoinxt.software/

I feel sad that it's come to this, but there is no other way. The Bitcoin Core project has drifted so far from the principles myself and many others feel are important, that a fork is the only way to fix things.

Forking is a natural thing in the open source community, Bitcoin is not the first and won't be the last project to go through this. Often in forks, people say there was insufficient communication. So to ensure everything is crystal clear I've written a blog post and a kind of "manifesto" to describe why this is happening and how XT plans to be different from Core (assuming adoption, of course).

The article is here:

    https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1

It makes no attempt to be neutral: this explains things from our point of view.

The manifesto is on the website.

I say to all developers on this list: if you also feel that Core is no longer serving the interests of Bitcoin users, come join us. We don't bite.

EDIT: It hasn't been censored yet: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h42cz/bitcoin_is_forked/

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

Activity: 2044


LEALANA Monero Physical Silver Coins


View Profile
August 15, 2015, 05:26:56 PM
 #30558

I for one believe the depressed growth in price is largely influenced by the risk of bitcoin failure, and i suspect we'll see a lot of action when we get new information and certainty on Block size.

this is true.

between now and when this whole block size issue is resolved...there will be a ton of volatility.

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

            ,╓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.
 
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 15, 2015, 05:31:09 PM
 #30559

Brg444, what do you think of my last response to your comment about moving the block size limit out of the consensus layer?

It is an interesting idea but I'm still thinking it through. Should get you a reply by this weekend.

As a quick thought: I'm worried about centralization issue. (yes :/)

First thought is what you are proposing could effectively creates an arm race in mining and node connectivity which will most likely prove to be out of reach of regular users.

Possibly centralizing these nodes farms & miners geographically because of internet politics.

Thanks for the feedback.  Again, I think this illustrates an ideological difference between us.  I read what you wrote as:

"By making it easier for node operators to exercise the power they already have (i.e., they can already increase their block size limit), I'm worried that the network as a whole would make a worse decision balancing centralization with Blockchain access than the decision a group of talented developers would make."

Then I presume you will not support Bitcoin XT?

"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
OROBTC
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204



View Profile
August 15, 2015, 05:37:39 PM
 #30560

...

Those of us who are not programmers or otherwise professionals re BTC can get a reasonably good overview of the debate re block size and related topics here (new piece by Mike Hearn):

https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1

I cannot confirm how valid the piece is, but non-tekkies ought to at least have an option of reading commentary like this which is in more-or-less plain English.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 »
  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!