Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[tvbcof]

"Gold collapsing.  Bitcoin UP"

I LOL everytime.

Markets cycle.  simple as that.  Bitcoin touched Gold once, it should touch it again.  at least.

I've got a lot of money riding on the hope that 1 BTC will vastly exceed the price of 1 oz of gold.  I feel that the chances of this are much greater now than they were when I was buying bitcoin in the single digits.  But, that is still not to say that I judge the chances as being terribly high.  High enough to put some money on, however, if one has some money to spare and has the patience and disposition to ride the long duration waves.  This is more-or-less what I was saying in 2011.

[1713583034]

1713583034

[1713583034]

1713583034

[tvbcof]

...
Since most thinking persons are starting to catch on to the fact that it does not make sense to broadcast every cup of java purchase to every decentralized infrastructure provider (to hold forever) ...

It took six years for Bitcoin intelegencia to realize that 7TPS might be problematic for a currency ...or a minor payment provider.
I realize that rocket surgery & MENSA meetings keep you guys real busy, but six years...

You've not really correctly parsed the content of this sub-thread, but...

For my part I realized the scaling issues as I was reading the whitepaper for the first time.  I suspect that the same thing can be said for most of the core devs.  This does NOT mean that the system has no value and/or no ability to make a guy a ton of money if that's what one is into.  Making a ton of money (which I've done) is something I admit to be among my interests if not on the top of my priorities...it may or may not be...I lack the ability to judge this for certain.  Anyway...

I will say that there has been a fair amount of fairly unseemly propaganda about various aspects of the system, and it has come from people who are among the most ethical in the ecosystem.  Allowing the notion of limitless scalability to go un-corrected is one of these.  It could be legitimately argued that:

  1)  it is to much work to constantly make this correction, and
  2)  it was a necessary evil in order to bootstrap into a role where Bitcoin has some real value.

For my part since I only have some excess USD sunk in and have put no real time and effort into the system, I've felt fairly free to be guided by my ethics and call out people for being idiots on some of the marketing nonsense over the years.  Bitcoin is as much as anything an interesting experiment (in my mind.)

[NotLambchop]

^Didn't make myself clear.  I didn't mean to imply that Bitcoin's lack of scalability has prevented anyone from making money on it.  Just assumed that such fundamental, conceptual flaws would have been addressed by now.
Guess not

[Erdogan]

There is no doubt that a single forever remembered blockchain cannot handle every tip or coffee bought so offchain or better sidechains are needed.  But that does not mean that BTC should not also be scaled in block size.  With the price trending down discouraging new holders we need to welcome any and all real use.  And approaching a txn limit does not help that.

I would not be at all surprised if Bitcoin were to become more in-demand if it DID start to cost something to use it.  Psychologically, if someone is given something 'for free' than it is not valued very highly.  As soon as it starts to cost something then it starts to be more highly prized.

Since most thinking persons are starting to catch on to the fact that it does not make sense to broadcast every cup of java purchase to every decentralized infrastructure provider (to hold forever) and Bitcoin's only realistic role is to be for higher importance transactions, having to pay at least to cost of network operation for transactions is, in my opinion, a positive and something we should be migrating towards.  Probably by shortly after then next coinbase notch-down (roughly 8 years from the genesis block) we should get to that point.  It's very much up-in-the-air about whether that will happen even if the block size stays at 1MB.

You have got the pricing of transaction backwards. If it is usful to transact, and the transactions are limited, it will have a price. If there is a nontrivial price, that means it is usful. What will happen when we reach the limit, is that the price of transactions will rise, and then, if the block size is increased, the price will fall again.

We obviously need to be able to serve lot of transactions, if we want bitcoin to be widely used. But costly transactions is not a definitive stop, it will only deter the least important transactions. USD10 is still cheap, and you can do a lot of mining for USD10 per transaction.

[inca]

^Didn't make myself clear.  I didn't mean to imply that Bitcoin's lack of scalability has prevented anyone from making money on it.  Just assumed that such fundamental, conceptual flaws would have been addressed by now.
Guess not

Ignoring proposed scalability solutions is fun isn't it?

[tvbcof]

^Didn't make myself clear.  I didn't mean to imply that Bitcoin's lack of scalability has prevented anyone from making money on it.  I just assumed that such fundamental, conceptual flaws would have been addressed by now.
Guess not

One cannot change the laws of nature.  There is no 'fixing' this 'fundamental flaw', and I suspect that many many people never really considered it including most of the devs.  'Addressing it' is a different matter.  A few of the devs looked toward the mainstream (mega-corporations to provide infrastructure and the state sponsored legal protections) but happily this doesn't seem to be the first option for most of them.

For my part I don't consider this 'fundamental flaw' to be a flaw at all.  I consider it more a happy accident of fate and a a feature of reality which produces the potential to make native Bitcoin a system actually work in the real world.  By 'work', I mean to remain a genuinely autonomous and independent solution which is robust against attack by vested power interests.

As I've said before, the idea of sidechains hit me right away as a means of scaling, and I argued to call native Bitcoin 'blockchain zero' back in 2011.  As long as this chain can remain uncorrupted and supportable it really doesn't matter what happens on the infinite number of chains which derive their value from it.

[brg444]

^Didn't make myself clear.  I didn't mean to imply that Bitcoin's lack of scalability has prevented anyone from making money on it.  Just assumed that such fundamental, conceptual flaws would have been addressed by now.
Guess not

Only if you pretend it is a flaw and not an opportunity for others to build onto the protocol to create solutions that meet the markets demands

[NotLambchop]

^Didn't make myself clear.  I didn't mean to imply that Bitcoin's lack of scalability has prevented anyone from making money on it.  I just assumed that such fundamental, conceptual flaws would have been addressed by now.
Guess not

One cannot change the laws of nature.  There is no 'fixing' this 'fundamental flaw', and I suspect that many many people never really considered it including most of the devs.  'Addressing it' is a different matter.  A few of the devs looked toward the mainstream (mega-corporations to provide infrastructure and the state sponsored legal protections) but happily this doesn't seem to be the first option for most of them.

For my part I don't consider this 'fundamental flaw' to be a flaw at all.  I consider it more a happy accident of fate and a a feature of reality which produces the potential to make native Bitcoin a system actually work in the real world.  By 'work', I mean to remain a genuinely autonomous and independent solution which is robust against attack by vested power interests.

As I've said before, the idea of sidechains hit me right away as a means of scaling, and I argued to call native Bitcoin 'blockchain zero' back in 2011.  As long as this chain can remain uncorrupted and supportable it really doesn't matter what happens on the infinite number of chains which derive their value from it.

Not sure I fully understand.  You are happy that Bitcoin is not a practical substitute for money after six years of development, in its current state? Useful only as a peg, a standard on top of which further payment systems must be developed?

My question still stands:  This [happy accident/feature/totally not a problem] was clear at the outset, why was it not addressed until now?

[NotLambchop]

...
Only if you pretend it is a flaw and not an opportunity for others to build onto the protocol to create solutions that meet the markets demands

When you buy a house & realize you've been sold an empty lot, look at it as an opportunity--you've been sold a chance to build your own!

[Coinshot]

I am not too bullish on BTC anymore, I think BTC has yet to find its bottom. It may be better to invest in Silver now.

[brg444]

^Didn't make myself clear.  I didn't mean to imply that Bitcoin's lack of scalability has prevented anyone from making money on it.  I just assumed that such fundamental, conceptual flaws would have been addressed by now.
Guess not

One cannot change the laws of nature.  There is no 'fixing' this 'fundamental flaw', and I suspect that many many people never really considered it including most of the devs.  'Addressing it' is a different matter.  A few of the devs looked toward the mainstream (mega-corporations to provide infrastructure and the state sponsored legal protections) but happily this doesn't seem to be the first option for most of them.

For my part I don't consider this 'fundamental flaw' to be a flaw at all.  I consider it more a happy accident of fate and a a feature of reality which produces the potential to make native Bitcoin a system actually work in the real world.  By 'work', I mean to remain a genuinely autonomous and independent solution which is robust against attack by vested power interests.

As I've said before, the idea of sidechains hit me right away as a means of scaling, and I argued to call native Bitcoin 'blockchain zero' back in 2011.  As long as this chain can remain uncorrupted and supportable it really doesn't matter what happens on the infinite number of chains which derive their value from it.

Not sure I fully understand.  You are happy that Bitcoin is not a practical substitute for money after six years of development, in its current state? Useful only as a peg, a standard on top of which further payment systems must be developed?

My question still stands:  This [happy accident/feature/totally not a problem] was clear at the outset, why was it not addressed until now?

Bitcoin "payment network" not being able to scale natively to record, validate & retain every coffee purchase does not make it flawed as a proposition for a sound form of money.

The idea of Bitcoin as "a standard on top of which further payment systems must be developed" was, afaik, envisioned by most everyone with a hint of foresight.

[brg444]

...
Only if you pretend it is a flaw and not an opportunity for others to build onto the protocol to create solutions that meet the markets demands

When you buy a house & realize you've been sold an empty lot, look at it as an opportunity--you've been sold a chance to build your own!

No one ever pretended Bitcoin would natively scale to handle all of the world's transactions

[Coinshot]

...
Only if you pretend it is a flaw and not an opportunity for others to build onto the protocol to create solutions that meet the markets demands

When you buy a house & realize you've been sold an empty lot, look at it as an opportunity--you've been sold a chance to build your own!

No one ever pretended Bitcoin would natively scale to handle all of the world's transactions

Its not even that good as a payment mechanism. Its useful as an easy store as opposed to, say, gold.

[NotLambchop]

...
Bitcoin "payment network" not being able to scale natively to record, validate & retain every coffee purchase does not make it flawed as a proposition for a sound form of money.

The idea of Bitcoin as "a standard on top of which further payment systems must be developed" was, afaik, envisioned by most everyone with a hint of foresight.

I was told that Bitcoin was meant to do just that--"validate & retain every coffee purchase."  That's what made it so interesting.  Many here still don't get that Bitcoin is no more a proof of concept--an experiment.  A precursor, perhaps useful as a standard.
No more likely to replace money than an atomic [time standard] clock is to replace wristwatches.

[hdbuck]

^Didn't make myself clear.  I didn't mean to imply that Bitcoin's lack of scalability has prevented anyone from making money on it.  I just assumed that such fundamental, conceptual flaws would have been addressed by now.
Guess not

One cannot change the laws of nature.  There is no 'fixing' this 'fundamental flaw', and I suspect that many many people never really considered it including most of the devs.  'Addressing it' is a different matter.  A few of the devs looked toward the mainstream (mega-corporations to provide infrastructure and the state sponsored legal protections) but happily this doesn't seem to be the first option for most of them.

For my part I don't consider this 'fundamental flaw' to be a flaw at all.  I consider it more a happy accident of fate and a a feature of reality which produces the potential to make native Bitcoin a system actually work in the real world.  By 'work', I mean to remain a genuinely autonomous and independent solution which is robust against attack by vested power interests.

As I've said before, the idea of sidechains hit me right away as a means of scaling, and I argued to call native Bitcoin 'blockchain zero' back in 2011.  As long as this chain can remain uncorrupted and supportable it really doesn't matter what happens on the infinite number of chains which derive their value from it.

Not sure I fully understand.  You are happy that Bitcoin is not a practical substitute for money after six years of development, in its current state? Useful only as a peg, a standard on top of which further payment systems must be developed?

My question still stands:  This [happy accident/feature/totally not a problem] was clear at the outset, why was it not addressed until now?

Bitcoin "payment network" not being able to scale natively to record, validate & retain every coffee purchase does not make it flawed as a proposition for a sound form of money.

The idea of Bitcoin as "a standard on top of which further payment systems must be developed" was, afaik, envisioned by most everyone with a hint of foresight.

exactly my thoughts.
anyway after wondering around a bit, i think a full consensus wont possibly be reached.
im gonna play the prudence here, letting people jump first.
as i understood it wont be reversible once done, and im not in the rush of moving my bitcoins.

[brg444]

...
Only if you pretend it is a flaw and not an opportunity for others to build onto the protocol to create solutions that meet the markets demands

When you buy a house & realize you've been sold an empty lot, look at it as an opportunity--you've been sold a chance to build your own!

No one ever pretended Bitcoin would natively scale to handle all of the world's transactions

Its not even that good as a payment mechanism. Its useful as an easy store as opposed to, say, gold.

It's actually as good as it gets right now as a payment mechanism (other than the obvious scaling issues)

But that is only because traditional financial infrastructure has been lagging behind something serious for the last decades. It is likely that centralized platforms will eventually catch up and be more efficient than Bitcoin's base protocol.

[NotLambchop]

...
Only if you pretend it is a flaw and not an opportunity for others to build onto the protocol to create solutions that meet the markets demands

When you buy a house & realize you've been sold an empty lot, look at it as an opportunity--you've been sold a chance to build your own!

No one ever pretended Bitcoin would natively scale to handle all of the world's transactions

Would it surprise you to know that many Bitcointalk users think Bitcoin is ready for primetime?
They actually think that Bitcoin is a functional, scalable payment system.  Fools

[hdbuck]

...
Only if you pretend it is a flaw and not an opportunity for others to build onto the protocol to create solutions that meet the markets demands

When you buy a house & realize you've been sold an empty lot, look at it as an opportunity--you've been sold a chance to build your own!

No one ever pretended Bitcoin would natively scale to handle all of the world's transactions

Would it surprise you to know that many Bitcointalk users think Bitcoin is ready for primetime?
They actually think that Bitcoin is a functional, scalable payment system.  Fools

you should be happy, for once you may have been right

[brg444]

...
Bitcoin "payment network" not being able to scale natively to record, validate & retain every coffee purchase does not make it flawed as a proposition for a sound form of money.

The idea of Bitcoin as "a standard on top of which further payment systems must be developed" was, afaik, envisioned by most everyone with a hint of foresight.

I was told that Bitcoin was meant to do just that--"validate & retain every coffee purchase."  That's what made it so interesting.  Many here still don't get that Bitcoin is no more a proof of concept--an experiment.  A precursor, perhaps useful as a standard.
No more likely to replace money than an atomic [time standard] clock is to replace wristwatches.

I thought you knew better than to believe what any Bitcoiner would tell you  

As far as Bitcoin being no more than a proof of concept... Yeah that's absolutely not true.

I imagine people were saying the same about the internet back in 1993.

[NotLambchop]

...
I imagine people were saying the same about the internet back in 1993.

The Pets.com/Web TV analogy again.  Don't you ever get bored?

@hdbuck:
>for once



Always.  Each and every time