Wekkel
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3108
Merit: 1531
yes
|
|
February 13, 2015, 07:23:31 PM |
|
Time praying for lost souls was better spent in all those altcoin threads back in 2013. But I'll leave this thread to the OP again for the real info.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Bitcoin: mining our own business since 2009" -- Pieter Wuille
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
sidhujag
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2044
Merit: 1005
|
|
February 13, 2015, 08:23:32 PM |
|
>A token with inherent utility WTF does that even mean? @Wekkel re. "Some take their chances and act": You're just running with scissors. Nothing laudable about that. "Token money is money made from tokens of some form, as opposed to account money. Most modern coins used in circulation are token money, as are paper notes." Bitcoin = Token with utility BUILT-IN to its protocol. If you don't understand that sorry I can't help you.
|
|
|
|
HeliKopterBen
|
|
February 13, 2015, 08:26:48 PM |
|
I wonder when NLC panic buys NLC bought at $1200, sold at $200, and sold short at $160. He doesn't have any money left to panic buy.
|
Counterfeit: made in imitation of something else with intent to deceive: merriam-webster
|
|
|
sidhujag
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2044
Merit: 1005
|
|
February 13, 2015, 09:31:55 PM |
|
I wonder when NLC panic buys NLC bought at $1200, sold at $200, and sold short at $160. He doesn't have any money left to panic buy. HAHAHAH yea i saw his order history... its pretty bad. I heard he took a line of credit to short @ $160 too.. hes in the red about to lose his shirt a few more bucks.
|
|
|
|
rocks
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1153
Merit: 1000
|
|
February 13, 2015, 09:49:54 PM |
|
The trick is not to panic about "how the market could possibly handle it without central planning." No one is smart enough to figure out all the little rules and stipulations for each economic relationship, let alone do so in advance, let alone get consensus on such rules. Just remove the cap and let the market work. Babying the market with paternalism in the form of artificial scarcity just leaves the space open for competitors to stick their oars in.
Well said.
|
|
|
|
gargantuar
Member
Offline
Activity: 71
Merit: 10
|
|
February 13, 2015, 11:22:02 PM |
|
The trick is not to panic about "how the market could possibly handle it without central planning." No one is smart enough to figure out all the little rules and stipulations for each economic relationship, let alone do so in advance, let alone get consensus on such rules. Just remove the cap and let the market work. Babying the market with paternalism in the form of artificial scarcity just leaves the space open for competitors to stick their oars in.
Well said. You (rocks), justusranvier, the guy you quoted (not going to try to type zangle....), and a few others are, in my opinion, some of the smarter guys on this forum. Thanks for sticking around. Sorry for not thanking you sooner. Please don't leave us. Just because mindless trolls and zombies are grunting and bumping into each other does not mean it is time to leave. I am not a conspiracy person but have wondered if some of the trolls are not hired shills... There IS a lot at stake here. Free markets work. In this situation where we have few to none of the categorized market weaknesses (negative externalities, pop culture, public goods) freeing the market while minding incentives in the structure of the system is best. Nodes, at this point, seem to be victim to the public good weakness but everything else is flawless. I run a full node as well as some miners (at a loss and since 2010) because I am altruistic in spite of my admiration for "Atlas Shrugged." We just can't expect everyone else to get gushy over my love of humanity and the beauty of this bloodless revolution so incentives need to be in place for the brightest future. Invisible hand (Adam Smith) only works when it is invisible.
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
February 14, 2015, 12:07:49 AM |
|
The trick is not to panic about "how the market could possibly handle it without central planning." No one is smart enough to figure out all the little rules and stipulations for each economic relationship, let alone do so in advance, let alone get consensus on such rules. Just remove the cap and let the market work. Babying the market with paternalism in the form of artificial scarcity just leaves the space open for competitors to stick their oars in.
Well said. You (rocks), justusranvier, the guy you quoted (not going to try to type zangle....), and a few others are, in my opinion, some of the smarter guys on this forum. Thanks for sticking around. Sorry for not thanking you sooner. Please don't leave us. Just because mindless trolls and zombies are grunting and bumping into each other does not mean it is time to leave. I am not a conspiracy person but have wondered if some of the trolls are not hired shills... There IS a lot at stake here. Free markets work. In this situation where we have few to none of the categorized market weaknesses (negative externalities, pop culture, public goods) freeing the market while minding incentives in the structure of the system is best. Nodes, at this point, seem to be victim to the public good weakness but everything else is flawless. I run a full node as well as some miners (at a loss and since 2010) because I am altruistic in spite of my admiration for "Atlas Shrugged." We just can't expect everyone else to get gushy over my love of humanity and the beauty of this bloodless revolution so incentives need to be in place for the brightest future. Invisible hand (Adam Smith) only works when it is invisible. if you haven't signed your nodes up for the Incentive Program, you should. a few days ago i signed my 4 up: https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/incentive/
|
|
|
|
NotLambchop
|
|
February 14, 2015, 12:41:33 AM |
|
>A token with inherent utility WTF does that even mean? @Wekkel re. "Some take their chances and act": You're just running with scissors. Nothing laudable about that. "Token money is money made from tokens of some form, as opposed to account money. Most modern coins used in circulation are token money, as are paper notes." Bitcoin = Token with utility BUILT-IN to its protocol. If you don't understand that sorry I can't help you. Lol, this is exactly the batshit crazy ramblings level of scholarship I'm talking about. You quote a wikip article stub, with 0 [ZERO] citations. Here: So yeah, junk stub is junk Googling further, we find another definition, from Webster online: Definition of TOKEN MONEY : money of regular government issue (as paper currency or coins) having a greater face value than intrinsic value
Hmm... Gubermint? that don't sound like the Bitcoin we know and love Let's google 'round a bit more, see if we can scrape up some more definitions of "token money"... Okay, here we go: Token Money A means of payment whose value of purchasing power as money greatly exceeds its cost of production of value in uses other than as money.
...UK. *reads again* Righto... Derrida couldn't 'a said it clearer. Anyhow, doesn't seem like any of the experts agree, and it's safe to assume Mr. 82.70.142.134, the wikipedo who penned your learned quote, is a typical self-appointed expert. But wait! We're still mucking about with the "token" part of "A token with inherent utility." Imagine how much fun we'll have when we define the latter, and mate the two in an insestuous coupling of wisdom?! Stay tuned, culture lovers & international finance enthusiast!
|
|
|
|
NewLiberty
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1002
Gresham's Lawyer
|
|
February 14, 2015, 01:11:19 AM |
|
The trick is not to panic about "how the market could possibly handle it without central planning." No one is smart enough to figure out all the little rules and stipulations for each economic relationship, let alone do so in advance, let alone get consensus on such rules. Just remove the cap and let the market work. Babying the market with paternalism in the form of artificial scarcity just leaves the space open for competitors to stick their oars in.
Well said. You (rocks), justusranvier, the guy you quoted (not going to try to type zangle....), and a few others are, in my opinion, some of the smarter guys on this forum. Thanks for sticking around. Sorry for not thanking you sooner. Please don't leave us. Just because mindless trolls and zombies are grunting and bumping into each other does not mean it is time to leave. I am not a conspiracy person but have wondered if some of the trolls are not hired shills... There IS a lot at stake here. Free markets work. In this situation where we have few to none of the categorized market weaknesses (negative externalities, pop culture, public goods) freeing the market while minding incentives in the structure of the system is best. Nodes, at this point, seem to be victim to the public good weakness but everything else is flawless. I run a full node as well as some miners (at a loss and since 2010) because I am altruistic in spite of my admiration for "Atlas Shrugged." We just can't expect everyone else to get gushy over my love of humanity and the beauty of this bloodless revolution so incentives need to be in place for the brightest future. Invisible hand (Adam Smith) only works when it is invisible. The rationale for a Max Block Size has almost nothing to do with transaction fees, or free market activity. It has a lot more to do with security and reliability. The free market doesn't provide this.
|
|
|
|
79b79aa8d5047da6d3XX
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 660
Merit: 101
Colletrix - Bridging the Physical and Virtual Worl
|
|
February 14, 2015, 01:29:47 AM Last edit: May 20, 2015, 04:47:27 AM by 79b79aa8d5047da6d3XX |
|
I finally had time to read the proposal. I offer a bit of recapitulation, reactions and questions. I apologize if this has already been discussed at length here or in other fora; I have not looked too deep into the discussion boards. 1. A main argument against increasing block size is that it would make it more resource-intensive to run a full node, promoting centralization of the network. 2. The solution to this problem is to pay those running full nodes, via transaction fees. This forever eliminates the need for artificially capping blocks. It also promotes network decentralization, as nodes would not be run altruistically but for a small profit, or at least not a loss. 3. Under the proposal end users pay TX fees to not just miners, but also to relay nodes. Fees due per TX could be efficiently and automatically figured out by the network. This would probably entail a net increase in fees/TX. However, under the present capped block size solution, every time we approach the artificial block size limit, TX fees tend to increase significantly as users pay more in order to get their transactions in a block. The proposal would smooth such fee fluctuations out for good. 4. Since the proposed change in the basic parameters of the network is nontrivial, it would seem that the realistic strategy is to buy time with a block size increase to 20 MB, then implement payments to nodes. Would the latter also require a hard fork, or can it be done via a soft fork? 5. For some players in the space there is an incentive for blocks to remain capped, which puts upward pressure on fees, which promotes transactions to go off-chain. It is to be expected such players will resist the present proposal. 6. It is therefore not to be expected that the proposal will be simply picked up and implemented; any development will need to be funded.
|
|
|
|
gargantuar
Member
Offline
Activity: 71
Merit: 10
|
|
February 14, 2015, 01:37:17 AM |
|
The trick is not to panic about "how the market could possibly handle it without central planning." No one is smart enough to figure out all the little rules and stipulations for each economic relationship, let alone do so in advance, let alone get consensus on such rules. Just remove the cap and let the market work. Babying the market with paternalism in the form of artificial scarcity just leaves the space open for competitors to stick their oars in.
Well said. You (rocks), justusranvier, the guy you quoted (not going to try to type zangle....), and a few others are, in my opinion, some of the smarter guys on this forum. Thanks for sticking around. Sorry for not thanking you sooner. Please don't leave us. Just because mindless trolls and zombies are grunting and bumping into each other does not mean it is time to leave. I am not a conspiracy person but have wondered if some of the trolls are not hired shills... There IS a lot at stake here. Free markets work. In this situation where we have few to none of the categorized market weaknesses (negative externalities, pop culture, public goods) freeing the market while minding incentives in the structure of the system is best. Nodes, at this point, seem to be victim to the public good weakness but everything else is flawless. I run a full node as well as some miners (at a loss and since 2010) because I am altruistic in spite of my admiration for "Atlas Shrugged." We just can't expect everyone else to get gushy over my love of humanity and the beauty of this bloodless revolution so incentives need to be in place for the brightest future. Invisible hand (Adam Smith) only works when it is invisible. The rationale for a Max Block Size has almost nothing to do with transaction fees, or free market activity. It has a lot more to do with security and reliability. The free market doesn't provide this. Right. You are another smart non-troll that I have respected for years. It is not an easy read but justusranvier's latest blog post is what I see to be a sound long-term and comprehensive blueprint that solves these issues without the need for a nanny or central planning. Implementing his ideas is no small task. However, if we were to do it, we would have something that could solve the major deficiencies. Bitcoin appeared out of the blue for most of us. That was a miracle. Now we have a few identifiable problems/bugs to address and a smart crowd looking at them. I think it will turn out well. Wish I were more smart.
|
|
|
|
justusranvier
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1009
|
|
February 14, 2015, 02:56:14 AM |
|
5. For some players in the space there is an incentive for blocks to remain capped, which puts upward pressure on fees, which promotes transactions to go off-chain. It is to be expected such players will resist the present proposal.
6. It is therefore not to be expected that the proposal will be simply picked up and implemented; any development will need to be funded. So many people, especially those with ties to the USA, have a vest interest in pushing transactions off-chain. Certainly there would be a lot of people who would be happier if regular people had to perform most of their transactions through third parties that would either compromise their privacy, or their security, or both.
|
|
|
|
sidhujag
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2044
Merit: 1005
|
|
February 14, 2015, 04:06:35 AM |
|
>A token with inherent utility WTF does that even mean? @Wekkel re. "Some take their chances and act": You're just running with scissors. Nothing laudable about that. "Token money is money made from tokens of some form, as opposed to account money. Most modern coins used in circulation are token money, as are paper notes." Bitcoin = Token with utility BUILT-IN to its protocol. If you don't understand that sorry I can't help you. Lol, this is exactly the batshit crazy ramblings level of scholarship I'm talking about. You quote a wikip article stub, with 0 [ZERO] citations. Here: So yeah, junk stub is junk Googling further, we find another definition, from Webster online: Definition of TOKEN MONEY : money of regular government issue (as paper currency or coins) having a greater face value than intrinsic value
Hmm... Gubermint? that don't sound like the Bitcoin we know and love Let's google 'round a bit more, see if we can scrape up some more definitions of "token money"... Okay, here we go: Token Money A means of payment whose value of purchasing power as money greatly exceeds its cost of production of value in uses other than as money.
...UK. *reads again* Righto... Derrida couldn't 'a said it clearer. Anyhow, doesn't seem like any of the experts agree, and it's safe to assume Mr. 82.70.142.134, the wikipedo who penned your learned quote, is a typical self-appointed expert. But wait! We're still mucking about with the "token" part of "A token with inherent utility." Imagine how much fun we'll have when we define the latter, and mate the two in an insestuous coupling of wisdom?! Stay tuned, culture lovers & international finance enthusiast! Your rambling is irrelevant to the fact that its a token with utility vs one with not.. Market had no choice now it does.. Put out or getout
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
February 14, 2015, 05:56:04 AM |
|
Oh yes
|
|
|
|
silverfuture
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 947
Merit: 1008
central banking = outdated protocol
|
|
February 14, 2015, 06:09:06 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
explorer
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2016
Merit: 1259
|
|
February 14, 2015, 06:37:40 AM |
|
Interesting. For those not yet finished with third parties. It always seems to come back to that, 'transparent' or not.
|
|
|
|
tvbcof
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4592
Merit: 1276
|
|
February 14, 2015, 06:41:14 AM |
|
I have pretty close to zero interest in gold "vaulted in professional Swiss vaults." OTOH, what I always have looked forward to is a solution where I could turn in KR's in one country then retrieve them in another. Perhaps just a network of jewelers endorsed by and using tools done by some entity. Bitcoin would be much more cheap and reliable than mainstream international settlements for operations such as this. I'm a bit surprised that nothing like this has popped up. Maybe it has but I'm just not aware of it.
|
sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
|
|
|
Hunyadi
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1281
Merit: 1000
☑ ♟ ☐ ♚
|
|
February 14, 2015, 07:34:44 AM |
|
I like this. Thanks for the link.
|
▂▃▅▇█▓▒░B**-Cultist░▒▓█▇▅▃▂
|
|
|
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1006
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.
|
|
February 14, 2015, 07:38:27 AM |
|
Why call it gold? Unobtanium sounds better!
|
Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
February 14, 2015, 09:12:18 AM |
|
Go Bitcoin Go
|
|
|
|
|