Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

all over.  and it would be the same at 8MB:

So you've abandoned 20 MB? And Bitcoin XT? What made you change your mind?

even given that i feel i have a deeper understanding of what's going on than most ppl here, i have to defer to a core dev who can tell us what the code does, has greater communications with users/merchants/players i don't know, has a longer track in Bitcoin than i (before Jan 2011), who was looked upon by Satoshi as qualified & trusted enough to receive Bitcoin's Alert Key, who has lead Bitcoin to where it is with little to no controversy along the way, who i feel is mature enough, who i feel is a leader, who has no financial conflicts thru stock options and investors, and whom i TRUST.

so if he drops from 20 to 8MB and decides to put up a BIP on Core, who am i to argue?  imo, he has the true original Satoshi Vision for Bitcoin's long term success.

So, because blind faith? Just a few days ago, you were telling everyone in this thread that 20 MB blocks, delivered via a unilateral coup was the best solution. Less than 72 hours later, you've decided that blocks of less than half that, agreed amongst the core devs, is obviously better. What if Gavin changes his mind again? This must be a little confusing to those that blindly follow what you say.

i, like Gavin, understand the concept of "concessions" and concensus building.  yes, getting the top 5 Chinese largest miners in the world is a worthy goal.  unlike some ppl around here who only say "NO".

[1713568238]

1713568238

[1713568238]

1713568238

[1713568238]

1713568238

[cypherdoc]

speaking of IBLT, rusty russel has just posted a prototype on btc dev mailing list:

     http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-June/009021.html

you could find the github repo here:

     https://github.com/rustyrussell/bitcoin-iblt

the work is based on the famous gavin's gist:

     https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/e20c3b5a1d4b97f79ac2

that's quite encouraging.  the more i hear from this Rusty guy, the more i like him:

"Cheers,
Rusty.
PS. I work for Blockstream.  And I'm supposed to be working on
    Lightning, not this."

You view this in terms of tribes. It's not about tribes. It's all conceptual. The individuals and their egos do not matter. All conceptual. You are an actual adult, yes?

nope, i view the entire picture.  and i won't call you names.

[kazuki49]

speaking of fallacies, what makes you think I'm a 1 MB block man?

To answer your question about who cares when 3rd world people can't get access to 1st world technology: they do. Who is this "who" that you're referring to, when you say "who cares?". What you really mean is: I'm in my little 1st world country group of people, and I don't consider these 3rd world peasants as fully fledged humans. Who cares about them? Everyone got everything solely by merit, ergo I am superior. Let me tell you, you're looking like less of a human to me.

And speaking of consensus polling, the unilateral (i.e. the perfect opposite of a consensus poll) forked client has been rejected in favor of going through the channels to consensus that already exist.

The reality is that the former XT supporters are the people who are in desperate need of a monetary despot; you can't paint unilateral forks any other way than exactly that.

Yes, its not about the 1MB forever which is insuficient for Bitcoin on the long run, its all about consensus, and how it got destroyed prior to the hardfork that removed the 21m cap, and it will happen mark my words.

totally disagree. i've followed Bitcoin and the core dev interactions for a very, very long time in Bitcoin years.  Gavin's built in increases are him trying to automate out himself as much as possible from the process going forward.  he wants to avoid, if possible, the contention that has arisen from this process.  and don't forget he's been lobbying for this increase for 3y but never got anywhere in discussions with the Blockstream folk.  so now he has introduced his first code on this matter in a BIP in Core, not XT.  

he will never propose an increase to the 21M coin cap.  these are two different things you're desperately trying to conflate to push ppl to Monero.

c'mon doc, as much as I would like to "push ppl to Monero" thats not what I mean, its not about Gavin, he is not even the lead core developer, that person is Wladimir J. van der Laan. And if someone can hijack Bitcoin to fork without consensus to increase blocks it will happen with the coin cap, its just a matter of time now I'm afraid.

[Carlton Banks]

You view this in terms of tribes. It's not about tribes. It's all conceptual. The individuals and their egos do not matter. All conceptual. You are an actual adult, yes?

nope, i view the entire picture.  and i won't call you names.

I think you've misinterpreted what I meant. I actually would like you to confirm to me that you are an emotionally mature grown-up, it's not intended as an insult

[Carlton Banks]

So, because blind faith? Just a few days ago, you were telling everyone in this thread that 20 MB blocks, delivered via a unilateral coup was the best solution. Less than 72 hours later, you've decided that blocks of less than half that, agreed amongst the core devs, is obviously better. What if Gavin changes his mind again? This must be a little confusing to those that blindly follow what you say.

i, like Gavin, understand the concept of "concessions" and concensus building.  yes, getting the top 5 Chinese largest miners in the world is a worthy goal.  unlike some ppl around here who only say "NO".

But the only thing you were saying just a few days ago was "XT". You're as intransigent as the 1 MB crowd.

[cypherdoc]

So, because blind faith? Just a few days ago, you were telling everyone in this thread that 20 MB blocks, delivered via a unilateral coup was the best solution. Less than 72 hours later, you've decided that blocks of less than half that, agreed amongst the core devs, is obviously better. What if Gavin changes his mind again? This must be a little confusing to those that blindly follow what you say.

i, like Gavin, understand the concept of "concessions" and concensus building.  yes, getting the top 5 Chinese largest miners in the world is a worthy goal.  unlike some ppl around here who only say "NO".

But the only thing you were saying just a few days ago was "XT". You're as intransigent as the 1 MB crowd.

you seriously think that is a mature, let alone accurate, claim?

[hdbuck]

all over.  and it would be the same at 8MB:

So you've abandoned 20 MB? And Bitcoin XT? What made you change your mind?

even given that i feel i have a deeper understanding of what's going on than most ppl here, i have to defer to a core dev who can tell us what the code does, has greater communications with users/merchants/players i don't know, has a longer track in Bitcoin than i (before Jan 2011), who was looked upon by Satoshi as qualified & trusted enough to receive Bitcoin's Alert Key, who has lead Bitcoin to where it is with little to no controversy along the way, who i feel is mature enough, who i feel is a leader, who has no financial conflicts thru stock options and investors, and whom i TRUST.

so if he drops from 20 to 8MB and decides to put up a BIP on Core, who am i to argue?  imo, he has the true original Satoshi Vision for Bitcoin's long term success.

So, because blind faith? Just a few days ago, you were telling everyone in this thread that 20 MB blocks, delivered via a unilateral coup was the best solution. Less than 72 hours later, you've decided that blocks of less than half that, agreed amongst the core devs, is obviously better. What if Gavin changes his mind again? This must be a little confusing to those that blindly follow what you say.

i, like Gavin, understand the concept of "concessions" and concensus building.  yes, getting the top 5 Chinese largest miners in the world is a worthy goal.  unlike some ppl around here who only say "NO".

lol did i miss something?

[cypherdoc]

all over.  and it would be the same at 8MB:

So you've abandoned 20 MB? And Bitcoin XT? What made you change your mind?

even given that i feel i have a deeper understanding of what's going on than most ppl here, i have to defer to a core dev who can tell us what the code does, has greater communications with users/merchants/players i don't know, has a longer track in Bitcoin than i (before Jan 2011), who was looked upon by Satoshi as qualified & trusted enough to receive Bitcoin's Alert Key, who has lead Bitcoin to where it is with little to no controversy along the way, who i feel is mature enough, who i feel is a leader, who has no financial conflicts thru stock options and investors, and whom i TRUST.

so if he drops from 20 to 8MB and decides to put up a BIP on Core, who am i to argue?  imo, he has the true original Satoshi Vision for Bitcoin's long term success.

So, because blind faith? Just a few days ago, you were telling everyone in this thread that 20 MB blocks, delivered via a unilateral coup was the best solution. Less than 72 hours later, you've decided that blocks of less than half that, agreed amongst the core devs, is obviously better. What if Gavin changes his mind again? This must be a little confusing to those that blindly follow what you say.

i, like Gavin, understand the concept of "concessions" and concensus building.  yes, getting the top 5 Chinese largest miners in the world is a worthy goal.  unlike some ppl around here who only say "NO".

lol did i miss something?

apparently.  how do u interpret a signed and verbal statement that they support 8MB blocks?

[cypherdoc]

One of the nice things about having a 'benevolent dictator' is that it will be much easier to make decisions about these things going forward.
...

My god, cheezes christ, what a socialist pile of crap.

These socialists should be forced to spread their wealth. 'Maybe like a dividend to be distributed to all existing addresses'.

Zikes!  You guys make some pretty strong arguments and have convinced me of the error of my ways.  Let it be known that I hereby drop my support (however brief) for switching Bitcoin to be under a 'benevolent dictator' and under XT.

Thanks for setting me right guys.

You're saying Mike Hearn was performing an altruistic power grab? That's not so terrible is it? Who wouldn't want one person to control the way their monetary system develops, the sort of person you can rely on to ignore everything that anyone else has to say and override it with a unilateral hard fork, all because that person knows better? What's wrong with Mike, with his superior understanding of what I want for myself, making more of my decisions for me? Why not all of them? He's a smart guy, and there's no way he'd make decisions on my behalf that benefit him.

These arguments have devolved into stupidity.  We'll (the majority) just fork mike out of power if he does something stupid.  And implying a 21m increase because of an unrelated txn supply increase is a 5yo's logical fallacy.

You guys all need someone/some group in charge so badly that you run home to mamma even when the polled majority clearly wants an increase. But dispute mediation is even more fundamental to how bitcoin works than these other items.  Its called open source.  Run the rule set you want. My home system WILL easily keep up with 8MB and I support BTC user scalability (I want users in the Philippines to pay in coins) so that's what I'm going to run.  Who cares if they (ppl in 2nd or 3rd world or economicly stressed) can't run their own personal copy... especially because 10ppl could pool their resources and do so  If you want BTC to be a tool for bankers go ahead and stay on 1MB.  In that case the only ppl running a full node will be bankers because they are the only ones who can use the network.

speaking of fallacies, what makes you think I'm a 1 MB block man?

To answer your question about who cares when 3rd world people can't get access to 1st world technology: they do. Who is this "who" that you're referring to, when you say "who cares?". What you really mean is: I'm in my little 1st world country group of people, and I don't consider these 3rd world peasants as fully fledged humans. Who cares about them? Everyone got everything solely by merit, ergo I am superior. Let me tell you, you're looking like less of a human to me.

And speaking of consensus polling, the unilateral (i.e. the perfect opposite of a consensus poll) forked client has been rejected in favor of going through the channels to consensus that already exist.

The reality is that the former XT supporters are the people who are in desperate need of a monetary despot; you can't paint unilateral forks any other way than exactly that.

i continue to think you're focusing on the wrong metric:  nodes.

if tx fees go to $100 with 1MB, how many 3rd world ppl can afford that?  answer:  none.  and when fees go that high consistently, they won't even bother with Bitcoin.

what good is it then to run nodes when Metcalfe's Law squares with user growth?

[hdbuck]

all over.  and it would be the same at 8MB:

So you've abandoned 20 MB? And Bitcoin XT? What made you change your mind?

even given that i feel i have a deeper understanding of what's going on than most ppl here, i have to defer to a core dev who can tell us what the code does, has greater communications with users/merchants/players i don't know, has a longer track in Bitcoin than i (before Jan 2011), who was looked upon by Satoshi as qualified & trusted enough to receive Bitcoin's Alert Key, who has lead Bitcoin to where it is with little to no controversy along the way, who i feel is mature enough, who i feel is a leader, who has no financial conflicts thru stock options and investors, and whom i TRUST.

so if he drops from 20 to 8MB and decides to put up a BIP on Core, who am i to argue?  imo, he has the true original Satoshi Vision for Bitcoin's long term success.

So, because blind faith? Just a few days ago, you were telling everyone in this thread that 20 MB blocks, delivered via a unilateral coup was the best solution. Less than 72 hours later, you've decided that blocks of less than half that, agreed amongst the core devs, is obviously better. What if Gavin changes his mind again? This must be a little confusing to those that blindly follow what you say.

i, like Gavin, understand the concept of "concessions" and concensus building.  yes, getting the top 5 Chinese largest miners in the world is a worthy goal.  unlike some ppl around here who only say "NO".

lol did i miss something?

apparently.  how do u interpret a signed and verbal statement that they support 8MB blocks?

would you have the kindness to redirect me toward a reputable link of somehow?

[Carlton Banks]

So, because blind faith? Just a few days ago, you were telling everyone in this thread that 20 MB blocks, delivered via a unilateral coup was the best solution. Less than 72 hours later, you've decided that blocks of less than half that, agreed amongst the core devs, is obviously better. What if Gavin changes his mind again? This must be a little confusing to those that blindly follow what you say.

i, like Gavin, understand the concept of "concessions" and concensus building.  yes, getting the top 5 Chinese largest miners in the world is a worthy goal.  unlike some ppl around here who only say "NO".

But the only thing you were saying just a few days ago was "XT". You're as intransigent as the 1 MB crowd.

you seriously think that is a mature, let alone accurate, claim?

Again, you're projecting your own insecurities here. Your original claim shares those characteristics of hyperbole equally with mine. I did that deliberately. You didn't notice the allusion to your hypocrisy, apparently.

[cypherdoc]

all over.  and it would be the same at 8MB:

So you've abandoned 20 MB? And Bitcoin XT? What made you change your mind?

even given that i feel i have a deeper understanding of what's going on than most ppl here, i have to defer to a core dev who can tell us what the code does, has greater communications with users/merchants/players i don't know, has a longer track in Bitcoin than i (before Jan 2011), who was looked upon by Satoshi as qualified & trusted enough to receive Bitcoin's Alert Key, who has lead Bitcoin to where it is with little to no controversy along the way, who i feel is mature enough, who i feel is a leader, who has no financial conflicts thru stock options and investors, and whom i TRUST.

so if he drops from 20 to 8MB and decides to put up a BIP on Core, who am i to argue?  imo, he has the true original Satoshi Vision for Bitcoin's long term success.

So, because blind faith? Just a few days ago, you were telling everyone in this thread that 20 MB blocks, delivered via a unilateral coup was the best solution. Less than 72 hours later, you've decided that blocks of less than half that, agreed amongst the core devs, is obviously better. What if Gavin changes his mind again? This must be a little confusing to those that blindly follow what you say.

i, like Gavin, understand the concept of "concessions" and concensus building.  yes, getting the top 5 Chinese largest miners in the world is a worthy goal.  unlike some ppl around here who only say "NO".

lol did i miss something?

apparently.  how do u interpret a signed and verbal statement that they support 8MB blocks?

would you have the kindness to redirect me toward a reputable link of somehow?

http://www.newsbtc.com/2015/06/17/chinese-bitcoin-miners-support-increasing-blockchain-limit/

[Carlton Banks]

i continue to think you're focusing on the wrong metric:  nodes.

That's right, a peer to peer system that derives its strength from that network model doesn't need more peers!

You actually have been focusing on a single, simplistic dynamic (as well as several over-simplified arguments, such as your nodes don't matter argument), the blocksize <> tx/s argument. It's one of the simplest of bitcoin dynamics to understand, and you seem to believe that it exists independently of all other factors. Consistent with the over-simplistic moreblocksize == moretxs that Hearn and Andresen were pushing. Fortunately, people that have real investments in the system decided that they wouldn't allow that to happen.

[smooth]

i continue to think you're focusing on the wrong metric:  nodes.

if tx fees go to $100 with 1MB, how many 3rd world ppl can afford that?  answer:  none.  and when fees go that high consistently, they won't even bother with Bitcoin.

what good is it then to run nodes when Metcalfe's Law squares with user growth?

Users is the wrong metric too. Paypal has an enormous number of users. Conventional banking has even more.

Bitcoin has to remain (or arguably return to a state of being) decentralized in a meaningful way and also get users, or it is just a waste of time. The metric has to be both.

[cypherdoc]

i continue to think you're focusing on the wrong metric:  nodes.

That's right, a peer to peer system that derives its strength from that network model doesn't need more peers!

You actually have been focusing on a single, simplistic dynamic (as well as several over-simplified arguments, such as your nodes don't matter argument), the blocksize <> tx/s argument. It's one of the simplest of bitcoin dynamics to understand, and you seem to believe that it exists independently of all other factors. Consistent with the over-simplistic moreblocksize == moretxs that Hearn and Andresen were pushing. Fortunately, people that have real investments in the system decided that they wouldn't allow that to happen.

nodes are important.  i've talked about this up the wazoo along with everyone else.

i just don't think they centralize to the degree you claim.  user growth will grow node growth.  also more users will grow more merchants who will host their own nodes.  there is so much growth potential outside Bitcoin's small, niche community that is the current status quo.

[hdbuck]

i continue to think you're focusing on the wrong metric:  nodes.

That's right, a peer to peer system that derives its strength from that network model doesn't need more peers!

You actually have been focusing on a single, simplistic dynamic (as well as several over-simplified arguments, such as your nodes don't matter argument), the blocksize <> tx/s argument. It's one of the simplest of bitcoin dynamics to understand, and you seem to believe that it exists independently of all other factors. Consistent with the over-simplistic moreblocksize == moretxs that Hearn and Andresen were pushing. Fortunately, people that have real investments in the system decided that they wouldn't allow that to happen.

nodes are important.  i've talked about this up the wazoo along with everyone else.

i just don't think they centralize to the degree you claim.  user growth will grow node growth.  also more users will grow more merchants who will host their own nodes.  there is so much growth potential outside Bitcoin's small, niche community that is the current status quo.

although "the masses" dont care at all - for now, and whilst the banking status quo holds, they have no reason to switch..

increasing the blocksize wont bring new users at all.

[cypherdoc]

i continue to think you're focusing on the wrong metric:  nodes.

That's right, a peer to peer system that derives its strength from that network model doesn't need more peers!

You actually have been focusing on a single, simplistic dynamic (as well as several over-simplified arguments, such as your nodes don't matter argument), the blocksize <> tx/s argument. It's one of the simplest of bitcoin dynamics to understand, and you seem to believe that it exists independently of all other factors. Consistent with the over-simplistic moreblocksize == moretxs that Hearn and Andresen were pushing. Fortunately, people that have real investments in the system decided that they wouldn't allow that to happen.

nodes are important.  i've talked about this up the wazoo along with everyone else.

i just don't think they centralize to the degree you claim.  user growth will grow node growth.  also more users will grow more merchants who will host their own nodes.  there is so much growth potential outside Bitcoin's small, niche community that is the current status quo.

although "the masses" dont care at all - for now, and whilst the banking status quo holds, they have no reason to switch..

increasing the blocksize wont bring new users at all.

all growth metrics to date, esp tx growth, say you're wrong.  large blks will keep tx's cheap and reliable.  with entities like Nasdaq, Factom, CP, Overstock, colored coins etc continuing to build service within Bitcoin's mainchain, growth will continue.  but these services are dependent on cheap & reliable tx's, which they want.  no for profit core dev company can stop that.

[cypherdoc]

large miner, large block attack unlikely:

https://tradeblock.com/blog/bitcoin-network-capacity-analysis-part-6-data-propagation

[Carlton Banks]

i continue to think you're focusing on the wrong metric:  nodes.

That's right, a peer to peer system that derives its strength from that network model doesn't need more peers!

You actually have been focusing on a single, simplistic dynamic (as well as several over-simplified arguments, such as your nodes don't matter argument), the blocksize <> tx/s argument. It's one of the simplest of bitcoin dynamics to understand, and you seem to believe that it exists independently of all other factors. Consistent with the over-simplistic moreblocksize == moretxs that Hearn and Andresen were pushing. Fortunately, people that have real investments in the system decided that they wouldn't allow that to happen.

nodes are important.  i've talked about this up the wazoo along with everyone else.

i just don't think they centralize to the degree you claim.  user growth will grow node growth.  also more users will grow more merchants who will host their own nodes.  there is so much growth potential outside Bitcoin's small, niche community that is the current status quo.

You're talking to yourself. I actually make an attempt to address the things you've said when I reply to you, whereas you've invented positions that I haven't even made on my behalf, which serve as the entire basis of your reply. Conversations are a two way street. Again, are you an actual adult? This is not rhetoric, I want an answer to this question.

[hdbuck]

i continue to think you're focusing on the wrong metric:  nodes.

That's right, a peer to peer system that derives its strength from that network model doesn't need more peers!

You actually have been focusing on a single, simplistic dynamic (as well as several over-simplified arguments, such as your nodes don't matter argument), the blocksize <> tx/s argument. It's one of the simplest of bitcoin dynamics to understand, and you seem to believe that it exists independently of all other factors. Consistent with the over-simplistic moreblocksize == moretxs that Hearn and Andresen were pushing. Fortunately, people that have real investments in the system decided that they wouldn't allow that to happen.

nodes are important.  i've talked about this up the wazoo along with everyone else.

i just don't think they centralize to the degree you claim.  user growth will grow node growth.  also more users will grow more merchants who will host their own nodes.  there is so much growth potential outside Bitcoin's small, niche community that is the current status quo.

although "the masses" dont care at all - for now, and whilst the banking status quo holds, they have no reason to switch..

increasing the blocksize wont bring new users at all.

all growth metrics to date, esp tx growth, say you're wrong.  large blks will keep tx's cheap and reliable.  with entities like Nasdaq, Factom, CP, Overstock, colored coins etc continuing to build service within Bitcoin's mainchain, growth will continue.  but these services are dependent on cheap & reliable tx's, which they want.  no for profit core dev company can stop that.

how would you link tx growth (and other metrics?!) to adoption rate?
whilst it may have been a good indicator in the early days, it is now more diffused with hundreds of companies sending thousands of transactions.

+ just look at bitpay: http://uk.businessinsider.com/30-million-bitcoin-startup-bitpays-backup-plan-sell-tech-to-the-banks-2015-6?IR=T

"But Bitpay has a big problem — ordinary people aren't paying with Bitcoin."

they are now reduced to pitch freakin banks!
i mean i thought one of bitcoin's main disruption was to avoid banksters..