Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[tvbcof]

...
here's the thing.  Bitcoin was so new and so experimental, even the geeks failed to understand that which hath been created.  i'm am going to stop saying "that they hath created" b/c that would be giving too much credit to geeks/engineers in general now that the secrets out about their ability to understand Bitcoin over the rest of us.  
...

Bitcoin being 'new and experimental' is getting to be a VERY tired excuse.  It's been around for 6 years and in the news for going on 4 now since the first big run-up.  That is an eternity in Internet terms.  From above:

Edit:  Oh ya, and another thing (again.)  The reason why you cannot get the 1MB filled up with coffee purchase after 6 years of trying and a lot of help from the media and regulators is this:  Bitcoin SUCKS BALLS as an exchange currency.  It is simply not competitive in this capacity and never will be.  Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but you need to come to terms with this eventually.

Bitcoin is on the cusp of settling in to the role that it is actually is good for thanks to the Blockstream guys.  It will be one of the most miraculous of saves ever if it makes it through the dark days of Gavin and the Bitcoin Foundation, but it looks like a distinct possibility.

[1713588507]

1713588507

[1713588507]

1713588507

[TPTB_need_war]

The way to generate resiliency for Bitcoin is to get to the point that each block generates $10M in fees.

Today each block generates around $4,500 in fees on average.

That is not resilient, that is weak and easy for any state to attack.

This idea that using fee pressure on a low # of transactions is a way to get to high value blocks from fees is absurd. The way to get to high value blocks is tons of transactions paying minimum fees.

Oh STFU, you already made a complete fool of yourself upthread and now you come back to slobber on the thread some more.

The way to resilency is to eliminate the 51% attack with my consensus design.

I already explained to you that Bitcoin's consensus algorithm can not scale decentralized, thus any such large scale will not be resilient against centralization. If centralization is your goal, then you can claim resilience in that context.

[cypherdoc]

we're not even under attack yet blocks continue to fill up:

Unbelievable!  It's almost as if subsidizing spam/noise transactions creates more of them.   

  Whoop - Whoop - Whoop  |  emergency!  |  Whoop - Whoop - Whoop  |  emergency!

Paging Justusranvier to explain in free-market principles pretzels how iCEBREAKER is muddled in his thinking.

Heh, the Gavinistas are having a very bad day week.   

First, Frap.doc was put upon to explain with some semblance of logical consistency how he reaches the same pro-bloat conclusion as gavin@tla.mit.gov, despite operating on quite opposite assumptions w/r/t the financial crisis being over (now and in the med. term future).

Then came yet another face-r3kking, sig-worthy domination tweet from Jon Matonis (as if the previous from Szatoshi Backamoto weren't enough) about the utter futility of shoehorning Bitcon's square settlement peg into VisaPayPal's round payment hole:



And finally(?) Dear Leader Himself debunks hearn@google.mil and Frap.doc's attempts to ram through ill-considered hard forks using fear and mass hysteria:

The way to generate resiliency for Bitcoin is to get to the point that each block generates $10M in fees.

Today each block generates around $4,500 in fees on average.

That is not resilient, that is weak and easy for any state to attack.

This idea that using fee pressure on a low # of transactions is a way to get to high value blocks from fees is absurd. The way to get to high value blocks is tons of transactions paying minimum fees.

Yep. Even my blind patients can see this.

[TPTB_need_war]

Yep. Even my blind patients can see this.

Two peas (pea brains) in a pod.

[tvbcof]

Heh, the Gavinistas are having a very bad day week.   

First, Frap.doc was put upon to explain...

Actually it's been a bad 18 months and counting for Mr. 'bitcoin up' fap.doc.

[iCEBREAKER]

The way to generate resiliency for Bitcoin is to get to the point that each block generates $10M in fees.

Today each block generates around $4,500 in fees on average.

That is not resilient, that is weak and easy for any state to attack.

This idea that using fee pressure on a low # of transactions is a way to get to high value blocks from fees is absurd. The way to get to high value blocks is tons of transactions paying minimum fees.

Agree with the first 3 sentences, but only in a superficial way.  The fourth is just more absurd, Frappuccino Doc-esque bloviating.

As fee pressure rises, "attacking" (IE filling up) blocks becomes more expensive.  An attacker would have to pay higher fees than anyone else to stop tx propagation.  And PT's replace-by-fee makes that already unworkable strategy obsolete.

Your naive $4.5k/block figure illustrates the fact GavinCoin won't fix this so-called problem; 20 (or eight) times $4.5k is still nothing to any semi-resourceful attacker (much less TLA national statists).

The only way to densely pack "tons of transactions paying minimum fees" into the extremely scarce resource of the blockchain is to use LN/SC/alt/off-chain mechanisms to aggregate payments and settle on the MotherChain.  Even on a cluster of 24-core Xeons, blockchain tech cannot verify tx fast enough to *DIRECTLY* compete with centralized/specialized Visa-scale infrastructure.

As others have already noted,

Bitcoin's value comes from its decentralization, not low tx tees. If u don't value that, centralized systems can meet ur needs

and

"universal payments" is both a laudable goal and a
shopworn bitcoin marketing slogan.

The fundamental engineering truths diverge from that misty goal:
Bitcoin is a settlement system, by design.

The process of consensus "settles" upon a timeline of transactions,
and this process -- by design -- is necessarily far from instant.
Alt-coins that madly attempt 10-second block times etc. are simply a
vain attempt to paper over this fundamental design attribute:
consensus takes time.

As such, the blockchain can never support All The Transactions, even
if block size increases beyond 20MB.  Further layers are -- by design
-- necessary if we want to achieve the goal of a decentralized payment
network capable of supporting full global traffic.

[necrita]

Next two years of blockbloat on a fingernail:

http://www.droid-life.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/sandisk-ultra-200gb-microsd.jpg

[iCEBREAKER]

Heh, the Gavinistas are having a very bad day week.   

First, Frap.doc was put upon to explain...

Actually it's been a bad 18 months and counting for Mr. 'bitcoin up' fap.doc.

OK sure, but the recent one-two wombo combo of Gavin declaring

A. "the financial crisis is over"

and

B. "The sky will not fall if the block size stays at 1MB"

can't be easy for poor old Doctor Frappy to explain away with his usual hand-waving assclown routine.

By ignoring gainsaying and insulting the expertise of Nick Szaboshi, Adam Bakomoto, Bram Cohen, and ALL THE CORE DEVS, he's really painted himself into a corner.  

[tvbcof]

Next two years of blockbloat on a fingernail:

Thank Satoshi and his silent 1MB patch for that.  Accident?  Design?  We may never know.

It'll be interesting to find out if the applicability of such a storage device spans the inevitable 'bail-in'.

[TPTB_need_war]

The only way to densely pack "tons of transactions paying minimum fees" into the extremely scarce resource of the blockchain is to use LN/SC/alt/off-chain mechanisms to aggregate payments and settle on the MotherChain.  Even on a cluster of 24-core Xeons, blockchain tech cannot verify tx fast enough to *DIRECTLY* compete with centralized/specialized Visa-scale infrastructure.

There is another way.

[iCEBREAKER]

Next two years of hurr durr cheep hard drives :

[argumentum ad Amazon]

That is one data point.  The trend, however, is not blockbloat's friend:



Perhaps you recall this lesson from Economics 101: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminishing_returns

Unlike Nielsen, Moore, and Kryder's so-called Laws, diminishing returns is an actual a priori Law of nature, not merely an artifact of a cherry-picked sample range.   

[TPTB_need_war]

Edit:  Oh ya, and another thing (again.)  The reason why you cannot get the 1MB filled up with coffee purchase after 6 years of trying and a lot of help from the media and regulators is this:  Bitcoin SUCKS BALLS as an exchange currency.  It is simply not competitive in this capacity and never will be.  Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but you need to come to terms with this eventually.

For micropayments, then 0-confirmation works, but Bitcoin can't scale decentralized. Even if this is solved for BTC on a SC (such as my design does), there is still the remaining issue that private keys are a pain for users to manage. But this can be solved with hardware keys and M-of-N of them with multi-sig (since users lose things).

So I believe BTC can in theory (vaporware and all) be an exchange currency and decentralized. Do you disagree?

[TPTB_need_war]

Next two years of blockbloat on a fingernail:

Please transport that to me within 10 minutes via my laptop's 3G (often dropping down to 56 kbps) wireless connection.

[Carlton Banks]

Next two years of blockbloat on a fingernail:

Heh, the Gavinistas are having a very bad day week.  

First, Frap.doc was put upon to explain...

Actually it's been a bad 18 months and counting for Mr. 'bitcoin up' fap.doc.

OK sure, but the recent one-two wombo combo of Gavin declaring

A. "the financial crisis is over"

and

B. "The sky will not fall if the block size stays at 1MB"

can't be easy for poor old Doctor Frappy to explain away with his usual hand-waving assclown routine.

By ignoring gainsaying and insulting the expertise of Nick Szaboshi, Adam Bakomoto, Bram Cohen, and ALL THE CORE DEVS, he's really painted himself into a corner.  

Like so, so much in this debate, both these perspectives are simultaneously true. Storage has been slowing down in areal density growth for years, but 3D NAND is set to outpace mechanical disks in that and every other characteristic except absolute price still of course (3D NAND SSD's start at large capacities). I heard 16 TB and 24 TB will be available early next year. Set to explode as they increase the layers as the manufacturing technique improves (highest commercial density is 32 layers last I heard). Nanotube/graphene takes it 5nm and below before next decade.

The situation with bandwidth being affordable enough given the proposals on the table is a little more uncertain. The political climate now steers the debate on the price of internet bandwidth, that has ominous concerns as to the slow, fine grinding outcome. There's also reason to be more certain; alot of new and alternative delivery channels are set to go live in the next few years (numerous air/space based internet services, evolving meshnet tech, increased leverage of the cartel licensed spectrum). This can't be looked at any other way than a huge spike in bandwidth supply throughput. Not to say there's not corresponding demand, but it's just an instant answer to the age old "what will they do with this insane new capacity range" (use it up with the most valuable purpose). There's so much more to signals tech than I can even remember to put here, so suffice to say that it's set to proliferate and interoperate in so many unexpected, unpredictable, and disruptive ways.

At the same time, we've got a long time to decide much at all about this blocksize debate. We have scalability software designs to consider. We have/will have hardware (and core bitcoin software) that can likely handle most of the outcomes. So there's too much hyperbolic polarisation of this debate altogether. Don't like what Gavin did with the fork, but he's right to point out what he did recently; that an incredibly cheap system for transacting with becomes a fraction more expensive when the blocks start to fill up. It's not going to become unusable overnight, and we're not as close to that point as the hand wavers are suggesting. Relax everybody, it's easier to think it through when there's no empty appeals to urgency.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Isn't the real pressing issue recently the discovery that it takes less than the cost of a Smart car to spam up the system for hours and hours?

I just got back, but



Edit: I don't see how any amount of money would ever be too much to deter bad actors from shitting on our parade for sport. Does blocksize even address this at all?

[iCEBREAKER]

Isn't the real pressing issue recently the discovery that it takes less than the cost of a Smart car to spam up the system for hours and hours?

The *initial* cost to fill blocks is low, but (assuming actual non-spam/noise demand exists) fee pressure will result in an upward price spiral for the attacker.

However, the more room available in the block, the less effective this free market self-correcting remedy/mechanism becomes.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Isn't the real pressing issue recently the discovery that it takes less than the cost of a Smart car to spam up the system for hours and hours?

The *initial* cost to fill blocks is low, but (assuming actual non-spam/noise demand exists) fee pressure will result in an upward price spiral for the attacker.

However, the more room available in the block, the less effective this free market self-correcting remedy/mechanism becomes.

So bigger blocks will make this worse?

[TPTB_need_war]

The situation with bandwidth being affordable enough given the proposals on the table is a little more uncertain. The political climate now steers the debate on the price of internet bandwidth, that has ominous concerns as to the slow, fine grinding outcome. There's also reason to be more certain; alot of new and alternative delivery channels are set to go live in the next few years (numerous air/space based internet services, evolving meshnet tech, increased leverage of the cartel licensed spectrum). This can't be looked at any other way than a huge spike in bandwidth supply throughput.

Three times I have pointed out that you guys ignore statistical variance of the bandwidth at any particular node.

I feel I am talking to concrete.

[TPTB_need_war]

Isn't the real pressing issue recently the discovery that it takes less than the cost of a Smart car to spam up the system for hours and hours?

The *initial* cost to fill blocks is low, but (assuming actual non-spam/noise demand exists) fee pressure will result in an upward price spiral for the attacker.

However, the more room available in the block, the less effective this free market self-correcting remedy/mechanism becomes.

So bigger blocks will make this worse?

Did you not read what he wrote.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Isn't the real pressing issue recently the discovery that it takes less than the cost of a Smart car to spam up the system for hours and hours?

The *initial* cost to fill blocks is low, but (assuming actual non-spam/noise demand exists) fee pressure will result in an upward price spiral for the attacker.

However, the more room available in the block, the less effective this free market self-correcting remedy/mechanism becomes.

So bigger blocks will make this worse?

Did you not read what he wrote.

I read it like this.

Who are you?