Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

http://fortune.com/2015/07/31/swiss-central-bank-losses/  - Crappy article, but the last paragraph is hilarious.

Crappy but rather illuminating. Such bullshit.

Your bro Mike Hearn sounds very bearish about BTC

Is 8mb better than no limit? I don't know and I don't care much ( ) :  I think Bitcoin adoption is a slow, hard process and we'll be lucky to increase average usage 8x over the next couple of years. So if 8mb+ is better for others, that's OK by me.

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009828.html

haha.

compared to your bro gmax, that's nothing.

[1714033920]

1714033920

[1714033920]

1714033920

[1714033920]

1714033920

[1714033920]

1714033920

[1714033920]

1714033920

[cypherdoc]

i keep asking the Cripplecoiners a simple theoretical question which i never get an answer for:  if everyone in the world used Bitcoin, wouldn't that be a more effective and more secure form of decentralization for Bitcoin's future?

No.

Everyone (more or less) in the world already uses fiat currencies. If Bitcoin isn't decentralized it is pointless.

surely Bitcoin could displace fiat.  it might not have to to become highly successful.  nor might it even be desired.  but surely it could.

if every person in the world used Bitcoin, that would be the ultimate in decentralization.  surely not ubiquitous full node implementation.

This here is the mistake you repeatedly make and I've seen others repeat during the block size debate.

The more correct version is if every capital in the world is held in Bitcoin, that would be the ultimate decentralization.

While it may seem counter-intuitive, more users does not necessarily translate in more value. On the other hand, more money in the system is a sure sign of an healthy network effect. There is more economic incentive to secure and decentralize a network with 1 M users holding 10T$ worth of wealth than 1 B users under a 100 B$ market cap.

This is not Facebook guys, this is a money protocol. When speaking of network effect we should consider the amount of capital that is attracted and not only the number of users.

says the kid who has no experience in anything that i can identify.

why has the current credit card system grown to rapidly?  it's b/c it's user friendly.  the merchant is the one who has to bear all the risk and cost in terms of basic usage and chargebacks.  it's easy to get a cc in this country and to run up credit only to have to pay it back dearly if you aren't on time.

what Bitcoin has done is reverse that entire process by creating a digital cash.  all the risk shifts to the buyer for online pmts for goods not delivered as the tx's aren't reversible.  dealing with unknown parties is risky.  to compensate, multi-sig, pmt processors, and 0conf strategies have had to kick in.  up to now, user growth has depended on cheap, reliable fees along with the other compensations.  the user growth hasn't been great tho as can be seen in the statistics from places like Overstock and Bitpay.

now, as a result of the continued spam attacks and resulting unconf tx's, users have the one thing that has made Bitcoin great for them being taken away; fast, easy, cheap payments.  that is a travesty perpetuated by crippled minds like yours.  good luck with ever getting Bitcoin to replace gold's role as the major SOV under these attack conditions.  and i am still of the mind that what we're seeing in the data (uninterrupted full block flow, no signif increase in orphans, no signif full node/miner disruption) is prima facie evidence that the network can handle much bigger blocks than it is now:

[cypherdoc]

dead cat bounce gets sold off immediately:

[brg444]

users have the one thing that has made Bitcoin great for them being taken away; fast, easy, cheap payments.  

 

You know what they say about kids, the truth comes out of their mouth. Seems old folks can't help but to spread lies and rewrite history.

It says everything about your character that you have travestied your traditional view of Bitcoin as sound money to support your block size position.

Retail acceptance of Bitcoin is irrelevant to its strength as a SOV. Either way, you have done nothing to disprove my argument.

There are billions if not trillions of dollars that can be served by Bitcoin AS IS. Let's not focus only on how many users we can accomodate

[cypherdoc]

users have the one thing that has made Bitcoin great for them being taken away; fast, easy, cheap payments.  

 

You know what they say about kids, the truth comes out of their mouth. Seems old folks can't help but to spread lies and rewrite history.

It says everything about your character that you have travestied your traditional view of Bitcoin as sound money to support your block size position.

Retail acceptance of Bitcoin is irrelevant to its strength as a SOV. Either way, you have done nothing to disprove my argument.

how so?  by wanting Bitcoin to replace gold as sound money?  by understanding that key to achievement of that goal is for Bitcoin to be easily used/accessed cheaply by everyone worldwide?  by understanding that something virtual and intangible has a higher bar to clear to replace the physicality of gold as a SOV?

you'd better go back to school while you're young enough.

[brg444]

users have the one thing that has made Bitcoin great for them being taken away; fast, easy, cheap payments.  

 

You know what they say about kids, the truth comes out of their mouth. Seems old folks can't help but to spread lies and rewrite history.

It says everything about your character that you have travestied your traditional view of Bitcoin as sound money to support your block size position.

Retail acceptance of Bitcoin is irrelevant to its strength as a SOV. Either way, you have done nothing to disprove my argument.

how so?  by wanting Bitcoin to replace gold as sound money?  by understanding that key to achievement of that goal is for Bitcoin to be easily used/accessed cheaply by everyone worldwide?  by understanding that something virtual and intangible has a higher bar to clear to replace the physicality of gold as a SOV?

you'd better go back to school while you're young enough.

Bitcoin can replace gold as sound money without having to subsidize every transactions so they are affordable, cheap and accessible to every soul on earth.

More accessible rarely, if ever, means more valuable.

Bitcoin will succeed by attracting the most capital it can, not necessarily the most users. .

There is more economic incentive to secure and decentralize a network with 1 M users holding 10T$ worth of wealth than 1 B users under a 100 B$ market cap.

[cypherdoc]

users have the one thing that has made Bitcoin great for them being taken away; fast, easy, cheap payments.  

 

You know what they say about kids, the truth comes out of their mouth. Seems old folks can't help but to spread lies and rewrite history.

It says everything about your character that you have travestied your traditional view of Bitcoin as sound money to support your block size position.

Retail acceptance of Bitcoin is irrelevant to its strength as a SOV. Either way, you have done nothing to disprove my argument.

how so?  by wanting Bitcoin to replace gold as sound money?  by understanding that key to achievement of that goal is for Bitcoin to be easily used/accessed cheaply by everyone worldwide?  by understanding that something virtual and intangible has a higher bar to clear to replace the physicality of gold as a SOV?

you'd better go back to school while you're young enough.

Bitcoin can replace gold as sound money without having to subsidize every transactions so they are affordable, cheap and accessible to every soul on earth.

More accessible rarely, if ever, means more valuable.

Bitcoin will succeed by attracting the most capital it can, not necessarily the most users. .

There is more economic incentive to secure and decentralize a network with 1 M users holding 10T$ worth of wealth than 1 B users under a 100 B$ market cap.

no.  Bitcoin has always been about being your own bank and taking individual responsibility for your money.  it's the ppl's money and about moving control of that money away from gvt.  it's about removing unfair subsidies to large entities and returning incentives and fairness to the individual.

therefore, the more individuals and ppl that use Bitcoin, the more decentralized and more powerful the outcome.

[brg444]

users have the one thing that has made Bitcoin great for them being taken away; fast, easy, cheap payments.  

 

You know what they say about kids, the truth comes out of their mouth. Seems old folks can't help but to spread lies and rewrite history.

It says everything about your character that you have travestied your traditional view of Bitcoin as sound money to support your block size position.

Retail acceptance of Bitcoin is irrelevant to its strength as a SOV. Either way, you have done nothing to disprove my argument.

how so?  by wanting Bitcoin to replace gold as sound money?  by understanding that key to achievement of that goal is for Bitcoin to be easily used/accessed cheaply by everyone worldwide?  by understanding that something virtual and intangible has a higher bar to clear to replace the physicality of gold as a SOV?

you'd better go back to school while you're young enough.

Bitcoin can replace gold as sound money without having to subsidize every transactions so they are affordable, cheap and accessible to every soul on earth.

More accessible rarely, if ever, means more valuable.

Bitcoin will succeed by attracting the most capital it can, not necessarily the most users. .

There is more economic incentive to secure and decentralize a network with 1 M users holding 10T$ worth of wealth than 1 B users under a 100 B$ market cap.

no.  Bitcoin has always been about being your own bank and taking individual responsibility for your money.  it's the ppl's money and about moving control of that money away from gvt.  it's about removing unfair subsidies to large entities and returning incentives and fairness to the individual.

therefore, the more individuals and ppl that use Bitcoin, the more decentralized and more powerful the outcome.

Again, individuals, on their own, do nothing to improve the strenght of the network. It is the capital that they bring to the table that is valuable.

I'm sorry but 100 million poor users will do little to further decentralize the Bitcoin network.

I may not support every statement behind this blog post but you really need to read this if you haven't:

http://cascadianhacker.com/blog/2015/04/24_bitcoin-needs-no-changes-to-destroy-your-world.html

and this

Bitcoin not suitable currency for pervasive dominance, pushing it into every heart&mind around globe no different from religious zealotry

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009831.html

[hdbuck]

users have the one thing that has made Bitcoin great for them being taken away; fast, easy, cheap payments. 

 

You know what they say about kids, the truth comes out of their mouth. Seems old folks can't help but to spread lies and rewrite history.

It says everything about your character that you have travestied your traditional view of Bitcoin as sound money to support your block size position.

Retail acceptance of Bitcoin is irrelevant to its strength as a SOV. Either way, you have done nothing to disprove my argument.

how so?  by wanting Bitcoin to replace gold as sound money?  by understanding that key to achievement of that goal is for Bitcoin to be easily used/accessed cheaply by everyone worldwide?  by understanding that something virtual and intangible has a higher bar to clear to replace the physicality of gold as a SOV?

you'd better go back to school while you're young enough.

Bitcoin can replace gold as sound money without having to subsidize every transactions so they are affordable, cheap and accessible to every soul on earth.

More accessible rarely, if ever, means more valuable.

Bitcoin will succeed by attracting the most capital it can, not necessarily the most users. .

There is more economic incentive to secure and decentralize a network with 1 M users holding 10T$ worth of wealth than 1 B users under a 100 B$ market cap.

no.  Bitcoin has always been about being your own bank and taking individual responsibility for your money.  it's the ppl's money and about moving control of that money away from gvt.  it's about removing unfair subsidies to large entities and returning incentives and fairness to the individual.

therefore, the more individuals and ppl that use Bitcoin, the more decentralized and more powerful the outcome.

Again, individuals, on their own, do nothing to improve the strenght of the network. It is the capital that they bring to the table that is valuable.

I'm sorry but 100 million poor users will do little to further decentralize the Bitcoin network.

I may not support every statement behind this blog post but you really need to read this if you haven't:

http://cascadianhacker.com/blog/2015/04/24_bitcoin-needs-no-changes-to-destroy-your-world.html

and this

Bitcoin not suitable currency for pervasive dominance, pushing it into every heart&mind around globe no different from religious zealotry

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009831.html

+1 pragmatic

...

the more individuals and ppl that use Bitcoin, the more decentralized and more powerful the outcome.

completely misleading, sounds like a new religion.

[errornone]

bitcoin is gold 2.0

[Cconvert2G36]

Capital owners may see 3 tps as a competitive disadvantage with other value storage and transfer networks, and may be  subsequently less likely to seek a position in such a network. Gold is not a great analogy because it is limited by natural forces and is protected from competition. Open source software enjoys no such protection and will be in constant competition with alternatives with quite similar characteristics.

The other side of the spectrum (huge blocks leading to unacceptable levels of node centralization), is also unattractive. There needs to be a balance between the two, commensurate with current technological limitations but also considerate of the fact that these limitations diminish over time. This is why I like Jeff's proposal, it's small enough to not place dramatic new requirements on nodes, but also large enough to quantify and analyze the effect of maxblocksize growth.

[brg444]

Capital owners may see 3 tps as a competitive disadvantage with other value storage and transfer networks, and may be  subsequently less likely to seek a position in such a network. Gold is not a great analogy because it is limited by natural forces and is protected from competition. Open source software enjoys no such protection and will be in constant competition with alternatives with quite similar characteristics.

The other side of the spectrum (huge blocks leading to unacceptable levels of node centralization), is also unattractive. There needs to be a balance between the two, commensurate with current technological limitations but also considerate of the fact that these limitations diminish over time. This is why I like Jeff's proposal, it's small enough to not place dramatic new requirements on nodes, but also large enough to quantify and analyze the effect of maxblocksize growth.

There exist no alternative to BTC that offer uninterdictable transactions, unfreezable funds so for anyone that care about these properties Bitcoin is the only option on the market and they will pay for the privilege of using it because they are much more important to them than convenience.

[Cconvert2G36]

There exist no alternative to BTC that offer uninterdictable transactions, unfreezable funds so for anyone that care about these properties Bitcoin is the only option on the market and they will pay for the privilege of using it because they are much more important to them than convenience.

First mover advantage will get you out front with a hefty lead, but you're fooling yourself if you think there is no, and will never be, competition between cryptocoins. If you believe some posters in this thread, XMR has already supplanted BTC in a technical sense.

[brg444]

There exist no alternative to BTC that offer uninterdictable transactions, unfreezable funds so for anyone that care about these properties Bitcoin is the only option on the market and they will pay for the privilege of using it because they are much more important to them than convenience.

First mover advantage will get you out front with a hefty lead, but you're fooling yourself if you think there is no, and will never be, competition between cryptocoins. If you believe some posters in this thread, XMR has already supplanted BTC in a technical sense.

Technical properties of the protocol have little to do with this.

ZB would likely tell you that wealth/capital has little interest in moving from one ledger to the other.

Note that am I not against increasing the Bitcoin user base and eventually accomodating more economic activity within the protocol but we should be wary of anyone wishing to "open the flood gates" without concern for centralization as it is counter-productive to our goal of establishing a sound monetary base.

I see you understand the trade-off and the necessary balance so more power to you but unfortunately it seems others have different motivations.

 

[cypherdoc]

users have the one thing that has made Bitcoin great for them being taken away; fast, easy, cheap payments.  

 

You know what they say about kids, the truth comes out of their mouth. Seems old folks can't help but to spread lies and rewrite history.

It says everything about your character that you have travestied your traditional view of Bitcoin as sound money to support your block size position.

Retail acceptance of Bitcoin is irrelevant to its strength as a SOV. Either way, you have done nothing to disprove my argument.

how so?  by wanting Bitcoin to replace gold as sound money?  by understanding that key to achievement of that goal is for Bitcoin to be easily used/accessed cheaply by everyone worldwide?  by understanding that something virtual and intangible has a higher bar to clear to replace the physicality of gold as a SOV?

you'd better go back to school while you're young enough.

Bitcoin can replace gold as sound money without having to subsidize every transactions so they are affordable, cheap and accessible to every soul on earth.

More accessible rarely, if ever, means more valuable.

Bitcoin will succeed by attracting the most capital it can, not necessarily the most users. .

There is more economic incentive to secure and decentralize a network with 1 M users holding 10T$ worth of wealth than 1 B users under a 100 B$ market cap.

no.  Bitcoin has always been about being your own bank and taking individual responsibility for your money.  it's the ppl's money and about moving control of that money away from gvt.  it's about removing unfair subsidies to large entities and returning incentives and fairness to the individual.

therefore, the more individuals and ppl that use Bitcoin, the more decentralized and more powerful the outcome.

Again, individuals, on their own, do nothing to improve the strenght of the network. It is the capital that they bring to the table that is valuable.

I'm sorry but 100 million poor users will do little to further decentralize the Bitcoin network.

I may not support every statement behind this blog post but you really need to read this if you haven't:

http://cascadianhacker.com/blog/2015/04/24_bitcoin-needs-no-changes-to-destroy-your-world.html

and this

Bitcoin not suitable currency for pervasive dominance, pushing it into every heart&mind around globe no different from religious zealotry

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009831.html

lol, what a piece of junk article.  just another MP regurgitated screed.

what's really laughable is watching little kids like you, Michael Goldstein, & Pierre Rochard dream of becoming Kings.  look, i'm already a 1 percenter and was long before Bitcoin came around.  yet i seem to see more fairness in Bitcoin's potential than you guys.  whodathunk?  i find it sad that youngsters like you can't see what's better for humanity.

furthermore, i guess you're admitting that the 1MB choke is exactly what you want; it is meant to be forever.  for you, it's about boxing out the masses and making them pay you homage.

[inca]

users have the one thing that has made Bitcoin great for them being taken away; fast, easy, cheap payments.  

 

You know what they say about kids, the truth comes out of their mouth. Seems old folks can't help but to spread lies and rewrite history.

It says everything about your character that you have travestied your traditional view of Bitcoin as sound money to support your block size position.

Retail acceptance of Bitcoin is irrelevant to its strength as a SOV. Either way, you have done nothing to disprove my argument.

There are billions if not trillions of dollars that can be served by Bitcoin AS IS. Let's not focus only on how many users we can accomodate

Sorry but if I cannot use btc as an easy form of payment then it certainly loses its appeal as a private currency.

[brg444]

lol, what a piece of junk article.  just another MP regurgitated screed.

what's really laughable is watching little kids like you, Michael Goldstein, & Pierre Rochard dream of becoming Kings.  look, i'm already a 1 percenter and was long before Bitcoin came around.  yet i seem to see more fairness in Bitcoin's potential than you guys.  whodathunk?  i find it sad that youngsters like you can't see what's better for humanity.

furthermore, i guess you're admitting that the 1MB choke is exactly what you want; it is meant to be forever.  for you, it's about boxing out the masses and making them pay you homage.

 

...

the more individuals and ppl that use Bitcoin, the more decentralized and more powerful the outcome.

completely misleading, sounds like a new religion.

[cypherdoc]

lol, what a piece of junk article.  just another MP regurgitated screed.

what's really laughable is watching little kids like you, Michael Goldstein, & Pierre Rochard dream of becoming Kings.  look, i'm already a 1 percenter and was long before Bitcoin came around.  yet i seem to see more fairness in Bitcoin's potential than you guys.  whodathunk?  i find it sad that youngsters like you can't see what's better for humanity.

furthermore, i guess you're admitting that the 1MB choke is exactly what you want; it is meant to be forever.  for you, it's about boxing out the masses and making them pay you homage.

 

...

the more individuals and ppl that use Bitcoin, the more decentralized and more powerful the outcome.

completely misleading, sounds like a new religion.

lol, your arguments have dwindled to nothing except for a smiley face and you resort to bringing in assistance.  haha.

[brg444]

users have the one thing that has made Bitcoin great for them being taken away; fast, easy, cheap payments.  

 

You know what they say about kids, the truth comes out of their mouth. Seems old folks can't help but to spread lies and rewrite history.

It says everything about your character that you have travestied your traditional view of Bitcoin as sound money to support your block size position.

Retail acceptance of Bitcoin is irrelevant to its strength as a SOV. Either way, you have done nothing to disprove my argument.

There are billions if not trillions of dollars that can be served by Bitcoin AS IS. Let's not focus only on how many users we can accomodate

Sorry but if I cannot use btc as an easy form of payment then it certainly loses its appeal as a private currency.

Hopefully you can't realise BTC offers much more than a private, transactional currency.

Moreover:

Precisely.  And as "just a payment system" Bitcoin is not an especially great one: The design requirements for decenteralization
impose considerable costs.  To the extent that the technology in Bitcoin is useful at all for building "just another payment system" this technology in in the process of being agressively copied by parties with deep fiat relationships (including in partnership with centeral banks).  If the focus for Bitcoin's competative advantage
becomes exclusively "better" payments then it will almost certinatly fail in the market-place against competing systems which avoid the Bitcoin currency adoption related obsticles (but also gain none of Bitcoin's important social/political promise).

Also, critically, if Bitcoin's security properties are manintained and enhanced then Bitcoin can be used to build secure systems which _also_ accomidate those applications and we can have both. But if Bitcoin'ssecurity properties are not strong then then advanced tools cannot be built for it. E.g. atomic swaps make trustless trades with external systems possible; but they are especially sensitive to long reorginizations by miners... so they can only be securely used where
those reorgs are infeasable.  So while I agree that we must be willing to tolerate not catching every conceivable use case; most of the time all that means is addressing them via a less direct but more focused solution rather than ignoring them completely.

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009729.html

[brg444]

lol, your arguments have dwindled to nothing except for a smiley face and you resort to bringing in assistance.  haha.

You have failed repeatedly to make any valid argument in your last dozen posts. (Other than everyone should get free stuff of course)