Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[iCEBREAKER]

2MB iCE and tvbcof?

We can build a bridge from the middle of the river?

I suggested an initial increase to 2MB many months ago.  But everyone (except solex) was so high on 20MB++ block hype they ignored my proposal.  How nice of you guys to finally come around to my PoV, after getting #rekt day after day after day... 

I still support doubling max_blocksize to 2MB at the next fixed reward halving (and subsequent doubling coinciding with block subsidy halvings) IF AND ONLY IF the network suffers from actual congestion (IE competitive fees no longer properly prioritizing their tx).

Depending on the nature of the putative actual congestion (best case: sustained widespread actual use), I would even support 4MB to compensate for the previous halving.

What happens when we hit the 2MB limit?

Probably nothing, except further (natural, healthy) exclusion of marginal users.  We'll have more data/experience when we get there and burn that bridge when we come to it.

And no, I don't mind marginal use cases (spam/tips/coffees) being pushed off-Mainchain as fee markets develop.  That's just Bitcoin finally starting to work like it's supposed to.   

[Cconvert2G36]

Seeing that 1MB isn't completely full (outside spam ops), a 100% increase seems like a perfectly reasonable compromise... Let's do this. Study the results, and plan for the future accordingly.

[cypherdoc]

Its actually kinda fun watching you get pounded with down votes over there. Keep up the good work. Kid.

Enjoy your fallacious appeals to popularity all you like.

No amount of "Likes" will reverse the simple truth:

"you can build a visa on top of sound money, you can't build sound money on top of visa"

don't you find yourself lame as hell quoting someone who's also getting pounded with downvotes?  and of all ppl, Troll davout-bc himself?   you're hurting your own case 


davout-bc -6 points 9 hours ago

Why do you want to increase at all?

And for your convenience, here is the previous argument in its quantitative version: "it's easy to build (1..N) good payment networks network on top of (1) good settlements network, the opposite isn't true".

In other words: "you can build a visa on top of sound money, you can't build sound money on top of visa"

Downvotes (nor upvotes) affect the truth value of a statement.  Neither does labeling the speaker a "troll" (because Davout is a model of logical consistency).

I am proud to stand up for the truth, regardless of whatever passing narrative is preferred by the Frappuccino swilling mob.

You know what really is "lame as hell?"  Argumentum ad populum.   

It's a good thing the legal system does not decide cases by popular sentiment, or else you'd be out ~3000 LeBronCoins.   

Funny how it only became a real issue when I started wanting bigger blocks.

[majamalu]

I would even support 4MB to compensate for the previous halving.

Stop it, or else MP will expel you from La Serenissi-bla.

[iCEBREAKER]

You know what really is "lame as hell?"  Argumentum ad populum.   

It's a good thing the legal system does not decide cases by popular sentiment, or else you'd be out ~3000 LeBronCoins.   

Funny how it only became a real issue when I started wanting bigger blocks.

Yes, your hypocrisy became an issue when you begain accepting argumentum ad populum in one instance while in another rejecting it.

If you want to decide block size by a vote in the Court Of Reddit, why not do the same for your controversial hoard of coins' fate?   

[iCEBREAKER]

Depending on the nature of the putative actual congestion (best case: sustained widespread actual use), I would even support 4MB to compensate for the previous halving.

Stop it, or else MP will expel you from La Serenissi-bla.

The La Serenissima trope is very useful for appreciating the many sublime aspects of Bitcoin Sovereignty.  It's also amusing!   

Case in point, the recent discussion of how Layer 1 couldn't care less about what tx happen at Layer 2+, while nevertheless protecting their integrity.

"you can build a visa on top of sound money, you can't build sound money on top of visa"

From there, it's a short walk to Frap.doc's favorite source of maximum butthurt, Troll davout-bc himself's epic statement:

The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain".

IF AND ONLY IF technical and/or economic damage (IE actual congestion) occurs and persists as a direct result of the 1MB cap, the present controversy and contention will dissipate and be replaced by a rough consensus including MP.

That would put the "event" in "eventually."  Until then, "Not Tonight Dear!"   

[majamalu]

IF AND ONLY IF technical and/or economic damage (IE actual congestion) occurs and persists as a direct result of the 1MB cap, the present controversy and contention will dissipate and be replaced by a rough consensus including MP.

That would put the "event" in "eventually."  Until then, "Not Tonight Dear!"   

What happened to your faith in a forced and exclusive "fee market"?

[majamalu]

IF AND ONLY IF technical and/or economic damage (IE actual congestion) occurs and persists as a direct result of the 1MB cap, the present controversy and contention will dissipate and be replaced by a rough consensus including MP.

The problem is that what you call "actual congestion" or "economic damage" may be called "nice fee market" by others.

[iCEBREAKER]

IF AND ONLY IF technical and/or economic damage (IE actual congestion) occurs and persists as a direct result of the 1MB cap, the present controversy and contention will dissipate and be replaced by a rough consensus including MP.

What happened to your faith in a forced and exclusive "fee market"?

Nothing happened to it.  The market is at present working just fine, as properly competitive fees are ensuring their tx arrive happily and promptly at their destinations, enjoying phenomenal security and thus immune to aggression from the enemies of La Serenissima.

Were a future event caused by the 1mb cap to disturb us Citizens of La Serenissima, we would quickly take action.

That would put the "event" in "eventually."  Until then, "Not Tonight Dear!"   

[majamalu]

Were a future event caused by the 1mb cap to disturb us Citizens of La Serenissima, we would quickly take action.

Didn't you get the memo? The 1mb cap is not a problem according to MP, it is a solution.

[iCEBREAKER]

IF AND ONLY IF technical and/or economic damage (IE actual congestion) occurs and persists as a direct result of the 1MB cap, the present controversy and contention will dissipate and be replaced by a rough consensus including MP.

The problem is that what you call "actual congestion" or "economic damage" may be called "nice fee market" by others.

Wrong.  The objective definition of "actual congestion" is "competitive fees no longer properly prioritizing their tx."

Bitcoin's economic/incentive model requires tx priority be proportional to their fees.  That is not a subjective "call."

If a competitive fee for a tx fails to ensure it is prioritized higher than tx with lower fees, Bitcoin is broken (and nobody with million$ in BTC is going to stand in the way of fixing it ASAP).

That failure mode has never occurred for a significant duration; Bitcoin was built to be resilient and antifragile for the purpose of ensuring that doesn't happen.

You may be confusing equality of opportunity with equality of outcome.  The Free Shit Army does that all the time...Bitcoin user not affected!   

Were a future event caused by the 1mb cap to disturb us Citizens of La Serenissima, we would quickly take action.

Didn't you get the memo? The 1mb cap is not a problem according to MP, it is a solution.

We are in the present, not the future.  Didn't you get the memo?

[majamalu]

IF AND ONLY IF technical and/or economic damage (IE actual congestion) occurs and persists as a direct result of the 1MB cap, the present controversy and contention will dissipate and be replaced by a rough consensus including MP.

The problem is that what you call "actual congestion" or "economic damage" may be called "nice fee market" by others.

Wrong.  The objective definition of "actual congestion" is "competitive fees no longer properly prioritizing their tx."

The problem is that what you call "competitive fees" may be called "economic damage" by others.

[iCEBREAKER]

IF AND ONLY IF technical and/or economic damage (IE actual congestion) occurs and persists as a direct result of the 1MB cap, the present controversy and contention will dissipate and be replaced by a rough consensus including MP.

The problem is that what you call "actual congestion" or "economic damage" may be called "nice fee market" by others.

Wrong.  The objective definition of "actual congestion" is "competitive fees no longer properly prioritizing their tx."

The problem is that what you call "competitive fees" may be called "economic damage" by others.

Yes, many Marxists complain about the "economic damage" done by capitalism and marginalism.  They have no power here!   

"Competitive" is objectively defined, it just means tx with higher fees will tend to be processed with greater priority than tx with lower ones.  You know that's a fundamental function of Bitcoin protocol (and in the social contract), right?

The Free Shit Army will always demand moar free shit and always cry moar about the unfairness of open markets.  But this is La Serenissima - not fucking Detroit, Havana, Caracas, or Buenos Aires.   

[klee]

Mark Karpeles retells the Mt. Gox story!
http://youtu.be/JCR3722ACTI?a 

[Natalia_AnatolioPAMM]

Mark Karpeles retells the Mt. Gox story!
http://youtu.be/JCR3722ACTI?a 

that's even funny! how does he do that

[Erdogan]

IF AND ONLY IF technical and/or economic damage (IE actual congestion) occurs and persists as a direct result of the 1MB cap, the present controversy and contention will dissipate and be replaced by a rough consensus including MP.

The problem is that what you call "actual congestion" or "economic damage" may be called "nice fee market" by others.

Wrong.  The objective definition of "actual congestion" is "competitive fees no longer properly prioritizing their tx."

The problem is that what you call "competitive fees" may be called "economic damage" by others.

Yes, many Marxists complain about the "economic damage" done by capitalism and marginalism.  They have no power here!   

"Competitive" is objectively defined, it just means tx with higher fees will tend to be processed with greater priority than tx with lower ones.  You know that's a fundamental function of Bitcoin protocol (and in the social contract), right?

The Free Shit Army will always demand moar free shit and always cry moar about the unfairness of open markets.  But this is La Serenissima - not fucking Detroit, Havana, Caracas, or Buenos Aires.   

The Paris taxi drivers applaud you.

[Zarathustra]

You know what really is "lame as hell?"  Argumentum ad populum.   

It's a good thing the legal system does not decide cases by popular sentiment, or else you'd be out ~3000 LeBronCoins.   

Funny how it only became a real issue when I started wanting bigger blocks.

Yes, your hypocrisy became an issue when you begain accepting argumentum ad populum in one instance while in another rejecting it.

If you want to decide block size by a vote in the Court Of Reddit, why not do the same for your controversial hoard of coins' fate?   

Same in this thread. The 1MB'ers constitute a minority of professional loosers.

[cypherdoc]

8
You know what really is "lame as hell?"  Argumentum ad populum.  

It's a good thing the legal system does not decide cases by popular sentiment, or else you'd be out ~3000 LeBronCoins.  

Funny how it only became a real issue when I started wanting bigger blocks.

Yes, your hypocrisy became an issue when you begain accepting argumentum ad populum in one instance while in another rejecting it.

If you want to decide block size by a vote in the Court Of Reddit, why not do the same for your controversial hoard of coins' fate?  

Same in this thread. The 1MB'ers constitute a minority of professional loosers.

Now, if I were as childish as the greedy Cripplecoiners, I'd jump up and down screaming, "see, see, Rekt!"

[Adrian-x]

IF AND ONLY IF technical and/or economic damage (IE actual congestion) occurs and persists as a direct result of the 1MB cap, the present controversy and contention will dissipate and be replaced by a rough consensus including MP.

The problem is that what you call "actual congestion" or "economic damage" may be called "nice fee market" by others.

Wrong.  The objective definition of "actual congestion" is "competitive fees no longer properly prioritizing their tx."

The problem is that what you call "competitive fees" may be called "economic damage" by others.

Actually what is refer to as "Competitive fees" or "economic damage" is actually artificial economic manipulation, competitive fees that results from a block size limit (limited money velocity) are in origin as benign to the market as artificial interest rates set by central bankers.

This type of manipulation is consistent with central planning. Marxist central planing just uses a shorter rope.

[cypherdoc]

IF AND ONLY IF technical and/or economic damage (IE actual congestion) occurs and persists as a direct result of the 1MB cap, the present controversy and contention will dissipate and be replaced by a rough consensus including MP.

The problem is that what you call "actual congestion" or "economic damage" may be called "nice fee market" by others.

Wrong.  The objective definition of "actual congestion" is "competitive fees no longer properly prioritizing their tx."

The problem is that what you call "competitive fees" may be called "economic damage" by others.

Actually what is refer to as "Competitive fees" or "economic damage" is actually artificial economic manipulation, competitive fees that results from a block size limit (limited money velocity) are in original as benign to the market as artificial interest rates set by central bankers.

This type of manipulation is consistent with central planning. Marxist central planing just uses a shorter rope.

and that is exactly what the Cripplecoiners are all about.  they've all but admitted that it is not a technical limitation that they are worried about but that it is about preventing the "FreeShitArmy" from using Bitcoin.  i'm amazed at the level of greed being displayed.

personally, i've always thought about Bitcoin fitting into the "Sharing Economy" like most other disruptive businesses that are disrupting multiple spaces across the internet.  apparently, this is the last thing these guys want to do; SHARE.

the sad thing about it is that many of them are millenials whom i've always viewed as wanting to help vs my many greedy fellow boomers.  turns out that many of them are just as greedy and unwilling to share.