Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[smooth]

Did you think Satoshi put that limit in at 1MB to be there forever?

No, I suspect he meant to add other mechanisms to control in-block spam in its place (or at least I might say, hoped to, but may not have known how to do it), but never got to it and no one else picked up that work either. Now we are kind of screwed.

How are we screwed if we have time to try to find solutions?

I meant screwed on the assumption that the 1 MB is about to fill up and cause problems.

But has anyone considered that a good solution may not even exist? Bitcoin is a new thing that has never been done before and is not a law of nature that Bitcoin must "work" in general (for example at larger scale).

In my experience in building software, often problems that get the kick-the-can treatment don't end up having good solutions later either. Maybe 1MB was satoshi kicking-the-can?

I'm not claiming this, just asking the question.

[smoothie]

Did you think Satoshi put that limit in at 1MB to be there forever?

No, I suspect he meant to add other mechanisms to control in-block spam in its place (or at least I might say, hoped to, but may not have known how to do it), but never got to it and no one else picked up that work either. Now we are kind of screwed.

How are we screwed if we have time to try to find solutions?

I meant screwed on the assumption that the 1 MB is about to fill up and cause problems.

But has anyone considered that a good solution may not even exist? Bitcoin is a new thing that has never been done before and is not a law of nature that Bitcoin must "work" in general (for example at larger scale).

In my experience in building software, often problems that get the kick-the-can treatment don't end up having good solutions later either. Maybe 1MB was satoshi kicking-the-can?

I'm not claiming this, just asking the question.

Well is good the same as perfect?

I believe there is a good solution but not a perfect one. Sounds like the solution may be a moving target (dynamic in nature).

[smooth]

Did you think Satoshi put that limit in at 1MB to be there forever?

No, I suspect he meant to add other mechanisms to control in-block spam in its place (or at least I might say, hoped to, but may not have known how to do it), but never got to it and no one else picked up that work either. Now we are kind of screwed.

How are we screwed if we have time to try to find solutions?

I meant screwed on the assumption that the 1 MB is about to fill up and cause problems.

But has anyone considered that a good solution may not even exist? Bitcoin is a new thing that has never been done before and is not a law of nature that Bitcoin must "work" in general (for example at larger scale).

In my experience in building software, often problems that get the kick-the-can treatment don't end up having good solutions later either. Maybe 1MB was satoshi kicking-the-can?

I'm not claiming this, just asking the question.

Well is good the same as perfect?

Certainly not

I believe there is a good solution but not a perfect one. Sounds like the solution may be a moving target (dynamic in nature).

I hope you are right but I don't really know if there is.

Most of these ideas that get thrown out are stuff that seems like a good idea but nobody can make a rigorous argument why they won't break.

[smoothie]

Did you think Satoshi put that limit in at 1MB to be there forever?

No, I suspect he meant to add other mechanisms to control in-block spam in its place (or at least I might say, hoped to, but may not have known how to do it), but never got to it and no one else picked up that work either. Now we are kind of screwed.

How are we screwed if we have time to try to find solutions?

I meant screwed on the assumption that the 1 MB is about to fill up and cause problems.

But has anyone considered that a good solution may not even exist? Bitcoin is a new thing that has never been done before and is not a law of nature that Bitcoin must "work" in general (for example at larger scale).

In my experience in building software, often problems that get the kick-the-can treatment don't end up having good solutions later either. Maybe 1MB was satoshi kicking-the-can?

I'm not claiming this, just asking the question.

Well is good the same as perfect?

Certainly not

I believe there is a good solution but not a perfect one. Sounds like the solution may be a moving target (dynamic in nature).

I hope you are right but I don't really know if there is.

Most of these ideas that get thrown out are stuff that seems like a good idea but nobody can make a rigorous argument why they won't break.

Did you have any thoughts after reading Peter R's paper? It seemed to describe the major issues as they are in their current form.

Lots of math and tons of variables to reference. I found myself going back to the definition of VARs page constantly to follow his logic/math/etc.

[smoothie]

What makes this entire experience exciting is that we are in uncharted waters going through this controversy.

Exciting times ahead.

[Zarathustra]

here's further evidence the Reddit mods are steering the blocksize debate. they're letting this guy spam attack me with false allegations despite me reporting him.  same post about a dozen times:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gutfp/if_youre_not_running_a_node_youre_not_really/cu1x6fl

Yesterday you were complaining about mod "censorship" and today you are demanding the same mods censor posts you don't like.

it's a repetitive spam attack; over a dozen times the exact same slanderous post attempt at character assassination.  have you forgotten the case seems to be going nowhere and that i deny the allegations?

everybody gets it already. i am a BitcoinXT proponent and i am a threat to you Cripplecoiners.  the HF dispute has nothing to do with it as much as you'd like to tie the two together.

but of course, i wouldn't expect you to see the difference.

My comment does not mention, or even allude to, the content of the posts.  As such, you are the only one who mentioned HF and XT.

The difference, as I see it, is that you cry censorship when off-topic posts you like are moderated, but turn on a dime to complain about lack of moderation when the posts in question do not suit you.

Make your own damn subreddit about FrappuccinoCoin if you don't like the BTC mods' "epitome of authoritarianism."  They are not your servants, and it's hilarious to watch your hypocrisy in action.

yep, didn't think you'd be able to see the difference.

one being outright censorship that attempts to suppress discussion of the most important debate in the community today about Bitcoins future direction, ie the XT fork, and the other a nobody cares spammy personal slander attack that only started when i began speaking out in favor of bigger blocks.  not to mention by a coward who hides behind an anonymous identity.

If anything has to be moderated, than it is the anonymous cowards who attack the privacy of others.
Everybody should be able to see the difference.

[smooth]

Did you think Satoshi put that limit in at 1MB to be there forever?

No, I suspect he meant to add other mechanisms to control in-block spam in its place (or at least I might say, hoped to, but may not have known how to do it), but never got to it and no one else picked up that work either. Now we are kind of screwed.

How are we screwed if we have time to try to find solutions?

I meant screwed on the assumption that the 1 MB is about to fill up and cause problems.

But has anyone considered that a good solution may not even exist? Bitcoin is a new thing that has never been done before and is not a law of nature that Bitcoin must "work" in general (for example at larger scale).

In my experience in building software, often problems that get the kick-the-can treatment don't end up having good solutions later either. Maybe 1MB was satoshi kicking-the-can?

I'm not claiming this, just asking the question.

Well is good the same as perfect?

Certainly not

I believe there is a good solution but not a perfect one. Sounds like the solution may be a moving target (dynamic in nature).

I hope you are right but I don't really know if there is.

Most of these ideas that get thrown out are stuff that seems like a good idea but nobody can make a rigorous argument why they won't break.

Did you have any thoughts after reading Peter R's paper? It seemed to describe the major issues as they are in their current form.

Lots of math and tons of variables to reference. I found myself going back to the definition of VARs page constantly to follow his logic/math/etc.

It answered the question of whether a fee market will collapse under certain conditions, with some simplifying assumptions about the network. I don't believe it answered (or even asked) the questions surrounding decentralization at all. You can have a fee market (in fact it is the most obvious case of one) with a single node serving the entire world. Obviously that is not a desirable outcome and nothing in his paper addresses it (nor tries to, which is fine -- that what's what papers do, they don't need to answer every question).

[smoothie]

Did you think Satoshi put that limit in at 1MB to be there forever?

No, I suspect he meant to add other mechanisms to control in-block spam in its place (or at least I might say, hoped to, but may not have known how to do it), but never got to it and no one else picked up that work either. Now we are kind of screwed.

How are we screwed if we have time to try to find solutions?

I meant screwed on the assumption that the 1 MB is about to fill up and cause problems.

But has anyone considered that a good solution may not even exist? Bitcoin is a new thing that has never been done before and is not a law of nature that Bitcoin must "work" in general (for example at larger scale).

In my experience in building software, often problems that get the kick-the-can treatment don't end up having good solutions later either. Maybe 1MB was satoshi kicking-the-can?

I'm not claiming this, just asking the question.

Well is good the same as perfect?

Certainly not

I believe there is a good solution but not a perfect one. Sounds like the solution may be a moving target (dynamic in nature).

I hope you are right but I don't really know if there is.

Most of these ideas that get thrown out are stuff that seems like a good idea but nobody can make a rigorous argument why they won't break.

Did you have any thoughts after reading Peter R's paper? It seemed to describe the major issues as they are in their current form.

Lots of math and tons of variables to reference. I found myself going back to the definition of VARs page constantly to follow his logic/math/etc.

It answered the question of whether a fee market will collapse under certain conditions, with some simplifying assumptions about the network. I don't believe it answered (or even asked) the questions surrounding decentralization at all. You can have a fee market (in fact it is the most obvious case of one) with a single node serving the entire world. Obviously that is not a desirable outcome and nothing in his paper addresses it (nor tries to, which is fine -- that what's what papers do, they don't need to answer every question).

We already have a fee market.

But it isn't one that is very competitive yet.

Basically do we keep 1 MB cap and create a competitive fee market or raise the limit with some mechanism and eliminate the need for a competitive fee market while not turning users away and being forced to use intermediaries as payment channels.

[smooth]

Did you think Satoshi put that limit in at 1MB to be there forever?

No, I suspect he meant to add other mechanisms to control in-block spam in its place (or at least I might say, hoped to, but may not have known how to do it), but never got to it and no one else picked up that work either. Now we are kind of screwed.

How are we screwed if we have time to try to find solutions?

I meant screwed on the assumption that the 1 MB is about to fill up and cause problems.

But has anyone considered that a good solution may not even exist? Bitcoin is a new thing that has never been done before and is not a law of nature that Bitcoin must "work" in general (for example at larger scale).

In my experience in building software, often problems that get the kick-the-can treatment don't end up having good solutions later either. Maybe 1MB was satoshi kicking-the-can?

I'm not claiming this, just asking the question.

Well is good the same as perfect?

Certainly not

I believe there is a good solution but not a perfect one. Sounds like the solution may be a moving target (dynamic in nature).

I hope you are right but I don't really know if there is.

Most of these ideas that get thrown out are stuff that seems like a good idea but nobody can make a rigorous argument why they won't break.

Did you have any thoughts after reading Peter R's paper? It seemed to describe the major issues as they are in their current form.

Lots of math and tons of variables to reference. I found myself going back to the definition of VARs page constantly to follow his logic/math/etc.

It answered the question of whether a fee market will collapse under certain conditions, with some simplifying assumptions about the network. I don't believe it answered (or even asked) the questions surrounding decentralization at all. You can have a fee market (in fact it is the most obvious case of one) with a single node serving the entire world. Obviously that is not a desirable outcome and nothing in his paper addresses it (nor tries to, which is fine -- that what's what papers do, they don't need to answer every question).

We already have a fee market.

But it isn't one that is very competitive yet.

Basically do we keep 1 MB cap and create a competitive fee market or raise the limit with some mechanism and eliminate the need for a competitive fee market while not turning users away and being forced to use intermediaries as payment channels.

Yes that is the question of course. My question has always been if we get rid of the 1 MB what do we do about spam control. One answer is "don't worry be happy" arguing, in effect, that the original cap was unnecessary. I'm not sure I buy it.

[cypherdoc]

Did you think Satoshi put that limit in at 1MB to be there forever?

No, I suspect he meant to add other mechanisms to control in-block spam in its place (or at least I might say, hoped to, but may not have known how to do it), but never got to it and no one else picked up that work either. Now we are kind of screwed.

How are we screwed if we have time to try to find solutions?

I meant screwed on the assumption that the 1 MB is about to fill up and cause problems.

But has anyone considered that a good solution may not even exist? Bitcoin is a new thing that has never been done before and is not a law of nature that Bitcoin must "work" in general (for example at larger scale).

In my experience in building software, often problems that get the kick-the-can treatment don't end up having good solutions later either. Maybe 1MB was satoshi kicking-the-can?

I'm not claiming this, just asking the question.

Well is good the same as perfect?

Certainly not

I believe there is a good solution but not a perfect one. Sounds like the solution may be a moving target (dynamic in nature).

I hope you are right but I don't really know if there is.

Most of these ideas that get thrown out are stuff that seems like a good idea but nobody can make a rigorous argument why they won't break.

Did you have any thoughts after reading Peter R's paper? It seemed to describe the major issues as they are in their current form.

Lots of math and tons of variables to reference. I found myself going back to the definition of VARs page constantly to follow his logic/math/etc.

It answered the question of whether a fee market will collapse under certain conditions, with some simplifying assumptions about the network. I don't believe it answered (or even asked) the questions surrounding decentralization at all. You can have a fee market (in fact it is the most obvious case of one) with a single node serving the entire world. Obviously that is not a desirable outcome and nothing in his paper addresses it (nor tries to, which is fine -- that what's what papers do, they don't need to answer every question).

We already have a fee market.

But it isn't one that is very competitive yet.

Basically do we keep 1 MB cap and create a competitive fee market or raise the limit with some mechanism and eliminate the need for a competitive fee market while not turning users away and being forced to use intermediaries as payment channels.

Yes that is the question of course. My question has always been if we get rid of the 1 MB what do we do about spam control. One answer is "don't worry be happy" arguing, in effect, that the original cap was unnecessary. I'm not sure I buy it.

For whatever reason, you seem to keep  ignoring the very answers to your fears that I and guys like Peter have been detailing to you in excruciating detail over and over again.

As long as miners and nodes have the freedom to set what size TX's they will validate and relay, which they do, they can protect their mempools from crashing. As long as miners are free to set their own block sizes, which they are, they can defend themselves from spam, however they want to define it. As long as users have the ability to outbid a spammers fee, which they will in a no limit situation, they can choose to either do so or walk away. As long as core dev can't be involved in setting  limits, which they won't, then  they can't be involved in picking winners and losers,which  is good.

[cypherdoc]

Furthermore, as long as spammers have to pay a minimum fee, which they do, conducting an attack is a dangerous and expensive random walk upwards for them to attempt in a no limit scenario. Losses could have no limit when going up against the Bitcoin network.

This has been a long discussed means to combat email spam that never got tried afaik. Probably because there was no practical financial means to charge for it in the traditional fiat system.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

As sickpig suggested, it would be a recognition that the block size limit is not part of the consensus layer, but rather part of the transport layer.

i never did quite get this part.  can you explain?

Sure.  

Why do we have a consensus layer in the first place?  It is a way for us to agree on what transactions are valid and what transactions are invalid.  For example, we all agree that Alice shouldn't be able to move Bob's coins without a valid signature, and that Bob shouldn't be able to create coins out of thin air.  The consensus layer is about obvious stuff like that.  In order for Bitcoin to function as sound money, we need to agree on "black-or-white" rules like this that define which transactions are valid and which are invalid.

Notice that the paragraph above discusses valid and invalid transactions.  No where did I say anything about blocks.  That's because we only really care about transactions in the first place!  In fact, how can a block be invalid just because it includes one too many valid transactions?  

Satoshi added the 1 MB limit as an anti-spam measure to deal with certain limitations of Bitcoin's transport layer--not as a new rule for what constitutes a valid transaction.  We should thus think of every block that is exclusively composed of valid transactions as itself valid.  The size of the block alone should not make it invalid.  Instead, if a block is too big, think of it as likely to be orphaned (a "gray" rule) rather than as invalid (a black-or-white rule).  Perhaps above a certain block size, we're even 100% sure that a block will be orphaned; still we should view it as a valid block!  It will be orphaned because the transport layer was insufficient to transport it across the network--not because there was anything invalid about it.

Nice. This could be modified into a good reddit self-post that should generate a lot of thought.

[smooth]

Did you think Satoshi put that limit in at 1MB to be there forever?

No, I suspect he meant to add other mechanisms to control in-block spam in its place (or at least I might say, hoped to, but may not have known how to do it), but never got to it and no one else picked up that work either. Now we are kind of screwed.

How are we screwed if we have time to try to find solutions?

I meant screwed on the assumption that the 1 MB is about to fill up and cause problems.

But has anyone considered that a good solution may not even exist? Bitcoin is a new thing that has never been done before and is not a law of nature that Bitcoin must "work" in general (for example at larger scale).

In my experience in building software, often problems that get the kick-the-can treatment don't end up having good solutions later either. Maybe 1MB was satoshi kicking-the-can?

I'm not claiming this, just asking the question.

Well is good the same as perfect?

Certainly not

I believe there is a good solution but not a perfect one. Sounds like the solution may be a moving target (dynamic in nature).

I hope you are right but I don't really know if there is.

Most of these ideas that get thrown out are stuff that seems like a good idea but nobody can make a rigorous argument why they won't break.

Did you have any thoughts after reading Peter R's paper? It seemed to describe the major issues as they are in their current form.

Lots of math and tons of variables to reference. I found myself going back to the definition of VARs page constantly to follow his logic/math/etc.

It answered the question of whether a fee market will collapse under certain conditions, with some simplifying assumptions about the network. I don't believe it answered (or even asked) the questions surrounding decentralization at all. You can have a fee market (in fact it is the most obvious case of one) with a single node serving the entire world. Obviously that is not a desirable outcome and nothing in his paper addresses it (nor tries to, which is fine -- that what's what papers do, they don't need to answer every question).

We already have a fee market.

But it isn't one that is very competitive yet.

Basically do we keep 1 MB cap and create a competitive fee market or raise the limit with some mechanism and eliminate the need for a competitive fee market while not turning users away and being forced to use intermediaries as payment channels.

Yes that is the question of course. My question has always been if we get rid of the 1 MB what do we do about spam control. One answer is "don't worry be happy" arguing, in effect, that the original cap was unnecessary. I'm not sure I buy it.

For whatever reason, you seem to keep  ignoring the very answers to your fears that I and guys like Peter have been detailing to you in excruciating detail over and over again.

The reason is that I don't find your answers convincing, nor rigorously analyzed or presented, for the most part. That even applies to Peter R, in terms of many of his answers on this. His paper was good but it only addressed a small part of the larger set of questions.

[smoothie]

I must have missed this video excerpt where hearn says to "ignore the longest chain" and basically throw out consensus to fork.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB9goUDBAR0

thoughts?

Cypher?

Ice?

Smooth?

Peter?

[Erdogan]

I'm actually quite excited about this idea.  It has a sort of inevitable feel to it.

Yes. Since anyone can run any software they want to interact with the Bitcoin network, this idea does seem like a logical development.

It also seems like one of those counter-intuitive anti-fragility things, where the seeming chaos and instability at a micro level will actually lead to a more predictable and stable behaviour at the macro level.

If it became more common for individual nodes to be able to tweak consensus parameters, then I think that would actually lead to more predictable and stable consensus behaviour in the long run. The worst thing that can happen to a node operator is to fall out of consensus with the rest of the network, so individual node operators would be strongly incentivised to develop methods to ensure they can track the status of the network, and deal with any potential consensus forks.

As it stands now, consensus behaviour is based on the specific implementation details of Bitcoin Core. The software is not designed with the assumption that hard consensus forks are a likely event, and when they do happen nodes are not designed to handle it gracefully. The accidental hard form of March 2013 happened because of an obscure implementation detail in the Core software, and was only possible because the software monoculture created a "single point of failure". A more diverse implementation of consensus rules might result in more frequent consensus divergences and orphaned blocks, but each one would be non-catastrophic, and would lead toward a more stable and resilient network in the long run.

Good

[lunarboy]

I must have missed this video excerpt where hearn says to "ignore the longest chain" and basically throw out consensus to fork.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB9goUDBAR0

thoughts?

Cypher?

Ice?

Smooth?

Peter?

I really wish I hadn't just watched that.

[brg444]

That is because bitcoins are a unique collectible unlike anything the world has seen since gold. Unfortunately much like gold some characteristics limit its direct use as a mean of exchange. Gold's shortcoming is in its physicality, Bitcoin's own is the decentralization tradeoff.

I think Bitcoins are absolutely a unique collectible. I hate to "call up" authority but its own creator was well aware of that:

Maybe it could get an initial value circularly as you’ve suggested, by people foreseeing its potential usefulness for exchange. (I would definitely want some) Maybe collectors, any random reason could spark it. - Satoshi Nakamoto

It might make sense just to get some in case it catches on. If enough people think the same way, that becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. -Satoshi Nakamoto

Aug. 27, 2010: Bitcoins have no dividend or potential future dividend, therefore not like a stock. (They’re) more like a collectible or commodity. - Satoshi Nakamoto

Satoshi quotes which are correct, but also relate to when BTC was the only cryptocurrency.
Today http://coinmarketcap.com has about 600 listed, including - if I choose one at random - Monero.

So, is a monero a unique collectible unlike anything the world has seen since gold? Yes or No!

YES!

Now are they as "rare" by my definition than Bitcoin? No. But by all account they have obtained a significant amount of "collectors" because of its own rather unique property, as smooth pointed out.

[smooth]

That is because bitcoins are a unique collectible unlike anything the world has seen since gold. Unfortunately much like gold some characteristics limit its direct use as a mean of exchange. Gold's shortcoming is in its physicality, Bitcoin's own is the decentralization tradeoff.

I think Bitcoins are absolutely a unique collectible. I hate to "call up" authority but its own creator was well aware of that:

Maybe it could get an initial value circularly as you’ve suggested, by people foreseeing its potential usefulness for exchange. (I would definitely want some) Maybe collectors, any random reason could spark it. - Satoshi Nakamoto

It might make sense just to get some in case it catches on. If enough people think the same way, that becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. -Satoshi Nakamoto

Aug. 27, 2010: Bitcoins have no dividend or potential future dividend, therefore not like a stock. (They’re) more like a collectible or commodity. - Satoshi Nakamoto

Satoshi quotes which are correct, but also relate to when BTC was the only cryptocurrency.
Today http://coinmarketcap.com has about 600 listed, including - if I choose one at random - Monero.

So, is a monero a unique collectible unlike anything the world has seen since gold? Yes or No!

YES!

Now are they as "rare" by my definition than Bitcoin? No. But by all account they have obtained a significant amount of "collectors".

People will collect just about anything. I'm not sure how relevant that is, but it is certainly true. I understand people collect even centrally-issued virtual assets and trade the for significant money. It is quite an odd human phenomenon. But to deny it is to deny how humans actually behave.

[lunarboy]

That is because bitcoins are a unique collectible unlike anything the world has seen since gold. Unfortunately much like gold some characteristics limit its direct use as a mean of exchange. Gold's shortcoming is in its physicality, Bitcoin's own is the decentralization tradeoff.

I think Bitcoins are absolutely a unique collectible. I hate to "call up" authority but its own creator was well aware of that:

Maybe it could get an initial value circularly as you’ve suggested, by people foreseeing its potential usefulness for exchange. (I would definitely want some) Maybe collectors, any random reason could spark it. - Satoshi Nakamoto

It might make sense just to get some in case it catches on. If enough people think the same way, that becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. -Satoshi Nakamoto

Aug. 27, 2010: Bitcoins have no dividend or potential future dividend, therefore not like a stock. (They’re) more like a collectible or commodity. - Satoshi Nakamoto

Satoshi quotes which are correct, but also relate to when BTC was the only cryptocurrency.
Today http://coinmarketcap.com has about 600 listed, including - if I choose one at random - Monero.

So, is a monero a unique collectible unlike anything the world has seen since gold? Yes or No!

YES!

Now are they as "rare" by my definition than Bitcoin? No. But by all account they have obtained a significant amount of "collectors" because of its own rather unique property, as smooth pointed out.

Hang on a sec whilst I just nip down and photocopy an thousand copies of the Mona lisa. This is money were talking about network effect and userbase are all that is important.

[brg444]

That is because bitcoins are a unique collectible unlike anything the world has seen since gold. Unfortunately much like gold some characteristics limit its direct use as a mean of exchange. Gold's shortcoming is in its physicality, Bitcoin's own is the decentralization tradeoff.

I think Bitcoins are absolutely a unique collectible. I hate to "call up" authority but its own creator was well aware of that:

Maybe it could get an initial value circularly as you’ve suggested, by people foreseeing its potential usefulness for exchange. (I would definitely want some) Maybe collectors, any random reason could spark it. - Satoshi Nakamoto

It might make sense just to get some in case it catches on. If enough people think the same way, that becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. -Satoshi Nakamoto

Aug. 27, 2010: Bitcoins have no dividend or potential future dividend, therefore not like a stock. (They’re) more like a collectible or commodity. - Satoshi Nakamoto

Satoshi quotes which are correct, but also relate to when BTC was the only cryptocurrency.
Today http://coinmarketcap.com has about 600 listed, including - if I choose one at random - Monero.

So, is a monero a unique collectible unlike anything the world has seen since gold? Yes or No!

YES!

Now are they as "rare" by my definition than Bitcoin? No. But by all account they have obtained a significant amount of "collectors".

People will collect just about anything. I'm not sure how relevant that is, but it is certainly true. I understand people collect even centrally-issued virtual assets and trade the for significant money. It is quite an odd human phenomenon. But to deny it is to deny how humans actually behave.

Yes! But I'm sure you will agree the different properties and scarcity of these items will define their own market value and make them unique in their own right.

I think we are getting a little too far from my original point so I guess we should leave it at that..