TIME TO BUY

[ChuckBuck]

...
Yea, Bitcoin's stuck in mud and isn't programmable.  Wait, what's that?!!  It's open source?!!  

Nevermind.

Why is it people here use the phrase "open source" as if it was "abracadabra!"  Open source is not magic, a hard fork offering lower block rewards will not be mined

Bitcoin has been forked twice I believe, in 2010 and 2013, so it's not unprecedented.

I think Gavin had proposed forking Bitcoin recently once again in the near future, to allow for scale as daily transactions grow infinitely each year:

http://www.coindesk.com/gavin-andresen-bitcoin-hard-fork/

He even replied frequently here in this Bitcointalk thread to explain and back his stance:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=816298.0

[NotLambchop]

...
Yea, Bitcoin's stuck in mud and isn't programmable.  Wait, what's that?!!  It's open source?!!  

Nevermind.

Why is it people here use the phrase "open source" as if it was "abracadabra!"  Open source is not magic, a hard fork offering lower block rewards will not be mined

Bitcoin has been forked twice I believe, in 2010 and 2013, so it's not unprecedented.

I think Gavin had proposed forking Bitcoin recently once again in the near future, to allow for scale as daily transactions grow infinitely each year:

http://www.coindesk.com/gavin-andresen-bitcoin-hard-fork/

He even replied frequently here in this Bitcointalk thread to explain and back his stance:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=816298.0

Hard forks are possible, but the ones which would help Bitcoin are not.  See red bold text.

[ChuckBuck]

...
Yea, Bitcoin's stuck in mud and isn't programmable.  Wait, what's that?!!  It's open source?!!  

Nevermind.

Why is it people here use the phrase "open source" as if it was "abracadabra!"  Open source is not magic, a hard fork offering lower block rewards will not be mined

Bitcoin has been forked twice I believe, in 2010 and 2013, so it's not unprecedented.

I think Gavin had proposed forking Bitcoin recently once again in the near future, to allow for scale as daily transactions grow infinitely each year:

http://www.coindesk.com/gavin-andresen-bitcoin-hard-fork/

He even replied frequently here in this Bitcointalk thread to explain and back his stance:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=816298.0

Hard forks are possible, but the ones which would help Bitcoin are not.  See red bold text.

I think there were 2 logical explanations on the thread I linked:

Can someone post a non technical dummies guide to what the changes will be?

Do the changes mean less miners reward?

Explain it like I'm 5 version:


The size of the "closet" (block) that is "created" (mined) every 10 minutes will be increased so that more "clothes" (transactions) can fit in each "closet" (block).

Of course bigger "closets" (blocks) also need more space to "store" (MB's per block) all those created closets.

This does not necessarily mean that miners will get paid less, but it will be easier for them to include more "clothes" (transactions) into each "closet" (block). Miners will always charge what they want for a transaction, the market will take care of the rest.
=====================================================================

Each block will still reward 25 bitcoins to the miner that generates the block (that continues to lower per halvening as scheduled). The only thing can MIGHT change is how much transaction fee is paid per transaction.

Can someone post a non technical dummies guide to what the changes will be?

Do the changes mean less miners reward?

Any time you send a TX, it must be included in a block that is found by the miners. The TX that you create takes up a certain amount of space in the block based on how many addresses you are sending the money to and how many different people sent you the money you are spending.

As it is now there is a 1 MB limit as to how much space each block can hold. This limits the number of transactions to roughly 7 per second as if more transactions are sent there would not be enough space in each block.

The change being proposed is to gradually increase the maximum block size so that more transactions can fit in each confirmed block

So with this hard fork proposal, it'd still be 25 BTC per block, just transaction fees would be a little more.

[NotLambchop]

^
A tangent?  Sure, hard forks are possible, but not the ones which are needed.  Addresses the red boldface text.

[ChuckBuck]

^
A tangent?  Sure, hard forks are possible, but not the ones which are needed.  Addresses the red boldface text.

Which tangent?  Block rewards wouldn't change for the miners, just transaction fees.

A hard fork would address many so called issues with scale and transactions per second limited by the current 1mb size per block.

[NotLambchop]

^
A tangent?  Sure, hard forks are possible, but not the ones which are needed.  Addresses the red boldface text.

Which tangent?  Block rewards wouldn't change for the miners, just transaction fees.

A hard fork would address many so called issues with scale and transactions per second limited by the current 1mb size per block.

Let's take this one step at a time.
1.  The block rewards are too high--too much coin is being produced, Bitcoin is unable to maintain price @ 14-15% monetary base inflation.
2.  A real currency like USD, with IRL people at the helm, would limit issuance in such times to counter the falling price.
3.  BTC can't do it with a hard fork--miners wouldn't mine the fork in which the block rewards are lower--see red text.
4.  You posted a fork which does not change the block reward & does nothing to address this issue.

[inca]

^
A tangent?  Sure, hard forks are possible, but not the ones which are needed.  Addresses the red boldface text.

Which tangent?  Block rewards wouldn't change for the miners, just transaction fees.

A hard fork would address many so called issues with scale and transactions per second limited by the current 1mb size per block.

Let's take this one step at a time.
1.  The block rewards are too high--too much coin is being produced, Bitcoin is unable to maintain price @ 14-15% monetary base inflation.
2.  A real currency like USD, with IRL people at the helm, would limit issuance in such times to counter the falling price.
3.  BTC can't do it with a hard fork--miners wouldn't mine the fork in which the block rewards are lower--see red text.
4.  You posted a fork which does not change the block reward & does nothing to address this issue.

How much was the block reward 2 years ago? How high was bitcoin inflation 2 years ago? Did bitcoin manage to maintain the exchange price?

[NotLambchop]

^
A tangent?  Sure, hard forks are possible, but not the ones which are needed.  Addresses the red boldface text.

Which tangent?  Block rewards wouldn't change for the miners, just transaction fees.

A hard fork would address many so called issues with scale and transactions per second limited by the current 1mb size per block.

Let's take this one step at a time.
1.  The block rewards are too high--too much coin is being produced, Bitcoin is unable to maintain price @ 14-15% monetary base inflation.
2.  A real currency like USD, with IRL people at the helm, would limit issuance in such times to counter the falling price.
3.  BTC can't do it with a hard fork--miners wouldn't mine the fork in which the block rewards are lower--see red text.
4.  You posted a fork which does not change the block reward & does nothing to address this issue.

How much was the block reward 2 years ago? How high was bitcoin inflation 2 years ago? Did bitcoin manage to maintain the exchange price?

Which part of "BTC can't [drop block rewards] with a hard fork--miners wouldn't mine the fork in which the block rewards are lower" do you find difficult to grasp?
I'm trying to explain the basics of contemporary economics to you Bitcoiners, as if you were five.
I've got plenty of patience, but you must be willing to learn.

[ChuckBuck]

^
A tangent?  Sure, hard forks are possible, but not the ones which are needed.  Addresses the red boldface text.

Which tangent?  Block rewards wouldn't change for the miners, just transaction fees.

A hard fork would address many so called issues with scale and transactions per second limited by the current 1mb size per block.

Let's take this one step at a time.
1.  The block rewards are too high--too much coin is being produced, Bitcoin is unable to maintain price @ 14-15% monetary base inflation.
2.  A real currency like USD, with IRL people at the helm, would limit issuance in such times to counter the falling price.
3.  BTC can't do it with a hard fork--miners wouldn't mine the fork in which the block rewards are lower--see red text.
4.  You posted a fork which does not change the block reward & does nothing to address this issue.

The proposed hard fork is intended to be tested and possibly released within the year, before the year 2016 block halving, in which the block reward would be 12.5 BTC instead of the "too high" 25 BTC.

It's been done twice before in 2010 and 2013, why can't these same miners adjust to the new chain once again?

The new fork isn't supposed to change the block reward, there's nothing wrong with the original protocol that halves the block reward every 4 years.

The new fork addresses the issue of scale and transactions per second, which at 1MB and 7TPS isn't enough with continued growth.

Some other changes that are being tested and planned with the proposal:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Hardfork_Wishlist

[NotLambchop]

^
A tangent?  Sure, hard forks are possible, but not the ones which are needed.  Addresses the red boldface text.

Which tangent?  Block rewards wouldn't change for the miners, just transaction fees.

A hard fork would address many so called issues with scale and transactions per second limited by the current 1mb size per block.

Let's take this one step at a time.
1.  The block rewards are too high--too much coin is being produced, Bitcoin is unable to maintain price @ 14-15% monetary base inflation.
2.  A real currency like USD, with IRL people at the helm, would limit issuance in such times to counter the falling price.
3.  BTC can't do it with a hard fork--miners wouldn't mine the fork in which the block rewards are lower--see red text.
4.  You posted a fork which does not change the block reward & does nothing to address this issue.

The proposed hard fork is intended to be tested and possibly released within the year, before the year 2016 block halving, in which the block reward would be 12.5 BTC instead of the "too high" 25 BTC...

But the change isn't needed in a year.  It's needed now.  Hence the falling price.
IRL money can adjust for this in a timely fashion, and you're compiling wishlists for possibly doing something in more than a year's time.

This is exactly what I mean by "driving a car by consensus"--there's a good chance you'll come into positive & constructive engagement with a telephone pole before then

[ChuckBuck]

^
A tangent?  Sure, hard forks are possible, but not the ones which are needed.  Addresses the red boldface text.

Which tangent?  Block rewards wouldn't change for the miners, just transaction fees.

A hard fork would address many so called issues with scale and transactions per second limited by the current 1mb size per block.

Let's take this one step at a time.
1.  The block rewards are too high--too much coin is being produced, Bitcoin is unable to maintain price @ 14-15% monetary base inflation.
2.  A real currency like USD, with IRL people at the helm, would limit issuance in such times to counter the falling price.
3.  BTC can't do it with a hard fork--miners wouldn't mine the fork in which the block rewards are lower--see red text.
4.  You posted a fork which does not change the block reward & does nothing to address this issue.

The proposed hard fork is intended to be tested and possibly released within the year, before the year 2016 block halving, in which the block reward would be 12.5 BTC instead of the "too high" 25 BTC...

But the change isn't needed in a year.  It's needed now.  Hence the falling price.
IRL money can adjust for this in a timely fashion, and you're compiling wishlists for possibly doing something in more than a year's time.

This is exactly what I mean by "driving a car by consensus"--there's a good chance you'll come into positive & constructive engagement with a telephone pole before then

Not sure what the price has to do with hard forks or the Bitcoin code???   

Price is independent of development, always has always will be.  Price has always been tied to Supply/Demand, speculation, whales manipulating etc.

The "wishlist" is to improve and fix bugs within the code long term, sorta like a service pack, a new version, or a new Minecraft release.

Devs will devs, end users and miners alike will likely have to download a new version of Bitcoin Core like in 2010 and 2013, it'll take a couple days to sync, and that's it.

[SquallLeonhart]

i think yes it is time to buy bitcoin
as one of the best investor talking about bitcoin
http://www.businessinsider.com/warren-buffett-money-tips-for-2015-2014-12

this will attract more investors when they know about this
and the bitcoin holders don't care what other say about bitcoin

[NotLambchop]

^
A tangent?  Sure, hard forks are possible, but not the ones which are needed.  Addresses the red boldface text.

Which tangent?  Block rewards wouldn't change for the miners, just transaction fees.

A hard fork would address many so called issues with scale and transactions per second limited by the current 1mb size per block.

Let's take this one step at a time.
1.  The block rewards are too high--too much coin is being produced, Bitcoin is unable to maintain price @ 14-15% monetary base inflation.
2.  A real currency like USD, with IRL people at the helm, would limit issuance in such times to counter the falling price.
3.  BTC can't do it with a hard fork--miners wouldn't mine the fork in which the block rewards are lower--see red text.
4.  You posted a fork which does not change the block reward & does nothing to address this issue.

The proposed hard fork is intended to be tested and possibly released within the year, before the year 2016 block halving, in which the block reward would be 12.5 BTC instead of the "too high" 25 BTC...

But the change isn't needed in a year.  It's needed now.  Hence the falling price.
IRL money can adjust for this in a timely fashion, and you're compiling wishlists for possibly doing something in more than a year's time.

This is exactly what I mean by "driving a car by consensus"--there's a good chance you'll come into positive & constructive engagement with a telephone pole before then

Not sure what the price has to do with hard forks or the Bitcoin code???   ...

It has nothing to do with development, it has much to do with the number of coins mined per day & showing up on exchanges.  I'm going to make myself another coffee, overcoming this much ignorance is going to take a while

In the meantime, you can reread my post about clockwork guidance systems.  V1 had one of those, BTW

[ChuckBuck]

^
A tangent?  Sure, hard forks are possible, but not the ones which are needed.  Addresses the red boldface text.

Which tangent?  Block rewards wouldn't change for the miners, just transaction fees.

A hard fork would address many so called issues with scale and transactions per second limited by the current 1mb size per block.

Let's take this one step at a time.
1.  The block rewards are too high--too much coin is being produced, Bitcoin is unable to maintain price @ 14-15% monetary base inflation.
2.  A real currency like USD, with IRL people at the helm, would limit issuance in such times to counter the falling price.
3.  BTC can't do it with a hard fork--miners wouldn't mine the fork in which the block rewards are lower--see red text.
4.  You posted a fork which does not change the block reward & does nothing to address this issue.

The proposed hard fork is intended to be tested and possibly released within the year, before the year 2016 block halving, in which the block reward would be 12.5 BTC instead of the "too high" 25 BTC...

But the change isn't needed in a year.  It's needed now.  Hence the falling price.
IRL money can adjust for this in a timely fashion, and you're compiling wishlists for possibly doing something in more than a year's time.

This is exactly what I mean by "driving a car by consensus"--there's a good chance you'll come into positive & constructive engagement with a telephone pole before then

Not sure what the price has to do with hard forks or the Bitcoin code???   ...

It has nothing to do with development, it has much to do with the number of coins mined per day & showing up on exchanges.  I'm going to make myself another coffee, overcoming this much ignorance is going to take a while

In the meantime, you can reread my post about clockwork guidance systems.  V1 had one of those, BTW

But what would the number of coins mined per day have to do with the declining price?

It didn't really matter when it changed from 50 BTC halving to 25 BTC.  Traders will trade, programmers will program.  Price is a market condition, not a development condition.

[brg444]

^
A tangent?  Sure, hard forks are possible, but not the ones which are needed.  Addresses the red boldface text.

Which tangent?  Block rewards wouldn't change for the miners, just transaction fees.

A hard fork would address many so called issues with scale and transactions per second limited by the current 1mb size per block.

Let's take this one step at a time.
1.  The block rewards are too high--too much coin is being produced, Bitcoin is unable to maintain price @ 14-15% monetary base inflation.
2.  A real currency like USD, with IRL people at the helm, would limit issuance in such times to counter the falling price.
3.  BTC can't do it with a hard fork--miners wouldn't mine the fork in which the block rewards are lower--see red text.
4.  You posted a fork which does not change the block reward & does nothing to address this issue.

How much was the block reward 2 years ago? How high was bitcoin inflation 2 years ago? Did bitcoin manage to maintain the exchange price?

Which part of "BTC can't [drop block rewards] with a hard fork--miners wouldn't mine the fork in which the block rewards are lower" do you find difficult to grasp?
I'm trying to explain the basics of contemporary economics to you Bitcoiners, as if you were five.
I've got plenty of patience, but you must be willing to learn.

 

Fantastic attempt to deviate from the obvious fallacy in your argument.

The block reward was twice as high 2 years ago yet Bitcoin managed to survive.

Can you explain 

[inca]

^
A tangent?  Sure, hard forks are possible, but not the ones which are needed.  Addresses the red boldface text.

Which tangent?  Block rewards wouldn't change for the miners, just transaction fees.

A hard fork would address many so called issues with scale and transactions per second limited by the current 1mb size per block.

Let's take this one step at a time.
1.  The block rewards are too high--too much coin is being produced, Bitcoin is unable to maintain price @ 14-15% monetary base inflation.
2.  A real currency like USD, with IRL people at the helm, would limit issuance in such times to counter the falling price.
3.  BTC can't do it with a hard fork--miners wouldn't mine the fork in which the block rewards are lower--see red text.
4.  You posted a fork which does not change the block reward & does nothing to address this issue.

The proposed hard fork is intended to be tested and possibly released within the year, before the year 2016 block halving, in which the block reward would be 12.5 BTC instead of the "too high" 25 BTC...

But the change isn't needed in a year.  It's needed now.  Hence the falling price.
IRL money can adjust for this in a timely fashion, and you're compiling wishlists for possibly doing something in more than a year's time.

This is exactly what I mean by "driving a car by consensus"--there's a good chance you'll come into positive & constructive engagement with a telephone pole before then

Not sure what the price has to do with hard forks or the Bitcoin code???   ...

It has nothing to do with development, it has much to do with the number of coins mined per day & showing up on exchanges.  I'm going to make myself another coffee, overcoming this much ignorance is going to take a while

In the meantime, you can reread my post about clockwork guidance systems.  V1 had one of those, BTW

But what would the number of coins mined per day have to do with the declining price?

It didn't really matter when it changed from 50 BTC halving to 25 BTC.  Traders will trade, programmers will program.  Price is a market condition, not a development condition.

He won't answer this because he can't spin it negatively. The facts are that supply of bitcoin will fall as the the block reward falls. Historically that restricted supply has been accompanied by a rise in exchange price.

[NotLambchop]

...
But what would the number of coins mined per day have to do with the declining price?
...

Umm... Coffee.
For someone invested in a currency relying on limited supply, you sure don't understand the basics.

At the risk of asking you to think:  What does the FED's printing of millions of dollars have to do with the value of USD?  Why not print it twice as fast & PROFIT!!! ?

[NotLambchop]

...
Which part of "BTC can't [drop block rewards] with a hard fork--miners wouldn't mine the fork in which the block rewards are lower" do you find difficult to grasp?
I'm trying to explain the basics of contemporary economics to you Bitcoiners, as if you were five.
I've got plenty of patience, but you must be willing to learn.

 

Fantastic attempt to deviate from the obvious fallacy in your argument.

The block reward was twice as high 2 years ago yet Bitcoin managed to survive.

Can you explain  

Sure.  The demand was higher, amongst other stuff.  That's called "changing economic conditions," the very thing elastic money supply with IRL people in charge was created to address.
Good question.  You're welcome

[NotLambchop]

...
He won't answer this because ...

So consistently wrong...

[ChuckBuck]

...
But what would the number of coins mined per day have to do with the declining price?
...

Umm... Coffee.
For someone invested in a currency relying on limited supply, you sure don't understand the basics.

At the risk of asking you to think:  What does the FED's printing of millions of dollars have to do with the value of USD?  Why not print it twice as fast & PROFIT!!! ?

Ai yi yi!  Now you backed yourself in the corner.  You shouldn't have mentioned the Federal Reserve.

The Fed has nothing to do with the government, is a private entity, a Central banking cartel that prints "continuous debt" dollars at will.

Some gross facts about the Fed that might not make you sleep well tonight...

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/10-things-that-every-american-should-know-about-the-federal-reserve

Boy oh boy...can't believe you brought up the "crooked" Fed

http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm

Who owns the Federal Reserve?

The Federal Reserve System fulfills its public mission as an independent entity within government.  It is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution.

As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the Congress of the United States. It is considered an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by the Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms.