Fork off

[Lauda]

Satoshi is gone. Gavin is not Satoshi. There was once a time when these things could have been changed; that time has passed. Or else you can expect to see this kind of scenario play out:

So what's next, if this somehow succeeds? Two years from now, Liberia uses bitcoin as national currency; suddenly the workers go on strike, ask for double salaries. Government asks Gavin to fork Bitcoin to give them an extra one-off five million BTC to pay the workers. Everyone agrees, right? Because: a) poor workers, they need it, and b) not agreeing would be being against expanded usage of Bitcoin. And for that matter, c) there's already precedent, the "poor users" who wanted to play but didn't want to pay transaction fees were given free stuff before.

Worst example ever. Please go away. The only reason to be against this fork would be to be against more adoption.
The limitation is really something that will cause problems in the future, a lot of them.

Such a ridiculous fork would never take place because :a) block size limit isn't a fundamental feature; b) the supply is.
Changing the block size limit doesn't affect the market or miners at all.

[danielpbarron]

then why do people like MP freak out?

I don't know. People get things stuck in their head, dig in, and then get all stupid and irrational about it.

There are not many people like MP. Many would recall that the precursor to his MPEx web site was hosted on the same domain that also hosted some kind of Eastern European dating/escort service. Would a rational person do that?

MPEx isn't a "web site." Unlike gox and stamp and all the other scam-exchanges, MPEx is a legitimate trading engine that also happens to have a few web front-ends.

This particular design has its advantages and its disadvantages. The main advantage is that since the trade engine does not connect to the Internet, it does not need a whole lot of software. Apache, for instance, is something that it doesn't need to have installed. This lack of software makes it a lot easier to secure, and a lot more difficult to mess with. In general I have found so far that the best results in computer security are achieved not by those who are most competent at securing a system, but by those who are backed by management most inclined to simplify their task. Your mileage may, obviously, vary.

Sounds rational enough to me.

[acquafredda]

Bitcoin can be hi-jacked by a simple majority?  

The ALT coins can fork.  

But once a crypto is past the age of 4.  Or $10m in marketcap.
No you do not fork.

Bitcoin the only value it has against the ALTs is that it will not fork, because it is impossible to establish a 99% consensus.  

Want a better 'bitcoin' make one
Launch it on the market.  

Hell give a snap shot distribution to the bitcoin holders.

Let the market, not a group of devs decide.

Pretty reasonable, I agree

[danielpbarron]

Satoshi is gone. Gavin is not Satoshi. There was once a time when these things could have been changed; that time has passed. Or else you can expect to see this kind of scenario play out:

So what's next, if this somehow succeeds? Two years from now, Liberia uses bitcoin as national currency; suddenly the workers go on strike, ask for double salaries. Government asks Gavin to fork Bitcoin to give them an extra one-off five million BTC to pay the workers. Everyone agrees, right? Because: a) poor workers, they need it, and b) not agreeing would be being against expanded usage of Bitcoin. And for that matter, c) there's already precedent, the "poor users" who wanted to play but didn't want to pay transaction fees were given free stuff before.

Worst example ever. Please go away. The only reason to be against this fork would be to be against more adoption.
The limitation is really something that will cause problems in the future, a lot of them.

Such a ridiculous fork would never take place because :a) block size limit isn't a fundamental feature; b) the supply is.
Changing the block size limit doesn't affect the market or miners at all.

I do not want "more adoption." At least, not at the cost of security. Bitcoin doesn't need more idiots; it needs less of them. And there is most certainly an affected market when you manipulate block sizes! You don't see it yet because it isn't an issue yet, but there will be a market for mining fees. This is a much bigger threat to Bitcoin than the prospect of a bunch of poor nobodies having to actually pay for the seeming miraculous service of sending any amount of wealth anywhere in the world in an hour. You should better worry about the people who literally secure the network. Do you think they will do this work for free? They will not keep mining blocks when the block reward is no longer significant, and users will not make up the difference out of the kindness of their hearts. Supply and demand drive price. There is a finite supply of transaction space, and that is why users will include a fee. This whole hard fork drama is part of the bigger brain-damaged notion that Bitcoin isn't about money.

Now, they have a new plan, one which aims to convince the world that Bitcoin can be compartmentalised as if it were nothing more than an estate sale in which governments and their lackeys pick over the best parts while the junk is tossed. You might be inclined, as I was, to think that the communist shitlord, otherwise known as Andreas M Antonopoulos, was the only one stating blockchain technology platitudes but you would be wrong. In fact, it appears there is a contrived effort to insert the idea into our minds that the Bitcoin network and the technology can be separated from Bitcoin the unit of account. They failed to convince us that Bitcoin in its entirety was worthless but their compromise seeks to trick you into believing that bitcoin remains worthless while the technology holds value for them, but not you.

[Soros Shorts]

MPEx isn't a "web site." Unlike gox and stamp and all the other scam-exchanges, MPEx is a legitimate trading engine that also happens to have a few web front-ends.

The trading engine wasn't what I was talking about. I was referring to his Options Emporium (MPOE). If you have brilliant technology and build a product on top of it (in the case a web-enabled product - I won't use the term "web site" since it is too demeaning for you), shouldn't you at least try to put in minimal effort to make it usable by regular people?

[Triffin]

In this climate all the alts which have a larger block limit trumpet their capability. One or two of them could gain traction and erode Bitcoin's first mover status. Serious erosion would result if nothing gets done.

Would you care to name a couple of existing alt-coins that have a larger block limit than BTC ??
I'm of the opinion that given human nature that your observation that "serious erosion would result if
nothing gets done" is the most probable outcome here ..

Triff ..

[Flashman]

And there is most certainly an affected market when you manipulate block sizes! You don't see it yet because it isn't an issue yet, but there will be a market for mining fees. This is a much bigger threat to Bitcoin than the prospect of a bunch of poor nobodies having to actually pay for the seeming miraculous service of sending any amount of wealth anywhere in the world in an hour. You should better worry about the people who literally secure the network. Do you think they will do this work for free? They will not keep mining blocks when the block reward is no longer significant, and users will not make up the difference out of the kindness of their hearts. Supply and demand drive price. There is a finite supply of transaction space, and that is why users will include a fee.

Throttling the motion of money by making it expensive to move smells authoritarian/elitist to me. Better 10,000 tx at 5c per, than having to persuade 100 people to spend $5 on it. Fungibility, liquidity and velocity are all related. Something fucking expensive, but fucking hard to move is not going to find a buyer quickly.

[matt4054]

Throttling the motion of money by making it expensive to move smells authoritarian/elitist to me.

I don't know about authoritarian, but elitists, I believe that's exactly what they are. I don't even think they would object to being called just that. Did you read Trilema? Not making any judgment here, but I believe it needs to be pointed out to understand their point of view.

Or maybe I just belong to idiots

[cbeast]

Throttling the motion of money by making it expensive to move smells authoritarian/elitist to me.

I don't know about authoritarian, but elitists, I believe that's exactly what they are. I don't even think they would object to being called elitists. Did you read Trilema? Not making any judgment here, but I believe it needs to be pointed out to understand their point of view.

Or maybe I just belong to idiots

Definition of trilemma: a choice between the right way, the wrong way, and my way and always choosing my way.

[Flashman]

Yeah, I'm not understanding how choosing who has the right to use bitcoin is not the Tsar Bomba of slippery slopes, that they themselves might end up on the wrong side of at some point, vs in service life extension upgrade to bitcoin.

[oda.krell]

And there is most certainly an affected market when you manipulate block sizes! You don't see it yet because it isn't an issue yet, but there will be a market for mining fees. This is a much bigger threat to Bitcoin than the prospect of a bunch of poor nobodies having to actually pay for the seeming miraculous service of sending any amount of wealth anywhere in the world in an hour. You should better worry about the people who literally secure the network. Do you think they will do this work for free? They will not keep mining blocks when the block reward is no longer significant, and users will not make up the difference out of the kindness of their hearts. Supply and demand drive price. There is a finite supply of transaction space, and that is why users will include a fee.

Throttling the motion of money by making it expensive to move smells authoritarian/elitist to me. Better 10,000 tx at 5c per, than having to persuade 100 people to spend $5 on it. Fungibility, liquidity and velocity are all related. Something fucking expensive, but fucking hard to move is not going to find a buyer quickly.

Ssshh! Stop making economic sense. The "Bible of Satoshi" crowd doesn't like to hear that kind of thing around here...

[danielpbarron]

MPEx isn't a "web site." Unlike gox and stamp and all the other scam-exchanges, MPEx is a legitimate trading engine that also happens to have a few web front-ends.

The trading engine wasn't what I was talking about. I was referring to his Options Emporium (MPOE). If you have brilliant technology and build a product on top of it (in the case a web-enabled product - I won't use the term "web site" since it is too demeaning for you), shouldn't you at least try to put in minimal effort to make it usable by regular people?

MPEx is exactly as "usable" as it needs to be. There is no way to make it easier to use without making it significantly less secure. I'm all for teaching the illiterate how to read, but they should never be catered to in their native state; that is, the lowest common denominator should not be used as the standard.

And there is most certainly an affected market when you manipulate block sizes! You don't see it yet because it isn't an issue yet, but there will be a market for mining fees. This is a much bigger threat to Bitcoin than the prospect of a bunch of poor nobodies having to actually pay for the seeming miraculous service of sending any amount of wealth anywhere in the world in an hour. You should better worry about the people who literally secure the network. Do you think they will do this work for free? They will not keep mining blocks when the block reward is no longer significant, and users will not make up the difference out of the kindness of their hearts. Supply and demand drive price. There is a finite supply of transaction space, and that is why users will include a fee.

Throttling the motion of money by making it expensive to move smells authoritarian/elitist to me. Better 10,000 tx at 5c per, than having to persuade 100 people to spend $5 on it. Fungibility, liquidity and velocity are all related. Something fucking expensive, but fucking hard to move is not going to find a buyer quickly.

I don't care what it "smells like." Bitcoin mining is driven by the block reward; the transaction fee is trivial. You know what else is elitist? Private jets! Wouldn't it be nice if everybody in the world had access to their own private jet? Don't mind how much this would cost, or that it's obviously unsustainable. That's what gavincoin promises to do: the impossible. That is why sane people oppose him. Nice things cost money, and socialism will never work.

Throttling the motion of money by making it expensive to move smells authoritarian/elitist to me.

I don't know about authoritarian, but elitists, I believe that's exactly what they are. I don't even think they would object to being called just that. Did you read Trilema? Not making any judgment here, but I believe it needs to be pointed out to understand their point of view.

Or maybe I just belong to idiots

Nope, we wouldn't.

Elitism is very much a fact of life, in any and all cases where your life works, and your experiences are satisfactory or enjoyable; it's as much a requisite of happy living as clean air. For instance: you meet a girl. Do you take her to a soup kitchen? No, you do not. You take her to Pomodoro's. Why? Oh, because you wish to project this air of elitism about you, like saying "Honey, as long as you're hanging on my arm, no doors in this city are closed to you" ? Well done you elitist democrat you.

[colinistheman]

I think the thing to do is to click "ignore danielpbarron."

And that's just what I have done.

Ahh, problem solved.

I seriously encourage all who disagree with him to follow suit.

If no one is listening to him then that cuts his "power" to argue insanities, as no one will be listening.

[danielpbarron]

I think the thing to do is to click "ignore danielpbarron."

And that's just what I have done.

Ahh, problem solved.

I seriously encourage all who disagree with him to follow suit.

If no one is listening to him then that cuts his "power" to argue insanities, as no one will be listening.

That's right, bury your heads in the sand. If you can't change the world, the least you can do is pretend it doesn't exist.

[tvbcof]

...
For instance: you meet a girl. Do you take her to a soup kitchen? No, you do not.  ...

I dunno.  Seems like a good testing and quality assurance strategy.  And would increases the 'velocity' as it were.

[Lauda]

And there is most certainly an affected market when you manipulate block sizes! You don't see it yet because it isn't an issue yet, but there will be a market for mining fees. This is a much bigger threat to Bitcoin than the prospect of a bunch of poor nobodies having to actually pay for the seeming miraculous service of sending any amount of wealth anywhere in the world in an hour. You should better worry about the people who literally secure the network. Do you think they will do this work for free? They will not keep mining blocks when the block reward is no longer significant, and users will not make up the difference out of the kindness of their hearts. Supply and demand drive price. There is a finite supply of transaction space, and that is why users will include a fee. This whole hard fork drama is part of the bigger brain-damaged notion that Bitcoin isn't about money.

Block size =/= block size limit.
Okay you obviously are smarter than Gavin.  

I think the thing to do is to click "ignore danielpbarron."

And that's just what I have done.
Ahh, problem solved.
I seriously encourage all who disagree with him to follow suit.

If no one is listening to him then that cuts his "power" to argue insanities, as no one will be listening.

Smart move.

[colinistheman]

I think the thing to do is to click "ignore danielpbarron."

And that's just what I have done.
Ahh, problem solved.
I seriously encourage all who disagree with him to follow suit.

If no one is listening to him then that cuts his "power" to argue insanities, as no one will be listening.

Smart move.

My bitcointalk browsing experience feels fresher already

[brg444]

It would be like saying that we should just have used separate internets because the first one couldn't scale.

this sentence doesn't make any sense to me

Let me explain it this way. Bitcoin is nothing more than numbers in computers. From an economic perspective these numbers need to be scarce otherwise their value will ultimately goes to zero and be useless for trade and being used as money.  If your solution is to insert an infinite amount of altcoins in the economic network. The number used to represent good and services are not scarce anymore driving their value to zero and ultimately removing the economic incentive to use them.

i disagree here. Supply and demand make the price of a coin. Bitcoin isn't scarce enough right now because of this insanely long phase of high inflation (8% to 10% this  year). This inflation bleeds out your marketcap. So that's the number one thing to be noticed: bitcoin is right now not scarce at all with 3600 new coins every day dumped on the market

#2 thing is: in an industry of competing alts scarcity will become mandatory - and i mean 'scarcity' ... not like 10% to 30% inflation years into adoption.
Coins will be valued according to demand and supply (of course). As long as they are scarce and useful nothing goes to zero, why should it?

I don't see what you're actually fearing because bitcoin right now is useless as money because of  the megalomania which says it needs to be inflationary which turns out to be constant oversupply and loss in cap and declining interest from the public. This bitcoincommunities entire logic and idea is totally strange and actually wrong logic.

10 alts can coexists literally forever if they 1) traget different groups of consumers 2) are useful for different things 3)can each secure a demand for them 4) they are reasonably scarce (low inflation) to support their value and reduce their volatility

Bitcoins volatilty is a pain and is caused mainly by the high inflation. That inflation you got there kills it right in front of you but you seem to be all high on something so you actually don't even see that. Scalability isn't even a topic for a coin that's unable to maintain a value like bitcoin.

Should I even....

This "inflation" is what secures the network right now. Without this supply of coins miners have no incentive processing the transactions. Moreover, Bitcoin has survived quite well a 7200 daily increase of its supply so this is quite obviously a non-argument.

Coins will be valued according to demand and supply (of course). As long as they are scarce and useful nothing goes to zero, why should it?

A coin used only by you and your dog, no matter its properties or scarcity is very much worthless. Scarcity, anyway, is a very ambiguous term. Limited supply is what is important. Bitcoin has it.

As far as arguing for the existence of multiple competing alts, start here : http://blog.oleganza.com/post/54121516413/the-universe-wants-one-money

[tvbcof]

And there is most certainly an affected market when you manipulate block sizes! You don't see it yet because it isn't an issue yet, but there will be a market for mining fees. This is a much bigger threat to Bitcoin than the prospect of a bunch of poor nobodies having to actually pay for the seeming miraculous service of sending any amount of wealth anywhere in the world in an hour. You should better worry about the people who literally secure the network. Do you think they will do this work for free? They will not keep mining blocks when the block reward is no longer significant, and users will not make up the difference out of the kindness of their hearts. Supply and demand drive price. There is a finite supply of transaction space, and that is why users will include a fee. This whole hard fork drama is part of the bigger brain-damaged notion that Bitcoin isn't about money.

Block size =/= block size limit.
Okay you obviously are smarter than Gavin.  

I think the thing to do is to click "ignore danielpbarron."

And that's just what I have done.
Ahh, problem solved.
I seriously encourage all who disagree with him to follow suit.

If no one is listening to him then that cuts his "power" to argue insanities, as no one will be listening.

Smart move.

No, dumb move.

If there is internecine warfare associated with a fork there will likely be a transfer of wealth (and most likely significant and with potential fatal losses on both sides.)  If you close off your view to one side of the war and only listen to your leaders, you are a but a foot soldier and pawn and have a much greater chance of ending up a casualty.  But censorship seems to be your thing and something you argue for daily, and it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks...even if one cares to try.  Only those more stupid than yourself will take your advice and suffer your same fate.

[tvbcof]

I think it's a smart move to block him. I disagree with what he's saying. I decided on my opinion for myself after hearing the arguments from both sides. His was insanity (in my opinion). So I'm on the side opposing him (and you too apparently), that's all.

If a raving lunatic is shouting things at me in the street I don't necessarily listen to him either. That's a bit more of an extreme example than in this case, but serves to illustrate my point.

Look how sensitive you are to my simple blocking of him. It just goes to prove my point: If no one is listening to him then that cuts his "power" to argue insanities, as no one will be listening. The whelping has begun already.

You cannot read what someone writes without necessarily adopting their position?

I dis-agree with almost everything some people here write but I read their work intently.  This is the case for some people who have some chance of being influential at least.  Most participants here are pretty safe and easy to simply ignore, but I've never been tempted to leverage ignore function in order to achieve this.  If it helps a guy, god bless.

Anyway, the chances of effective censorship here are next to nill.  It is entirely unlikely that no one will be listening to the opinions of certain people, and MP is one of these.  Even if he is all hat and no cattle, he is colorful enough to where most people will be reading his (or his sock puppet's) stuff whether you and a handful of others are not.