Fork off

[VectorChief]

My point on this matter hasn't change since the very beginning, and it is summed up in Garzik's words in my signature.

Block space scarcity is needed for a healthy fee market. If someone wants to make economic micro-transactions they can use an altcoin (such as "Bitcoin 2" proposed by Gavin) or just an off-chain solution.

Not everything is economical in this world, because not everything can be bought. If it was so, then one country would simply print a bunch of bank notes and buy out all other countries for nothing. See? Doesn't work that way. That's why countries maintain their armies, which is costly, but that is the price of sovereignity.

We can just stop reading there. Idiot contradicts himself in three sentences.

Maintaining your independence (as in "freedom") might be costly (as in "wasteful"), but it cannot be bought if it's not for sale! Two idiots are better than one, as they can always throw sand at each other, like 5 year olds!

So back at ya, barron!

[1713917502]

1713917502

[1713917502]

1713917502

[1713917502]

1713917502

[1713917502]

1713917502

[thelibertycap]

thanks for the discount on bitcoin gavin, continue your shit and i might accumulate a real fortune. not in the form of gavincoins of course, there are better alternatives when we are talking altcoins.

Please don't tell me you think that the recent price drop is because of Gavin's research on bigger block sizes.

an uncertainty of a hard fork (what's more a controversial one) must put some kind of pressure on bitcoin - that seems indisputable. the speculation part only covers only the amount of influence a hard fork  has on the market.

[tvbcof]

thanks for the discount on bitcoin gavin, continue your shit and i might accumulate a real fortune. not in the form of gavincoins of course, there are better alternatives when we are talking altcoins.

Please don't tell me you think that the recent price drop is because of Gavin's research on bigger block sizes.

an uncertainty of a hard fork (what's more a controversial one) must put some kind of pressure on bitcoin - that seems indisputable. the speculation part only covers only the amount of influence a hard fork  has on the market.

I can say with complete honesty that block size considerations play a huge role in my decisions about what to hodl and what to sell, and larger block size equates in my mind to sharply decreased future-values (though some years out.)  I can also say that I am pretty sure I'm in the minority and that the balance of the pressure would probably be in the opposite direction.

I doubt that block size or the potential for sidechains have had much of anything to do with the price action over the last year.  But both are fun assertions for trolling.

[davout]

Yes.  It means that to attack Bitcoin one must only make the reward higher to do so.  And if the reward for supporting Bitcoin tends toward zero the cost of doing so is fairly minimal.

It's the margin that tends to zero, not the reward.
Your attack is self-correcting, manage to make the global hashrate drop, everyone's rig is suddenly more valuable.

Tell us all a bit more about the magic of hashrate adjustments and the lightning responses.  /sarc

Hrm? Elaborate a bit on the practicalities of your cheap attack where one "must only make the reward higher" will you?

IIRC, some sha256 alt coins which use the same mechanism found it more practical to just re-distribute new binaries than to wait it out when faced with PoW attacks.

Luke-jr raped some altcoin once, that's a super cool story but that doesn't really relate to Bitcoin in any way other than being some lame anecdotal evidence for your nebulous argument.

[railzand]

https://twitter.com/TomReichhart/status/557629706317889539
@gavinandresen Thanks for pushing this. You are a hero.
re:
http://gavintech.blogspot.no/2015/01/twenty-megabytes-testing-results.html
"... So how will blockchain security get paid for in the future?

I honestly don't know. ..."

[danielpbarron]

My point on this matter hasn't change since the very beginning, and it is summed up in Garzik's words in my signature.

Block space scarcity is needed for a healthy fee market. If someone wants to make economic micro-transactions they can use an altcoin (such as "Bitcoin 2" proposed by Gavin) or just an off-chain solution.

Not everything is economical in this world, because not everything can be bought. If it was so, then one country would simply print a bunch of bank notes and buy out all other countries for nothing. See? Doesn't work that way. That's why countries maintain their armies, which is costly, but that is the price of sovereignity.

We can just stop reading there. Idiot contradicts himself in three sentences.

Maintaining your independence (as in "freedom") might be costly (as in "wasteful"), but it cannot be bought if it's not for sale! Two idiots are better than one, as they can always throw sand at each other, like 5 year olds!

So back at ya, barron!

Alright let's take a closer look at the middle sentence.

If it was so, then one country would simply print a bunch of bank notes and buy out all other countries for nothing.

Just look at it! Adorable.

[VectorChief]

Alright let's take a closer look at the middle sentence.

If it was so, then one country would simply print a bunch of bank notes and buy out all other countries for nothing.

Just look at it! Adorable.

I'm glad you liked it!

The same way major players in PoW system will be protecting their stake by competing in the mining space. It's not gonna be how to make more money (though that too occasionally), but rather how no to lose control of what they already have to their competitors (read: sanctions, political censorship and so on).

This answers Gavin's concern on how blockchain will be secured in the future - the same way land on planet Earth is "secured" today.

https://twitter.com/TomReichhart/status/557629706317889539
@gavinandresen Thanks for pushing this. You are a hero.
re:
http://gavintech.blogspot.no/2015/01/twenty-megabytes-testing-results.html
"... So how will blockchain security get paid for in the future?

I honestly don't know. ..."

[Spjuth]

https://twitter.com/TomReichhart/status/557629706317889539
@gavinandresen Thanks for pushing this. You are a hero.
re:
http://gavintech.blogspot.no/2015/01/twenty-megabytes-testing-results.html
"... So how will blockchain security get paid for in the future?

I honestly don't know. ..."

I say, fork it, fork it real good!

Both Salt n Pepa to you hash.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4mcBwmW0WE

[davout]

I say, fork it, fork it real good!

It's going to be dogecoinesque all over again, weeee!1

Maybe bitcointalk will finally be able to get Gavin his own bobsleigh team!

[DooMAD]

So much vitriol in this thread.  Normally the consensus around here is that the free market is king and that natural selection means everything will either live or die on it's merits.  But as soon as the topic of a hard fork comes up, forcing the market to choose which one to use, suddenly it's all "there's only one valid choice and everyone else is wrong, so let's start throwing insults around".  

Agree, disagree, whatever.  Ultimately it doesn't matter because the market will decide.

[forevernoob]

So much vitriol in this thread.  Normally the consensus around here is that the free market is king and that natural selection means everything will either live or die on it's merits.  But as soon as the topic of a hard fork comes up, forcing the market to choose which one to use, suddenly it's all "there's only one valid choice and everyone else is wrong, so let's start throwing insults around".  

Agree, disagree, whatever.  Ultimately it doesn't matter because the market will decide.

I wonder what the future holds for Bitcoin if the community cannot reach consensus on these types of forks.
Will we have separate coins all the time? With the same name?

Central planning worries me. What happens if Gavin or someone else wants to change the supply of bitcoins?

[redhawk979]

OK I'm confused. Why are people wigging about about giving Bitcoin the ability to process more transactions? How do people expect anything near mass adoption with a 7tps system?

[BillyBobZorton]

OK I'm confused. Why are people wigging about about giving Bitcoin the ability to process more transactions? How do people expect anything near mass adoption with a 7tps system?

This. It's a FACT that we need tons and tons of more transactions per second to absorb all that is expected if we want it to become mainstream. Why is this even a discussion?

[Spjuth]

OK I'm confused. Why are people wigging about about giving Bitcoin the ability to process more transactions? How do people expect anything near mass adoption with a 7tps system?

This. It's a FACT that we need tons and tons of more transactions per second to absorb all that is expected if we want it to become mainstream. Why is this even a discussion?

Yes! The 1 MB limit was there to stop spam in the beginning of bitcoin history. It has no relevance any longer. Too bad it was designed so that it needs a hard fork, but no matter what, it is needed and expected. Those who are against it should understand that it is always up to the miners to decide.

[BillyBobZorton]

OK I'm confused. Why are people wigging about about giving Bitcoin the ability to process more transactions? How do people expect anything near mass adoption with a 7tps system?

This. It's a FACT that we need tons and tons of more transactions per second to absorb all that is expected if we want it to become mainstream. Why is this even a discussion?

Yes! The 1 MB limit was there to stop spam in the beginning of bitcoin history. It has no relevance any longer. Too bad it was designed so that it needs a hard fork, but no matter what, it is needed and expected. Those who are against it should understand that it is always up to the miners to decide.

It should be no problem upping that limit as far as I know.
It must be doner and sooner than late is better.

[Spjuth]

OK I'm confused. Why are people wigging about about giving Bitcoin the ability to process more transactions? How do people expect anything near mass adoption with a 7tps system?

This. It's a FACT that we need tons and tons of more transactions per second to absorb all that is expected if we want it to become mainstream. Why is this even a discussion?

Yes! The 1 MB limit was there to stop spam in the beginning of bitcoin history. It has no relevance any longer. Too bad it was designed so that it needs a hard fork, but no matter what, it is needed and expected. Those who are against it should understand that it is always up to the miners to decide.

It should be no problem upping that limit as far as I know.
It must be doner and sooner than late is better.

Also, the miners need it to be able to make any profit once the block reward is too low.

[davout]

Also, the miners need it to be able to make any profit once the block reward is too low.

It's actually the other way around.

[leopard2]

OK I'm confused. Why are people wigging about about giving Bitcoin the ability to process more transactions? How do people expect anything near mass adoption with a 7tps system?

+100

[cbeast]

...

but like anything it needs to be implemented fairly

It was announced in a white paper long before its public release and is open source. That's about as fair as you can get in the real world. It's usefulness is upgraded through an open source system. Anyone that has the best scientific research to achieve peer-reviewed consensus contributes to the optimization of usefulness.

Who's quote is that?  It's not mine.  If it's your own invention then you are basically forgot to pull the shades before playing with yourself and I've little interest in being involved in the endeavor.

Your mistake here, I quoted you verbatim.
 DO NOT POST SESC LINKS #top

Ah, Fonzie's bogus URL trick.  Not as common as your 'false-strawman' on the other thread though.  The new cbeast is plumbing the depths for sure.

Good morning class.  Yesterday we derived the chances of a thread spanning more than 10 pages and not containing a false-strawman assertion.   In today's class we will talk about the ethics of retaining a 'Donator' tag when buying an old forum personna.

If you legitimately did screw up the URL and are trying to indicate that "fairly carefully" and "fairly" are the same thing (then go on to give a dissertation about 'fairness') that's pretty weak sauce.

I did not check the URL. You implied that I somehow edited your post which I didn't. Wow, I am so impressed at your cleverness to look at my post history. Hey, this forum has changed rules about newbie posting, so I see no point in names anymore. I'll just use whatever name I feel like in protest.

If you legitimately did screw up the URL and are trying to indicate that "fairly carefully" and "fairly" are the same thing (then go on to give a dissertation about 'fairness') that's pretty weak sauce.

Your right. Your wishy-washy statements like this are meaningless. Instead they should be mocked and derided. My mistake. I won't give you the benefit of a doubt next time.

[tvbcof]

Hrm? Elaborate a bit on the practicalities of your cheap attack where one "must only make the reward higher" will you?

Occurs to me that a fair number of people own many 2010-2011-ish days worth of mining production.  High GINI here.  Or a guy (cough, cough) could steal (aka 'confiscate' if you are in law enforcement) a chunk from such a person and obtain some pretty heavy firepower especially since it is multiplied by that by 4 at the next halving (and we all know that transaction fees won't be dick.)  Firing up a pool for whatever disenchanted and powered-down rigs who might be interested and one could reward them relatively generously.  Enough to get 51% just on economics (not to mention the other hassles)?  I could see corner cases (such as everyone hating Bitcoin for some reason) but honestly probably not (so you win.)

That said, even just hosing things up for a while when everyone is counting on Bitcoin for their daily dose of smack and you could create some frightened and stressed out sheep like the guy I mentioned yesterday.  If an attack takes this form the miners could be mining for real (and collection normal fees which you could modestly subsidize) but in such a pattern designed to produce unhappy resonances and other nuisances.

IIRC, some sha256 alt coins which use the same mechanism found it more practical to just re-distribute new binaries than to wait it out when faced with PoW attacks.

Luke-jr raped some altcoin once, that's a super cool story but that doesn't really relate to Bitcoin in any way other than being some lame anecdotal evidence for your nebulous argument.

I wasn't following it closely (and was a little disgusted) but as I recall, all lukedashjr did was mine for a while then quite and it had a devastating impact on whatever coin it was.  Hell, the same thing could happen to Bitcoin without any attack if the price drops steeply or suddenly (but that could never happen, right?) and/or a few large clusters were molested.  I'll call this an 'Invisible hand of Adam Smith lukedashjr Attack.'  Maybe the adjustment algorithms have been patched up to preclude this, but I doubt it...such things occurring proactively seem rare in Bitcoinland.