Fork off

[Lauda]

140 TPS is still hopelessly short of what is necessary to achieve the laughable pipe-dream of running a sizable exchange economy on native Bitcoin.

140 tps is 3x greater than PayPal and about 10x the FedWire (US Bank wire network) system.

His whole post is ignorant and not worth the read.

[1715700141]

1715700141

[1715700141]

1715700141

[knight22]

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.

[tvbcof]

140 TPS is still hopelessly short of what is necessary to achieve the laughable pipe-dream of running a sizable exchange economy on native Bitcoin.

140 tps is 3x greater than PayPal and about 10x the FedWire (US Bank wire network) system.

I use PayPal maybe a dozen times per year and wire money once every few years.  I use cash and/or my debit card and/or my credit card VASTLY more often.  Probably I am not atypical in this.

So, your examples are specialized 'exchange' examples which don't map well to the real world.

More importantly, I already have a plethora of solutions for real-world exchange duty that work quite well for me (PayPal, Visa, ACH, etc.)  Yes, they all can (and do) act as monitors to keep an eye on me.  I have no need for yet another if Bitcoin becomes the same basic solution, and there is zero doubt in my mind that that is exactly what will happen as a prerequisite for Bitcoin to function in a high-capacity mode.

A 'sidechains' scenario with Bitcoin freezing in it's current tight and defensible form offers me the best of all worlds.  I can use spy-chains when I don't care, spy-less chains when I do, micro-payment chains when I want to tip someone, and current defensible Bitcoin as a trusted deep-storage solution.

[jonald_fyookball]

A 'sidechains' scenario with Bitcoin freezing in it's current tight and defensible form offers me the best of all worlds.  I can use spy-chains when I don't care, spy-less chains when I do, micro-payment chains when I want to tip someone, and current defensible Bitcoin as a trusted deep-storage solution.

When will sidechains be ready for use?   

[Flashman]

So, having 3 separate chains overwhelm an arbitrary figure of 100GB of storage is helping how?

If you don't want to use prune, and run a full chain, but, the crypto community is now spread across 3 large chains, isn't is as much like using prune to decide only to host one chain, as host all 3?

I have an idea, let's have one crypto per small geographic area, that will fix it!  

[balu2]

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.

[newIndia]

http://qntra.net/2015/01/the-hard-fork-missile-crisis/

"... Today Gavin posted on his personal blog an article titled "Looking before the Scaling Up Leap", stating "My goal is to prove that it is safe to raise the maximum block size from 1MB to at least 20MB" along with "I'll argue we should schedule a hard fork." Reddit soon blindly praised Gavin for his work, with comments such as "Fork it hard."

It appears as if Gavin will not give up unless his hard fork is a reality, and thus Mircea Popescu has made a declaration of war if Gavin proceeds with his plans. ..."

http://trilema.com/2015/if-you-go-on-a-bitcoin-fork-irrespective-which-scammer-proposes-it-you-will-lose-your-bitcoins/

"... To make it perfectly clear : in no case will MPEx accept this fake Bitcoin, as it's not accepted any other fake Bitcoin to date, and for the exact reasons. Moreover, my budget to sink this scam exceeds the budget of everyone involved on the supporting side.vi That is all. ..."

So, Gavin, do you really want to lose little people their coins? Or could you just let it drop?

To speak the truth, a real hard fork is very difficult now even if it is required. There is a high chance that the forked one will become an alt coin, just because nodes will not update them. Is there any data about the nodes regarding the versions they are running now ? That may give some idea about how ready we are for a hard fork.

[tvbcof]

140 TPS is still hopelessly short of what is necessary to achieve the laughable pipe-dream of running a sizable exchange economy on native Bitcoin.

140 tps is 3x greater than PayPal and about 10x the FedWire (US Bank wire network) system.

His whole post is ignorant and not worth the read.

When someone tells me I should not read or look at or consider something it usually has just the opposite effect on me.  That aspect of my personality probably contributed to my being a relatively early adopter of Bitcoin I suppose.  Who knows.

[Come-from-Beyond]

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.

As long as it's not complete ZERO and can be exchanged back and forth very fast, it still can be used for world-wide transactions.

[balu2]

by the end of the year bitcoin is an alt and another coin that's able to hold its value will take over as base-currency for trading other currencies against. Then you can play on lower cap with it again until you sorted it all out correctly and can relaunch it few years later.

The scalability-issue will never occure in real life.

[colinistheman]

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.

As long as it's not complete ZERO and can be exchanged back and forth very fast, it still can be used for world-wide transactions.

That viewpoint sounds supportive of inflation, which is the problem with all of our fiat.

[Rannasha]

http://qntra.net/2015/01/the-hard-fork-missile-crisis/

"... Today Gavin posted on his personal blog an article titled "Looking before the Scaling Up Leap", stating "My goal is to prove that it is safe to raise the maximum block size from 1MB to at least 20MB" along with "I'll argue we should schedule a hard fork." Reddit soon blindly praised Gavin for his work, with comments such as "Fork it hard."

It appears as if Gavin will not give up unless his hard fork is a reality, and thus Mircea Popescu has made a declaration of war if Gavin proceeds with his plans. ..."

http://trilema.com/2015/if-you-go-on-a-bitcoin-fork-irrespective-which-scammer-proposes-it-you-will-lose-your-bitcoins/

"... To make it perfectly clear : in no case will MPEx accept this fake Bitcoin, as it's not accepted any other fake Bitcoin to date, and for the exact reasons. Moreover, my budget to sink this scam exceeds the budget of everyone involved on the supporting side.vi That is all. ..."

So, Gavin, do you really want to lose little people their coins? Or could you just let it drop?

To speak the truth, a real hard fork is very difficult now even if it is required. There is a high chance that the forked one will become an alt coin, just because nodes will not update them. Is there any data about the nodes regarding the versions they are running now ? That may give some idea about how ready we are for a hard fork.

I don't think a hard fork would be very difficult, but only if the following two points are taken into account:
- Support for the fork should be overwhelming. If 95% of the users agree with the fork, the 5% that don't are pretty much forced to participate. Sure, they can keep running the non-forked version, but coins on that chain will be unlikely to keep their value. Of course, in practice, non all participants are equal and if major players such as large mining pools, BitPay, Coinbase, BC.I, major exchanges, etc... join either side, it doesn't matter that much what individual users choose.
- The fork should be announced and the software released long before the blockchain is forked. Users and companies need time to deploy the software, make modifications specific to their business, test for issues, etc...

[Arghhh]

Who is this Mircea Popescu and why is anyone giving this clown any time of the day?

[jonald_fyookball]

So, having 3 separate chains overwhelm an arbitrary figure of 100GB of storage is helping how?

If you don't want to use prune, and run a full chain, but, the crypto community is now spread across 3 large chains, isn't is as much like using prune to decide only to host one chain, as host all 3?
 

I don't understand either Flashman, and would like
someone knowledgeable to explain in a few plain-English
sentences how sidechains solve the storage issue.

I assume that the basic idea is that not all nodes
need to carry all sidechains, and the main chain
full nodes would then connect to other nodes
or something.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Who is this Mircea Popescu and why is anyone giving this clown any time of the day?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=608444.0

CTRL+F for his name.

[tvbcof]

A 'sidechains' scenario with Bitcoin freezing in it's current tight and defensible form offers me the best of all worlds.  I can use spy-chains when I don't care, spy-less chains when I do, micro-payment chains when I want to tip someone, and current defensible Bitcoin as a trusted deep-storage solution.

When will sidechains be ready for use?  

I would just throw a random guess out that we would see some initial implementations which are usable in the middle of 2015 just based on my observations of how software engineering tends to go and my guesses about the technical challenges of the problem(s).  Probably the Blockstream guys have tossed out better info, but I've not really run across anything solid (nor have I really looked that hard.)

Just as important, when will 1MB become a legitimate problem...in actual economic terms rather than political ones?  That is actually kind of difficult to define.  I've read on the active gold.v.bitcoin thread that we are actually only about 1/10th there if/when a modicum of transaction fees drives out the spam.  The very low trajectory is not something I expected 4 years ago, but it argues (to me) that there is a lot of time before we are forced to increase it by non-political issues.

 edit: 2014 -> 2015 typo.

[LiteCoinGuy]

A 'sidechains' scenario with Bitcoin freezing in it's current tight and defensible form offers me the best of all worlds.  I can use spy-chains when I don't care, spy-less chains when I do, micro-payment chains when I want to tip someone, and current defensible Bitcoin as a trusted deep-storage solution.

When will sidechains be ready for use?   

at least 1-3 years.

[disclaimer201]

Not against changing increasing the max block size. But sidechains, wtf do we need them for?

[jl2012]

http://qntra.net/2015/01/the-hard-fork-missile-crisis/

"... Today Gavin posted on his personal blog an article titled "Looking before the Scaling Up Leap", stating "My goal is to prove that it is safe to raise the maximum block size from 1MB to at least 20MB" along with "I'll argue we should schedule a hard fork." Reddit soon blindly praised Gavin for his work, with comments such as "Fork it hard."

It appears as if Gavin will not give up unless his hard fork is a reality, and thus Mircea Popescu has made a declaration of war if Gavin proceeds with his plans. ..."

http://trilema.com/2015/if-you-go-on-a-bitcoin-fork-irrespective-which-scammer-proposes-it-you-will-lose-your-bitcoins/

"... To make it perfectly clear : in no case will MPEx accept this fake Bitcoin, as it's not accepted any other fake Bitcoin to date, and for the exact reasons. Moreover, my budget to sink this scam exceeds the budget of everyone involved on the supporting side.vi That is all. ..."

So, Gavin, do you really want to lose little people their coins? Or could you just let it drop?

A fork, no matter hard or soft, would not be successful without >95% of miner's support. If Gavin's fork is really supported by 95% of miners, good luck to the 5% and MPEx: they will have a block every 200 minutes for 280 days, followed by a block every 50 minutes for 70 days, until they get back to normal speed.

But actually, block size could be increased without hardfork: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=283746.0 . It's just a bit cumbersome

[kodtycoon]

Not against changing increasing the max block size. But sidechains, wtf do we need them for?

compete with the new gen of coins coming out.