Fork off

[cbeast]

Or it won't.

Say it: "i'm a socialist". That'll make everything clearer.

Bitcoin is open source

Sure, a lot of derps of your kind have forked bitcoin to various irrelevant altcoins.
Exactly what gavin intends to do.

the overwhelming majority

of redditards. so what?
they're as irrelevant as dogecoin when it comes to Bitcoin.

One man's opinion. So what indeed.

If you read my post, I didn't completely disagree with the premise, but I'm not a libertard that believes in magic hands that fix all. I have not seen an argument against a larger block limit that uses facts. Your market forces will just have to deal with larger blocks. With more tps there will be a larger pipe to pump money into. In fact, altcoins with faster confirmations will compete for that pipe as well, but that discussion is for another day. If it comes to a point that Bitcoin cannot meet the demands of the market, then it will have committed suicide.

[1714123388]

1714123388

[1714123388]

1714123388

[1714123388]

1714123388

[1714123388]

1714123388

[Flashman]

One man's opinion. So what indeed.

Although I'd expect anyone with investment or rent seeking ambitions from off chain infrastructure to deliberately want to damage the ability of the chain to quickly process transactions, in the expectation that it would (probably temporarily) provide them the high return they "deserve" for being "smart" enough to see things in such a kleptocratic way.

That way they get to operate an insular "company town" where there is no limit to what they can charge for various necessities because everyone is practically held hostage there, by the low speed/limited capacity of the infrastructure that serves it.

However in the real world this tends eventually to encourage external entrepreneurial development of transport links for trade, it's expensive to get there, but you can undercut the local tyrant and still make good money.... which would tend towards the tyrant protecting his monopoly with violence.

[cbeast]

It's difficult to separate the social problems from the engineering problems. It's much easier to ignore the social issues and just improve technology. Either way, society will find the worst way to exploit it.

[davout]

I'm not a libertard that believes in magic hands that fix all.

Thing is, there's no problem to fix.
It is the redditards that will have to fix their expectation of being able to transact their fraction-of-a-penny spamtips on the blockchain for fractions-of-fractions-of-a-penny.
Offchain are good enough for them.

I have not seen an argument against a larger block limit that uses facts.

Except the burden of making a convincing argument doesn't lie with those who are perfectly happy with Bitcoin as it is.

Although I'd expect anyone
[derpage]
tyrant protecting his monopoly with violence.

That's dumb, for there can hardly be any viable rent situation without serious barriers, of which the regulatory ones are the most obvious ones.

[Flashman]

That's dumb, for there can hardly be any viable rent situation without serious barriers, of which the regulatory ones are the most obvious ones.

So you favor the maintenance of artificial barriers to create rent situations?

[cbeast]

I have not seen an argument against a larger block limit that uses facts.

Except the burden of making a convincing argument doesn't lie with those who are perfectly happy with Bitcoin as it is.

Admit it, you are a Union Organizer. You don't want to increase productivity, but you want to be paid more so you try to convince others to go on strike. You can be replaced.

[davout]

So you favor the maintenance of artificial barriers to create rent situations?

There are no barriers to create an offchain transaction clearing service.

Admit it, you are a Union Organizer. You don't want to increase productivity, but you want to be paid more so you try to convince others to go on strike. You can be replaced.

That's an ad-hominem, not an argument. Try harder.

[Flashman]

So you favor the maintenance of artificial barriers to create rent situations?

There are no barriers to create an offchain transaction clearing service.

Haha, very weaselly

[cbeast]

I have not seen an argument against a larger block limit that uses facts.

Except the burden of making a convincing argument doesn't lie with those who are perfectly happy with Bitcoin as it is.

Admit it, you are a Union Organizer. You don't want to increase productivity, but you want to be paid more so you try to convince others to go on strike. You can be replaced.

[davout]

Haha, very weaselly

Whether you like the truth or not doesn't it make any less true.

Admit it, you are a Union Organizer. You don't want to increase productivity, but you want to be paid more so you try to convince others to go on strike. You can be replaced.

Still not an argument. Try harder, if you can.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Admit it, you are a Union Organizer. You don't want to increase productivity, but you want to be paid more so you try to convince others to go on strike. You can be replaced.

That's an ad-hominem, not an argument. Try harder.

Haha, I'm not the only one who noticed that ex-cbeast loves to use ad-hominems...

[QuestionAuthority]

Admit it, you are a Union Organizer. You don't want to increase productivity, but you want to be paid more so you try to convince others to go on strike. You can be replaced.

That's an ad-hominem, not an argument. Try harder.

Haha, I'm not the only one who noticed that ex-cbeast loves to use ad-hominems...

Oh shit, is that cbeast? No wonder.

[kodtycoon]

Admit it, you are a Union Organizer. You don't want to increase productivity, but you want to be paid more so you try to convince others to go on strike. You can be replaced.

That's an ad-hominem, not an argument. Try harder.

Haha, I'm not the only one who noticed that ex-cbeast loves to use ad-hominems...

Oh shit, is that cbeast? No wonder.

indeed it is.. "outahere" used to have "aka cbeast" in place of "zoom out!".. LOL as if no one would notice he removed it..

[cbeast]

Admit it, you are a Union Organizer. You don't want to increase productivity, but you want to be paid more so you try to convince others to go on strike. You can be replaced.

That's an ad-hominem, not an argument. Try harder.

Haha, I'm not the only one who noticed that ex-cbeast loves to use ad-hominems...

Oh shit, is that cbeast? No wonder.

Union Organizer is only an ad hominem for people that are uneducated.

Say it: "i'm a socialist". That'll make everything clearer.

of redditards. so what?
they're as irrelevant as dogecoin when it comes to Bitcoin.

I wasn't the one to start using ad hominem.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

[waaat?]

Scarcity in terms of space in blocks for transactions to be confirmed is necessary to cultivate a healthy transaction fee market.

This argument presumes the value of the transactions will justify exorbitant fees. That will end Bitcoin as a currency. I can see their point, but it's premature. Bitcoin isn't ready to replace gold as a store of value, but it's already losing power in confirming transactions. Bitcoin should work towards staying relevant as a currency until the market deems it's better as something else. While I agree with Justus that the market can help find the best equilibrium between fees and block sizes, I think it's best to allow network science to determine that ratio rather than market exploiters.

So you prefer central planning over selfregulation and free market when it comes to transactionfees?

I have to ask myself: Does Gavin have no real problems to solve or why is he solving hypthetical problems that aren't even confirmed to exist beyond doubt? Is this the way a chief scientist should be operating?

[tvbcof]

Scarcity in terms of space in blocks for transactions to be confirmed is necessary to cultivate a healthy transaction fee market.

This argument presumes the value of the transactions will justify exorbitant fees. That will end Bitcoin as a currency. I can see their point, but it's premature. Bitcoin isn't ready to replace gold as a store of value, but it's already losing power in confirming transactions. Bitcoin should work towards staying relevant as a currency until the market deems it's better as something else. While I agree with Justus that the market can help find the best equilibrium between fees and block sizes, I think it's best to allow network science to determine that ratio rather than market exploiters.

So you prefer central planning over selfregulation and free market when it comes to transactionfees?

You either have a transaction rate which induces transaction fees or a transaction rate which does not.  Either option is a 'central plan' just as was the 21x10^6 maximum circulation.

Fact is that it doesn't matter what the transaction fees are or the coinbase reward is.  If you don't factor in alternative monetization Bitcoin is economically broken at the fundamental level with respect to support reward for POW.  This because it will always approach net zero no matter what.  It will just do it faster when the volatility increases the price and mining is more profitable (then fall below zero when the price reverses.)  The situation is aggravated because Bitcoin is horribly inefficient making it very non-competitive as and exchange currency for buying skittles.  That's why the 1MB block size has been fine and looks like it will be for a while yet.

So, let's consider alternative monetization streams, shall we?  They come in two basic flavors:

 1)  Gathering user intelligence data.  Very high value in the case of a monetary system.  Most currently gathered data is just a proxy for who spends what where while transactions data is the real McCoy.  Google-class players play this game and are much better at it than anyone reading this will ever be.  Uncorking the transaction rate will merely ensure that they have no real competition (though they may choose to isolate themselves by buying the data from a third-party anyway.)

 2)  Subsidization from entities who need Bitcoin to be autonomous, reliable, and trusted.   That would be entities running sidechains.

[davout]

I wasn't the one to start using ad hominem.

There are actually two distinct constructs at play here, they are not equivalent. Consider:

Me.

Your argument makes no sense, you defend central planning, and therefore you're a socialist fuckwit.

You.

You're this, and that, also lalalalala I can't hear all the sense you make because it goes against my conviction of being entitled to free stuff.

[davout]

Bitcoin is economically broken at the fundamental level with respect to support reward for POW.  This because it will always approach net zero no matter what.

PoW is economically broken because the margins tend towards zero? Seriously?

[newIndia]

Bitcoin is economically broken at the fundamental level with respect to support reward for POW.  This because it will always approach net zero no matter what.

PoW is economically broken because the margins tend towards zero? Seriously?

A blatant attempt to push PoS

[waaat?]

Bitcoin is economically broken at the fundamental level with respect to support reward for POW.  This because it will always approach net zero no matter what.

PoW is economically broken because the margins tend towards zero? Seriously?

No, it's not. But payout to miners are way too high in this very first example here. Miners rule the market and shortsellers riding it down - with no end to it.
It's not the POW, it's the high rewards. But totally OT now.

Agree on: 'Bitcoin is broken on the fundamental level' (evidence in the charts)

It's even ultra bizarre to read this BS thread about the useless fork and how far out everyone is with their pipedreams, when i think about how in comparison the markets and direct reality fare currently...

You have no scalability issue because in 6 months there is nothing left worth scaling. This thread is a waste of time imo. How did it get here?

Bitcoin is economically broken at the fundamental level with respect to support reward for POW.  This because it will always approach net zero no matter what.

PoW is economically broken because the margins tend towards zero? Seriously?

A blatant attempt to push PoS

sure. Next he preaches to buy Bitshares or Cinnicoin or something...