Bitcoin Forum
March 30, 2020, 02:25:27 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: Bitcoin fork proposal by respected Bitcoin lead dev Gavin Andresen, to increase the block size from 1MB to 20MB.
pro
anti
agnostic
DGAF

Pages: « 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 [69] 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 ... 131 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Bitcoin 20MB Fork  (Read 154258 times)
traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 15, 2015, 02:36:48 AM
 #1361

What has happened here is the birth and story of bitcoin at the very beginning was presented as a myth.  There are multiple layers to the true un-hidden history of how bitcoin came about. We are starting to be able to decode this story especially in relation to the problem we face today.

What I see is a totally different story and I see that this problem was completely foreseeable mathematically by “Satoshi” or anyone involved in the creation of bitcoin.  This is something that would be hard to swallow, but in relation to the realization that you need the mining pools to stabilize, then you need the exchanges to stabilize, then you need price to stabilize (not vs usd etc, but simply for the price to somewhat reflect its true market value).

It was very likely NOT a mistake that bitcoin was released with an infinite size block in the beginning, and then as it become a little popular a finite size was put in place to help it growth.  This necessitates the OBVIOUS question of what is the ideal block size, how should it be set, and WHEN should it be set.

The problems, if not viewed from the myth of Satoshi, but rather the obvious true history, are easy to see.  If you wait too long you will not be able to guarantee a consensus.  If the blocks are too big you risk centralization.  If the blocks are too big bitcoin becomes for the elite (aka centralization).  So with a little data, some experiments, and some foresight, this problem of block size could have been foreseen and formulated years and years ago.

And with respect to Ideal Money (and TWON), and something you all must then trust me on (or read for yourself), our decision is whether bitcoin should be a money or a gold.  A high transaction currency or a very finite “property” in which we can peg all our new currency inventions too (as well as all other currencies if we wish).

We are trying to approach the problem, formulaically by bridging computer science with the math and economics of the situation.  But that is not the full scope of the problem.  We MUST consider, what is “Ideal Money”, what is the relation of the block chain to the pyramids and gold, and for this we must then consider what are the nature and the causes of the wealth of nations.

Because, what we are learning is that consensus especially on controversial topics, comes only from observable truth.  It will never come from religious belief, it will only be observable fact, and without Ideal Money and in relation to TWON, we are all functioning off religion and myth.

We need to relevate science and fact.
1585578327
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1585578327

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1585578327
Reply with quote  #2

1585578327
Report to moderator
1585578327
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1585578327

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1585578327
Reply with quote  #2

1585578327
Report to moderator
Best Rates For Exchanging Cryptocurrency Buy Crypto With Credit Card Smooth Exchange Multiple E-Payment Systems Check Now Check Now
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1585578327
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1585578327

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1585578327
Reply with quote  #2

1585578327
Report to moderator
1585578327
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1585578327

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1585578327
Reply with quote  #2

1585578327
Report to moderator
1585578327
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1585578327

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1585578327
Reply with quote  #2

1585578327
Report to moderator
traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 15, 2015, 03:11:49 AM
 #1362

I'm afraid we again we must press on:

Here is how I see this and perhaps someone can truly put a formula to it.  We are looking for a consensus on the most ideal block size.  Consensus gets more difficult over time.  The ideal block size gets more accurate over time (with market data).  This suggests a point in which we will have the most data at the very last moment in which a consensus could be reached.

And so I suspect this is the very crux or paradox of mankind that is the most significant problem we face.  And it seems to me then that we are looking at one of two options: Either no consensus and/or leave the block size the same, or change the block size to 20mb and leave it forever.

I suspect these are the only two plausible possibilities, and if we discuss this a little further I am quite convinced we can use game theory to reason the obvious outcome that will happen.  And I suspect, that our only hope for a consensus on NOT 1 mb, is to sell the story to the masses that we are matching block size to the ancient Egyptian royal cubit.  They need a reason and it needs to be tied to something tangible that creates a logical story of our existence and history.

If that is laughable, or irrelevant to you...then I make the conjecture that there will be no changing the current size (which COULD for some reasons be a favorable outcome of this "game").

justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400
Merit: 1006



View Profile
February 15, 2015, 03:22:05 AM
 #1363

Now I loosely read your papers, which I think is fair that we don't all always fully read each others posts.  But I will go back and read more carefully over the days if they are still relevant. I do not want to immediately seem like I am arguing but I do have some relevant (counter) points to make. Because again I must point out that you also do not seem familiar with the 20 years of lectures on the topic of "what is ideal money", and so I am not so sure that you can be said to be speaking in the context of that subject.

In constructing what is to be our most ideal money, we should certainly want to be familiar with the subject of it, and especially in relation to that which are the nature and causes of the wealth of nations.  And these are the very points in my opinion that you have missed in your essays.

Do I SERIOUSLY have to fight to be heard, when I can simply point out, you have not even consulted the lectures entitled "ideal money"?
I've spent a fair amount of time studying the nature of money.

From 2008 until 2012, I spent most of my time on a different forum where the topics under discussion were macroeconomics, money, and the operation of the financial system. During my time there I came very close to independently deriving the concept of money as delayed reciprocal altruism.

As far as "ideal money" goes, Krawisz nailed it.

The only thing I'd add to what he wrote is that where the crypto-goldbugs think they have an example of something being a store of value without being a medium of exchange, what they are actually observing is the effects of subsidies on central banks.
traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 15, 2015, 03:28:20 AM
 #1364

I've spent a fair amount of time studying the nature of money.

From 2008 until 2012, I spent most of my time on a different forum where the topics under discussion were macroeconomics, money, and the operation of the financial system. During my time there I came very close to independently deriving the concept of money as delayed reciprocal altruism.

As far as "ideal money" goes, Krawisz nailed it.

The only thing I'd add to what he wrote is that where the crypto-goldbugs think they have an example of something being a store of value without being a medium of exchange, what they are actually observing is the effects of subsidies on central banks.
No, you haven't spent a fair time.  Nash is nearly 90, and has been lecturing on the topic of "Ideal Money" for 20 years.  He had his revelation in nearly 1960 on what would become "ideal money".  I do not know what the issue with text internet dialogue in which what I convey doesn't get across.  

You have ignored an IMMENSE amount of literature on the topic.  I think you and others are reading my words like "Hey some random guy gave some random talks about what good money could be".  I need you to read it like this "The world's most knowleadgeable man on money has been explaining for 20 years how bitcoin is going to revolutionize economics".

He goes into incredible depth
, and I think such a thing should not be ignored.  You must understand what it looks like from my perspective-this is silly.

(Edit: btw thx for the articles I will read them as we go!)
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400
Merit: 1006



View Profile
February 15, 2015, 03:54:05 AM
 #1365

No, you haven't spent a fair time.  Nash is nearly 90, and has been lecturing on the topic of "Ideal Money" for 20 years.  He had his revelation in nearly 1960 on what would become "ideal money".
Szabo read Nash, and Krawisz read Szabo.

I can read Krawisz and then avoid reinventing all the wheels so that I have time to focus on the few wheels I do want to reinvent.
traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 15, 2015, 03:59:18 AM
 #1366

No, you haven't spent a fair time.  Nash is nearly 90, and has been lecturing on the topic of "Ideal Money" for 20 years.  He had his revelation in nearly 1960 on what would become "ideal money".
Szabo read Nash, and Krawisz read Szabo.

I can read Krawisz and then avoid reinventing all the wheels so that I have time to focus on the few wheels I do want to reinvent.
No.  Nash extrapolated from the history of money, by learning about it, deeply and learning everything around it.  That is how he did all of this.  If we do not follow his works and his path, I am afraid we will forever be out of context.  I do not understand how we cannot put this goether:

Quote from: Ideal Money
The special commodity or medium that we call money has a long and interesting history.

The VERY first line itself is INCREDIBLY significant and incredibly dense.  What is money, what is a commodity, what is "special" about it, and what is its long and interesting history?

Obviously we need to consult Adam Smith's TWON, but ALSO Nick Szabo's essay shelling out.
Quote from: Ideal Money
So I see the Keynesians as in a weak sense comparable to the "Bolsheviks” because of the support of both parties for a certain “lack of transparency” relating to the functions of governments sites as seen by the citizenry And for both of them it can be said that they tend to think in terms of government agencies operating in a benevolent fashion that is, however, beyond the comprehension of the citizens of the state. And this parallel makes it seem not implausible that a political evolution might lead to the expectation on the part of citizens in the “great democracies” that they should be better situated to be able to understand whatever will be the monetary policies which, indeed, are typically of great importance to citizens who may have alternative options for where to place their "savings".
Are you to tell me that he is talking about a different revolution?  A different evolution that is about leaving the Keynesian system but not for bitcoin that has a decentralized finite monetary policy?  You think he meant some other form of money as an alternate savings?  Perhaps like moon rocks? Do you think edison created bitcoin http://topinfopost.com/2014/03/20/bitcoin-the-digital-currency-invented-by-thomas-edison?

This paragraph is talking about this thread:
Quote from: Ideal Money
But the famous classical "Gresham’s Law" also reveals the intrinsic difficulty. Thus "good money" will not naturally supplant and replace "bad money" by a simple Darwinian superiority of competitive species. Rather than that, it must be that the good things are established by the voluntary choice of human agencies. And these resp-onsible agencies, being naturally of the domain of polit-ically derived authorities, would need to make appropriate efforts to achieve such a goal and to pay the costs that are entailed before their societies can benefit.

An example of an efficiently working global reform (at least in relation to electronic manufactures) is the metric system, with its central Bureau located near Paris. And this is an example of a system of yardsticks where inflation is currently NOT in fashion!
How do we not see this?
traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 15, 2015, 04:27:10 AM
 #1367

Quote
Quote
Quote from: Ideal Money
“The voters in the U.K. are expecting to have the opportunity to vote in a referendum relating to the adoption, for the U.K., of the euro (which is already adopted in Ireland). Here they have a dramatic conflict, since the pound was the original currency of “the gold standard”, with its value pegged to gold in 1717 by Isaac Newton who was then Master of the Mint. (Of course it was not irrelevant that George II, the king then, was an early Hanoverian and also ruled territory in Germany.)”
Who then, can tell us, why this point about George II being an early Hanoverian, is "of course" "not irrelevant"?
I believe I can make this relevant to some degree.  In relation to the problem we face today, and the understanding of why Satoshi cannot be here to discuss this (or Szabo or Nash or bitcoin elite (royalty), and we should understand that Newton was able to do such a peg because of his relation to the royalty of the time.  It is true that across history one of the many functions of royalty was to be the finalizer of "consensus".  It is interesting, and again not insignificant, to point out that Khufu apparently died upon the completion of the pyramids.

That money and power and consensus are not unrelated with state and royalty and the amount of centralized authority we need in order to finalize a consensus. In order to solve this problem it MUST be put in its proper context:
Quote from: Ideal Money
It is easy to illustrate cases of “revolutionary” reform or change in systems of money. A good example came in 1717 when Isaac Newton, supported by George II, fixed the value of the local UK currency to a precise amount of gold that defined the value of the currency (the “pound”) in such a way that it was immediately recognizable throughout the Continent (of Europe) as of a fixed value in relation to generally accepted standards (of the time). (And this was the origin of the “gold standard”.)

I should not be the only one that sees the relation of these points.
traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 15, 2015, 05:46:55 AM
 #1368

*edit* Wow this is huge if he is right. If he is and the hold out problem can be sufficiently mitigated than we dont just have a model for solving the max block size problem, this will by default also solve the problem of how to decentralize the entire internet.
I must relevate a certain point about this, before I introduce us to a very important "person".

I suspect also that "Satoshi" foresaw this. And in fact contacted ted Nelson (and consulted him) to let him know somehow and in some form his dream will in fact become a reality.  I suspect then that his video of who he thinks Satoshi is, is a very humbled and heartfelt T. Nelson.   We must keep in mind I am the world best poker player (although I truly wish I didn't feel I had to proclaim it).

And we must see this all in relation to this memo from Dr. Nash, we are clearly building this:

Quote
This memorandum concerns some ideas for new designs of the control system in high-speed digital computers. The ideas are yet in an immature and rather unspecific form, but this is a subject that deserves some attention and thought for the future. Indeed the idea is more or less futuristic and is more appropriate for the "electronic brains" of the future than for the computers now used, or under construction, or even planned. The basic idea is simple. Instead of having a single control unit sequencing the operations of the machine in series (except for certain subsidiary operations as certain input and output functions) as is now done, the idea is to decentralize control with several different control units capable of directing various simultaneous operations and interrelating them when appropriate.

Let us consider some of the advantages of this sort of development of computing (and data processing) machines.

1. Speed of computation
2. Expansibility
3. Self-Maintenance
4. Ease of programming, the "intelligence" quality, ability It is interesting to consider what a thinking machine will be like.

It seems clear that as soon as the machines become able to solve intellectual problems of the highest difficulty which can be solved by humans they will be able to solve most of the problems enormously faster than a human. In closing, the human brain is a highly parallel setup.

It has to be."
traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 15, 2015, 06:36:45 AM
 #1369

I am going to bring for a super-being.  A person that doesn't necessarily exist but I think would be helpful for the dialogue as some form of thought experiment. And I want to to think about this person in relation to peoples such as Newton, Copernicus, Aristotle, Plato, Einstein, Von Neuman, etc.  Basically we are talking about polymaths.

Many of these peoples had revelations not in one particular subject but in many or nearly all subjects. Newton created calculus, pegged gold the mint, changed our understanding of light and the cosmos (in relation to Copernicus work who did nearly the same).

It is our fragmented view, which shows up in things such as nationalism, that causes us to not understand the relation of these “breakthroughs” and polymaths. I've never had this fragmented view for as long as I can remember so I come across some wholistic perspectives more naturally.

I want to present a super-being, that might not exist, but has helped me understand this new age we are on the brink of “discovery” and “relevating”.

John Nash mastered games, and nearly simultaneously showed us the value of money in trade. He gave a conjecture of a completely unchackable technology in a letter to the NSA.  In nearly the 1950's he designed a computer system we still have not yet put together but are nearing the implementation of.

He has also seemingly redefined quantum physics web.math.princeton.edu/jfnj/texts_and_graphics/Main.../intereq.ps

Which means he has some interesting insights on light, quantum theory, and quantifying gravity.

Nick Szabo has redefined the history of money (even using the nash equilibrium in the essay shelling out).  For the last 20 year he has been quietly blogging about the future of our civilization based on extrapolations of our history in conjunction with a new technology (bitcoin) that was not yet invented, heard of, or even believed by most people to be possible.

Szabo merged economics, law, programming, finance, and software, and many other fields.  And he showed how this evolution is very related to our history. Smart contracts and bitcoin are obviously the precursors to AI.

Shinichi Mochizuki has created a whole new branch of mathematics.  I would like to suggest that he has formulated thought, and shown that consciousness is a field.  I would like to also suggest that SM squared the circle, by using inter-universal geometry, which seems very related to solving the byzantine general problem. And so our understanding of what Pi is has now grown by leaps and bounds that will take us some time to even understand.

And if we understand bitcoins relation to the pyramids, we should understand the significance of all this, because building the pyramids and the royal cubit are essentially a quantizing/quantifying of gravity.  And/or in other words our inability to square the circle is the exact problem the pyramids seek to solve which is truly the relation of light gravity and Pi to our universe and the laws that hold it up. And all these things are in relation to thought, or the observer/observed phenomenon, and it is our fragmented (nationalistic) view that has “blocked” us from seeing the obvious truth of this.

Let's imagine they are one person.
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1000


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
February 15, 2015, 06:43:32 AM
Last edit: February 15, 2015, 07:03:44 AM by solex
 #1370

I'm liking JR's paper. Micropayment channels is the most constructive approach to permanently dealing with the block size limit, since defenders of the limit are mostly concerned about the data overhead on full nodes.

Maybe if the limit was higher.  Payment channels still require at least one transaction per payment channel set.  How often are you willing to reset payment channels?  Once per week, once per month, once per year? The longer the period the larger the initial escrowed amount.  How many payment channels if the average user going to have. Say the average user accepts escrowing 6 months worth of future payments and has 3 payment channels payees each. That still requires 6 on block transactions per user per year.  2 tps @ 6 txn per user =  10.5  million users.  

Do you really think Bitcoin will be a global revolution with an upper limit @ 10 million users?

Payment channels, side chains, and cross chain atomic transactions are transaction multipliers.  They move us from one economic transaction per block transaction to more than one economic transaction per block transaction.  In essence they make the primary block space more efficient but you can't get any kind of scalability out of  1MB permanent limit.
I was talking about payment channels between nodes so they can negotiate peering agreements, not for replacing regular user transactions.

Indeed. Payment channels between nodes has enormous potential, and Bitcoin is better placed than any other technology to benefit because the payment currency is native to it. People who supply nodes already have wallets to manage the balances which will result.

D&T. I agree that 1MB is a joke, and have recently described it on your own thread as the biggest risk to Bitcoin.

Gavin's proposed change, plus IBLT, plus node services payment channels, will strap solid-rocket boosters onto Bitcoin. I can't wait.

traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 15, 2015, 06:46:58 AM
 #1371



Indeed. Payment channels between nodes has enormous potential, and Bitcoin is better placed than any other technology to benefit because the payment currency is native to it. People who supply nodes already have wallets to manage the balances which will result.

D&T. I agree that 1MB is a joke, and have recently described it on your own thread as the biggest risk to Bitcoin.

Gavin's proposed change, plus IBLT, plus payment channels will strap solid-rocket boosters onto Bitcoin. I can't wait.
Ok then moving along, and me joining your dialog.  I suspect that if we somehow locked in 1mb, bitcoin would be super scarce and price would skyrocket? No?  The reason I ask, is if we render it a super gold in that sense, then greedy people might not let us change it to a higher size...

I suspect "price" is awaiting this decision.
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1000


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
February 15, 2015, 07:27:44 AM
 #1372



Indeed. Payment channels between nodes has enormous potential, and Bitcoin is better placed than any other technology to benefit because the payment currency is native to it. People who supply nodes already have wallets to manage the balances which will result.

D&T. I agree that 1MB is a joke, and have recently described it on your own thread as the biggest risk to Bitcoin.

Gavin's proposed change, plus IBLT, plus payment channels will strap solid-rocket boosters onto Bitcoin. I can't wait.
Ok then moving along, and me joining your dialog.  I suspect that if we somehow locked in 1mb, bitcoin would be super scarce and price would skyrocket? No?  The reason I ask, is if we render it a super gold in that sense, then greedy people might not let us change it to a higher size...

I suspect "price" is awaiting this decision.

Thanks for joining us.

The answer is already known, and "price" has already spoken.

http://coinmarketcap.com/#USD tells us what the market thinks. Bitcoin clones have a unit price which reflects their miniscule ecosystems, and the small opportunity value that one of them will ursurp Bitcoin's place, if it were to badly trip up (for example, such as having an artificially small block limit which is never changed).

Gold is finite, Bitcoin is finite, but cryptocurrency is infinite. As you, of all people, are fully aware, perfect money has to be scarce, it can't be infinite.

So, it is the network effect of many users, the whole ecosystem, the merchants, the publicity, the massive farms of hashing power providing security which give Bitcoin its price, and the potential to fully become electronic gold, super-gold. It's not block space scarcity which will ramp up price, but the total number of users it has and percentage of world transactions which it can process.

Realpra sums it up:
Quote
Well rationally there is no way the present Bitcoin can win over a higher limit fork:

Step 1:
A. Gavin creates a higher limit BTC fork.
B. Anyone else does it.

Step 2:
Present network can never grow more than it is now, because we are already hitting the limits.

Step 3:
New system takes over by nature of being the biggest - which it cannot avoid becoming because it scales!

Once Bitcoin plateaus in its adoption curve, then its super-gold status is secure, but not before. And it won't take as long as radio or TV.


traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 15, 2015, 07:32:39 AM
 #1373

It seems you didn't address my point/question.  If bitocin has a small block size, like 1mb, it seems the price would be higher than for example and infinite size, or a really really big block size.

I suspect, although some would be upset that bitcoin couldn't be used for coffee, that a small very limited block size would be cause for a higher valuation in terms of price.  All what you posted is good, but we can manipulate the value of each bitcoin, by making them slightly "harder" to transact no?  If true, there may be an inherent difficulty in getting a consensus of a higher block size.  I really really think, this discussion is very key.

(btw bitcoin isn't on their and it is 2015 and smart contracts, ethereum get released next monthish)
dooglus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2772
Merit: 1217



View Profile
February 15, 2015, 07:38:02 AM
 #1374

Gavin's proposed change, [...] will strap solid-rocket boosters onto Bitcoin. I can't wait.

Meep meep!


Just-Dice                 ██             
          ██████████         
      ██████████████████     
  ██████████████████████████ 
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████   
        ██████████████       
            ██████           
   Play or Invest                 ██             
          ██████████         
      ██████████████████     
  ██████████████████████████ 
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████   
        ██████████████       
            ██████           
   1% House Edge
davout
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1002


1davout


View Profile WWW
February 15, 2015, 07:38:23 AM
 #1375

Do you really think Bitcoin will be a global revolution with an upper limit @ 10 million users?

What makes you think direct access to the blockchain is necessary to benefit from Bitcoin.
What makes you think it wouldn't be good that payments occur instantly, and at massive scale through Bitcoin banks?

Bitcoin banks that would have no regulatory barrier to entry, and would be fully auditable by anyone.
Aren't solvency reports a much more important invention for the world at large than coffee-for-blowstamps iOS apps?

And justusranvier, you don't seem to hang out in #opentransactions anymore, how come you're not even mentioning it as a perfectly valid growth avenue for "adoption" ?

solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1000


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
February 15, 2015, 07:42:22 AM
 #1376

I suspect that if we somehow locked in 1mb, bitcoin would be super scarce and price would skyrocket? No?

To be clear, Price would not skyrocket, it will collapse when average block size nears 1MB, and remain collapsed the longer the 1MB limit is left in place. Left in place eventually  another coin will take over.

It seems you didn't address my point/question.  If bitocin has a small block size, like 1mb, it seems the price would be higher than for example and infinite size, or a really really big block size.

I suspect, although some would be upset that bitcoin couldn't be used for coffee, that a small very limited block size would be cause for a higher valuation in terms of price.  All what you posted is good, but we can manipulate the value of each bitcoin, by making them slightly "harder" to transact no?  If true, there may be an inherent difficulty in getting a consensus of a higher block size.  I really really think, this discussion is very key.

(btw bitcoin isn't on their and it is 2015 and smart contracts, ethereum get released next monthish)

It is not on the chart, but if it were then it is still near zero on the y-axis. Other coins being released all the time means that standing still is not an option (and it is not happening as core dev are churning out releases).

Dooglus! Nice to see you in this jungle of a thread.

traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 15, 2015, 07:52:41 AM
 #1377


To be clear, Price would not skyrocket, it will collapse when average block size nears 1MB, and remain collapsed the longer the 1MB limit is left in place. Left in place eventually  another coin will take over.

No this is not logical to say.  Another coin would take over as a highly transactable commodity, but to say "take over" is incredibly vague.  I am suggesting such a low size renders this "commodity" like gold, and this would have an incredible utility in relation to our current financial system.  This is the issue I see, people want bitcoin to be both a fundamental basepoint and a highly transactable material.  I suspect it cannot be both, should not be both, and won't be both.

Are you sure, that at such a low block size, bitcoin is worthless?  I suspect that the only true issues with price is uncertainty.  And so once we solve this issue, this will change.
traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 15, 2015, 08:02:26 AM
 #1378

Gavin's proposed change, [...] will strap solid-rocket boosters onto Bitcoin. I can't wait.

Meep meep!


Nothing to do with gravity and the speed of light :p
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736
Merit: 1002

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
February 15, 2015, 08:27:42 AM
 #1379


To be clear, Price would not skyrocket, it will collapse when average block size nears 1MB, and remain collapsed the longer the 1MB limit is left in place. Left in place eventually  another coin will take over.

No this is not logical to say.  Another coin would take over as a highly transactable commodity, but to say "take over" is incredibly vague.  I am suggesting such a low size renders this "commodity" like gold, and this would have an incredible utility in relation to our current financial system.  This is the issue I see, people want bitcoin to be both a fundamental basepoint and a highly transactable material.  I suspect it cannot be both, should not be both, and won't be both.

Are you sure, that at such a low block size, bitcoin is worthless?  I suspect that the only true issues with price is uncertainty.  And so once we solve this issue, this will change.
Like Gavin suggests, have a coin with a 256k blocksize and see how that works for you. Better yet, a 1KB block, then they will bid like a Christies auction to be in your block.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 15, 2015, 08:41:44 AM
 #1380


Like Gavin suggests, have a coin with a 256k blocksize and see how that works for you. Better yet, a 1KB block, then they will bid like a Christies auction to be in your block.
Here is what I see.  5 pieces of gold might not be so useful, but the difference between 10 million pieces and 21 millions is arbitrary and psychological.
Pages: « 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 [69] 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 ... 131 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!