Bitcoin Forum
March 30, 2020, 08:13:25 AM *
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 ... 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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Bitcoin 20MB Fork  (Read 154258 times)
traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 21, 2015, 11:25:54 PM
 #1761

There is one more missing variable, but alas it cannot very easily be relevated, because of our belief of the purpose and cause of "fighting" or "conflict" and relation our lack of understanding to "Ideal Money" or in other words the effects of an unstable global economic "situation", or the effects of floating currencies.

Humans (or life in general) is expected to evolve through perpetual conflict ONLY up until a point in which they develop and relevate a hyper currency (bitcoin).  And/or in other words this has to do a lot with the Wealth of Nations, in which these nations create a global economy and stop invading newly discovered lands.

If we understand the above post about the base needs for an equilibrium of wants that creates a stable "nation", when we understand also the cause of war (or peace).

And so what we can expect in the future is a society that cooperates more and teaches its peoples (and all life) about the benefits and importance of it.  We are in fact not destined to fight and we do not actually in the future rely on conflict to evolve (even in games says J.Smithy).

And so I worry about setting certain block size limitation based on the financial incentive required for securing "trust", because eventually this need will not exist, or at least not anywhere near to the extent we require it, or we think in the future we might require it.

I wonder if we can discuss then, whether or not this would be a kind of reverse inflation, a deflation, or something that might unravel the robustness of the entire system.

In other words, if all of this is about incentivizing a system against attackers, it will certainly, in the future, lose its coherence, if we do not plan for cooperation.  Of course if we do not believe in the possibility of a cooperative society then I cannot make this point.


Smiley
AWARD-WINNING
CRYPTO CASINO
ASKGAMBLERS
PLAYERS CHOICE 2019
PROUD
PARTNER OF
1500+
GAMES
2 MIN
CASH-OUTS
24/7
SUPPORT
100s OF
FREE SPINS
PLAY NOW
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1585556005
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1585556005

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1585556005
Reply with quote  #2

1585556005
Report to moderator
1585556005
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1585556005

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1585556005
Reply with quote  #2

1585556005
Report to moderator
1585556005
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1585556005

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1585556005
Reply with quote  #2

1585556005
Report to moderator
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204
Merit: 1001


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
February 22, 2015, 05:40:11 PM
Last edit: February 22, 2015, 06:12:51 PM by NewLiberty
 #1762

There is one more missing variable, but alas it cannot very easily be relevated, because of our belief of the purpose and cause of "fighting" or "conflict" and relation our lack of understanding to "Ideal Money" or in other words the effects of an unstable global economic "situation", or the effects of floating currencies.

Humans (or life in general) is expected to evolve through perpetual conflict ONLY up until a point in which they develop and relevate a hyper currency (bitcoin).  And/or in other words this has to do a lot with the Wealth of Nations, in which these nations create a global economy and stop invading newly discovered lands.

If we understand the above post about the base needs for an equilibrium of wants that creates a stable "nation", when we understand also the cause of war (or peace).

And so what we can expect in the future is a society that cooperates more and teaches its peoples (and all life) about the benefits and importance of it.  We are in fact not destined to fight and we do not actually in the future rely on conflict to evolve (even in games says J.Smithy).

And so I worry about setting certain block size limitation based on the financial incentive required for securing "trust", because eventually this need will not exist, or at least not anywhere near to the extent we require it, or we think in the future we might require it.

I wonder if we can discuss then, whether or not this would be a kind of reverse inflation, a deflation, or something that might unravel the robustness of the entire system.

In other words, if all of this is about incentivizing a system against attackers, it will certainly, in the future, lose its coherence, if we do not plan for cooperation.  Of course if we do not believe in the possibility of a cooperative society then I cannot make this point.


Smiley

This hard fork gets a lot of attention, but it is not all of what Bitcoin is about.
It is instead, an example of one of its failings.  Yes, it is just about the balance between security and utility.  It is not about money supply at all.  
Your discussion of Keynesianism and ideal money, notwithstanding.

Does your notion of "ideal money" include manipulation of supply in order to "manage" an economy by a group of managers that claim to know more about what is right than everyone else?  If so, than this fork discussion is not where your notions belong.  The fork has nothing to do with money supply, it has to do with whether and how to relax a constraint on transaction velocity before that constraint becomes a limiting factor of Bitcoin's utility.  This fork is not inflationary or deflationary.

Yes... lets discuss your concepts, but in this thread they are off topic.  They were only raised here to show how they have no importance to this particular discussion.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
danielpbarron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 213
Merit: 100


Daniel P. Barron


View Profile WWW
February 22, 2015, 06:03:37 PM
 #1763

The fork has nothing to do with money supply, it has to do with whether and how to relax a constraint on transaction velocity before that constraint becomes a limiting factor of Bitcoin's utility.  This fork is not inflationary or deflationary.

The fork is exactly about money supply. The primary argument used by those in favor of Gavin's proposal is that the fork is needed in order to make bitcoin more inclusive. If we make concessions to these demands now, what is stopping the same people from insisting we create 5 million bitcoin to airdrop into the wallets of some 3rd world country? When getting "mass adoption" is the primary focus, you end up with things like the dollar. I don't want mass adoption; I want sound money.

Marriage is a permanent bond (or should be) between a man and a woman. Scripture reveals a man has the freedom to have this marriage bond with more than one woman, if he so desires. But, anything beyond this is a perversion. -- Darwin Fish
traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 22, 2015, 06:08:41 PM
 #1764


Does your notion of "ideal money" include manipulation of supply in order to "manage" an economy by a group of managers that claim to know more about what is right than everyone else?  If so, than this fork discussion is not where your notions belong.  The fork has nothing to do with money supply, it has to do with whether and how to relax a constraint on transaction velocity before that constraint becomes a limiting factor of Bitcoin's utility.  This fork is not inflationary or deflationary.

Yes... lets discuss your concepts, but in this thread they are off topic.  They were only raised here to show how they have no importance to this particular discussion.
My friend, "Ideal Money" is a lecture, that pertains to a very specific "notion" that is not mine...that says if a new money technology could be released, with a finite "money" supply, it would stabilize every global currency in relation to it.

The rest that you comment on, is not related to what I am pointing out.  I am suggesting in the future, with a cooperative society, we do not need the same level of security. This might change our formulas...but we aren't aware or able to discuss it if we do not believe in an eventually cooperative society.

In other words, satoshi nor szabo talked about what bitcoin might do to our economy, but it turns out Dr. Nash has been touring country to country for the last 20 years (same time szabo's blog exists), explaining exactly what bitcoin will do to our global economy.  This is fact.
onemorebtc
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 266
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 22, 2015, 06:21:47 PM
 #1765

The fork has nothing to do with money supply, it has to do with whether and how to relax a constraint on transaction velocity before that constraint becomes a limiting factor of Bitcoin's utility.  This fork is not inflationary or deflationary.

The fork is exactly about money supply. The primary argument used by those in favor of Gavin's proposal is that the fork is needed in order to make bitcoin more inclusive. If we make concessions to these demands now, what is stopping the same people from insisting we create 5 million bitcoin to airdrop into the wallets of some 3rd world country? When getting "mass adoption" is the primary focus, you end up with things like the dollar. I don't want mass adoption; I want sound money.

changing money supply and chaning blocksize are too big different things.
you cant say: "this change is about changing money supply" and state a few sentences later that a new fork would be needed.

the difference is: people who have bitcoin would prefer mass adoption because it will value their coins higher - its the opposit with an higher money supply.

transfer 3 onemorebtc.k1024.de 1
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204
Merit: 1001


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
February 22, 2015, 06:34:47 PM
 #1766

The fork has nothing to do with money supply, it has to do with whether and how to relax a constraint on transaction velocity before that constraint becomes a limiting factor of Bitcoin's utility.  This fork is not inflationary or deflationary.

The fork is exactly about money supply. The primary argument used by those in favor of Gavin's proposal is that the fork is needed in order to make bitcoin more inclusive. If we make concessions to these demands now, what is stopping the same people from insisting we create 5 million bitcoin to airdrop into the wallets of some 3rd world country? When getting "mass adoption" is the primary focus, you end up with things like the dollar. I don't want mass adoption; I want sound money.

The slippery slope notion?

We are all likely in agreement that the fundamental purpose of Bitcoin is sound money.  If not, then another thread for dealing with "first principles" is needed.


One of the elements of sound money is its utility as a "medium of exchange".  This is what we are addressing with this hard fork.

The thing that stops the same people from destroying the sound money principle (and your example of 5 million more bitcoin airdrop) is the "store of value" element.

My last few posts here in this thread have been an attempt to remove the confusion between these things.  We can advance the "medium of exchange" utility, without harming the "store of value" utility at all.  This particular hard fork is not a negative impact to the store of value.  If anything, an increase in the velocity of money improves the store of value utility through increased liquidity.

I'm of the opinion that "Mass adoption" is a pipe dream (the market agrees with this).  I think it is decades away, if ever   However, I am working toward making it possible, and I am opposed to things that would make it increasingly impossible.
===

I also agree with your idea that doing something "because Gavin said so" is the height of laziness and foolishness.  I think even (perhaps especially) Gavin would agree with that.  His role is more of a curator of ideas and he should not be expected to come up with everything.
There are a whole branch of folks here that disagree with this.  They think that we should do just whatever Gavin proposes.  They think that "ossification" risk will kill Bitcoin.  They are as wrong as the people that think that we should not do something because Gavin proposes it.  It should not be about the personalities here.  Bitcoin is more important than that sort of political nonsense.

It is the responsibility of all of us out here in the cheap seats to add some peer-review rigorousness to the process.  Its a messy job.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 22, 2015, 06:36:46 PM
 #1767

The fork has nothing to do with money supply, it has to do with whether and how to relax a constraint on transaction velocity before that constraint becomes a limiting factor of Bitcoin's utility.  This fork is not inflationary or deflationary.

The fork is exactly about money supply. The primary argument used by those in favor of Gavin's proposal is that the fork is needed in order to make bitcoin more inclusive. If we make concessions to these demands now, what is stopping the same people from insisting we create 5 million bitcoin to airdrop into the wallets of some 3rd world country? When getting "mass adoption" is the primary focus, you end up with things like the dollar. I don't want mass adoption; I want sound money.

changing money supply and chaning blocksize are too big different things.
you cant say: "this change is about changing money supply" and state a few sentences later that a new fork would be needed.

the difference is: people who have bitcoin would prefer mass adoption because it will value their coins higher - its the opposit with an higher money supply.
Lets be clear.  A fluctuating currency supply is not favorable.  But neither is an "Unstable" decision about block size.  They both produce the same unfavorable result.

We want a con census that puts the market psyche at rest.

We shouldn't care about a favorable block size...every one of us should only care about a final resolution of it.

And this leads us to the obvious solution, all of us to agree to keep it finite for a long time, say 5 years minimum.  In that time consensus to change will be impossible.  But in the future, we can use intelligent to change rather than conflict.  This seems all quite obvious and logical.



traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 22, 2015, 06:39:13 PM
 #1768


The slippery slope notion?

We are all likely in agreement that the fundamental purpose of Bitcoin is sound money.  If not, then another thread for dealing with "first principles" is needed.


no.  and you don't know what sound money is.  You cannot ignore 20 years of lectures about what sound money is and that discuss it like you understand it.  Gavin proposes a test on the robustness of the system.  If the community continues to disagree and debate block size, then bitcoin remains broken.  We need a solid consensus, that is what sound money is based on.  Nothing else matters in regards to "sound" money.

NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204
Merit: 1001


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
February 22, 2015, 06:41:32 PM
Last edit: February 22, 2015, 07:03:19 PM by NewLiberty
 #1769


Does your notion of "ideal money" include manipulation of supply in order to "manage" an economy by a group of managers that claim to know more about what is right than everyone else?  If so, than this fork discussion is not where your notions belong.  The fork has nothing to do with money supply, it has to do with whether and how to relax a constraint on transaction velocity before that constraint becomes a limiting factor of Bitcoin's utility.  This fork is not inflationary or deflationary.

Yes... lets discuss your concepts, but in this thread they are off topic.  They were only raised here to show how they have no importance to this particular discussion.
My friend, "Ideal Money" is a lecture, that pertains to a very specific "notion" that is not mine...that says if a new money technology could be released, with a finite "money" supply, it would stabilize every global currency in relation to it.

The rest that you comment on, is not related to what I am pointing out.  I am suggesting in the future, with a cooperative society, we do not need the same level of security. This might change our formulas...but we aren't aware or able to discuss it if we do not believe in an eventually cooperative society.

In other words, satoshi nor szabo talked about what bitcoin might do to our economy, but it turns out Dr. Nash has been touring country to country for the last 20 years (same time szabo's blog exists), explaining exactly what bitcoin will do to our global economy.  This is fact.
We agree than?  These are off topic.
Have you found a thread where they are on topic?  Or want to start one?  I'd be happy to participate there.  Here they are noise.


The slippery slope notion?

We are all likely in agreement that the fundamental purpose of Bitcoin is sound money.  If not, then another thread for dealing with "first principles" is needed.


no.  and you don't know what sound money is.  You cannot ignore 20 years of lectures about what sound money is and that discuss it like you understand it.  Gavin proposes a test on the robustness of the system.  If the community continues to disagree and debate block size, then bitcoin remains broken.  We need a solid consensus, that is what sound money is based on.  Nothing else matters in regards to "sound" money.

In fact I can ignore them.  There is an easy button to do that.
If you care to find some way to link any of this to this thread's topic, we can engage that.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
yampi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 433
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 22, 2015, 06:42:20 PM
 #1770

Bitcoin is money.
The blockchain is big enough as it is right now.
The huge blockchain is driving people away from the full node.
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2534
Merit: 2476


Exchange Bitcoin quickly-https://blockchain.com.do


View Profile WWW
February 22, 2015, 07:01:52 PM
 #1771

Bitcoin is money.
The blockchain is big enough as it is right now.
The huge blockchain is driving people away from the full node.
And the current blockchain will end up driving people away from Bitcoin in the future. What are you trying to get at?

███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
████████▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀████████
██████▀▄██▀▀▄▄ ████▄▀██████
█████ ███ ████ ▀▀████ █████
████ █████ ███▀▀▀▄████ ████
████ ███▀▀▀▄▄▄████████ ████
████ ██▄▄▀▀███████▀▄▄█ ████
█████ █████ █▀██▀▄███ █████
██████▄▀███▀▄█▀▄███▀▄██████
████████▄▄▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▄▄████████
██████████▀▄███████████████
██████████████████████████
.
.FORTUNEJACK   JOIN INVINCIBLE JACKMATE AND WIN......10 BTC........
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████▀▀▀       ▀▀▀██████
█████  ▄▄▄█████▄▄▄  █████
█████  █████ █████  █████
█████  ██▄     ▄██  █████
█████  ████   ████  █████
█████▄  ██▄▄█▄▄██  ▄█████
██████▄  ███████  ▄██████
███████▄   ▀▀▀   ▄███████
██████████▄▄ ▄▄██████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
.
..
traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 22, 2015, 07:41:58 PM
 #1772

Newliberty, WE are off topic until we relevate Ideal Money in relation to the OP.  It SEEMS otherwise, because we function from a false perspective that Satoshi is a person.  I'm likely away for 10 days regardless, I hope you all can finally become sincere.

In other words, the lecture serious Ideal Money was specifically prepared and given, on the exact topic of this OP.  You cannot ignore the lecture and refute this simply obvious truth. READ IT!
bambou
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 346
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 22, 2015, 09:20:21 PM
 #1773

Bitcoin is money.
The blockchain is big enough as it is right now.
The huge blockchain is driving people away from the full node.
And the current blockchain will end up driving people away from Bitcoin in the future. What are you trying to get at?

maybe maybe not.


In other words, the lecture serious Ideal Money was specifically prepared and given, on the exact topic of this OP.  You cannot ignore the lecture and refute this simply obvious truth. READ IT!

get a life bru.

Non inultus premor
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204
Merit: 1001


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
February 22, 2015, 09:27:39 PM
Last edit: February 23, 2015, 08:03:15 AM by NewLiberty
 #1774

Newliberty, WE are off topic until we relevate Ideal Money in relation to the OP.  It SEEMS otherwise, because we function from a false perspective that Satoshi is a person.  I'm likely away for 10 days regardless, I hope you all can finally become sincere.

In other words, the lecture serious Ideal Money was specifically prepared and given, on the exact topic of this OP.  You cannot ignore the lecture and refute this simply obvious truth. READ IT!

"Ideal Money" is a very broad topic.  
It is not so relevant here.
This fork is a very narrow issue.  Attempts to broaden it too much harms the discussion.

There are a great many posts in this topic to promote Nash's lecture series.  We all understand it is interesting.  It should be a separate thread, or condense something in particular that makes it relevant.  The normal thing is to put it in your .sig where everyone can see with each post, and stick to the topics of threads, please.

I could ask all to understand everything written in http://mises.org and the last 30 years but it would be silly.  It is a good thing to understand, but the relevant bits to this topic can fit in a few sentences.

The notion that we need to agree because it is bad for Bitcoin to disagree is also not helpful.  We either agree or do not agree.  When we do not agree we might end up with multiple consensus chains.  This is not the end of the world, or even the end of Bitcoin.    

Unless and until the fork happens, it is our responsibility to improve the understanding of the people that may be subjected to it.  To understand the problems with the proposals, and the difference between a good proposal and a bad one.

We also need to work toward understanding what brings us to this point:  What are the criteria for a hard fork of this nature?  Under what conditions may it occur?  When is it crazy and when is it sane, what justifies it if anything?
====

The problem with Gavin's proposal is that it is almost good enough temporary solution to become a permanent solution.  It's saving grace is that if implemented, then fixing it (by cutting out the exponential growth or reducing the size to fix a spam problem) would be a soft fork instead of a hard one.

I hope to get closer to an accurate indefinite solution.  One based on measurement and responses.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2156
Merit: 1070


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
February 22, 2015, 11:27:23 PM
 #1775

If there is traffic to fill up blocks to that size, and the blocks cannot grow to that size, then the system fails.

Your lack of faith, imagination, and economic literacy does not constitute an emergency for Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is antifragile.  That means rather than fail in the face of adversity it grows stronger.

When blocks grow to >1MB, less important (IE valuable) transactions will simply move to other less cluttered blockchains.

This is Econ 101.  This is Julian Simon winning The Bet against doom-mongering catastrophist Paul Ehrlich.  This is the Substitution Effect, powered by the invisible hand.

Your Maximalist Monopolist conceit that Bitcoin is the only available blockchain in the entire universe (and thus must be all-inclusive) is demonstrably false.

Bitcoin The Canonical Reference Implementation's job is to replace the BIS, not fucking Visa, Paypal, Western Union, and little Sally's piggy bank.

The BIS effects every coffee purchase in the world, but not directly.  Bitcoin, as the new digital gold standard, is destined to do the same job, only better.

Individual central/local banks and payment networks will be replaced by any combination of sufficiently secured blockchains (merged mined and/or using different POWs).  The dark pools will be denominated in Monero.  Bitcoin isn't a one-size-fits-all solution for everyone and everything, although its blockchain technology will be extended for those purposes.

A $2 coffee or $20 remittance to Africa doesn't belong in the same dataset as billion dollar trans-institutional settlements.  If you insist they must cohabitate, Bitcoin will collapse under its own weigh, a hypertrophic dinosaur victim of its own success ready to die in the nearest tar pit or meteor crater. 

At most, blocksize should double when block reward halves.  Anything more is an inflationary free-rider-subsidizing Bloatcoin/Gavincoin/GigaCoin/VisaCoin alt-fork, not BTC proper. 

To believe that trade-offs do not exist and 20MB blocks are somehow magically free is also economic illiteracy.  Econ 101 tells us if you raise the cost of full nodes, you will have less of them. 

Expensive/limited bandwidth, not cheap disk space, is the problem (regardless of what RoadStress the idiot says).  The present ad-hoc attempts to subsidize nodes are a glaring admission of market failure, which will be greatly exacerbated by 20MB+ blocks.

Gavin's 20MB proposal is 100% textbook 'Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.'  Specifically, the 'Extend' phase.  And then comes the axe, as slow/hardened connections cannot propagate the bloat and nodes outside of Equation Group-vulnerable datacenters go dark, tearing holes in our mesh until only a fragile patchwork remains.

Keep Bitcoin Elite!TM


██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine
whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." 
David Chaum 1996
"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect."  Adam Back 2014
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
Is Dash a scam?
TradeFortress 🏕
VIP
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1023


View Profile
February 22, 2015, 11:53:05 PM
 #1776

A $2 coffee or $20 remittance to Africa doesn't belong in the same dataset as billion dollar trans-institutional settlements.  If you insist they must cohabitate, Bitcoin will collapse under its own weigh, a hypertrophic dinosaur victim of its own success ready to die in the nearest tar pit or meteor crater. 

Yes they do.

Quote
Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as
trusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for
most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model.
Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot
avoid mediating disputes. The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the
minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions.

What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust,
allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted
third party.
-Satoshi
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

Every single transaction that pays the cost per kB belongs in the blockchain, and the cost per kB should be low enough to make all reasonable transactions feasible. A $2 cup of coffee belongs in the blockchain every bit as much as a $200 payment.

What we need is:

1) charging miners for the cost of network transfer
2) charging transaction creators for the cost of network storage (if their UXTOs are not spent / not feasibly spendable)
3) removing the blocksize limit altogether.
TradeFortress 🏕
VIP
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1023


View Profile
February 22, 2015, 11:56:25 PM
 #1777

1) charging miners for the cost of network transfer
2) charging transaction creators for the cost of network storage (if their UXTOs are not spent / not feasibly spendable)
3) removing the blocksize limit altogether.

2) can be addressed by a 1 satoshi per day fee on all outputs less than 5460 satoshi UXTOs. Within a day this will prune all the 1 satoshi spam from the blockchain. The 5460 satoshi threshold can be halved every block cycle until eventually this fee no longer applies.

iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2156
Merit: 1070


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
February 23, 2015, 12:08:58 AM
 #1778

A $2 coffee or $20 remittance to Africa doesn't belong in the same dataset as billion dollar trans-institutional settlements.  If you insist they must cohabitate, Bitcoin will collapse under its own weigh, a hypertrophic dinosaur victim of its own success ready to die in the nearest tar pit or meteor crater. 

Yes they do.

Quote
Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as
trusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for
most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model.
Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot
avoid mediating disputes. The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the
minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions.

What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust,
allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted
third party.
-Satoshi
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

Every single transaction that pays the cost per kB belongs in the blockchain, and the cost per kB should be low enough to make all reasonable transactions feasible. A $2 cup of coffee belongs in the blockchain every bit as much as a $200 payment.

$2 and $200 retail payments don't belong in the same dataset as $2 million/billion commercial settlements.  More is different; free riders are a bug, not a feature.

"An electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust" refers to blockchain technology in general, not necessarily Bitcoin specifically.

Piling every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into one dataset doesn't scale.

The networks need to have separate fates.



We get it.  You don't believe BTC is anti-fragile.  You really want to fix Bitcoin until it breaks.  You like Gavin's 'Embrace, Extend, Extinguish' attack.

That's fine.  But don't expect the rest of us to roll over and make forking Bitcoin into ThirdTempleCoin easy (much less profitable) for the attackers.   Wink


██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine
whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." 
David Chaum 1996
"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect."  Adam Back 2014
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
Is Dash a scam?
DooMAD
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2296
Merit: 1533


Leave no FUD unchallenged


View Profile WWW
February 23, 2015, 01:38:36 AM
 #1779

If there is traffic to fill up blocks to that size, and the blocks cannot grow to that size, then the system fails.

Your lack of faith, imagination, and economic literacy does not constitute an emergency for Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is antifragile.  That means rather than fail in the face of adversity it grows stronger.

When blocks grow to >1MB, less important (IE valuable) transactions will simply move to other less cluttered blockchains.

This is Econ 101.  This is Julian Simon winning The Bet against doom-mongering catastrophist Paul Ehrlich.  This is the Substitution Effect, powered by the invisible hand.

Your Maximalist Monopolist conceit that Bitcoin is the only available blockchain in the entire universe (and thus must be all-inclusive) is demonstrably false.

Bitcoin The Canonical Reference Implementation's job is to replace the BIS, not fucking Visa, Paypal, Western Union, and little Sally's piggy bank.

The BIS effects every coffee purchase in the world, but not directly.  Bitcoin, as the new digital gold standard, is destined to do the same job, only better.

Individual central/local banks and payment networks will be replaced by any combination of sufficiently secured blockchains (merged mined and/or using different POWs).  The dark pools will be denominated in Monero.  Bitcoin isn't a one-size-fits-all solution for everyone and everything, although its blockchain technology will be extended for those purposes.

A $2 coffee or $20 remittance to Africa doesn't belong in the same dataset as billion dollar trans-institutional settlements.  If you insist they must cohabitate, Bitcoin will collapse under its own weigh, a hypertrophic dinosaur victim of its own success ready to die in the nearest tar pit or meteor crater.  

At most, blocksize should double when block reward halves.  Anything more is an inflationary free-rider-subsidizing Bloatcoin/Gavincoin/GigaCoin/VisaCoin alt-fork, not BTC proper.  

To believe that trade-offs do not exist and 20MB blocks are somehow magically free is also economic illiteracy.  Econ 101 tells us if you raise the cost of full nodes, you will have less of them.  

Expensive/limited bandwidth, not cheap disk space, is the problem (regardless of what RoadStress the idiot says).  The present ad-hoc attempts to subsidize nodes are a glaring admission of market failure, which will be greatly exacerbated by 20MB+ blocks.

Gavin's 20MB proposal is 100% textbook 'Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.'  Specifically, the 'Extend' phase.  And then comes the axe, as slow/hardened connections cannot propagate the bloat and nodes outside of Equation Group-vulnerable datacenters go dark, tearing holes in our mesh until only a fragile patchwork remains.

Keep Bitcoin Elite!TM

If you're so determined to have everyone's less "valuable" transactions on another chain, why are you opposing the fork?  Once we've forked, you'll never have to see another $2 coffee wasting precious space in your blocks again.  You should be happy to see us go.  Unless, of course, you end up having to admit that you need the rest of us to make this whole thing work.  Somehow it feels like we still haven't had an honest answer from your side about your real motives here.  I mean, which is it?  You say you want a system that doesn't include small transactions, but you want us all to stick around and support a network that will eventually be of no use to us because our "lesser" transactions won't make it in because the blocks are full?  You can't have your cake and eat it.  Either it works for the masses or it doesn't work.  That's Econ 101.  

You know full well that if you had a coin that only whales used, it would die a horrible death.  Otherwise you'd have done it by now.  You don't want to be kings of a worthless little molehill, so you need the rest of us.  So climb down from your high horse, admit that you're nothing without the rest of us and drop the whole elitist utopia bullshit.  You know that if there's a fork and you don't tag along, your ideals will only last about as long as the value of your network holds out, which I doubt would be very long without anyone else to hold it up for you.  All the bad things you claim will happen with a 20mb block won't happen to you if you stay on the old 1MB chain.  So why do you care if we fork?  Why are you so scared that we might leave you behind?  We'll survive without you, but you won't survive without us.  You know it.  We know it.  You have no other reason to oppose the fork.  

You.  Need.  Us.

iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2156
Merit: 1070


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
February 23, 2015, 01:53:48 AM
 #1780

If you're so determined to have everyone's less "valuable" transactions on another chain, why are you opposing the fork?  Once we've forked, you'll never have to see another $2 coffee wasting precious space in your blocks again.  You should be happy to see us go.  Unless, of course, you end up having to admit that you need the rest of us to make this whole thing work.  Somehow it feels like we still haven't had an honest answer from your side about your real motives here.  I mean, which is it?  You say you want a system that doesn't include small transactions, but you want us all to stick around and support a network that will eventually be of no use to us because our "lesser" transactions won't make it in because the blocks are full?  You can't have your cake and eat it.  Either it works for the masses or it doesn't work.  That's Econ 101.  

You know full well that if you had a coin that only whales used, it would die a horrible death.  Otherwise you'd have done it by now.  You don't want to be kings of a worthless little molehill, so you need the rest of us.  So climb down from your high horse, admit that you're nothing without the rest of us and drop the whole elitist utopia bullshit.  You know that if there's a fork and you don't tag along, your ideals will only last about as long as the value of your network holds out, which I doubt would be very long without anyone else to hold it up for you.  All the bad things you claim will happen with a 20mb block won't happen to you if you stay on the old 1MB chain.  So why do you care if we fork?  Why are you so scared that we might leave you behind?  We'll survive without you, but you won't survive without us.  You know it.  We know it.  You have no other reason to oppose the fork.  

You.  Need.  Us.

Our reasons for opposing the fork have already been explained in great detail.  But you won't accept them, so you have to be paranoid and impute Secret Hidden Reasons.

Instead of using your psychic abilities to divine our True Motivations, perhaps you should be worrying about damage to the Bitcoin brand occurring as a result of this completely unnecessary Great Schism.

The world has always been and will always be an "elitist utopia."  Sorry if you believed that Bitcoin was your free ticket out of that reality and into the promised land of your Free Shit Army.

But yes, best of luck with your HubrisCoin.  Have fun being destroyed by MP and his fellow neo-royalist reactionaries.   Kiss


██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine
whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." 
David Chaum 1996
"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect."  Adam Back 2014
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
Is Dash a scam?
Pages: « 1 ... 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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 »
  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!