Topic: ... - page 2. (Read 61015 times)

I like people (such as Luke-jr) who intentionally choose to reside in elaborately constructed private worlds of Baroque fantasy.  At least they aren't boring!   

But Gavinistas aren't independent thinkers, so they suck.  All they do is tediously rationalize their externally implanted desire for a Magical UniCoin capable of piling every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into one dataset.

Even non-specialists can understand the logic of trickle-down honesty best explained by davout and (more recently) Holliday:



Peter R and Frap.doc's problem is Dunning-Kruger.  They have outsmarted themselves, in pursuit of (preferred but incorrect) conclusions within domains where they mistakenly consider themselves experts.

Oh well...their ensuing cognitive dissonance, as XT/101 burns on the ash heap of history, is at least a source of entertaining lulz and cautionary precedent.   

The Holy Whitepaper does not distinguish between Bitcoin-the-Coin (which with time tends towards suitability for high value settlements and wealth storage) and bitcoin-the-blockchain-technology (which manifests as myriad altcoins far more appropriate for small casual transactions).

Such implementation details are beyond the narrow (high-level protocol architecture) scope of the Holy Whitepaper, as are forward looking statements regarding Layer 2 (which stands to obviate and moot the entire retail payment rail debate).

Bravo!  That is an excellent corollary to davout's maxim:

We are at the historic crossroads predicted by Chaum, a binary choice between unprecedented freedom and eternal authoritarianism.

I don't think the XTurds in thrall to Gavin are capable of understanding we're trying to build an economy and not the next big start-up.  That limitation is fully intentional:

XT is a dead (stillborn) altcoin, not a topic fit for serious discussion beyond milking the bitter-clinger XTurd lolcows for comedic/instructive value.

Bitcoin began as a cheap payment network, but its destiny is gradual transition via marginalism to expensive (relative to ~free) high-value settlements and storage of value.  IOW, as blocks fill up, Layer 2 (payments) must be separated from Layer 1 (settlements) if Bitcoin is to scale rather than simply bloat until something breaks.

You edited out my topical response, leaving only the introductory color commentary.  I'll replace it (in bold), so everyone can admire your skill at misleading the public, which is after all the favorite activity of Gavinistas everywhere.   

Bitcoin tx fees must be sufficient to replace declining block subsidies.  That can only happen with full blocks, as davout demonstates in BIP000.

Tx fees should be "expensive" in that sense, and eventually should be much higher than the sub-trivial currently ~free subsidized prices.

Full nodes must be "cheap-to-use" so ~everyone has the option to 1) be their own financial institution and 2) contribute to a diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient network (especially during the inevitable crackdown(s) by the desperate dying Fiat Empire).

Mass adoption by currently enfranchised/banked consumers (who can just use their iphone paypal app instead) is not nearly as important as System D penetration.  As Justus famously declared, "only black markets matter; if you aren't helping build them you are wasting your time."

All of the above considerations' practical degrees of freedom are constrained by Nash's NSA Conjecture:


Ossification at 1MB (and 21e6 coins, and 10 minute blocks, and SHA256 PoW) is a feature, not a bug.   

money 

plus they promise to hire and form more core devs. isn't that brilliant 

That's too bad.  Another time then.

I'm sensing you expect the good folks at Blockstream to code/review/test at a faster pace than they have been coding/reviewing/testing revisions to Bitcoin core.  If I sense your expectations correctly, on what do you base these expectations for vigor and rigor?

I was hoping theymos would give me his tickets he said he'd giveaway to btctalk users but I think he's afraid I'd attack Gavin  

Haha ok well time will tell.

Will I be seeing you in Montreal this coming weekend?

That's ignoring the trick under our sleeve  

We'll have a whole suite of financial instruments and software boasting anonymity, privacy, instant and unlimited transactions all supported by wealth of the scarcest and most decentralized crypto-commodity on this face of "the market". Open source and trustless. All brought to us by the good folks at Blockstream.

You don't have to use Bitcoin. Once you've acquired its value you will be given a whole spectrum of trust and decentralization layers on which to operate depending on the use you wish to make of it. I personally can't wait to stop having to use this patently broken Bitcoin blockchain that I love in favor of more intuitive, secure and agile tools.

Thank you for answering honestly and not beating around the bush.  It is my opinion that most of the small-block supporters feel the same way (i.e., that we need a centrally-planned limit to keep Bitcoin decentralized).  


I don't believe in killing endangered animals; I think it's terrible, personally.  So I guess I am glad there is a centrally-planned limit for killing bears in the mountains around Vancouver, for instance.  But this isn't about what I believe…we're discussing what will actually happen.  A centrally-planned limit on big game hunting requires that the organization implementing the limit also act to enforce that limit--with violence if necessary.  I'm not going to wade into whether this is right or wrong, what I'm pointing out is that to enforce a quota that goes against the free market outcome requires the backing of strong organization or government willing to use physical force if necessary.  

Do you think Bitcoin Core is strong enough an organization to enforce a quota that goes against the natural free-market outcome?  With 85% of the network nodes, it is already fairly strong.  However, how will this organization physically force users not to defect to other implementations of Bitcoin that support larger block sizes to satisfy the demands of the market?

This Peter R guy and his alikes are more like some Bitcoin's degenerative disease, if you ask me..  

FYIAversion his latest contagion attempt at the bitcoin's devs mailing list: Let's kill Bitcoin Core and allow the green shoots of a garden of new implementations to grow from its fertile ashes

Whoever gives credit to this man piece of parasite (staying polite here..) should seriously consider getting outta Bitcoin.

Not that bitcoin's anti-corps arent resilient to such plague..  

YES!

"Are you saying we need centrally planned limit (21,000,000) to keep Bitcoin from turning into fiat"

YES!

"Are you saying we need centrally planned block interval to keep Bitcoin secure"

YES!

I notice you didn't answer my(davout) questions. You wouldn't be against centrally planned limit on big game hunting would you  ?

Are you saying we need an "artificial, centrally planned limit" to keep Bitcoin decentralized?

I think it will need centralize intervention until the block size can be set in stone and forgotten.

You tendency to confuse Bitcoin with free market is largely misguided.

To quote davout:

Indeed.


I am trying to get both sides to speak the same language.  I've partly succeeded because it sounds like we are in agreement regarding the above chart, and just in disagreement over the nature of the externality that may exist.  You think it's hugely negative; I think it's actually positive.  

My question to you is this: Production quotas (to reduce perceived externalities) are AFAIK always enforced by some form of centralized government or powerful institution.  Do you believe it will be possible to enforce this block space production quota without creating the very centralized governance model you are afraid of?  

This relates to my debates with Gmax:

The physicist James Clerk Maxwell hypothesized a daemon who could quickly open and close valves to collect the air molecules with higher kinetic energy from the slower moving molecules, thereby creating a perpetual motion machine.  

The cryptographer Gregory Maxwell hypothesized a daemon who could control the block size limit to prevent mining centralization without turning into the very centralized force the daemon was summoned to fight.  

They can't fork away into a more centralized coin if they wish to. At some point we should expect Bitcoin holder to recognize what makes it different than other solutions (hint: not transactions).

You keep posting these charts as if the negative externality was not obvious....

There's nothing wrong with it if that is what the free market decides.  

If forcing transactions into payment channels requires a production quota on block space, then I think there is something wrong with it.  



Moreover, I don't think it would even be possible to enforce the quota, since the pressure indicated by the brown shaded region in the lower chart would provide impetus to fork the protocol (larger block sizes) to satisfy the demand unmet due to the quota.      

Source: http://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-12#post-392

Why is the payment channel idea not good enough for most transactions that do not require censorship resistance?