Topic: ... - page 3. (Read 61015 times)

I don't believe the Blockchain will be useful for sub-penny micropayments (for example); I like the idea of payment channels for that.  

The point of my post was to show that @manselr was correct: Bitcoin was designed for small casual online transaction that are too costly with our present trust-based model.  Whether it continues to meet that design objective, the truth is that no one knows.  Will the threshold for direct Blockchain access be sour-candies from 7-11, Xboxes from BestBuy, or something else?  

Man... that's like your own interpretation. Have you considered that Satoshi's proposition was to create a trustless layer from which services enabling these transactions could be created?

I really don't see how you're still trying to fight for including all of the world's transaction on the blockchain when there is consensus among pretty much all the qualified engineers (that would include Gavin although I'm increasingly doubtful about his qualifications) that a POW system is simply not able to efficiently service this type of load/transactions.

You and cypherdoc's crew are really alone in your own little world and it's quite worrying to see you entertain this cargo cult

According to the Bitcoin white paper, it was designed for "small casual transactions" that are too costly with conventional trust-based online payment methods (e.g., Visa, Paypal, etc.)



source: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

What does satoshi have to do with this? Do you believe that he was some majestic coder? Because he was not. Bitcoin was never designed for small transactions auch as buying coffe or micro transactions. It is going to be a difficult task to get it to scale like that.

Whatever path Bitcoin takes, it would be best for everyone if it remains a "censorship-proof" value transfer mechanism. Anything it can do on top of that is icing on the cake.

All transactions do not need to be censorship-proof in a world where censorship-proof transactions exist. The possibility of censorship-proof transactions by itself will cut down on censorship because it will be seen as futile.

Bitcoin transactions, by their nature, are more valuable than VISA or PayPal transactions, so they should cost more. Most "bitcoiners" (including myself) have been spoiled by the early days of high block subsidy, low cost transactions. Ultimately, you get what you pay for, and at some point we need to start paying for the utility that Bitcoin provides. I would prefer we pay directly so we know what we are getting.

If Bitcoin can scale while preserving it's ability to provide censorship-proof transactions, fantastic. Part of that promise is in the ability to easily share information between peers. It seems obvious to me that the more information shared, the more difficult it becomes. There are plenty of complaints about the size of the block chain already. I'm not sure if taking off the training wheels is appropriate until we better know what the repercussions will be.

We should be prepared for a future where information becomes more difficult to share. This is the future where Bitcoin's utility value will increase and we should make sure that it can reliably function in such a future.

Supply vs. demand.

If you can't pay the fee required to secure the Bitcoin blockchain then it is likely your transaction don't belong there.

What is a small purchase? a cup of coffee? Where did satoshi specifically say that bitcoin wasn't made to buy coffee but to buy I don't know... Xboxes? where is the cutoff from "this belongs in the blockchain but this doesn't because its too small"??

Myself I'd be interested to know why you apparently feel mass adoption of retail consumer is the only way leading to success for Bitcoin?

You do understand we're trying to build an economy and not the next big start-up?

Clearly my attempt to cajole some kind of topical response out of you failed.  It's clear that you're against XT, and have grievances with how the whole project was brought about. You might use more pointed terms, I suppose.

May I ask where you stand on the underlying issue of what Bitcoin's design goal should be? Do you have an opinion on whether it (on-chain transactions) should be an expensive-to-use settlement network or a cheap-to-use payment network? Personally I feel the latter case - direct mass adoption - would be better if it can be technically supported, which I'm not sure about. If mass adoption is not possible I'm left doubting a settlement network alone is viable. That's my current feel on the matter, I'd be interested to hear what you think.

XT has lost my support. Not so much because of this - TOR is useless anyway if it can't protect itself.

No XT has lost my support because:
1. The consensus threshold is too low. 80-90% is better than 75%.
2. XT introduces many new things, the block size consensus debate is too important
for distractions.

BIP 100 holds more promise I believe - although I think it should operate with the requested blocksize of the 50 percentile median rather than the 20 percentile.

BIP 100 is simple and solves the problem elegantly - XT is complex, muddled and makes assumptions 20 years out.

I hope that you understand this argument properly. Paying $1 as a fee for transferring $10M is really a lot. Bitcoin was never designed for very small purchases, and a substantial proposal/implementation is needed for this to happen. I really doubt that even with a big backlog of transactions that the fees would rise up to $1 in a short matter of time. Currently the optimal fee/kb is $0.03.

It is obvious.

There you go again, with your process objection meta.  I'll fetch your fainting couch because in an unprecedented outbreak of ill manners, several Bitcoiners (having uncharacteristically strong opinions) have expressed themselves vehemently!

Gavinista is a play on Sandinista, a Marxist variant of the Free Shit Army that came to power in a putsch comparable to Gavin's takeover bid.

As you sympathize with Death&Taxes' long-debunked Chicken Little panic over lack of more ~free tx, the Gavinista label applies.

I don't hate Frap.doc's guts, I'm just disappointed (albeit amused) he wound up on the wrong side of history but is too stubborn to admit being wrong.

As we consider the friendships and fortunes destroyed by the Bitcoin Civil War, let's remember it was Hearn who decided it best to force the governance issue Right Fucking Now, using overhyped block size FUD to incite the mob against their superiors, for the benefit of his junta.

As for "primate shit-slinging," yes we are going to rub the Gavinistas' faces in the steaming pile of poo XT represents.  There are consequences when you attack (with fully malicious intent) a multi-year multi-billion-dollar socioeconomic consensus and quickly destroy 20% of its market value.

These examples of what happens when you attack Bitcoin need to be publicized, so that next time someone considers attacking Bitcoin with their vanity fork, they may account for such precedents in their decision.

even at 100$/transaction XT would not stand a chance.

security is somethign you'll have to pay for. THIS IS HOW POW WORKS.

for else go ripple.

11% is not bad. good to have a choice now = XT

when people have to pay 1 USD for a transaction, people can switch to XT easily.

Just reminding that it is gavin first that did not have any data, test or any other technical argument to back his shit up.

Besides his appeal to urgency on reddit and some "hardware will upgrade", he, and all his stupid followers, had it coming.

That's the opposite of what I was saying. This thread, like pretty much all others on the issue, has completely ditched any actual technical discussion in favour of the usual primate shit-slinging as far as I can tell. It's coming from both "sides", if you can call them that, since the only difference seems to be that both hate each other's guts.

What's a Gavinista? I'd like a technical breakdown of the term so I can see if I'm one.

Ah yes, yet another poster more concerned with process objections (zomg someone is being rude on the internet) than technical details about scaling Bitcoin.

There's that last resort of moral equivalency I referred to earlier.  

Since you can't be bothered to parse the signal from the (icky, ever-so-objectionable) noise, here's a picture which may help you understand who is winning.



Instead pretending to be a neutral arbiter of netiquette, why not just admit you are a Gavinista (of the Death&Taxes variety)?

Oh that's right, I forgot how much Team Gavin loves to mislead the public.

Why don't you fork off to an impeccably polite Gavinista circlejerk forum like bitco.in, since the "name-calling and tantrums" here so irritate your delicate sensibilities?

So who's winning, red or blue? I can't tell you guys apart anymore for all the name-calling and tantrums.

... when it became apparent that the blockstream trojans are still able to torpedo bitcoins progress.

BIP101 was the trigger that lead to the broad discussion to leave the small blockers (small brains) behind. Gavin/Hearn will win the game against the evil people (NotXTers, DDoSers, censors and other low lifes) even if it won't be BIP101. We'll have big blocks next year.

Gmax: "We can't increase the block size limit because they'll be too many orphans."
http://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-9#post-285