Topic: Analysis and list of top big blocks shills (XT #REKT ignorers) - page 51. (Read 46564 times)

^I've been trying to figure out a way of saying exactly this all day! oh God Thank you! You were crystal clear!

But it doesn't matter. A safe that's "just good enough" to secure 10 dollars is probably not good enough to secure a billion, agree?
The attacker doesn't want to break Bitcoin to prove a point, the amount he's willing to spend on the attack is directly proportional to the potential reward. So if it costs him a buck ten to steal a dollar now, after the halving it will cost him 55 cents.
Bitcoin price in fiat doesn't play into this, because it affects both the cost of the attack and the reward equally.
Tell me if I'm being unclear.

"I’m sure that in 20 years there will either be very large transaction volume or no volume."

This sentiment unsettles me. This all or nothing attitude is defeatist.  

Those are all controversial assertions that many don't agree with.

Increased blocksize?  No problem, storage capcities are always rising.  Plus
Satoshi envisioned some degree of full node centralization.

Transaction space means MORE transactions and thus more fees
even though the fee per transaction might decrease, but not necessarily the total.

I think Bitcoin should absolutely be available for coffee purchases.  I reject elitism.

Sidechains do not solve scalability.

Nothing catostrophic would happen, less would be payed for security since obviously the world does value Bitcoin as much as I thought it would under that scenario. This is not catastrophic and I do not think that having more expensive fees would help this situation at all.

Yes it will after a few decades or sooner depending on the rate of adoption.

They would not, they would simply choose not to include those transactions.

Stronger, I think that realistically there really only is one way forward, if you do not think this will succeed that is your prerogative, I do still believe in the original vision of Bitcoin.

Yes, since if it does not grow it will have failed anyway. Bitcoins security relies on this assumption.

Why don't people understand that;

• Increased Blocksize would lead to a bigger Blockchain that overwhelms the storage capacity of smaller nodes.
• More space for transactions will decrease the market for transaction fees.
• Bitcoin should be a currency for the Elite and not for your daily cup of coffee.
• Sidechains will solve the problem of smaller block size limit anyway.
• Consensus might not be achievable and there will suddenly be two types of Bitcoin.

Peter R has already made a strong case that a fee market exists
without the blocksize limit.

We all know that fees become more important as the subsidies diminish
but that in no way means that we'll get more TOTAL fees by reducing the supply
of transactions.  Quite possibly it would do the opposite.

What matter is how much a Bitcoin is worth compared to fiat, since if the market capitalization of Bitcoin increases, the block reward will be worth more in terms of fiat value and real world purchasing power. This would stimulate increased mining since there will be profit to be made, since miners costs are still predominately in Fiat and it is the purchasing power of those Bitcoins that really matters not the amount of Bitcoins that are made. This is why the ratio does not stay the same, if the market cap of Bitcoins doubles so does the amount payed for security, these two things are explicitly linked.

Please tell me what do you think will happen IF If in 8 years we have negative growth but a 2mb or even 8mb blocksize?
Will transaction fees alone be enough to secure the network?
Will miners process torrents of spam for dust?
Will our network be stronger or weaker?
Are you willing to risk everything on the unfounded assumption will continue to grow, grow at a never before seen rate and for years?

What do you think happens if your wrong?

This is a good observation, in effect what this means is that transacting on the Bitcoin blockchain would become much more unreliable if we allow the network to become overloaded by letting the blocks fill up. I have always said this, this is in part why not increasing the blocksize limit would lead to Bitcoin becoming a much worse user experience compared to today, this would also not be good for adoption.

I am not even advocating a long and steady growth curve, I would be fine with a simple increase to two megabyte and then adjust again as needed, I think that BU best accomplishes this goal. It is absolutely not true that a fifty one percent attack cost less today then it did four years ago, back then asics where not even being used so comparing the hash rate and the costs involved are worlds apart.

Antiquated hardware is unprofitable and just ends up being scrapped, furthermore old hardware is not as powerful either. It is not the case that a government or corporation could easily come and commit a fifty one percent attack, it would cost a lot of money, and as adoption and the price increases this will cost even more money. I am a miner myself, and it is not becoming cheaper to be a miner, technology keeps advancing and as a miner you need to keep upgrading and cycling these machines in order to keep operating profitably.

Not really. This year, we are paying  roughly 10% of Bitcoin's total value, or what people here call "market cap," to secure it. In other words, we are currently spending roughly a dime to store (secure) a dollar for a year.
After the halvening, we will be paying only a nickel.
It doesn't matter how much a dollar is worth, the ratio remains the same.
Same for efficiency/cost of mining gear.

Your post, which I tend to agree with, raises a related question I have. 

In a world where the block size is capped at X and demand for block space is greater than X, there are no guarantees a particular transaction broadcast to the network will settle/verify.  In that world, a transaction verifies I.F.F. its included in a block, which may be due in large part to the fee paid rather than the order of broadcasting. So, there is uncertainty with these transactions RE: settlement completition and time of settlement.  Now also imagine this capped block size world is one where folks think Bitcoin should be a settlement network for high-dollar transactions like houses, land, cars, etc. and not everyday purchases.  Consider that often times, these types of big-ticket purchases also involve a title transfer/registration with and of the property purchased, and that title transfers are often based in law going back centuries (just look at any jurisdiction's real property statutes - including statutes on conveyancing and  recording; common law; and the UCC on the perfection of security interests). Hint: Time of conveyance/recording is critical to perfecting a property right.  So, in this world, where timing is everything, what professional is going to recommend using bitcoin to facilitate the transaction with so much uncertainty?   I think everyone interested in the block size debate outcome, whatever position that is, would really benefit from taking a step back and thinking about who the end user is supposed to be and how the Bitcoin protocol is supposed to compliment and work with existing businesses, industries, customs, and laws (its not going to work to just burn everything and start over from nothing).

It costs less for an attacker today to conduct a 51% attack then it would have 4 years ago. You see hardware becomes cheaper and cheaper but as the block reward drops so dose reinvestment. Soon we well reach a plateau were miners invest less and less and at the same time hardware will continue to advance, hardware that's forever cheaper and cheaper.  Its under these conditions of low reinvestment and antiquated hardware making up the majority of the network that will allow for a governmental agency or disgruntled corporation to come in with a relatively small amount of money and blow this house of cards down. A irreversible block increase now would most likely devastate the network in 8 years.  Since we can't predict the price nor the demand for bitcoin in 8 years we should do the prudent thing and position the network for a very long and slow growth curve lasting decades.

So virtually no fees. Wowow. I had no idea.

Case in point:

Latest block:
Block 392,882
926.84kB
Transactions 658
Block value 1294.14 BTC
Fees 0.1111 BTC

With block reward at 25BTC...

There's a long way to go, and blackmailing early adopters might be a bad move.

I already explained that we do not lose fifty percent of our security at the halving, since the exchange rate also effects this dynamic, after all security was not reduced after the last halving. It would only take sixty times the transaction volume we have today to match the block reward we have as well, this can take a longer period of time since we do still have a block reward subsidy in place to bootstrap Bitcoin for the next few decades, we do not need to sacrifice all of these use cases and characteristics of Bitcoin to pay for security, it is exactly these use cases and characteristics of Bitcoin that will pay for its security going into the future.

Was the network more secure in 2012 when block reward was 50 btc?

The network is growing, and with the network the price growth and with the price the reward growth. At the end of the second reward era with 25 BItcoin, every miner will earn in dollar about 40x as much as at the beginning in early 2013.

Mining is a zero-sum-game. Miners will never get enough.

I understand that the halving will have a negative effect on mining, since everyone mines at margin profit and when the reward drops, it will drive people out of mining. But at the moment, there is no chance that the fee will balance this out. We'll have to face it.

Edit: And I like your point that


and


Both I think is true - which is no reason for me to have another oppinion on fee policy etc.

Your missing my point completely transaction fees + block rewards are more or less = to the amount of money reinvested in hardware to mine bitcoins. As the block rewards drop in these massive chunks every 4 years so dose the amount we as a network spend on security. Let me be clear Block rewards account for the majority of this and with each halving day we lose more or less 50% of our network security. The fees the network gathers today are virtually worthless, some miners don't even bother processing transactions because its not worth their time.  This house of cards will collapse unless we can secure stable income for the miners now!

ok ... it doesn't work commercially.

But I'm a trusted source and I'm in close contact to other very trusted sources.

That's the advantage of small markets.