Pages:
Author

Topic: Analysis and list of top big blocks shills (XT #REKT ignorers) - page 52. (Read 46564 times)

sr. member
Activity: 409
Merit: 286
There is no reason why bitcoin can't be the all in one package we all want it to be someday but right now there is not enough demand to support the network with low fees.
We should only raise the block size in minuscule increments to keep fees high enough to support a robust mining community.

I like your point.

Except that right now the network should not be supported by fees but by the block reward.


legendary
Activity: 883
Merit: 1005
I'm actually downloading the blockchain. #paininthears

Yes. I'm so happy I did that back in 2013 and my blockchain survived since than Smiley

Why is there no service that sends out the blockchain on an usb-stick? It would make things much easier and I'm thinking about offering this in germany.

holly fuck balls that the worst idea ever. USB virus hello?
sr. member
Activity: 409
Merit: 286
I'm actually downloading the blockchain. #paininthears

Yes. I'm so happy I did that back in 2013 and my blockchain survived since than Smiley

Why is there no service that sends out the blockchain on an usb-stick? It would make things much easier and I'm thinking about offering this in germany.
legendary
Activity: 883
Merit: 1005
I do not support the LN or any 3rd party settlement layers, I support a Bitcoin as a all in inclusive package, micro transactions with low fees, anonymity, decentralized mining and nodes, EVERYTHING AND MORE! What I'm saying is we can't afford all of that shit unless we have the demand to pay for it, demand more then 10k times greater then what we have today. YOU can't guarantee beyond a shadow of a doubt we'll ever get there before the money runs out and government agencies take over because our mining community's hardware becomes antiquated because they stop reinvesting in cutting edge hardware!
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002
There is no reason for bitcoin not to be an all in one package someday but right now there is not enough demand to support a low fee and high transaction network.  

No, currently the protocol would not allow lowfee spam transactions if it was not for adoption rate vs. fiatleakage.

People have been brainwashed with the antonopoulos #bitcoinfoundation(scammers) propaganda that bitcoin is somehow competing with paypal.

That was a funny move, getting attention, funding and all, but technically it is irrelevant.

It is simply not true with the actual and historical bitcoin protocol's parameters, that has been consensually adopted for more than 5 years now. (and whilst building trust and value around it).

Sorry for the noobs that only catch up now, but it is wake up time.



hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
There is no reason for bitcoin not to be an all in one package someday but right now there is not enough demand to support a low fee and high transaction network.
That is because Bitcoin was always meant to be bootstrapped by the block reward initially, there is no need for us to "force" Bitcoin into a settlement network in order to solve this issue now. If the adoption curve continues as it has so far, and we are able to increase the blocksize as adoption increases and technology does as well. Then we can continue along this course and within a few decades we will have a high volume low fee network, in the meantime we get the advantageous of low fees and the adoption and use that this promotes. While increasing decentralization, security and financial freedom more then the alternative paths would.

Quote from: Jeff Garzik
Higher Service prices can negatively impact system security. Bitcoin depends on a virtuous cycle of users boosting and maintaining bitcoin's network effect, incentivizing miners, increasing security. Higher prices that reduce bitcoin's user count and network effect can have the opposite impact.
Quote from: Jeff Garzik
It is a valid and rational economic choice to subsidize the system with lower fees in the beginning. Many miners, for example, openly state they prefer long term system growth over maximizing tiny amounts of current day income.
Quote from: Konrad S Graf
Transaction-fee levels are not in any general need of being artificially pushed upward. A 130-year transition phase was planned into Bitcoin during which the full transition from block reward revenue to transaction-fee revenue was to take place.
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002
I'm actually downloading the blockchain. #paininthears
legendary
Activity: 883
Merit: 1005
There is no reason why bitcoin can't be the all in one package we all want it to be someday but right now there is not enough demand to support the network with low fees.
We should only raise the block size in minuscule increments to keep fees high enough to support a robust mining community.
member
Activity: 84
Merit: 10

Quote from: /u/Ilogy @ reddit
[...] On the other hand, raising the block size limit increases mining centralization. [...]
So instead of 9 people controlling 99% of the hashrate, only how many?

There is no reason for bitcoin not to be an all in one package someday but right now there is not enough demand to support a low fee and high transaction network.
"Right now" the miners are subsidized by block rewards, not tx fees.
VVV
legendary
Activity: 1988
Merit: 1012
Beyond Imagination
full member
Activity: 126
Merit: 100
^^^

>no conspiracy to gimp Bitcoin
No one's talking about a conspiracy to gimp Bitcoin. On the other hand, if the devs work for a company that makes hot dog rolls, and there's a tossup between what to serve for lunch -- burgers or hot dogs, which do you suppose they'll chose?

>hard problems ... will not be solved by a few lines of code
Why not? Increasing the blocksize is how many lines of code?
legendary
Activity: 883
Merit: 1005

The example represents a severe performance bug in the bitcoin core software and should be fixed by software changes that make an inefficient operation efficient or restrict very large transactions if this proves too difficult. There is no reason to limit blocksize because of this.


This guy gets it. Unbounded memory use, as well as poorly designed propagation methods are  issues that should be addressed by code review, not by adding layers of complexity.

When you look at it from this perspective, you see how the whole 'scaling debate' is being jury rigged to deliver a fundamentally altered version of Bitcoin that suits one particular commercial interest.

You can put away your tin foil hat there is no conspiracy to gimp Bitcoin. These are hard problems facing the community and will not be solved by a few lines of code.
Hubris is needed to take on these challenges but it will not help us in solving them. 
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
legendary
Activity: 1988
Merit: 1012
Beyond Imagination

I have an economy degree
You certainly do.
Nobody should believe such claims online without proof.

True, you only need proof of work, anything else is just words on a piece of paper Cheesy
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
Warning: Confrmed Gavinista

The example represents a severe performance bug in the bitcoin core software and should be fixed by software changes that make an inefficient operation efficient or restrict very large transactions if this proves too difficult. There is no reason to limit blocksize because of this.


This guy gets it. Unbounded memory use, as well as poorly designed propagation methods are  issues that should be addressed by code review, not by adding layers of complexity.

When you look at it from this perspective, you see how the whole 'scaling debate' is being jury rigged to deliver a fundamentally altered version of Bitcoin that suits one particular commercial interest.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 3000
Terminated.
I didn't feel he was saying I was rigging the poll, and I agree the data is far from statistically valid. 
Still, I think it does have a fair chance of giving a microcosm view that most
Bitcoiners do see Bitcoin as both a currency and a store of value.
I did not say that and not even imply it. That would mean that I have a reason to suspect/attack you which I don't. I said that anyone could rig the poll easily which is true. It does have a chance although it is a slim one.

I have an economy degree
You certainly do.
Nobody should believe such claims online without proof.
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
There is this idea that we must choose between settlement network or payment network, this is a false dichotomy, a false choice. Bitcoin can be both of these things and more, they actually reinforce each other in a synergistic fashion. By attempting to put one above the other you are actually breaking both.

Bitcoin is and can be many different things to different people, there are many coders and engineers who think that we can scale Bitcoin, therefore I think that we should, even if Core thinks that we should not, their reasons for not doing so remains ideological and I have a distinctly different vision for Bitcoin which also happens to align closer to the original vision of its founder as well. I am sure that there are many people that did originally sign up for this original vision and do not appreciate this bait and switch.

I appreciate most of the work done by Core but I do not want a technocratic group of engineers and coders to dictate to us what Bitcoin should become and what its economic policy should be, this should be determined by the market itself instead. I rather have the engineers remind us ideologues of what is possible so that we can then pursue our dreams to create a better world. It is not impossible to increase the blocksize limit, so I reject the notion that we must choose between settlement layer or payment network now.
I think we all want the same thing we deffer only on how to get to that promised land. For some the path is clear, larger blocks. For me and others the path we walk of larger and larger blocks with insufficient fees leads to network collapse.
If the blocks become larger it implies that there is increased adoption and use of Bitcoin. A high volume of low fee transactions over the long run would actually pay out more for the miners compared to a high volume of low fee transactions. The idea that if we increase the blocksize over time as the technology allows as it improves would lead to the network collapsing is not supported by the facts.

If we had a sixty four megabyte blocksize limit for instance with the same fees per transaction payed out today it would already exceed the present block reward. It is not impossible to have blocks this large, in a decade from now it might even seem trivial. It would even take BIP101 eight years to reach this point, and the newly proposed Bitcoin Classic more then twelve years. Most of the other blocksize limit increase proposals are even more conservative then this, which is fine. My point being is that a high volume of low value transactions can pay for the networks security and this would not lead to the network collapsing as you claim, especially as the limit is slowly increased as our technology improves.
member
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
... I think all those things on books are just to mask the truth. If you try to understand the financial system from those books, you will be more confusing than average Joe. Try to become a miner and see through the money creator's view

hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
Warning: Confrmed Gavinista
Pages:
Jump to: