You make some good points, in terms of how do we define low cost, however if we did not increase the block size at all and there was an increase in adoption, then the fee would become prohibitively expensive, this most certainly can not be defined as low cost.
The logical problem here is that you are using a subjective definition to define "low cost." Whether the cost is "prohibitively expensive" is, of course, subjective. $.05 may be prohibitive for some. $100 may be prohibitive for another.
Topic: BIP100, BIP 101 and XT nodes status - page 3. (Read 6464 times)
This debate is stupid, you are all fighting over cost, pick one you want bitcoin to be a currency or a commodity. A digital dollar or a digital gold, because that is what this fight is truly coming down to, I want it to be a digital gold personally for investment reasons but it would benefit the world more if it was a digital dollar and I am alright with that.
That's an interesting take. I, for one, view bitcoin as a commodity -- some kind of digital gold. It doesn't seem to fit the definition of "medium of exchange" that would imply a currency. Regardless, this doesn't speak to the issue of transfer cost. Even if bitcoin is a commodity, we still need to deal with the idea that it is transferable, and economic incentives need to be in place to ensure the security of that system.
I don't see the logic for why this entails a 1mb constant.
This debate is stupid, you are all fighting over cost, pick one you want bitcoin to be a currency or a commodity. A digital dollar or a digital gold, because that is what this fight is truly coming down to, I want it to be a digital gold personally for investment reasons but it would benefit the world more if it was a digital dollar and I am alright with that.
That's an interesting take. I, for one, view bitcoin as a commodity -- some kind of digital gold. It doesn't seem to fit the definition of "medium of exchange" that would imply a currency. Regardless, this doesn't speak to the issue of transfer cost. Even if bitcoin is a commodity, we still need to deal with the idea that it is transferable, and economic incentives need to be in place to ensure the security of that system.
This debate is stupid, you are all fighting over cost, pick one you want bitcoin to be a currency or a commodity. A digital dollar or a digital gold, because that is what this fight is truly coming down to, I want it to be a digital gold personally for investment reasons but it would benefit the world more if it was a digital dollar and I am alright with that.
That's an interesting take. I, for one, view bitcoin as a commodity -- some kind of digital gold. It doesn't seem to fit the definition of "medium of exchange" that would imply a currency. Regardless, this doesn't speak to the issue of transfer cost. Even if bitcoin is a commodity, we still need to deal with the idea that it is transferable, and economic incentives need to be in place to ensure the security of that system.
You make some good points, in terms of how do we define low cost, however if we did not increase the block size at all and there was an increase in adoption, then the fee would become prohibitively expensive, this most certainly can not be defined as low cost.
The logical problem here is that you are using a subjective definition to define "low cost." Whether the cost is "prohibitively expensive" is, of course, subjective. $.05 may be prohibitive for some. $100 may be prohibitive for another.
The original vision of Bitcoin was that it should be low cost.
Source?
And how do we define "low cost?" This is, of course, subjective. Low cost vs. check clearing? Low cost vs. bank wires? Low cost vs. value of output?
Does "low cost" take on a new meaning in the context of decentralized, irreversible, censorship-free payments?
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
You make some good points, in terms of how do we define low cost, however if we did not increase the block size at all and there was an increase in adoption, then the fee would become prohibitively expensive, this most certainly can not be defined as low cost.
Satoshi Nakamoto also thought that the block size should be increased in the future, quoting Satoshi Nakamoto:
"The eventual solution will be to not care how big it gets.""But for now, while it’s still small, it’s nice to keep it small so new users can get going faster. When I eventually implement client-only mode, that won’t matter much anymore.""The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users."
The original vision of Bitcoin was that it should be low cost.
Source?
And how do we define "low cost?" This is, of course, subjective. Low cost vs. check clearing? Low cost vs. bank wires? Low cost vs. value of output?
Does "low cost" take on a new meaning in the context of decentralized, irreversible, censorship-free payments?
and were dealing with a possible 10 day backlog, attacks are not a way to get to a better coin but more a way to divide the forks and users more.
If my tx is urgent, I will include an appropriate fee and it will be prioritized accordingly.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/why-i-support-bip101-1164464
If they can't pay for Bitcoin they can phork their own coin for all I care it won't mean anything for Bitcoin. Why? Because these persons are poor
Nowhere was it ever said the Bitcoin network should have a low cost to run. You leeches trying to externalize the cost to the users running the network have no claim here. Your "original vision" was misguided. The value of Bitcoin was never meant to be a low-cost payment system but primordially a low-trust layer.
and were dealing with a possible 10 day backlog, attacks are not a way to get to a better coin but more a way to divide the forks and users more.
If my tx is urgent, I will include an appropriate fee and it will be prioritized accordingly.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/why-i-support-bip101-1164464
If they can't pay for Bitcoin they can phork their own coin for all I care it won't mean anything for Bitcoin. Why? Because these persons are poor
and were dealing with a possible 10 day backlog, attacks are not a way to get to a better coin but more a way to divide the forks and users more.
If my tx is urgent, I will include an appropriate fee and it will be prioritized accordingly.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/why-i-support-bip101-1164464
If they can't pay for Bitcoin they can phork their own coin for all I care it won't mean anything for Bitcoin. Why? Because these persons are poor
and were dealing with a possible 10 day backlog, attacks are not a way to get to a better coin but more a way to divide the forks and users more.
If my tx is urgent, I will include an appropriate fee and it will be prioritized accordingly.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/why-i-support-bip101-1164464
14,2% for XT - not bad.
It was around 15%, but there have been DDOS attacks against XT nodes so the node count has dropped somewhat.
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3iumsr/udp_flood_ddos_attacks_against_xt_nodes/
Seems like some russian(?) guy behind it:
Code:
I have long use r/Bitcoins and I like it very much.
I watch the fight fork XT and I like it all stopped. because my savings can depreciate.
Since there is a link between coinwallet.eu (DDoS attack on the Bitcoin network) and XT, as well as hirkom and Andersen, I decided to contribute to the fight for a just cause
Well, what do you want? if I do mess (r/Bitcoin network attacks and planned attacks in September) then be prepared for a retaliatory lawlessness.
For clean and free future!
Thank you ivan37337, for fukkin' rekkin' XT and demonstrating Team Gavin can't even keep their nodes/pools up, much less be trusted to (competently) take over Bitcoin.
If Team XT can't even deal with a small DoS, how can they deal with taking over Bitcoin from Team Core?
There will always be an ambient backlog, just as there will always be cosmic background spam.
If my tx is urgent, I will include an appropriate fee and it will be prioritized accordingly.
14,2% for XT - not bad.
It was around 15%, but there have been DDOS attacks against XT nodes so the node count has dropped somewhat.
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3iumsr/udp_flood_ddos_attacks_against_xt_nodes/
Seems like some russian(?) guy behind it:
Code:
I have long use r/Bitcoins and I like it very much.
I watch the fight fork XT and I like it all stopped. because my savings can depreciate.
Since there is a link between coinwallet.eu (DDoS attack on the Bitcoin network) and XT, as well as hirkom and Andersen, I decided to contribute to the fight for a just cause
Well, what do you want? if I do mess (r/Bitcoin network attacks and planned attacks in September) then be prepared for a retaliatory lawlessness.
For clean and free future!
Thank you ivan37337, for fukkin' rekkin' XT and demonstrating Team Gavin can't even keep their nodes/pools up, much less be trusted to (competently) take over Bitcoin.
If Team XT can't even deal with a small DoS, how can they deal with taking over Bitcoin from Team Core?
14,2% for XT - not bad.
It was around 15%, but there have been DDOS attacks against XT nodes so the node count has dropped somewhat.
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3iumsr/udp_flood_ddos_attacks_against_xt_nodes/
Seems like some russian(?) guy behind it:
Code:
I have long use r/Bitcoins and I like it very much.
I watch the fight fork XT and I like it all stopped. because my savings can depreciate.
Since there is a link between coinwallet.eu (DDoS attack on the Bitcoin network) and XT, as well as hirkom and Andersen, I decided to contribute to the fight for a just cause
Well, what do you want? if I do mess (r/Bitcoin network attacks and planned attacks in September) then be prepared for a retaliatory lawlessness.
For clean and free future!
Thank you ivan37337, for fukkin' rekkin' XT and demonstrating Team Gavin can't even keep their nodes/pools up, much less be trusted to (competently) take over Bitcoin.
14,2% for XT/NotXT/PseudoNode - not bad.
I fixed it for you.
I'm sure you didn't mean to intentionally mislead the public by pretending you can tell RealXT nodes apart from FakeXT spoofs.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/not-bitcoin-xt-1154520
14,2% for XT/NotXT/PseudoNode - not bad.
I fixed it for you.
I'm sure you didn't mean to intentionally mislead the public by pretending you can tell RealXT nodes apart from FakeXT spoofs.
14,2% for XT/NotXT/PseudoNode - not bad.
I fixed it for you.
I'm sure you didn't mean to intentionally mislead the public by pretending you can tell RealXT nodes apart from FakeXT spoofs.
14,2% for XT/NotXT/PseudoNode - not bad.
I fixed it for you.
I'm sure you didn't mean to intentionally mislead the public by pretending you can tell RealXT nodes apart from FakeXT spoofs.
14,2% for XT - not bad.
It was around 15%, but there have been DDOS attacks against XT nodes so the node count has dropped somewhat.
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3iumsr/udp_flood_ddos_attacks_against_xt_nodes/
Seems like some russian(?) guy behind it:
Code:
I have long use r/Bitcoins and I like it very much.
I watch the fight fork XT and I like it all stopped. because my savings can depreciate.
Since there is a link between coinwallet.eu (DDoS attack on the Bitcoin network) and XT, as well as hirkom and Andersen, I decided to contribute to the fight for a just cause
Well, what do you want? if I do mess (r/Bitcoin network attacks and planned attacks in September) then be prepared for a retaliatory lawlessness.
For clean and free future!
14,2% for XT - not bad.
Jump to: