Pages:
Author

Topic: Bitcoin 20MB Fork - page 36. (Read 154787 times)

legendary
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1333
February 27, 2015, 09:41:50 PM
Ideal Money tells you what the optimal block size should be

What does it say it should be? Can you quote the relevant section?
What kind of person thinks you can paraphrase genius?

It was meant to be not paraphrased. In the context of this op.

It's going to have to be paraphrased before it can be implemented.

This isn't going to cut it:

Code:
static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = #include "ideal_money.pdf"
sr. member
Activity: 532
Merit: 251
February 26, 2015, 11:59:11 PM
Ideal Money tells you what the optimal block size should be

What does it say it should be? Can you quote the relevant section?
What kind of person thinks you can paraphrase genius?

It was meant to be not paraphrased. In the context of this op.
legendary
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1333
February 25, 2015, 03:56:12 PM
Mostly you just seem attack people.

Have you seen all icetard posts in this thread? [...]

See what I mean? It is of no value.
legendary
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1087
February 25, 2015, 07:40:09 AM
This isn't "selling fear", this is common sense.  This isn't about sending transactions without a fee, this is saying your transaction may not make it in even with a fee.  Get the premise right before you decide you're disagreeing with it.  Full means full.  As in wait for the next one.  And if that one is full, wait for the one after that.  How long do you think people will wait before complaining that Bitcoin is slow and useless?  Bearing in mind this is the internet and people complain about the slightest little inconvenience like it's the end of the world.  I don't want to see the outcome of that fallout.

OK, lets get the premise right.  If we ever get to a scarcity market for transactions, it might look a little more like this:

1) Your client would inform you of the amount of fee you should include if you want your transaction confirmed in an average of X-minutes, where you can set X.  If you want it faster, or guaranteed delivery, you pay more.  It becomes an auction market with a new auction every 10 minutes.  Full means full *at that price*.

2) Service Providers and high volume transaction businesses will increasingly do a lot of off-chain ledger-ing (maybe with side chains) and less frequent settlement transactions on the block chain.

3) Back door off-chain payment deals (maybe in fiat) will be made by some high value transaction makers to get preferential treatment by their favorite miner (who is to say that this isn't already happening?)

4) People will save transactions for off-peak times, and combine transactions to economize.

5) Others won't care and will just pay 'whatever'

6) Lots of folks on the internet will complain.

Bitcoin would probably grow a little slower, but please realize that this is an endurance race even though sometimes it feels like a sprint.  Bitcoin can never lose by growing too slowly, only by growing fatal flaws.  It is worth it to be careful.

It's a nice theory, but without the aid of a crystal ball or time travel, I don't know how your client is supposed to be able to tell you how full the next block is going to be.  I suppose it could give you an amount based on the average fee paid in the previous block, but I don't know if that would accurately forecast the amount you'd need to pay to guarantee making it in.  Just to be clear, though, (before any anti-forkers jump on this as a sign of my conceeding) even with a system like this in place, 1MB would still be insufficient for any considerable increase in adoption.  Also bear in mind that if it gets too expensive, people will just use something else.  There's a very delicate balancing act to maintain if we go down that route.  

By the time you get down to points 4, 5 and 6, I'm afraid that's where it falls apart completely.  Why would someone save transactions for an off-peak time when there will be others systems they can use right away?  If it reaches that point, people won't just complain, they'll leave and use another coin.  This leads us back to the whole "elitist chain" argument.  If it doesn't work for the masses, the masses won't use it.

Yes!  You are a great interlocutor to see the depths of this.
Without the aid of crystal balls and time travel we don't know how much the transaction should cost, AND we don't know the appropriate block size we need at a given block height also.

We agree then, that we don't know the future.  The things to come will make us both wrong many times over, if we pretend otherwise.  

I can't know that SPV client developers may chose to implement some statistical analysis of fees and offer the user best guesstimates based on the fees in the transactions of the current block...  Who knows?  Maybe instead there could be data providers that manage this prediction market well.  Maybe these data providers compete to make it so the clients are very light weight, and they deliver the information to a mobile app through an easy API?  There are bound to be people with better ideas...

What I do know... and I think you would agree... is that Whatever the consensus (consensuses?), there will be some adjustment.  Markets will respond, life goes on.  Furthermore, if the outcome of "no fork" is as tragic as some people imagine, this lack of consensus will build the consensus FOR the fork, yes?   (This would be as much a positive story in the media as a negative one...  So many people are using Bitcoin now!  It is growing up!  Much always depends on who writes the article, for whom, and how.)

We also agree that some people may use something other than Bitcoin, or else Bitcoin will change to accommodate in another way to the degree that is possible (unless and until the fork is made).

My preference is for more science and measurement, and it is possible that I am entirely wrong, which would be great.  Days when I am shown to be wrong are good days.  It means I have learned something important.  

"Any path that narrows future possibilities may become a lethal trap"

I like this quote.
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002
February 25, 2015, 04:32:46 AM
sidechains?

Side chains and payment channels (or payment hubs) are methods to improve the transaction density of the blockchain.  That means you can get more economic transactions from a single on-chain transaction.  They are great ideas but they still require at least infrequent access to the primary chain.  

Code:
Maximum supported users based on transaction frequency.
Assumptions: 1MB block, 821 bytes per txn
Throughput:  2.03 tps, 64,000,000 transactions annually

Total #        Transactions per  Transaction
direct users     user annually    Frequency
       <8,000       8760          Once an hour
      178,000        365          Once a day
      500,000        128          A few (2.4) times a week
    1,200,000         52          Once a week
    2,600,000         24  Twice a month
    5,300,000         12  Once a month
   16,000,000          4  Once a quarter
   64,000,000          1          Once a year
  200,000,000          0.3        Less than once every few years
1,000,000,000          0.06       Less than once a decade

As you can see even with a low transaction frequency the network can't support more than a token number of users.  When someone advocates a permanent cap of 1MB what they are saying is "I think Bitcoin can live up to its full potential even if it is never used by more than a couple million users making less than one transaction per month.

So yes using sidechains, cross chain atomic transactions, and payment channels are trustless methods to reduce transaction frequency but they are multipliers.  One could look at the primary chain like a savings account and the alternative as a credit/debit card.  I may make 300+ transactions on my debit card each month and only two involving my saving account.  The good news is 2 is less than 300 but it still isn't zero.  

If alternatives reduce on chain tx frequency down to even just once a quarter or once a year you are still talking about capping the network to tens of millions of users.  Does Bitcoin need 16GB blocks?  Probably not.  It is one option but it isn't necessary.  There are other ways to go about reaching scalability but you aren't getting there from 1MB blocks on the primary chain.



Nowadays (real life), here are the stats i get:

- there is between 80 000 and 110 000 transactions per day (or 0,9 to 1,30 tps)
- there would be around 2 to 4 million bitcoin users (extrapolating from blockchain's + coinbase's wallet database and bitcoin's downloads statistics)

-> this gives me 0,0275 to 0,04 transaction/user/day (or 0,825 to 1,2 transaction/user/month)

According to your table, people would be able only to transact twice to once a month with full blocks (2,03 tps).
So my results are even more conservative (since blocks arent even full).
Yet, it doesnt seem to be a problem currently.
People does not actually seems to restrain themselves from transacting more on a daily basis like your table would like to suggest.. but they just dont, right?

Personally I transact mostly offchain (trading plateforms).
Maybe buy couple products or services per month, but i mean, like it or not, bitcoin is not as handy as cash or credit cards for everyday purchases and even more for the average joe you keep on appealing.

It'd be a safe guess to think that most of the current 2+ million bitcoin users are having the same practices. Besides simply holding, speculating or hedging part of their wealth out of the crippled financial system.

Hence, there is a difference between the users' transactional behaviour you extrapolate on (buying frappucinos) and real bitcoin users.

Imho, we could easily go beyond 10 million bitcoin users without any difficulties regarding scaling.
As to when this would happen, Im not going to guestimate there..

But luckily this would give us enough time to investigate further on.
legendary
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1002
Gresham's Lawyer
February 25, 2015, 12:07:36 AM
pushing your own subjective view
...
pushing your religious agenda

I tried to help you.  Enjoy your ignore.  You may count me among your "ignorant". 
I'll take your word for it that you have the objective view and the one true religion. 
One thing you have taught me is that those who know everything already, have nothing to learn.
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1007
February 24, 2015, 11:44:09 PM
This thread is so much better when you aren't posting to it.
Very little of what you have to say is of any value. Mostly you just seem attack people.
What do "start-ups that fail" have to do with this thread? Nothing.
Please stop.

Have you seen all icetard posts in this thread? What about the useless long posts of traincarswreck about "Ideal Money" and about Poker that are totally offtopic? Wait you didn't.

Here are some example that support my words:
- useless poker post: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10403690
- useless alien post: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10422558
- useless pyramids post: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10442877

I invite you to do the same with my posts in this topic, but I know that you will not do it. I only attacked people that deserve it and that shouldn't have any credibility here. (like icetard and 3-4 MP sockpuppet account which were revealed by me). Paying some attention helps!

People like icetard shouldn't have any credibility on this forum after he supported/defended a "failed" (scammer) company like HashFast that embezzeled tens of millions from its customers leaving them empty handed. He is obviously bad intended and he is only pursuing his own agenda so that's why people shouldn't believe any word from him.
legendary
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1333
February 24, 2015, 11:37:52 PM
Ideal Money tells you what the optimal block size should be

What does it say it should be? Can you quote the relevant section?
sr. member
Activity: 532
Merit: 251
February 24, 2015, 11:23:12 PM


The way you are doing it instead is going to turn folks off, and that would be too bad because I'm sure it is quite interesting.
Again you have taken my words for exactly what I meant them not to be.  I am not saying Ideal Money is about bananas, and bananas are relevant to this thread.  This thread is about block size, where on one spectrum we create a high transactionable currency and on the other a type of egold (lower transaction.

You are pushing your own subjective view but I don't think the world should have to succumb to your view, nor do I think any of your posts actually will have any effects on the result (other than continuing a nonesensical argument.

I don't know how to say it.  Ideal Money isn't about bananas.  Ideal Money tells you what the optimal block size should be, because Nash clearly new that bitcoin was going to come to this decision.

Ignore it and pushing your religious agenda isn't helpful at all, nor is it something you should consider moral in regards to the fact that this is the entire worlds base for currency.  Its not your currency, its not your bitcoin, its everyones, and we shouldnt have to take your perspective on it, nor will we.  But you should realize all this.

Ignoring the lecture Ideal Money and continuing to post in this thread is like arguing about what block size should be without having any knowledge whatsoever of what bitcoin is.  Such is you.

Can't you see you are in a rediculous argument about something you have no idea about?

shouldn't we have knowledgeable people discussing this serious subject?  We don't want people with "whims" right?  If you didn't study the MOST relevant material, how can we assume you studied ANY material?
legendary
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1333
February 24, 2015, 07:31:51 PM
Go and support start-ups that fail and lose tens of millions of $ from its customers! It's what you do best!

Stop involving in complicated stuff like the increase of the block size.

This thread is so much better when you aren't posting to it.

Very little of what you have to say is of any value. Mostly you just seem attack people.

What do "start-ups that fail" have to do with this thread? Nothing.

Please stop.
legendary
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1002
Gresham's Lawyer
February 24, 2015, 07:31:10 PM
This isn't "selling fear", this is common sense.  This isn't about sending transactions without a fee, this is saying your transaction may not make it in even with a fee.  Get the premise right before you decide you're disagreeing with it.  Full means full.  As in wait for the next one.  And if that one is full, wait for the one after that.  How long do you think people will wait before complaining that Bitcoin is slow and useless?  Bearing in mind this is the internet and people complain about the slightest little inconvenience like it's the end of the world.  I don't want to see the outcome of that fallout.

OK, lets get the premise right.  If we ever get to a scarcity market for transactions, it might look a little more like this:

1) Your client would inform you of the amount of fee you should include if you want your transaction confirmed in an average of X-minutes, where you can set X.  If you want it faster, or guaranteed delivery, you pay more.  It becomes an auction market with a new auction every 10 minutes.  Full means full *at that price*.

2) Service Providers and high volume transaction businesses will increasingly do a lot of off-chain ledger-ing (maybe with side chains) and less frequent settlement transactions on the block chain.

3) Back door off-chain payment deals (maybe in fiat) will be made by some high value transaction makers to get preferential treatment by their favorite miner (who is to say that this isn't already happening?)

4) People will save transactions for off-peak times, and combine transactions to economize.

5) Others won't care and will just pay 'whatever'

6) Lots of folks on the internet will complain.

Bitcoin would probably grow a little slower, but please realize that this is an endurance race even though sometimes it feels like a sprint.  Bitcoin can never lose by growing too slowly, only by growing fatal flaws.  It is worth it to be careful.

It's a nice theory, but without the aid of a crystal ball or time travel, I don't know how your client is supposed to be able to tell you how full the next block is going to be.  I suppose it could give you an amount based on the average fee paid in the previous block, but I don't know if that would accurately forecast the amount you'd need to pay to guarantee making it in.  Just to be clear, though, (before any anti-forkers jump on this as a sign of my conceeding) even with a system like this in place, 1MB would still be insufficient for any considerable increase in adoption.  Also bear in mind that if it gets too expensive, people will just use something else.  There's a very delicate balancing act to maintain if we go down that route.  

By the time you get down to points 4, 5 and 6, I'm afraid that's where it falls apart completely.  Why would someone save transactions for an off-peak time when there will be others systems they can use right away?  If it reaches that point, people won't just complain, they'll leave and use another coin.  This leads us back to the whole "elitist chain" argument.  If it doesn't work for the masses, the masses won't use it.

Yes!  You are a great interlocutor to see the depths of this.
Without the aid of crystal balls and time travel we don't know how much the transaction should cost, AND we don't know the appropriate block size we need at a given block height also.

We agree then, that we don't know the future.  The things to come will make us both wrong many times over, if we pretend otherwise.  

I can't know that SPV client developers may chose to implement some statistical analysis of fees and offer the user best guesstimates based on the fees in the transactions of the current block...  Who knows?  Maybe instead there could be data providers that manage this prediction market well.  Maybe these data providers compete to make it so the clients are very light weight, and they deliver the information to a mobile app through an easy API?  There are bound to be people with better ideas...

What I do know... and I think you would agree... is that Whatever the consensus (consensuses?), there will be some adjustment.  Markets will respond, life goes on.  Furthermore, if the outcome of "no fork" is as tragic as some people imagine, this lack of consensus will build the consensus FOR the fork, yes?   (This would be as much a positive story in the media as a negative one...  So many people are using Bitcoin now!  It is growing up!  Much always depends on who writes the article, for whom, and how.)

We also agree that some people may use something other than Bitcoin, or else Bitcoin will change to accommodate in another way to the degree that is possible (unless and until the fork is made).

My preference is for more science and measurement, and it is possible that I am entirely wrong, which would be great.  Days when I am shown to be wrong are good days.  It means I have learned something important.  
legendary
Activity: 924
Merit: 1132
February 24, 2015, 02:38:22 PM

6) Lots of folks on the internet will complain.
LOL!  You're SO right about that.  The sun is likely to be seen rising in the East tomorrow, too, and it's a safe bet that somewhere a cat will probably have kittens.

Bitcoin would probably grow a little slower, but please realize that this is an endurance race even though sometimes it feels like a sprint.  Bitcoin can never lose by growing too slowly, only by growing fatal flaws.  It is worth it to be careful.

Here I think we disagree.  If there's a moment when a lot of people want to use it, and it takes the load, then that moment is not likely to end.  If that moment arrives and it collapses, then that one is over and another moment is not as likely to arise.  It does little good to build the system people needed, two years after they need it.

So I'm of the opinion that the Bitcoin network needs to stand ready to take a large load, within at most a few weeks after the load starts ramping up, or else it squanders an opportunity to become part of the world's infrastructure.  Another opportunity may arise, but then again it may not.

legendary
Activity: 3948
Merit: 3191
Leave no FUD unchallenged
February 24, 2015, 12:39:48 PM
This isn't "selling fear", this is common sense.  This isn't about sending transactions without a fee, this is saying your transaction may not make it in even with a fee.  Get the premise right before you decide you're disagreeing with it.  Full means full.  As in wait for the next one.  And if that one is full, wait for the one after that.  How long do you think people will wait before complaining that Bitcoin is slow and useless?  Bearing in mind this is the internet and people complain about the slightest little inconvenience like it's the end of the world.  I don't want to see the outcome of that fallout.

OK, lets get the premise right.  If we ever get to a scarcity market for transactions, it might look a little more like this:

1) Your client would inform you of the amount of fee you should include if you want your transaction confirmed in an average of X-minutes, where you can set X.  If you want it faster, or guaranteed delivery, you pay more.  It becomes an auction market with a new auction every 10 minutes.  Full means full *at that price*.

2) Service Providers and high volume transaction businesses will increasingly do a lot of off-chain ledger-ing (maybe with side chains) and less frequent settlement transactions on the block chain.

3) Back door off-chain payment deals (maybe in fiat) will be made by some high value transaction makers to get preferential treatment by their favorite miner (who is to say that this isn't already happening?)

4) People will save transactions for off-peak times, and combine transactions to economize.

5) Others won't care and will just pay 'whatever'

6) Lots of folks on the internet will complain.

Bitcoin would probably grow a little slower, but please realize that this is an endurance race even though sometimes it feels like a sprint.  Bitcoin can never lose by growing too slowly, only by growing fatal flaws.  It is worth it to be careful.

It's a nice theory, but without the aid of a crystal ball or time travel, I don't know how your client is supposed to be able to tell you how full the next block is going to be.  I suppose it could give you an amount based on the average fee paid in the previous block, but I don't know if that would accurately forecast the amount you'd need to pay to guarantee making it in.  Just to be clear, though, (before any anti-forkers jump on this as a sign of my conceeding) even with a system like this in place, 1MB would still be insufficient for any considerable increase in adoption.  Also bear in mind that if it gets too expensive, people will just use something else.  There's a very delicate balancing act to maintain if we go down that route. 

By the time you get down to points 4, 5 and 6, I'm afraid that's where it falls apart completely.  Why would someone save transactions for an off-peak time when there will be others systems they can use right away?  If it reaches that point, people won't just complain, they'll leave and use another coin.  This leads us back to the whole "elitist chain" argument.  If it doesn't work for the masses, the masses won't use it.
donator
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
February 24, 2015, 11:55:22 AM
sidechains?

Side chains and payment channels (or payment hubs) are methods to improve the transaction density of the blockchain.  That means you can get more economic transactions from a single on-chain transaction.  They are great ideas but they still require at least infrequent access to the primary chain. 

Code:
Maximum supported users based on transaction frequency.
Assumptions: 1MB block, 821 bytes per txn
Throughput:  2.03 tps, 64,000,000 transactions annually

Total #        Transactions per  Transaction
direct users     user annually    Frequency
       <8,000       8760          Once an hour
      178,000        365          Once a day
      500,000        128          A few (2.4) times a week
    1,200,000         52          Once a week
    2,600,000         24   Twice a month
    5,300,000         12   Once a month
   16,000,000          4   Once a quarter
   64,000,000          1          Once a year
  200,000,000          0.3        Less than once every few years
1,000,000,000          0.06       Less than once a decade

As you can see even with a low transaction frequency the network can't support more than a token number of users.  When someone advocates a permanent cap of 1MB what they are saying is "I think Bitcoin can live up to its full potential even if it is never used by more than a couple million users making less than one transaction per month.

So yes using sidechains, cross chain atomic transactions, and payment channels are trustless methods to reduce transaction frequency but they are multipliers.  One could look at the primary chain like a savings account and the alternative as a credit/debit card.  I may make 300+ transactions on my debit card each month and only two involving my saving account.  The good news is 2 is less than 300 but it still isn't zero.   

If alternatives reduce on chain tx frequency down to even just once a quarter or once a year you are still talking about capping the network to tens of millions of users.  Does Bitcoin need 16GB blocks?  Probably not.  It is one option but it isn't necessary.  There are other ways to go about reaching scalability but you aren't getting there from 1MB blocks on the primary chain.
legendary
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1002
Gresham's Lawyer
February 24, 2015, 08:53:52 AM
This isn't "selling fear", this is common sense.  This isn't about sending transactions without a fee, this is saying your transaction may not make it in even with a fee.  Get the premise right before you decide you're disagreeing with it.  Full means full.  As in wait for the next one.  And if that one is full, wait for the one after that.  How long do you think people will wait before complaining that Bitcoin is slow and useless?  Bearing in mind this is the internet and people complain about the slightest little inconvenience like it's the end of the world.  I don't want to see the outcome of that fallout.

OK, lets get the premise right.  If we ever get to a scarcity market for transactions, it might look a little more like this:

1) Your client would inform you of the amount of fee you should include if you want your transaction confirmed in an average of X-minutes, where you can set X.  If you want it faster, or guaranteed delivery, you pay more.  It becomes an auction market with a new auction every 10 minutes.  Full means full *at that price*.

2) Service Providers and high volume transaction businesses will increasingly do a lot of off-chain ledger-ing (maybe with side chains) and less frequent settlement transactions on the block chain.

3) Back door off-chain payment deals (maybe in fiat) will be made by some high value transaction makers to get preferential treatment by their favorite miner (who is to say that this isn't already happening?)

4) People will save transactions for off-peak times, and combine transactions to economize.

5) Others won't care and will just pay 'whatever'

6) Lots of folks on the internet will complain.

Bitcoin would probably grow a little slower, but please realize that this is an endurance race even though sometimes it feels like a sprint.  Bitcoin can never lose by growing too slowly, only by growing fatal flaws.  It is worth it to be careful.
legendary
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1002
Gresham's Lawyer
February 24, 2015, 08:36:44 AM
There is no grinding to a halt.  The worse case scenario of not resolving this in a strategic way, or not forking for a larger max block size is that Bitcoin will continue to do what it already does better than anything else.  It does not "grind to a halt".  If your transaction is urgent, you pay a fee.

Exactly.  Gavin's GigabloatCoin is being sold to us based on the fear that plain old Bitcoin will explode if people actually start using it.

No such thing will happen so long as we keep the system antifragile, which includes maintaining a defensible/diverse/diffuse/resilient network.

Under a full load, blockchain space/priority will simply become priced at market rates instead of being subsidized like in the past.

It's just like Uber.  If too many people want to use the service, Surge Pricing kicks in and cheapskates can wait around for a taxi or bus instead.

And only people willing to pay the fees can use it.

In the Uber example, if the fees get high enough, more drivers will start driving.
The Max Block Size limit is more like the NYC Taxi Medallions, where there are only so many offered and they get bid up due to scarcity.

Uber is more like the new feature alt coin that sprung up because the the Medallion limit can't handle all the passengers, and it has a nifty interface.
The Max Block Size is a necessary constraint on the free market for transactions.  It is only necessary because the transaction fee cost is not fully apportioned to all the transaction functions, just to the pools who pay for hashing.  Node running and relaying is uncompensated by the fees.  Pools don't 'tip out' to those that supply the transactions, just to the block solvers.

If there were a full economic incentive structure, there wouldn't be much reason to care about spamming attacks, they would just fund the network even more.

legendary
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1002
Gresham's Lawyer
February 24, 2015, 08:25:31 AM
In the mentioned attack, the preponderance of miners can be so conscripted.  The smaller pools will disappear.
The internet is a fuzzy machine that messes up my typing.  I keep telling you the lecture series Ideal money is about bitcoin and specifically this thread.  And you keep telling me it is not, and that it is about something else.

I don't think we speak the same language but I will try a few different ways.

Ideal Money is not about bananas.  It is about this decision of block size.  I know you don't believe me but you are not familiar with the lecture series.

You linked mises.org but although it might actually be related to this thread, it is not ACTUALLY about this thread.

YES!  It is not.  That is why I posted it.   It is an example of a too broad body of work that would be silly to require you to read even though it might help you.  Are you starting to catch on?  You are spamming.

The lecture series Ideal Money is ACTUALLY about this thread. 

I don't know how to be clearer about what I am saying? is there no one that reads this words correctly?

I am not off topic, Ideal Money and this thread are not "related', they are infact the same topic.

I don't understand how you can't read these words in their context that I write.  The topic in this thread is "ideal Money', and your conjectures on it are misinformed, clearly.

People are telling me to get a life but they are not well read.

Meanwhile the Greek finance minister is getting ready to peg greek currency to bitcoin through smart contracts, likely because he attended the lecture Ideal Money that was given in greece, and I'm not sure you have a clue what is going on.

Nobody here knows what bitcion is until they read the supporting literature for it: Ideal Money. 

Ideal Money happens when all major currencies stabilize in relation to bitcoin (summary)
Asymptotically Ideal Money is bitcoin, as perfectly explained in the lectures...

Now to be clear again, I didn't say Asymptotically Ideal Money is LIKE bitcoin, I said it IS bitcoin...I'm not sure you understand what point I am making and I don't see why other than you are addicted to fighting in unsolvable conflicts.

As yet, you have been unable to provide any relationship between your favorite lecture series and this narrow topic.
Broadly, perhaps Bitcoin generally, but you are again posting off topic.

You post above says nothing relevant.  It is just another advertisement for the lecture series.  It is becoming increasingly evident that you are not even reading the thread and are just posting more advertisements.  Please take this advice to heart, it will make you a much more effective spammer if you can at least find something from your lecture series to relate, the more specific the better.  Even if you don't care about the discussion and are just here to advertise, you could at least take the time to be good at that.

The way you are doing it instead is going to turn folks off, and that would be too bad because I'm sure it is quite interesting.
hero member
Activity: 976
Merit: 1002
Bitcoinmeetups.org
February 24, 2015, 07:52:56 AM
We could put rules in place that would safely raise the limit higher if we really need additional transactions on the main blockchain.

Again, that's the beauty of the Sliding Window approach vs the Wild Guess Curve.

Assuming 51% of miners are honest and won't manufacture fake transactions just for the lulz, the limit will only increase if there's enough real demand for it.

This approach will also provide significant inertia to protect against occasional spikes. It also allows the limit to decrease if there's not enough demand.

I.e. it's adaptive, which is what you usually want in control systems. You wouldn't build an autopilot by hard-coding a guess of everything it will have to do in the air. Instead you will build it to listen to inputs and generate compensating actions.


If we need to allow for additional transactions, would that benefit the free services market?

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10383498
hero member
Activity: 840
Merit: 1002
Simcoin Developer
February 24, 2015, 07:39:59 AM
We could put rules in place that would safely raise the limit higher if we really need additional transactions on the main blockchain.

Again, that's the beauty of the Sliding Window approach vs the Wild Guess Curve.

Assuming 51% of miners are honest and won't manufacture fake transactions just for the lulz, the limit will only increase if there's enough real demand for it.

This approach will also provide significant inertia to protect against occasional spikes. It also allows the limit to decrease if there's not enough demand.

I.e. it's adaptive, which is what you usually want in control systems. You wouldn't build an autopilot by hard-coding a guess of everything it will have to do in the air. Instead you will build it to listen to inputs and generate compensating actions.
legendary
Activity: 3948
Merit: 3191
Leave no FUD unchallenged
February 24, 2015, 07:29:16 AM
There is no grinding to a halt.  The worse case scenario of not resolving this in a strategic way, or not forking for a larger max block size is that Bitcoin will continue to do what it already does better than anything else.  It does not "grind to a halt".  If your transaction is urgent, you pay a fee.

Exactly.  Gavin's GigabloatCoin is being sold to us based on the fear that plain old Bitcoin will explode if people actually start using it.

No such thing will happen so long as we keep the system antifragile, which includes maintaining a defensible/diverse/diffuse/resilient network.

Under a full load, blockchain space/priority will simply become priced at market rates instead of being subsidized like in the past.

It's just like Uber.  If too many people want to use the service, Surge Pricing kicks in and cheapskates can wait around for a taxi or bus instead.

And only people willing to pay the fees can use it.

Again we're drifting into the muddy waters of fees.  To reiterate:

This isn't about sending transactions without a fee, this is saying your transaction may not make it in even with a fee.  Full means full.  As in wait for the next one.  And if that one is full, wait for the one after that.  How long do you think people will wait before complaining that Bitcoin is slow and useless?  Bearing in mind this is the internet and people complain about the slightest little inconvenience like it's the end of the world.  I don't want to see the outcome of that fallout.

That's not fear, that's how the protocol actually works.  Even if everyone waiting to get a transaction in the next block is paying a fee, there won't be room for all of them if we persist with a 1MB limit and adoption increases.  This is a simple fact.  Talking about "bloat" is fear.  It's not bloat or spam or anything of the sort, it's just allowing more transactions. 
Pages:
Jump to: