Topic: Bitcoin 20MB Fork - page 55. (Read 154787 times)

If, against all odds, USGavincoin wins: I will be done with "cryptocurrency." My plan in that event is to find something else to do. I don't want to have anything to do with totalitarian systems. It's like you're saying "you should plan for sucking Hitler's knob in the event that the Nazis win WW2."



We wouldn't have it any other way, except you still won't be allowed to use it.

And to those of you who still say "I think 20MB is fine," I have this to ask: do you currently maintain a full node? Before you answer, think carefully. A full node has the entire blockchain history. It isn't enough to have all the block headers, or all the unspent outputs. You need to have everything. It also needs to have an uptime greater than 90% (really more than 99%, but I'm feeling generous).

in case the hard fork goes through(I know, you don't believe it is going to happen.... but you should always plan for these "black swan " events)

I think 20MB is fine

One of the many things he did not mention was any form of money whose transaction rate is limited in time.

My opinion is that if it were too easy to set up a form of “global money” that the version achieved might have characteristics of inferiority which would make it, compar-atively, more like a relatively inferior national currency than like any of the more praiseworthy national or imperial currencies known to historical records.

But there is a good prospect for avoiding the estab-lishment of another, possibly deceptive, currency of infer-ior quality. Here I think of the possibility that a good sort of international currency might EVOLVE before the time when an official establishment might occur.

So my personal view is that a practical global money might most favorably evolve through the development first of a few regional currencies of truly good quality. And then the “integration” or “coordination” of those into a global currency would become just a technical problem. (Here I am thinking of a politically neutral form of a technological utility rather than of a money which might, for example, be used to exert pressures in a conflict situation comparable to “the cold war”.)

 If it becomes a matter of strong and definite prefer-ences that the money used should have definite character-istics of quality then, in principle, the people can demand that. For example formerly there was the drachma and now there is, in Greece, the euro instead of that. And the people seem to be pleased with the change.

But the famous classical "Gresham’s Law" also reveals the intrinsic difficulty. Thus "good money" will not naturally supplant and replace "bad money" by a simple Darwinian superiority of competitive species. Rather than that, it must be that the good things are established by the voluntary choice of human agencies. And these resp-onsible agencies, being naturally of the domain of polit-ically derived authorities, would need to make appropriate efforts to achieve such a goal and to pay the costs that are entailed before their societies can benefit.

An example of an efficiently working global reform (at least in relation to electronic manufactures) is the metric system, with its central Bureau located near Paris. And this is an example of a system of yardsticks where inflation is currently NOT in fashion!

You were asked a direct question.  You have not answered it.  Please provide a direct answer, by citing a specific paper, published on a specific date, that someone can look up and go read.  

I reiterate.  I have read Nash.  He did not write about any situation in which the total transaction rate per time was constrained.  Your claim to the contrary is without proof.  If you disagree -- that is, if you have proof -- then produce it.  Otherwise you will be ignored.

Nash would have been a great science fiction writer IMHO. His conjectures are as fanciful and thought provoking as anything by Asimov, Heinlein, or Wells. Money is a social construct and nothing more. Great thinkers challenge the optics of social perspectives encompassing civilization. Like all scientists, they stand on the shoulders of their intellectual predecessors.

Using someone else's work to validate your own hypotheses requires diligent referencing and clearly support your arguments. Merely name dropping someone and claiming they support you is fallaciously arguing from authority and without merit.

Thank you.  

I must reiterate, because words do not transfer well on the internet.  Sometimes I re read what I write and see it can be taken many different ways. In order to know the mathematical answer to "what is block size", FIRST you need to know what "ideal money" is.  Otherwise we are putting the cart before the horse.  There are many peoples theories on the subject, but of course we would hesitate to listen to them if they haven't AT LEAST READ the lecture "Ideal Money" by John Nash.  

Thank you.  

I must reiterate, because words do not transfer well on the internet.  

Sometimes I re read what I write and see it can be taken many different ways. In order to know the mathematical answer to "what is block size", FIRST you need to know what "ideal money" is.  Otherwise we are putting the cart before the horse.  There are many peoples theories on the subject, but of course we would hesitate to listen to them if they haven't AT LEAST READ the lecture "Ideal Money" by John Nash.  

Nash gives and EXTENSIVE explanation of money in the context of what is good money and what is bad money (in the gresham's sense), and then goes on to relate it to all the major currencies and their respective nations.  He did this ever since the same time when Szabo's blog started to appear (1995ish) and he gave these talks in many nations and changed the examples to suit the customs and perspectives of each audience.

So what is "ideal money", means both what is it that actually can be said to be ideal money AND it means "what is this strange lecture Dr. Nash has been giving". If we can begin to look at this lecture, if we can relevate it, then I can continue to explain the optimal strategy going forward in relation to this game theoretical problem.  But we need to get at least SOMEWHAT familiar with the material in the lectures.

Please illuminate us with a Nash reference and what is exactly the precise PROPER perpective that cancels out the need for more than 3 tps in a global currency?

You are wrong.  You are blinded by your own obvious ignorance.  

You are asking "how should bitcoin work?", "how should it transact?", "Should it be Gold, or a highly transact-able currency?"

You are asking EXACTLY the question "What is Ideal Money?"

And you are learning and realizing right now...you have been setup, by the master.

Satoshi is your religion.

(Edit: btw, you have not read his writings, to know what he omitted, this problem does not necessitate the considerations you are pointing at, the PROPER perspective cancels them out (like many elegant solutions do).)

John Nash did not write about nor consider a situation in which the total number of transactions in a given time frame was constrained.  It is that consideration, completely omitted in Nash's writing, that we are discussing.  

Try to keep up.

It is the upper limit peaks which are problematic and preparing for the future before the next traffic increase along with other decentralized apps like lighthouse being restricted. We are already seeing full blocks from time to time at the moment, thus we should be concerned now.

http://www.coindesk.com/juniper-research-bitcoin-transactions-double-2017/

A couple years according to these researchers.  Double our current average and we still aren't at 1MB.