Topic: Bitcoin 20MB Fork - page 58. (Read 154787 times)

I do agree capping bitcoin does not destroy or limit its value, and probably rather the opposite.

But I do not agree this dialogue does not effect price. I think that would be silly to suggest.

Why we should increase block size? Aren't current block size big enough?

FTFY.

Oh joy, danielpbarron is back on another recruitment drive, telling us all (by only being capable of regurgitating MP's holy words) that if we're not a member of his little band of arrogant elitists that no one cares about, then we're not a member of his little band of arrogant elitists that no one cares about.  

a) Way to state the obvious.
b) We still don't care about your little playgroup.
c) You're really not as important as you like to think you are.

GTFO. You have no idea what you're talking about.



Nope.

I think the price started to rise again because we are almost at consensus (of no consensus).

Atleast with a static block size we will always have something that works and delivers on some promises. Of course this would put a cap on the value of bitcoin. All the people hoping to get rich would never see that happen, but then that never was one of the promises of bitcoin. It is true that if we dont massively raise the block size than bitcoin will never scale very well, but atleast we would be sure that we are not killing the golden goose outright. It would still be useful to us in all of the ways that it has always been useful to us. If we go massively raising the block size we may completely destroy bitcoin, it may become so centralized as to be totally unrecognizable. It would scale to world wide adoption but only at the cost of not fundamentally being any different than legacy banking.

I do agree that it should be raised though. 1mb is too small. If my math is right 20mb works out to about a terabyte a year. Thats pretty reasonable. At some point in the future it will make sense to raise it again similarly. I just surely hope that cooler heads prevail and no one gets carried away. There is no way this thing can scale to on chain transactions for everyone in the world for quite a long time yet, and if we pursue that as a goal it will destroy the bitcoin we know and love.

No, I'm unexploitable, trust me.
Link large posts to blogs please!

Ok, is it settled then?  No change.

We don't have to agree, but its helpful to discuss how we feel about this "truth".

Will support that Bitcoin 20MB Fork.
do not be too conservative.

let's see what will happen.

I suspect it would be helpful to not start our posts out by laughing at and mocking others posts (what is helpful can be seen to benefit us all!)

I also notice we have so far avoided the question about the possibility that no consensus can be made and therefore such change is impossible.  We should discuss/figure out our strategies in such a case (and therefore the ramifications).

Well, MP isn't the one doing the coding.

And as to your "teenagers bragging" line -- I agree. So why don't you kids stop wasting your time on this derpy forum, and join the adults.

Firstly Krishna was blue and so I think probably we can call him "blue-Nash".

Lastly:
And so I think these notes will be useful to establish "dialogue" https://thewealthofchips.wordpress.com/2015/02/12/notes-on-on-dialogue-and-in-relation-to-the-block-size-discussion-dialoue/

Not easily as long as I'm a hodler.

lol wut? like if MP's coding was worth anything for a start.

no but seriously, i esteem MP somehow but having frustrated teenagers bragging and insulting over the interwebz is not very constructive.

seriously this is the lowest attempt at 'recruiting' people to join the #BA i've witness so far.
so cultish, at least Bibi Netanyahoo offered 120 000$ for the jooz to make their aliya..

Well for the love of Christ, what fraction of earth's population doing how many transactions per day?  What is so hard about that question?


You are really going to tell me that Bitcoin fails the moment some guy's transaction times out?

Time-outs are a good thing for a few reasons.  One is you can finally try again.  Two is because it educates ignorant people that Bitcoin is a batch system.  Like it or not, that is what it is.  Sorry if it either confuses you to tears or shatter's your myth that it's a good exchange solution for trinkets.

People receiving such an education from time to time isn't just a good thing, it's a great thing!  All of the 'mutability' problems were simply due to ignorant people trying to take short-cuts around the system as it was designed.  Wait for confirmations.  It's a perfectly usable and vastly more robust solution if people do this one little thing.  Again, if it cuts out the trinket-buyers, goodbye and good riddance.  They are nothing but a giant hassle and most irritating to boot.

I don't get pissed very easily, but it really rubs me the wrong way that someone demands their piss-ant $2.00 transaction gets to live on forever on everyone's system who wants to support the solution in a meaningful way.  The main reason is that I would't dream to make such a nonsense request.  From day one I deliberately used off-chain solutions as much as I could for trivial things.  I've spent to many years dealing with the electronic messes left by thoughtless people I suppose.

I wouldn't. Satoshi did his thing, and I'm glad he's gone now. His code sucked, and there is nothing more he could do for bitcoin except continue to hold his million coins. Now bitcoin is in the hands of #bitcoin-assets, regardless of how you'd all like to pretend they don't exist. When you're done throwing your little tantrums, you can begin the process of becoming a real person.

The suggestion has been made that we deal with things from the perspective of an implicate order. http://www.gci.org.uk/Documents/DavidBohm-WholenessAndTheImplicateOrder.pdf

How would you feel upon realizing there can be no change, because there is no consensus for it, and entropy suggests this is final (apologies if i used that word wrong!)

As usual, you've got it completely ass-backwards.  I'm the one who wants to make sure there's enough fuel to get where we're going.  You're the one who thinks they're going to get somewhere with an arbitrary limit on the resources.


You honestly think the network failing to confirm transactions is good for the future of Bitcoin?  If several blocks in a row end up full and people are left waiting for their transactions to go through, you think that's going to help improve things?  I don't care how much you think you've done the math to support your side of the debate, you haven't considered the consequences and repercussions of placing artificial limits on a system that will work just fine without them.  You've considered about the consequences of removing them, stating it might one day in the distant future lead to centralisation.  But even if that happens, it's far more likely that full blocks will happen first.  Can we please deal with the hurdles in the order that they appear?

Exactly, thank you.  I am also on 28 tables right now as I type. Now we are playing poker!

Thank you for "playing along".  I have many relevant points but look forward to others responses rather than my long drawn out response.  I must relevate the fact that Mochizuki will have dramatically changed our understanding of this using inter universal geometry.


I must note that I also was in fact an underground miner which I left to play poker (I doubt we will believe this but its true) and so I must assert my relevance again. And I will also make a small point that Hayek says that Keynes, although a genius was not really an economist, and did not seem to understand international type commerce. And in that by agreeing with Keynes I think we start to disagree with Satoshi, Nash, Szabo, and Smith (and Hayek). (Hayek: https://thewealthofchips.wordpress.com/2014/10/04/what-is-ideal-money/)