Topic: Bitcoin 20MB Fork - page 60. (Read 154787 times)
Maybe satoshi is a dragon unicorn and the topic of ideal money is about bananas.
First, Krugman is always wrong, and secondly Adam Smith did not live to see the amazing technological development of cryptocurrency.
We can't just "render bitcoin as a gold", only global marketplace can decide that, not a few random people on the internet.
"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CemLiSI5ox8
http://serc.carleton.edu/sp/library/media/examples/example2.html
Quote
There is just one problem – the economic explanation in the bar scene is wrong! The scene that was just described is NOT a Nash equilibrium. A Nash equilibrium occurs when economic decision-makers choose the best possible strategy, taking into account the decisions of others. The scene in the film cannot be a Nash equilibrium since if no one goes for the blonde, each of the friends best strategy – given what their friends is doing – is to go for the blonde! Therefore, as soon as one guy decides to go after the blonde, the agreement not to pursue her falls apart and chaos reigns! Oops. Director Ron Howard took a few liberties to try to simplify Nash's discovery.
(adam smith was not wrong) 
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/12/adam-smith-hates-bitcoin/?_r=0
You ignore the wealth of nations, and point out what would happen if we rendered bitcoin as a gold, higher velocity currencies would arise. What you point out about other clones is not observable as reality in a non vacuum because bitcoin is real and so what you point out must be related to bitcoin. There is only one first to the market; such is its value. I think this should be clear.
First, Krugman is always wrong, and secondly Adam Smith did not live to see the amazing technological development of cryptocurrency.You ignore the wealth of nations, and point out what would happen if we rendered bitcoin as a gold, higher velocity currencies would arise. What you point out about other clones is not observable as reality in a non vacuum because bitcoin is real and so what you point out must be related to bitcoin. There is only one first to the market; such is its value. I think this should be clear.
Quote
The gold and silver money which circulates in any country, and by means of which, the produce of its land and labour is annually circulated and distributed to the proper consumers, is, in the same manner as the ready money of the dealer, all dead stock. It is a very valuable part of the capital of the country, which produces nothing to the country. The judicious operations of banking, by substituting paper in the room of a great part of this gold and silver, enable the country to convert a great part of this dead stock into active and productive stock; into stock which produces something to the country. The gold and silver money which circulates in any country may very properly be compared to a highway, which, while it circulates and carries to market all the grass and corn of the country, produces itself not a single pile of either. The judicious operations of banking, by providing, if I may be allowed so violent a metaphor, a sort of waggon-way through the air, enable the country to convert, as it were, a great part of its highways into good pastures, and corn fields, and thereby to increase, very considerably, the annual produce of its land and labour.
We can't just "render bitcoin as a gold", only the global marketplace can decide that, not a few random people on the internet.
I suggest a smaller block size, that creates a less transactible material in the velocity sense, would effect price.
A smaller block size can only serve to drive up user fees (to a point of exhaustion), to compete for space, but price is exogenous to that, and is a measure of the value of the whole network. Only if the network is nurtured (by software improvements to make it bigger and better), not crippled (by the deadweight of high fees, and transaction frequency rationing) can price rise.
I am certain that cryptocurrency is the electronic gold of the future, whether it will be Bitcoin is still unclear.
Dear Nsa, Dear CIA, Dear FBI etc...
you get a choice, 1mb or 20mb...
20 is the royal cubit, you could sway public opinion with it...but these are the choices...lets figure this out today...good luck...(price is waiting btw)
you get a choice, 1mb or 20mb...
20 is the royal cubit, you could sway public opinion with it...but these are the choices...lets figure this out today...good luck...(price is waiting btw)
Satoshi might actually be a banana.
No this is not logical to say. Another coin would take over as a highly transactable commodity, but to say "take over" is incredibly vague. I am suggesting such a low size renders this "commodity" like gold, and this would have an incredible utility in relation to our current financial system. This is the issue I see, people want bitcoin to be both a fundamental basepoint and a highly transactable material. I suspect it cannot be both, should not be both, and won't be both.
Are you sure, that at such a low block size, bitcoin is worthless? I suspect that the only true issues with price is uncertainty. And so once we solve this issue, this will change.
Are you sure, that at such a low block size, bitcoin is worthless? I suspect that the only true issues with price is uncertainty. And so once we solve this issue, this will change.
I am absolutely sure that a low block size will be worthless for the reason that the commodity of block space will still not be scarce. On the coinmarketcap site you will see Megacoin, Vertcoin, Quark and many others, all of which are functional clones of Bitcoin. They all offer block space for trustless, peer-to-peer, censorship-free, permissionless, rapid, 24/7 electronic transactions. Why should anyone pay $5 to send a Bitcoin transaction when they can spend 5c of Vertcoin to achieve the same result?
If Bitcoin became permanently block-space limited, then it would be quite simple for Bitpay and Coinbase to offer Litecoin or Megacoin as an alternative to customers who are priced away from Bitcoin.
The Bitcoin-for-buying-a-Ferrari only works in the real-world if Bitcoin can also (theoretically) buy a million coffees at the same time. You like the pyramid analogy, think of a pyramid of transactions by value. The ability to do a series of low-value transactions supports the ability to do higher and higher value transactions.
You ignore the wealth of nations, and point out what would happen if we rendered bitcoin as a gold, higher velocity currencies would arise. What you point out about other clones is not observable as reality in a non vacuum because bitcoin is real and so what you point out must be related to bitcoin. There is only one first to the market; such is its value. I think this should be clear.
Quote
The gold and silver money which circulates in any country, and by means of which, the produce of its land and labour is annually circulated and distributed to the proper consumers, is, in the same manner as the ready money of the dealer, all dead stock. It is a very valuable part of the capital of the country, which produces nothing to the country. The judicious operations of banking, by substituting paper in the room of a great part of this gold and silver, enable the country to convert a great part of this dead stock into active and productive stock; into stock which produces something to the country. The gold and silver money which circulates in any country may very properly be compared to a highway, which, while it circulates and carries to market all the grass and corn of the country, produces itself not a single pile of either. The judicious operations of banking, by providing, if I may be allowed so violent a metaphor, a sort of waggon-way through the air, enable the country to convert, as it were, a great part of its highways into good pastures, and corn fields, and thereby to increase, very considerably, the annual produce of its land and labour.
I suggest a smaller block size, that creates a less transactible material in the velocity sense, would effect price.
No this is not logical to say. Another coin would take over as a highly transactable commodity, but to say "take over" is incredibly vague. I am suggesting such a low size renders this "commodity" like gold, and this would have an incredible utility in relation to our current financial system. This is the issue I see, people want bitcoin to be both a fundamental basepoint and a highly transactable material. I suspect it cannot be both, should not be both, and won't be both.
Are you sure, that at such a low block size, bitcoin is worthless? I suspect that the only true issues with price is uncertainty. And so once we solve this issue, this will change.
Are you sure, that at such a low block size, bitcoin is worthless? I suspect that the only true issues with price is uncertainty. And so once we solve this issue, this will change.
I am absolutely sure that a low block size will be worthless for the reason that the commodity of block space will still not be scarce. On the coinmarketcap site you will see Megacoin, Vertcoin, Quark and many others, all of which are functional clones of Bitcoin. They all offer block space for trustless, peer-to-peer, censorship-free, permissionless, rapid, 24/7 electronic transactions. Why should anyone pay $5 to send a Bitcoin transaction when they can spend 5c of Vertcoin to achieve the same result?
If Bitcoin became permanently block-space limited, then it would be quite simple for Bitpay and Coinbase to offer Litecoin or Megacoin as an alternative to customers who are priced away from Bitcoin.
The Bitcoin-for-buying-a-Ferrari only works in the real-world if Bitcoin can also (theoretically) buy a million coffees at the same time. You like the pyramid analogy, think of a pyramid of transactions by value. The ability to do a series of low-value transactions supports the ability to do higher and higher value transactions.
Maybe Satoshi is a banana.
Like Gavin suggests, have a coin with a 256k blocksize and see how that works for you. Better yet, a 1KB block, then they will bid like a Christies auction to be in your block.
To be clear, Price would not skyrocket, it will collapse when average block size nears 1MB, and remain collapsed the longer the 1MB limit is left in place. Left in place eventually another coin will take over.
Are you sure, that at such a low block size, bitcoin is worthless? I suspect that the only true issues with price is uncertainty. And so once we solve this issue, this will change.
Gavin's proposed change, [...] will strap solid-rocket boosters onto Bitcoin. I can't wait.
Meep meep!
To be clear, Price would not skyrocket, it will collapse when average block size nears 1MB, and remain collapsed the longer the 1MB limit is left in place. Left in place eventually another coin will take over.
Are you sure, that at such a low block size, bitcoin is worthless? I suspect that the only true issues with price is uncertainty. And so once we solve this issue, this will change.
I suspect that if we somehow locked in 1mb, bitcoin would be super scarce and price would skyrocket? No?
To be clear, Price would not skyrocket, it will collapse when average block size nears 1MB, and remain collapsed the longer the 1MB limit is left in place. Left in place eventually another coin will take over.
It seems you didn't address my point/question. If bitocin has a small block size, like 1mb, it seems the price would be higher than for example and infinite size, or a really really big block size.
I suspect, although some would be upset that bitcoin couldn't be used for coffee, that a small very limited block size would be cause for a higher valuation in terms of price. All what you posted is good, but we can manipulate the value of each bitcoin, by making them slightly "harder" to transact no? If true, there may be an inherent difficulty in getting a consensus of a higher block size. I really really think, this discussion is very key.
(btw bitcoin isn't on their and it is 2015 and smart contracts, ethereum get released next monthish)
I suspect, although some would be upset that bitcoin couldn't be used for coffee, that a small very limited block size would be cause for a higher valuation in terms of price. All what you posted is good, but we can manipulate the value of each bitcoin, by making them slightly "harder" to transact no? If true, there may be an inherent difficulty in getting a consensus of a higher block size. I really really think, this discussion is very key.
(btw bitcoin isn't on their and it is 2015 and smart contracts, ethereum get released next monthish)
It is not on the chart, but if it were then it is still near zero on the y-axis. Other coins being released all the time means that standing still is not an option (and it is not happening as core dev are churning out releases).
Dooglus! Nice to see you in this jungle of a thread.
Do you really think Bitcoin will be a global revolution with an upper limit @ 10 million users?
What makes you think direct access to the blockchain is necessary to benefit from Bitcoin.
What makes you think it wouldn't be good that payments occur instantly, and at massive scale through Bitcoin banks?
Bitcoin banks that would have no regulatory barrier to entry, and would be fully auditable by anyone.
Aren't solvency reports a much more important invention for the world at large than coffee-for-blowstamps iOS apps?
And justusranvier, you don't seem to hang out in #opentransactions anymore, how come you're not even mentioning it as a perfectly valid growth avenue for "adoption" ?
Gavin's proposed change, [...] will strap solid-rocket boosters onto Bitcoin. I can't wait.
Meep meep!
It seems you didn't address my point/question. If bitocin has a small block size, like 1mb, it seems the price would be higher than for example and infinite size, or a really really big block size.
I suspect, although some would be upset that bitcoin couldn't be used for coffee, that a small very limited block size would be cause for a higher valuation in terms of price. All what you posted is good, but we can manipulate the value of each bitcoin, by making them slightly "harder" to transact no? If true, there may be an inherent difficulty in getting a consensus of a higher block size. I really really think, this discussion is very key.
(btw bitcoin isn't on their and it is 2015 and smart contracts, ethereum get released next monthish)
I suspect, although some would be upset that bitcoin couldn't be used for coffee, that a small very limited block size would be cause for a higher valuation in terms of price. All what you posted is good, but we can manipulate the value of each bitcoin, by making them slightly "harder" to transact no? If true, there may be an inherent difficulty in getting a consensus of a higher block size. I really really think, this discussion is very key.
(btw bitcoin isn't on their and it is 2015 and smart contracts, ethereum get released next monthish)
Indeed. Payment channels between nodes has enormous potential, and Bitcoin is better placed than any other technology to benefit because the payment currency is native to it. People who supply nodes already have wallets to manage the balances which will result.
D&T. I agree that 1MB is a joke, and have recently described it on your own thread as the biggest risk to Bitcoin.
Gavin's proposed change, plus IBLT, plus payment channels will strap solid-rocket boosters onto Bitcoin. I can't wait.
I suspect "price" is awaiting this decision.
Thanks for joining us.
The answer is already known, and "price" has already spoken.
http://coinmarketcap.com/#USD tells us what the market thinks. Bitcoin clones have a unit price which reflects their miniscule ecosystems, and the small opportunity value that one of them will ursurp Bitcoin's place, if it were to badly trip up (for example, such as having an artificially small block limit which is never changed).
Gold is finite, Bitcoin is finite, but cryptocurrency is infinite. As you, of all people, are fully aware, perfect money has to be scarce, it can't be infinite.
So, it is the network effect of many users, the whole ecosystem, the merchants, the publicity, the massive farms of hashing power providing security which give Bitcoin its price, and the potential to fully become electronic gold, super-gold. It's not block space scarcity which will ramp up price, but the total number of users it has and percentage of world transactions which it can process.
Realpra sums it up:
Quote
Well rationally there is no way the present Bitcoin can win over a higher limit fork:
Step 1:
A. Gavin creates a higher limit BTC fork.
B. Anyone else does it.
Step 2:
Present network can never grow more than it is now, because we are already hitting the limits.
Step 3:
New system takes over by nature of being the biggest - which it cannot avoid becoming because it scales!
Step 1:
A. Gavin creates a higher limit BTC fork.
B. Anyone else does it.
Step 2:
Present network can never grow more than it is now, because we are already hitting the limits.
Step 3:
New system takes over by nature of being the biggest - which it cannot avoid becoming because it scales!
Once Bitcoin plateaus in its adoption curve, then its super-gold status is secure, but not before. And it won't take as long as radio or TV.
Indeed. Payment channels between nodes has enormous potential, and Bitcoin is better placed than any other technology to benefit because the payment currency is native to it. People who supply nodes already have wallets to manage the balances which will result.
D&T. I agree that 1MB is a joke, and have recently described it on your own thread as the biggest risk to Bitcoin.
Gavin's proposed change, plus IBLT, plus payment channels will strap solid-rocket boosters onto Bitcoin. I can't wait.
I suspect "price" is awaiting this decision.
I'm liking JR's paper. Micropayment channels is the most constructive approach to permanently dealing with the block size limit, since defenders of the limit are mostly concerned about the data overhead on full nodes.
Maybe if the limit was higher. Payment channels still require at least one transaction per payment channel set. How often are you willing to reset payment channels? Once per week, once per month, once per year? The longer the period the larger the initial escrowed amount. How many payment channels if the average user going to have. Say the average user accepts escrowing 6 months worth of future payments and has 3 payment channels payees each. That still requires 6 on block transactions per user per year. 2 tps @ 6 txn per user = 10.5 million users.
Do you really think Bitcoin will be a global revolution with an upper limit @ 10 million users?
Payment channels, side chains, and cross chain atomic transactions are transaction multipliers. They move us from one economic transaction per block transaction to more than one economic transaction per block transaction. In essence they make the primary block space more efficient but you can't get any kind of scalability out of 1MB permanent limit.
Indeed. Payment channels between nodes has enormous potential, and Bitcoin is better placed than any other technology to benefit because the payment currency is native to it. People who supply nodes already have wallets to manage the balances which will result.
D&T. I agree that 1MB is a joke, and have recently described it on your own thread as the biggest risk to Bitcoin.
Gavin's proposed change, plus IBLT, plus node services payment channels, will strap solid-rocket boosters onto Bitcoin. I can't wait.
I am going to bring for a super-being. A person that doesn't necessarily exist but I think would be helpful for the dialogue as some form of thought experiment. And I want to to think about this person in relation to peoples such as Newton, Copernicus, Aristotle, Plato, Einstein, Von Neuman, etc. Basically we are talking about polymaths.
Many of these peoples had revelations not in one particular subject but in many or nearly all subjects. Newton created calculus, pegged gold the mint, changed our understanding of light and the cosmos (in relation to Copernicus work who did nearly the same).
It is our fragmented view, which shows up in things such as nationalism, that causes us to not understand the relation of these “breakthroughs” and polymaths. I've never had this fragmented view for as long as I can remember so I come across some wholistic perspectives more naturally.
I want to present a super-being, that might not exist, but has helped me understand this new age we are on the brink of “discovery” and “relevating”.
John Nash mastered games, and nearly simultaneously showed us the value of money in trade. He gave a conjecture of a completely unchackable technology in a letter to the NSA. In nearly the 1950's he designed a computer system we still have not yet put together but are nearing the implementation of.
He has also seemingly redefined quantum physics web.math.princeton.edu/jfnj/texts_and_graphics/Main.../intereq.ps
Which means he has some interesting insights on light, quantum theory, and quantifying gravity.
Nick Szabo has redefined the history of money (even using the nash equilibrium in the essay shelling out). For the last 20 year he has been quietly blogging about the future of our civilization based on extrapolations of our history in conjunction with a new technology (bitcoin) that was not yet invented, heard of, or even believed by most people to be possible.
Szabo merged economics, law, programming, finance, and software, and many other fields. And he showed how this evolution is very related to our history. Smart contracts and bitcoin are obviously the precursors to AI.
Shinichi Mochizuki has created a whole new branch of mathematics. I would like to suggest that he has formulated thought, and shown that consciousness is a field. I would like to also suggest that SM squared the circle, by using inter-universal geometry, which seems very related to solving the byzantine general problem. And so our understanding of what Pi is has now grown by leaps and bounds that will take us some time to even understand.
And if we understand bitcoins relation to the pyramids, we should understand the significance of all this, because building the pyramids and the royal cubit are essentially a quantizing/quantifying of gravity. And/or in other words our inability to square the circle is the exact problem the pyramids seek to solve which is truly the relation of light gravity and Pi to our universe and the laws that hold it up. And all these things are in relation to thought, or the observer/observed phenomenon, and it is our fragmented (nationalistic) view that has “blocked” us from seeing the obvious truth of this.
Let's imagine they are one person.
Many of these peoples had revelations not in one particular subject but in many or nearly all subjects. Newton created calculus, pegged gold the mint, changed our understanding of light and the cosmos (in relation to Copernicus work who did nearly the same).
It is our fragmented view, which shows up in things such as nationalism, that causes us to not understand the relation of these “breakthroughs” and polymaths. I've never had this fragmented view for as long as I can remember so I come across some wholistic perspectives more naturally.
I want to present a super-being, that might not exist, but has helped me understand this new age we are on the brink of “discovery” and “relevating”.
John Nash mastered games, and nearly simultaneously showed us the value of money in trade. He gave a conjecture of a completely unchackable technology in a letter to the NSA. In nearly the 1950's he designed a computer system we still have not yet put together but are nearing the implementation of.
He has also seemingly redefined quantum physics web.math.princeton.edu/jfnj/texts_and_graphics/Main.../intereq.ps
Which means he has some interesting insights on light, quantum theory, and quantifying gravity.
Nick Szabo has redefined the history of money (even using the nash equilibrium in the essay shelling out). For the last 20 year he has been quietly blogging about the future of our civilization based on extrapolations of our history in conjunction with a new technology (bitcoin) that was not yet invented, heard of, or even believed by most people to be possible.
Szabo merged economics, law, programming, finance, and software, and many other fields. And he showed how this evolution is very related to our history. Smart contracts and bitcoin are obviously the precursors to AI.
Shinichi Mochizuki has created a whole new branch of mathematics. I would like to suggest that he has formulated thought, and shown that consciousness is a field. I would like to also suggest that SM squared the circle, by using inter-universal geometry, which seems very related to solving the byzantine general problem. And so our understanding of what Pi is has now grown by leaps and bounds that will take us some time to even understand.
And if we understand bitcoins relation to the pyramids, we should understand the significance of all this, because building the pyramids and the royal cubit are essentially a quantizing/quantifying of gravity. And/or in other words our inability to square the circle is the exact problem the pyramids seek to solve which is truly the relation of light gravity and Pi to our universe and the laws that hold it up. And all these things are in relation to thought, or the observer/observed phenomenon, and it is our fragmented (nationalistic) view that has “blocked” us from seeing the obvious truth of this.
Let's imagine they are one person.
Jump to: