Topic: Bitcoin 20MB Fork - page 73. (Read 154787 times)

I'm not sure it's really fair to blame Gavin for the 'BitLicense'.  He has spoken out against it.  But, I get your point.

Ever heard of PayPal?  It means another one of those.

Exactly.

The average user will simply upgrade when told to do so , along with most mining pools and payment processors .... MPcoin is doomed.

what exactly does the fork mean for the average user?

Again with the drama and "we don't what you and whatnot".  Calling one option Gavincoin or MBcoin also doesn't help, imo.

The attack that some people are threatening is very disturbing.  Bitcoin community should be looking for consensus here on an important issue, not attacking each other can calling names.

You are not picking it up very fast.  We don't WANT you.  You are a liability.

You were a regrettable necessity back in the day when some dolt told several other dolts who told several other dolts and so on until you heard about it.  The 'network effect' and a bunch of luck got us all the way up to $1000/BTC valuations, congressional hearings, a mountain of VC money, mainstream media coverage, etc.  The downside was that you idiots always kept getting ripped off and giving Bitcoin a black-eye, but on balance you did what we needed.  Now you are a dull and broken tool that belongs in the scrap bin.  You desperately want a giant, indefensible, single-point-of-failure system because that is all you can comprehend.  We cannot tolerate that.

Now, from my perspective, I do have some empathy for the commoners in part because I am one myself.  The other part is left over from when I was a quasi-socialist not long ago.  Also, a properly working (e.g., not subverted by the TPTB) distributed crypto-currency displays and builds it's power by competing successfully with mainstream systems.  Since these mainstream systems are fucking you guys raw, the 'value add' would be to simply not do so.  That is why I am so excited about sidechains as an infinite supply of tuned exchange currencies deriving their strength from the reserve.  A reserve currency is to powerful for most people who cannot even figure out how to keep their passwords safe so again, you are not wanted, but you can get far more from any set of sidechains than you ever would from either raw Bitcoin or mainstream or some combination of the two so you get to win as well.  And you could always jump up to the big leagues and be a native Bitcoin user if you get your shit together technically and develop a big enough financial statement to warrant it.

I also very much look forward to using sidechains myself for my daily needs.  Bitcoin is a giant hassle to use correctly with the care that it deserves and always will be.

Hmm, I wish I could distill the drama from this thread in order to get to the meaningful stuff easier.

"Distributed" would imply that you think anyone's going to stick around to use MPcoin.  I'd be genuinely surprised if more than 100 people follow your chain once the fork happens.  And after that it will swiftly drop to about 10 deluded MP fanboys when none of the merchants accept it for anything, because everyone else wants a coin the masses can actually use.  You're opting for a limited, isolationist, elitist chain, and that's what you're going to get.  Everyone else will be long gone.  Hell, I bet even Litecoin/Peercoin/Namecoin/Doge will have more node support and be more distributed than MPcoin. 

Good point.  The onus to do so should be on those who wish to hard-fork and thus obtain a different solution than what we have today.  Lots of options out there, and you can create your own which seems to be what Gavin is planning to do.  Goodbye and good riddance to all you gavincoiners who don't really have the ability to comprehend the real distributed crypto-currencies.

Have a nice ride:

  gavincoin --> govincoin --> govcoin

They are not so useful.

Skipping a ton of myths dispelled, bitcoins power in relation to the individuals role in civilization (we must get along  to be "free") is as a consensus mechanism.  This inspires cooperation.  There are those that want it to be something beyond that, but also those that realize we cannot have cake and eat it (until Bohmian Physics).

The block chain is the bedrock and such is what we are trying to "preserve". Not coming to a consensus will rip it apart faster than (for example) too little or too many transactions. A new standard that out grew the pace of pyramid building no doubt ended the "Pyramid" standard.  And such was likely gold which is a transportable consensus mechanism (provided things such as finiteness and network-ess).  And this is coupled with those that mastered the sea, until the world was fully explored and then that "equilibrium" came about (and so "nations" grew (our present day understanding) more divided and like countries/boundaries).

I think now that the exchanges are in a Nash Equilibrium, all this is showing up in a fading "price".  If we don't come to a consensus bitcoin's price will decline to zero!!!

FEARRRR!!!

There's a fork there, and a helmet is hard, so... HARD FORK CONFIRMED.

  thanks for your comment, so is not bitcoin  a technology and  doesn't it  need "changes" ? Ok, it seems something is wrong in internet.

+1





-1

I say we make it exaclty what Gav suggests or some version very close and related to the Royal cubit.  Then tell people a a bullshit story about how it relates to the pyrmaids.  I'll figure the math justification later:

20.48 mb kids!  I am fully under the impression consensus is what is important, not the optimal parameter, and such is why the conversation continues beyond the top elite and intelligent developers.

Bitcoin has a BIG potential but we limit it, a max 20MB block size is not a drama. Come on guys, the actual block size (1 Mb) is not for ever. As  "technology" the "changes" are obligated.

I mean to point out we may lose some of the "Inbuilt currency-ness"

Meaning bitcoins greatest power is its finite-ness..and we may need to give up some its its power as a currency or a money in order to "secure" this. That would make this guy is a fool, for suggesting Smith would hate bitcoin:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/12/adam-smith-hates-bitcoin/?_r=0

It means make bitcoin the new "gold standard" and create and peg new currencies that are the velocity type of money that take on all the high transaction fields (like the pyramids!!!)

Cliffs: gold doesn't transact as "well" as "money"....should bitcoin?

To be clear. Bitcoin, being a payments system and inbuilt currency, when used for a scalable amount of transactions, makes it more and more of a "gold standard".

You can't have a legit price without securing the exchanges in a Nash equilibrium, I'm sure of it.  And to do that you needed to first secure the mining pools the same vs for example a 51% attack.  And so now we face the next "parameter".  I suspect then this issue has been downplayed, and the elite realize this is going to require a consensus that will be difficult to achieve, and so sadly they know there will be massive compromise...

So is it getting increasingly obvious that bitcoin is more of a "gold standard" and less of a currency to be used for a scalable amount of transactions?

We might have to accept it in order to move on...and if true, the pyramid example is exactly what will help us reach immediate consensus: bitcoin is going to tell us where we come from.

Cliffs: its all psychological, but you can't secure the collective peoples through psychological, you must secure it through a consensus mechanism.

Indeed. Because Bitcoin is clearly electronic gold then I am amazed that the price was nearly zero for 2 years after launch. Didn't people realise what a scarce resource it was then? There was already evidence that they could be sent irreversibly from person A to person B. Satoshi and Hal demonstrated it. That should be proof enough even today.