Topic: Bitcoin 20MB Fork - page 97. (Read 154787 times)

who will develop a new Bitcoin? Who is that Gavin? You can do it yourself. Also, there are many Altcoins. why would you need a NEW BTC?

there are already many "alt coins" available and the exchanges should accept them. Does it matter the name of the "coin" or the service it offers?

If there is no way to distinguish between them then everyone can just tell the miners that they want to use the free alternative.

And neither do you.

We don't need to distinguish between entities. We only need to allow them to exist. That's all.


So you already know that 12 BTC + whatever fees will not be enough. Ok. Please tell me what will the exchange rate be in 2 years. Oh wait you don't know shit.


I thought that it is already in development. Am I wrong? Even if it's not, do you think it will take more than 2 years to fully deploy it? I am sure it will not.


So you can't answer. Ok we got that covered. Throw more shit please. That's all that you have!

A lot.

With the upcoming 0.10 release bootstrap time will be reduced significantly, though.

You know that will be reduced, right? Or are you cherry picking which elements you want to be forward thinking about?


Because it's distributed and anonymous. There's no way to distinguish between different kind of entities. Your free wifis are always severly limited. So much so that I've never bothered using it. They can be limited this way because they are controlled by central entities. There is really very little in the real world that can be used for analogies in the bitcoin world.

People (like me) who want a small and hardened blockchain which cannot be censored don't generally have a need for fast confirmations.  We've got plenty of a buffer in mainstream fiat so we won't run out of Top Ramen any time soon.  Most transactions on Bitcoin are part of a long-term plan so that if it takes a few days to be fairly confident that a spend is locked good that is mostly just a nuisance that one can plan for, and of a magnitude that there is little difference between a $0.01 and $10.00 transaction fee.

What this means where the rubber meets the road is that we have a lot of flexibility in terms of how to thwart superior resource attacks.  Bitcoin has been sold to the plebs as some sort of an exchange currency which is 'better than cash/debit card/whatever.'  The latency inherent in the batch-mode system has been papered over, and most of the target audience is not really smart enough to even conceptualize it anyway.  The upshot here is that a superior resources attack is considered a terminal event for 'gavincoin' while the flexibility to deal with it in 'mpcoin' is much greater.

The only reason I don't want to see a fork and a lot of hassles is that a solid reserve core upon which various tuned end-user solutions rest is the best solution for the masses, and internecine warfare would set this back.  I'm a humanist I suppose.  In point of fact, a giant war would:

 - promote a wide range of developments which would harden 'bitcoin-legacy' significantly in a number of important ways,

 - be a way to capitalize on the ignorance and pigheadedness of the plebs and take advantage of the large entities who will be spending money to attempt to exploit these masses.


As a hodler, I will absolutely be dumping my 'gavincoin' and preserving my 'mpcoin'.  This will be quite trivial.  Just send BTC to myself when the block size is higher that 1MB.  Now I can spend my 'gavincoin' at will (provided that 'gavincoin' doesn't crash and burn right away...and that is where I expect the VC's who see the bigger picture to come to the rescue.)  My 'mpcoin' remain safe and sound and supported by a core of talented and autonomous entities who have the skillz needed to deal with whatever attacks come along.

I should mention also that in times of war, casualties are expected.  If I lose some value due to a partially successful 51% attack (which only threatens double-spends for transactions in play during a time segment), so be it.  Most other reasonably skilled crypto-currency enthusiasts will have a similar understanding which vastly strengthens us 'mpcoiners'.

Once 'gavincoin' has been vanquished the next war would be to get sidechains going for the benefit of humanity.  I've never got a sense from the Popescu crowd that the have any interest in doing something decent for the 99% and don't know what drives them.  Maybe simply pure greed.  Fine.  Having leverage in a system which is generally useful and empowering to the masses be a net win from a pure profit perspective as well.

And how many times has this actually been a problem?

What reward? Isn't a 25BTC reward enough to protect the network right now?

That's only possible if mining is monopolized and they require registration before using. I hope you don't get your way.
[/quote]

Again you only see one single version of what could possibly happen. Why can't we have services that are willing to pay a fee for various reasons? It seems that you are ignoring services like GreenAddress who might be willing to pay a higher than normal fee to protect against double spends or for whatever reason they come up? Let me get back to the Internet analogy. I am sure that Google or Facebook pay a shit tons of money for their internet connections while you pay only dimes compared to them. You can not pay anything if you connect through one of the many available WiFi hotspots. Why can't we have this with the blockchain too?


Pruning! We only need to develop a method to not store all the blockchain and we got rid of that problem. We got a robot to Mars, I am sure that we can find a way around a bloated blockchain!


I insist that you answer. What's in your view the value delivered by Bitcoin?

Edit:

You should give a fuck about services/projects that can't run to their full potential because of a block size limit (or because some people want it their way) if you care about bitcoin.

'No amount of time is too much time'.
Nice argument. How about we erase all services, since nobody gives a 'slightest f***'?

Do you have any idea how much time is required to bootstrap a full node?

Also nobody gives the slightest fuck about lighthouse.

https://www.vinumeris.com/lighthouse/faq#max-pledges

That pretty much explains it.

I did, and I found no evidence for what you are saying. Making a change that will have easily identifiable and very negative effects does not seem like a good idea to me, particularly when the only reason for doing it is a promise of more pies in the sky.

Besides, the average cost per GB now is 0.03$. Storage is the cheapest system upgrade that one can get.

nobody would use it because people won't buy new HD's just to run gavincoin


stupid question. GTFO

I'm not deciding it, I'm just telling you how it works. The reward is what makes miners protect bitcoin. If there is no reward there is no protection.

That's only possible if mining is monopolized and they require registration before using. I hope you don't get your way.

What's the reason that it wouldn't be viable after raising the block size limit?


What's the value delivered?

I have commented before why I don't like this idea. It has to do with exchange rates.

Bitcoin is the fucking service.