Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 145. (Read 378996 times)
If they're not careful at Ledger, this guy is going to single-handedly destroy their reputation with his political rants. I can see him using that platform as well for his nonsense, the guy is relentless.
The common sense says that if bitcoin becomes uncompetitive and there is no other secure and decentralized alternative, then it will just give economic incentives to create such a system. From there it is just a matter of time that such a system will be created.
Regardless of technology improvement and development progress, bitcoin can't afford in any ways to become uncompetitive to remain relevant.
It's been 5 years since Bitcoin was introduced, and countless forks have appeared, some of them very interesting. There were low fees, fast blocks, different crypto, PoS and so on... None of these have succeeded at (or even got close to) challenging Bitcoin.Regardless of technology improvement and development progress, bitcoin can't afford in any ways to become uncompetitive to remain relevant.
I can't imagine a scenario where Bitcoin is being overtaken by another cryptocurrency, unless it's a real breakthrough in terms of design, and it still retains Bitcoin's properties. But in this case, it can be adopted by Bitcoin as well...
If you can define what kind of competitiveness you mean and picture a scenario, I'd be interested in reading that.
The competitiveness I am referring is mostly in terms of fees and delays. Right now there is no point of using an altcoin unless you are chasing pump n dump speculative bubbles but if using bitcoin becomes too expansive then it will make a lot of sense to start using some altcoins. Not because of technological breakthrough but simply because of economic pressures.
But none of these alt coins are as decentralized.. they run the risk of miner regulation the same as bitcoin but with much smaller network security. So we won't know unless there are some that offer high security/decentralization and lower fees, which may be just a short term play before those fees rise to meet bitcoins
what level of decentralization opens the door to "miner regulation"...
I wouldn't be surprised to hear LTC mining is more decentralized then Bitcoin's, and node count roughtly the same.
you people place way to much value on these aspects, there's a point of diminishing returns when it comes to decentralization, and the network seems to naturally run at a optimal level all by itself. think about it, if you heard bitcoin only had 300 full nodes running, and this was dangerous would you not fire up a node? if you hear bitcoin had 10K full nodes running and this was sufficient, would you be as inclined to run a full node???
it might even be that a extreme level of decentralization could be detrimental, upgrading the system as a whole becomes harder and longer, TX's might take longer to fully propagate, whatever.
the balance between efficiency Vs decentralization, is unclear, but it is certainly not a case in which every single user runs a full node, just like its not a case in which every single user trusts one central point.
The common sense says that if bitcoin becomes uncompetitive and there is no other secure and decentralized alternative, then it will just give economic incentives to create such a system. From there it is just a matter of time that such a system will be created.
Regardless of technology improvement and development progress, bitcoin can't afford in any ways to become uncompetitive to remain relevant.
It's been 5 years since Bitcoin was introduced, and countless forks have appeared, some of them very interesting. There were low fees, fast blocks, different crypto, PoS and so on... None of these have succeeded at (or even got close to) challenging Bitcoin.Regardless of technology improvement and development progress, bitcoin can't afford in any ways to become uncompetitive to remain relevant.
I can't imagine a scenario where Bitcoin is being overtaken by another cryptocurrency, unless it's a real breakthrough in terms of design, and it still retains Bitcoin's properties. But in this case, it can be adopted by Bitcoin as well...
If you can define what kind of competitiveness you mean and picture a scenario, I'd be interested in reading that.
The competitiveness I am referring is mostly in terms of fees and delays. Right now there is no point of using an altcoin unless you are chasing pump n dump speculative bubbles but if using bitcoin becomes too expansive then it will make a lot of sense to start using some altcoins. Not because of technological breakthrough but simply because of economic pressures.
But none of these alt coins are as decentralized.. they run the risk of miner regulation the same as bitcoin but with much smaller network security. So we won't know unless there are some that offer high security/decentralization and lower fees, which may be just a short term play before those fees rise to meet bitcoins
Unless an altcoin proves that good enough decentralization is good enough and being overly decentralized is being proven unnecessary and only hurts competitiveness.
I think this is important for bitcoin to find a balance with enough decentralization to keep the system secure AND competitive. Otherwise another altcoin will find that balance in the long run.
Peter R, I can't imagine why you thought this animated gif was a good idea. I know it's supposed to depict a "possible future" that you want to help bring about, but someone not following the issue could easily think that XT has grown to be competitive with Core, which isn't true at all. And the fact that you keep reposting it in various venues is -- well, it makes me wonder what you think you're accomplishing. And calling it a "Nash Equilibrium"? Why? Is there some mathematics supporting the gif?
Maybe Peter R's gif is just an indication that he's in the denial stage. People dancing on XT's grave probably isn't helping.
Maybe Peter R's gif is just an indication that he's in the denial stage. People dancing on XT's grave probably isn't helping.
I mentioned Peter R being in the "denial stage" as an offhand comment. Now that I've looked it up the stages of grief it might fit what we're seeing from XT supporters. In this thread, along with many others, there's been no shortage of "anger." The new "goal" of just wanting there to be competing implementations seems to fit the "bargaining" stage.
Yes, the "bargaining stage" framework is a great fit for explaining the current actions of some notable remaining Gavinista dead-enders.
It's the classic "well at least XT died accomplishing its mission of [Noble Cause]."
The stages of grief also explain the contradictory narratives we observe Team XT promulgating.
Those still in the denial stage put out the spin doctor "XT isn't dead; it's waiting in the wings. Wait until December, then you'll see!" fantasy. Zarassthua and Benighted22 are stuck in this initial stage.
PR, sgbett, Frap.doc, and [email protected] have moved on to the bargaining stage, wherein XT died as a sacrificial egg to make the #ScalingBitcoin omelet.
You say us grave dancers could "be a bit more gracious" but your mercilessly spot-on 'grieving stages' analysis twists the knife in their bellies more cruelly than our lighthearted clowning ever could.
Nice job!
How dare you!? I am most certainly in the "just you wait until december" camp, my xt-nodes blazing as a futile show of dissent!
The common sense says that if bitcoin becomes uncompetitive and there is no other secure and decentralized alternative, then it will just give economic incentives to create such a system. From there it is just a matter of time that such a system will be created.
Regardless of technology improvement and development progress, bitcoin can't afford in any ways to become uncompetitive to remain relevant.
It's been 5 years since Bitcoin was introduced, and countless forks have appeared, some of them very interesting. There were low fees, fast blocks, different crypto, PoS and so on... None of these have succeeded at (or even got close to) challenging Bitcoin.Regardless of technology improvement and development progress, bitcoin can't afford in any ways to become uncompetitive to remain relevant.
I can't imagine a scenario where Bitcoin is being overtaken by another cryptocurrency, unless it's a real breakthrough in terms of design, and it still retains Bitcoin's properties. But in this case, it can be adopted by Bitcoin as well...
If you can define what kind of competitiveness you mean and picture a scenario, I'd be interested in reading that.
The competitiveness I am referring is mostly in terms of fees and delays. Right now there is no point of using an altcoin unless you are chasing pump n dump speculative bubbles but if using bitcoin becomes too expansive then it will make a lot of sense to start using some altcoins. Not because of technological breakthrough but simply because of economic pressures.
But none of these alt coins are as decentralized.. they run the risk of miner regulation the same as bitcoin but with much smaller network security. So we won't know unless there are some that offer high security/decentralization and lower fees, which may be just a short term play before those fees rise to meet bitcoins
Peter R, I can't imagine why you thought this animated gif was a good idea. I know it's supposed to depict a "possible future" that you want to help bring about, but someone not following the issue could easily think that XT has grown to be competitive with Core, which isn't true at all. And the fact that you keep reposting it in various venues is -- well, it makes me wonder what you think you're accomplishing. And calling it a "Nash Equilibrium"? Why? Is there some mathematics supporting the gif?
Maybe Peter R's gif is just an indication that he's in the denial stage. People dancing on XT's grave probably isn't helping.
Maybe Peter R's gif is just an indication that he's in the denial stage. People dancing on XT's grave probably isn't helping.
I mentioned Peter R being in the "denial stage" as an offhand comment. Now that I've looked it up the stages of grief it might fit what we're seeing from XT supporters. In this thread, along with many others, there's been no shortage of "anger." The new "goal" of just wanting there to be competing implementations seems to fit the "bargaining" stage.
Yes, the "bargaining stage" framework is a great fit for explaining the current actions of some notable remaining Gavinista dead-enders.
It's the classic "well at least XT died accomplishing its mission of [Noble Cause]."
The stages of grief also explain the contradictory narratives we observe Team XT promulgating.
Those still in the denial stage put out the spin doctor "XT isn't dead; it's waiting in the wings. Wait until December, then you'll see!" fantasy. Zarassthua and Benighted22 are stuck in this initial stage.
PR, sgbett, Frap.doc, and [email protected] have moved on to the bargaining stage, wherein XT died as a sacrificial egg to make the #ScalingBitcoin omelet.
You say us grave dancers could "be a bit more gracious" but your mercilessly spot-on 'grieving stages' analysis twists the knife in their bellies more cruelly than our lighthearted clowning ever could.
Nice job!
The common sense says that if bitcoin becomes uncompetitive and there is no other secure and decentralized alternative, then it will just give economic incentives to create such a system. From there it is just a matter of time that such a system will be created.
Regardless of technology improvement and development progress, bitcoin can't afford in any ways to become uncompetitive to remain relevant.
It's been 5 years since Bitcoin was introduced, and countless forks have appeared, some of them very interesting. There were low fees, fast blocks, different crypto, PoS and so on... None of these have succeeded at (or even got close to) challenging Bitcoin.Regardless of technology improvement and development progress, bitcoin can't afford in any ways to become uncompetitive to remain relevant.
I can't imagine a scenario where Bitcoin is being overtaken by another cryptocurrency, unless it's a real breakthrough in terms of design, and it still retains Bitcoin's properties. But in this case, it can be adopted by Bitcoin as well...
If you can define what kind of competitiveness you mean and picture a scenario, I'd be interested in reading that.
The competitiveness I am referring is mostly in terms of fees and delays. Right now there is no point of using an altcoin unless you are chasing pump n dump speculative bubbles but if using bitcoin becomes too expansive then it will make a lot of sense to start using some altcoins. Not because of technological breakthrough but simply because of economic pressures.
The common sense says that if bitcoin becomes uncompetitive and there is no other secure and decentralized alternative, then it will just give economic incentives to create such a system. From there it is just a matter of time that such a system will be created.
Regardless of technology improvement and development progress, bitcoin can't afford in any ways to become uncompetitive to remain relevant.
It's been 5 years since Bitcoin was introduced, and countless forks have appeared, some of them very interesting. There were low fees, fast blocks, different crypto, PoS and so on... None of these have succeeded at (or even got close to) challenging Bitcoin.Regardless of technology improvement and development progress, bitcoin can't afford in any ways to become uncompetitive to remain relevant.
I can't imagine a scenario where Bitcoin is being overtaken by another cryptocurrency, unless it's a real breakthrough in terms of design, and it still retains Bitcoin's properties. But in this case, it can be adopted by Bitcoin as well...
If you can define what kind of competitiveness you mean and picture a scenario, I'd be interested in reading that.
I've always said that a valid fork would be one where average joe would understand the need to use, no other fork currently does that unless it provides value add in other ways, other than send/recv coins. Perhaps with all of the 2.0 coins some may provide sufficient value add that average joes start to believe that they are decentralized enough to replace bitcoin's transfer mechanism to this new technology. Although we still haven't counted for the stronger development power that bitcoin possesses, it may cause bitcoin to adapt and change for the better (whatever limited chance of that happening is). Today average joe's don't understand bitcoin and thus have no chance in trying to switch to a fork without even trying the base.
Laughed so hard I almost puked coffee. Eyes excreting liquid mirth.
Higher prices generates higher transaction volumes which generates bigger blocks.
It can hardly be more obvious IMO.
Bigger marketcap = acceptance = willing to wait for txIt can hardly be more obvious IMO.
Bigger marketcap = higher fees = willing to pay to reduce wait
This is true only if bitcoin remains competitive in terms of fees and delays. At some point, if bitcoin becomes uncompetitive, people will just switch to other cheaper and faster systems so it will lose market shares.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/market-dynamics.asp
would a competitor be just as secure and decentralized? If so then maybe, but again you cant predict a future point on a exponential curve with unknown variables.
#commonsense
The common sense says that if bitcoin becomes uncompetitive and there is no other secure and decentralized alternative, then it will just give economic incentives to create such a system. From there it is just a matter of time that such a system will be created.
Regardless of technology improvement and development progress, bitcoin can't afford in any ways to become uncompetitive to remain relevant.
If bitcoin is the only solution out there you can't compare it to todays centralized solutions. There is a premium on using a decentralized system, even though it is a discount currently.
What would the competition be? What does competitive mean to you? What is the cost of security in tomorrows world where trust of government finally starts to fall? These are the things you need to consider when trying to understand this concept.
The problem with creating such an alternative is that without an upgrade in innovation (one which we have yet to see, although I'd argue DPOS might be one tentatively) that there would need to be a tradeoff between security and performance/lower fees which aligns more with the needs for society at the time. If such a thing becomes accepted, bitcoin would be able to adapt itself however at that point I would agree that bitcoin could be challenged.
Also what are the chances that a fork community can come up with this innovation before bitcoin does? Perhaps bitcoin has a harder problem with software development consensus because it is the top dog and harder to change code unless they are soft-forks while competitors don't have this roadblock to deal with, but this is discounted by the fact that the community of bitcoin is so much larger. The ability for the larger community to solve problems in a way that benefits the larger audience may be a pro rather than a con... a trustless voting mechanism might help with this roadblock.
The common sense says that if bitcoin becomes uncompetitive and there is no other secure and decentralized alternative, then it will just give economic incentives to create such a system. From there it is just a matter of time that such a system will be created.
Regardless of technology improvement and development progress, bitcoin can't afford in any ways to become uncompetitive to remain relevant.
It's been 5 years since Bitcoin was introduced, and countless forks have appeared, some of them very interesting. There were low fees, fast blocks, different crypto, PoS and so on... None of these have succeeded at (or even got close to) challenging Bitcoin.Regardless of technology improvement and development progress, bitcoin can't afford in any ways to become uncompetitive to remain relevant.
I can't imagine a scenario where Bitcoin is being overtaken by another cryptocurrency, unless it's a real breakthrough in terms of design, and it still retains Bitcoin's properties. But in this case, it can be adopted by Bitcoin as well...
If you can define what kind of competitiveness you mean and picture a scenario, I'd be interested in reading that.
Higher prices generates higher transaction volumes which generates bigger blocks.
It can hardly be more obvious IMO.
Bigger marketcap = acceptance = willing to wait for txIt can hardly be more obvious IMO.
Bigger marketcap = higher fees = willing to pay to reduce wait
This is true only if bitcoin remains competitive in terms of fees and delays. At some point, if bitcoin becomes uncompetitive, people will just switch to other cheaper and faster systems so it will lose market shares.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/market-dynamics.asp
would a competitor be just as secure and decentralized? If so then maybe, but again you cant predict a future point on a exponential curve with unknown variables.
#commonsense
The common sense says that if bitcoin becomes uncompetitive and there is no other secure and decentralized alternative, then it will just give economic incentives to create such a system. From there it is just a matter of time that such a system will be created.
Regardless of technology improvement and development progress, bitcoin can't afford in any ways to become uncompetitive to remain relevant.
Higher prices generates higher transaction volumes which generates bigger blocks.
It can hardly be more obvious IMO.
Bigger marketcap = acceptance = willing to wait for txIt can hardly be more obvious IMO.
Bigger marketcap = higher fees = willing to pay to reduce wait
This is true only if bitcoin remains competitive in terms of fees and delays. At some point, if bitcoin becomes uncompetitive, people will just switch to other cheaper and faster systems so it will lose market shares.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/market-dynamics.asp
would a competitor be just as secure and decentralized? If so then maybe, but again you cant predict a future point on a exponential curve with unknown variables.
#commonsense
92% correlation? Well, if you count from 2009, then maybe. I'd be interested if Peter did this calculation over the last 2 years:
https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=2year&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=
https://blockchain.info/charts/market-price?timespan=2year&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=
Because counting from the beginning can only produce good propaganda, it seems it's what Peter is trying to do.
https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=2year&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=
https://blockchain.info/charts/market-price?timespan=2year&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=
Because counting from the beginning can only produce good propaganda, it seems it's what Peter is trying to do.
Higher prices generates higher transaction volumes which generates bigger blocks.
It can hardly be more obvious IMO.
Bigger marketcap = acceptance = willing to wait for txIt can hardly be more obvious IMO.
Bigger marketcap = higher fees = willing to pay to reduce wait
This is true only if bitcoin remains competitive in terms of fees and delays. At some point, if bitcoin becomes uncompetitive, people will just switch to other cheaper and faster systems so it will lose market shares.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/market-dynamics.asp
Higher prices generates higher transaction volumes which generates bigger blocks.
It can hardly be more obvious IMO.
Bigger marketcap = acceptance = willing to wait for txIt can hardly be more obvious IMO.
Bigger marketcap = higher fees = willing to pay to reduce wait
Higher prices generates higher transaction volumes which generates bigger blocks.
It can hardly be more obvious IMO.
It can hardly be more obvious IMO.
Here, for you noob :
"Higher transactions fees = Bigger market cap"
https://blockchain.info/charts/transaction-fees-usd?showDataPoints=false&show_header=true&daysAverageString=1×pan=2year&scale=1&address=
https://blockchain.info/charts/transaction-fees-usd?showDataPoints=false&show_header=true&daysAverageString=1×pan=2year&scale=1&address=
Higher prices generates higher transaction volumes which generates bigger blocks.
It can hardly be more obvious IMO.
It can hardly be more obvious IMO.
There's a new piece of LULz titled "bigger blocks = higher prices", I shit you not. Guess who made it.
I do believe this is a new low for him.
ayy lmao at that correlation with nicolas cage! #ReKT
Jump to: