Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 150. (Read 378996 times)

Currently, aggregate fees are less than aggregate orphan costs.  


I agree that miner's will optimize for profit.  That's the working premise of my fee market paper.  


The market-governance hypothesis is falsifiable.  However, currently the empirical data does not refute it.  

Regarding the transaction fee market, empirical evidence already shows that on average bigger blocks contain more fees.  Additional fees are necessary to offset the larger block's increased chance of orphaning.  Approximately 1% of blocks are orphaned, resulting in a loss to the miner.  This is what creates a fee market as described in this talk at Scaling Bitcoin.  

Miners will mine the coin with the most value.

Anyway, how about you both get lost with your "hypothesis"?

Only Mathematics rules, and no, it does not encompass any democratic procedures within it...

In Vires Numeris.

Did you catch Max Keiser today? He was talking about the blocksize debate with Jaromil, and both were referring to your little putsch in the past tense.

Time appears to be telling on you.

My hypothesis is supported by current observations of the network dynamics.

Yours is based on faulty assumptions derived from your "paper" that pretend "cost of production" (which I presume is another name for orphan costs) are non-negligible on the long-term and that it is not trivial for miners to overcome them by cooperating/centralizing.

By all account you are wrong as miners have already shown a tendency to optimize for profit. An unbounded block size will only grow this incentive.

You have your hypothesis and I have mine.  We will only be able to determine which is correct with the benefit of hindsight.  Like I said upthread, the nice thing is that these hypotheses are at least partly testable.  If your theory is correct (that the market will tolerate a limit to the left of Q*) then that would have the affect of pushing aggregate fees above the aggregate cost of production for block space.  If the total miner fees collected over a six month period in the future were, for example, twice the total block rewards lost due to orphaning, then I think I would agree that your theory is correct.  

Time will tell.

Agreed.  I would actually go further and predict that there will never exist two competing blockchain forks over a sustained period of time. 

You are yet again guilty of the very sophism Carlton Banks pointed out. The reason the market consensus tolerates a limit to the left of Q* is because of the OBVIOUS & CONSIDERABLE negative externalities brought about by an unbounded block size.

On the other hand, what consensus does not tolerate is your pathetic repeated attempts to hand wave away this issue as trivial and non-important when it is fundamental to the incentives of Bitcoin

This has been debated during 2013 fork incident, let me recall this:

Suppose that all the blocks are full on the core chain and now miners are starting to raise the fee. People who want to do micro transactions cheaply will protest by moving to XT chain. XT chain acts like a side chain to reduce the load for the mainchain. So rich people who often do large transactions stays with core chain while poor people who do micro transactions go with XT

Because of the fork, all the prefork coins can be spent on both chain, the rich guys on core would like to dump their prefork coins on XT chain, and poor guys on XT would also like to dump their prefork coins on core

Because the XT chain participants are mostly poor, they can not support its exchange rate, it will just crash to single digits or even less. while the rich guys on core chain will be busy collecting coins dumped by XT guys

So a fork without super majority will never be able to grow and reach any meaningful size of economy

I agree. 

In the Bitcoin economy the market = consensus

Until consensus approves a block size increase then you might as well say that the market does not agree to one either.

Unlikely, the ice'n'berg show must go on! Ego's are at stake!

I think some of the "heat" regarding the block size limit and multiple-implementations comes down to the existence of two opposing visions of what Bitcoin is.  Some think Bitcoin is ultimately governed by mathematics, others think it's the market.  

My opinion is that Bitcoin is ultimately governed by the market; only over the short term is it governed by mathematics (the source code).  Because this is my view point, multiple implementations are a good thing to me because they remove friction and allow the market to more easily meet its demands (e.g., a larger block size limit).  If someone has the opposing view, then I could understand why they might view multiple implementations as a danger (e.g., the rules could be changed by the market).

What's interesting is that the answer to who's vision is correct is, at least partly, testable.  If the market-governance theory is correct, then it should not be possible to drive a fee market significantly above the free-market equilibrium.  The market will tolerate a block size limit to the right of Q* (i.e., a limit serving as an anti-spam measure but not affecting the free market dynamics).  



However, the market will not tolerate a limit to the left of Q* (a limit that results in a deadweight loss of economic activity).  



If the market wants to be at Q*, how can that same market force it to be at Qmax instead?  

If the market theory is correct, then the total miner fees should never significantly exceed the total coins lost to orphaning over a sustained period of time.  This would be one way to refute the market-governance hypothesis.  Since Q* is now very close to bumping into Qmax, perhaps we'll have our answer within a year or so.


Cross posted: https://bitco.in/forum/threads/block-space-as-a-commodity-a-transaction-fee-market-exists-without-a-block-size-limit.58/page-6#post-1944

I've watched paid shills change opinions on this forum for years. Some of them are quite successful. They generally argue against seemingly rational and well thought out arguments with a vigor that highlights their true purpose. The next steps in the irrational debate are name calling and doxing. This happens because someone arguing against the shill wants to invalidate, what appears to be, an unwavering irrational argument. The last step is usually the "you're stupid, I'm leaving the debate" stage. What step in the process are we at now? I think we're 2-4 pages from the last step.

Everybody knows that this graph shows an outcome that he would prefer and you fear: competition and decentralization of implementations. No ground to accuse it as misleading.

Are you sure that Peter Rizun is just incapable of thinking rationally? You're alluding to the implausibility of that notion when you concede that you cannot understand Peter's motivation for using misleading graphics or fantasy mathematics.

Could it be that you are the first person in all history to repeat the ad hominem accusation so frequently that it constitutes an ad hominem in it's own right?

The ad hominem ad hominem (thus spake Zarasthustra)  

There's too much conspiratorial accusations on both sides here. I'm not inclined to think Peter R wants to "kill Bitcoin." But I'm also not inclined to think BlockStream is trying to "block the stream of transactions," so it's hard for me to get too upset about people accusing Peter R of trying to "kill Bitcoin."

But 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?

Someone against XT could  make a similar gif depicting a "Tyson Equilibrium" that would show XT growing to about 10% with Core being close to 90% and then the Core part of the pie chart could grow fists and beat the XT part silly until it bleeds and cries and gets overtaken. This wouldn't prove anything, but it would be funny and arguably a more accurate representation of the current situation.

But I have to say, as someone who's relieved that XT hasn't gained traction, those of us against XT could be a bit more gracious. 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.

The chance that notorious, sociopathic ad hominem attackers speak the truth is zero.

I've told you before: it's not ad hominem if it's true (or relevant). Everything is here in black and white, so there's no need to repeat yourself, you're not convincing anyone.

Notorious ad hominem attackers don't deserve friendly answers. But Peter speaks friendly even to a sociopath like you. I couldn't; and I admire him.
The absurdity is screaming when people like you and brg talk about sociopathy.