Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 174.

Peter R

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1007

Quote from: coalitionfor8mb on September 23, 2015, 07:03:52 PM

Quote from: Peter R on September 23, 2015, 06:55:33 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 23, 2015, 06:09:58 PM

Of course if bitcoin becomes too much expensive to use other cheaper systems will get their shares of the market reducing the usage of bitcoin. I don't see how this could be good for bitcoin in any possible way.

If the economic pressure is relieved by people leaving (or never entering) the economic system, then I think this would result in a decline (or a levelling out) of Bitcoin's market cap.

So again, if the "economic pressure from deadweight loss gets relieved somehow" theory is true, then not only does it mean that we can't use the protocol to artificially increase fees, but it also means that any attempt to do so will instead have either no effect (the code will fork around it) or a negative effect (growth within the Bitcoin economy will stall or reverse [rather than fees increasing]).

Food for thought!

Oh, that one is simple!

The PoW nature of systems in question must prevent their uncontrolled duplication, so there will be only a few worth considering switching to. Plus the network effects of money in general will preserve the economic pressure from leaving the strongest networks in the field (which is again defined by manageable costs of running a full validator from home networks without permission).

And other security models aren't real honey badgers to be of any interest to many. Grin

I'm not sure I'm following. Are you saying that the path of least resistance is to fork the protocol to raise the block size limit? Or that you think the system can permanently exist in a state where Qmax is to the left of Q* (economic pressure to create a fork exists yet the fork never happens)?

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: knight22 on September 23, 2015, 06:52:51 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 23, 2015, 06:46:51 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 23, 2015, 06:30:13 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 23, 2015, 06:25:47 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 23, 2015, 06:16:12 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 23, 2015, 06:14:22 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 23, 2015, 06:09:58 PM

Quote from: Peter R on September 23, 2015, 05:59:51 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 23, 2015, 03:55:11 PM

Well would you look at that, even people within your own little circle jerk are calling you out on your myopic conceptualization of the economy.

Don't you think maybe it's time you exit the vacuum and see if your economic theories apply in the real world?

If you read the thread, you'd see that I posted a two-sentence "proof" (<-- I used the scare quotes to indicate that it probably wasn't a proof), and then asked people to poke holes in it.

I agree with @molecular. The economic pressure can also be relieved, for example, by people voluntarily leaving the economic system. This would drop the supply curve such that it meets the demand curve at a point near the quota (Qmax).

What is interesting, is that either way (by fork or by people leaving the system), somehow the result is that Q* ends up to the left of Qmax! If this simple result is true, it would imply that it is not possible to use a block size limit to drive up fees.

Of course if bitcoin becomes too much expensive to use other cheaper systems will get their shares of the market reducing the usage of bitcoin. I don't see how this could be good for bitcoin in any possible way.

It is good because Bitcoin was never about serving the cheap transactions market. People who cannot pay for the security and censorship-resistance it offers are not valuable clients.

Here again:

Quote from: Peter R on September 23, 2015, 05:59:51 PM

What is interesting, is that either way (by fork or by people leaving the system), somehow the result is that Q* ends up to the left of Qmax! If this simple result is true, it would imply that it is not possible to use a block size limit to drive up fees.

It also means less people will indirectly hold bitcoins.

The result is not true so I'm not even sure why you would bring this up. Trace Mayer even addressed this exact situation during the interview:

Quote

Another thing that's interesting to look at is looking at a chart, not just of transactions but of transaction fees normalized to USD and comparing that chart to the market cap of Bitcoin. You know what? The market cap follows almost exactly how much people are willing to spend on transaction fees. So the conclusion we can draw is the more people are willing to spend the higher market cap. Then we get to see who's actually willing to pay to use it. That's a hard cost that people incur using the Bitcoin network.

I think it's great to see more hard cost because then we get to filter who the real users are because they are willing to pay money to use it.

Yeah sure but the real question is how much money they will be willing to pay when there are cheaper alternatives that offers the exact same features around the corner?

Great way to push bitcoin to be a real failure.

So your whole argument hangs on the premise that some imaginary crypto will come through, sponsored by corporations and banks, and will steal Bitcoin's lunch money?

Where does your delusion stops Huh

A cheaper proposition doesn't need to be sponsored by anybody. Do you know how cheap it is to copy open code and tweak it? The economics and incentives at play will just work by itself.
Do you know how many altcoins are there waiting to catch some spectrum of the market bitcoin would miss? http://coinmarketcap.com/

Bitcoin is not alone and will never be. It needs to compete in terms of value proposition in all. possible. ways. or it will just lose that market share.

That is precisely why you are abjectly wrong.

A ton of altcoin exists right now with enormously more transaction throughput yet not one of them is challenging Bitcoin.

I'm starting to figure you will never understand this but the people who give Bitcoin its value, the holders, the "bitcoin rich list", could not careless about the transaction throughput or higher transaction fees. They will not be driven away from their investment because some noobs complain that they have to pay more than a penny for their transactions to go through.

Without these people it doesn't matter if you altcoin can do 1 trillion transactions a second because it is worthless as no serious investors has any interest holding it on the long term.

coalitionfor8mb

jr. member

Activity: 42

Merit: 1

Quote from: Peter R on September 23, 2015, 06:55:33 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 23, 2015, 06:09:58 PM

Of course if bitcoin becomes too much expensive to use other cheaper systems will get their shares of the market reducing the usage of bitcoin. I don't see how this could be good for bitcoin in any possible way.

If the economic pressure is relieved by people leaving (or never entering) the economic system, then I think this would result in a decline (or a levelling out) of Bitcoin's market cap.

So again, if the "economic pressure from deadweight loss gets relieved somehow" theory is true, then not only does it mean that we can't use the protocol to artificially increase fees, but it also means that any attempt to do so will instead have either no effect (the code will fork around it) or a negative effect (growth within the Bitcoin economy will stall or reverse [rather than fees increasing]).

Food for thought!

Oh, that one is simple!

The PoW nature of systems in question must prevent their uncontrolled duplication, so there will be only a few worth considering switching to. Plus the network effects of money in general will preserve the economic pressure from leaving the strongest networks in the field (which is again defined by manageable costs of running a full validator from home networks without permission).

And other security models aren't real honey badgers to be of any interest to many. Grin

Peter R

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1007

Quote from: knight22 on September 23, 2015, 06:09:58 PM

Quote from: Peter R on September 23, 2015, 05:59:51 PM

If you read the thread, you'd see that I posted a two-sentence "proof" (<-- I used the scare quotes to indicate that it probably wasn't a proof), and then asked people to poke holes in it.

I agree with @molecular. The economic pressure can also be relieved, for example, by people voluntarily leaving the economic system. This would drop the supply curve such that it meets the demand curve at a point near the quota (Qmax).

What is interesting, is that either way (by fork or by people leaving the system), somehow the result is that Q* ends up to the left of Qmax! If this simple result is true, it would imply that it is not possible to use a block size limit to drive up fees.

Of course if bitcoin becomes too much expensive to use other cheaper systems will get their shares of the market reducing the usage of bitcoin. I don't see how this could be good for bitcoin in any possible way.

If the economic pressure is relieved by people leaving (or never entering) the economic system, then I think this would result in a decline (or a levelling out) of Bitcoin's market cap.

So again, if the "economic pressure from deadweight loss gets relieved somehow" theory is true, then not only does it mean that we can't use the protocol to artificially increase fees, but it also means that any attempt to do so will instead have either no effect (the code will fork around it) or a negative effect (growth within the Bitcoin economy will stall or reverse [rather than fees increasing]).

Food for thought!

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: brg444 on September 23, 2015, 06:46:51 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 23, 2015, 06:30:13 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 23, 2015, 06:25:47 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 23, 2015, 06:16:12 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 23, 2015, 06:14:22 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 23, 2015, 06:09:58 PM

Quote from: Peter R on September 23, 2015, 05:59:51 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 23, 2015, 03:55:11 PM

Well would you look at that, even people within your own little circle jerk are calling you out on your myopic conceptualization of the economy.

Don't you think maybe it's time you exit the vacuum and see if your economic theories apply in the real world?

If you read the thread, you'd see that I posted a two-sentence "proof" (<-- I used the scare quotes to indicate that it probably wasn't a proof), and then asked people to poke holes in it.

I agree with @molecular. The economic pressure can also be relieved, for example, by people voluntarily leaving the economic system. This would drop the supply curve such that it meets the demand curve at a point near the quota (Qmax).

What is interesting, is that either way (by fork or by people leaving the system), somehow the result is that Q* ends up to the left of Qmax! If this simple result is true, it would imply that it is not possible to use a block size limit to drive up fees.

Of course if bitcoin becomes too much expensive to use other cheaper systems will get their shares of the market reducing the usage of bitcoin. I don't see how this could be good for bitcoin in any possible way.

It is good because Bitcoin was never about serving the cheap transactions market. People who cannot pay for the security and censorship-resistance it offers are not valuable clients.

Here again:

Quote from: Peter R on September 23, 2015, 05:59:51 PM

What is interesting, is that either way (by fork or by people leaving the system), somehow the result is that Q* ends up to the left of Qmax! If this simple result is true, it would imply that it is not possible to use a block size limit to drive up fees.

It also means less people will indirectly hold bitcoins.

The result is not true so I'm not even sure why you would bring this up. Trace Mayer even addressed this exact situation during the interview:

Quote

Another thing that's interesting to look at is looking at a chart, not just of transactions but of transaction fees normalized to USD and comparing that chart to the market cap of Bitcoin. You know what? The market cap follows almost exactly how much people are willing to spend on transaction fees. So the conclusion we can draw is the more people are willing to spend the higher market cap. Then we get to see who's actually willing to pay to use it. That's a hard cost that people incur using the Bitcoin network.

I think it's great to see more hard cost because then we get to filter who the real users are because they are willing to pay money to use it.

Yeah sure but the real question is how much money they will be willing to pay when there are cheaper alternatives that offers the exact same features around the corner?

Great way to push bitcoin to be a real failure.

So your whole argument hangs on the premise that some imaginary crypto will come through, sponsored by corporations and banks, and will steal Bitcoin's lunch money?

Where does your delusion stops Huh

A cheaper proposition doesn't need to be sponsored by anybody. Do you know how cheap it is to copy open code and tweak it? The economics and incentives at play will just work by itself.
Do you know how many altcoins are there waiting to catch some spectrum of the market bitcoin would miss? http://coinmarketcap.com/

Bitcoin is not alone and will never be. It needs to compete in terms of value proposition in all. possible. ways. or it will just lose that market share.

Which means it needs to stay fast, cheap, private, secure etc

Remove one of those attribute and you'll lose that market share and not being cheap enough endangers to lose them all.

coalitionfor8mb

jr. member

Activity: 42

Merit: 1

Quote from: knight22 on September 23, 2015, 06:45:59 PM

Quote from: coalitionfor8mb on September 23, 2015, 06:44:30 PM

I will put the summary here again.

Bitcoin can leverage its network effect gained from the first mover advantage in order to play it safe with regards to its limit on block size as the cost to switch would be the highest, but other systems would need to stay within the confines of the home networks in order to provide the same core value proposition to compete with Bitcoin properly.

Bitcoin needs to move only when it absolutely has to, there is no reason to do this at the moment.

It is more imminent than you might think.

As recent reports show, Bitcoin has already saturated the average bandwidth level of home networks in some countries, so any competing system would have a hard time squeezing in. Anything that doesn't run from home cannot directly compete with Bitcoin by definition.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: knight22 on September 23, 2015, 06:45:59 PM

Quote from: coalitionfor8mb on September 23, 2015, 06:44:30 PM

I will put the summary here again.

Bitcoin can leverage its network effect gained from the first mover advantage in order to play it safe with regards to its limit on block size as the cost to switch would be the highest, but other systems would need to stay within the confines of the home networks in order to provide the same core value proposition to compete with Bitcoin properly.

Bitcoin needs to move only when it absolutely has to, there is no reason to do this at the moment.

It is more imminent than you might think.

I'm guessing you're seeing this in your crystal ball Cheesy

?

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: knight22 on September 23, 2015, 06:30:13 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 23, 2015, 06:25:47 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 23, 2015, 06:16:12 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 23, 2015, 06:14:22 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 23, 2015, 06:09:58 PM

Quote from: Peter R on September 23, 2015, 05:59:51 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 23, 2015, 03:55:11 PM

Well would you look at that, even people within your own little circle jerk are calling you out on your myopic conceptualization of the economy.

Don't you think maybe it's time you exit the vacuum and see if your economic theories apply in the real world?

If you read the thread, you'd see that I posted a two-sentence "proof" (<-- I used the scare quotes to indicate that it probably wasn't a proof), and then asked people to poke holes in it.

I agree with @molecular. The economic pressure can also be relieved, for example, by people voluntarily leaving the economic system. This would drop the supply curve such that it meets the demand curve at a point near the quota (Qmax).

What is interesting, is that either way (by fork or by people leaving the system), somehow the result is that Q* ends up to the left of Qmax! If this simple result is true, it would imply that it is not possible to use a block size limit to drive up fees.

Of course if bitcoin becomes too much expensive to use other cheaper systems will get their shares of the market reducing the usage of bitcoin. I don't see how this could be good for bitcoin in any possible way.

It is good because Bitcoin was never about serving the cheap transactions market. People who cannot pay for the security and censorship-resistance it offers are not valuable clients.

Here again:

Quote from: Peter R on September 23, 2015, 05:59:51 PM

What is interesting, is that either way (by fork or by people leaving the system), somehow the result is that Q* ends up to the left of Qmax! If this simple result is true, it would imply that it is not possible to use a block size limit to drive up fees.

It also means less people will indirectly hold bitcoins.

The result is not true so I'm not even sure why you would bring this up. Trace Mayer even addressed this exact situation during the interview:

Quote

Another thing that's interesting to look at is looking at a chart, not just of transactions but of transaction fees normalized to USD and comparing that chart to the market cap of Bitcoin. You know what? The market cap follows almost exactly how much people are willing to spend on transaction fees. So the conclusion we can draw is the more people are willing to spend the higher market cap. Then we get to see who's actually willing to pay to use it. That's a hard cost that people incur using the Bitcoin network.

I think it's great to see more hard cost because then we get to filter who the real users are because they are willing to pay money to use it.

Yeah sure but the real question is how much money they will be willing to pay when there are cheaper alternatives that offers the exact same features around the corner?

Great way to push bitcoin to be a real failure.

So your whole argument hangs on the premise that some imaginary crypto will come through, sponsored by corporations and banks, and will steal Bitcoin's lunch money?

Where does your delusion stops Huh

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: coalitionfor8mb on September 23, 2015, 06:44:30 PM

I will put the summary here again.

Bitcoin can leverage its network effect gained from the first mover advantage in order to play it safe with regards to its limit on block size as the cost to switch would be the highest, but other systems would need to stay within the confines of the home networks in order to provide the same core value proposition to compete with Bitcoin properly.

Bitcoin needs to move only when it absolutely has to, there is no reason to do this at the moment.

It is more imminent than you might think.

coalitionfor8mb

jr. member

Activity: 42

Merit: 1

I will put the summary here again.

Bitcoin can leverage its network effect gained from the first mover advantage in order to play it safe with regards to its limit on block size as the cost to switch would be the highest, but other systems would need to stay within the confines of the home networks in order to provide the same core value proposition to compete with Bitcoin properly.

Bitcoin needs to move only when it absolutely has to, there is no reason to do this at the moment.

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: brg444 on September 23, 2015, 06:25:47 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 23, 2015, 06:16:12 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 23, 2015, 06:14:22 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 23, 2015, 06:09:58 PM

Quote from: Peter R on September 23, 2015, 05:59:51 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 23, 2015, 03:55:11 PM

Well would you look at that, even people within your own little circle jerk are calling you out on your myopic conceptualization of the economy.

Don't you think maybe it's time you exit the vacuum and see if your economic theories apply in the real world?

If you read the thread, you'd see that I posted a two-sentence "proof" (<-- I used the scare quotes to indicate that it probably wasn't a proof), and then asked people to poke holes in it.

I agree with @molecular. The economic pressure can also be relieved, for example, by people voluntarily leaving the economic system. This would drop the supply curve such that it meets the demand curve at a point near the quota (Qmax).

What is interesting, is that either way (by fork or by people leaving the system), somehow the result is that Q* ends up to the left of Qmax! If this simple result is true, it would imply that it is not possible to use a block size limit to drive up fees.

Of course if bitcoin becomes too much expensive to use other cheaper systems will get their shares of the market reducing the usage of bitcoin. I don't see how this could be good for bitcoin in any possible way.

It is good because Bitcoin was never about serving the cheap transactions market. People who cannot pay for the security and censorship-resistance it offers are not valuable clients.

Here again:

Quote from: Peter R on September 23, 2015, 05:59:51 PM

What is interesting, is that either way (by fork or by people leaving the system), somehow the result is that Q* ends up to the left of Qmax! If this simple result is true, it would imply that it is not possible to use a block size limit to drive up fees.

It also means less people will indirectly hold bitcoins.

The result is not true so I'm not even sure why you would bring this up. Trace Mayer even addressed this exact situation during the interview:

Quote

Another thing that's interesting to look at is looking at a chart, not just of transactions but of transaction fees normalized to USD and comparing that chart to the market cap of Bitcoin. You know what? The market cap follows almost exactly how much people are willing to spend on transaction fees. So the conclusion we can draw is the more people are willing to spend the higher market cap. Then we get to see who's actually willing to pay to use it. That's a hard cost that people incur using the Bitcoin network.

I think it's great to see more hard cost because then we get to filter who the real users are because they are willing to pay money to use it.

Yeah sure but the real question is how much money they will be willing to pay when there are cheaper alternatives that offers the exact same features around the corner?

Great way to push bitcoin to be a real failure.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: knight22 on September 23, 2015, 06:16:12 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 23, 2015, 06:14:22 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 23, 2015, 06:09:58 PM

Quote from: Peter R on September 23, 2015, 05:59:51 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 23, 2015, 03:55:11 PM

Well would you look at that, even people within your own little circle jerk are calling you out on your myopic conceptualization of the economy.

Don't you think maybe it's time you exit the vacuum and see if your economic theories apply in the real world?

If you read the thread, you'd see that I posted a two-sentence "proof" (<-- I used the scare quotes to indicate that it probably wasn't a proof), and then asked people to poke holes in it.

I agree with @molecular. The economic pressure can also be relieved, for example, by people voluntarily leaving the economic system. This would drop the supply curve such that it meets the demand curve at a point near the quota (Qmax).

What is interesting, is that either way (by fork or by people leaving the system), somehow the result is that Q* ends up to the left of Qmax! If this simple result is true, it would imply that it is not possible to use a block size limit to drive up fees.

Of course if bitcoin becomes too much expensive to use other cheaper systems will get their shares of the market reducing the usage of bitcoin. I don't see how this could be good for bitcoin in any possible way.

It is good because Bitcoin was never about serving the cheap transactions market. People who cannot pay for the security and censorship-resistance it offers are not valuable clients.

Here again:

Quote from: Peter R on September 23, 2015, 05:59:51 PM

What is interesting, is that either way (by fork or by people leaving the system), somehow the result is that Q* ends up to the left of Qmax! If this simple result is true, it would imply that it is not possible to use a block size limit to drive up fees.

It also means less people will indirectly hold bitcoins.

The result is not true so I'm not even sure why you would bring this up. Trace Mayer even addressed this exact situation during the interview:

Quote

Another thing that's interesting to look at is looking at a chart, not just of transactions but of transaction fees normalized to USD and comparing that chart to the market cap of Bitcoin. You know what? The market cap follows almost exactly how much people are willing to spend on transaction fees. So the conclusion we can draw is the more people are willing to spend the higher market cap. Then we get to see who's actually willing to pay to use it. That's a hard cost that people incur using the Bitcoin network.

I think it's great to see more hard cost because then we get to filter who the real users are because they are willing to pay money to use it.

coalitionfor8mb

jr. member

Activity: 42

Merit: 1

Quote from: Peter R on September 23, 2015, 05:59:51 PM

it would imply that it is not possible to use a block size limit to drive up fees.

There are three limitations that play against each other in the considerations above.

1) The limit on block size in any particular system.
2) The network effect of the first mover serving as a limit incurring costs to switch.
3) The limit on bandwidth in home networks defining the playing field.

Bitcoin can leverage its first mover advantage in order to play it safe with regards to its limit on block size as the cost to switch would be the highest, but other systems would need to stay within the confines of the home networks in order to provide the same core value proposition to compete with Bitcoin properly.

That's why Bitcoin only needs to move when any other similar system begins to approach its effective transaction volume while running on home networks.

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: brg444 on September 23, 2015, 06:14:22 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 23, 2015, 06:09:58 PM

Quote from: Peter R on September 23, 2015, 05:59:51 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 23, 2015, 03:55:11 PM

Well would you look at that, even people within your own little circle jerk are calling you out on your myopic conceptualization of the economy.

Don't you think maybe it's time you exit the vacuum and see if your economic theories apply in the real world?

If you read the thread, you'd see that I posted a two-sentence "proof" (<-- I used the scare quotes to indicate that it probably wasn't a proof), and then asked people to poke holes in it.

I agree with @molecular. The economic pressure can also be relieved, for example, by people voluntarily leaving the economic system. This would drop the supply curve such that it meets the demand curve at a point near the quota (Qmax).

What is interesting, is that either way (by fork or by people leaving the system), somehow the result is that Q* ends up to the left of Qmax! If this simple result is true, it would imply that it is not possible to use a block size limit to drive up fees.

Of course if bitcoin becomes too much expensive to use other cheaper systems will get their shares of the market reducing the usage of bitcoin. I don't see how this could be good for bitcoin in any possible way.

It is good because Bitcoin was never about serving the cheap transactions market. People who cannot pay for the security and censorship-resistance it offers are not valuable clients.

Here again:

Quote from: Peter R on September 23, 2015, 05:59:51 PM

What is interesting, is that either way (by fork or by people leaving the system), somehow the result is that Q* ends up to the left of Qmax! If this simple result is true, it would imply that it is not possible to use a block size limit to drive up fees.

It also means less people will indirectly hold bitcoins.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: knight22 on September 23, 2015, 06:09:58 PM

Quote from: Peter R on September 23, 2015, 05:59:51 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 23, 2015, 03:55:11 PM

Well would you look at that, even people within your own little circle jerk are calling you out on your myopic conceptualization of the economy.

Don't you think maybe it's time you exit the vacuum and see if your economic theories apply in the real world?

If you read the thread, you'd see that I posted a two-sentence "proof" (<-- I used the scare quotes to indicate that it probably wasn't a proof), and then asked people to poke holes in it.

I agree with @molecular. The economic pressure can also be relieved, for example, by people voluntarily leaving the economic system. This would drop the supply curve such that it meets the demand curve at a point near the quota (Qmax).

What is interesting, is that either way (by fork or by people leaving the system), somehow the result is that Q* ends up to the left of Qmax! If this simple result is true, it would imply that it is not possible to use a block size limit to drive up fees.

Of course if bitcoin becomes too much expensive to use other cheaper systems will get their shares of the market reducing the usage of bitcoin. I don't see how this could be good for bitcoin in any possible way.

It is good because Bitcoin was never about serving the cheap transactions market. People who cannot pay for the security and censorship-resistance it offers are not valuable clients.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: Peter R on September 23, 2015, 05:59:51 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 23, 2015, 03:55:11 PM

Well would you look at that, even people within your own little circle jerk are calling you out on your myopic conceptualization of the economy.

Don't you think maybe it's time you exit the vacuum and see if your economic theories apply in the real world?

If you read the thread, you'd see that I posted a two-sentence "proof" (<-- I used the scare quotes to indicate that it probably wasn't a proof), and then asked people to poke holes in it.

I agree with @molecular. The economic pressure can also be relieved, for example, by people voluntarily leaving the economic system. This would drop the supply curve such that it meets the demand curve at a point near the quota (Qmax).

What is interesting, is that either way (by fork or by people leaving the system), somehow the result is that Q* ends up to the left of Qmax! If this simple result is true, it would imply that it is not possible to use a block size limit to drive up fees.

It most certainly isn't.

Bitcoin offers a unique value proposition and whatever the block supply will be there will be competition for it and lesser economic interests might be driven away but there is an enormous amount of capital that will bid for this service.

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: Peter R on September 23, 2015, 05:59:51 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 23, 2015, 03:55:11 PM

Well would you look at that, even people within your own little circle jerk are calling you out on your myopic conceptualization of the economy.

Don't you think maybe it's time you exit the vacuum and see if your economic theories apply in the real world?

If you read the thread, you'd see that I posted a two-sentence "proof" (<-- I used the scare quotes to indicate that it probably wasn't a proof), and then asked people to poke holes in it.

I agree with @molecular. The economic pressure can also be relieved, for example, by people voluntarily leaving the economic system. This would drop the supply curve such that it meets the demand curve at a point near the quota (Qmax).

What is interesting, is that either way (by fork or by people leaving the system), somehow the result is that Q* ends up to the left of Qmax! If this simple result is true, it would imply that it is not possible to use a block size limit to drive up fees.

Of course if bitcoin becomes too much expensive to use other cheaper systems will get their shares of the market reducing the usage of bitcoin. I don't see how this could be good for bitcoin in any possible way.

Peter R

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1007

Quote from: hdbuck on September 23, 2015, 03:26:21 PM

Quote from: Zarathustra on September 23, 2015, 03:14:43 PM

Quote from: Peter R on September 23, 2015, 01:08:35 PM

Quote from: hdbuck on September 23, 2015, 12:01:11 PM

Quote from: tvbcof on September 23, 2015, 11:40:53 AM

Quote from: Peter R on September 23, 2015, 10:40:57 AM

By the way, I am still taking 1 BTC bets (subject to deposit in a 2-of-3 escrowed wallet) that the longest proof-of-work chain will contain a block larger than 1 MB by this time next year.

And still with a high degree of vaugeness about what is meant by 'the longest proof-of-work chain' I see.

I will say that in my mind, a change in protocol which is not agreed to by ALL of the currently active core contributors is not valid and it does not matter if it is long enough to reach from Earth to the edge of the solar system.

Btw if peter would be more serious about this, i'd take the bet.

I am quite serious. If the longest chain contains a block greater than 1 MB by this time next year I win, otherwise you win. The longest chain is defined as the chain built on top of the Satoshi genesis block with the greatest cumulative difficulty. If Bitcoin forks, then I only win if the "large block" fork has a greater cumulative difficulty than the "small block" fork.

As for escrow, I am open to suggestions. Danny Hamilton and Jonald Fyookball come to mind. We would each deposit 1 BTC into a 2-of-3 multisig address and the escrow would hold the third key.

Whatever you offer, they refuse.
q.e.d.

im just waiting he finally and "validly" formulates his bet, taking into consideration the only relevant parameter the original idea of "the longest blockchain" thing he keeps on invoking and instead of twisting it to fit his bs.

I don't see why miners would extend chains that are invalid according to their protocol rules. Anyways, my bet is that the longest proof-of-work chain will contain a block larger than 1 MB by this time next year. You said the chain needs to be "valid" too, and then you'll consider taking the bet.

OK, I'll play along, would you care to define what you mean by valid?

Peter R

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1007

Quote from: brg444 on September 23, 2015, 03:55:11 PM

Well would you look at that, even people within your own little circle jerk are calling you out on your myopic conceptualization of the economy.

Don't you think maybe it's time you exit the vacuum and see if your economic theories apply in the real world?

If you read the thread, you'd see that I posted a two-sentence "proof" (<-- I used the scare quotes to indicate that it probably wasn't a proof), and then asked people to poke holes in it.

I agree with @molecular. The economic pressure can also be relieved, for example, by people voluntarily leaving the economic system. This would drop the supply curve such that it meets the demand curve at a point near the quota (Qmax).

What is interesting, is that either way (by fork or by people leaving the system), somehow the result is that Q* ends up to the left of Qmax! If this simple result is true, it would imply that it is not possible to use a block size limit to drive up fees.

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

lol reminds me of what i red down on the www.bitcoin.com page:

"you are missing the point of bitcoin if you feel left out" (<- GOLD), blabla just go do whatever you do! Mkae-a-paymunt! XD

no but, seriously who buys this crap? Cheesy

Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 174. (Read 378996 times)