Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 194. (Read 378996 times)

I hear you, but respectfully disagree.  I think Bitcoin should strive to handle all sizes of transactions, big and small, if possible.

There are a fair number of people (greater than, say, 'the one-percent') who don't live hand-to-mouth and who are not very sensitive to 'long' wait times.  To such people the security of the transaction is the most critical aspect.  The same people will tend to consider transaction fees in the $10's, or even $100's per to be fairly negligible.  There are enough such people in this world to create a demand for a high security system for transfer and storage of value alone, and to be fair one needs to add in the potential as a foundation upon which more flexible and well tuned systems can be built (e.g., 'sidechains'.)

The demands that the aformentioned classes of users makes on the system is conducive to having the system being well hardened against attacks of the type which will be able to complete hamstring a real-time trinket buying solution such as Paypal or XT/BIP101.  You people (excluding the shills who know exactly what I am saying) who can only see the latter use-case should understand that the former use-case will exist.  If you wish to consider it 'competition' and be actively adversarial to it is your call.  I would suggest you do not both because it doesn't make much sense and because it could elicit a response which is problematic for your cause.

Its also interesting to think about:  What happens if the fees are too HIGH (nevermind too low?).

Will users be more willing to wait for longer blocktimes and get lower fees if they think the security is ample?

  a bunch of sheeps 

I can't imagine how bored you must be to hang around spreading such platitudes.

you go on ignore

Because he know he will lose. Obviously.

I think we all know what he means.  The "main" chain of Bitcoin.  If Bitcoin forks, then whichever main chain of a fork has more work done in the blocks.

Its irrelevant since brg doesnt want to bet.

If there is 'no ambiguity' in your mind that is because your mind is not very flexible.  (You a tech writer?  If so, just on contract or genuine interest?)  If one burns a lot of cycles mining an invalid block it does not count toward 'cumulative work' by any definition.

I would not even take your bet if I got to define 'longest'.  I, like every other '1MBer' I can think of except perhaps MP, would be delighted to see larger blocks as long as they are safe _and_ needed.  It's possible that that could happen within the next year and that could be great news.  I think it more unlikely than not though.

Yes you can all stop bickering about it I'm never going to spend a satoshi on such a worthless endeavour.

"Let's bet" Seriously?!

Regardless of anyone's definition of validity, one chain will be longer than the rest (it will contain more cumulative work).  I am betting that this (longest) chain will contain a block greater than 1 MB in size by this time next year.  

There is no ambiguity in that definition.  

It's not simple at all of the blockchain forks because different groups consider different blocks to be 'valid.'  This is a very real possibility and within this timeframe.

Clearly the longest proof-of-work chain built from Bitcoin's Genesis Block.  The terms and definitions are trivially simple.

The trouble with most of these bets (which have been ubiquitous as long as I've been around) is that it is extraordinarily labor intensive to prepare the terms and definitions.  For instance, there is a very good chance that within a year there will be a >1MB block on 'the longest proof-of-work chain'.  But which chain is 'the'.

Maybe he doesn't have that much money or risk tolerance.

Still, you should bet at least .01 BTC if you are that confident
you are right.  Think of it as a gentlemen's multisig bet

That says a lot.

 

I am not interested in your wager Peter, I have better use for my money.

Let me ask you again, have you considered Adam's block extension proposal?

If you felt cheated it's only because of your wrong interpretation of what Satoshi meant by p2p cash. It seems you are suggesting he meant a low-cost, frictionless means-of-exchange. Surely if that was his intention one must be left to wonder why he'd decide on an expensive and inefficient POW algorithm.

Have you considered that maybe what he truly meant was a censorship-resistant bearer instrument free of third-party reliance?

That would seem to fit the design he chose and reflect what Bitcoin is truly great at.

Understand that the use cases you refer to are not what can serve as the makings of an economy. The next paypal maybe, but not the next gold standard which is what we should all hope Bitcoin becomes. Do you have any idea of what the valuation of Bitcoin would be if we attracted a majority of the existing gold bugs? Here's a little more on this:

I'll even put my money where my mouth is: I would like to wager you 1 BTC that by this time next year (September 8, 2016) that the longest proof-of-work chain will include a block greater than 1 MB in size.  If you agree, we will both deposit 1 BTC into a 2-of-3 multisig address.  We will have a neutral third-party hold the third key. 

Would you like to accept this wager?

Correct.  Furthermore, we can even rigorously show that the equilibrium hashing rate will increase when the political measure is introduced--holding all other variables constant. 

Clearly we haven't seen a change yet so it seems presumptuous for you to pretend knowing what the market will want "eventually".


Your last sentence doesn't make much sense... the halving is baked into the protocol, the market has no responsibility over the upcoming change in inflation rate unless it wants to change it.


Funny you say that. You are aware that the same applies to the block size change? How can you claim to have a genuine picture of what the Bitcoin holders want?


I understand it very well thank you and I do believe it continues to serve a great purpose as an anti-spam measure. Do you understand that only a fraction of the current network load are true p2p transactions between users? By all estimate we are sitting near an average of not much more than 300kb of legitimate transactions. Why would you want to lift the anti-spam measure under these conditions?

I get your chart.

Just to play devil's advocate for a second, the cap advocates would
say that once the political measure is introduced, both the
lower and higher bounds of the miners revenue price per byte will shift up dramatically.