Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 29. (Read 378991 times)

Seriously check your history, gold and silver coins have been the predominant form of currency for the majority of human civilization. Fiat is only a relatively recent development, Bitcoin represents a return to commodity money and the deflationary economics of the past.

You'll need to be a little more patient because we're far away from there.

That's why it's rather stupid to attempt to cater to these people right now.

Let's focus on the lowest hanging fruit shall we?

did "teh mass" ever had gold in any meaningful way?

hmnope.

"Irrational fear mongering" heh  

That's a tool of XT proponents. I'd be great if you could stop pointing fingers when faced with an inconvenient truth.

Last time I checked we were getting forked off by BIP101 in December by the industry derps.. What happened?

Get a grip will you? Even Gavin has moved on from BIP101. It's been months already and there's yet to be any sign of traction.What gives?

Maybe so but this does not change the importance of Bitcoin being a viable currency in order to attract further mass adoption.

The "mass" is always the last phase of adoption. Long before Bitcoin gets anywhere close to a global, mainstream payment network it will need to be adopted as a store-of-value by several orders-of-magnitude more wealthy people looking for a safe refuge for their wealth.

These concepts are still very new and scary to many Bitcoiners. You played a large part in the irrational fear mongering so you can answer part of this question yourself. I am not convinced however that BIP101 has been unanimously rejected, I think it is still to early to tell.

If Satoshi's vision was so well represented in the XT fork then maybe you can explain why it was unanimously rejected by Bitcoin users by and large?

This is correct, first a commodity, then a currency and a commodity and only after these stages can it become a global reserve and or settlement system. Mass adoption is still a necessary first step in this process. The financial elites of today will not choose to use Bitcoin when they can command and control their own systems instead. Only through global adoption where we become the new financial elites while rendering the old power structures obsolete can this transformation take place.

It can be said that the other side feels this way as well. They might even say the same thing about their ideological opponents. Considering that many people did sign up for the vision of Satoshi which Core presently seems to be diverting from.

It's possible gmaxwell has had enough abuse. Apparently he gave up commit access to the bitcoin github. I saw his last post was in this thread a few days ago.

I've found the abuse the Core devs and BlockStream to terrible. I wouldn't blame any of them for choosing to walk away. On certain (unimportant) forums there's some celebration of the idea that gmaxwell may be walking away. Reading it, I have to say that I would walk away from a community with so many evil people. Frankly, I don't want to be in a "community" with people like that either. If there were a way to boot all of them out and keep gmaxwell, I'd prefer that. If they'd just fork off and leave the rest of us with Bitcoin, things would probably be fine (after a shaking out period). Instead they seem intent on "occupying" Bitcoin.

I'm sure gmaxwell knows he has a lot of supporters in the Bitcoin community. That wouldn't change if he decided to leave. I think most people would understand.

You're really dense aren't ya?

Gold didn't start off as a currency but as ornament, jewelry & collectibles hence the argument that people first have to find value in a commodity and hold it before it gains traction as a currency.

You should check your history, gold and silver coins have been used as a currency and a commodity for the majority of our known history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_coin

You cannot be serious....

For starters one of Bitcoin's central aspect is that for maybe the first time in history you can hold something that cannot be debased. Surely you'd agree that's quite a change from fiat.

It is reasonable to expect that people will still be dealing with financial institutions decades from now, whether it be banks, central clearing houses or what not.

The trendy "be your own bank" line is nothing but pipedream. Financial institutions are not going to disappear, they'll just be held accountable for their actions by the market and only the most competitive and innovative ones will survive. No more TBTF bailout.

It doesn't.

Typically any form of money that is not fiat started gaining traction as a currency only because people tended to hold it as they considered it valuable.

I personally believe Bitcoin's main goal is providing monetary sovereignty. But how can you make use of it, if you can't transact in a trustless way, because blockchain is only for settlements? How is that any better than fiat? Hence all this debate. Hence the Lightning Network. It is supposed to solve this problem: let you transact in Bitcoin in a trustless manner, but without the need to put every tx on the blockchain. If we just sit and do nothing, Bitcoin is going nowhere (well, I exaggerate, but it has a lot more potential). It's too early to freeze the protocol, though it must be done eventually, I believe.

I think Bitcoin can do both, and that these different aspects of Bitcoin actually reinforce each other. I also do not think Bitcoin will become a world reserve currency without experiencing mass adoption as a currency for the people first, history also certainly supports this theory as well.

It is a payment system variable, but payment system is only a small component in a monetary system, thus the priority is much lower than the monetary system's integrity and security. If you get a transaction capacity problem, you talk to paypal, not Federal Reserve

The monetary rule is only FED's tool, their major task is maintain market confidence. I think core devs should also prioritize that,  as they are the one that can affect the market confidence of bitcoin ecosystem

If you want bitcoin network to become the world's most trustworthy money with predefined money supply schedule, responsible for money distribution to other institutions, then nothing needs to be done: The Fedwire system that handles large transactions between Federal reserve and thousands of member banks in US do 4 tps, and bitcoin can do that today

If you want bitcoin to become a paypal like system that handles high frequency trading between billions of private people, then it is an e-commerce system. Its capacity is heavily limited by the CPU speed and network bandwidth (not block size limit), due to the nature of P2P network (exponentially rising data traffic and lag with more and more nodes).

Of course it will be good that bitcoin can both be a secure monetary system while still be able to serve billions of users at protocol level, but if you can not get both, which one do you prioritize? I think it is a huge waste of resource to use thousands of nodes on a P2P network to make sure a coffee transaction is tamper resistant 

Yes. So, you don't have to check the code here, right? And instead be a generalist and give up details. SegWit is generally quite simple.

Bitcoin is a monetary system, and its rules (like inflation schedule) are predefined. There's no need for any sort of 'central bank view' to exist, and I deem it dangerous to suggest that anyone (be it core or not) is similar to FOMC, and can act on that basis.

But Bitcoin is also a payment system, and here we need programmers. Variables pertaining to its payment system part can be changed, if these changes do not contradict its monetary rules.

The question is: Is blocksize limit a monetary or a payment system variable?

If the block size is to raise to avoid a suddenly formed fee market, then fee will always be small relative to block reward, at least for decades to come.

This is because fee is an effective measure to compensate orphan risk, as long as orphan risk stays below 10%, the fee will always be less than 1/10 of the block subsidy, no matter how small the block subsidy is. I'm not sure what kind of orphan risk miners are willing to take today, but I think there is an optimum range: They could include thousands of transactions in a block and become orphaned 50% of time, thus get only half the block subsidy and rest must come from fee; or collect no transactions thus only receive block subsidy with minimum orphan risk. There is a middle ground somewhere they can feel comfortable with, e.g. the maximum transaction that they can include without incur a high orphan risk

Is there any chance the fee will rise to replace block subsidy?