Pages:
Author

Topic: block limit, high fees Vs centralization. (Read 1012 times)

legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002
September 04, 2015, 04:54:46 PM
#29
good adam, glad you stopped cheering for sum twisted BIPs and got into the centralization/security issue.

keep diggin Smiley


ps: how about BIP000? https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/i-support-bip000-1170700  Grin

BIP00 is fine until miners are losing money because

a) they cant fit all TX in a block even some with fees
b) bitcoin become expensive to use therefore less useful, making its value DROP.



This is all extrapolations. Huh

+ I dont see how miners would loose money including only transactions with fees. Besides, halving is coming so...

Bitcoin's security should not be cheap, it is precisely what drives its token's value, again, not freely spamming the holy decentralized ledger with coffee tips.

For this you can use whatever altcoin thats suits you. Maybe even banks blockchains? or ripple. ^^

Bitcoin is not for the mass, it is not user friendly. Hence, the mass dont care about bitcoin, or only when they get bailed in... but still not for buying crap over the internet. Roll Eyes


see this is where i went wrong, i though bitcoin was to buy crap over the internet.

you're saying poeple ( alot of poeple ) are willing to pay huge fees to use bitcoin because it is holy?

idk, maybe high fees makes all kinds of blockchain apps impractical. not sure i see much demand for large TX using bitcoin just yet. maybe oneday.

I mean, no, you were not wrong, and I also happen to spend some bitcoins for things too (this are the perks of being early at this party, and will make a helluva story for the grand children ^^)

But i'd rather ultimately have a 1st ledger with high security and not some centralized digital dollar 2.0

Basically, this is all it boils down to:  bitcoin cannot technically handle all transactions in the world and on its own without being centralized, in terms of resources, bandwidth, storage etc.

So I think we need it as a sane base to build a lot of other things on top, like probably a cash 2.0.

But rejoy because if we manage to do so, Bitcoin will be the new worldwide FED.

So, as we saw what happened with other human governances like, noone should control it, for bitcoin's intrinsic value lies in its security, which should remain unbreakable, rock solid.

The second some 'cartel' (devs, miners, etc) gets a slight advantage over its network in order to "bend" the rules, bitcoin's value will be gone. This i'm sure of it.



a little "centralization" aka kicking the hobby miner with a DLS connection, is a small price to pay to keep bitcoin cheap.

thats were our opinions differ i guess.

i'd be OK with mining centralization that implies miners would need ~1million dollar to get into the bitcoin mining business and stay competitive  

we are far away from that but ya i'd be ok with that.



you wanna keep bitcoin cheap Huh




i dont get paid till next wednesday...

TX cost cheap you know what i mean.


Grin

but see? even you refer to it as an investment, in which you just keep on throwing some (not all?! ^^) of your salary.

i dont think the rest of the world aka the mass would have a different view on bitcoin if they ever jump aboard.

hence, it is not perceived for daily transactions, but rather the ultimate safe haven, secured investment, ticket to moon, etc...



ya i guess.

but i want my cake and eat it too

low cost TX && secure
 

hehe i know, but i also recall you guys being worried about bitpay, overstock et al., keeping the price of bitcoin down because of selling their earnings etc.. ^^


edit: in the end i am not 100% against any upgrade, but it just that now is not the time: there is no need, no tests, no data, no nothing, so i dont want to risk it based on some extravagant extrapolations.
besides the rest of the financial world is crippling day by day: so im all in for an expensive secured bitcoin! for the rest i'll keep spending my euros while it still here.. ^^
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
September 04, 2015, 04:52:49 PM
#28
good adam, glad you stopped cheering for sum twisted BIPs and got into the centralization/security issue.

keep diggin Smiley


ps: how about BIP000? https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/i-support-bip000-1170700  Grin

BIP00 is fine until miners are losing money because

a) they cant fit all TX in a block even some with fees
b) bitcoin become expensive to use therefore less useful, making its value DROP.



This is all extrapolations. Huh

+ I dont see how miners would loose money including only transactions with fees. Besides, halving is coming so...

Bitcoin's security should not be cheap, it is precisely what drives its token's value, again, not freely spamming the holy decentralized ledger with coffee tips.

For this you can use whatever altcoin thats suits you. Maybe even banks blockchains? or ripple. ^^

Bitcoin is not for the mass, it is not user friendly. Hence, the mass dont care about bitcoin, or only when they get bailed in... but still not for buying crap over the internet. Roll Eyes


see this is where i went wrong, i though bitcoin was to buy crap over the internet.

you're saying poeple ( alot of poeple ) are willing to pay huge fees to use bitcoin because it is holy?

idk, maybe high fees makes all kinds of blockchain apps impractical. not sure i see much demand for large TX using bitcoin just yet. maybe oneday.

I mean, no, you were not wrong, and I also happen to spend some bitcoins for things too (this are the perks of being early at this party, and will make a helluva story for the grand children ^^)

But i'd rather ultimately have a 1st ledger with high security and not some centralized digital dollar 2.0

Basically, this is all it boils down to:  bitcoin cannot technically handle all transactions in the world and on its own without being centralized, in terms of resources, bandwidth, storage etc.

So I think we need it as a sane base to build a lot of other things on top, like probably a cash 2.0.

But rejoy because if we manage to do so, Bitcoin will be the new worldwide FED.

So, as we saw what happened with other human governances like, noone should control it, for bitcoin's intrinsic value lies in its security, which should remain unbreakable, rock solid.

The second some 'cartel' (devs, miners, etc) gets a slight advantage over its network in order to "bend" the rules, bitcoin's value will be gone. This i'm sure of it.



a little "centralization" aka kicking the hobby miner with a DLS connection, is a small price to pay to keep bitcoin cheap.

thats were our opinions differ i guess.

i'd be OK with mining centralization that implies miners would need ~1million dollar to get into the bitcoin mining business and stay competitive  

we are far away from that but ya i'd be ok with that.



you wanna keep bitcoin cheap Huh




i dont get paid till next wednesday...

TX cost cheap you know what i mean.


Grin

but see? even you refer to it as an investment, in which you just keep on throwing some (not all?! ^^) of your salary.

i dont think the rest of the world aka the mass would have a different view on bitcoin if they ever jump aboard.

hence, it is not perceived for daily transactions, but rather the ultimate safe haven, secured investment, ticket to moon, etc...



ya i guess.

but i want my cake and eat it too

low cost TX && secure
 
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1012
September 04, 2015, 04:50:34 PM
#27
No. No need for a centralized source to have a default fee setting, Bitcoin Core has it.

Some (most) copies of Bitcoin Core have it.  The reason they have it is because a centralized source put it there.

Fortuantely, right now, it's just a "default fee" and not a "required fee" or "enforced fee".  Therefore, anyone can change their own software to pay more or less if they want to.


Thanks for the clarification, I thought the 3 points on Sending where somewhat blockchain dependent and not client dependent
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002
September 04, 2015, 04:47:56 PM
#26
good adam, glad you stopped cheering for sum twisted BIPs and got into the centralization/security issue.

keep diggin Smiley


ps: how about BIP000? https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/i-support-bip000-1170700  Grin

BIP00 is fine until miners are losing money because

a) they cant fit all TX in a block even some with fees
b) bitcoin become expensive to use therefore less useful, making its value DROP.



This is all extrapolations. Huh

+ I dont see how miners would loose money including only transactions with fees. Besides, halving is coming so...

Bitcoin's security should not be cheap, it is precisely what drives its token's value, again, not freely spamming the holy decentralized ledger with coffee tips.

For this you can use whatever altcoin thats suits you. Maybe even banks blockchains? or ripple. ^^

Bitcoin is not for the mass, it is not user friendly. Hence, the mass dont care about bitcoin, or only when they get bailed in... but still not for buying crap over the internet. Roll Eyes


see this is where i went wrong, i though bitcoin was to buy crap over the internet.

you're saying poeple ( alot of poeple ) are willing to pay huge fees to use bitcoin because it is holy?

idk, maybe high fees makes all kinds of blockchain apps impractical. not sure i see much demand for large TX using bitcoin just yet. maybe oneday.

I mean, no, you were not wrong, and I also happen to spend some bitcoins for things too (this are the perks of being early at this party, and will make a helluva story for the grand children ^^)

But i'd rather ultimately have a 1st ledger with high security and not some centralized digital dollar 2.0

Basically, this is all it boils down to:  bitcoin cannot technically handle all transactions in the world and on its own without being centralized, in terms of resources, bandwidth, storage etc.

So I think we need it as a sane base to build a lot of other things on top, like probably a cash 2.0.

But rejoy because if we manage to do so, Bitcoin will be the new worldwide FED.

So, as we saw what happened with other human governances like, noone should control it, for bitcoin's intrinsic value lies in its security, which should remain unbreakable, rock solid.

The second some 'cartel' (devs, miners, etc) gets a slight advantage over its network in order to "bend" the rules, bitcoin's value will be gone. This i'm sure of it.



a little "centralization" aka kicking the hobby miner with a DLS connection, is a small price to pay to keep bitcoin cheap.

thats were our opinions differ i guess.

i'd be OK with mining centralization that implies miners would need ~1million dollar to get into the bitcoin mining business and stay competitive  

we are far away from that but ya i'd be ok with that.



you wanna keep bitcoin cheap Huh




i dont get paid till next wednesday...

TX cost cheap you know what i mean.


Grin

but see? even you refer to it as an investment, in which you just keep on throwing some (not all?! ^^) of your salary.

i dont think the rest of the world aka the mass would have a different view on bitcoin if they ever jump aboard.

hence, it is not perceived for daily transactions, but rather the ultimate safe haven, secured investment, ticket to moon, etc...


legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
September 04, 2015, 04:42:07 PM
#25
good adam, glad you stopped cheering for sum twisted BIPs and got into the centralization/security issue.

keep diggin Smiley


ps: how about BIP000? https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/i-support-bip000-1170700  Grin

BIP00 is fine until miners are losing money because

a) they cant fit all TX in a block even some with fees
b) bitcoin become expensive to use therefore less useful, making its value DROP.



This is all extrapolations. Huh

+ I dont see how miners would loose money including only transactions with fees. Besides, halving is coming so...

Bitcoin's security should not be cheap, it is precisely what drives its token's value, again, not freely spamming the holy decentralized ledger with coffee tips.

For this you can use whatever altcoin thats suits you. Maybe even banks blockchains? or ripple. ^^

Bitcoin is not for the mass, it is not user friendly. Hence, the mass dont care about bitcoin, or only when they get bailed in... but still not for buying crap over the internet. Roll Eyes


see this is where i went wrong, i though bitcoin was to buy crap over the internet.

you're saying poeple ( alot of poeple ) are willing to pay huge fees to use bitcoin because it is holy?

idk, maybe high fees makes all kinds of blockchain apps impractical. not sure i see much demand for large TX using bitcoin just yet. maybe oneday.

I mean, no, you were not wrong, and I also happen to spend some bitcoins for things too (this are the perks of being early at this party, and will make a helluva story for the grand children ^^)

But i'd rather ultimately have a 1st ledger with high security and not some centralized digital dollar 2.0

Basically, this is all it boils down to:  bitcoin cannot technically handle all transactions in the world and on its own without being centralized, in terms of resources, bandwidth, storage etc.

So I think we need it as a sane base to build a lot of other things on top, like probably a cash 2.0.

But rejoy because if we manage to do so, Bitcoin will be the new worldwide FED.

So, as we saw what happened with other human governances like, noone should control it, for bitcoin's intrinsic value lies in its security, which should remain unbreakable, rock solid.

The second some 'cartel' (devs, miners, etc) gets a slight advantage over its network in order to "bend" the rules, bitcoin's value will be gone. This i'm sure of it.



a little "centralization" aka kicking the hobby miner with a DLS connection, is a small price to pay to keep bitcoin cheap.

thats were our opinions differ i guess.

i'd be OK with mining centralization that implies miners would need ~1million dollar to get into the bitcoin mining business and stay competitive  

we are far away from that but ya i'd be ok with that.



you wanna keep bitcoin cheap Huh




i dont get paid till next wednesday...

TX cost cheap you know what i mean.
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002
September 04, 2015, 04:41:03 PM
#24
good adam, glad you stopped cheering for sum twisted BIPs and got into the centralization/security issue.

keep diggin Smiley


ps: how about BIP000? https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/i-support-bip000-1170700  Grin

BIP00 is fine until miners are losing money because

a) they cant fit all TX in a block even some with fees
b) bitcoin become expensive to use therefore less useful, making its value DROP.



This is all extrapolations. Huh

+ I dont see how miners would loose money including only transactions with fees. Besides, halving is coming so...

Bitcoin's security should not be cheap, it is precisely what drives its token's value, again, not freely spamming the holy decentralized ledger with coffee tips.

For this you can use whatever altcoin thats suits you. Maybe even banks blockchains? or ripple. ^^

Bitcoin is not for the mass, it is not user friendly. Hence, the mass dont care about bitcoin, or only when they get bailed in... but still not for buying crap over the internet. Roll Eyes


see this is where i went wrong, i though bitcoin was to buy crap over the internet.

you're saying poeple ( alot of poeple ) are willing to pay huge fees to use bitcoin because it is holy?

idk, maybe high fees makes all kinds of blockchain apps impractical. not sure i see much demand for large TX using bitcoin just yet. maybe oneday.

I mean, no, you were not wrong, and I also happen to spend some bitcoins for things too (this are the perks of being early at this party, and will make a helluva story for the grand children ^^)

But i'd rather ultimately have a 1st ledger with high security and not some centralized digital dollar 2.0

Basically, this is all it boils down to:  bitcoin cannot technically handle all transactions in the world and on its own without being centralized, in terms of resources, bandwidth, storage etc.

So I think we need it as a sane base to build a lot of other things on top, like probably a cash 2.0.

But rejoy because if we manage to do so, Bitcoin will be the new worldwide FED.

So, as we saw what happened with other human governances like, noone should control it, for bitcoin's intrinsic value lies in its security, which should remain unbreakable, rock solid.

The second some 'cartel' (devs, miners, etc) gets a slight advantage over its network in order to "bend" the rules, bitcoin's value will be gone. This i'm sure of it.



a little "centralization" aka kicking the hobby miner with a DLS connection, is a small price to pay to keep bitcoin cheap.

thats were our opinions differ i guess.

i'd be OK with mining centralization that implies miners would need ~1million dollar to get into the bitcoin mining business and stay competitive 

we are far away from that but ya i'd be ok with that.



you wanna keep bitcoin cheap Huh







legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
September 04, 2015, 04:36:39 PM
#23
good adam, glad you stopped cheering for sum twisted BIPs and got into the centralization/security issue.

keep diggin Smiley


ps: how about BIP000? https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/i-support-bip000-1170700  Grin

BIP00 is fine until miners are losing money because

a) they cant fit all TX in a block even some with fees
b) bitcoin become expensive to use therefore less useful, making its value DROP.



This is all extrapolations. Huh

+ I dont see how miners would loose money including only transactions with fees. Besides, halving is coming so...

Bitcoin's security should not be cheap, it is precisely what drives its token's value, again, not freely spamming the holy decentralized ledger with coffee tips.

For this you can use whatever altcoin thats suits you. Maybe even banks blockchains? or ripple. ^^

Bitcoin is not for the mass, it is not user friendly. Hence, the mass dont care about bitcoin, or only when they get bailed in... but still not for buying crap over the internet. Roll Eyes


see this is where i went wrong, i though bitcoin was to buy crap over the internet.

you're saying poeple ( alot of poeple ) are willing to pay huge fees to use bitcoin because it is holy?

idk, maybe high fees makes all kinds of blockchain apps impractical. not sure i see much demand for large TX using bitcoin just yet. maybe oneday.

I mean, no, you were not wrong, and I also happen to spend some bitcoins for things too (this are the perks of being early at this party, and will make a helluva story for the grand children ^^)

But i'd rather ultimately have a 1st ledger with high security and not some centralized digital dollar 2.0

Basically, this is all it boils down to: bitcoin cannot technically handle all transactions in the world without being centralized, in terms of resources, bandwidth, storage etc.

So I think we need it as a sane base to build a lot of other things on top, like probably a cash 2.0.

But Bitcoin is the new worldwide FED, that is how i personnaly see it.

Noone should control it, for bitcoin's intrinsic value lies in its security, which should remain unbreakable, rock solid.

The second some 'cartel' (devs, miners, etc) gets a slight advantage over its network in order to "bend" the rules, bitcoin's value will be gone. This i'm sure of it.



a little "centralization" aka kicking the hobby miner with a DLS connection, is a small price to pay to keep bitcoin cheap.

thats were our opinions differ i guess.

i'd be OK with mining centralization that implies miners would need ~1million dollar to get into the bitcoin mining business and stay competitive  

we are far away from that but ya i'd be ok with that.

arguing against any increase almost feels like saying we should of not invented diggers to dig up gold faster, so that anyone could continue to mine gold with a pick ax and still be profitable.
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002
September 04, 2015, 04:19:51 PM
#22
good adam, glad you stopped cheering for sum twisted BIPs and got into the centralization/security issue.

keep diggin Smiley


ps: how about BIP000? https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/i-support-bip000-1170700  Grin

BIP00 is fine until miners are losing money because

a) they cant fit all TX in a block even some with fees
b) bitcoin become expensive to use therefore less useful, making its value DROP.



This is all extrapolations. Huh

+ I dont see how miners would loose money including only transactions with fees. Besides, halving is coming so...

Bitcoin's security should not be cheap, it is precisely what drives its token's value, again, not freely spamming the holy decentralized ledger with coffee tips.

For this you can use whatever altcoin thats suits you. Maybe even banks blockchains? or ripple. ^^

Bitcoin is not for the mass, it is not user friendly. Hence, the mass dont care about bitcoin, or only when they get bailed in... but still not for buying crap over the internet. Roll Eyes


see this is where i went wrong, i though bitcoin was to buy crap over the internet.

you're saying poeple ( alot of poeple ) are willing to pay huge fees to use bitcoin because it is holy?

idk, maybe high fees makes all kinds of blockchain apps impractical. not sure i see much demand for large TX using bitcoin just yet. maybe oneday.

I mean, no, you were not wrong, and I also happen to spend some bitcoins for things too (this are the perks of being early at this party, and will make a helluva story for the grand children ^^)

But i'd rather ultimately have a 1st ledger with high security and not some centralized digital dollar 2.0

Basically, this is all it boils down to:  bitcoin cannot technically handle all transactions in the world and on its own without being centralized, in terms of resources, bandwidth, storage etc.

So I think we need it as a sane base to build a lot of other things on top, like probably a cash 2.0.

But rejoy because if we manage to do so, Bitcoin will be the new worldwide FED.

So, as we saw what happened with other human governances like, noone should control it, for bitcoin's intrinsic value lies in its security, which should remain unbreakable, rock solid.

The second some 'cartel' (devs, miners, etc) gets a slight advantage over its network in order to "bend" the rules, bitcoin's value will be gone. This i'm sure of it.

legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
September 04, 2015, 04:10:34 PM
#21
good adam, glad you stopped cheering for sum twisted BIPs and got into the centralization/security issue.

keep diggin Smiley


ps: how about BIP000? https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/i-support-bip000-1170700  Grin

BIP00 is fine until miners are losing money because

a) they cant fit all TX in a block even some with fees
b) bitcoin become expensive to use therefore less useful, making its value DROP.



This is all extrapolations. Huh

+ I dont see how miners would loose money including only transactions with fees. Besides, halving is coming so...

Bitcoin's security should not be cheap, it is precisely what drives its token's value, again, not freely spamming the holy decentralized ledger with coffee tips.

For this you can use whatever altcoin thats suits you. Maybe even banks blockchains? or ripple. ^^

Bitcoin is not for the mass, it is not user friendly. Hence, the mass dont care about bitcoin, or only when they get bailed in... but still not for buying crap over the internet. Roll Eyes


see this is where i went wrong, i though bitcoin was to buy crap over the internet.

you're saying poeple ( alot of poeple ) are willing to pay huge fees to use bitcoin because it is holy?

idk, maybe high fees makes all kinds of blockchain apps impractical. not sure i see much demand for large TX using bitcoin just yet. maybe oneday.

with my BIP we can tell developers with a high degree of certainty that they can and always will be free to spam the holy decentralized ledger with wtv shit they wish so long as they pay a small fee.

now that i've said it it sounds funny.
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002
September 04, 2015, 04:01:52 PM
#20
good adam, glad you stopped cheering for sum twisted BIPs and got into the centralization/security issue.

keep diggin Smiley


ps: how about BIP000? https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/i-support-bip000-1170700  Grin

BIP00 is fine until miners are losing money because

a) they cant fit all TX in a block even some with fees
b) bitcoin become expensive to use therefore less useful, making its value DROP.



This is all extrapolations. Huh

+ I dont see how miners would loose money including only transactions with fees. Besides, halving is coming so...

Bitcoin's security should not be cheap, it is precisely what drives its token's value, again, not freely spamming the holy decentralized ledger with coffee tips.

For this you can use whatever altcoin thats suits you. Maybe even banks blockchains? or ripple. ^^

Bitcoin is not for the mass, it is not user friendly. Hence, the mass dont care about bitcoin, or only when they get bailed in... but still not for buying crap over the internet. Roll Eyes
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
September 04, 2015, 03:27:49 PM
#19
good adam, glad you stopped cheering for sum twisted BIPs and got into the centralization/security issue.

keep diggin Smiley


ps: how about BIP000? https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/i-support-bip000-1170700  Grin

BIP00 is fine until miners are losing money because

a) they cant fit all TX in a block even some with fees
b) bitcoin become expensive to use therefore less useful, making its value DROP.

legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002
September 04, 2015, 03:16:04 PM
#18
good adam, glad you stopped cheering for sum twisted BIPs and got into the centralization/security issue.

keep diggin Smiley


ps: how about BIP000? https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/i-support-bip000-1170700  Grin
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
September 04, 2015, 02:43:05 PM
#17
No. I will not sugarcoat these ideas because they are dangerous.

Making decisions on the security of a billion $ network based on targeting a certain transaction fee is the definition of "fucktarded"

BIP100 is less fucktardalishous?

No, I'm increasingly getting the sense that BIP100 is equally broken. Having miners decide on the blocksize makes no sense from a game-theory point of view. The block size is there to put a check on their ambition.

i agree BIP100 and this idea are on about the same level of crazy.

The people running nodes have the right to claim decision over the block size as they are the ones to whom the costs are externalized.
thats like saying merchant accepting VISA should determine what the fee should be, that's nutty.

no.

the system should somehow allow for free tx, but encourage users to pay a fee, what better way then say "sorry only room for 10 free TX in this block"

and there you go, we have a way to transfer value for FREE but in the end everyone pays the tiny fee...

 Huh

You've been drinking Adam? Your logic makes no sense. Does the VISA merchants pay for the deployment of the VISA network? If you answer no, as you should, you should realize why your comparison is "nutty".

Quote
the system should somehow allow for free tx, but encourage users to pay a fee, what better way then say "sorry only room for 10 free TX in this block

That is EXACTLY how it works right now so... why do you wanna change it?

cuz soon miners will say "sorry only room for 0 free TX in this block" on pretty much every block and that makes me le sad, le very sad. Cry

at one point they might say "sorry only room for a TX with a fee >0.001BTC" and that makes me le mad, le very mad!  Angry
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
September 04, 2015, 02:39:45 PM
#16
No. I will not sugarcoat these ideas because they are dangerous.

Making decisions on the security of a billion $ network based on targeting a certain transaction fee is the definition of "fucktarded"

BIP100 is less fucktardalishous?

No, I'm increasingly getting the sense that BIP100 is equally broken. Having miners decide on the blocksize makes no sense from a game-theory point of view. The block size is there to put a check on their ambition.

i agree BIP100 and this idea are on about the same level of crazy.

The people running nodes have the right to claim decision over the block size as they are the ones to whom the costs are externalized.
thats like saying merchant accepting VISA should determine what the fee should be, that's nutty.

no.

the system should somehow allow for free tx, but encourage users to pay a fee, what better way then say "sorry only room for 10 free TX in this block"

and there you go, we have a way to transfer value for FREE but in the end everyone pays the tiny fee...

 Huh

You've been drinking Adam? Your logic makes no sense. Does the VISA merchants pay for the deployment of the VISA network? If you answer no, as you should, you should realize why your comparison is "nutty".

Quote
the system should somehow allow for free tx, but encourage users to pay a fee, what better way then say "sorry only room for 10 free TX in this block

That is EXACTLY how it works right now so... why do you wanna change it?
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
September 04, 2015, 02:22:52 PM
#15
No. I will not sugarcoat these ideas because they are dangerous.

Making decisions on the security of a billion $ network based on targeting a certain transaction fee is the definition of "fucktarded"

BIP100 is less fucktardalishous?

No, I'm increasingly getting the sense that BIP100 is equally broken. Having miners decide on the blocksize makes no sense from a game-theory point of view. The block size is there to put a check on their ambition.

i agree BIP100 and this idea are on about the same level of crazy.

The people running nodes have the right to claim decision over the block size as they are the ones to whom the costs are externalized.
thats like saying merchant accepting VISA should determine what the fee should be, that's nutty.

no.

the system should somehow allow for free tx, but encourage users to pay a fee, what better way then say "sorry only room for 10 free TX in this block"

and there you go, we have a way to transfer value for FREE but in the end everyone pays the tiny fee...
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
September 04, 2015, 02:13:57 PM
#14
No. I will not sugarcoat these ideas because they are dangerous.

Making decisions on the security of a billion $ network based on targeting a certain transaction fee is the definition of "fucktarded"

BIP100 is less fucktardalishous?

No, I'm increasingly getting the sense that BIP100 is equally broken. Having miners decide on the blocksize makes no sense from a game-theory point of view. The block size is there to put a check on their ambition.

i agree BIP100 and this idea are on about the same level of crazy.

The people running nodes have the right to claim decision over the block size as they are the ones to whom the costs are externalized.
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
September 04, 2015, 01:47:27 PM
#13
No. I will not sugarcoat these ideas because they are dangerous.

Making decisions on the security of a billion $ network based on targeting a certain transaction fee is the definition of "fucktarded"

BIP100 is less fucktardalishous?

No, I'm increasingly getting the sense that BIP100 is equally broken. Having miners decide on the blocksize makes no sense from a game-theory point of view. The block size is there to put a check on their ambition.

i agree BIP100 and this idea are on about the same level of crazy.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
September 04, 2015, 01:43:19 PM
#12
No. I will not sugarcoat these ideas because they are dangerous.

Making decisions on the security of a billion $ network based on targeting a certain transaction fee is the definition of "fucktarded"

BIP100 is less fucktardalishous?

No, I'm increasingly getting the sense that BIP100 is equally broken. Having miners decide on the blocksize makes no sense from a game-theory point of view. The block size is there to put a check on their ambition.
legendary
Activity: 3472
Merit: 4801
September 04, 2015, 01:43:01 PM
#11
No. No need for a centralized source to have a default fee setting, Bitcoin Core has it.

Some (most) copies of Bitcoin Core have it.  The reason they have it is because a centralized source put it there.

Fortuantely, right now, it's just a "default fee" and not a "required fee" or "enforced fee".  Therefore, anyone can change their own software to pay more or less if they want to.
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
September 04, 2015, 01:39:51 PM
#10
No. I will not sugarcoat these ideas because they are dangerous.

Making decisions on the security of a billion $ network based on targeting a certain transaction fee is the definition of "fucktarded"

BIP100 is less fucktardalishous?

maybe so, wtv its just a though, i still think its cool to allow free TX however slow, and have blocksize grow such that this slow free TX is always possible. thank you for your input, as fucktarded as it is.
Pages:
Jump to: