Topic: Fork off - page 18. (Read 37762 times)

No, dumb move.

If there is internecine warfare associated with a fork there will likely be a transfer of wealth (and most likely significant and with potential fatal losses on both sides.)  If you close off your view to one side of the war and only listen to your leaders, you are a but a foot soldier and pawn and have a much greater chance of ending up a casualty.  But censorship seems to be your thing and something you argue for daily, and it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks...even if one cares to try.  Only those more stupid than yourself will take your advice and suffer your same fate.

I think it's a smart move to block him. I disagree with what he's saying. I decided on my opinion for myself after hearing the arguments from both sides. His was insanity (in my opinion). So I'm on the side opposing him (and you too apparently), that's all.

If a raving lunatic is shouting things at me in the street I don't necessarily listen to him either. That's a bit more of an extreme example than in this case, but serves to illustrate my point.

Look how sensitive you are to my simple blocking of him. It just goes to prove my point: If no one is listening to him then that cuts his "power" to argue insanities, as no one will be listening. The whelping has begun already.

Block size =/= block size limit.
Okay you obviously are smarter than Gavin.  


Smart move.

i disagree here. Supply and demand make the price of a coin. Bitcoin isn't scarce enough right now because of this insanely long phase of high inflation (8% to 10% this  year). This inflation bleeds out your marketcap. So that's the number one thing to be noticed: bitcoin is right now not scarce at all with 3600 new coins every day dumped on the market

#2 thing is: in an industry of competing alts scarcity will become mandatory - and i mean 'scarcity' ... not like 10% to 30% inflation years into adoption.
Coins will be valued according to demand and supply (of course). As long as they are scarce and useful nothing goes to zero, why should it?

I don't see what you're actually fearing because bitcoin right now is useless as money because of  the megalomania which says it needs to be inflationary which turns out to be constant oversupply and loss in cap and declining interest from the public. This bitcoincommunities entire logic and idea is totally strange and actually wrong logic.

10 alts can coexists literally forever if they 1) traget different groups of consumers 2) are useful for different things 3)can each secure a demand for them 4) they are reasonably scarce (low inflation) to support their value and reduce their volatility

Bitcoins volatilty is a pain and is caused mainly by the high inflation. That inflation you got there kills it right in front of you but you seem to be all high on something so you actually don't even see that. Scalability isn't even a topic for a coin that's unable to maintain a value like bitcoin.

Coins will be valued according to demand and supply (of course). As long as they are scarce and useful nothing goes to zero, why should it?

Smart move.

And there is most certainly an affected market when you manipulate block sizes! You don't see it yet because it isn't an issue yet, but there will be a market for mining fees. This is a much bigger threat to Bitcoin than the prospect of a bunch of poor nobodies having to actually pay for the seeming miraculous service of sending any amount of wealth anywhere in the world in an hour. You should better worry about the people who literally secure the network. Do you think they will do this work for free? They will not keep mining blocks when the block reward is no longer significant, and users will not make up the difference out of the kindness of their hearts. Supply and demand drive price. There is a finite supply of transaction space, and that is why users will include a fee. This whole hard fork drama is part of the bigger brain-damaged notion that Bitcoin isn't about money.

I think the thing to do is to click "ignore danielpbarron."

And that's just what I have done.
Ahh, problem solved.
I seriously encourage all who disagree with him to follow suit.

If no one is listening to him then that cuts his "power" to argue insanities, as no one will be listening.

...
For instance: you meet a girl. Do you take her to a soup kitchen? No, you do not.  ...

I think the thing to do is to click "ignore danielpbarron."

And that's just what I have done.

Ahh, problem solved.

I seriously encourage all who disagree with him to follow suit.

If no one is listening to him then that cuts his "power" to argue insanities, as no one will be listening.

The trading engine wasn't what I was talking about. I was referring to his Options Emporium (MPOE). If you have brilliant technology and build a product on top of it (in the case a web-enabled product - I won't use the term "web site" since it is too demeaning for you), shouldn't you at least try to put in minimal effort to make it usable by regular people?

Throttling the motion of money by making it expensive to move smells authoritarian/elitist to me. Better 10,000 tx at 5c per, than having to persuade 100 people to spend $5 on it. Fungibility, liquidity and velocity are all related. Something fucking expensive, but fucking hard to move is not going to find a buyer quickly.

I don't know about authoritarian, but elitists, I believe that's exactly what they are. I don't even think they would object to being called just that. Did you read Trilema? Not making any judgment here, but I believe it needs to be pointed out to understand their point of view.

Or maybe I just belong to idiots

Elitism is very much a fact of life, in any and all cases where your life works, and your experiences are satisfactory or enjoyable; it's as much a requisite of happy living as clean air. For instance: you meet a girl. Do you take her to a soup kitchen? No, you do not. You take her to Pomodoro's. Why? Oh, because you wish to project this air of elitism about you, like saying "Honey, as long as you're hanging on my arm, no doors in this city are closed to you" ? Well done you elitist democrat you.

Throttling the motion of money by making it expensive to move smells authoritarian/elitist to me. Better 10,000 tx at 5c per, than having to persuade 100 people to spend $5 on it. Fungibility, liquidity and velocity are all related. Something fucking expensive, but fucking hard to move is not going to find a buyer quickly.

I don't know about authoritarian, but elitists, I believe that's exactly what they are. I don't even think they would object to being called elitists. Did you read Trilema? Not making any judgment here, but I believe it needs to be pointed out to understand their point of view.

Or maybe I just belong to idiots

Throttling the motion of money by making it expensive to move smells authoritarian/elitist to me.

And there is most certainly an affected market when you manipulate block sizes! You don't see it yet because it isn't an issue yet, but there will be a market for mining fees. This is a much bigger threat to Bitcoin than the prospect of a bunch of poor nobodies having to actually pay for the seeming miraculous service of sending any amount of wealth anywhere in the world in an hour. You should better worry about the people who literally secure the network. Do you think they will do this work for free? They will not keep mining blocks when the block reward is no longer significant, and users will not make up the difference out of the kindness of their hearts. Supply and demand drive price. There is a finite supply of transaction space, and that is why users will include a fee.

In this climate all the alts which have a larger block limit trumpet their capability. One or two of them could gain traction and erode Bitcoin's first mover status. Serious erosion would result if nothing gets done.

MPEx isn't a "web site." Unlike gox and stamp and all the other scam-exchanges, MPEx is a legitimate trading engine that also happens to have a few web front-ends.

Worst example ever. Please go away. The only reason to be against this fork would be to be against more adoption.
The limitation is really something that will cause problems in the future, a lot of them.

Such a ridiculous fork would never take place because :a) block size limit isn't a fundamental feature; b) the supply is.
Changing the block size limit doesn't affect the market or miners at all.

Now, they have a new plan, one which aims to convince the world that Bitcoin can be compartmentalised as if it were nothing more than an estate sale in which governments and their lackeys pick over the best parts while the junk is tossed. You might be inclined, as I was, to think that the communist shitlord, otherwise known as Andreas M Antonopoulos, was the only one stating blockchain technology platitudes but you would be wrong. In fact, it appears there is a contrived effort to insert the idea into our minds that the Bitcoin network and the technology can be separated from Bitcoin the unit of account. They failed to convince us that Bitcoin in its entirety was worthless but their compromise seeks to trick you into believing that bitcoin remains worthless while the technology holds value for them, but not you.

Bitcoin can be hi-jacked by a simple majority?  

The ALT coins can fork.  

But once a crypto is past the age of 4.  Or $10m in marketcap.
No you do not fork.

Bitcoin the only value it has against the ALTs is that it will not fork, because it is impossible to establish a 99% consensus.  

Want a better 'bitcoin' make one
Launch it on the market.  

Hell give a snap shot distribution to the bitcoin holders.

Let the market, not a group of devs decide.