Topic: Fork off - page 23. (Read 37776 times)

I use PayPal maybe a dozen times per year and wire money once every few years.  I use cash and/or my debit card and/or my credit card VASTLY more often.  Probably I am not atypical in this.

So, your examples are specialized 'exchange' examples which don't map well to the real world.

More importantly, I already have a plethora of solutions for real-world exchange duty that work quite well for me (PayPal, Visa, ACH, etc.)  Yes, they all can (and do) act as monitors to keep an eye on me.  I have no need for yet another if Bitcoin becomes the same basic solution, and there is zero doubt in my mind that that is exactly what will happen as a prerequisite for Bitcoin to function in a high-capacity mode.

A 'sidechains' scenario with Bitcoin freezing in it's current tight and defensible form offers me the best of all worlds.  I can use spy-chains when I don't care, spy-less chains when I do, micro-payment chains when I want to tip someone, and current defensible Bitcoin as a trusted deep-storage solution.

Let me explain it this way. Bitcoin is nothing more than numbers in computers. From an economic perspective these numbers need to be scarce otherwise their value will ultimately goes to zero and be useless for trade and being used as money.  If your solution is to insert an infinite amount of altcoins in the economic network. The number used to represent good and services are not scarce anymore driving their value to zero and ultimately removing the economic incentive to use them.

His whole post is ignorant and not worth the read.

this sentence doesn't make any sense to me

Metaphorical comparisons do not hold any argumentative value ever. Complete bogus.

The  problem doesn't occure because it's selfregulating. Again: Overload on btc chain leads to slower transactions or higher fees. People use litecoin then and in case it's needed they use a third coin too which is likely more advanced in that regard and deals with that problem from the beginning.

So all this discussion is actually unnecessary aswell as your forks and bloats.

140 tps is 3x greater than PayPal and about 10x the FedWire (US Bank wire network) system.

The price is irrelevant to scalability, what matter is this https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions-excluding-popular?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=

And using an alt is in NO way a solution. It would be like saying that we should just have used separate internets because the first one couldn't scale. Ridiculous idea.

140 TPS is still hopelessly short of what is necessary to achieve the laughable pipe-dream of running a sizable exchange economy on native Bitcoin.

The only thing 20MB will do is drive yet another tranche of independent supporters out of the system and further consolidate infrastructure support to the bigger players.  That is probably the point of the exercise since there would be little other impact.

Seems like Gavin is desperate for this to happen in spite of the fact that transaction fees have still not been induced to be a factor 6 years on from the blockchain birth.  I would suppose that the desperation is driven by good progress on the sidechains front.  When sidechains are proven out (which is likely to happen even before the 1MB becomes a 'problem') then entities who want to exert control will have no excuse but to make their sidechain successful rather than to forge the native Blockchain into a form of their liking which they can easily do with a near monopoly on infrastructure and good cooperation with regulators.

I never thought that Gavin was a bad guy, but have long held that his is simply not equipped for the job.  I'll suspect that he'll argue (and believe) that he is forced into this bloat-it because larger actors are deferring on investment until it happens.  In this way it is justifiable to bloat before it's needed technically.

To me Bitcoin is defined by the people I trust from watching the ins and outs over 4 years.  It so happens that many of the folks I trust (and some that I don't because they are new to me and whatever) have grouped 'Blockstream' banner.  I'd add to that list of trusted and known individuals Garzik and Todd.  If a consensus among these folks is that 20 MB (or 10 MB or whatever) develops, I'll consider their suggestions to be 'mainline'.

If Popescu chooses to wage war in fragmented environment and can demonstrate some potential to come out victorious I'll likely put my resources behind his efforts.  This exclusively because whatever his motivations might be, his basic end goal and my own seem to align.

I do believe there must be numerous other ways to achive scalability. How many brains have been working on the problem so far?
What are the options?

You are making an ass out of yourself if you say there is only one option because there is always more options.
I don't even see scalability as a pressing issue. With this rapid pricedecline who should care?
Then you have alts. The industry is actually selfregulating.

Bitcoin blocks full, higher fees? Ok, people go over and use doge or another coin then. Et voila: everyone can transact again. The scalability-problem is a pseudo-problem. It does not occure in real life because people just go to the next chain once bitcoin is overloaded.

Your problem is your megalomania - and that megalomania will be your point of fail.
 

Scalability is a problem which is non-existant thanks to altcoins.

I never said that there was any logic behind his argument

My understanding is that Bitcoin MUST fork to
increase the block limit.  There are ways to
postpone it, but no ways to avoid it.

This Romanian dude gives no good argument
against a VALID fork such as this.

But that doesn't help him, it hurts him. Wider adoption helps him. Doesn't make sense.

It is a possibility that the MP argument is a virtually literal strawman, atop a bonfire, to fuel a flame war that drives up his LTC holdings.

One thing to note is that Mircea is highly critical of Andreas Antonopoulous and Gavin Andresen. "Critical" as in, trying to make them look bad and calling them names.

I for one hold Andreas in very high regard and do not appreciate that.
And I like Gavin too. I think they are both doing their best to aid the Bitcoin space.
Andreas talked to the Canadian senate and encouraged them to delay regulations for crying out loud.

Mircea says: "Andreas Antonopoulous thought he was very important before his untimely death."  (This statement doesn't even make sense as Andreas is more popular than ever)
Mircea says: "Gavin Andresen, known principally for his costumed clown services, where he goes to various conferences dressed as this or that for the amusement of the participants."

What the...?

Mircea is like a rebel tyrant.

Source: footnotes on http://trilema.com/2015/if-you-go-on-a-bitcoin-fork-irrespective-which-scammer-proposes-it-you-will-lose-your-bitcoins/#footnote_1_59124

absolutely no fear of missing out

So you're saying that the increase in block limit would cause bloat?  
Bloat is being caused by other things, and keeping the block size limit there won't help fight off bloat at all.

Voila.

Let's do the math here.

LTC = mostly China holders
BTC = mostly Westerners (but mostly traded in Shanghai, HongKong)

China says, "Nice fork, but we don't Accept" ... "Oh litecoin prices through the roof, sorry did I do that?"

Bitcoin may have been forked in the past.  All that was need was to call Pirate@40 and MarktheKarp and say install this version.  You guys are nuts if you think all the international exchange houses are going to be told what to do on a supposed 'decentralized' coin.

This baby is gonna rip.

Unnecessary and gratuitous bloat, such as spam or uses such as the former MO of satoshi dice, should be suppressed.

However, this is to preserve the limited transaction bandwidth for "useful" transfers. The reason we need to do this, is that should adoption swing upward quickly, tx WILL be throttled, and get backed up, this is highly undesirable. It is not a glass, but reinforced concrete ceiling on adoption that the network can support. Either bitcoin will be abandoned en-masse right then, or tx fees will skyrocket in competition for this limited resource.

Raising the maximum block size does not immediately bloat the blockchain, many blocks will be under this size, most of the time for quite a while they will be around the current max of 1MB, which if you cared to look at blocks found, is not the size of all blocks currently.

If you are worrying about the time when 20MB per block is filled, you are worrying that bitcoin will have 20x more transactions, an increase from the currently throttle of approx 6 per second to around 120 per second. If you are worrying that bitcoin will have 20x more transactions, then you are worrying about it having many more users.

IMO, the only reason not to support this is if you are not in favor of increased adoption. The only other reason not to support it, is if you have CODE that does the same job without requiring a hard fork. I guess the other reason is "principals" that for some reason are not negotiable enough that you would find yourself standing in the path of an oncoming express train rather than get off the track. The express train is not the fork, it's the tx limit rapidly approaching.

You are free to be left behind.

MP has the idea that Bitcoin should be restricted to some arbitrary "enlightened elite" centered around him. The combination of delusions of grandeur and a small group of worshippers who take his word as gospel enforce this idea. The notion of Bitcoin being adapted to accommodate a higher transaction rate and therefore be more accessible for mass use is completely contrary to his views. So it's no surprise he doesn't like it.

nothing will happen. Bitcoiners have proven themselves to be ignorant assholes thinking they are better and more educated. Quite a few on the thread. So run with your fork, we don't give a single fuck.