Let's break it down.
Thank you.
My pleasure. You took the time to read, I'll take the time to answer.
The main point is, as you've probably noticed, that blocks have to be full.
That's simply because if a resource isn't scarce you cannot have a market for it, pretty much for the exact same reason that you couldn't have a lemonade stand next to a lemonade river.
I disagree , I want the option for buying a cup of coffee on the chain , your proposal would force me to use centralized, off the chain solutions.
That's cool but that's not happening, Bitcoin is extremely inefficient for this.
Trying to create some universal one-size-fits-all solution for vastly different things is exactly how you end up with bloated shit nobody wants to use.
Sure XML can do more than JSON. Yet guess what...
i make free transactions all the time, they all confirm in 1~2 hours
^that shouldn't be possible!
Why? Shouldn't the market determine what is possible and not?The market has no way to force a price on me since the blocks aren't full.
You have to get used to it, eventually the transactions will cost money. Money that comes out of your pocket.
Right now the "free" transaction I'm making is pretty much subsidized by current and future miners, as they're bearing its verification and storage costs.
I disagree on your premise about fees being too low . Consumers are already being driven to off the chain, centralized solutions to avoid the 3-5 penny Tx fee, I would like to encourage decentralization and bring fees much lower. What do you consider a reasonable transaction fee?
It's not a "premise" it is a fact. Look at the numbers, look at the block reward/fees ratio for current blocks.
At some point, if Bitcoin is to remain secure, fees *have* to take over, and right now the hard data shows that fees are ridiculously low.
"okey dokey… and you think 1MB is the right scarcity forever?" <<< i say the market will find its way, and offchain txes aren't evil
They aren't evil , but without increasing TPS we will mostly be forced to use these centralized off the chain solutions and therefore defeat the whole Raison d'être of bitcoin.
Where and when is it said that Bitcoin's purpose is to *only* use Bitcoin?
It is said nowhere, because that is stupid.
If you need to screw a screw and hammer a nail, you get a screwdriver and a hammer. You don't try to design, for some misplaced ideological reasons, a shitty tool that's a screwdriver on one end and a hammer on the other, for a hammer and a screwdriver both need a firm grip on their handle.
So are you opposed to those of us trying to make Bitcoin more convenient?[/color]
You're more than welcome to make Bitcoin more convenient by building on top of it.
However, if you really must insist that the core protocol be hard-forked you're in for a lot of pain.
I'm not getting on-chain changetip forced on me. No. fucking. way. Who's going to be able to run a full node once we have to store every redditard's fraction of cent bouncing around? And you say you're against centralization? Srsly.
the point of bitcoin is "i own my shit, get your hands off of it"
How is that mutually exclusive with convenience? I want Bitcoin to be more convenient so more people have the ability to protect their property. For some odd reason I'm unable to picture some hypothetic economic actor that somehow has enough property to want it protected in the holy blockchain but too poor or not smart enough to realize that "If you won't pay for nice things you can't have nice things because there can't be nice things."
So now you want us to be forced to use 2 currencies and download 2 blockchains? What is with this sacred code protectionism as well? Over 70% of satoshi's code has been modified already.
No man, use whatever floats your boat!
There's also no code protectionism, I'm not extremely attached to the code that's been shat by the kowr devz, that gave us the infamously unexpected march 2013 hardfork and the no less lulzy "pls to not update openssl because reasons".
You keep stressing the need for full blocks being necessary(ignoring the negative ramifications of running continuously at or near full capacity.)
Do you have any evidence reflecting full blocks being the key answer to securing the protocol in the future?
I have no problem with some people not being able to afford Bitcoin.
For the data regarding fees being the key to security, and their current relative absence see my previous replies.
You are assuming bitcoin doesn't compete with other payment mechanisms and people will be forced to pay ridiculous Tx fees. Why would you make this assumption?
I don't make that assumption. Sure Bitcoin competes with other payment means, so what?
If people want to pay for their starbucks they'll pick the correct tool for the job and will probably end up not using Bitcoin for that particular purpose.
Gold isn't less valuable because you can't use it at McDonalds, no?
So it seems to me in the world of mostly off-chain transactions we end up with a system where the off-chain-transaction-system-operators do all the mining.
Exactly. Now you just created Gov-coin or corp-coin. Why would we want this?You misunderstand what he's saying, not that he's right anyway.
We were given teleportable gold that also happens to be invisible for fuck's sake, that has incredible value in itself, it's neither necessary, nor - for all the reasons exposed - desirable, that it also doubles as a pay-your-parking-ticket-on-the-blockchain dumbed-down version.