ok trainwreck has meandered this topic enough
GMAXWLL: if core want to resolve things.. there are 2 options
1. PROVE how backward compatible things are by getting your partner BTCC to make a segwit block with a segwit confirmed tx in it.. worse case rejected in 3 seconds.. best case nothing bad. and it instills confidence.
2. make it dynamic segwit. that way when people realise segwit activation day solved nothing(due to needing users needing to do other things beyond segwit activation).. atleast people are then able to move on with dynamics rather than waiting another 2 years for core to make more excuses
Topic: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell - page 24. (Read 46270 times)
I love how I pointed out that much of your citations is you citing yourself, and in response you proceed to do exactly that. Hilarious.
For every 5 times he claims to be citing theories(and that no one else is / no one but his position does science properly), he actually cites his own comments twice and maybe links to something else once or name drops once. When he does link elsewhere or name drop, he doesn't explain how their writing relates to his, what conclusion he is pushing or what specific point he is referencing.
For every 5 times he claims to be citing theories(and that no one else is / no one but his position does science properly), he actually cites his own comments twice and maybe links to something else once or name drops once. When he does link elsewhere or name drop, he doesn't explain how their writing relates to his, what conclusion he is pushing or what specific point he is referencing.
I love how I pointed out that much of your citations is you citing yourself, and in response you proceed to do exactly that. Hilarious.
bitcoin will ultimately because a settlement system for major players and will not be scaled as a coffee money.
I used to believe this point completely. I agree with the first part, and I do agree that Bitcoin will never be scaled as a coffee money. That said, there is a middle ground between "settlement system for major players only" and "coffee money" that Bitcoin can achieve, and eventually this choice will become self-evident (but maybe too late). For example, $2 per transaction does not restrict Bitcoin to major players only, but is also not usable for coffee money, a target that I have reason to believe is achievable.
The reason the choice will become self-evident is simple - Currently it costs a minimum of roughly 0.01 BTC per month to operate a node(based on bandwidth, hdd costs alone), and ~0.0003 BTC to reliably send transactions to use that node. Over time technology improves, adoption increases, and crypto prices rise, which causes the cost of operating a static-blocksize node to fall dramatically and the cost of sending a transaction to rise dramatically, with no growth limits on either number. Without blocksize increases, it will eventually cost more to operate a node for one month than it costs to send a single transaction, at which point home users will stop running nodes anyway because they are not using Bitcoin, which defeats the only reason we would arbitrarily keep node operational costs low in the first place.
The solution is simple - we have to stop thinking of acceptable node operational costs in terms of dollars and instead think of acceptable node operational costs in terms of BTC/month. What exactly qualifies as an acceptable node operational cost per month is highly debatable, but changing the math/thinking in that way changes the problem entire. It allows growth that can almost completely offset increased transaction demand. It won't lower tx fee costs - I think they still have to rise a bit - but it prevents them from going exponential or locking out home users.
For every 5 times he claims to be citing theories(and that no one else is / no one but his position does science properly), he actually cites his own comments twice and maybe links to something else once or name drops once. When he does link elsewhere or name drop, he doesn't explain how their writing relates to his, what conclusion he is pushing or what specific point he is referencing.
And the circle is closing. OP is right because you are always right (so the rest of our community are liars and do know nothing about ... Choose what you want, its true because we know that we do know nothing). Strict proof, stricter than math could do and so objective!
If your altcoin doesn't solve blockchain sharding, then no you are not building any such thing.
I solved it.
FYI, I disagree with both of you regarding the idea that transaction volume is not essential to Bitcoin's growth because Bitcoin can function like gold.
I didn't make that argument. I'm building an altcoin with unlimited transaction scaling.
If your altcoin doesn't solve blockchain sharding, then no you are not building any such thing. There are too many humans on the planet and bandwidth costs are not trending anywhere near fast enough to make an unsharded blockchain feasible for the levels of transactions that humans demand. Worldwide transaction volume in 2015 was 426 billion transactions, which at 600b per transaction works out to needing a 2 gigabit per second link to the internet for every single node - nearly 1/5th of the internet link of some whole datacenters. That's just for 2015; It is growing by ~8% a year while bandwidth is improving at only 8-18% per year, and that's with the vast majority of humans on earth not sending any transactions at all (unbanked). 18% does not outpace those numbers in our lifetimes.
Computers don't do unlimited. That said, I don't know anything about what you are building, not trying to insult you, but people need to understand the scope of the problem.
But BU will never get you there. All you do is enable the mining cartel to create a billion tokens out of thin air.
I don't support BU so that's a mute point. This is my proposal that I would like feedback on: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/blockchain-size-proposal-very-slow-voted-changes-1844059
It is the whales who will decide, whether you like it or not. That is the reality of the PoW. If you don't like it, find a different design that is not PoW.
That much I'm inclined to agree with. However, I do believe that weakness of PoW is not as bad as the weaknesses in PoS, which are subject to a very different kind of abuse by a whale attacker - namely the fact that "emptied" addresses on the main chain still retain historical staking value of coins that aren't supposed to exist according to the consensus chain. Without checkpointing, there's no way to invalidate the historical staking value those addresses no longer contain, but checkpointing is vulnerable to attacks by authorities like what EU regulators are hoping they can do.
So either the whales are for BU or they are for Core. And they will decide. I analyzed all the technical and economic game theory in great detail already. The Bitcoin whales have to choose small blocks, else they enable the mining cartel to HF to a billion tokens in the future. They will never allow this. BU will be destroyed if they attempt a HF. All of you who buy the BU token will end up bankrupt.
You've been warned. So don't cry later.
You've been warned. So don't cry later.
Aside from the BU-specific stuff, which I most likely already agree with you on, I'm curious about your game theory findings. What do you mean the mining cartel will HF to a billion tokens in the future? Did you find something that indicated that the Bitcoin whales could not support a blocksize increase on core?
I think that this whole argument is inorganically precipitated. It has to be a form of manipulated chaos designed to set the course of the project into an unforeseen direction guided by only a few insiders. Does it feel that way to anybody else?
Don't take so many drugs son. It's not good for rationality.
There is no collusion. I am genuinely interested in the topics I want to discuss because the outcome of those discussions impact my work and my decisions.
Folks like @dinofelis, @traincarswreck, and myself are just thinking at a very high abstract (and detailed) level, so it may be making your head spin.
Yes. It is making my head spin. However, you cannot deny that (not your arguments specifically) there is a forced coup underway, centered around this argument, that's shaping the platform in ways that may suit the interests of a smaller percentage of the community than may be healthy. I think that the numbers demonstrate that confidence in the network is being shaken by the debate. Am I right, or is that my brain on drugs again?
For every 5 times he claims to be citing theories(and that no one else is / no one but his position does science properly), he actually cites his own comments twice and maybe links to something else once or name drops once. When he does link elsewhere or name drop, he doesn't explain how their writing relates to his, what conclusion he is pushing or what specific point he is referencing.
He could possibly be a disinformation agent but you are incorrect to state that he is not responding to your arguments with sound logic.
He is an academic who is pointing out some economic theory.
He is an academic who is pointing out some economic theory.
Dude, I read his posts in this thread from the start. For every 5 times he claims to be citing theories(and that no one else is / no one but his position does science properly), he actually cites his own comments twice and maybe links to something else once or name drops once. When he does link elsewhere or name drop, he doesn't explain how their writing relates to his, what conclusion he is pushing or what specific point he is referencing. It is a garbage throw-shit-at-everything debating strategy. His strategy works really well for young earth creationists and 9-11 truthers.
He has some valid points, but his mistake is he thinks unregulated fractional reserve banking is not a massive bankster fraud. He doesn't seem to understand how the banksters were able to manipulate the USA economy in the 1800s under the very laissez faire system he is advocating. He thinks competition would somehow violate the power-law distribution of banker power and control. 
That's only one of the points he has thrown out, and I don't think either of you could provide conclusive evidence to convince the other, nor could either of you convince me. From what I have read, macroeconomics is heavily laden with bullshit (on all sides) and effectively boils down to a Rorschach test whenever it deviates from game theory questions or microeconomic evaluations. And yes, that statement is based upon research findings comparing the popularity of macroeconomic theories versus time periods and politics at that time. Your statements about unregulated fractional reserve banker fraud make me wonder if you either have a mostly-inapplicable definition of "unregulated" (compared to the modern day), or else are a conspiracy theorist.
It doesn't matter, I'm not saying you're wrong either. Almost none of that dispute substantially relates to the discussions of Bitcoin at hand, as far as I can tell. And I don't care for either argument, though I do appreciate that you are far more rational and polite than he is, so thank you.
Well said. Bitcoin is only slightly beyond tulip bulbs in the eyes of the old establishment. Without great utility (fast transactions, low fees) it is highly unlikely to remain a dominant cryptocurrency, let alone a gold-like store of value.
This is a sentiment not derived from any scientifically founded theory. It's a myth you keep repeating with nothing to support such a claim. FYI, I disagree with both of you regarding the idea that transaction volume is not essential to Bitcoin's growth because Bitcoin can function like gold. Many things can function like gold and have attempted to do exactly that over human history. Despite that, there is only one gold.
Gold's dominance is predicated upon nearly 4000 years of acceptance in every commercially-connected location on the planet - to this day, you can exchange gold for local money in nearly any city at almost the same exchange rate. Doofus-spammer's theory that Bitcoin doesn't need tx volume because it will function like gold ignores the obvious discrepancy between Bitcoin's 8-year, unstable, and limited-acceptance history and gold's massive scope.
Bitcoin **may** function like gold due to its advantages over gold, but almost any other altcoin could function in the exact same manner and surpass Bitcoin and/or gold. The competing coins must differentiate themselves, and Bitcoin's best differentiation - the first mover advantage and relatively high stability - will be forced to face off against other competing coin's relative ease of transacting. If Bitcoin becomes decisively more difficult/costly to transact with than competing coins who replicate all other features that Doofus-spammer's theory relies upon, Bitcoin's first mover effect will be eclipsed, and we will all lose.
Bitcoin is in no position to claim that it can win on its merits simple because gold wins on similar merits.
Bitcoin is far cheaper to send than gold and way faster, and so you have said nothing to the limitations of bitcoin.
You haven't understood, described, or attended to the reason gold is so valuable today as an inflation hedge and there is no argument that it is because 4000 years ago it was used as a money. Gold's value has to do with its cost of production versus supply which puts a natural and predictable throttle on its value proposition from change rapidly.
Bitcoin also has this mechanism which works slightly differently but produces a similar result: predictable supply.
There are other suitable commodities to this regard, and the value which they might transfer based on their weight (ie cost) but there are also reasons that they are not suitable for such a standard which don't apply as weaknesses/limitations to bitcoin (as described by John Nash):
Quote
It is a coincidental fact that the inherent nature of mining and mining technology makes it possible for the prices of certain commodities that are produced as a result of the devotion of labor and capital to the effort of mining to increase less (or decrease more) than might be expected. There is a “dimension paradox”: Agricultural products are produced by using the two-dimensional resource of the earth surface, so the “disappearing frontier” creates a limitation. In contrast, some mining, particularly for elemental metals, can essentially be done in three dimensions, although, of course, there are increasing costs for deep digging. So, really there is lots and lots of gold, silver, platinum, tungtsten, and so forth out there and more can be found by digging deeper.
If we then consider which commodities would be optimally suitable for providing a basis for a means of transferring utility, and if we specifically consider the possibility that the trading partners may be located in different nations and perhaps on different continents, than the suitability of such commodities with regard to the ideal function of facilitating utility transfer depends on the extent to which such a commodity seems to have a value independent of its geographical location.
Clearly, in terms of this geographical perspective, gold has historically been optimal, largely because the labor cost of moving it over great distances is so small relative to the value of what is being transported. Thus, gold formed a very efficiently movable medium for the transportation of a value exchangeable for other values, ultimately deriving, in one way or another, from human labor (with the achievements of warriors here also being viewed as involving labor).
Nowadays, however, few would propose a return to the actual use of simply the metal gold as a standard, for the following reasons.
(i) The cost of mining gold effectively does depend on the technology. Recent cyanide leaching techniques have made it possible again to profitability mind gold at formerly abandoned sites in the U.S. so that it is now a big producer. However, the unpredictability of the cost is a negative factor.
(ii) The location of potential gold-mining locations may not be “politically appealing.” so it would seem undesirable to make a political choice to enhance the economic importance of those particular areas.
(iii) There is some negative psychology about gold such tat even if it were the most logical choice after all, the unpopularity of the idea could be very obstructive.
However, right now platinum would be even better than gold, because it has more value per unit of weight.
Crude petroleum could also be used for barter transactions, and in view of the present state of the global economy it would seem a proper component of an index of prices of internationally traded commodities that enter into the costs of industrial consumption.
If we then consider which commodities would be optimally suitable for providing a basis for a means of transferring utility, and if we specifically consider the possibility that the trading partners may be located in different nations and perhaps on different continents, than the suitability of such commodities with regard to the ideal function of facilitating utility transfer depends on the extent to which such a commodity seems to have a value independent of its geographical location.
Clearly, in terms of this geographical perspective, gold has historically been optimal, largely because the labor cost of moving it over great distances is so small relative to the value of what is being transported. Thus, gold formed a very efficiently movable medium for the transportation of a value exchangeable for other values, ultimately deriving, in one way or another, from human labor (with the achievements of warriors here also being viewed as involving labor).
Nowadays, however, few would propose a return to the actual use of simply the metal gold as a standard, for the following reasons.
(i) The cost of mining gold effectively does depend on the technology. Recent cyanide leaching techniques have made it possible again to profitability mind gold at formerly abandoned sites in the U.S. so that it is now a big producer. However, the unpredictability of the cost is a negative factor.
(ii) The location of potential gold-mining locations may not be “politically appealing.” so it would seem undesirable to make a political choice to enhance the economic importance of those particular areas.
(iii) There is some negative psychology about gold such tat even if it were the most logical choice after all, the unpopularity of the idea could be very obstructive.
However, right now platinum would be even better than gold, because it has more value per unit of weight.
Crude petroleum could also be used for barter transactions, and in view of the present state of the global economy it would seem a proper component of an index of prices of internationally traded commodities that enter into the costs of industrial consumption.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Gold's dominance is predicated upon nearly 4000 years of acceptance in every commercially-connected location on the planet - to this day, you can exchange gold for local money in nearly any city at almost the same exchange rate. Doofus-spammer's theory that Bitcoin doesn't need tx volume because it will function like gold ignores the obvious discrepancy between Bitcoin's 8-year, unstable, and limited-acceptance history and gold's massive scope.
Well said. Bitcoin is only slightly beyond tulip bulbs in the eyes of the old establishment. Without great utility (fast transactions, low fees) it is highlly unlikely to remain a dominant cryptocurrency, let alone a gold-like store of value.
FYI, I disagree with both of you regarding the idea that transaction volume is not essential to Bitcoin's growth because Bitcoin can function like gold.
I didn't make that argument. I'm building an altcoin with unlimited transaction scaling.
But BU will never get you there. All you do is enable the mining cartel to create a billion tokens out of thin air. GLHF (good luck, have fun). If they HF once, they HF what ever is in their interest in the future. You need to identify where the real power is. And it isn't with you all. It is the whales who will decide, whether you like it or not. That is the reality of the PoW. If you don't like it, find a different design that is not PoW.
So either the whales are for BU or they are for Core. And they will decide. I analyzed all the technical and economic game theory in great detail already. The Bitcoin whales have to choose small blocks, else they enable the mining cartel to HF to a billion tokens in the future. They will never allow this. BU will be destroyed if they attempt a HF. All of you who buy the BU token will end up bankrupt.
You've been warned. So don't cry later.
Logic stands on its own. Authority has to rest on valid logic. Refute my logic.
Excellent quote, well said. I want to steal that.
FYI, I disagree with both of you regarding the idea that transaction volume is not essential to Bitcoin's growth because Bitcoin can function like gold. Many things can function like gold and have attempted to do exactly that over human history. Despite that, there is only one gold.
Gold's dominance is predicated upon nearly 4000 years of acceptance in every commercially-connected location on the planet - to this day, you can exchange gold for local money in nearly any city at almost the same exchange rate. Doofus-spammer's theory that Bitcoin doesn't need tx volume because it will function like gold ignores the obvious discrepancy between Bitcoin's 8-year, unstable, and limited-acceptance history and gold's massive scope.
Bitcoin **may** function like gold due to its advantages over gold, but almost any other altcoin could function in the exact same manner and surpass Bitcoin and/or gold. The competing coins must differentiate themselves, and Bitcoin's best differentiation - the first mover advantage and relatively high stability - will be forced to face off against other competing coin's relative ease of transacting. If Bitcoin becomes decisively more difficult/costly to transact with than competing coins who replicate all other features that Doofus-spammer's theory relies upon, Bitcoin's first mover effect will be eclipsed, and we will all lose.
Bitcoin is in no position to claim that it can win on its merits simple because gold wins on similar merits.
And their theory is complete nonsense for the reasons I stated.
Let it be known that this poster hand-waved Nash Szabo Smith Hayek and Finney with subjective drivel not founded in any science or accepted literature/economic theory.
You don't know what science is or what well founded arguments are. You are simply a loud person on a forum.
Where is your argument?
And their theory is complete nonsense for the reasons I stated.
You don't know what science is or what well founded arguments are. You are simply a loud person on a forum.
He has some valid points, but his mistake is he thinks unregulated fractional reserve banking is not a massive bankster fraud.
Each of the well regarded economic and crypto economic thinkers I quoted and the well founded objective theories they expound on, are based on the premise and implication of the breaking of the monopoly of money supply, and each of them explains an argument that supports each others direction of thinking which is that the ultimate evolution is self regulation of the market and tendency towards Ideal Money.
You cannot point to a time in history pre bitcoin as an example as to why these men's theories don't hold ground, because the theory is predicated on bitcoin as the advent of a money system that breaks the monopoly.
And their theory is complete nonsense for the reasons I stated.
He has some valid points, but his mistake is he thinks unregulated fractional reserve banking is not a massive bankster fraud.
Each of the well regarded economic and crypto economic thinkers I quoted and the well founded objective theories they expound on, are based on the premise and implication of the breaking of the monopoly of money supply, and each of them explains an argument that supports each others direction of thinking which is that the ultimate evolution is self regulation of the market and tendency towards Ideal Money.You cannot point to a time in history pre bitcoin as an example as to why these men's theories don't hold ground, because the theory is predicated on bitcoin as the advent of a money system that breaks the monopoly.
Quote
He thinks competition would somehow violate the power-law distribution of banker power and control.
You are no longer only addressing my sentiments but years and years of arguments by Nash Szabo Finney Hayek and Adam Smith. You could never gain any ground in any respected debate as these men are incredibly well respected in their respective fields because their arguments are based on accepted reason and objectively born theories. And while committing logical fallacies and being a jackass, you claim the higher ground. Nice.
I hate to break it to you, but you are acting like the garbage that you proclaim to abhor.
I hate to break it to you, but you are acting like the garbage that you proclaim to abhor.
You're responding to a misinformation agent, a normal person simply doesn't think or respond like that, not with this kind of pattern. If you look beyond the bs he's spewing, you can see his pain, he is obviously someone who is forced to support something he doesn't even believe in, he has no passion, his reply is robotic and he is tired, but he can't stop because it is part of his job and his boss is watching, can you imagine how boring and stressful it is to have to think and respond like a broken robot all the time.
After reading his comments I realized how pointless arguing with him is. While I think it is far more likely that he is just not intelligent enough to see the flaws in his own posting, I will say his grandiosity and bad behavior is so bad it makes me embarrassed to think that I still support/agree with many of the same things as him.
He could possibly be a disinformation agent but you are incorrect to state that he is not responding to your arguments with sound logic.
He is an academic who is pointing out some economic theory. He has some valid points, but his mistake is he thinks unregulated fractional reserve banking is not a massive bankster fraud. He doesn't seem to understand how the banksters were able to manipulate the USA economy in the 1800s under the very laissez faire system he is advocating. He thinks competition would somehow violate the power-law distribution of banker power and control.
And while committing logical fallacies and being a jackass, you claim the higher ground. Nice.
I hate to break it to you, but you are acting like the garbage that you proclaim to abhor.
I hate to break it to you, but you are acting like the garbage that you proclaim to abhor.
You're responding to a misinformation agent, a normal person simply doesn't think or respond like that, not with this kind of pattern. If you look beyond the bs he's spewing, you can see his pain, he is obviously someone who is forced to support something he doesn't even believe in, he has no passion, his reply is robotic and he is tired, but he can't stop because it is part of his job and his boss is watching, can you imagine how boring and stressful it is to have to think and respond like a broken robot all the time.
After reading his comments I realized how pointless arguing with him is. While I think it is far more likely that he is just not intelligent enough to see the flaws in his own posting, I will say his grandiosity and bad behavior is so bad it makes me embarrassed to think that I still support/agree with many of the same things as him.
You clearly show you do not understand what it means to make a proper argument and objective and reasonable posters lurking now have proof of this.
Jump to: