Topic: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell - page 28. (Read 46265 times)

You're refuting your own argument again.  The fractional reserve system is not evil, but the monopoly that governments/central banks on our money systems (traditionally) has caused the system to create it's own busts and recessions.  But fractional banking per se is not the problem, rather the lack of competition is the problem.  Bitcoin as a settlement system would attend to this problem and it also attends to the inefficiencies of the existing solutions.

Real gold is not liquid in a certain sense that it is costly to transport in relation to other solutions which exist to allow settlement without always moving assets such as gold (this is another reason why bitcoin doesn't actually need increased tps in order to stay relevant and valuable.

We can turn to Smith to understand how the system could be used to keep bank loans and money printers in check:


Hayek also explains this in the denationalization of money which is simply an argument about what would unfold if the monopoly on money printing was ever broken.  This exactly what bitcoin did, and there is no part of the argument that requires the new money to have a higher tps than bitcoin.  

John Nash also gives an extensive argument to how such a system would benefit the people by being used not so much by the citizenry but by the meta players.

I've cited and summarized these arguments, and they ARE founded: https://thewealthofchips.wordpress.com/2015/07/12/a-general-summary-for-john-nashs-proposal-ideal-money/

 

I see the problem, you don't know that the Bitcoins Markets are Pure Manipulation by a few power players.
Every Single Market that has a Global Reach is being manipulated , until you comprehend that you are only a pawn in their games.


 

The word hype does not make it valid and non-circular nevertheless.  This is what the other poster was talking about when they said I think the markets are god.  Hype does not fuel bitcoin's price, and neither does irrational exuberance. The markets as a pricing mechanism function as the totality and aggregation of all of the available information.  It doesn't matter how many people visit r/btc to complain about a system they have taken no time to understand.  It doesn't matter how many twitter accounts complain.  The markets do not rally a $16billion dollar project for irrational reasons.  The driving force is not hype and there is no founded scientific argument in regard to market theory that would suggest so.

When Jakoon or whatever their name is says I believe the markets are god, its because I explained that the markets are the pricing signals that tell us what is rational, we don't look back at them and make arguments that the markets are not being rational because they don't agree with our subjective opinion on the prices that are created.  

Hayek explains in his essay the Use of Knowledge in Society:

Really Break it down for me, makes perfect sense to me,

What does it look like in your noggin?  

 

FYI:
Was the word hype invisible to you?


FYI2:  Hmm, does this clear it up for you.
Technical Capabilities of Alt coins are being ignored due to their marketcaps being lowered than BTC.
Technical Flaw of BTC , unconfirmed transactions are impossible to hide. If they could have kept that from happening ,
the public would still believe the Hype that BTC is the Best,
oldest and slowest does not the best make.

You simultaneously refute your own argument in the same post you make it.

Suggesting that bitcoin is a settlement system intended for major players does not go against the idea of a p2p electronic cash system.  Peer to peer is not a term that is a political statement about the intended nature and use of bitcoin.  It is a computer science term.  The whitepaper is not a political statement.  Rules and technology DO exists but they do not serve the problem of settlement for meta players anywhere near as a efficiently as bitcoin.  Bitcoin doesn't solve the problem of a money for the people, but it addresses the inefficient settlement solutions and this is regardless of a 1mb limit and a transaction capacity of 3 per second.  It doesn't matter that there will be a fee market because the cost to transact large sums of wealth with bitcoin will always be cheaper than the existing traditional methods (and faster).

If bitcoin is successful as a high powered/cap settlement layer to major players then it can't possibly die due to alts because it will be serving a function that alts can't provide because they are nowhere near as secure, can't be proved as such with empirical evidence, and will never have as stable of a value proposition.

Bitcoin as a settlement layer is the most valuable technological solution in the world and the macro economic implications are incredible.  The problem is that it would be impossible for Satoshi to explain it to people like you who think banks are simply intrinsically "evil" (which is a religious view not based on science).

Man you people still don't get it, even with a singular country containing majority of the hashrate, they did not attack the network did they? Mining is expensive and its R & D costs are huge. Attacking the network is against what miners want, it would hurt their bottom line.

So far no miners have been dishonest and purposely used its hashrate to hurt the network (mining empty blocks is NOT an attack, is only a vendor BECAUSE blocks are full and there are economic incentives not to do it anyway!), signalling for BU is not dishonest, they are still building on the longest chain which as far as we still know (hard to measure) is the chain most users accept as bitcoin.

PoW is working fine until there is a sustained 51% attack. Ever increasing R & D costs WILL allow other miner manufacturers to catch up. Limits of physics WILL allow other miner manufactures to catch up. They are not building CPU's. ASICS are much less complicated than that.

You are showing that you are lacking in the ability to Compartmentalize .

Technical Capabilities of a coin and its price per coin are not a direct correlation.
Otherwise BTC would be near the bottom of the Coinmarketcap, not at the top.

The Majority of people follow the hype, BTC is the oldest and received the most hype being the 1st, it literally has nothing else going for it.
Which is why it dominance in the coin marketcap , is now below 70%, when it used to be above 90%,
BTC is literally not living up to the hype, because of it technical flaws, that are going unfixed at the present time.

 

FYI:
One Country Controls BTC Security , it is hardly secure, it is only protected by China.

FYI2: Quick Technical Comparison
LTC can support a 2½ minute block speed allowing it 4X the current Transaction Capacity of BTC
BTC only supports a 10 minute block speed , and according to G.Maxwell (has been know to lie) , BTC is unable to go to a 2½ minute block speed.
From that 1 comparison, we can conclude that Technically LTC is a Superior Coin to the Inferior coin BTC.
However, what happens is someone sees BTC over ~$500 and a LTC ~$4 , and automatically assumes BTC is better because it costs more.
All that proves is BTC costs more than LTC, not that it has any technical superiority, which it does not.

Bitcoin is not a settlement layer, never has been and never will. There is a balancing act between how much market share is lost to altcoins and the amount of users who dissent from the Core scaling roadmap because if it or just leave bitcoin altogether.

My argument is not a circular argument. I assume by this you mean... low fees -> increased in adoption -> increased centralization -> loss of utility -> loss of bitcoins ability to transact?

Proving the premise that "increased in adoption -> increased centralization" is the stupidest argument I have ever started reading when this subject started appearing.

1. It assumes there is a specific limit on the amount of economic resources available for running nodes when in reality it is ill-defined.
2. Ignores economies of scale.
3. Ignores that the amount of new advanced users entering the space due to increased adoption can offset nodes being turned off in favor of SPV due to increased costs of running a node.
4. Ignores how much a bitcoin node can be optimized at the hardware level.

The moment it costs more to transact often in bitcoin than it is to run a node means your in the twilight zone.

The only thing that needs to scale is bandwidth, which Fiber does extremely well. If bitcoin becomes widespread people will start demanding hardware nodes which verify terabytes of the blockchain in a day and comes preloaded with cheap read-only blockchain data (you could still tell the thing to verify whatever data comes with the device). This is the sort of visionary thinking which has died within bitcoin the last year.

Also how dare you say bitcoin should only be settlement layer for big banks and that serves a valuable purpose. Its defined as P2P MONEY, this is what people joined bitcoin for. A settlement layer does not fix any of the worlds existing problems. Rules and technologies for settling disputes & transfer of money between banks already EXISTS. People will still be dependent on banks, banks will take their cut through LN fees and many will only be able to afford to read the bitcoin ledger, not modify it. This is if it doesn't die a painful death to due alts. The only people who will be left hanging are the few idiots who think a settlement layer is useful, when in reality its ONLY benefit would be for big banks slightly reduce trust in one another while there was only a limited amount of parties who needed to trust each other in the first place.

And none of them have anywhere near the market cap, even though they have a higher transaction capacity, and they are not secure enough to have such a high cap.  And there is emerging literature showing intrinsic problems with having proof of stake be long term successful and different proposals for solving it.  It's not widely accepted that such a system can be valuable and secure long term.

Whether China ever uses it or not the fact is they can 51% attack whenever or however they like.

You are not trusting the Proof of Work to protect the network, You are Trusting CHINA to not exert their power over it.

Problem with that is ,
Power Corrupts
Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.

BTC=Better Trust China  

 

Proof of Stake is hardly uncharted waters, their is a large # of Proof of stake coins with different specs, that have been running for years.
(And all of them have a higher transaction capacity than BTC.)

Proof of Work is a failure due to Centralization caused by economic factors, no Proof of Work coin can avoid it.
The fact that China has had over 51% control of BTC for over a year, only proves one thing the speculators will Ignore the Truth as long as it lines their pockets.

 

Increase the ACTUAL fucking block size already. Anyone who didn't see today's events resulting in this sort of climax from 2 years ago clearly still does not understand bitcoin. Bitcoins only advantage over other "altcoins" is its first mover advantage, do not let alts take over.

High fees are a tax and increases opportunity cost, IT DISCOURAGES USE, simple economics.

No amount of capital allocated in Lightning network channels is going to stop on-chain transactions increasing indefinitely (across all cryptocurrencies) while the existing financial system comes to its knees over the next few decades.

That isn't simple economics its a circular argument.  IF bitcoin's most optimal and valuable use case is to transact then we might be able to see a fee increase would negatively affect its utility as such and that this would discourage use.

But bitcoin can serve a different purpose which is a fairly stable value settlement system for meta-players (ie big banks), and this would serve a valuable purpose as well.

Your argument is premised on the former and ignores the possibility of the latter.  In regard to the latter bitcoin's other advantage you are ignoring is that it is far more secure in regard to its value proposition than any other coin.  Ethereum is far from mature in the security sense and they still have to get to PoS which is uncharted water, it hasn't been scientifically tested/proved.

It's not scientific to not consider a different possibly valid perspective.

independence is not the most important quality of a valid study, peer review by other ACTIVE experts in the field is. And you are speaking to decentralization which is not the only risk.

#science.

I don't think everyone agrees with that,
[/quote]

your right a few other independent studies all came up with higher "harmless  MB  limit"

Do you have a foundation for your opinion that is based on accepted scientific/economic theory or are you just another BU supporter that has a loud opinion not based on scientific reason?

I don't think everyone agrees with that, and I'm not sure if you are even referring to a peer reviewed paper, nonetheless that there would be no negative effect on decentralization was not the claim made in the quote:

Early adopter here. I also agree with ALEX-BTC and I am really fed up and disappointed by core and how they manage things. I really wish that BU/Classic/EC and maybe updated XT will reach the supermajority with their PoW and kick core out of the way.

the most conservative analysis concluded that a blocksize of 4MB would be just fine and have no negative effect on decentralization.