Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 1044. (Read 2032266 times)

No amount of fees being paid will result in more than 7 transactions to fit into a block.

Also: empirical evidence suggests people pay fees even if there's enough space in blocks (like right now).

I wonder which chain people would use in case of a fork over this issue. I'm guessing the one with lower tx fees.

I'm in justusranvier's camp on this one. Not raising blocksize, *at least* roughly allowing for Moore's Law, seems insane, and would just drive some alt to gain significant marketshare. I think most of us in this thread realize that an alt achieving a significant portion of bitcoin's market-cap for an extended period would be a major detriment to long-run health of the entire crypto-ecosystem. It'd empirically refute the notion that bitcoin is a good store of value, giving a lot of fuel to the argument that bitcoin isn't scarce due to alts. That'd reduce investment-in/monetization-of crypto in general since none could be considered a decent parking place for capital, and that hurts everyone (which is the core point alt-boosters miss).

We need to allow bitcoin itself to fulfill its basic promises, and one of those is cheap global transactions. Part of the path to mainstream use (and the trojan-horse that widespread bitcoin ownership represents) is through demonstrating feature superiority versus fiat (sidenote: Chamath on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AoPHNsX2x8 ). Transaction-cost is one of the most direct, most easily understandable, and most easily usable of bitcoin's "features" for new users.


Back to blocksize, I'll just drop the obligatory Satoshi quote to directly refute the notion that blocksize was always intended to remain fixed (though JR's and Peter R's orphan-cost-dynamics arguments upthread are obviously the proper args):





I think significantly demonetizing PMs comes before making a significant dent in fiat.

Nice find

"Such a transformation may take as long as 25 years, with the dollar remaining “top of the heap” even as other currencies play a greater role"

Sure.. then we're in at least year 23

i'm very much for btcd and Bitcoinj.  the resiliency gained from those implementations strengthens Bitcoin.

i also think that projects like Open Transactions will be good for the system.  at least they don't blow wind. can't wait for them to get something up and running.

maybe you like Gavin more than you think...

Note that Gavin has said in the past that he wants to see multiple implementations of the protocol, yet somehow the other core developers managed to fend off every attempt by other teams to do exactly this.

Finally somebody showed up that was good enough that they couldn't stop by stonewalling them, so now they just ignore them and hope everybody else does too.

maybe some save money in gold thats better than bitcoin. but bitcoin reallt high returns

to which i could respond:

"The Geeks Fail to Understand That Which They Hath Created"?

that's fine, but just don't f*ck it up. 

For the non-technical: what is "not broken" is as good as this idea for slowing down a train...  FFS! We can do better, surely?

Probably true.

I'd rather err on the side of too many precautions than too few precautions in this area.

why would ppl leave significant amounts of coins at the processors anymore than they do now just b/c they're forced off chain by high fees from a 1MB block?  spending amounts maybe, but not savings.  the only indisputable principle here is to never leave your privkeys to someone else.

I know Gavin agrees and I generally agree with what Matonis does.

Nevertheless, they are in positions of influence and vulnerable to coercion and so I'll never be able to trust them. I'd love for the situation to be such that they don't have any power that anyone would coerce them to misuse, so that I could trust them.

Note that Bitlicenses may have legal implications for both of them.

"640k ought to be enough for anyone"