Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 175. (Read 2032248 times)

Dow futures -255

"85% chance that Greece is forced to leave the Euro zone".

oops.

If you know how to spin lead into gold, why do you bother to goad me?

it's not blind trust.  do you follow Reddit and other sources?  there have been plenty of analyses of the scaling issue.  i've also looked at Gavin's calcs and simulation.  the Tradeblock analyses are good.  basically, there's lots of good info on scaling if you're willing to look around.  it should work out just fine.  and yes, i trust Gavin way more than the BS devs.  all the character assassinations don't help as well.


his theory depends on Bitcoin simply failing to execute Satoshi's vision.

Delusions of grandeur, check.

And so now you know why I think I am sitting on a motherlode silver mine right now.


That is for me to know and for you to find out  


It won't compete either if you raise or don't raise the block size. Go ahead and make my day either way.

@doc it seems I'm missing something indeed... You seem to assume that much bad stuff can happen from blocksteam and sc and ln and all this stuff, but none of that can happen unless we increase the block size, so this would seem to invite caution when assessing changes that increase the block size. -- yet you blindly trust and follow and support Mike Hearn and Gavin Andreessen's proposal to recklessly increase the blocksize?

@thezerg how did this new coin achieve greater security and trust than bitcoin? How did "silver" become more trusted than "gold"?

I do not understand the fear, or the reason for it.

No his point was you asserted that DoS protection is no longer needed without providing a logical proof. Your circumstantial BS and sound bite illogic isn't engineering.

So destroy the ability to use P2Pool when we really need later. Illogical to conclude that something underused in one set of constraints is necessarily (without a logical reasoning) no longer need in another set of (lack of) constraints.

Sure go ahead and cut off your feet to spite your face (reduce the degrees-of-freedom because you are omniscient and don't need to walk in the future because you have levitron strapped to your back). MAKE MY DAY PLEASE.

Hey we already have a fiat financial system. Since everybody is doing it that way, let's just move further that direction right. Intelligent way to frame a debate, that since we are already headed into the toilet bowl outcome with Buttcon, then let's accelerate it.

Thanks so much. You are doing my promotion for me. Kudos.

This is what gives me the fear:

This coin provides an integrated BTC wallet on both PC and phone, simply by forking existing open source Bitcoin wallets and adding "new coin" code (so this is not much harder than creating standalone "new coin" wallets).  The wallet allows you to make trustless anonymously exchanges between new coin and BTC.  This is very easy to do technically: you add a special txn to the new coin which says "only valid if there is a Bitcoin TXN to this public address with N confirmations".  Seller of new coin issues this its first, the Bitcoin seller issues its txn when it sees the new coin txn.  If the Bitcoin seller's txn is not issued or confirmed, the new coin txn is invalidated (it remains on the new coin blockchain but becomes a no-op).

you may be the one missing something.

what i think he was saying is that if Cripplecoin is allowed to remain in place even with the addition of SC's or LN, it won't be able to compete with a lighter nimble altcoin that has no such block limit.  reason being, that some feel that SC's or LN, esp if Blockstream is allowed to continue it's financial confliction, will result in a centralized, settlement level, high tx value type unusable cryptocurrency only for institutions, geeks, and wealthy elite.  that is, if it doesn't just outright die from small niche use.

a truly scalable Bitcoin knock off w/o this confliction and centralization might be able to truly take off and fund the masses even at the level of microtx's. 

let's hope this isn't what has to happen.

Very close, but no cigar. You miss the security gap. This is the real selling point for bitcoin. Silver and gold had very similar security profiles, with gold only being ever-so-slightly better (the value per weight).

In crypto, each coin that has it's own chain has a distinctly different security profile. At this point, bitcoin is in the lead when it comes to security of the ledger. Unless this other coin offers better security, or at least very close to equal security, the scenario you theorize is not possible. It could happen,  maybe, someday, but not currently possible.

You are mistaken if you think solo miners, large enough to reliably mine solo blocks, don't operate very well connected and outfitted nodes already. P2Pool may be another case because of its own architecture, but in reality it's not remotely large enough to justify outsized influence on protocol wide parameters. If miners felt that was wrong, they could work to give P2Pool more share in terms of global hashrate.  

Once upon a time when gold was used as currency, silver was also used because you couldn't reasonably mint coin small enough to pay for things like a meal (I heard that this is also why the "bar tab" was invented -- when even silver became too valuable).

With Bitcoin, it seems like 1 Satoshi is small enough to ensure that a "silver to bitcoin's gold" does not happen.  However, I think that this is untrue; 1 Satoshi is analogous to 1 atom of gold.  The actual minimum bitcoin transfer can be estimated by the point where is becomes inconvenient or expensive to make the transfer.  This varies by the individual but I feel it would be a transaction fee of somewhere between 1 and 10 percent.

So the Satoshi is not the smallest effective Bitcoin unit.  The smallest practical bitcoin unit is something between 10 and 100 times the transaction fee.

I think that the result of an unscaled bitcoin blockchain is that small-payment niche will open up, allowing a scalable altcoin blockchain to gain market share (lightning network, centralized solutions, and sidechains may block this niche, to an unknown extent -- but note they didn't for gold).  This cryptocurrency will begin as the "silver to bitcoin's gold", and a clever implementation might ride Bitcoin's coat-tails to adoption.  If Bitcoin becomes extremely successful this new cryptocurrency will overtake it in daily use just like silver overtook gold.  But what advantages will Bitcoin have over this new currency?  Gold's advantage was essentially its greater value to volume (and weight) ratio.  But (as with any crypto-currency), you'll be able to carry and transact large quantities of this new cryptocurrency just as easily as small.  So Bitcoin will have no advantage.  The new cryptocurrency will ultimately dominate transactions and market cap.

What do you think about this reasoning?

sorry you weren't able to discern that i merely parroted your very words back at you.  so any "aggression" you attempt to smear me with, simply look back in the mirror.

No it doesn't negate the second point unless you think winner-take-all (or at least greater centralization) of the pools is a desired next step.

Also the former did not already happen for those with sufficient hashrate (or perhaps hardware NAV economics) such that mining on a pool has undesirable tradeoffs, such as paying fees (or perhaps anonymity timing correlation attacks on onion routing to the known termination node the pool). I don't claim to be omniscient on all the reasons why nodes don't all mine on pools. Also keep in mind P2Pool which has some of the economic benefits of a pool yet requires miners to have the bandwidth to handle the block size.

Aha   thank you. Now I understand the vehemence and panic that I sense from most of the people that are trying to push for bigger blocks. The problem here is that you cannot force me to accept your fork; you can't force me to accept your blocks; you can't force me to accept your unspent transactions.   You. can't. force. me.   You must convince me, but since you lack sufficient logical argument to convince, you resort to coercion, or as in your original post that ruffled my feathers , down right threats.

As I posted earlier I am open to compromise or negotiation, and I think that eventually a rational solution will find consensus and bitcoin will move on. I just find the aggressive posturing and fear-mongering methods of many of the people pushing for bigger blocks to be tiresome, and frankly, childish.

This already happened, several years ago in fact. Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings.

The former already happening substantially negates your second point. Additionally, we are talking about graduated increases here, not 1 to 256MB overnight.

a goal of increasing fees is a worthy goal.  but when you propose to maintain a 1MB choke that was always meant to be a DoS protection mechanism to be removed when Bitcoin is ready, then YOU should expect serious opposition.

above chart 1min.  here's the daily Dow futures.  note the breakdown.  they were lying to you: