Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 180. (Read 2032248 times)

Much of the blocksize-limit debate is about keeping Bitcoin decentralized.  But I'm not even sure we even agree what that word means!  I'll propose the following as a working definition:

  "A system is decentralized if no entity exists that can exert veto power over the consensus process."

Interestingly, according to this definition a system cannot be more decentralized or less decentralized.  Similar to how a woman cannot be a little bit pregnant, a system is either decentralized or it is not.  

Of course there's certain behaviours that a woman can do to increase the chances of moving from the "not" state to the "pregnant" state, and certain precautions she can take to decrease these chances--but this is a different matter entirely to whether she is or is not pregnant.  Analogously, there are certain designs that may be more (or less) robust to moving to a centralized state, but that's a different thing from whether the system is or is not decentralized.  

So we actually need two distinct terms: "decentralized" is one of them, but we need another term that refers to the system's likelihood of remaining in the decentralized state.  

+1.  I read that comment and thought the same thing.

According to https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html there are 2,794,041 (53.24%) addresses with value less than 0.0001 btc.

If we have enough space for this shit https://blockchain.info/tx/73026d18b0b3e627c7b1b84bea69496963b91d7e2ddb1b9efab9622836e6c6c8 then we do not need increase in block size.

Let them pay $1 per transaction.

Quoted for truth:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3bajai/by_expecting_a_few_developers_to_make/cskk0vq

tvbcof, TPTB, iCEBlow, MOA, kazukiPIMP?

i know they gotcha on Ignore but that's beside the point.  the point is for you to help me generate even more views and keep the thread front and center so more and moar ppl can view the poll results and so you can reinforce my importance and this thread to the community.

get with the character assassinations you thugs.

A fixed size increase as a way to buy time before the measures needed to make the limit unnecessary can be put into place is a very reasonable and practical solution.

The long term solution is to have no magic constants for transaction rate limits, but getting there will take time.

blocks are filling up b/c of the buying going on. 

who here wants to be stuck with unconfirmed tx buy pressure b/c of the fricking 1MB'ers?

geezuz crimony.  look at the blocks filling up.  and this is NOT a spam attack. it's from use:

http://btc.blockr.io/block/list/

yet Cripplecoin.

That mechanism exists it's cleverly linked to the value stored in the network.
The debate is when the network has a low value how should we intervene to prevent abuse.

One side see introducing mechanisms for high fees as the best deterrent. The opponents say that will limit adoption.
The other see growth as a higher priority and intervention only if abuse becomes a problem. Innovation in tech sets a good president for this approach.

Many Core developers are risk adverse, it's their way or the highway as they are the gate keepers, they are also the ones who would have to fix any problems so they feel they are better equipped to make this decision. - problem is this has highlighted a conflict in development and that is central controlled policy makers decided for us which brigs into question the whole idea that Bitcoin is decentralized.  

In my view If anything we should be planning for Bitcoin growth and working on ways to prevent the existing mechanism from abuse.  

character assassins please step up.

you're letting the thread fall too low.

yes, i would disregard any fixed size bumps, as throwing random numbers to kick the can further down the road seems quite juvenile.

About Poll,
I think that bitcoin needs a variable size, readjust depending on the size.

Interesting. You are right about the path we are on.

The inexorable dilemma.
To win the game, or to change the game?

Sometimes it takes a bit of one to do the other, until the other manifests its opportunity.
Shades of grey.

Jefferson was philosophically opposed to slavery (supposedly) but he was a slave owner.  I recognize both the limitations of 'hard money' and the engineering benefits of Keynesian monetary management schemes and debt-based money.  I've been a long time 'gold bug' who believes that in an idealized social order 'hard money' would be problematic.  Bitcoin and gold are about the same thing to me in terms of monetary science, and I feel it most prudent to protect my own ass at the moment.  'keeping some powder dry' so to speak.

Although in earlier life I'd legitimately (and probably incorrectly) considered myself to be a 'socialist', I'd mostly abandoned that label by the time of my first post here.  I re-enabled the tag from time to time here but mostly for trolling purposes.

The main reason I have most recently rejected 'socialism' with significantly more vigor is that I see more clearly that we are way more advanced along this path than I had realized.  We overshot any possible usefulness and are on the steep downward path toward totalitarianism.  The 'socialists' seem to be thinking that they could leverage the utility of crony capitalism to perhaps grease the rails.  Some of them maybe believed they could shake it.  In fact they were some combination of being themselves used as tools and just becoming evil (or more evil in a lot of cases.)  They are stuck in a box canyon.  I bailed and will take my chances with the Libertarians since at the end of the day I always did have more in common with them in some of the most important ways anyhow.

Libertarians are just stupid. They don't realize that the market can provide security.

2 second truce to wonder in awe at the parallels between us and how we can see things so utterly differently.  OK, that passed.

The article was near perfect. But I don't think it represents the knowledge of wall street, despite the site name. But slowly, they are coming.

To spice up the potential interest to read; from the article:

"the race is over and Bitcoin has won.  Time to fight the real war, which is the separation of money from the state."

there's some truth to this.  but there are several good reasons for it:

1.  i think i'm right
2.  i have a clear unconflicted conscience as my sole disclaimer is i own some coins
3.  having a lucrative career in a non tech arena, i have no desire or need to find employment or any association whatsoever with any cryptocurrency company.  thus my sole participation in Bitcoin is on these forums and is purely focused on what i think is right or necessary for the good of Bitcoin.  i don't even go to conferences except for the San Jose one from 2 yrs ago.
4.  having grown up in a relatively disadvantaged manner with other like kids, i have learned to be thrifty, not take anything for granted, and fight for what i want and believe in, not only academically but physically.  i have a strong desire to advocate and protect the disadvantaged.  
5.  through my own intellect and work ethos, i managed to get into a very well respected, well compensated profession in which i am able to do real good to and for ppl.  ppl trust me to operate on their eyes for God's sake.  i have saved literally thousands of ppl from blindness.  both here and on volunteer trips in foreign countries.  God has blessed me in more ways than i can count.  ppl come up to me to this day who i've not seen for over 22 yrs and say thank you for saving my vision and say things like i'll never forget you.  thus, i have seen the good in ppl and it brings out the same in me.  i pity ppl like iCEBlow, tvbcof, MOA, and TPTB b/c if i had to guess, they've been abused by their fathers in childhood.  when i listen to them i hear fear, anger, disdain, mistrust.  they only see the negatives in ppl and their surroundings.  what a miserable bunch of cuss they are.
6.  these types of blessings give me clear conviction to advocate for what i think is best for Bitcoin, and not for my pocketbook.  yes, Bitcoin could go to zero and it wouldn't effect me in a detrimental way.  at_all.

all these things make me vomit when i see ppl like iCEBLOW, tvbcof, MOA, & TPTB try to distort the truth and act like thugs.i think they're bloviating bullies the kind i used to fight on the playgrounds.  i don't mind doing it as i have nothing to lose.  they pick on Gavin in the same way who is too mature to engage these pricks.  so yeah, i'll step up and do it for him.  i don't mind.  i have nothing to lose.  

i believe Bitcoin needs to dissect the cancer that is Blockstream from the core dev team.  the financial conflicts are too great. Mike & Gavin can't possibly be any less financially conflicted in their recommendations. their refusal to even give a counter proposal to Gavin, despite them hedging that they all want a block size increase, is disingenuous at best.  saying that while doing nothing is equivalent to flat out opposition afaic.  Bitcoin is a public good.  if they were mature, honest individuals, all 9 of those core devs involved in BS would step down out of self respect and the desire to avoid controversy.  but no, that is not the level of integrity we have in core dev.  that's sad to me.  so it won't stop me from talking about it no matter how badly they attack me.

the attacks on me and this thread are actually testimony to just how successfully and highly thought of i am in their eyes.  i see right through their bullshit and take all the criticism as the ultimate tribute as to what i have achieved here.  their only option is to resort to character assassination.  they need to fill this thread up as much as possible with disinformation to distract from my message and smear my reputation in their desperation to co-opt Bitcoin.  i think it's laughable b/c what i've learned over the years is that there are lots of good ppl here on the forum whom i respect and admire.  they will see right through the bullshit.  b/c fundamentally i believe most ppl are good and want to do the right thing, i believe they will see what these guys are up to.  these thugs fundamentally disrespect all of you; they don't think you have the intelligence to discern.  it is also why Bitcoin is destined to succeed b/c their are more good ppl in the world who will hold the evil ones to task in the up and coming transparent open source and technological age.  

i also welcome all the posts these guys make as it drives up this thread to the top of the forum where every can see the poll results and also listen to my message.  they are playing right into my hands.

I'm assuming he means Mircea Popescu personally?