Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 184. (Read 2032248 times)

Pruden and sidhujag, you need to be afraid.

massive losses on the CHINEXT composite, 8.3% at the close.

https://www.google.com/finance?q=CHINEXT+COMPOSITE&ei=2tSMVdmvLIu2iALN_57IAQ

http://www.wsobserver.com/china-stocks-suffer-biggest-one-day-loss-in-5-months-soufun-holdings-ltd-nysesfun-ctrip-com-international-ltd-adr-nasdaqctrp-500-com-ltd-nysewbai/7220618/

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-25/chinese-equity-futures-tumble-ahead-open-morgan-stanely-warns-dont-buy-dip-0

You see iCEBLow, there is nothing to fear:

https://www.coinprices.io/articles/the-hard-fork-no-need-to-worry-bitcoin-upgrades-harness-free-market-consensus

Now a prolonged 1MB spam attack...  

Lots of venom in this thread lately.

I think bigger blocks will just make shit parades more expensive to throw?

I don't think it's useful to post a chart of an altcoin, that has no blocksize limit, in this argument.

We'll see about that soon...

In the meantime, it would front load my future ROTFLMAO, if you (not others who want to keep their shirts) buy moar XMR.

How many times in this thread alone has the fallacy of cherry picking ranges to 'prooove' some larger point been debunked?  10?  100?  I've lost count!  

Your hypocrisy is boundless.  After pimping Bitcoin as Gold 2.0 and acting as a shill for HashFast, you have the audacity to pick on poor little Monero?

If you recall, I was on the fence (leaning against) SCs for quite a long time.  But unlike you I possess an open mind, free from the ossification of early onset senility and elder rage, which is capable of learning new things.  New things such as the Cryptonote protocol, which incorporates the 'blind signatures' invented by Dr. Chaum in the form of ring signatures plus stealth addresses.  Of course that was the plan all along, which you would know if you were remotely worthy of the 'cypher' adjective in your screen name.

XMR is very stable BTW.  And in terms of UX, is where BTC was four years ago (IE on the cusp of breaking out of the nerdosphere into far wider demographics).

TPTB and you are brothers from different mothers.  Newsletter writing crank?  Check!  Endless moaning about doooom and gloooom?  Double check!

Spurned silverbug?  Triple check!  Resent GMax for being the smartest cryptogeek codemonkey in the room?  Quadruple check!  

Please elaborate and provide (if available) evidence for this assertion characterization.

Or, just go back to using words you apparently do not know the definition of, like "thuggish."

AFAIK I have not robbed and/or murdered any travelers (lately  ).  As for Kali worship, [*cough*] no comment.   



BRB, need to pick up turban from dry cleaners...

It made me think if any of this rival groups gave a thought to common interoperability concepts before. A 2 way data communication to alert a preceding autonomous vehicle of another incoming one in the fast lane could be really useful. Even more if the preceding one could let the fast incoming vehicle of the need to change lane due to a obstruction...thus forcing the latter to slow down to allow such evasive manouvering.

What is so boring about this is how none of you one the 1MB side ever say anything factual and instead constantly misrepresent the facts (i.e. lie).

Gavin's proposed change is not $4.5k * 8, instead it is $4.5k * 8 * 2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2 = $36.8M in fees. And that is for one block, it works out to $1B per day in fees. What this means is if bitcoin scales to the point that it regularly fills 8GB blocks, then there is a $1B/day in fees to pay for the network.


And as others have constantly noted, but you have ignored, is decentralization comes from miners. The P2P network does not represent the level of decentralization, independent miners do. Today we have tens of thousand of independent miners. If fees pay $1B/day we will have even more.

this is interesting.

maybe a job for 21 Inc's embedded chips for negotiating right of way:

http://www.businessinsider.com/r-two-rival-self-driving-cars-have-close-call-in-california-2015-6

iCEBlow continues to be lost.

the harder he flaps his lips for Blockstream the worse Monero gets.  his thuggery knows no bounds.  but the harder he thugs for SC's, the faster Monero falls.  and he has no idea why.

meanwhile:

such shallow, naive economic thinking.

I read it like this.

Who are you?

Did you not read what he wrote.

Three times I have pointed out that you guys ignore statistical variance of the bandwidth at any particular node.

I feel I am talking to concrete.

So bigger blocks will make this worse?

The *initial* cost to fill blocks is low, but (assuming actual non-spam/noise demand exists) fee pressure will result in an upward price spiral for the attacker.

However, the more room available in the block, the less effective this free market self-correcting remedy/mechanism becomes.

Isn't the real pressing issue recently the discovery that it takes less than the cost of a Smart car to spam up the system for hours and hours?

I just got back, but



Edit: I don't see how any amount of money would ever be too much to deter bad actors from shitting on our parade for sport. Does blocksize even address this at all?

Like so, so much in this debate, both these perspectives are simultaneously true. Storage has been slowing down in areal density growth for years, but 3D NAND is set to outpace mechanical disks in that and every other characteristic except absolute price still of course (3D NAND SSD's start at large capacities). I heard 16 TB and 24 TB will be available early next year. Set to explode as they increase the layers as the manufacturing technique improves (highest commercial density is 32 layers last I heard). Nanotube/graphene takes it 5nm and below before next decade.

The situation with bandwidth being affordable enough given the proposals on the table is a little more uncertain. The political climate now steers the debate on the price of internet bandwidth, that has ominous concerns as to the slow, fine grinding outcome. There's also reason to be more certain; alot of new and alternative delivery channels are set to go live in the next few years (numerous air/space based internet services, evolving meshnet tech, increased leverage of the cartel licensed spectrum). This can't be looked at any other way than a huge spike in bandwidth supply throughput. Not to say there's not corresponding demand, but it's just an instant answer to the age old "what will they do with this insane new capacity range" (use it up with the most valuable purpose). There's so much more to signals tech than I can even remember to put here, so suffice to say that it's set to proliferate and interoperate in so many unexpected, unpredictable, and disruptive ways.

At the same time, we've got a long time to decide much at all about this blocksize debate. We have scalability software designs to consider. We have/will have hardware (and core bitcoin software) that can likely handle most of the outcomes. So there's too much hyperbolic polarisation of this debate altogether. Don't like what Gavin did with the fork, but he's right to point out what he did recently; that an incredibly cheap system for transacting with becomes a fraction more expensive when the blocks start to fill up. It's not going to become unusable overnight, and we're not as close to that point as the hand wavers are suggesting. Relax everybody, it's easier to think it through when there's no empty appeals to urgency.