Next two years of blockbloat on a fingernail:
Please transport that to me within 10 minutes via my laptop's 3G (often dropping down to 56 kbps) wireless connection.
Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 185. (Read 2032248 times)
Please transport that to me within 10 minutes via my laptop's 3G (often dropping down to 56 kbps) wireless connection.
Edit: Oh ya, and another thing (again.) The reason why you cannot get the 1MB filled up with coffee purchase after 6 years of trying and a lot of help from the media and regulators is this: Bitcoin SUCKS BALLS as an exchange currency. It is simply not competitive in this capacity and never will be. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but you need to come to terms with this eventually.
For micropayments, then 0-confirmation works, but Bitcoin can't scale decentralized. Even if this is solved for BTC on a SC (such as my design does), there is still the remaining issue that private keys are a pain for users to manage. But this can be solved with hardware keys and M-of-N of them with multi-sig (since users lose things).
So I believe BTC can in theory (vaporware and all) be an exchange currency and decentralized. Do you disagree?
Next two years of hurr durr cheep hard drives :
[argumentum ad Amazon]
[argumentum ad Amazon]
That is one data point. The trend, however, is not blockbloat's friend:
Perhaps you recall this lesson from Economics 101: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminishing_returns
Unlike Nielsen, Moore, and Kryder's so-called Laws, diminishing returns is an actual a priori Law of nature, not merely an artifact of a cherry-picked sample range.
The only way to densely pack "tons of transactions paying minimum fees" into the extremely scarce resource of the blockchain is to use LN/SC/alt/off-chain mechanisms to aggregate payments and settle on the MotherChain. Even on a cluster of 24-core Xeons, blockchain tech cannot verify tx fast enough to *DIRECTLY* compete with centralized/specialized Visa-scale infrastructure.
There is another way.
Next two years of blockbloat on a fingernail:
Thank Satoshi and his silent 1MB patch for that. Accident? Design? We may never know.
It'll be interesting to find out if the applicability of such a storage device spans the inevitable 'bail-in'.
Heh, the Gavinistas are having a very bad day week. 
First, Frap.doc was put upon to explain...
Actually it's been a bad 18 months and counting for Mr. 'bitcoin up' fap.doc.First, Frap.doc was put upon to explain...
OK sure, but the recent one-two wombo combo of Gavin declaring
A. "the financial crisis is over"
and
B. "The sky will not fall if the block size stays at 1MB"
can't be easy for poor old Doctor Frappy to explain away with his usual hand-waving assclown routine.
By
Next two years of blockbloat on a fingernail:
http://www.droid-life.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/sandisk-ultra-200gb-microsd.jpg
http://www.droid-life.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/sandisk-ultra-200gb-microsd.jpg
The way to generate resiliency for Bitcoin is to get to the point that each block generates $10M in fees.
Today each block generates around $4,500 in fees on average.
That is not resilient, that is weak and easy for any state to attack.
This idea that using fee pressure on a low # of transactions is a way to get to high value blocks from fees is absurd. The way to get to high value blocks is tons of transactions paying minimum fees.
Today each block generates around $4,500 in fees on average.
That is not resilient, that is weak and easy for any state to attack.
This idea that using fee pressure on a low # of transactions is a way to get to high value blocks from fees is absurd. The way to get to high value blocks is tons of transactions paying minimum fees.
Agree with the first 3 sentences, but only in a superficial way. The fourth is just more absurd, Frappuccino Doc-esque bloviating.
As fee pressure rises, "attacking" (IE filling up) blocks becomes more expensive. An attacker would have to pay higher fees than anyone else to stop tx propagation. And PT's replace-by-fee makes that already unworkable strategy obsolete.
Your naive $4.5k/block figure illustrates the fact GavinCoin won't fix this so-called problem; 20 (or eight) times $4.5k is still nothing to any semi-resourceful attacker (much less TLA national statists).
The only way to densely pack "tons of transactions paying minimum fees" into the extremely scarce resource of the blockchain is to use LN/SC/alt/off-chain mechanisms to aggregate payments and settle on the MotherChain. Even on a cluster of 24-core Xeons, blockchain tech cannot verify tx fast enough to *DIRECTLY* compete with centralized/specialized Visa-scale infrastructure.
As others have already noted,
Quote
Bitcoin's value comes from its decentralization, not low tx tees. If u don't value that, centralized systems can meet ur needs
and
Quote
"universal payments" is both a laudable goal and a
shopworn bitcoin marketing slogan.
The fundamental engineering truths diverge from that misty goal:
Bitcoin is a settlement system, by design.
The process of consensus "settles" upon a timeline of transactions,
and this process -- by design -- is necessarily far from instant.
Alt-coins that madly attempt 10-second block times etc. are simply a
vain attempt to paper over this fundamental design attribute:
consensus takes time.
As such, the blockchain can never support All The Transactions, even
if block size increases beyond 20MB. Further layers are -- by design
-- necessary if we want to achieve the goal of a decentralized payment
network capable of supporting full global traffic.
shopworn bitcoin marketing slogan.
The fundamental engineering truths diverge from that misty goal:
Bitcoin is a settlement system, by design.
The process of consensus "settles" upon a timeline of transactions,
and this process -- by design -- is necessarily far from instant.
Alt-coins that madly attempt 10-second block times etc. are simply a
vain attempt to paper over this fundamental design attribute:
consensus takes time.
As such, the blockchain can never support All The Transactions, even
if block size increases beyond 20MB. Further layers are -- by design
-- necessary if we want to achieve the goal of a decentralized payment
network capable of supporting full global traffic.
Heh, the Gavinistas are having a very bad
First, Frap.doc was put upon to explain...
Actually it's been a bad 18 months and counting for Mr. 'bitcoin up' fap.doc.
Yep. Even my blind patients can see this.
Two peas (pea brains) in a pod.
we're not even under attack yet blocks continue to fill up:
Unbelievable! It's almost as if subsidizing spam/noise transactions creates more of them. 
Paging Justusranvier to explain in free-market
Heh, the Gavinistas are having a very bad
First, Frap.doc was put upon to explain with some semblance of logical consistency how he reaches the same pro-bloat conclusion as [email protected], despite operating on quite opposite assumptions w/r/t the financial crisis being over (now and in the med. term future).
Then came yet another face-r3kking, sig-worthy domination tweet from Jon Matonis (as if the previous from Szatoshi Backamoto weren't enough) about the utter futility of shoehorning Bitcon's square settlement peg into VisaPayPal's round payment hole:
And finally(?) Dear Leader Himself debunks [email protected] and Frap.doc's attempts to ram through ill-considered hard forks using fear and mass hysteria:
The way to generate resiliency for Bitcoin is to get to the point that each block generates $10M in fees.
Today each block generates around $4,500 in fees on average.
That is not resilient, that is weak and easy for any state to attack.
This idea that using fee pressure on a low # of transactions is a way to get to high value blocks from fees is absurd. The way to get to high value blocks is tons of transactions paying minimum fees.
Yep. Even my blind patients can see this.
The way to generate resiliency for Bitcoin is to get to the point that each block generates $10M in fees.
Today each block generates around $4,500 in fees on average.
That is not resilient, that is weak and easy for any state to attack.
This idea that using fee pressure on a low # of transactions is a way to get to high value blocks from fees is absurd. The way to get to high value blocks is tons of transactions paying minimum fees.
Today each block generates around $4,500 in fees on average.
That is not resilient, that is weak and easy for any state to attack.
This idea that using fee pressure on a low # of transactions is a way to get to high value blocks from fees is absurd. The way to get to high value blocks is tons of transactions paying minimum fees.
Oh STFU, you already made a complete fool of yourself upthread and now you come back to slobber on the thread some more.
The way to resilency is to eliminate the 51% attack with my consensus design.
I already explained to you that Bitcoin's consensus algorithm can not scale decentralized, thus any such large scale will not be resilient against centralization. If centralization is your goal, then you can claim resilience in that context.
...
here's the thing. Bitcoin was so new and so experimental, even the geeks failed to understand that which hath been created. i'm am going to stop saying "that they hath created" b/c that would be giving too much credit to geeks/engineers in general now that the secrets out about their ability to understand Bitcoin over the rest of us.
...
here's the thing. Bitcoin was so new and so experimental, even the geeks failed to understand that which hath been created. i'm am going to stop saying "that they hath created" b/c that would be giving too much credit to geeks/engineers in general now that the secrets out about their ability to understand Bitcoin over the rest of us.
...
Bitcoin being 'new and experimental' is getting to be a VERY tired excuse. It's been around for 6 years and in the news for going on 4 now since the first big run-up. That is an eternity in Internet terms. From above:
Quote
Edit: Oh ya, and another thing (again.) The reason why you cannot get the 1MB filled up with coffee purchase after 6 years of trying and a lot of help from the media and regulators is this: Bitcoin SUCKS BALLS as an exchange currency. It is simply not competitive in this capacity and never will be. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but you need to come to terms with this eventually.
Bitcoin is on the cusp of settling in to the role that it is actually is good for thanks to the Blockstream guys. It will be one of the most miraculous of saves ever if it makes it through the dark days of Gavin and the Bitcoin Foundation, but it looks like a distinct possibility.
we're not even under attack yet blocks continue to fill up:
Unbelievable! It's almost as if subsidizing spam/noise transactions creates more of them. Paging Justusranvier to explain in free-market
Heh, the Gavinistas are having a very bad
First, Frap.doc was put upon to explain with some semblance of logical consistency how he reaches the same pro-bloat conclusion as [email protected], despite operating on quite opposite assumptions w/r/t the financial crisis being over (now and in the med. term future).
Then came yet another face-r3kking, sig-worthy domination tweet from Jon Matonis (as if the previous from Szatoshi Backamoto weren't enough) about the utter futility of shoehorning Bitcon's square settlement peg into VisaPayPal's round payment hole:
And finally(?) Dear Leader Himself debunks [email protected] and Frap.doc's attempts to ram through ill-considered hard forks using fear and mass hysteria:
The way to generate resiliency for Bitcoin is to get to the point that each block generates $10M in fees.
Today each block generates around $4,500 in fees on average.
That is not resilient, that is weak and easy for any state to attack.
This idea that using fee pressure on a low # of transactions is a way to get to high value blocks from fees is absurd. The way to get to high value blocks is tons of transactions paying minimum fees.
Oh my iCe (never thought I'd be on your side of any issue), good one. Lol.
You forgot to spray paint "Gavinistas" on the door.
you got nothing
That's true, I got nothing. But I can still be touchy, rude, and grumpy while being content-free.
Thanks for reminding me I forgot to include this logical technical argument in my re-cap of the Gavinista's Very Bad
Quote
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/10/kryders_law_of_ever_cheaper_storage_disproven/
Kryder's Law says disk storage will keep on getting cheaper. Yet it is increasingly looking like it won't, which has baleful implications for cloud storage and archiving.
Like Moore's Law, Kryder's Law is (a) not a law, merely a wonderfully apt observation for a prolonged but not eternal period of time, and (b) borne of an incredibly bold and confident view of technology.
The assumption was that: "If you could afford to store some data for a few years, you could afford to store it forever. The cost of that much storage would have become negligible." Only that is no longer true.
Kryder's Law says disk storage will keep on getting cheaper. Yet it is increasingly looking like it won't, which has baleful implications for cloud storage and archiving.
Like Moore's Law, Kryder's Law is (a) not a law, merely a wonderfully apt observation for a prolonged but not eternal period of time, and (b) borne of an incredibly bold and confident view of technology.
The assumption was that: "If you could afford to store some data for a few years, you could afford to store it forever. The cost of that much storage would have become negligible." Only that is no longer true.
So much for the 'hurr durr cheap hard drives' (AKA argumentum ad Amazon) rational for GavinCoin.
that would be giving too much credit to geeks/engineers in general now that the secrets out about their ability to understand Bitcoin over the rest of us.
don't get me wrong; i can clearly see the geeks/engineers whom i need to pay respect to; they know who they are. but the rest of you, especially you, can be confidently ignored.
don't get me wrong; i can clearly see the geeks/engineers whom i need to pay respect to; they know who they are. but the rest of you, especially you, can be confidently ignored.
I will be ROTFLMAO soon...
I am going to turn your SHA256 ASICs into paperweights.
You will be bankrupted and perhaps headed to debtor's prison.
Unbelievable! It's almost as if subsidizing spam/noise transactions creates more of them.
Indeed, building wider motorways doesn't necessarily solve traffic congestion. A bunch of other things sometimes do (raising gasoline/car taxes/prices, regulation, unemployment, crime, alternative transport, virtual working, better city layout, emigration...).
Problem: traffic congestion
Free market solution: build turnpikes for high-priority trips willing to pay the toll; encourage/decentralize ride-sharing for lower priority travel
Gavinista solution: put absurdly large wheels on the cars; ignore valid safety/engineering concerns contrary to GavinWheel fanboy preferences
we're not even under attack yet blocks continue to fill up:
Unbelievable! It's almost as if subsidizing spam/noise transactions creates more of them.
...
Whoop - Whoop - Whoop | emergency! | Whoop - Whoop - Whoop | emergency!
Paging Justusranvier to explain in free-market
you supposed engineers are stupid, aren't you?
i'll take a stab at this: for 6 yrs we've had a small enough tx set that barely filled 1MB blocks. now that we're starting to get closer to filling them up, spammers find it more cost effective to spam (don't have to create as many fee paying spam to fill the blocks and cause problems). thus, their attacks start to increase in frequency. that's a problem because of the 1MB limit.
...
Lemme try to clue you in a bit here.
Firstly, if I had a BTC for every dumbshit idea about using the blockchain as some boundless resource for messeging, timestamping, data storage system, etc, I'd be a richer man. Even one piss-ant dice game strained it. You don't think that VC's got cold feet when they looked past the sales pitches and saw the 1MB limit that Satoshi wisely put in? Those who are not capable of that modest level of due-diligence lost all their money a long before they were able use it to fuck up Bitcoin.
Secondly, every one of these dumbshit ideas remains a gleam in the creator's eye and ready to pounce as soon as you crypto-socialist Gavinistas do your thing.
My own 'paracoin' idea to parasitize the subsidized data store and hitch a free ride on the Yetta-hashes as they become available. Thankfully that idea was never needed because most of the dev team has been smart enough to fight off you bloaters for the last few years and develop against the mainchain which has yet to be destroyed.
Paracoin?! hah. i remember that POS (that'd be piece of sh*t). that's when i first began suspecting that all these self proclaimed engineer experts around here were pulling my leg. that was a joke then and it still is a joke today.
here's the thing. Bitcoin was so new and so experimental, even the geeks failed to understand that which hath been created. i'm am going to stop saying "that they hath created" b/c that would be giving too much credit to geeks/engineers in general now that the secrets out about their ability to understand Bitcoin over the rest of us.
don't get me wrong; i can clearly see the geeks/engineers whom i need to pay respect to; they know who they are. but the rest of you, especially you, can be confidently ignored.
we're not even under attack yet blocks continue to fill up:
Unbelievable! It's almost as if subsidizing spam/noise transactions creates more of them.
...
Whoop - Whoop - Whoop | emergency! | Whoop - Whoop - Whoop | emergency!
Paging Justusranvier to explain in free-market
you supposed engineers are stupid, aren't you?
i'll take a stab at this: for 6 yrs we've had a small enough tx set that barely filled 1MB blocks. now that we're starting to get closer to filling them up, spammers find it more cost effective to spam (don't have to create as many fee paying spam to fill the blocks and cause problems). thus, their attacks start to increase in frequency. that's a problem because of the 1MB limit.
...
Lemme try to clue you in a bit here.
Firstly, if I had a BTC for every dumbshit idea about using the blockchain as some boundless resource for messeging, timestamping, data storage system, etc, I'd be a richer man. Even one piss-ant dice game strained it. You don't think that VC's got cold feet when they looked past the sales pitches and saw the 1MB limit that Satoshi wisely put in? Those who are not capable of that modest level of due-diligence lost all their money a long before they were able use it to fuck up Bitcoin.
Secondly, every one of these dumbshit ideas remains a gleam in the creator's eye and ready to pounce as soon as you crypto-socialist Gavinistas do your thing.
My own 'paracoin' idea to parasitize the subsidized data store and hitch a free ride on the Yetta-hashes as they become available. Thankfully that idea was never needed because most of the dev team has been smart enough to fight off you bloaters for the last few years and develop against the mainchain which has yet to be destroyed.
Edit: Oh ya, and another thing (again.) The reason why you cannot get the 1MB filled up with coffee purchase after 6 years of trying and a lot of help from the media and regulators is this: Bitcoin SUCKS BALLS as an exchange currency. It is simply not competitive in this capacity and never will be. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but you need to come to terms with this eventually.
Jump to: