Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 315. (Read 2032266 times)

They may use

-fiat

-"sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain"

-altcoins' blockchains

The "great schism" is going to be underwhelming.

MP's popularity among certain subpopulations is a function of the prelevance of daddy issues in the Bitcoin community. He and the members of his cult of personality are stuck in a mutually-destructive relationship that precludes their capabilities from living up to the hype.

Care to elaborate on that? Those who cannot afford to transact on the blockchain, what will they use instead?

You are confusing equality of opportunity (which is precluded by 20mb nodes' large care & feeding reqs) with equality of outcome (which is in no meaningful way encouraged by a mere 19mb increase). 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_of_outcome#Comparing_equalities_outcome_vs_opportunity

More than 1% of the world has already heard of Bitcoin, although only 0.001% of them >0 fucks about whether blocks are capped at 1mb or 20mb.

Until UXTO growth is contained within sustainable parameters, it is hopeless to expect anything resembling mass direct use to be driven by mere transactions per second.

People care about the price, not throughput.

The Great Schism threatens the price, which in turn retards hype/awareness/adoption/growth.

If the civil war goes hot and dueling forks ensue, there's no telling what kind of damage and FUD will be released in the wake of double-spent GavinCoins.

Mircea and his #BTC-assets brigade has already declared 20mb blocks to be an attack on Bitcoin, so some degree of fireworks/popcorn/tears/LULZ/drama are guaranteed.

One would only have to 'spend on both chains' if the recipient were demanding multi-chain legal outputs.  This would be an unlikely demand since only long term hodlers who controlled fossil UTXO's would be able to create them.  OTOH, such spends could very well command much higher valuations making Bitcoin Gavincoin as a currency highly non-fungible.

When sidechains or some like solution is well developed they can choose any backing store they like.  As long as Bitcoin is still idling along in the background, and especially if a highly distributed collection of full nodes exist to support it, many sidechains will probably choose Bitcoin as their backing store rather than Gavincoin.  I'll be taking a bet on this eventuality (and earning some spending money) by relinquishing control of a portion of my Gavincoin while maintaining control of it's Bitcoin counterpart.  At least if I can obtain a decent price for my Gavincoin-only spends.

As for 'abstaining from transactions', I've had no trouble doing so for the nearly two-year price slump and am not approaching the end of my patience.  Gavincoin will provoke a battle royal which could take many years to complete and may spawn and ecosystem of perpetual combat.  One way or another, the saying "If you cannot stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen" applies.  Those who are not technically and intellectually agile would be well advised to stick with Wells Fargo and Paypal.

edit: strike

doesn't compute.  if we're stuck at only 0.001% of the population even knowing about Bitcoin b/c of 1MB, that's not a definition of "everyone".

Nonsense.

To quote the great davout,

iCEBREAKER, your vision sucks. 

People can't directly submit txns because they are too expensive due to limited space.  So coin used for spending must be held by larger institutions who handle payments internally, and periodically make blockchain transfers among themselves.  These institutions will inevitably go fractional reserve even though they claim they won't.

Congratulations, you've reinvented the gold backed banking system of the 19th century!

Bitcoin isn't going to fail because of full blocks.  I find your lack of faith disturbing.  As New Liberty said, "Sell your fear elsewhere."

It may experience temporary graceful degradation, but such adversity is required by antifragile systems in order to grow stronger.

Avg. Jose doesn't yet care about full nodes because he's never heard of Bitcoin, and Bitcoin hasn't yet closed the loop w/r/t fiat exclusion.

The infrastructure needed to onboard Avg. Jose, such as Lightning/Sidechains/linear UXTO scaling, is still in the vapor R&D stage.

Coddling BTC with lavish 20mb blocks, at the first hint of a possible sign of a whiff of tx fee pressure, decreases motivation to complete and implement that infrastructure and those optimizations.

BTC hype is largely driven by its price in fiat.  Price increases, not tps capacity, are what will sustain the next waves of publicity, awareness, and adoption.

What do you think the Great Schism and associated FUD are doing/will do to the price of BTC?

Will buyers think 'oh goody, BTC's stock is about to split into a parent corporation and a GavinCoin spin-off' or, 'holy shit, wtf do you mean I have to spend on both chains or abstain from transactions until the fork is resolved?"



The soft 1mb cap is protecting us from the hard (but uncertain) UXTO cap.  It was put in place for another reason, but also happens to be a serendipitous magic number.

Until UXTO optimization/pruning can keep set growth (sub)linear, Bitcoin cannot replace Western Union, much less Visa.

To quote the great davout,

it's reasonable to assume if we get 10x users, we'd get 10x #full nodes, and 10x the value.  we can't do that with a technical cap.

Another one from Gavin

http://gavinandresen.ninja/bigger-blocks-another-way

I was being a bit facetious because of this nonsensical comment:

The first one is opinion.  The second one is fact.  I have seen plenty of blocks come through at 9xx kb, so yes the 1mb limit has been reached.

excuse my ignorance, but why is average joe (or average jose in argentina) "required" to run a full node.

why cant they run an spv client?  Are spv clients like multibit unsafe (or not safe enough?) once sync'd to the rest of the nodes. satoshi believed that the vast majority would use spv clients. was this an unwise decision to make?

yes, the avg Venezuelan doesn't care about running a full node.  he cares about reliable, cheap tx's.  sad thing is, if we stay at 1MB blocks, he might never know about Bitcoin.  and he certainly will never learn about the more complex concept of digital gold.

Nonsense.

Bitcoin does not "fail."  It gains strength when, and only when, faced with adversity.

In this case, economic and social pressure from full blocks will force ad hoc (offchain) and per se (technical) optimizations, as well as the required consensus/political courage to implement those big scary changes.

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

if Gavin goes ahead with his fork, i suspect most miners and nodes will upgrade; just in case.  this allows them to build on any block that comes thru, whether it is under 1MB or over.  and if this happens, i suspect everyone/miners goes back to the long tested strategy of accepting the longest chain as they always have, as this limits the chances of orphans.

Gavin (but no other core dev) and Hearn strenuously believe we are at, or fast approaching, the "eventually" of which Satoshi spoke.

To one degree or another, the rest of the core devs disagree we have arrived or will soon arrive at that eventuality.

Because the trade-offs involved are valued differently by different individuals, at this point no consensus is possible.  Thus, status quo prevails.

It's not reasonable to expect Bitcoin to jump directly from 3 tps to tipping economy nirvana.

Of course nobody claims 20mb blocks get us anywhere near Micropaymentopia either.  But 20mb blocks aren't just a can-kick band-aid stop-gap, as they threaten the diffuse/defensible/resilient systems which undergrid Bitcoin's antifragility.

2015 is earliest possible date within SN's "5 or 10 years" forecast.  What good causes have we to seize upon the most optimistic scenario and proclaim it as factually reasonable?

Shouldn't we at minimum wait until the UXTO problem is optimized to go and press the Turbo button?


Who mentioned "average Joe?"  Not me. 

But I disagree that Average Joe cannot run a full node with a laptop, some extra RAM, and an average DSL.  Average Joe is very clever when his life savings is at stake, and his pocket is being picked by price inflation and ZIRP/NIRP.

Do you consider LukeJr an "average Joe?"  I don't.  If LukeJr can't run a full 20mb node in Florida, just imagine how many other lesser beings would be excluded.

The struggling Argentinian/Venezuelan/Cypriot/Ukrainian/Syrian is closer to "average Joe" but they find themselves in extraordinary (IE non-average) economic and political circumstances, which require them to run full nodes as a lifeline instead of a mere hobby.

no. and no.



the average joe doesnt give a crap about bitcoin for all i can see right now.  
and its likely not to change in the short/medium term considering the averageness of their minds regarding economy or finance.
it would take a brutal shutdown of global finance, spoiling and bailing in their personal accounts for them to realize they've been duped (being polite here).

games and wine for the masses. not bitcoin.


edit: or fiat and drones apparently.. but still no bitcoin.

The experiment will likely fail if it the network is NOT upgraded and the limit eventually removed.  The limit has already been reached anyway.

Running a full client is ALREADY too resource-intensive for average Joe.  The blockchain.info model is better suited for average Joe.  That model has proven to solve the problem of trust in an environment where trust has been violated a majority of the time.  Average Joe will be his own bank with a simple web interface where he has full control over his keys.