Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 386. (Read 2032266 times)

Coinbase coming out backing Gavin:

https://twitter.com/cypherdoc2/status/595741967759335426

Maybe the entire point of Ripple was to show bitcoin's superiority to the idea of "modernizing" the traditional money system.

here's LukeJr going off on Reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/34y48z/mike_hearn_the_capacity_cliff_and_why_we_cant_use/cqzadpn

since even before the San Jose Conference 2013, smoothie and i have been pounding this thread and the forum in general about the problems with centralized Ripple gateways and their ridiculous premine model of XRP that awarded the founders billions.  we now see the fallout btwn them that has resulted.  anyone truly understanding of Bitcoin's core principles and how they did not relate to Ripple in any way recognized what has happened from the very beginning.

limited understanding of economics and financial game theory.  his name is gmaxwell.

edit:  oh, and he's willing to try and cover up his posting history in this regard.

life isn't easy and I think there is more to his stress than we know, my only interest is to see Bitcoin succeed.

I cant help but have a little chuckle, it is now obvious to me one Core Developer is an amazing programer but with limited foresight.

So much joy from this news.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/34zj70/fincen_fines_ripple_labs_inc_in_first_civil/

ppl get defensive when they know there's some truth to the allegation.  in fact, they start seeing things that aren't there, like in your comment.  problem is, though, Blockstream for profit does indeed represent a conflict of interest to expanding tx throughput on the MC.  it's clear they stand to profit the more this tx volume gets pushed off to SC's.  plus, given all his Bitcoin skepticism and behavior over the years, it all fits.

LOL, bribing up that history is his response to this comment, for pointing out sidechains stand to benefit from a small transaction size.  I was not picking on him or even challenging his position merely pointing out why there was a debate at all.  

I originally stopped reading after the word specifically. but if it's any consolation ripple has always been a centralized system, and I have taken a lot of flack for pointing out that's its Achilles' heel and not supporting it, why not take some heat on the other side for not recognizing that fact at the start.  

I think nullc relates to sidechains on a very personal level and is feeling very threatened at the moment, my comment was an observation not an accusation for the record.

I like this proposal a lot.

High-priority non-fee transactions that consume older coins are suppose to be just that, free and gain priority access to a block. Today's situation is even if your transaction has enough priority to qualify for free processing, they often take hours to confirm since most minors do not pick high priority transactions without a fee. This completely defeats the purpose of having the priority system at all.

Reserving a front space in each block for high-priority non-fee transactions does two things:
1) It would ensure that high-priority transactions are processed in a timely fashion
2) It would encourage more competition from low-priority transactions and possibly increase the fees they need to offer to be processed quickly

This would shift transaction fees more towards for profit services that are built on top of bitcoin and away from individual wallet users. I would consider this to be a good thing.

Anyone on this thread have contact with any of the core developers? Have they considered it? If not how could zerg propose it (provide people here also think it makes sense...)

what strikes me most about /nullc and LukeJr objections are that they revolve around incorrect perceptions of what the Bitcoin market looks like today.  for instance, /nullc believes that mining is centralizing.  i don't; look at the pie charts from mempool:



the distribution of miners has improved (decentralized) markedly since the ghash event.  i've regularly documented that improvement over the years and believe we may have in fact witnessed the very last time any pool gets anywhere near 50%.  i've argued using game theory and it appears to have been prescient.

also, he believes that the decrease in full nodes "creates huge systemic risk and undermines Bitcoin's value proposition".  give me a break; the decrease in nodes yes might be due partly to node dropout but i think it is mainly due to the proliferation of SPV clients.  furthermore, i was initially a part of the Bitnodes Incentive Program and was one of it's first payment recipients, however, due to the fact they require re-registration every month, i've dropped out.  it's too much of a hassle and involves relatively complex code to re-register while the payout is trivial.  but i still run my nodes and as i've said before, i'm actually looking forward to learning how to prune so i can run a dozen more nodes or so.

and what does he mean by this? "This is especially concerning as we've seen the deployment of full nodes fade out and even large commercial operations become dependant on third party hosted node services."  what's he talking about and where's the evidence?

and then he points to Kaminsky as some kind of prophet?:  "it should be noted that this outcome was already predicted years ago (e.g. by Dan Kaminsky's comments that I was writing about above), but we've still slid into it."  what sticks in my mind is the lost bet btwn Garzik and Kaminsky when DK predicted Bitcoin's underlying Proof-of-Work hash function (Sha-2) would be replaced within 12 months:  https://storify.com/socrates1024/bitcoin-pow-bet-10btc-jgarzik-vs-dakami-may-2014.   There haven't been any more famous tech experts who have been more wrong about Bitcoin.  even DK admits it now.

and then he points to Todd and MPOE as worthy colleagues against increased block sizes:  "Rather, the only push you see against larger blocks come from strong advocates of personal autonomy and decenteralization, like Peter Todd; or the MPOE crowd".   aligning one's self with these 2 is even more dangerous than Kaminsky.

he's always been almost bearish on Bitcoin; for years.  he's always said mining is centralizing despite the facts.  he's been a fan of Ripple in the past here:  https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=Scalability&action=historysubmit&diff=14273&oldid=14112

you'll notice in the link below he admits to going back and deleting his posts of support for Ripple in the past.  who does that?  own up to it, don't try to cover it up.

here's all his concerns highlighted in gory detail  :

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/34uu02/why_increasing_the_max_block_size_is_urgent_gavin/cqycy4h

Blocksize debate blowing up all over /r/Bitcoin right now, though it's mostly pro-increase.

great article by Mike Hearn:

https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-capacity-cliff-586d1bf7715e

I assume a fee market will be ready by then, or by whenever block scarcity becomes an issue.

I don't know if there's much hope of avoiding every possible improper expansion. I'm undecided on whether it really matters to have everything be on blockchain (or otherwise completely un-finagle-able like through OT).

I'm for Gavin's 20MB increase.  But if I was doing it, I'd propose actually building a real supply/demand curve so economic analysis actually works.  The reason it doesn't work today is because additional demand (price) cannot ever create new supply (space in the block).

So I'd do it by allowing txn fee paying blocks to be located beyond the limit (its now a "soft" limit).  In other words, if your txn pays 0uBTC fee it can be located in the block at 0-20MB, if 1uBtc located at 0-21MB, if 2uBTC located at 0-22MB, 3uBTC located at 0-23MB, etc (or some other pricing curve).  So supply (space in a block) can actually increase as demand increases.

You might be able to look at historical block size vs price information to actually price this... it does not need to be perfect since an error will just move the graph a bit.  The biggest concern would be if exponential BTC price increases (vs fiat) makes the minimum fee way too high.  In that case, we are no worse than today's proposal.

weaker, weaker, and weaker:

I'll devote more time to explaining how the price discovery mechanism could be rolled out as an incremental upgrade after I finish with this:

https://github.com/justusranvier/wallet-ratings/tree/2015-1/2015-1