Far from it. Though I expect each can approach it on their chosen level and interpret it through familiar lens filters, however limiting and distorted that may prove to be.
I assumed you were referring to the Lightning Network method of creating a jobs program for soon-to-unemployed bankers rather than just solving the Bitcoin scalability problem directly. 
Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 388. (Read 2032286 times)
Grinding higher
Multiply that by 100M and pretty soon you're making real money.
Here's an example of a money protocol that allowed for "only" 3%/year worth of double spending:
I don't think we need the same security model for buying loaves of bread that we use for buying homes,.
Of course you do, once you understand what the security problem is.The entire job of the Bitcoin network is to make sure that the number of currency units is exactly correct at all times.
There's probably a hundred million loaves of bread sold every day, which represents a hundred million opportunities to improperly expand the currency supply.
Give me an inch and I'll take a mile?
Sounds like banks.
Maybe the better analogy would be HFT bots that steal pennies on every trade. Multiply that by 100M and pretty soon you're making real money.
I don't think we need the same security model for buying loaves of bread that we use for buying homes,.
Of course you do, once you understand what the security problem is.The entire job of the Bitcoin network is to make sure that the number of currency units is exactly correct at all times.
There's probably a hundred million loaves of bread sold every day, which represents a hundred million opportunities to improperly expand the currency supply.
Give me an inch and I'll take a mile?
Sounds like banks.
I don't think we need the same security model for buying loaves of bread that we use for buying homes,.
Of course you do, once you understand what the security problem is.The entire job of the Bitcoin network is to make sure that the number of currency units is exactly correct at all times.
There's probably a hundred million loaves of bread sold every day, which represents a hundred million opportunities to improperly expand the currency supply.
i'm going to lock this poll by tomorrow and put up a new one given Gavin's "announcement" so get your voting in now.
How about all of the above, stop wasting gavin's precious time, and do it sooner to give ppl some confidence that micropayments will be economically viable so we can get on with building stuff on the blockchain. Stuff that actually delves into areas where fiat cannot go rather then merely providing small benefits to those who have already set up wallets and little to no benefit to those who must do the whole education thing and then the time inefficient fiat btc xfer btc fiat circus.
If Bitcoin's precious blockchain has no greater destiny than to be used for an eternal record of inconsequential "micropayments" the project has no future.
Stop trying to enable the fluffy VC daydream of 'enabling tipping economies' and worry about macropayments.
This is revolution against the BIS, etc. and a chance to evolve past gold as humanity's default store of value, not a call to replace Reddit gold/Dogecoin/TipBot.
The places "where fiat cannot go" that matter are brain/paper/hardware wallets, multi-sig, and realtime auditing, not giving some Redditard 0.000000001 BTC for confirming your bias with a snarky comment.
Too bad we have to wait an entire year to watch Mircea shit all over GavinCoin. It's worse than waiting for the next season of Walking Dead!
Agreed.
Bitcoin is much better suited to the store of value function.
Why do you think Goldman Sachs et all are trying to pigeon-hole bitcoin as merely a "payments network"?
*also, increasing block size does nothing to address the "instant payment" problem.
The only thing Bitcoin needs to retain the SOV function is that it maintains its fixed supply. No one is talking about changing that. What you're forgetting is that thousands of years ago gold coins were in fact used on a daily basis to buy loaves of bread. Increasing usage in day to day TX's would maximize its utility as money and drive it's value much higher. The increase TX volume is clearly necessary to feed miners over the long run via fees. Bitcoins usage needs to be driven to the far ends of the earth into the hands of a many people as possible to guarantee is safety.
Exactly. I don't care about changetip. I care about buying cell phone minutes, buying wifi access, per-play songs now that grooveshark RIP, email spam deterrence, cloud VM services, and other things. And other compelling use cases like remittance. For every person who uses that Bitcoin 2 way ATM in the Philippines (http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/34t7pw/in_the_middle_of_a_busy_makati_city_street_in_the/), there is probably another person who accepts BTC from a friend simply because the ATM exists.
Yes Bitcoin is probably not the final solution to micropayments. BUT micropayments will drive adoption. And as Cypherdoc suggested above, the position we want to be in to reinforce SOV is one where Bitcoin has enabled a micropayment ecosystem which due to Bitcoin's incredible popularity has to move to an alt-coin or sidechain. The position we don't want to be in is where Bitcoin limps along as an investment-mostly commodity but always in the back of investors minds is the thought that if just 3 companies shut down (for example, 2 exchanges and a payment processor), the ability to get out of the investment could drop dramatically and persist for a long period of time (forever).
SOV has the biggest immediate impact on price, but # users, # merchants, and # transactions is a measure of the "intrinsic value" which is what is backing SOV. That's why we are seeing the latter rise but price stay steady.
Here is what I think about fees in the future:
There will always be a limit to the number of blockchain transactions. Micropayments will not be possible in the future. (Rather small payments can be done economically now, so use it to buy a cup of coffe, no problem).
We see from other systems, that people are willing to pay 5-10% for transactions (credit cards in foreign currency, m-pesa).
So if the market based fee becomes that high, bitcoins can still compete. Because it is sound money, and holding them will always be inexpensive (feeless, just the cost of management, which is lower than other forms of money).
The fee structure in the market will probably be a minimum fee plus a percentage. With a minimum fee of something like USD 10 (current value) and 2 percent, bitcoin will still be cost effective for transactions of USD 1000 (current value).
It will be interesting to see how the fee structure will develop. Almost like I would like to see scarcity in transaction volume before the block size is lifted, just to get a feel of it.
There will always be a limit to the number of blockchain transactions. Micropayments will not be possible in the future. (Rather small payments can be done economically now, so use it to buy a cup of coffe, no problem).
We see from other systems, that people are willing to pay 5-10% for transactions (credit cards in foreign currency, m-pesa).
So if the market based fee becomes that high, bitcoins can still compete. Because it is sound money, and holding them will always be inexpensive (feeless, just the cost of management, which is lower than other forms of money).
The fee structure in the market will probably be a minimum fee plus a percentage. With a minimum fee of something like USD 10 (current value) and 2 percent, bitcoin will still be cost effective for transactions of USD 1000 (current value).
It will be interesting to see how the fee structure will develop. Almost like I would like to see scarcity in transaction volume before the block size is lifted, just to get a feel of it.
I wonder how many of those who voted for a graduated increase realize that the blocksize limit isn't actually limiting anything right now. It's a limit that will eventually become a factor. Right now if it were removed nothing special would happen.
Seing the arguments, I now think unlimited (that is limited by nature, not artificial) is the best way to go.
An economic Wiki? So we have to go through all discussions once more, and now with a Wikimaster to worry about?
I didn't have anything like that in mind. I was simply thinking it would be useful if someone or maybe a few people would build some kind of wiki like described above and then some people might copy and expand it if it was agreeable. A wiki in terms of format, not in terms of Wikipedia-style politics (perhaps I am using the wrong term; more like "a FAQ for recurring topics in thread insofar as there is a general loose consensus"). In practice it's probably something mostly one person would probably start, and if they made the foundation solid enough and agreeable enough there would probably be some people copying/adding to it.
More information is better, I agree to that. But I doubt a wiki will get it all correct, with the discussions we see here. Anyway, if someone wants to do it, go ahead.
*also, increasing block size does nothing to address the "instant payment" problem.
re instant payments, doesn't the lightning network provide a form of it?I suspect there are several methods of addressing this issue. Increasing block size is not one of them.
Because increasing block size addresses an issue? Or is it just the issue of how USG owns you now?
Dam it how is it possible that 'educated' people here fail to see what Gavin is.
an Agent.
*also, increasing block size does nothing to address the "instant payment" problem.
re instant payments, doesn't the lightning network provide a form of it?I suspect there are several methods of addressing this issue. Increasing block size is not one of them.
i'm going to lock this poll by tomorrow and put up a new one given Gavin's "announcement" so get your voting in now.
How about all of the above, stop wasting gavin's precious time, and do it sooner to give ppl some confidence that micropayments will be economically viable so we can get on with building stuff on the blockchain. Stuff that actually delves into areas where fiat cannot go rather then merely providing small benefits to those who have already set up wallets and little to no benefit to those who must do the whole education thing and then the time inefficient fiat btc xfer btc fiat circus.
If Bitcoin's precious blockchain has no greater destiny than to be used for an eternal record of inconsequential "micropayments" the project has no future.
Stop trying to enable the fluffy VC daydream of 'enabling tipping economies' and worry about macropayments.
This is revolution against the BIS, etc. and a chance to evolve past gold as humanity's default store of value, not a call to replace Reddit gold/Dogecoin/TipBot.
The places "where fiat cannot go" that matter are brain/paper/hardware wallets, multi-sig, and realtime auditing, not giving some Redditard 0.000000001 BTC for confirming your bias with a snarky comment.
Too bad we have to wait an entire year to watch Mircea shit all over GavinCoin. It's worse than waiting for the next season of Walking Dead!
Agreed.
Bitcoin is much better suited to the store of value function.
Why do you think Goldman Sachs et all are trying to pigeon-hole bitcoin as merely a "payments network"?
*also, increasing block size does nothing to address the "instant payment" problem.
The only thing Bitcoin needs to retain the SOV function is that it maintains its fixed supply. No one is talking about changing that. What you're forgetting is that thousands of years ago gold coins were in fact used on a daily basis to buy loaves of bread. Increasing usage in day to day TX's would maximize its utility as money and drive it's value much higher. The increase TX volume is clearly necessary to feed miners over the long run via fees. Bitcoins usage needs to be driven to the far ends of the earth into the hands of a many people as possible to guarantee is safety.
Ok, I'll admit I'm still a little torn/undecided on this issue, but I don't think we need the same security model for buying loaves of bread that we use for buying homes,.
As long as the profit motive for miners is kept intact, then I'm fine with whatever method ensures the security of the Blockchain.
*btw, I'm still curious what your full node consumes in bandwidth?
I'll answer this tomorrow when i can log in
i'm going to lock this poll by tomorrow and put up a new one given Gavin's "announcement" so get your voting in now.
How about all of the above, stop wasting gavin's precious time, and do it sooner to give ppl some confidence that micropayments will be economically viable so we can get on with building stuff on the blockchain. Stuff that actually delves into areas where fiat cannot go rather then merely providing small benefits to those who have already set up wallets and little to no benefit to those who must do the whole education thing and then the time inefficient fiat btc xfer btc fiat circus.
If Bitcoin's precious blockchain has no greater destiny than to be used for an eternal record of inconsequential "micropayments" the project has no future.
Stop trying to enable the fluffy VC daydream of 'enabling tipping economies' and worry about macropayments.
This is revolution against the BIS, etc. and a chance to evolve past gold as humanity's default store of value, not a call to replace Reddit gold/Dogecoin/TipBot.
The places "where fiat cannot go" that matter are brain/paper/hardware wallets, multi-sig, and realtime auditing, not giving some Redditard 0.000000001 BTC for confirming your bias with a snarky comment.
Too bad we have to wait an entire year to watch Mircea shit all over GavinCoin. It's worse than waiting for the next season of Walking Dead!
Agreed.
Bitcoin is much better suited to the store of value function.
Why do you think Goldman Sachs et all are trying to pigeon-hole bitcoin as merely a "payments network"?
*also, increasing block size does nothing to address the "instant payment" problem.
The only thing Bitcoin needs to retain the SOV function is that it maintains its fixed supply. No one is talking about changing that. What you're forgetting is that thousands of years ago gold coins were in fact used on a daily basis to buy loaves of bread. Increasing usage in day to day TX's would maximize its utility as money and drive it's value much higher. The increase TX volume is clearly necessary to feed miners over the long run via fees. Bitcoins usage needs to be driven to the far ends of the earth into the hands of a many people as possible to guarantee is safety.
Ok, I'll admit I'm still a little torn/undecided on this issue, but I don't think we need the same security model for buying loaves of bread that we use for buying homes,.
As long as the profit motive for miners is kept intact, then I'm fine with whatever method ensures the security of the Blockchain.
*btw, I'm still curious what your full node consumes in bandwidth?
Agreed.
Bitcoin is much better suited to the store of value function.
Why do you think Goldman Sachs et all are trying to pigeon-hole bitcoin as merely a "payments network"?
*also, increasing block size does nothing to address the "instant payment" problem.
Bitcoin is much better suited to the store of value function.
Why do you think Goldman Sachs et all are trying to pigeon-hole bitcoin as merely a "payments network"?
*also, increasing block size does nothing to address the "instant payment" problem.
The only thing Bitcoin needs to retain the SOV function is that it maintains its fixed supply. No one is talking about changing that. What you're forgetting is that thousands of years ago gold coins were in fact used on a daily basis to buy loaves of bread. Increasing usage in day to day TX's would maximize its utility as money and increase drive it's value much higher. The increase TX volume is clearly necessary to feed miners over the long run via fees. Bitcoins usage needs to be driven to the far ends of the earth into the hands of a many people as possible to guarantee is safety.
Nailed it.
The SOV function cannot be taken for granted. Gold has the inherent advantage of being physically rare. Bitcoin, while its issuance is capped at 21M, the software can be duplicated thousands of times. Already much duplication is happening in the alts, although they primarily use scrypt which is a very fortuitous accident of history. Lee wanted a coin which would require more memory&cpu for hashing, hence his Litecoin uses scrypt, and most new altcoins have cloned the Litecoin fork of Bitcoin. This has left the sha256 miners to focus primarily on Bitcoin while the scrypt miners are spread over many alts. Litecoin is being bled to death by all its clones.
So, Bitcoin's SOV is buttressed by two things: the network effect of its ecosystem, and the hardware invested in sha256 hashing-power. Bitcoin needs to keep growing its ecosystem, and the hashing power will follow it. Bitcoin is not being bled by clones - yet - but there is a real risk if its ecosystem growth is crippled by volume constraints.
*also, increasing block size does nothing to address the "instant payment" problem.
re instant payments, doesn't the lightning network provide a form of it? i'm going to lock this poll by tomorrow and put up a new one given Gavin's "announcement" so get your voting in now.
How about all of the above, stop wasting gavin's precious time, and do it sooner to give ppl some confidence that micropayments will be economically viable so we can get on with building stuff on the blockchain. Stuff that actually delves into areas where fiat cannot go rather then merely providing small benefits to those who have already set up wallets and little to no benefit to those who must do the whole education thing and then the time inefficient fiat btc xfer btc fiat circus.
If Bitcoin's precious blockchain has no greater destiny than to be used for an eternal record of inconsequential "micropayments" the project has no future.
Stop trying to enable the fluffy VC daydream of 'enabling tipping economies' and worry about macropayments.
This is revolution against the BIS, etc. and a chance to evolve past gold as humanity's default store of value, not a call to replace Reddit gold/Dogecoin/TipBot.
The places "where fiat cannot go" that matter are brain/paper/hardware wallets, multi-sig, and realtime auditing, not giving some Redditard 0.000000001 BTC for confirming your bias with a snarky comment.
Too bad we have to wait an entire year to watch Mircea shit all over GavinCoin. It's worse than waiting for the next season of Walking Dead!
Agreed.
Bitcoin is much better suited to the store of value function.
Why do you think Goldman Sachs et all are trying to pigeon-hole bitcoin as merely a "payments network"?
*also, increasing block size does nothing to address the "instant payment" problem.
The only thing Bitcoin needs to retain the SOV function is that it maintains its fixed supply. No one is talking about changing that. What you're forgetting is that thousands of years ago gold coins were in fact used on a daily basis to buy loaves of bread. Increasing usage in day to day TX's would maximize its utility as money and drive it's value much higher. The increase TX volume is clearly necessary to feed miners over the long run via fees. Bitcoins usage needs to be driven to the far ends of the earth into the hands of a many people as possible to guarantee is safety.
Subspace sounds like an interesting project BIP70
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-startup-subspace-develops-bip70-payment-requests-protocol/
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-startup-subspace-develops-bip70-payment-requests-protocol/
Quote
We should be able to achieve full-node like privacy for lightweight wallets. But on top of that we’ll be able to do things like ‘push’ payment requests to end-users. This could enable monthly billing for services, which we don’t currently have in Bitcoin. We can also attach messages to our transactions and even use it for messages between clients.
i'm going to lock this poll by tomorrow and put up a new one given Gavin's "announcement" so get your voting in now.
How about all of the above, stop wasting gavin's precious time, and do it sooner to give ppl some confidence that micropayments will be economically viable so we can get on with building stuff on the blockchain. Stuff that actually delves into areas where fiat cannot go rather then merely providing small benefits to those who have already set up wallets and little to no benefit to those who must do the whole education thing and then the time inefficient fiat btc xfer btc fiat circus.
If Bitcoin's precious blockchain has no greater destiny than to be used for an eternal record of inconsequential "micropayments" the project has no future.
Stop trying to enable the fluffy VC daydream of 'enabling tipping economies' and worry about macropayments.
This is revolution against the BIS, etc. and a chance to evolve past gold as humanity's default store of value, not a call to replace Reddit gold/Dogecoin/TipBot.
The places "where fiat cannot go" that matter are brain/paper/hardware wallets, multi-sig, and realtime auditing, not giving some Redditard 0.000000001 BTC for confirming your bias with a snarky comment.
Too bad we have to wait an entire year to watch Mircea shit all over GavinCoin. It's worse than waiting for the next season of Walking Dead!
Agreed.
Bitcoin is much better suited to the store of value function.
Why do you think Goldman Sachs et all are trying to pigeon-hole bitcoin as merely a "payments network"?
*also, increasing block size does nothing to address the "instant payment" problem.
just in case anyone is interested in what one of my full nodes is using. it's remarkably consistent across all of them. note the minimal bandwidth usage. i have 1GB of RAM with 100GB of disk:
Umm, bandwidth numbers without time are meaningless.
Are you using 23 GB per day? Per hour? Per second?
Please clarify, thanks.
I voted graduated limit but if things go well over time eventually remove the limit.
Jump to: