Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 48.

Erdogan

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1005

Quote from: brg444 on August 11, 2015, 06:36:32 PM

Quote from: Erdogan on August 11, 2015, 06:33:20 PM

Chinese bourses now higher. Could it be that they expect lower renminbi in the future? I look forward to the day when the mainstreem looks to bitcoin pricing of the different currencies to decide their real value.

Nop, it's the new block size consensus making ripples!

I agree on that, but why has the spread changed from negative to positive?

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gnem1/bip42_blockstream_guy_fundamentally_changed/?sort=confidence

I lolled Cheesy

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: thezerg on August 11, 2015, 05:13:03 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on August 11, 2015, 03:13:33 PM

this sounds exactly like something i'd say:
The Blockstream Business Plan (self.Bitcoin)
submitted an hour ago * by Celean

And if this is true Blockstream is making a HUGE mistake. I don't think many people are doing multiple txns per day, every day right now. I don't even think many people do 1 txn per week. I doubt that people will be willing to sequester coins into the LN for significant periods (no I have no facts to back up this intuition).

So I don't think that the lightning network solves the problem we have today which is getting people to do their FIRST txn (expand the network) and then getting them to use it periodically (use encourages merchants to accept it).

Once people are using BTC a couple times per day, LN is becomes very valuable. Its actually WORSE if you do just one txn in a payment channel (it takes 2 blockchain txns instead of 1).

So LN won't actually solve the typical use pattern today. And if that pattern is forced to pay high fees people will choose other payment options stagnating Bitcoin growth (or best case transforms into low velocity digital gold) to the point where we'll never need the volumes LN can offer.

Bad argument.

The current network @ 5 tps can handle 432k transactions per day. If all the high volume stuff (most of which is tied to speculation in one form or another) were moved off that would be maybe 431k people on-ramping per day which is vastly more than is needed.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: Erdogan on August 11, 2015, 06:33:20 PM

Chinese bourses now higher. Could it be that they expect lower renminbi in the future? I look forward to the day when the mainstreem looks to bitcoin pricing of the different currencies to decide their real value.

Nop, it's the new block size consensus making ripples!

Erdogan

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1005

Chinese bourses now higher. Could it be that they expect lower renminbi in the future? I look forward to the day when the mainstreem looks to bitcoin pricing of the different currencies to decide their real value.

Erdogan

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1005

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 11, 2015, 06:05:18 PM

Quote from: Peter R on August 11, 2015, 05:52:36 PM

But no one here claimed that post had been censored. Huh

At least two people incorrectly assumed and falsely claimed the on-topic Blockstream business plan post had been removed by mods:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gm3ww/this_thread_was_removedhidden_from_front_page/ctzetoj

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gm3ww/this_thread_was_removedhidden_from_front_page/ctzbzuh

"censored post ?"

Moderation of off-topic posts is not censorship. Censorship is done by governments, moderation is done by mods. Duh!

Spare us the wailing about "censored posts" "authoritarianism" and "book burnings." It just makes you look like a child who never heard of Godwin.

You have not served your masters well by refraining from real discussion and instead produce a continous stream of poison and bile.

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Odalv on August 11, 2015, 03:16:10 PM

Quote from: justusranvier on August 11, 2015, 03:08:08 PM

That's not what it means to show your work.

I'll really not waste my time to prove obvious. :-) .. this mean I'll not print you book in leather with golden letters.

"Current technology cannot handle 24 GB blocks (and will not any time soon)" :-)

that may be correct but it's not a reason to limit to 1MB and avoid a block size to the 8MB, or is it?
24GB blocks would obviously show demand with off chain solutions, I suspect you think we will never get there and want to squeeze bitcoin for what its worth to make off-chain solutions viable.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Adrian-x on August 11, 2015, 06:15:53 PM

Quote from: Odalv on August 11, 2015, 02:10:46 PM

Quote from: justusranvier on August 11, 2015, 09:24:38 AM

Quote from: brg444 on August 11, 2015, 09:05:12 AM

Right, that would make sense until you realise in both cases (lightning and sidechains) these technologies need bigger blocks to scale.

But before they need to scale, they just might need some help convincing potential users they are even necessary at all.

I think it is obvious that:
a) without new technologies we will need 24 GB blocks. ( 10 billion transactions per/day )
b) current technology cannot handle 24 GB blocks (and will not handle any time soon)
c) with SC and LN bitcoin can stay decentralized and handle billions of TPS using small blocks (maybe bigger than 1MB but we are far from reaching limits of 1 MB blocks)

so why not let the blockchain scale and have the free market adopt your proposed SC and LN solutions as needed?

i can do even one better with a proposal i've made a number of times already.

lift the block cap altogether and we'll give them the spvp AND LN soft forks we know they desire and we'll see which one wins the market over.

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Odalv on August 11, 2015, 02:10:46 PM

Quote from: justusranvier on August 11, 2015, 09:24:38 AM

Quote from: brg444 on August 11, 2015, 09:05:12 AM

Right, that would make sense until you realise in both cases (lightning and sidechains) these technologies need bigger blocks to scale.

But before they need to scale, they just might need some help convincing potential users they are even necessary at all.

I think it is obvious that:
a) without new technologies we will need 24 GB blocks. ( 10 billion transactions per/day )
b) current technology cannot handle 24 GB blocks (and will not handle any time soon)
c) with SC and LN bitcoin can stay decentralized and handle billions of TPS using small blocks (maybe bigger than 1MB but we are far from reaching limits of 1 MB blocks)

so why not let the blockchain scale and have the free market adopt your proposed SC and LN solutions as needed?

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: Peter R on August 11, 2015, 05:52:36 PM

But no one here claimed that post had been censored. Huh

At least two people incorrectly assumed and falsely claimed the on-topic Blockstream business plan post had been removed by mods:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gm3ww/this_thread_was_removedhidden_from_front_page/ctzetoj

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gm3ww/this_thread_was_removedhidden_from_front_page/ctzbzuh

"censored post ?"

Moderation of off-topic posts is not censorship. Censorship is done by governments, moderation is done by mods. Duh!

Spare us the wailing about "censored posts" "authoritarianism" and "book burnings." It just makes you look like a child who never heard of Godwin.

Peter R

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1007

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 11, 2015, 05:45:06 PM

Quote from: Peter R on August 11, 2015, 05:29:16 PM

You're referring to a totally different post that was deleted by the author (the one about the Blockstream Business Plan).

I referred to a post which was actually on-topic (ie, about Bitcoin and not some troll fork alt) being immediately and incorrectly regarded as "censored" when in fact the author deleted it.

But no one here claimed that post had been censored. Huh

These were the censored post:

Quote from: Peter R on August 11, 2015, 02:34:39 PM

It appears now that the reddit post proving censorship of the now "uncensored" reddit post (44% of hash power supports 8 MB) has itself been censored:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gm3ww/this_thread_was_removedhidden_from_front_page/

As you can clearly see, they have nothing to do the the "Blockstream Business Plan" (the post that was deleted by the author).

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 11, 2015, 05:45:06 PM

Quote from: Peter R on August 11, 2015, 05:29:16 PM

You're referring to a totally different post that was deleted by the author (the one about the Blockstream Business Plan).

I referred to a post which was actually on-topic (ie, about Bitcoin and not some troll fork alt) being immediately and incorrectly regarded as "censored" when in fact the author deleted it.

Of course posts about alts are moderated in r/Bitcoin. Duh!

You do know the difference between moderation and censorship, right?

Or are you one of the 'thermos is the epitome of authoritarianism and ready to start book burnings' drama queens busily sewing gold coins into the linings of their coats?

iCEBLOW translation: "i am one greedy bastard!"

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: Peter R on August 11, 2015, 05:29:16 PM

You're referring to a totally different post that was deleted by the author (the one about the Blockstream Business Plan).

I referred to a post which was actually on-topic (ie, about Bitcoin and not some troll fork alt) being immediately and incorrectly regarded as "censored" when in fact the author deleted it.

Of course posts about alts are moderated in r/Bitcoin. Duh!

You do know the difference between moderation and censorship, right?

Or are you one of the 'thermos is the epitome of authoritarianism and ready to start book burnings' drama queens busily sewing gold coins into the linings of their coats?

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: cypherdoc on August 11, 2015, 03:13:33 PM

this sounds exactly like something i'd say:

The Blockstream Business Plan (self.Bitcoin)-

what is really going on here is that Blockstream wants to shift the long term miner tx fees away from the mainchain into SC & LN tx fees paid to their federated nodes, LN gateways, & consulting fees for SC's.

Peter R

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1007

Quote from: awemany on August 11, 2015, 05:36:57 PM

Quote from: thezerg on August 11, 2015, 05:13:03 PM

[...]

So I don't think that the lightning network solves the problem we have today which is getting people to do their FIRST txn (expand the network) and then getting them to use it periodically (use encourages merchants to accept it).

Once people are using BTC a couple times per day, LN is becomes very valuable. Its actually WORSE if you do just one txn in a payment channel (it takes 2 blockchain txns instead of 1).

So LN won't actually solve the typical use pattern today. And if that pattern is forced to pay high fees people will choose other payment options stagnating Bitcoin growth (or best case transforms into low velocity digital gold) to the point where we'll never need the volumes LN can offer.

This is actually a great argument!
…

+2. Yes, it is a great argument thezerg!

awemany

newbie

Activity: 28

Merit: 0

Quote from: thezerg on August 11, 2015, 05:13:03 PM

[...]

So I don't think that the lightning network solves the problem we have today which is getting people to do their FIRST txn (expand the network) and then getting them to use it periodically (use encourages merchants to accept it).

Once people are using BTC a couple times per day, LN is becomes very valuable. Its actually WORSE if you do just one txn in a payment channel (it takes 2 blockchain txns instead of 1).

So LN won't actually solve the typical use pattern today. And if that pattern is forced to pay high fees people will choose other payment options stagnating Bitcoin growth (or best case transforms into low velocity digital gold) to the point where we'll never need the volumes LN can offer.

This is actually a great argument! I think you are completely 100% correct here, but to have another strong case for the blocksize increase, what we would need to have here is some data on actual usage patterns of Bitcoin to support this argument.

Did someone already extract 'typical spending patterns' vs. 'typical investment patterns' from the Blockchain?

Peter R

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1007

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 11, 2015, 05:16:10 PM

Quote from: Peter R on August 11, 2015, 02:34:39 PM

It appears now that the reddit post proving censorship of the now "uncensored" reddit post (44% of hash power supports 8 MB) has itself been censored:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gm3ww/this_thread_was_removedhidden_from_front_page/

Quote from: Celean

Just to clear things up, that thread wasn't removed by a moderator, I removed it to address some factual inaccuracies and add some additional sources. It is now reposted.

So much for thermos being the "epitome of authoritarianism" and ready to start "book burnings." Grin

You're referring to a totally different post that was deleted by the author (the one about the Blockstream Business Plan). Just look three comments up:

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 11, 2015, 05:24:34 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on August 11, 2015, 05:14:59 PM

it was never about practicality or common sense. let alone fairness.

it was about greed.

Attacking what you imagine to be people's motivations is easy.

Refuting the actual computer science and game theory is hard:

Quote

I'm not sure if you are aware of the centralization pressure that occurs when miners are allowed to pick their own block sizes. Miners have incentives to encourage a very high orphan rate, if the orphan rate is properly targeted. Mining is a 0-sum game, which means that miners have incentive to hurt eachother. (less competition means lower difficulty and more blocks for you).

note the non-technical assumption that idiot makes in his post upon which he bases all his technical mis-steps. he's wrong. where Bitcoin XT is headed, there's a big enough pie to bring every miner currently involved in the space along for the ride. and the miners know this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=or65M4Ht4Kk

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks