Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 532. (Read 2032289 times)

Just came across this video which helped me alot understanding the blocksize limit issue: http://keepbitcoinfree.org/
I found it quite amazing that Peter Tood came with it even before Gavin ran his tests about it and on his own..

From what i've seen on the bitcoin-dev logs, it seems gmaxwell just dont see the need for increasing the blocksize now, for there is still quite some place left. You dont fork the perfectly working bitcoin network in anticipation like that.
+ there is this argument that once the fork of 20MB is made, why not just consider infinite limit.

IMHO Gavin has been pressurized by (private) business' interests such as Bitpay, Coinbase et al to push this (NYSE, CIA, and USgov too?!), but i am glad there is still some space to argue and not despotically rush into it.

Consensus. Love that word.

ps: just trying to get it as i only aspire for bitcoin to succeed and grasp what this is all about since im invested in, so feel free to correct me if wrong.

I think this QE is just money printing to generate inflation and devalue currencies until total credit market debt begins to explode again.
Must stave off a deflationary credit collapse by devaluing currency and maintaining asset prices until wages can support the next borrowing frenzy. The best thing is that the government debt everyone is concerned about can simply be cancelled leaving governments better off in terms of debt to GDP ratios. The only question is how do they stop without a giant crash? I think they simply say they have stopped at some point in the future but continue printing in stealth. At some point we will get significant inflation because this expansion of narrow money is real - and forms the base for the next credit boom. Banana economics!

Bitcoin just needs a spark of interest and there could be a flight into it like nothing ever seen before. This seems likely once the inflation rate has cut in half again after 2016. If any central bank murmurs about holding bitcoin in their reserves things will get real awfully quickly.

For a second I got excited thinking it was this Bill Gross.
http://www.forbes.com/profile/bill-gross/

Some alt-coins are fading from the race. BTC-E is delisting three while it still has 40% of the exchange market in them.
Terracoin was one of the earliest.  Primecoin hashing was meant to do useful work besides secure its blockchain.

https://btc-e.com/news/207

It sounds like you're trying to make the point that keeping LOTS AND LOTS of copies of an entry in a ledger (i.e, the blockchain) is expensive. Like, I buy a cup of coffee, and this single transaction gets recorded LIKE A ZILLION TIMES all over the globe.

Is that what you're trying to say? If so, my response:

The number of perfectly identical copies of a single transaction is much less of an issue than the number of distinct ledgers and distinct ledger entries for that transaction. Did you ever stop to think about how many different ledgers/ledger entries does it take to buy a single cup of coffee with a credit card? This one transaction involves a complex flow of money that involves the customer, the merchant, the credit card, the POS (like square or paypal or whoever), and maybe more. That's at least 4 entities and with double entry accounting, there are probably at least 8 different tables that record this one transaction. I bet it's actually a lot more than that. At some point in time, multiple people have to make sure that all of this record keeping is consistent among all these different databases that are built and maintained by different people with different levels of expertise, using different conventions, different computer languages, etc etc. Suppose there is a discrepancy; which table contains the error? It's this process of reconciliation where the expense comes in.

When you go through that exercise, suddenly having one transaction recorded in ONE ledger that everyone trusts and refers to, sounds pretty simple. Who cares that this one ledger is duplicated many times over the globe?

Of course, we're not there yet. It will be a long time before we abandon the legacy fiat system entirely. But it will happen, eventually. Until then, we have about a zillion different ledgers spread across the planet, and we gotta make sure they alway stay reconciled. God help us.

      Most of the QE money has still not begun to circulate. Someone knows what they are doing.

what mining centralization?

I think you're describing Ripple.

this is good from Davos:

https://twitter.com/bill_gross/status/558626693662126080

I'm sure nobody would be able to make a transaction solution which is cheaper than real time flooding of the entire network with every transaction and keeping every transaction on every autonomous node in perpetuity...and every 'coin' (aka UTXO) in the currency system in memory.

The costs will, of course, come down as things are centralized to one player who can make all the money they need and then some by tracking  and analyzing everyone's activities.  But they'll still shit-can all this blockchain nonsense to make it cheaper to run anyway.

Actually, what will most likely happen is that about 5 outfits 'compete' in running Bitcoin but it will be for straight-up marketing propaganda reasons (which mouth-breathers will swallow hook line and sinker.)  They will probably still shit-can the blockchain and use a more efficient synchronization protocol, but who would even know or care?

No, I meant efficiency.

I think what you are groping for is 'economies of scale'.  This is certainly possible with Bitcoin.  Possibly almost inevitable which would kill the solution to me (though I might get rich in the process.)

As I said on another thread, the thing which makes Bitcoin kind of unique and differentiates it from Apple-pay or whatever-the-hell it is is that it is not controlled by players who can opperate more efficiently because they have a giant footprint.  Bitcoin still has some aura of rebelliousness.  It will be interesting to see if whatever giant corporation who monopolizes the solution will be able to hold on to any of that as they implement 'red-listing' and track the shit out of everything anyone does.  Most people are so utterly fucking stupid that I would not rule it out.  Even on the trolltalk forum so it can be assumed that in the real world things are even worse.

The Atlas-type people who matter will use Bitcoin for the seven most important (IE high-value) transactions per second.  No need for bloated blocks and hard forks.

The useless drooling masses can use altcoins to buy their plastic trinkets and shitty streamed Hollywood mind pollution.  No need for risky, divisive sidechains.

It does make sense to do so if the Lear style windshield is not only more secure, but also less expensive than the Honda style. Better and cheaper. No brainer.

On the contrary, lots of money is to be made and saved. Where is it coming from? Efficiency.

I'm not really into subsidization and welfare for people.  Especially welfare for people so that they may drive a Cadillac.  This is kind of funny because I am one of the few folks around here who does not claim to be some sort of free-market fundamentalist.  I just observe the distortions and failures that such subsidies tend to bring.  None of the outcomes will bode well for native Bitcoin.

Yes, except this is software. Interfaces will be figured out, the end user pays (next to) nothing and need not know how it all works.

I meant general level more in terms of visibility, counter-party risk, etc.

But this extreme security is the very problem!  Bitcoin has far TO MUCH security to be used for by billions of plebs and their brother for buying knick-nacks.  It just doesn't make any sense, and that is why Bitcoin cannot get any real traction here.

A windscreen on a Lear jet is smaller than that of a car.  Looks like any old piece of shaped plastic, but it costs $20,000.  I don't manufacture the things, but I suspect that there is a good deal of care which goes into it so it might have a chance of taking a goose hit at 350 mph and not creating a decompression.  Does it make sense to replace all Honda windshields with Lear style ones because they are 'more secure'.  No.  Honda would be out of business withing a month.  It's actually completely idiotic to over-specify things.  You folks who go on and on about the efficiency of the free market and all that nonsense should at least be clued in to such a simple thing as this.

remember back when a bunch of us were discussing appcoins and how i said that unless appcoin issuance was directly tied to the % equity granted in the app it wouldn't make sense?  well, it looks like Patrick Byrnes and CP are going to do this right.  this could get interesting.  let's wish them luck:

"In more Bitcoin-esque terms, crypto-equity is a way to distribute company equity shares in “coins.” It entitles the owner to an “equal amount of equity percentage in the company.”

http://cointelegraph.com/news/113346/patrick-byrne-on-the-upcoming-crypto-stock-market-its-a-threat-to-the-oligarchy